Bill Maher Takes on Gun Rights Fanatics: “Our Gun Laws Are So Crazy, Even Crazy People Know That They’re Crazy”

bill-maher-1If there’s one thing I do like about Bill Maher, it’s that his show is one of the few out there where almost no topic is off limits.  He brings conservatives and liberals together to discuss a wide array of current events issues, and his format opens the door for a more candid discussion than one might have on a network show.

Well, the topic of guns was discussed and Maher (as usual) went after guns rights defenders for some of the asinine stances they take when it comes to this issue.  Maher believes that when it comes to guns even Democrats are too afraid to come out strongly against them, and that our gun laws are so ridiculous that even the most recent Fort Hood shooter, Ivan Lopez, mocked on his Facebook account how easy it was for people with mental health issues to obtain guns.

“Our gun laws are so crazy, even crazy people know that they’re crazy,” Maher said.

And he’s right.  While I support our Second Amendment (and own guns myself), the lack of common sense people display when it comes to guns is astounding.

Even when President Obama proposed making background checks universal, limiting magazine capacity and restricting access to some military style semi-automatic assault rifles, gun rights advocates lost their minds as if he was calling for a full confiscation of every gun they owned.  Every single one of those regulations could have been passed and 97% of gun owners would have never even noticed.

Heck, since Obama has been in office the NRA and other gun rights fanatics have continued to perpetuate the idea that he’s “coming for their guns,” yet five years into his presidency he shown absolutely no intention of doing so.  Yet these people continue to claim that it’s still “part of his plan.”

Then again, fear mongering often leads to a spike in gun and ammo sales – and who do you think sponsors the NRA and these gun rights advocacy groups?  Oh, that’s right, the gun industry.

The fact of the matter is, while our Second Amendment grants Americans the right to own guns, to deny that guns have anything to do with this country’s very serious gun violence problem is absurd.

It’s just amazing to me that when it comes to the debate over sensible gun regulations, it seems to render so many people incapable of stepping away from the propaganda and embracing even the slightest bit of common sense.


Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Jim Bean

    “Our gun laws are so crazy, even crazy people know that they’re crazy,” I note a couple of things. (1) If a conservative uses the term ‘retarded’, liberals call him a disgusting bigot. If Maher uses the term ‘crazy’ liberals call him an unparalleled genius. (2) Maher inadvertently hits upon an aspect that is out of reach for liberals, and that is that mentally disturbed people DO still have rational thoughts – such as knowing to avoid seeking treatment for mental health issues if they want to own guns (should that become a larger disqualifier than it already is.)

    • Gary Smith

      WTF? Are you under the (mistaken, I might add) impression Liberals think that disturbed individuals have no rational thought at all? That’s a strawman argument, slappy: no one thinks that. The vast majority of people with mental issues get along in their lives relatively well.

      But the vast majority of people with mental health problems who don’t seek treatment do so because of a] lack of access (no insurance, unable to afford it) and b] the fear of being socially stigmatized.

      “Want to own guns” as a reason? Only a true idiot would come up with a reason that laughable.

      • Jim Bean

        You think a ‘smart’ person would conclude a mentally ill person, aware that seeking mental health treatment might temporarily or permanently disqualify him from owning a gun as was his desire, would have no bearing on his decision to seek treatment? Maybe you’re right. But you must admit, it defies logic.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I doubt that is what mentally ill people are thinking. Some don’t think they need treatment (see Ted Nugent).

  • Sandy Greer

    Our gun laws are so crazy, even crazy people have guns.

  • auntielib

    One impressive example of crazy gun laws are the “Gun Free Zones” that the Progressives have created. Like schools, movie theatres, and even military bases, for example. You know, where the mass shootings occur. Thanks, Progs, thanks a lot.

    • pfair143

      Most gunmen choose their killing sites because they have a personal connection to it.
      If more guns, and access to more guns, is the answer to curbing shooting sprees, then why haven’t more guns curbed shooting sprees? (Media Matters)
      Upon entering a military base, the first person you see (guard) is wearing a gun.
      You’re welcome.

      • Brian Novotny

        You know the fool aint playin with a full deck when they got an image of a Duck Dynasty red neck as their avatar.

      • surfjac

        he’s “Irrelevant”.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Upon entering a military base, the first person you see (guard) is wearing a gun”

        lets see fort hood… military base…check soldiers on base not allowed to have guns because of law passed and signed by Bill clinton…Check well here is a list of shooting on military bases that wouldn’t have been had soldiers been carrying side arms.

        “Among President Clinton’s firstacts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.
        In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presenceis stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.”

        Violence hit Fort Hood again Wednesday, when an Iraq
        War veteran opened fire on the base, killing three and injuring 16 others before committing suicide.

        March 2014: A sailor was killed while trying to stop a gunman attempting to board a ship in Norfolk, Va. Authorities say Petty Officer 2nd Class Mark Mayo, 24, jumped between the civilian shooter and a another sailor, saving her life. The alleged gunman, Jeffrey Savage, was killed by Navy security forces.

