The Hypocrisy of Bill Maher, And He Is Not Alone. .

"It's no secret that the talking heads of the liberal media machine hate guns and want to strip you of your natural born rights. It's bad enough that they use insane and debased logic to support their beliefs, but now they have added hypocrisy to their insanity".

"Bill Maher is one of the most well-known personalities in the ultra-liberal media world. He hates religion, family values, and many of the cornerstone principles that our nation has stood firm on since its inception. He also happens to be one of the loudest anti-gun propagators in America.

"What's truly odd about that is the fact that, by his own admission, he owns guns. You can click here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxXDfmDYOMs to watch a segment on Maher's show where he argues about gun control and the 2nd amendment. He spends the first part of the segment arguing against guns and the 2nd Amendment, but then jumps ship when it comes to his personal practices. At the 3:55 mark, Maher says, "As long as we live in the gun country, I aint givin' up my gun."

"You see, this is the kind of hypocrisy that the liberal media have built their castle of sand upon. The reality is that they don't trust you to have a gun, but they believe they should be able to protect themselves with a gun. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if Maher thinks like this, then there are countless others just like him.

"The sad thing is that in my heart of hearts I want to pat Bill on the back and commend him for taking the responsibility of protecting himself in his home with a firearm. Personal responsibility, self-reliance, and responsible gun ownership are exactly the kinds of values that I believe in! On the other hand I can't get past the poisonous hypocrisy that he spews out on a daily basis.

"My point in telling you this is to remind you that this is the kind of backwards thinking we are up against. The opposing voices are loud, but they are wrong. Continue to stand firm, stay strong, and be the most prepared, responsibly-armed American you can be.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

I watch his show and I never heard him say guns should be banned. I don't like guns, myself, but I will protect my family and I by any means necessary.

ZEY

Now you sound like Maher, read the post again,watch the video at the 3.55 mark and get back to me. The word banned is not in the post....But Hypocrisy is, which is the point.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Everybody has mixed postions and feelings about something which can be interpreted as hypocrisy.

Stop the spin....When you advocate against something and do or believe the opposite of your advocation. Thats Hyporcrisy...

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I'm really not spinning. I believe in euqal rights for all, fair housing, equal education, equal treatment under the law, etc.. On the other hand I believe if groups of people can't get along with each other they shouldn't be together. Which concept is right? Yet I have feelings and a position for both. So am I a hypocrite or just confused?

Sounds like you believe in separate but equal.

Separate is equal. Equality has nothing to do with voluntary separations.

Does owning guns automatically mean you have to be against registration and background checks? Get a grip. No hypocrisy in the video.

Does owning guns automatically mean you have to be against registration and background checks?

Generally, yes, since registration is only a prelude to confiscation. History, dude. Check it.

And the background checks just expand and expand, and their list of denied people and characteristics just grows and grows.

The Second Amendment can't be any clearer: The federal government has precisely ZERO power to deny you your right to keep and bear arms. So unconstitutionality is now a permanent part of American government... until we fucking shoot them all for what they've done. And that time is coming. That's what Maher and his ilk truly fear; that we'll take back what they've taken from us.

In summary, anyone who's for gun registration should sit there and explain to me in detail why we shouldn't be also registering speakers and writers. It's really the same class of right. So, why not? (A rhetorical question.)

Additionally, the background checks we currently have don't work. Not because the law was poorly written but because it is poorly enforced.

Loughner and Holmes both should have been denied guns but the system allowed for them to obtain them. Expanding the checks would not have stopped them.

MikeyA

"History, dude. Check it."
You have a good idea there. Let's take a look at some history. There's an idea being put forth by the NRA that says Hitler imposed gun control to make it easier to round up the Jews. Shall we discuss?

First, look up "gun control under the Treaty Of Versailles" and "Weimar Republic" (I hope I spelled that right).

Second, look up the "1938 German Weapons Act". Do this and you may find that Hitler actually relaxed most of Germany's gun laws, making guns more accessible to a larger group of Germans than were previously able to own guns.

Check this stuff out and write back. Discussions about history are good. We may not agree, but at least we will be using historical facts to make our points.

http://www.infowars.com/yes-hitler-really-did-take-the-guns-before-throw...

"Prior to 1938, when Hitler’s new restrictions were put in place, the earlier Weimar Republic government had already enacted gun registration. “The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power,” says Clayton Cramer, author of the book Firing Back,"

"If you read the 1938 Nazi gun laws closely and compare them to earlier 1928 Weimar gun legislation – as a straightforward exercise of statutory interpretation – several conclusions become clear. First, with regard to possession and carrying of firearms, the Nazi regime relaxed the gun laws that were in place in Germany at the time the Nazis seized power. Second, the Nazi gun laws of 1938 specifically banned Jewish persons from obtaining a license to manufacture firearms or ammunition. Third, approximately eight months after enacting the 1938 Nazi gun laws, Hitler imposed regulations prohibiting Jewish persons from possessing any dangerous weapons, including firearms."

