By Bill Maher
The NRA came out with a video questioning why the President's daughters get armed security but your kids don't. It's a fair question... for anyone who's blinded by ideology and willfully dismissive of the facts. The White House has called the video "repugnant and cowardly."
Yes, President Obama's daughters get special armed security, but they're different from every other tween in America in that, as the daughters of the president -- a black president, no less -- they need protection, partly due to the rhetoric of people in the NRA.
The NRA claims the President is a hypocrite and an elitist for enjoying the perk of armed security when regular, hard-working Americans don't get it. But when the same argument was applied to the perk of government-funded healthcare -- that our leaders can have it but the people cannot -- the complaint was dismissed as hogwash.
Yes, the President gets armed security and you don't. He also gets his own plane and you don't.
Why should the Obamas get armed security? Are their lives any more valuable than ours?
Yes. He's the president.
The NRA came out with a video questioning why the President's daughters get armed security but your kids don't. It's a fair question... for anyone who's blinded by ideology and willfully dismissive of the facts. The White House has called the video "repugnant and cowardly."
Yes, President Obama's daughters get special armed security, but they're different from every other tween in America in that, as the daughters of the president -- a black president, no less -- they need protection, partly due to the rhetoric of people in the NRA.
The NRA claims the President is a hypocrite and an elitist for enjoying the perk of armed security when regular, hard-working Americans don't get it. But when the same argument was applied to the perk of government-funded healthcare -- that our leaders can have it but the people cannot -- the complaint was dismissed as hogwash.
Yes, the President gets armed security and you don't. He also gets his own plane and you don't.
Why should the Obamas get armed security? Are their lives any more valuable than ours?
Yes. He's the president.
38 comments:
We should have Control over who can buy the bullets for a gun. 1) no one under 18 can buy bullets. 2) To buy bullets you have to show a gun permit. This will stop a person who shouldn't have them from getting it.
Why not charge an annual tax in order to own a gun, similarly to what we already do for people who want to drive cars in most states? Forget giving away free basketball tickets for turning in a gun. You want to own a gun, you pay the annual tax. If you can't pay the tax, well sell your gun legally. We already use the tax code to influence our social policies so there is a precedent and it would not force people to get rid of their guns for those people that are concerned with the second amendment. The tax could be tiered on what type of gun you want to own; want to own a hunting rifle it's one price, want to own an assault weapon, well it's double that. Also, if you sell your gun illegally, well you'd better charge a premium, because you will be paying that tax until the day you stop filing a tax return.
The NRA reminds me of the old Wizard of OZ movie where in the end it was all smoke and mirrors, or when in the 1950's it was finally revealed that McCarthy was just a vile nasty drunk.
Bill, I would love for you (or anyone) to really question the meaning of "responsible gun owner."
Is a gun owner responsible only if they don't kill someone with their gun, or do they need to take the extra step and make sure that no one else does... Is allowing your gun to get stolen, or even selling it to someone who couldn't pass a background check, being a responsible gun owner? I don't think so...
Maybe if laws were passed holding irresponsible gun owners responsible for crimes committed using the guns they legally acquired, we'd find that fewer people want guns...because it really should be a HUGE responsibility...
(In response to Wayne LaPierre's "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.") As if on cue, the most prolific sniper, the deadliest soldier/sailor in U.S. Armed Forces history, at a place with guns all over the place, good guys with guns all over the place, and not only didn't they prevent the killer from killing, they didn't stop him after he was done!!
Just end the drug war and there will be a significant decrease in gun violence right across the America's.
He's regular, hard-working president for fuck's sake.
I think that a law should be passed requiring all people who want to purchase a firearm to have to take a mental examination. I love you Bill and I often agree with you on many things, but guns are one of the things I don't quite agree on. If you take away guns than criminals will make more money off of smuggling them and illegal dealing. Do you think a school shooter is worried about buying an illegal weapon. Of course not. Stricter gun laws do need to be put in place but the way it's being gone about is bad. But no matter what I'll always watch ya Bill.
did anyone see skyfall? biometrics are real technology.not junk science start encoding weaponry only to the person that can fire that gun. second amendment still intact and that boy who stole his mother's gun at sandyhook could have been averted. a piece of paper will not protect anyone. this will, the inability to fire a stolen gun.
Real world sceanario - In my state, they are releasing prisoners early (on parole) because of prison overcrowding (to comply with court orders). Thousands of paroled child molesters, rappist and other high-risk sex offenders are removing their court-ordered GPS tracking devices and some have been charged with new crimes. The state's economy is a mess; can't raise taxes, can't build new prisons; and can't afford the salaries and benefits of hiring more police officers and prison guards (who make up the vast majority of state workers and cost). The problem here as well as in Washington is that elected politians don't do their jobs. Its easier to kowtow to special interest than to actually fix a problem. Also, in todays economy, the first things that States cuts in budget situation is funding for mental health and drug rehab. Some cities in the state have mismanaged their finances and filed for bankrauptcy. The first thing that they cut is police and fire resources. Crime and murder rate has risen in these cities. It doesn't paint a pretty picture. In President Obama's world, no one has mental illness, guns are only in the hands of criminals, and police will be there to prevent criminal acts from being committed. I see it a little different in my world (like a large number of other people). Better to prepare for the worse (have guns and practice) and hope for the best. But I can't really do that when politians try to take away the rights of law abiding citizens in the hopes of preventing crime without understanding why it happens. My states' remedy for gun violence is to tax ammo 5 cents a round and require an annual $50 ammo permit to buy! They are handling gun ownership like cigarette smokers and trying to tax the hell out of them.
PS If Joe Biden actually believes that most women would prefer to shoot a 12 guage shotgun than a 223 cal rifle, he is full of crap. My wife has shot both and prefers the colt sporter because the noise and the recoil is not bad. By the way, this would be classified as an "assault weapon" in terms of the politians. A true assault weapon is one that is fully automatic which only a Class 3 FFL license person can possess.
http://www.facebook.com/leachfortexas
The above is the page that belongs to 30 year old, Texas State Legislature Jeff Leach. The Plano State Legislature has introduced a bill (Texas House Bill 1533, calling for a "Tax Free" Purchase of all guns and Ammo on Texas Independence Day (March 2nd). Texas can't afford to educate it's children. I Love Texas, but I am so ashamed of it's leaders.
BTW, This is to be a annually recurring Tax Holiday. Text of Bill can be found here http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB01533I.pdf#navpanes=0
The other day you railed against the California voters’ decision against Prop37. I think they voted against Prop 37 because they understand that it will simply mean more lawsuits and no benefit.
Take what happened with Prop 65’s treatment of lead for example. Lead is naturally occurring in the soil. . But way back, when Prop 65 was enacted, testing methods could not see lead at such low levels. So, unless your crops were grown in a highly contaminated superfund site, lead test results would come back, “not detected.” Consumers, lawmakers and even some experts then believed that clean food crops, contain zero lead. In fact, the lead was there, in the crops, just as it had always been. But at 10 to 300 parts per million (ppm), it simply couldn’t be seen.
California lawmakers reasoned that if there’s no lead in crops, then a Prop 65 limit of 0.5 mcg per serving is reasonable. Flash forward to 2008, when the FDA developed an inexpensive method that can measure lead down to 10 ppm, and we suddenly discover lead is everywhere, organic and common crops alike. The USDA and the state of California have known about this for a long time. Back in the 80’s they tested over 70 different crops and found the average for all crops to be about 1.3 mcg per serving (nearly 3 times the prop 65 limit). But when you weight for the most popular crops, the average is about 5 mcg per serving (10 times the prop 65 limit).
The vultures know that if they find a product with over 0.5 mcg/serving, they have a good lawsuit on their hands. The burden of proof is on the manufacturers to show that the lead is naturally occurring. And it can cost millions of dollars to hire the minerologists, isotope experts, and lawyers to fight such lawsuits; so product manufacturers will settle the suits for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Now CA shelves are littered with products carrying such warnings. The lead within these products is typically just 0.1 to 1.0 mcg over the Prop 65 limit of 0.5 mcg. You might say, “Well, that’s a good price to pay to help consumers avoid lead.” But even that thinking is flawed. Californians, as well as the rest of the US Population, typically consume over 300 mcg of lead from a healthy diet. So the 0.1 to 1.0 mcgs that Californians can now avoid amounts to a whopping 3/100ths of a percent of the daily lead that can now be avoided.