        September 2013: Twelve people died and four were injured after a government contractor opened fire inside the Navy Yard complex in Washington, D.C., committing one of the worst attacks at a U.S. military installation since the November 2009 killing of 13 at Fort Hood. Gunman Aaron Alexis, who had just recently begun an assignment at the site, was shot and killed by officers. Authorities later said that Alexis, who appeared to target his victims at random, “held a delusional belief that he was being controlled or influenced by extremely low frequency, or ELF, electromagnetic waves.”

        November 2009: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan carried out the largest mass murder at a military installation in American history, opening fire on dozens of unarmed soldiers at
        a medical deployment center at Fort Hood, Texas. Thirteen were killed and another 32 were wounded. Hasan was sentenced to death.

        October 1995: Sgt. William J. Kreutzer Jr. went on a shooting spree at Fort Bragg, N.C., killing one officer and wounding 18 soldiers, members of the 82nd Airborne Division, as they participated in morning physical training exercises. He was
        sentenced to life in prison.

        June 1994: Airman Dean Mellberg opened fire at the Fairchild Air Force Base hospital outside Spokane, Wash., killing four people and wounding 23 before a security
        officer killed him.

      • pfair143

        I work on a military base and have for over 30 years. The first person to greet you at the entrance to the base is a guard or military police, all with holstered guns strapped at fingertip level and sometimes an AR16 slung over their back. Sometimes there is even a K9 with them. It’s nice that you can read but killings on military bases does not mean there is no armed police there. If no arms are allowed , how would people get shot? As proof of the armed guard situation, I suggest you enter a military base, stop and speak nice to the guards (you will know them by the guns they are wearing) before they escort you off. Just act lost and not wacko.

      • Charles Vincent

        Yes they are “at the entrance” and just like polices they only arrive in time to draw a chalk line around your corpse. And apparently the people that shot up those bases had a gun on the base(against the law) and those guards at the entrance didn’t stop them. So yeah gun free zones don’t work Chief.

      • pfair143

        So are you saying the good guys with guns can’t stop the bad guys with guns?

      • Charles Vincent

        No I am saying police with guns can’t, but people like the soldiers and private citizens who do carry can stop the bad guys with guns and do it handily. Read the news man good guys(aka private citizens) stopping bad guys with guns is all over you just need to look.

      • pfair143

        Well, the police with guns on bases are soldiers. But if I understand you correctly, the police soldiers (guards and MPs) on bases must first remove their police id in order to become plain soldiers or perhaps further disrobe to become a private citizen in order to stop the bad guys. Once they do this it will become obvious who the good guys are because only regular soldiers and private citizens can handily stop bad guys. And obviously federal, state, county and city police with guns can’t stop bad guys because police can’t be good guys because they are not soldiers or private citizens.
        And gun free zones can’t work because the good and bad guys keep bringing guns into them.
        In any case, there will be another shooting today. Are you on your way?

      • Charles Vincent

        “the police soldiers (guards and MPs) on bases must first remove their police id in order to become plain soldiers or perhaps further disrobe to become a private citizen”

        check your reading comprehension chief that is not what I said.

        For reference; “but people like the soldiers and private citizens” note what I said indicates soldiers and not just the MP’s It means every soldier on the base should be armed is that clear enough?

        “And gun free zones can’t work because the good and bad guys keep bringing guns into them.”

        Really good guys that obey the laws don’t bring guns there are you truly that obtuse?

        “In any case, there will be another shooting today. Are you on your way?”

        No which is why people should carry so that they can defend themselves. You sir have an extraordinary gift for Agumentum Absurdum.

        ” And obviously federal, state, county and city police with guns can’t stop bad guys because police”

        Police have no duty to protect you but i guess you missed that as well.

        Again for reference;

        http://www DOT nytimes DOT com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus DOT html?_r=0

      • pfair143

        My “argumentum absurdum”, which is really only sarcasm, was based directly on your illogic.

        Your first statement that no guns are allowed on military bases was proven to be wrong in that you admitted military police who are also soldiers carry guns on bases. Then it changed to: well they can’t really protect you if they are military police; only regular soldiers and private citizens can do that. The absurdity of that statement belongs to you.

        If all good guys with guns are not marked by some distinction, like a uniform or badge, how can you tell the good from the bad? Will good guys end up shooting other good guys making them the bad guy in the process much like a comic circular firing squad? This sarcasm belongs to me.

        The whole reason for ‘good guys killing bad guys’ was birthed by NRA to sell more guns for manufacturers and they are making a killing. (note more sarcasm) What “man” wouldn’t want to be a hero and save a child from a bad guy. But in this zeal of thinking emotionally and not logically, children are still dying but it’s by the hand of good guy ignorance now. In many cases they are killing each other. We have gone directly from bad guys with guns to “bad children” with guns. (not sarcasm )

        But as long as we can feel better about ourselves and pretend that we can be somebody’s hero, so what.

