“Let me ask you this question about guns . . . does it really matter if we are banning certain guns because I see that the liberals they talk about guns — I’m not a gun expert — but I see a lot of people talking a lot about guns who don’t know shit about guns. It’s like when the Pope talks about vaginas.”

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

Recommended For You

44 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Bill Mahr Tells The Truth About Guns [Strong Language]

  1. “I’m not a gun expert.”

    Wanna be? Come on down to Chattanooga, I’ll take you to the range.

  2. The cognitive dissonance on the left is amazing to witness. In less than five minutes, Bergara claims that 90% of Americans want more gun control, yet after the AWB was passed, the Dems lost 56 House seats (across the country, I would add). He praises the American people – the 90% he imagines, anyway – that want more gun control, and then turns right around and blames the American people because they continue to vote Dems out of office whenever they make gun control a central issue.

    It must be exhausting being a leftist, what with constantly having to juxtaposition facts and opinions that are mutually exclusive, constantly being on guard for any perceived infraction against their narratives, and especially constantly being offended when such slights occur.

    Maybe if they ate less kale and took more naps they could become sentient adults.

    • Did you notice the bit where he implied, “The American people are so stupid, they voted us out of office for saving them from themselves?”

      Talk about looking down upon the peons. This dude can take his uppity viewpoint of Americans and shove it up his backside. Doesn’t he understand the reason Brexit happened is because people are walking up to their Globalist, elitist yak squeeze and telling them to FO?

      • Their world view will not support that level of understanding. As soon as you think the American people are morons, you set the stage for whatever resistance occurs, and then explain it away by saying the American people are morons. The left is only proud of the American people – and democracy for that matter – when it advances their narrative. They basically think we need our betters to run our lives.

        I can only hope that now the Dems have gone all in for gun control, the pushback at the ballot box happens again, but I am less certain of that this year than in past 20 years.

        • “As soon as you think the American people are morons…”

          This. Dehumanize your enemy, separate them from you, and it makes it easier to justify whatever you need to do to them.

          The only saving grace is that the libs are often not religious people, or at least haven’t erected a god they will pray to. After dehumanizing your enemy, believing that your actions against the enemy are sanctioned by a deity of some sort, is the quickest way to the bottom of society. I’d bet most of your genocide can put into those 2 categories.

        • Ummm, no Bob. The left does have a diety, it is called the state. And they do commit genocide in their worship, it is called being pro-choice, and the result has been over 50 million murderered of the un-born.

          Then, of course, there is the hundreds of millions murdered of those that survived the womb around the world in the last hundred years, killed by those proclaiming no belief in G-d, beyond the state.

      • The criteria for not being a stupid moron is what ? I find this to be one of the most amusing aspects of all those who truly believe themselves to be smarter than another . I could and never be so presumptive .
        I think the greatest evidence of smartness , wisdom and functionality , is how well a person could survive and help others survive in a crisis , when there is nothing and no one to depend on but yourself and as in my case , my absolute faith in God .
        Could you fabricate a boat if you were caught Katrina ?
        Could you hunt , fish , trap and grow your own food ?
        Can you make your own shelter , pro heat and sanitation ?
        Can you diagnose a fix a broken on un-functioning engine ?
        Could you function any firearm or repair one to function ?
        Could you manufacture your own ammunition ?
        Could you plant , grow , harvest and store your own grains ?
        Could you turn your harvest into bread or meals for consumption ?
        Can you turn a piece of steel into a tool ?
        I would much rather have a neighbor with these skills than a book smart leach with no practical skills for survival . I don’t presume to know the skillset of Mr. Mahr but his arrogance speaks volumes to me .

    • >> Bergara claims that 90% of Americans want more gun control, yet after the AWB was passed, the Dems lost 56 House seats (across the country, I would add).

      It may come as a surprise to many people on this blog, but not only do most Americans vote on issues other than guns, guns aren’t a #1 issue for them, either.

  3. I don’t always agree with Bill Mahr. But at least he takes the time to actually know stuff. And you actually had some other notable lefties point out, yeah there’s problems with secret government lists. (of course not that political shitbag hack on the left can’t remember his name.) The gun control situation is bad and full of the usual BS, but it is subtlety different than years ago when it was just like 10 a-holes at a couple newspapers who actually determined that the left’s message was.

  4. Nice, they complain that Congressmen don’t know f*ck about guns and are trying to pass gun legislation and they, none of them, know the facts about how people in America truly feel about guns. They think 90% want gun control? I don’t think so. And they also don’t know the first thing about the Constitution. For starters, if they think it needs a re-write, there is a function for that called an Article V Convention of the States. Secondly, they totally ignore that ALL of the anti-gun legislation they are crying for is in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

    The three minutes I could stand of this video are the most Bill Maher I have watched in the last 10 years. Now I remember why.