Right now if I dry a clove of certified organic garlic and put it into a capsule, it will violate Prop 65, unless it carries a lead warning. The consumer has no way of knowing that my garlic capsules have naturally occurring lead consistent with what is in fresh garlic. And if they try to compare it to a product that also carries the warning, but has much higher lead, due to human contamination they will not see any difference. Further, they cannot even compare it to a clove of fresh garlic, since fresh produce is somehow exempt, even if it is grown on a superfund site! So the legal abuse of Prop 65 lead laws makes impossible for consumers to base decisions on any meaningful information.
The icing on this horrible cake is that there is no way out. It can’t be fixed. No politician will touch it with a 10 foot pole. Imagine what their rivals would say, “my opponent wants to raise the lead limit in your food.”
Now back to Prop 37. It’s a great idea. But it will be abused just like Prop 65! Even the best independently certified Non-GM ingredients can only guarantee a material is 97 to 99 percent free from GM plants. Try as they might, Non-GM farmers cannot stop GM pollen from floating into their fields. What happens if someone detects that 1% to 3% unavoidable GM material in a product? Does a company have to hire agriculture experts, geneticists, and highly specialized lawyers to prove that the GM is reasonable/allowable/unavoidable? Will companies be forced to settle? Will the law have absolutely no impact on the consumer’s ability to make healthier choices, just like the Prop 65 lead law?
Machael Moore has been on your show many times. Please schedule him soon to address the Gun Reform issue. The parents and grandparents of Newtown CT need his strong message.
Why would a mman kill Pigs? ... Oh! I know.. I guess they are easier to h**p when they are dead
Hey you bunch of libtards, if you don't want to own guns just don't buy any!!! Duh! And it looks like your man maher is now going to the Republican side because the fuckin' hypocrite is tires of paying high taxes. What a dumb mothafucker!!! I love it! bill maher is a dumb fuck just like all libtards!!!
You are ALL so far past stupid it is beyond description! I read these comments and can't believe they come from adults!
Obviously not adults with any level of critical thinking skills, but nevertheless adults.
You morons should join bill in paying 70% of your income in taxes, plus sales tax, plus fuel tax, plus property tax, etc., etc., etc. and shut the fuck up about my guns! I hunt, I fish and I stay stocked up so when your loving gubment demands you kneel and worship them, I and MANY, MANY like me will allow you to bow while we stand up for ourselves like normal red blooded American Patriots would! You are all cowards and will be rewarded as such! IGNORANT SLAVES!
Yes, some of the statements from the NRA seem radical to non-gun owners. However, the words are not of paranoia but are really words of caution. We have been lulled to sleep about the realities we face. I am lifelong democratic gun owner and hope never to use a firearm to injure or kill anyone, I hope to be pillar of support to at risk people to help them, but we have bad people out there and not to recognize that is foolish. We tell are kids not to walk home from school by themselves, we tell our daughters be careful when you go out and tell our sons the same. We have seen seniors become victims all too often as well. What we are really telling them is that we live in an dangerous world, which is one of the most dangerous developed countries in the world.
Sadly, I know the hopes and promises that were set forth in the New Deal for America and know these ideals are well-intentioned to form a more Just Society. The reality is that Government can't do what is not in the hearts of every American. We can only cure our problems by starting in our Communities. This includes the people that lived near Adam Lanza and his family. Our current government systems failed us, but our communities should have done something to help this troubled children. Our loss is not just the child in Connecticut, but the loss of our common sense of community. Until we recognize that problem, no new gun law will help. We only have so much money for jails, courts and prosecutions. This is increasingly evident as States start to rollback drug laws and release convicted people early.
Its nice to see interviews on TV about various victims of violent crimes and how they made it through that ordeal, but I prefer to prevent it by force if need be. Remember, once the spotlight is turned off, what is left is a victim dealing with it for the rest of their lives. No parent would standby and wait for the Police if they could do something about it right then.
