Bill Maher - "the Second Amendment is BS" - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Bill Maher - "the Second Amendment is BS"

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Arnoldsville, Ga
    Posts
    463
    There are a lot of countrys that Bill could go to that does not a second amendment. I wish he would pick one and leave for good.

  2.   
  3. #12
    ezkl2230 Guest

    Bill Maher - the US is becoming a police state....

    So after calling publicly for the elimination of the Second Amendment, Maher is now saying,

    This country is becoming a police state; it is very troubling to me
    Hey Bill, you helped MAKE this bed. Have fun lying in it.

    And by the way, Bill, it is for THIS VERY REASON that the Second Amendment truly exists. Maybe you want to re-think your position?


  4. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    2,072
    His whining about this country becoming a police state along with his rants against the Second Amendment are proof positive what an idiot he really is. It's also a good indication of how little grasp of reality progressives really have. They make no sense at all. NONE.


    I used to be a government-educated stooge. By the grace of God, I repent. -Robert Burris

  5. Quote Originally Posted by gunnerbob View Post
    I'd like to see Maher, Bieber, Carney and an 800lb pissed off ape fight to the death...
    I woudl just like to see Bill get his ass handed to him by little Beiber.

  6. #15

    Bill Maher - "the Second Amendment is BS"

    Bill Maher is a putz... Lets petition HBO to cancel him and put on something good, maybe Guns and Ammo TV?
    Guns.??? What Guns???

  7. #16
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    north east Iowa
    Posts
    1,250
    Bill Maher and progressives in general don't like the Constitution since it stands in the way of their Utopian society, ruled by the intellectual elite. They don't like the first amendment much either. Only those who agree with them deserve freedom of speech.

    The Constitution sets up the framework for the government. The Bill of Rights places limits on that government and stops the natural progression towards tyranny. The second in many ways is the most important because it is the means of enforcement. I
    don't know what it is about "shall not be infringed " that our budding tyrants in Washington can't understand. The only thing at this point that will save this country is a return to true Constitutional Government. I'm a loyal citizen and a Constitutionalist. If a belief in the brilliance of the Constitution marks me as a subversive, then so be it.

  8. #17
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by buckey01 View Post
    I don't know what it is about "shall not be infringed " that our budding tyrants in Washington can't understand. The only thing at this point that will save this country is a return to true Constitutional Government. I'm a loyal citizen and a Constitutionalist. If a belief in the brilliance of the Constitution marks me as a subversive, then so be it.
    I have said it before, and I will say it again. This is where federalism takes you.

    Constructionism will always lead to smaller, limited government and recognition of the supremacy of the People and the States as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (which, by design, places limits on the supremacy, commerce, and necessary and proper clauses).

    Federalism always defaults to the supremacy of the federal government. Federalism, beginning with George Washington himself, elevates the supremacy, commerce, and necessary and proper clauses above the explicit protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, meaning that they also reserve the right to interpret the Constitution in the manner that benefits them - or to even increase the powers enumerated to them at the expense of those explicitly enumerated to the People and the States. In fact, George Washington explicitly stated in his farewell circular letter to the governors of the States that it is the obligation of the People and the States to relinquish more of their enumerated rights any time Congress felt it necessary to demand it. It was his stated belief that anyone or any entity that resisted such demands or "conspired" to limit the powers of the federal government was deserving of being treated as a traitor.

    We have been fighting a stacked deck since Washington stacked the first Supreme Court with justices who would advance federalism. That was the litmus test of his day.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast