Kurt Hofmann
, St. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerLast Friday, on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher, Maher said he thought we needed a "page one rewrite" of the Constitution, and asked his guests which parts of the Constitution they would like to see removed. To get the ball rolling, Maher volunteered his ideas that "gerrymandering, I think, should go; corporate personhood should go." Oddly, my copy of the Constitution mentions neither of those things (redistricting is left to the state governments, for example)--maybe I should send it to him, and cheer him up.
One of his guests, MSNBC's Alex Wagner, then jumped in, as quoted here by Real Clear Politics:
One of his guests, MSNBC's Alex Wagner, then jumped in, as quoted here by Real Clear Politics:
Well, I'm going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms [enthusiastic applause from audience]. I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights. And being more discreet about who gets to have a firearm and right to kill with a firearm, I think is something that would be in our national interest to revisit that.Now that Ms. Wagner has appointed herself the authority on what rights take precedence over others, she'll just tell us what Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human rights we ought to give up, "for the greater good." It is interesting that Wagner at least acknowledges that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is indeed guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The "collective right" interpretation is truly being consigned to the dustbin of embarrassing history.
Comedian Bill Engvall then disagreed--to an extent--saying he could not support giving up protection of the right to hunt and to defend one's family, but said, "I don't think there's any reason for a person like myself to own an AK-47." Maher interjected, "Can we have just one gun?" on the theory, perhaps, that the First Amendment protects the right to publish just one article. Meanwhile, Engvall offered to meet Wagner halfway, and ban guns on which, "You can just pull the trigger, and 60 bullets fire out."
The oppressive laws on machine guns are apparently not oppressive enough for Engvall.
United States Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) then got in a masterful dig about "Project Gunwalker," asking Engvall, "Bill how many AK-47s should we sell to Mexican drug cartels, through the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?" Issa then explained that the Second Amendment exists for law abiding citizens "to be protected from living under tyranny."
Maher, who has shown his hostility to the concept of private gun ownership before, then came in with the "resistance is useless" argument against the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny. He went on to explain that an armed citizenry would not have a chance against the federal government, because "The government has nuclear weapons, and the Marine Corps, and the F-22." This, of course, ignores the fact that would-be tyrants want a people to tyrannize, not a blasted, radioactive charnel house, and that the Marine Corps and F-22 have not changed the fact that we will soon be leaving Iraq with the final outcome still very much in question there. Maher has clearly not read "A Handgun Against an Army."
Former New York Governor David Paterson then (perhaps inadveretently) refuted Maher's "resistance is useless" stance himself, by saying that he "would not oppose the right to bear arms," but that he didn't understand why people insisted on the right to "the real weapons of mass destruction" (presumably refering to so-called "assault weapons"). What? We private citizens do have "weapons of war" now?
Update: Dave Workman has more, in "MSNBC analyst, NY Times editorial clearly define media anti-2A bias."
See also:
The oppressive laws on machine guns are apparently not oppressive enough for Engvall.
United States Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) then got in a masterful dig about "Project Gunwalker," asking Engvall, "Bill how many AK-47s should we sell to Mexican drug cartels, through the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms?" Issa then explained that the Second Amendment exists for law abiding citizens "to be protected from living under tyranny."
Maher, who has shown his hostility to the concept of private gun ownership before, then came in with the "resistance is useless" argument against the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny. He went on to explain that an armed citizenry would not have a chance against the federal government, because "The government has nuclear weapons, and the Marine Corps, and the F-22." This, of course, ignores the fact that would-be tyrants want a people to tyrannize, not a blasted, radioactive charnel house, and that the Marine Corps and F-22 have not changed the fact that we will soon be leaving Iraq with the final outcome still very much in question there. Maher has clearly not read "A Handgun Against an Army."
Former New York Governor David Paterson then (perhaps inadveretently) refuted Maher's "resistance is useless" stance himself, by saying that he "would not oppose the right to bear arms," but that he didn't understand why people insisted on the right to "the real weapons of mass destruction" (presumably refering to so-called "assault weapons"). What? We private citizens do have "weapons of war" now?
Update: Dave Workman has more, in "MSNBC analyst, NY Times editorial clearly define media anti-2A bias."
See also:
No comments:
Post a Comment