Bill Maher's hilarious quote

[Playinghardball]

[appal_jack]

1. This quote would be great, if it were entirely (or even mostly) true.

Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

This quote would be great, if it were entirely (or even mostly) true. However, Bill Maher himself resides in a state where gun confiscations have occurred (CA's particularly heinous assault weapons ban). And then there is this recent news from NYC:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/begins-new-york-sending-gun-confiscation-notices/

Here at DU, we have certain Democrats regularly calling for confiscations, and indeed, we have a protected group (GCRA) where calling for increased confiscations is the only allowed party line.

Color me unimpressed.

I'm a pro-2A, pro-RKBA Democrat. But willful denial that our party also includes some Constitution-ignoring gun grabbers does no one any favors. I look forward to the day when the clearly-enumerated right to keep and bear arms no longer divides us, and is accepted by all Americans as settled Constitutional law and principle.

-app

[xchrom]

2. !

[appal_jack]

3. Do you have any evidence that the confiscation notice is not real?

Do you have any evidence that the NYPD confiscation notice found at the link I provided above is not real?

I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but it will take more than a rofl to do that.

-app

[Paladin]

4. Your agenda is showing. And I'm unimpressed. (nt)

[appal_jack]

7. Your lack of contravening data is unimpressive. (nt)

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. uh yeah. nice to see you have no clue

did you know rocket launchers are outlawed for the typical citizen? WHY! They are infringing on MY RIGHT to bear arms!! Oh yeah, because most of America isn't loony.

[appal_jack]

9. If you want to agitate and organize for rocket launcher legalization, that is your prerogative.

If you want to agitate and organize for rocket launcher legalization Pretzel Warrior, that is your prerogative. I myself will take the 'reasonable' stance that the 1934 National Firearms Act provides a decent balance between liberty and the state's legitimate interest in preserving safety and restricting the offensive use of force.

On edit, one more point: Rocket launchers are already 'legal,' they just require an NFA tax stamp. Expensive, but not impossible (every rocket would require an additional $200 stamp, plus the attendant pile of paperwork).

-app

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. excellent. I feel the same way about restrictions on certain guns and large capacity magazines

but some hunters are really shitty shots and need 50 rounds ready to go as they try to finally take out that squirrel on the run.

[appal_jack]

13. Hence, you want to take away peoples' guns.

"excellent. I feel the same way about restrictions on certain guns and large capacity magazines" - Pretzel_Warrior

Hence, you want to take away peoples' guns.

This is a thread discussing an amusing (or not) quote by Bill Maher, one that happens to be verifiably false. Assuming that you are a Democrat, your own words show that Maher's assertion is not true. You are saying that some pieces of many people's present firearms collections should be made illegal.

-app

[Pretzel_Warrior]

15. and that is not tantamount to taking away their guns. Hitler taking guns from Jews

and making it illegal for them to own a firearm is a FAR FAR cry from limiting certain firearms out of the entire glut of weaponry available.

Your unwillingness to ackowledge such a basic point and cry wolf at every attempt to control our massive gun violence is telling.

[appal_jack]

16. Can I take your house?

Let's say for argument's sake that you, Pretzel_Warrior, own a very nice house, say 5 bedrooms, 4.5 baths, lots of natural light and high ceilings, a soapstone wood stove in the living room, and central heat and a/c too. But you are only one person! All you NEED is a one room tin shack. It will still provide shelter, and the communal pit toilet out back and smoky dung fire pit constitute perfectly functional facilities.

No problem, right? You will still have a house. It won't be like Hitler and the Jews (um, wtf? Godwin?!?) at all...

-app

[Pretzel_Warrior]

18. that is in no way similar. If the government declares eminent domain on a structure

they must pay fair market value. If someone is paid fair market value for their now illegal gun, they can go out and buy some more and keep their gun hard on.

I only brought up the case everyone who is worried about "gun grabbers" always brings up. It was preemptive Godwin. There you go. A new term for you.

[appal_jack]

19. Why would a gov't bent on violating the 2nd Amendment bother to comply with the 5th?

I think that this is a case of 'preemptive fail.'

Why would a gov't bent on violating the 2nd Amendment bother to comply with the 5th?

Personally-owned firearms have been part of the American landscape since our country's founding in the 18th Century. Although technology has evolved, up until 1934, American citizens could easily purchase and own the exact same firearms as were employed by the military. That means that in 1925, I would have been able to purchase a surplus BAR: a sixteen pound marvel of fully-automatic, 30.06-slinging John M. Browning engineering without filing any paperwork whatsoever. What I wouldn't do for a time machine...

But back on topic. High capacity magazines have now existed for about a century. Fully-automatic weapons were heavily restricted in 1934. Why again should we further infringe upon the Second Amendment right now? And what's to prevent all the other Constitutional rights of citizens from being further shredded?

(Yes, I know that Google and Microsoft and the NSA are presently shredding the 4th Amendment, and Police Tactics like 'Free Speech Zones' and 'Kettling' are shredding the 1st Amendment, etc. I oppose these too. You can just call me a wild & crazy Constitutional-rights guy...)

-app

[Pretzel_Warrior]

20. only because it would be viewed as not violating the 2nd amendment

I don't see the U.S. or state governments going after all of your guns outside of the rule of law. So again....the whining and hyperventilating by gun lovers about any laws introduced to put sound restrictions on the gun culture free for all is pretty empty in my book.

[appal_jack]

22. Pretzel_Worder?

We can twist phrases and parse words until they become meaningless, but that's certainly not my ideal. Your word salad (or word pretzel, in this case) does not convince me that you have any goal aside from eroding the common interpretation of the Second Amendment in a quest to ban the most popular firearms in America. I posit that this is NOT a winning strategy for Democrats.

-app

[Paladin]

24. All you're proving is that LaPierre is earning his million-dollar salary.

Don't expect pro-gun paranoia to get a pleasant reception on a Democratic site.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

25. sometimes people do things for the right reasons to save lives. if limits can be placed on arms we

can own, then all we are really down to is a negotiation of what that looks like. Quit wrapping yourself in the 2nd amendment just to say you should be able to own a cannister of bullets that can be fired in rapid succession from a modified semi automatic rifle.

[appal_jack]

35. There's nothing wrong with maximizing our rights.

My thoughts about all of the Bill of Rights are that these rights have been grievously eroded. Speech, privacy, separation of church & state, you name it: I think that Americans have been asleep at the wheel for way too long. But that does not excuse a further erosion of these rights, no matter how 'good' the cause.

You want to protect lives? I'm with you. Let's work together to improve education and the social safety net, redirect police power toward targeting only violent and otherwise truly nefarious criminals, and make sure that everyone has access to good, clean food, water, air, and space. You want to waste political capital on trying to further restrict pieces of steel that only kill innocents if mis-used? Nope, sorry pal.

-app

[LanternWaste]

38. It is however, what you yourself are accomplishing... all rationalizations aside.

"but that's certainly not my ideal..."

It is however, what you yourself are accomplishing... all rationalizations aside.

[A Simple Game]

47. Why again right now? Perhaps because the line between fully automatic and

semi-automatic are getting increasingly blurry. Perhaps because in 1934 people weren't committing mass murders of school children with semi-automatic weapons every other day.

As for the notice you linked to, confiscation appears to only be an option, you have other remedies.

Personally I think anyone should be able to own any small caliber firearm they want, and like any good militia they should be required to keep them in an armory.

[Bandit]

17. armed idiot

[appal_jack]

21. Got anything besides vapid insults?

Bandit, I posted a link above that shows an official NYPD document that demands that a citizen"surrender" or "remove" three .22 caliber rifles, simply because they can hold more than five rounds. Seventeen replies in, no one has presented ANY evidence that this memo is anything other than real and true.

Who's the idiot again?

-app

[lame54]

37. A document is not...

proof that any gun has actually been taken

[Cerridwen]

26. "Conservative Sites Stoke Hysteria About New York Gun Confiscations"

"Conservative Sites Stoke Hysteria About New York Gun Confiscations"

Conservative sites have been circulating this NYC gun confiscation notice and claiming it as evidence of a gun grab after Sandy Hook. But the law referenced in the notice isn't news at all. It's a law that has been on the books since 1991.

Sites like Infowars and the Blaze are presenting the letter as a horrifying new manifestation of laws passed since the Newtown Massacre. "And so it begins," reads the headline at conservative site Gateway Pundit, suggesting that recent laws are to blame.

These sites are either mistaken or deliberately misleading their readers. The notice below has nothing to do with the 2013 SAFE Act, NY's controversial post-Sandy Hook law.

Actually the letter enforces a 22-year-old city statute banning rifles holding more that 5 rounds. Here's the letter in full, via the Blaze: (bold emphasis mine; italics in original)

RICHMOND BORO GUN CLUB, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK Scroll down to Factual Background

On July 30, 1991, at the request of then-Mayor David W. Dinkins and with the support of then-Police Commissioner Lee P. Brown as well as various other city officials, the New York City Council enacted Local Law 78 prohibiting the possession or transfer within New York City of "assault weapons" and certain ammunition feeding devices. Administrative Code §§ 10-303.1(a), 10-306, 10-131(i)(6).

N.Y. ADC. LAW § 10-306 : NY Code - Section 10-306: Disposition, purchase and possession of ammunition and ammunition feeding devices

Apparently "the Democrats" are so intent on "confiscating your guns" it's taken the NYPD (they're an arm of the Democratic Party, right?) 22 years to get moving on it.

[appal_jack]

27. This is good information, but my point still stands.

Yes, the law is 22 years old. However, it was signed by a Democratic Mayor (Dinkins) at a time in NYC when Democrats pretty much ruled unopposed (Dinkins' incompetence was part of what ended that streak, ushering in the Ghouliani misadministration).

The OP is a Maher quote about how Democrats don't really want to take away anyone's guns. The 1991 NYC law (passed by mostly Democrats) disproves that. The 2012 NY State 'SAFE Act' (passed by mostly Democrats - though Constitution-shredding Repubs trailed along) disproves that. The CA 'Assault Weapons Ban' (passed by mostly Democrats) disproves that.

If Democrats don't want to be tarred with this particular brush, then they should stop supporting laws like these.

I vote Democratic because I am pro-choice (which the Democrats are at least pretty consistent in supporting), and I continue to hope that the Democratic Party might move back toward a New Deal type of economic populism. That means I love Elizabeth Warren. But I still have to grit my teeth when she gets to talking about gun control.

-app

[Cerridwen]

28. I was wondering if you'd decide to tap dance or obfuscate or twist and spin.

The law is 22 years old and now it's "Panic!!!!" "The world is coming to an end!!!" "The evil Democrats are coming for our guns!!!! i.n...s.l.o.w...m.o.t.i.o.n..." Well, not all our guns...just the specifically defined ones...but that's "ALL our guns!!!!!"

The quote says nothing about "wanting" to take away your guns, or mine. Just that the paranoid crowd is sure their guns are next; though that hasn't happened in the last 30 years they've been spewing the phrase.

As to worrying about the "Democrats...tarred with this particular brush"; are you fucking kidding me?! The r/w makes shit up out of whole cloth on an hourly basis. It matters not what Democrats do, don't do, threaten to do, etc., the r/w will catapult their own plans and project them onto Democrats every damned time.

In case you haven't noticed, the r/wers have been painting Democrats as Muslim, socialist, communist, pinko, lesbian, gay, baby-killers who are "soft on crime" and ready to round up all the r/wers and send them to re-education camps. Not only do they create the fucking paint, they create the brush with which to apply the paint. Why the hell are you helping them?

What Democrats really don't need is someone from the Democrat's side parroting their own paranoia back at them thereby proving to them "we" all agree with them.

Now, for your entertainment and mine:

[appal_jack]

30. I am trying to help the Democratic Party toward a sounder platform.

Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 12:20 AM - Edit history (2)

"In case you haven't noticed, the r/wers have been painting Democrats as Muslim, socialist, communist, pinko, lesbian, gay, baby-killers who are "soft on crime" and ready to round up all the r/wers and send them to re-education camps. Not only do they create the fucking paint, they create the brush with which to apply the paint. Why the hell are you helping them?

What Democrats really don't need is someone from the Democrat's side parroting their own paranoia back at them thereby proving to them "we" all agree with them."

The only thing I am trying to help is the Democratic Party toward a sounder platform. If paranoid rw'ers want to invent fantasies out of whole cloth about how Obama is a secret Muslim baby-eating, kitten-stomping communist fifth columnist, that's their business, but it won't convince anyone with two functioning brain cells. But when the 'paranoid' right wing of this country has a better grasp of and support for a Constitutionally guaranteed right than the Democratic Party as a whole, then something is amiss.

I will stop calling-out Democrats about supporting unconstitutional gun laws when they stop supporting unconstitutional gun laws. Pretty simple, eh? You don't see me attacking Jon Tester about gun control, because he is generally on the side of the Constitution. His is an example worth following.

On-edit: Cerridwen, you say "Well, not all our guns...just the specifically defined ones..." But the sad fact of the matter is that if NYC is confiscating .22 bolt action rifles simply because they hold > 5 rounds, there just are not many other firearms left. Since NYC already restricts pistols to the nth degree, I guess that NYC'ers can maybe keep a break-barrel or other low-capacity shotgun, but not much else.

-app

[Cerridwen]

32. I suggest you go the Library of Congress website and read the documents stored there

regarding the debates they had about state "well regulated militias" versus a national "standing army during peace time." The end result would be the 2nd Amendment and it had to do with states' rights to put down insurrections and a fear of a national standing army during peace time as they had experienced during British rule.

See "Shay's Rebellion," the "Whiskey Rebellion," and various other "rebellions," including "slave riots" during Colonial times for context of what the states' representatives were referencing in their remarks, publications, and debates.

Then you should continue to read what the Constitutional Framers did with the newly minted Constitution with regard to "well regulated militias" that required gun registration and regularly scheduled militia exercises to ensure the militia members were capable of putting down any "rebellions" should the need arise. It included having regulated "arms" and physically able bodies.

You're gonna love it.

[appal_jack]

34. On this, we disagree.

I could dredge up plentiful historical references that amply show that the Founding Fathers believed in the personal possession of arms (though of course they generally limited all rights to white men at the time), but that debate has recently unfolded in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). I support these decisions, and they happen to also be the Supreme Law of the Land, now and into the foreseeable future.

-app

[azureblue]

41. correct

The 2nd was crafted in response to the fledgling US's lack of a decent army. It was designed to standardize the many local militia groups that existed back then - make sure they were armed and trained. Hence "well regulated". The US at that time was trying to pull together these local militia to successfully fight the highly trained Brits and their mercenaries. The National US army was small and localized, and was unable to respond to all of the British forces that were invading the colonies. So the Founding fathers came up with the idea of standardizing the local militias, into a citizen army, that had their own weapons and ammunition, and shared some degree of combat training. And would stand down during piece time. Note that back then, villages needed a defense force against marauders, Indians, and criminals, that could be relied on. The militias were financed by the rich and often led by a rich person, or a person with some military experience, but there was no standard way of repelling invaders. Hence again "Well regulated militia". IOW historical context, the 2nd forms the basis of the National Guard - localized regiments made of citizens that come together as a unit with standardized training in time of need.

But back to the subject - the gun lobby tries its best to ignore the context and the first half of the 2nd amendment. Read as a whole and read with a full knowledge of the reason for its inclusion in the Constitution, one would then come to the conclusion that a gun owner must, by law, have basic military and firearms training, to "bear arms". At minimum, it can be interpreted that all gun owners need training and periodic refreshers, to be "well regulated". I do-I've seen way too many gun owners do stupid things with a loaded weapon- things that make it obvious the gun owner has no business at all owning a deadly weapon.

[toby jo]

44. Do you grit your teeth when innocent people are gunned down? Children, even?

[appal_jack]

49. Yes. We should definitely make gunning innocent people down illegal.

Yes. We should definitely make gunning innocent people down illegal.

Children, even.

Oh, wait. This has been illegal for far longer than America has even existed.

Leaving my glib tone aside now, I will agree again, and say that every innocent death is a tragedy, and no parent should have to mourn the loss of a child. As I said in reply #35, and will emphatically reiterate here, all who want to protect lives can count me as an ally. Let's work together to improve education and the social safety net, redirect police power toward targeting only violent and otherwise truly nefarious criminals, and make sure that everyone has access to good, clean food, water, air, and space. I just don't believe that wasting political capital on trying to further restrict pieces of steel that only kill innocents if mis-used is misguided. Why should Democrats pursue losing, ineffective strategies that alienate many Americans, when the above alternate strategies can better protect lives, and also not alienate lawful gun owners and peaceable shooting enthusiasts?

-app

[eqfan592]

29. Well said.

The sad thing is that some of the very people who call for confiscation on this forum will now chime in to try and make fun of you for pointing this fact out.

The more I'm on this site, the more I realize the logic and reasoning skills of many so-called progressives are of a similar level as those of teabaggers, they just run in a different direction

[Skip Intro]

36. +100. n/t

[Iggo]

42. No, he's right. They're idiots.

[NeoGreen]

43. I think the website you linked to...

... is intentionally conflating an act by New York City (NYC) with an act by New York State (NYS).

This letter, if valid, has nothing to do with NYS.

[snooper2]

46. FYI, I don't know if anyone has pointed this out

but you spelled Apple wrong---

[appal_jack]

48. heh heh

Proud citizen of Southern Appalachia here.



-app

[mstinamotorcity2]

5. This is funny

as all get out

[Whisp]

8. The Clintons are a pre-existing condition of the Democratic Party.

another one of his.

he's hilarious sometimes

[SCVDem]

11. Nice recitation of buzz words.

Confiscation?

Give it a rest!

Maher is right on as usual!

[dembotoz]

12. reading du posts are like a box of chocolates you never know what you are going to get

[spanone]

14. bwahahahahahaaaa!!!!

[billh58]

23. Gun nuts believe that

"confiscation" of their precious is just over the horizon as evidenced by the scary Amurican Gubmint and their secret concentration camps for the patriotic militias in this country.

Thank goodness that we have Gun Huggers and the KKK to protect us from Democratic government tyranny.

As usual, Bill Maher speaks truth to power, and destroys the crazies among us.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

31. Why are all of Bill O'Reilly's books about killing people?

The guy is death obsessed

[applegrove]

33. I miss his show already. When is he back? January? Feb?

[LanternWaste]

39. Bill O'Reilley and armed idiots are posting on this thread as we type...

Bill O'Reilley and armed idiots are posting on this thread as we type...

Gotta give it to 'em though... their paranoia is almost as strong as their dogma.

[UTUSN]

40. R#77 & K n/t

[Rainforestgoddess]

45. Good one, Bill!

What I love about threads like this is how easy it becomes to figure out who to add to my ignore list.

The number of comments is greatly reduced, and so is my blood pressure!