    • That “90%” figure has been thrown around relentlessly ever since Sandy Hook. The first time I heard it, my first reaction was, “I wonder who, exactly, the NY Times polled to get that number…” So, I dug, and dug, and dug, and dug some more, and I could find absolutely nothing that spelled out what demographics of Americans and from what regions people were polled.

      I mean, if the entire poll was taken from an equal number of democrats and republicans who were all living in Manhattan, then obviously you’d have a result that is nowhere near a reflection of what Americans actually feel.

      Second, the poll was taken immediately after news of Sandy Hook broke, when the country was freaking out like a bunch of rabid chimpanzees. So, making sound, rational decisions about new gun laws wasn’t exactly on the table at that point.

      • If memory serves, the question simply asked in a very general way about the desirability of background checks. Of course they got 90%. Almost everyone believes background checks are a good thing.

        From there, they did the standard progressive truth-twisting. 90% of those polled accept something that already exists — so they go from there to claiming that those same people support MORE of that thing. Never mind that that’s not what the question was.

        • I believe the question was phrased something like “should there be background checks on all gun sales, or not?”

          The problem with this phrasing is what does the respondent interpret the “or not” to mean? Does it mean “or the current status quo, where background checks are done on sales by dealers or sales across state lines?” Or does it mean “or no background checks at all?” Or something else?

          What exactly that “or not” expands to in the minds of respondents affects their answers. My theory is, many people knowing nothing about how gun purchasing works, expanded it to “or no background checks at all. It’s not hard to see a question like that getting a 90-10 split.

  5. No fly no buy is BS backdoor gun grabbing. Maher is a leftist tool. Hollyweird millionaires and political hacks hiding behind layers of armed security, debating how the “masses” should be disarmed. Pure unadulterated scum that gives credence to Isis talking points.

  6. I’m sorry, but I couldn’t take more than 2:22 minutes of this blathering on….
    Was there any point in the video clip where they explained how passing the “no fly, no buy” law would have prevented the Pulse shooting?

  7. OK Page 1 rewrite. Here you go, 1st amendment, dumb a$$’ who never shot a gun are forbid from ever talking about them, liberals are stopped from ever talking at all.
    There is my rewrite.

  8. Does anyone stop to consider if there should be a “Terror Watch List” or a “No Fly List” on the first place? I recognize these lists have “perceived value”. but when the Federal Government is allowed to create, keep and use any sort of list to identify and take action against any Citizen, there’s something innately wrong with that. Oh, and the hell with illegals, those here on Visas or anyone else here who is not a U.S. Citizen but present long-term within our Borders.
    So, I am saying the debate over these gun laws is basically piling one tyranny on top of another. Neither should be permitted where U.S. Citizens are concerned.

    • It’s also worth asking anyone up to and including Janet “The System Worked” Napolitano when the watch list has stopped a single incident.

      • The FBI has stated publicly on several occasions that it has interrupted terrorist plots and made arrests.

        • Even though there are just as many reports commissioned by the White House that have found that those secret (and highly illegal) watch lists have actually done only sweet fuck all to stop terrorists.

    • Are you suggesting that there is no public interest in the government investigating potential criminal conduct and the people who might commit it? Well then, I guess we shouldn’t investigate drug gangs, the Mexican Cartels and Italian Mafias…If you believe that, let me tell you about this bridge in NY that’s for sale.

  9. At least Maher acknowledged that AR does not stand for Assault Rifle and the difference between semiautomatic fire and automatic fire. I’ll give him props for that. And, yes guns are designed to kill things, but mostly tastesy things to eat, things that would eat you, those whom are a threat of great bodily harm/death and inanimate objects

  10. Private security… Makes me wonder if I could make a private security corporation. Hire myself as the sole employee. Then hire the corporation (it’s a person remember) to protect me…

    Heck, we could all form a huge security corporation. Hire ourselves. Then set up protection contracts for ourselves. If we all went in on it it would be a huge corporation!

    • I’ve pondered this exact line of thinking myself. Of course, I’m sure big government would require you to obtain a private security license, and then revoke or deny them at will.

      Fact is, I AM my own security. Always will be. And I am the primary security for my family. Once my wife has enough training to feel more confident with CCW, she will be 2nd in Command.

  11. Amazing, Maher isn’t the dumbest POS in that clip. Yes Bill, the UK royalist parliamentary system really is a great thing to model.

    Begala – Morons don’t get to define who is an idiot. A gun lover? Sure tell us about Monica.

    Shut up Steele you RINO quotababy.

    Libtards on TV talking guns is just TV clickbait.

  12. Listening to Bill Maher is akin to listening to my MIL; I can only take about 30 seconds at a time. He’s right that anti gun politicians and journalists don’t know sh*t about guns but he’s wrong about everything else. On the other hand, nothing Begala says makes any sense which is a good thing because I can’t stand the sound of his voice and can’t hit the mute button fast enough when his mouth starts to open.
    Lastly, it only takes about 20 seconds to defeat the whole no-fly no buy theory which Mateen had been taken off of by the FBI. That is the fact we should be hitting btw. What difference does it make if we have a “list” that actual terrorists don’t qualify for or get taken off of?

