Sunday, April 14, 2013
Maher: "The 2nd Amendment is Bullshit"
He's absolutely right on two things. The 2A is bullshit, meaning it's anachronistic and should be considered meaningless in modern society. And, the Left is afraid to say it. The gun-rights fanatics even mock people for saying "I'm a great supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but..."
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is only one way for the Second Amendment to be considered meaningless, and that is to amend the Constitution to remove it. Period. And as usual for leftists, Bill Maher is too much of a coward to call for that. Do it the right way, or not at all.
ReplyDeleteNo, it could simply be relegated into the non-use that the 3rd Amendment has.
DeleteDeclaring part of the Bill of Rights "anachronistic" or "meaningless" does not make it so, and certainly does not legitimately empower the government to violate any provision of the BoR.
DeleteAnd what do you mean about the "non-use" of the Third Amendment? Do you know something I don't about the government currently quartering troops in citizens' homes, without the homeowners' consent?
No?
Then I guess the Third Amendment is still functioning quite well, thankyouverymuch.
We've been in a period on continual conflict and constrained budgets for over a decade now. Without the Third Amendment, how long would it be before the government decides that housing soldiers is a duty of every citizen?
DeleteYes, we should treat the 2nd Ammendment like the 3rd. The protection should be so understood and obvious that no government official do much as thinks of infringing on it.
DeleteThe 3rd Amendment only made sense in the 18th century and shortly thereafter. In more recent times there was no need for it because adequate housing for the military had been constructed. So, no, this amendment is meaningless and anachronistic today.
DeleteKurt brings up a good point, the fact that it's obsolete today has not resulted in military units barging into private homes. This is not because of the outdated probihition but because there's no need.
In a similar way, if the 2nd Amendment were repealed or relegated to the scrapheap of obsolescence, guns would not be outlawed for civilian use. In other words, it's not the outdated amendment that allows you to own your guns.
The Second Amendment does not, and has never, allowed anyone to own guns. It instead prohibits the government from taking our guns. That difference is something you really need to understand.
DeleteKurt brings up a good point, the fact that it's obsolete today has not resulted in military units barging into private homes.
DeleteThat's not what I said and you damned well know it, filth.
Provide your evidence as to the Third Amendment's irrelevance in the American people's success in keeping the military out of our homes.
. . . it's not the . . . amendment that allows you to own your guns.
Thank you, Captain Obvious, for pointing out what we all have known from the Supreme Court's Cruikshank ruling, reaffirmed in both Heller and McDonald:
[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.
Thus this natural, fundamental right pre-exists the Constitution, and is not contingent upon any provision to that document.
If you want to talk about what "allows us to own [our] guns," it's the fact that we, well . . . have guns, and to take them away would require the government to find sufficient numbers of jackbooted thugs willing to volunteer to become body bag stuffing.
Ain't gonna happen.
Mike,
DeleteJust because there has been no need to utilize the 3rd Amendment doesn't mean that it's obsolete. If the government DID decide to quarter troops in homes, you would suddenly see Thousands of lawsuits based on the Amendment.
Mikeb's favorite hymn is "trust us, we're from the government." He can't conceive of the possibility that the government needs restraining. Unless a Republican is in power, of course.
DeleteStill, you'd think the possibility, however remote he thinks it is, of another Republican in office would cool his jets ever so slightly.
DeleteThe 2A and the 3A are both obsolete. There is zero possibility of the government banning all guns for civilian use just as there is zero chance of the government suddenly wanting to house soldiers in private homes. The times of those two amendments are no more.
DeleteThen, Mikeb, why does your side point out countries like Britain and Japan where gun ownership is so heavily restricted that hardly anyone bothers--with following the law, anyway?
Delete"That's not what I said and you damned well know it, filth."
DeleteKurt, when I refer to all gun-rights advocates as fanatics, or when you refer to all gun control folks as gun grabbers, that's OK. I even allow the silly "herbivore" which you seem to think is slick or something.
But "filth" and "asshole" and some of your other colorful names for me are too much. Last warning. Play nice or comment moderation goes back on and your comments containing the too-strong insults get deleted.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteStill, you'd think the possibility, however remote he thinks it is, of another Republican in office would cool his jets ever so slightly.
DeleteStatists like our herbivore here don't seem to worry about how tyrannical government can become--even a government administered by people they despise.
There you go again, Mike. You keep asserting the word "all" into you comparison as if baning all guns is the only thing that can be considered an infringement. You didn't apply that same standard to your 3A comparison. "there is no way the government will house soldiers in EVERYONE'S home. It will just be a few hundred thousand homes, chances are you won't be one of them".