Now look up "Nazi Weapons Law of 18 March 1938"
I challenge you to read this from the University Of Chicago
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf

"In Germany, Jewish extermination began with the Nazi Weapon
Law of 1938, signed by Adolph Hitler, that required police permission of
ownership of a handgun. All firearms had to be registered. Germans who
enjoyed using bolt-action rifles for target practice were told to join the
Wehrmacht if they wished to shoot “military” rifles. The Nazis also
enacted the “Regulations against Jews’ possession of weapons” within the
days of Kristallnacht—the “night of broken glass”—when stormtroopers
attacked synagogues and Jews throughout Germany. . . ."

And here, for your convinence since you are a Libtard and need to be spoon fed, is the TEXT OF HITLERS "REGULATIONS AGAINST JEWS"...
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/NaziLawEnglish.htm
"Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew's possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation."

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Good job, Blowme. You looked up some good stuff.

Now using your information, please answer a few questions:

1) Why were the gun laws in Germany less stringent after Hitler changed them in 1938?

2) If Hitler was so intent on control of guns, wouldn't it have been easier to just leave the registration and virtual ban from the Wiemar Republic in place?

(3) If his main reason was disarming the Jews, wouldn't that have already been covered by existing law?

I will respond to your reply.

Instead of asking questions at this opponents why don't you show the rest of us why his opinion is wrong and your is right. He's already answered you once.

It would be one thing if your questions demonstrated why his opinion is naught but they don't do that. I think you just don't want to respond to him and so ask questions to deflect.

MikeyA

I can tell by his response that he hasn't actually read a famous paper on this subject he thinks he's quoting from. I want to ask him these questions in the hope he'll go back and read it. Call me evil.

1) Why were the gun laws in Germany less stringent after Hitler changed them in 1938?

I cannot speculate on the mentality of Adolph Hitler. A facist would be better equipped to answer tis question, so you should tell us what Hitler was thinking. However, the original gun laws prior to 1938 were part of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 that ended WWI. According to one of the links I convinently posted above, (which you easily could have read but I will read it for you)

"But even before the Treaty was signed, the German parliament of the
Weimar Republic enacted legislation prohibiting gun possession. In January 1919, the
Reichstag enacted legislation requiring the surrender of all guns to the government. This
law, as well as the August 7, 1920, Law on the Disarmament of the People passed in light of the Versailles Treaty, remained in effect until 1928, when the German parliament
enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition (April 12, 1928)—a law which relaxed
gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. The licensing
regulations foreshadowed Hitler’s rise to power—and in fact, some argue, were enacted
precisely in order to prevent armed insurrection,""

2) If Hitler was so intent on control of guns, wouldn't it have been easier to just leave the registration and virtual ban from the Wiemar Republic in place?

Again, I cannot speculate on the mentality of Adolph Hitler. A facist would be better equipped to answer tis question, so you should tell us what Hitler was thinking.

(3) If his main reason was disarming the Jews, wouldn't that have already been covered by existing law?

The answer to this question is also available in the convenient links to articles above.
"The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population. Their treatment of Jewish persons is, in this sense, orthogonal to their guncontrol views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it seems that the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the predecessor Weimar Republic, as evidenced by the overall relaxation of the laws regulating the acquisition, transfer and carrying of firearms reflected in the 1938 Nazi gun laws." In other words, the Nazi party armed other Nazis but confiscated guns from Jews in preparation of the Holocaust.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I don't have much time tonight, but I'll answer the first question and make my first point.
With the "1938 Weapons Act" Hitler greatly relaxed Germany's gun restrictions compared to the 1928 laws that were in place before he came to power. Under Hitler, hunters no longer had to get permits for their guns. Shot guns, rifles and their munitions were deregulated. Handgun carry permits were extended, and the age of gun ownership was lowered. Also, the number of guns a person could own was increased. My first point is that Hitler was not anti-gun, and not a proponent of gun control in general.

If you want a link to all this, look at your own post where you challenge me to "read this from the University Of Chicago". If you actually read Bernard Harcourt's paper you will find it all there. By the way, the quote you challenged me to read is actually from Wayne R. LaPierre, and not as you stated "from the University Of Chicago". It's in Harcourt's paper, but as a quote. Try reading it in that context and see if you don't understand better what Harcourt's rather famous paper on this subject is all about.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf

"Shall we discuss?"

Only relevant material. Like what the Second Amendment says. It's been the law of the land since 1791. And it clearly indicates that the federal government does not have the legal power to deny you your right to keep and bear arms.

1791 AD is history, dude. And not in the "ancient history that no longer applies" sense either. One lesson you're supposed to obtain from history is what's relevant. The Second Amendment is relevant, since it was never revoked, and in fact 44 states of the union copied facsimilies into their own constitutions. That happened in Ohio, so not only can the federal government not infringe on your right to keep and bear arms, neither can Ohio's government, and that includes all subordinate governments like Lucas County and the City of Toledo. Municipalities and counties cannot overturn state law. That's ALSO part of our history.

Yes, I'm enjoying the history lesson, but I'm not the one who needs to learn it. Liberals do.

And he never said ban guns

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.