      • Charles Vincent

        No it wasn’t chief. Clinton signed it and essentially disarmed all soldiers on a base I even linked the details. Man you’re daft.
        Illogic…nice straw-man argument.
        Keep blaming everything under the sun but the actual problem bud now I know why people like you still blame bush.

      • pfair143

        Except that military police who are also soldiers are not disarmed.
        BTW, women also work on military bases.
        Have a good day.

      • Charles Vincent

        Well there is that flare for the obvious again I already mentioned that in the Clinton link I posted earlier learn too read;
        “Except that military police who are also soldiers are not disarmed.”

        My you’re myopic today. The MP’s are just like their civilian counter parts the Police, they arrive just in time to draw that chalk line and bag your dead body.

        “BTW, women also work on military bases.”

        This is totally irrelevant and a poor attempt to obfuscate your weak ass argument. Have a good day being willfully ignorant.

      • James Gallagher

        I served on active duty from 1986 until 2000 in the Army. At NO time during that period, including before 1993, were we permitted to just strap on a side arm and stroll around the post. I had privately owned firearms, a hunting rifle, two shotguns and a handgun that were required to be checked in with the unit armorer and were signed out the same as I would if I were getting my M16A3, M-60/ SAW or Beretta sidearm out for field or range use. When my private weapons were signed out, they were cased before leaving the armory and taken to the range or to wherever I was taking them (because I did hunt on sections of a couple posts I was stationed) and then taken from the case, loaded, used and returned to the armory after cleaning. I even kept several cases of shotgun shells, pistol ammo and boxes of rifle ammo in the armory. All of my firearms and ammo were registered with the post military police (as became the norm under Pentagon orders in 2010) and subject to inspection by the MPs on a monthly basis.

        The moral is that at no time, at least in the last 30 years have any military personnel, with the exception of the military police or having been issued weapons for training or other purposes, been “permitted” open or concealed carry on a U.S. military installation. Nor have any civilian (with certain exceptions of federal law enforcement like Secret Service, CID or NCIS) been permitted to bring a firearm onto a U.S. military installation without looking at a LONG time cooling their heels in a jail cell. Period. End of story.

      • Charles Vincent

        Not sure I get where your going this is exactly what I was trying to tell the other guy. And I know that it was Bill Clinton that signed the law that made it so you had to follow what you laid out. I frankly think it’s ridiculous and had any of the soldiers been allowed thier side arm perhaps the active shooters would be the ones dead quick.

      • Charles Vincent

        This is what I was talking about;

        “Among President Clinton’s firstacts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.
        In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.”

      • C Lively

        actually, in states where concealed carry and gun ownership restrictions are have been significantly loosened, gun violence has fallen dramatically.

        You can read More Guns, Less Crime, by John Lott and verify this.

    • Eg Kbbs

      Uh auntie, WHICH PRESIDENT was it that established military bases as gun free zones (and same question for reauthorizing it) ? Oh, and was that done by a signing statement ? Look it up and find out it was a conservative icon.

      • surfjac

        he’s posting crap for the sake of posting crap.

    • surfjac

      Irrelevant

  • Brian Novotny

    The gun manufacturers also think it is funny and are laughing all the way to the bank.

    • JJ042804

      Undertakers have plenty of work too.

  • Eg Kbbs

    Agree fully that our gun laws are crazy. I’d especially note that gun ownership has no prior requirements for any sort of training or demonstration of competency. However, I know of many a person who fits the colloquial (if not clinical term) of crazy or insane that still argues that our gun laws have too many limitations.

  • Diane Henry

    3 words…. “well regulated militia” I think some people forgot to read those words when interpreting the 2nd Amendment. Its sad…

    • C Lively

      in 1779, “well regulated” meant “well equipped.” and the militia has been interpreted by the courts numerous times to mean “any able bodied adult capable of taking up arms.”

      It also says, the “right of the people to keep.” which means that We keep them ourselves, and it says “bear” meaning “to carry and be ready to use.”

      The whole idea here is that when The People have the power to fight back against a lawless and unconstitutional government or enemy force, that force must first consider the risk of offending their liberty.

      I highly suggest reading The Federalist Papers, and Paine’s Common Sense to gain a little perspective on the issue before you commit yourself to a mistaken ideology that you only get to make once.

  • ForceCSW

    Shall not be infringed.

    • Droosies

      Well regulated militia. Can’t put land choose. This Isn’t the Bible.

      • Droosies

        Pick and choose.*

      • ForceCSW

        The portion about the well regulated militia is an absolute clause. It was a common construction in the 18th century that modifies the entire sentence. It in no way implies that the right of the people to bear arms is somehow contingent on the existence of a well-regulated militia. You should feel bad I have to teach you basic grammar in addition to basic constitutional law.

    • define-ately

      “REGULATED MILITIA”

      reg·u·late

      verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-

      : to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

      : to bring (something) under the control of authority

      : to make rules or laws that control (something)

      ————————————————————————————-
      mi·li·tia

      noun mə-ˈli-shə

      : a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers.

      1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyb : a body of citizens organized for military service

      2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service