So every effort should be in place to control the criminal and mentally-troubled access to guns, gun-owners should be open to education on the safe use and storage of guns. Clinics for new gun-owners should be readily available, but banning any form of firearm or its components is a waste of time. If we have over 300 million guns already in America and less than 1/10,000 of a percent is a rifle, with pistols at 1/1000 of a percent, of any form used in a crime relatively speaking we don't have the straw buying problem on the scale that is portrayed. When Gun Dealers tell their regulators they think they have identified a straw buyer and the government doesn't follow-up, then new laws won't fix that problem. So tone down the anti-gun positions and lets work on a solution to address the needs for guns in crimes in the first place.
While silly ads like this belittle the debate, it is unfair to allow this self-appointed, spoekesperson with a financial agenda speak for those of us who do have serious civil liberty concerns about the outcry for stricter gun laws. All the debate seems to focus on "supply" of guns, rather than the "demand". The demand for assault weapons is completely created by the legislature, which insists that recreational narcotics be distributed in a black market. It is this demand that drives the production of assault weapons, not random nuts. And, of course, everyone glibly agrees "felons" shouldn't get guns. No one metions that the vast majority of felons have no violence in their history. In fact the average American commmits three federal felonies a day (unwittingly). And the broad application of "conspiracy" laws means anyone is potentially liable. So, in a country where anyone can be branded a felon at the discretion of the U.S. attorney, it does trouble me that this issue is not even up for discussion. In fact the framers' intention for the second amendment is just dismissed as kooky. The Federalist papers are pretty clear. They were not talking about hunting rights, personal protection, or the need to defend against foreign enemies. They were talking about how an American-style revolution would be impossible in the despotic states of Europe who banned ownership of firearms. Yes, we were formed by 18th Century redicals, and part of the sales pitch of the Bill of Rights, was the idea, should the State become despotic, militia could rise up against it. This does not mean the time is ripe for revolution. This does not mean any revolution would be easy. But at this rate most of us will be felons by the end of the century, and revolution would be impossible. And the glib response that how would firearms help you against drones or nuclear weapons is a fallacious premise. If the State suthority is down to using drones and nukes, one could argue, the revolution has won. I do not advocate revolution. I do not even oppose reasonable licensing and restrictions on firearms, but I would like the debate to include a serious consideration of the civil liberties issues. I live in the state of Louisiana where the drug laws have been used to decimate the families of the descendants of slaves, round up the young men from that community and force them to perform manual labor for the State for free for the rest of their lives. So, we brand them felons, and take away their rights to vote and bear arms, without any outcry. It is not kooky to be a little concerned about the lack of open dialogue on this, when we discuss things like univeraal backround checks. I thought I would post this here, because Bill Maher is very smart and he does understand the nuances of issues. I'm unaffiliated with any organization, but if you need someone to make a reasoned argument, I am available.
Bill, have you seen Jim Carrey's song re Charleton Heston's 'cold dead hand' comment ?
Heres a funny video on gun control.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paNddyu0CiY
screw you and your bodyguards pussy
Your lack of humor in reference to the Boston terrorist acts on Friday evening was in poor taste.
Hell yes let's outlaw guns, smoking, owning personal property, not having insurance, drinking alcohol, punishing unruly kids, dirty underwear, elections, and smiling at strangers. At what point do we no longer call ourselves a free country? I have no idea where Mr. Maher is getting this idea that 90% of the population wants gun control but I have no doubt that it's a trumped up bullshit number that somebody pulled out of their ass to try and make a valid case. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" How is it that these few simple words can be so confusing? I'll tell you how. People who don't like them are trying to twist them up any way they can to mold their meaning into a better fit with their opinion. Oh gee, Hmm, "the people" what could that mean? Well obviously "people" should be defined as persons who belong to military or police forces, or are otherwise employed by the government. The rest of the population should be defined as either subjects or suspects, depending on their attitude about "people." I don't want crazy people to have guns anymore than anyone else does. But if we start letting the gun grabbers rip apart the constitution and imposing new background check laws, it's only a matter of time before we are subject to the government defining and deciding who is qualified or not qualified to own a gun. Background checks will soon become psychological evaluations for all gun owners and prospective buyers. eventually the government will be the only ones with guns. Of course, I guess I can really see any reason we shouldn't trust them with that power. After all they have always been perfectly honest with us, completely transparant, prudent with our money, concerned with our welfare, and more than fair in every aspect to all of us tax paying subjects.