DeleteSo the amendment is obsolete because the government wouldn't want to violate it. Does that mean that if the government DID want to violate these amendments, they would no longer be obsolete?
DeleteIf so, Obsolete isn't exactly the proper word.
Also, you just said that the Second Amendment is obsolete because there's no chance that the government would ban ALL civilian gun use.
I don't know if you realized it when you typed that, but you just admitted that the amendment protects the people's rights to own weapons--the exact opposite of your and Pooch's statements. Could it be that you realize that your collective right of the militia stuff is Bull?
Well, I have to admit that Maher is an expert. On bullshit, that is.
ReplyDeleteBill admits the war on drugs is not working so he wants to start a war on guns? So the 2A is bullshit Bill & Mike? What other freedoms do you want to take away? So the DoD, and federal agencies galore, get to have all the weapons they want at tax payer expense (up to and including thermonuclear weapons)? We have so many weapons in the world due in large part because governments have made so many weapons - but not a peep about the all weapons governments have disseminated? And this is done to help pay for the next gen of weapons & systems but 2A supporters are the bad guy. Seriously, Mike you believe weapons are anachronistic?
ReplyDeleteWould you be alive today if it where not for a collective right for the State (not the mere subject) to keep and bear arms, in the form of a professional military and police force? We must at all times consider ourselves a creation of the State, which has (directly or indirectly) endowed the ordinary subject, with their very lives, property and the freedoms that we take for granted.
DeleteTherefore you, a mere person has no reasonable claim to any "right" which manifestly infringes upon the authority of the State.
The State however does bear obligations to it's subjects.
Such as the right to civilian disarmament.
The such a right is necessitated, considering the social harm caused by the possession and use of small arms by civilians, and the preamble of the current U.S. constitution which states that it is the responsibility of government to "ensure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare", that a Fundamental Right to Civilian Disarmament,could be established domestically, and later, internationally. In order for the government to achieve such goals, the government must take reasonable measures to ensure that state actors have a monopoly on the use of small arms, which requires the general prohibition of the possession of small arms (as well as other deadly devices) by mere civilians.
There is no "right to civilian disarmament." Rights are not restrictive. They open up possibilities.
DeleteDave: "Mike you believe weapons are anachronistic"
DeleteWhy do you guys have such difficulty with honestly characterizing what I said?
It's hard to find the sense of absurdity.
DeleteSo, Greg, are you seriously suggesting that the US Army is abolished and the system of "universal" militia service is reinstated?
DeleteIf not, than you are not properly understanding the Second Amendment.
Anonymous,
DeleteI don't know if Greg is suggesting that, but I have suggested phasing toward such a system of defense in the past. (Not complete abolition, but the details are beyond the scope of this discussion.) You have to admit, it would limit the government's ability to engage in military adventurism in places we don't need to be. (It was because of this limit that the National Guard was transformed into a hybrid state/federal body.)
Still, that is more reflective of an understanding of other parts of the Constitution that set up the rules governing who calls up the militia, who sets rules for what they use and how they train, how the Army is funded, etc. All of that is handled before the Second Amendment ever appears.
Therefore, from the preceding structure, and from the plain text, we can see that the Second Amendment is intended to safeguard the rights of the People to own arms to enable their service in the militia, if needed.
Anonymous at 8:42 p.m., we've been over this before. The Second Amendment uses the militia as the justification for its writing, but the right is stated as belonging to the people, not only the militia or the state or the government.
DeleteThe First Amendment is bullshit. Mikeb, stop blogging immediately.
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment is bullshit. Mikeb, stop associating with unapproved people.
The First Amendment is bullshit. Mikeb, stop being an atheist and join the state church.
The First Amendment is bullshit. Mikeb, stop petitioning your government.
The Fourth Amendment is bullshit. Mikeb, surrender all documents to the Feds and open your house for inspection.
The Fifth Amendment is bullshit. Mikeb, you will be called to testify about your activities shortly.
The Sixth Amendment is bullshit. Mikeb, at your trial, you will be denied any chance to know what's going on and will be denied the opportunity to defend yourself.
The Seventh Amendment is bullshit. Mikeb, when I sue you for defaming my character, the case will be tried by a group of my friends.
The Eighth Amendment is bullshit. Mikeb, you don't get to oppose the death penalty any more, and the penalty for saying unapproved things will be death.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are bullshit. Well, Mikeb, you and Maher probably already believe that.
