Uncle Sam Posted May 5, 2013 #1 Share Posted May 5, 2013 (edited) HBO host Bill Maher had MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell as one of his guests on "Real Time" Friday night, and the two were adamant that the Second Amendment cannot protect against tyranny (and that such a conversation shouldn't even really be happening in this age).After pointing out the poll where 44% of Republicans said an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect liberties in the next few years, compared to 18% of Democrats, Maher said:http://news.yahoo.com/bill-maher-ridiculous-quaint-nonsensical-think-2nd-amendment-202432811.html;_ylt=A2KJ2Ug6uIVR8WgAfdDQtDMD Seriously? What an idiot! Edited May 5, 2013 by Uncle Sam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarMountainKid Posted May 5, 2013 #2 Share Posted May 5, 2013 I can't make your link work, is there another link available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Sam Posted May 5, 2013 Author #3 Share Posted May 5, 2013 I can't make your link work, is there another link available? Link fixed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bavarian Raven Posted May 5, 2013 #4 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Lawrence O'Donnell as one of his guests on "Real Time" Friday night, and the two were adamant that the Second Amendment cannot protect against tyranny (and that such a conversation shouldn't even really be happening in this age). lol i guess Libya didn't happen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted May 5, 2013 #5 Share Posted May 5, 2013 lol i guess Libya didn't happen Maybe I'm being dense...How does Libya pertain to the 2nd Amendment? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted May 5, 2013 #6 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Maybe I'm being dense...How does Libya pertain to the 2nd Amendment? Bearing arms and putting down tyranny. Everything, basically. Bavarian's point is, these two men are talking inside of their own bubble, their own ignorant if-shared world view, delusional of real world events going on around them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Almagest Posted May 5, 2013 #7 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Who is going to provide the air support to this Libya-esque revolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted May 5, 2013 #8 Share Posted May 5, 2013 [/size] Seriously? What an idiot! Yes, Bill Maher is an idiot. Along with Colbert and John Stewart. They all spread their little "liberal" ideas about how we should all just bend over and take it from the Federal Government... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted May 5, 2013 #9 Share Posted May 5, 2013 I used to like Maher, and still do agree with his take on religion, at least for the most part, but on other issues, especially 2nd amendment and the war on terror, he is a complete idiot. Jon Stewart is funny, but a coward in the end. Colbert is different. Both are controlled by Viacom and Sumner Redstone. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted May 5, 2013 #10 Share Posted May 5, 2013 I used to like Maher, and still do agree with his take on religion, at least for the most part, but on other issues, especially 2nd amendment and the war on terror, he is a complete idiot. Jon Stewart is funny, but a coward in the end. Colbert is different. Both are controlled by Viacom and Sumner Redstone. I just don't care for them much myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bavarian Raven Posted May 5, 2013 #11 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Who is going to provide the air support to this Libya-esque revolution? The rebels would have won without the air support - but the war would have been much longer and thousands (or more) would have died. Air support is a wonderful thing, but if enough of the will of the people has turned against you - you will eventually loose. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted May 5, 2013 #12 Share Posted May 5, 2013 The rebels would have won without the air support - but the war would have been much longer and thousands (or more) would have died. Air support is a wonderful thing, but if enough of the will of the people has turned against you - you will eventually loose. Quite right. Look at the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. Also, the English Civil War, is another good example. Ordinary people, without much weapons or firepower, rose up against their governments. And suceeded. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNvRG Posted May 5, 2013 #13 Share Posted May 5, 2013 I don't understand why some people believe that history ended after the cold war. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted May 5, 2013 #14 Share Posted May 5, 2013 The rebels would have won without the air support - but the war would have been much longer and thousands (or more) would have died. Air support is a wonderful thing, but if enough of the will of the people has turned against you - you will eventually loose. But that's also the case whether you have guns or not... No? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted May 5, 2013 #15 Share Posted May 5, 2013 [/size] Seriously? What an idiot! Well no matter how well armed you are, the Tyrannical Government will be better armed. You've got thousands of rounds of ammunition and enough guns to outfit your entire town? They've got tanks. You've got a bunker? They've got drones with bunker busting bombs. You can fit tyranny with guns, but more times then not you'll lose because tyranny is better armed and equipped. Not saying don't fight, I'm saying "if you have to fight, you've lost a lot of easier to win battles already". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjadude Posted May 5, 2013 #16 Share Posted May 5, 2013 I was so proud of them for stating the obvious facts. Yes, SERIOUSLY. Others are deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan'O Posted May 5, 2013 #17 Share Posted May 5, 2013 Well no matter how well armed you are, the Tyrannical Government ™ will be better armed. You've got thousands of rounds of ammunition and enough guns to outfit your entire town? They've got tanks. You've got a bunker? They've got drones with bunker busting bombs. You can fit tyranny with guns, but more times then not you'll lose because tyranny is better armed and equipped. Not saying don't fight, I'm saying "if you have to fight, you've lost a lot of easier to win battles already". One demented, liberal cop paralyzed SoCal for days. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supervike Posted May 6, 2013 #18 Share Posted May 6, 2013 I used to like Maher, and still do agree with his take on religion, at least for the most part, but on other issues, especially 2nd amendment and the war on terror, he is a complete idiot. Jon Stewart is funny, but a coward in the end. Colbert is different. Both are controlled by Viacom and Sumner Redstone. A coward? Jon Stewart is first and foremost an entertainer. I find him well informed, and a great interviewer. But, I don't see how he is a coward. I can't say I agree with everything these guys say, but It bugs me that when people have a differing opinion that they should be called idiots, or cowards, or whatever. To me that is an Anti Sentiment. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andami Posted May 6, 2013 #19 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Whether you like it or not, he's right. It wouldn't be even remotely possible for U.S. citizens to overpower our current government/military power. We have shotguns and rifles. They have tanks, drones, and bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted May 6, 2013 #20 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Whether you like it or not, he's right. It wouldn't be even remotely possible for U.S. citizens to overpower our current government/military power. We have shotguns and rifles. They have tanks, drones, and bombs. But "they" are using "us" as their fighting front as well. Would a police officer fire on a rebel army? Would a drone operator kill the citizens he swore to protect? Maybe, but maybe we would also get a few drones and tanks defect to our side. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted May 6, 2013 #21 Share Posted May 6, 2013 (edited) Whether you like it or not, he's right. It wouldn't be even remotely possible for U.S. citizens to overpower our current government/military power. We have shotguns and rifles. They have tanks, drones, and bombs. What people forget is that these soldiers, police or whatnot live here and have family here. How far would they take it? I can't see most of them going along with it. Edited May 6, 2013 by Michelle 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 6, 2013 #22 Share Posted May 6, 2013 Who is going to provide the air support to this Libya-esque revolution? I'd say most of the US Air Force. Probably if it came to Revolution, most of the military would flip sides to the Population rather then the Government. We've seen this over and over again. Even in former Sovier and Arab states. How much quicker would it happen in a Republic's Volinteer military? Whether you like it or not, he's right. It wouldn't be even remotely possible for U.S. citizens to overpower our current government/military power. We have shotguns and rifles. They have tanks, drones, and bombs. It only takes active resistance not being broken and the military probably would switch sides. I have to agree with thiose who say that volinteer militaries generally don't fire on their own citizens. Militarys built on Patronage (like in Syria) are the ones that fire on their own, because they are already a protected class and their families are protected and it is Death for them to disagree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted May 6, 2013 #23 Share Posted May 6, 2013 (edited) From the OP: After pointing out the poll where 44% of Republicans said an armed revolution might be necessary in order to protect liberties in the next few years, compared to 18% of Democrats, Maher said I simply find it AMAZING that 1/5th of US Democrats think Armed Revolution might be necessary. That is 1/5th of the people that voted for Obama!!! They have such faith in their Leader that they believe the near future is heading into ruination. Edited May 6, 2013 by DieChecker 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted May 6, 2013 #24 Share Posted May 6, 2013 A coward? Jon Stewart is first and foremost an entertainer. I find him well informed, and a great interviewer. But, I don't see how he is a coward. I can't say I agree with everything these guys say, but It bugs me that when people have a differing opinion that they should be called idiots, or cowards, or whatever. To me that is an Anti Sentiment. You're probably right about that--coward might not be the best word to describe Jon. Sycophant might be a better word to describe his body language and attitude when interviewing military types especially, and government officials in general. As much as I like Jon, his interviews of men in uniform, high-ranking type, can be disgusting IMO. I forgive him for that because I know he never wore the uniform, and is thus naive in that regard. Kinda like Rachel Maddow in that way. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan max2 Posted May 6, 2013 #25 Share Posted May 6, 2013 44 plus 18 = like 62 percent of the country. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now