Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Uncle Sam

Bill Maher: It's Rediculous

37 posts in this topic

Posted (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 by Uncle Sam
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't make your link work, is there another link available?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't make your link work, is there another link available?

Link fixed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :passifier:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol i guess Libya didn't happen :passifier:

Maybe I'm being dense...How does Libya pertain to the 2nd Amendment?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to provide the air support to this Libya-esque revolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why some people believe that history ended after the cold war.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was so proud of them for stating the obvious facts. Yes, SERIOUSLY. Others are deluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by Michelle
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by DieChecker
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

44 plus 18 = like 62 percent of the country. :whistle:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.