Hey, Greg!
DeleteYou skipped a couple of numbers here! Is your inability to count part of your prodigious intelligence, or should I say lack thereof?
Or is it because the Third Amendment is as obsolete as the Second, but harder to misconstrue?
Hey, Anonymous, the Third is Bullshit--prepare that guest bedroom of yours to accommodate a soldier and his weapons.
DeleteAnonymous at 8:35 p.m., we dealt with the Third Amendment above. And if you're going to claim that I lack intelligence, how about providing some evidence to support that?
Delete"Why do you guys have such difficulty with honestly characterizing what I said?"
ReplyDeleteMike, I am seriously asking the question. It's not rhetorical. Weapons exist. I am guessing you agree w/ that. What has changed in the last 200 years to warrant disarmament? And if the 2A was right then but not now then how do you explain disarment pushed prior to the 2A - like even in ancient times?
I guess its fare to say that you (Plural or Singular?) are after our guns? So the 2A is the problem now and not merely our interpretation of it? Serious questions Mike.
If you think there are too many laws and too many people in prison why do you want to make more laws which will invariably lead to more imprisonment?
What has changed in the past 200 years to warrant "disarmament"?
DeleteWell, first off, none of you are actually members of an organized militia, as opposed to the "unorganized" militia (which is just a draft pool should the or organized militia fail to meet its quota).
In addition, there is a large standing army, which was what the Second Amendment was intended on preventing.
Additionally, the Second Amendment died of neglect as evidenced by Joseph Story in his commentaries on the Constitution, 3:§ 1890:
"And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights."
So, unless people are seriously suggesting a radical reorganization of the US military establishment, the Second Amendment is archaic.
And I have yet to see any people who purport to support the Second Amendment come out for abolishing the US Army and reestablishing a "universal" militia.
Anonymous,
DeleteWhat has changed in the last 200 years so that a rapid reorganization and deployment of the organized militia is impossible? What has changed in the last 200 years so that an organized militia would never be necessary?
A standing army provides certain benefits as well as certain risks. Regardless, a few large conventional missiles/bombs can take out the standing army in a heartbeat. In that scenario armed citizens will be the only thing that stops us from accepting a new national language and currency.
Aside from carefully planned and executed national invasions, smaller scale events continue to be possible and happen to a lesser or greater extent. Victims of the Los Angeles riots were on their own for days without government support while rioters raped, killed, robbed, and burned the city. And criminals pouring over our border with Mexico have plagued Southern Arizona ... where one of the county sheriffs recently announced that his deputies could no longer protect residents because his deputies were, "outmanned and outgunned".
If you do not want to own any firearms, that is your choice and I commend you. Be a good citizen and extend the same courtesy to your fellow countrymen -- respect their choice to own firearms.
- TruthBeTold
David, you're confusing two separate things. The 2nd Amendment RIGHT to own guns and the fact that people do own them. One is not necessarily connected to the other. In other words, if the 2A did not exist, there would still be guns in the hands of civilians.
DeleteI think you are making my point for me. Good guys, bad guys, and all inbetween a.k.a. "people" will still have guns. If any of the effects of disarmament are to be realized, mass confiscation of weapons in America would be necessary. That is not just me saying that; some gun control advocates have said the same thing. There are so many guns already in circulation that these guns would be around for centuries if not confiscated. Is that want you really want to have happen? Do you really want average Americans who own guns to now be added to the largest prison population the world has ever seen? Care to answer any of the other questions?
DeleteNo, Dave, with proper gun control and proper enforcement of one-strike-you're-out rule, many of the unfit people who own guns today would be disarmed. Over some years the percentage of good guys with guns compared to bad guys with guns would significantly increase. That's the plan.
DeleteTell us about your plan to train unicorns.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAs I've said before, Mike, You don't get to simply say that part of the Constitution is obsolete. You amend the document in the prescribed way, or it stands as it is. Otherwise, if the Congress and courts get to ignore one part of it because it is determined to be obsolete, then they can do that to any part that they agree is obsolete. This would eliminate the entire point of having a Constitution as a limit on what the government can and cannot do.
ReplyDeleteCan you not see the evil that could be done with what you're arguing? Someone like Michelle Bachman could argue that the First Amendment is obsolete in its protection of free exercise of religion and try to outlaw Islam by claiming that it is extra dangerous. So long as she could persuade over half of congress and the courts that the First Amendment was becoming partially obsolete, she could get away with it. True, this is unlikely--at least now. But what about after a terrorist lights off a Nuke in Manhattan? Can you not see the possibility of backlash after such an attack, or a series of such--especially if they're carried out by home grown terrorists?
Respect the Constitution and its amendment process, or understand that everyone, including those you dislike, will be able to use the precedents you establish.
Not unlikely at all. If your name is of Western European ancestory, you have an easier time with airport security than if you seem to come from the Middle East.
DeleteThe Bill of Rights was created to remind the government that it is not all powerful and to remind the people of their duty to limit government power. That's especially true in times of difficulty.
This is true, Greg. However, I figured Mike would think it unlikely since we haven't seen Bachman and her ilk succeed yet, and since sanity seems to be holding back the worst for now.
DeleteUnfortunately, what you point out is a symptom of the fact that the seeds have already been planted and taken root. There are many, both liberals and conservatives, that now cheer for the restrictions we currently have because they like safety more than freedom.
When I said unlikely, I meant that I doubt we'll see the First Amendment declared obsolete barring another major terrorist attack or civil war breaking out, but if either one happens, this same knee jerk reaction that has brought us the blue handed gropers will likely bring us far worse.
If Michele Bachmann tried to say the 1A is obsolete, it would never fly because it doesn't make sense. Those who say the 2A is obsolete, on the other hand, have a pretty good argument. You just don't like it.
DeleteWhat, Mikeb, you don't see how a ban or heavy restriction on a particular religion that scares many and offends many wouldn't gain a lot of support? It's not about making sense. Your side has amply demonstrated that making sense isn't required. It's about what kind of fear and what promised solutions tyrants can sell.
Delete+1 Greg. Hit the nail on the head.
DeleteAlso, as for your arguments, Mike, I have yet to see one that doesn't require that you torture logic. It's not just that I disagree with the outcome of your arguments, it's that they're so badly constructed that they offend me on a deep, professional level.
Mike - bad guys are already running around w/ guns they are not supposed to have. 17-year-olds are not supposed to have guns but they do; ex-cons are not supposed to have guns but they do. Many of the guns that criminals get are stolen. If good guys can legally get guns there is no law or punishment in the world that will stop straw purchases. Again, what do you do w/ the millions of guns already in circulation? There is already a gray market on guns and you want to make it bigger? Are you saying you disagree w/ those who advocate confiscation? What happens under your plan w/ (mass) non-compliance?
ReplyDelete"There is zero possibility of the government banning all guns for civilian use just as there is zero chance of the government suddenly wanting to house soldiers in private homes." We politely call this sort of statement "logically indefensible". Those who arrogantly or foolishly proclaim that something can never happen forget that history is intolerant of both hubris and foolishness. History does not care about what we want to be true. It does not care about right and wrong, good and bad, beauty and ugliness, etc. History has no compassion. History serves to let us know what has happened and what tends to happen. In this case history tells us that governments, over time, tend to increase their power and the amount of control they exercise over their citizens. To suggest that something can never happen and that as a consequence one or more safeguards are now irrelevant suggests either an ignorance of history or a casual disregard for its lessons.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, herbivore, if the Second Amendment is "meaningless," as you claim, how do you explain it being the primary engine behind the Supreme Court having struck down two gun bans within the last five years, and having been sited by lower courts more than once since then in overturning less sweeping gun laws?
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think you hide behind your precision with the language. You know what I mean. This was like when you put the [sic] on me for a minor misspelling.
DeleteRather than get on with the discussion, you divert us with this petty nit picking.
Meaningless means "should be meaningless" or "is meaningless to those of us who have no axe to grind" or any number of other versions you might like.
But, if you don't mind, I'll continue to use the briefer version since now you definitely know what it means. OK?
Meaningless means "should be meaningless" . . .
DeleteAh--I think I understand now. So if I am following you here, you're upset because you have been criticized for ignoring the rather major distinction between reality (that the Second Amendment makes a very significant difference in U.S. gun laws), and what you wish reality to be (that the Second Amendment be utterly ignored by lawmakers, as if the Bill of Rights has no power whatsoever). Does that about sum it up?
But, if you don't mind, I'll continue to use the briefer version since now you definitely know what it means. OK?
By all means. How rude of me to expect you to go to all the trouble of prefacing "meaningless" with "should be"--ten whole keystrokes!
Mikeb, what you mean to say is that you wish the Second Amendment were meaningless. If wishes were horses, you might be able to get a ride to a logical argument.
DeleteThere you go again, Greg. Did I say "wish?"
DeleteWhy do you persist on mischaracterizing what I say?