Thank you Bill! When I was in 7th grade (I'm 45), I made a speech in favor of Gun Control. It was unpopular then, and in my backward state of Tennessee, it's very unpopular now. The constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about allowing people to own machine guns. It doesn't say ANYTHING about background checks, or even a need to have and own, and carry a gun over and beyond defending your need to insure your safety or protect your food. Tennessee was listed as the 10th state in the union for mental health disease and obesity. So, what are you going to do, give the crazies guns so they can protect their food??? I am a Christian. The courage to give my speech when I was in 7th grade came from my Christian background. My Dad is a Methodist minister. There is a contradiction between Thou Shalt Not Kill and having a gun. Guns were made for one thing - to hurt and KILL! I wish Jesus would come back to the United States today and see how his "so called" followers profess such hurt and killing. That is not what Jesus wanted. Why doesn't this country WAKE UP!!! Bill said tonight that 90% of Americans want more strict laws on background checks. Why WHY WHY would strict background checks change the constitution? And . . . the constitution was written 200 years ago, maybe it's OK to change a document that was written SO LONG AGO! Every ammendment to the constitution is a change. What's so wrong with CHANGE?!?!?!?! I am ashamed of how we allow the NRA to use there MONEY to strong arm the senate and congress. Furthermore, I AGREE with Bill, states with larger populations should have more senators and congressmen. The people need to be allowed to SPEAK! I live in a red state and I'm an Elementary School Teacher. My state is actually considering allowing TEACHERS to be armed. If that actually happens, I will hire a lawyer, and fight for my rights. I DO NOT want teachers in my school building carrying a weapon. It was bad enough to sit in Panera Bread, in a nice, quiet sub burb of Nashville, and hear a guy talk about how proud he was to have a gun on him. Oh yeah, Panera bread is SO DANGEROUS. REALLY??? Get a grip! When I was in 7th grade I never EVER imagined that I might work in a school building as an adult where teachers carried guns. WOW!!!
You're an idiot Vic.
I would just like to address an issue with you Bill. I seen a show of yours where you were attacking gun control. You said that the 2nd amendment right is not valid in today's society. Well to say the least you are just plain stupid. It did have a more practical use back then but at the same time it was also meant for you to defend yourself from enemies even if those enemies are in your own country. It was also put in place to ensure the government never had to much power over the people as the people are suppose to be the ones in charge of the country. Next think of this lets go with your idea and take all guns away from the people that have them legally. Now since America is one of the biggest imports of black market things like I don't know GUNS! now you have criminals still packing illegal guns just like now except they can just rob anybody they like as they know your not armed. If this isn't bad enough if you look at the real problem it has nothing to do with guns because if I set a loaded gun on the table it will not shoot you or me unless some idiot pulls the trigger therefore guns are not killing people. People are killing people and this is happening because the younger generation are not properly disciplined. This is because idiots like yourself posing all these regulations on the people of this country making it hard to discipline your kids. If I spank my child I could possibly lose my child because CPS thinks I should only put my child in time out. I am only allowed to spank my child if I leave no red marks like that will do any good as the child would laugh at you. However if I am a crackhead and completely neglect my child the CPS would have a much harder time doing anything about this. You didn't have young people walking in schools and killing everyone when I was growing up and the guns were here just the same as now. The difference is young people knew that was their ass if they did something so stupid and horrible.
The ENTIRE gun control debate would be ended if people just watched this 2 minute clip of Ronald Reagan advocating gun control in 1989!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG4V_6pCLVo
Please watch this clip of President Reagan and share!
You want to register guns just like cars? Seems sensible enough until you consider that over a million cars are stolen each year. Also, a pistol is a lot easier to hide in your backpack than a Kia.
So, why beat around the bush? We should just go full-out and ban guns entirely. They can't steal what isn't there, right? A complete ban would eliminate the problem of bad people getting and using firearms, just like it has in Mexico.
(While we're at it, we should go ahead and ban methamphetamine manufacture and use. That way people won't be able to get that horrible stuff either.)
Of course, we keep running back into the age old problem of bad people not really giving a rat's ass about what laws we pass.
Maybe you should get on Youtube and look for "3D printed guns" and then come back here and tell me what law is going to keep you safe from that.
Bill, I want to set you straight on one issue: The US military and combined police forces would have zero chance against an armed population.
My grandfather climbed the cliffs at Point du Hoc, Omaha Beach, during the first wave while serving as an Army Ranger. My father spilled blood in VietNam while serving as a front-line combat medic with the 4th infantry. I served as an Army paratrooper during Desert Storm.
Nuclear weapons are next to useless against a dispersed guerilla force. There will be no massed tank formations ripe for the nuking. No, holding territory requires boots on the ground. There are over 22 million veterans in this country. 10's of millions more hunters and even more casual shooters.
These would not be the malnourished and uneducated goat-herders that the military is used to fighting. We have the same skills. We are clever and resourceful. We know the territory. And we know our enemy.
You don't have to kill a tank. One only needs to kill the fuel truck that supplies it.
The military forces are few and suffer from a reliance on supply lines. Thanks to our rugged and varied terrain, ambush will be far easier than out on the flat desert plains of Iraq.
The entire Marine Corps could not hope to hold a medium sized state, much less Texas.
Also, there will be divisions within the military.
If you take the guns, we will be at the mercy of a future dictatorship. Period.
You display awesome common sense on the issues of drugs, etc.
Please apply some of that common sense to guns.
http://www.incrediblethings.com/style-and-gear/a-caterpillar-that-looks-like-a-toupee/
the answer to where Trumps hair is made
Fine.
No problem with the protection. He IS the President. Tur enough. Can't do anything about that, unfortunately.
Now, Obama care. This is another subject. The President and all of our "public servants" in the Senate and House of Reps. If they are going to MANDATE consumption of such a thing, they should most certainly NOT be able to have a waiver from it.
Just saying.
There is just as much problem in the Left with obsessing over guns, as there is with the Right.
Democrats have stopped working toward a fairer society, and weather it is guns, bombs or kitchen knives, America will grow more and more unsafe, until we deal with the equality problems of our society. President Eisenhower believed that a happy, prosperous nation was the best recipe for national security, and somehow that has been transformed today into "life is unfair, so just go die in peace". Rather than combating the causes of violence, liberals are now embracing an equally stupid form of authoritarianism by actively working to make desperate people even more vulnerable and powerless, and thus MORE DANGEROUS.
Society only wins if everybody wins. Anything less will eventually spiral into everyone loosing. Guns are just a tool, but there are many tools that societies process with to achieve balance. removing guns slows the process, but nothing can stop it.
it is amazing that these tea baggers and other hate groups have the nerve to get upset about the IRS thing that they were singled out, but it's ok when people of color get singled out. BOO HOO! Now you know what the rest of us feel like. doesn't feel good does it?
Even responsible people don't get it. My Dad was a responsible cop. He had his service revolver in a locked case hidden in his room. When he went out to mow his yard ME as a 4th grader knew where it was and how to pick the lock so I could play quick draw. I am now 62.
When I had kids the guns I owned went bye bye. I assumed my kids were at least as smart as I. Anyone who has kids should not own guns period unless you really don't care about your kids.
hahaha, you guys to the south are so funny. Everybody needs a gun and 1% is in jail.......man am I glad I moved back to Canada as soon as Bush was declared president.
To clarify, I was talking about the US, not Mexico. I felt the point warranted clarification.
And no, I don't want to bring a gun into my home. I am a parent and believe the statistics show that by doing so I would be increasing the odds of my child being shot. Why would I do that?
What I wouldn't want to do is to criminalize individuals in large numbers, say the highest level of incarceration in the world for example, and then take this society and arm everyone with assault riffles! Good luck with that.
I think this is one of the most important information for me. And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The site style is ideal, the articles is really great. Judi Bola Ibcbet
Thank you for your very nice article, do not forget to read my articles also
kata kata cinta
status fb lucu
kata kata galau
and many other interesting articles on my blog that.
Post a Comment