  13. Sorry-not watching this dip-shite. Even a stopped clock like Maher is right once in awhile. His vile attacks on all religions,support for baby murder and general disdain for “regular” American values makes me think he MAY have a sinister AGENDA…

  14. I managed to last into the sixth minute. The former Md. Lt. Governor revealed that he’s a RINO. Sandy Hook was not a flaw in the background check system. It was a flaw by the shooter’s mother in not keeping her weapons secure.

    The absolute worst time to discuss anything requiring cold, clear logic, is after a disaster, yet people like Paul Bugala make comments straight from the Saul Alinski playbook; “never let a crisis go to waste”. He also continues to throw out the canard about the 2nd Amendment and hunting.

  15. Maher isn’t the first person to notice how American conservatives and leftists resemble each other in their ignorance of technical facts relevant to the reproductive health & gun policy issues, respectively.

    It’s incredibly difficult to convince someone to compromise with you after it becomes clear that, not only are you ignorant of scientific fact, but you’re also unwilling to correct yourself.

  16. Maher is usually pretty good on calling out bullshit. A number of pretty awful assertions went unchallanged there, but he’s absolutely right that the most outspoken people on gun control don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. One of the best solutions to that is quality research. That’s the one thing gun control advocates have right in the current push: prohibition on public money going to support gun violence research doesn’t make any damn sense. Fund some studies. Look at the results. Shut up gun control advocates with hard data showing they’re completely off base. I’ve never understood how pro gunners could decry the ignorance of the left on guns and then oppose funding research to conclusively demonstrate that ignorance. Worried that there may be some sham studies funded that simply support an ideological goal? Guess what? That already happens without public funding (see the recent Lancet model examining the “causal relationship” between gun legislation and gun violence), but the beautiful thing about those studies is that they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Some will be bad. Some will be good. We can tell them apart and use the good ones to convince people to stop advocating for feckless gun control policy. Or at least publicly shame them when they do.

    • I’m a True Believer in the notion that an objective, double-blind scientific study is the most reliable way we have to either validate or disprove an argument. I also believe that the results of a rigorous epidemiological study of gun violence would challenge cherished assumptions on all position points of the gun control debate. However, I also doubt that an objective, unbiased study is even possible now, given how polarized the American medical community has become on this issue. It’d be like commissioning The Clinton Foundation to study how foreign governments influence the American political process via campaign contributions.

      NRA leadership screwed us on this issue. However many years ago, the NRA struck a position of unqualified opposition to using federal funds for public health research on gun violence. Physicians and scientists who may have otherwise been neutral on the issue interpreted the NRA’s stance as a criminal suspect pleading the fifth. Twenty years on, that’s the consensus (unfounded) opinion in those circles. The notion that organizations like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) will be able to suspend a quarter century of political contempt and conduct genuinely unbiased studies seems highly unlikely, to say the least. When we consider that federal funding will likely be allocated in the form of grants to research universities (UCLA? Harvard Medical?), the idea becomes laughable.

      At this point, we’re left with one option if we truly want objective, rigorous scientific data on the epidemiology of gun violence: outsource it. Contract a top-tier foreign research university to do the study. Ensure the researchers leading the study have no prior involvement in discussions of gun violence in their own nations, the US, or elsewhere. Give them a broad mandate, obscene funding, and then leave them alone and let them do their jobs.

  17. These people seem to believe that guns are the only dangerous things in the world. They want to deny the fact that getting on the terrorist watchlist without any due process whatsoever would be abused and abused grievously. If the terrorist watchlist is such a good reason to restrict rights, why stop at gun rights?

    If you’re on the terrorist watchlist, should you be able to take out a second mortgage or a line of credit? What would prevent someone from funnelimg that money to terrorist organizations?

    If you’re on the terrorist watchlist, should you really have the right to free speech? What would prevent somebody from using the Internet to promote terrorist ideology to be used for recruitment or plan terrorist attacks?

    As you can see, once you open the spicket, there would be no stopping it. What would prevent Hillary Clinton and a majority Democrat congress or even so-called conservative Republicans from mandating automatic IRS audits or a thousand other infringements in the interest of security?

    Our nation’s founders certainly understood that evil exists. And yet, they preferred to keep speech, religion, arms, due process, the right to face your accuser in court before your liberty or property could be taken and other rights inalienable nonetheless.

    They did these things because they understood that individual liberty trumps security and if you reverse that, then you have nothing left worth fighting for because in fact you have no rights but only privileges granted to you by your rulers. This is of course the dictionary definition of slavery,

  18. Flipping stations last weekend, I came across Bill Maher starring in an episode of “Murder She Wrote.” How the hell did he get a political talk show?!

  19. If we’re all going to fight the future for freedom, life, liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. Shouldn’t be doing more that posting comments on a Pro2@ mags site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *