Previous Post
Next Post

Yes, yes, an MSNBC “analyst” says she doesn’t heart the second amendment as much as the others. That probably won’t make you fall out of your chair, right? But when noted outdoorsman, hunter and fisherman Bill Engvall goes all squishy and the oleaginous Bill Maher starts spouting boilerplate lefty happy crappy like “it was written in another time and place,” it falls to Darrel Issa (yes that Darrel Issa) to bring the conversation back to the unfamiliar (for that show, anyway) land of reality with a reminder of what the second amendment was really all about – individual liberty and freedom.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. what a stupid B!tch. Ok, here is how it was explained to me in law school about the Bill of Rights (real simple logic). THE BILL OF RIGTS IS F**KING NUMBERED. It lists a bunch of things, namely the things that the King was doing to us as a colony at the time. The things are listed in a particular order to set out what we thought was MOST IMPORTANT AND IN ORDER. Right after freedom of speech and assembly is the right to bear arms. Keep going down the list, and then we list how we select judges, and freedom from unlawful search and right to counsel, etc. The second amendment is second for a reason. How hard is that for this stupid B!tch to understand that without the 2nd amendment, who would protect her stupid liberal ass and her 1st amendment rights?????

    • That’s not really the level of discourse that this conversation demands, or that those who share your position would like to see. When you have a legitimate argument, you don’t immediately devolve into misogynistic ad hominem attacks, swearing and using capital letters.

      Yelling louder doesn’t make you more correct. Keep the high ground.

    • Here is one problem I have always had with this line of reasoning: when does anyone ever act, using “second amendment solutions,” to protect the other rights? No offense, but the government is not afraid of the public, not because we are or are not armed, but because most people do not fundamentally agree with many aspects of our constitution and our laws. For example, during the past administration’s time in office, protesters would be moved to designated protest areas literally blocks from where the president would pass. This is a huge errosion of the first amendment, yet there was no outcry? Also, how many people took up arms to fight the Patriot Act? Clearly, this legislation was and is an incredible infringement on our constitutional rights, but no one said anything about it when it was passed; none of us threatened to revolt. Hell, there was only one senator who had the balls to vote against it. Instead of a national outrage over the Patriot Act, the Republican party was thrilled that they could paint Feingold as un-American, as a sympathizer of terrorists. A pox on both Bush and Obama for signing this law and re-upping it.

      How many Americans took up arms to stop the torture of “known terrorists”? How many have taken up arms to stop this administrations’ huge escalation of drone attacks? How many in the forties tried to stop the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent? Rick Perry has signed off on at least one execution for a person who was provablyinnocent. And we have not done crap to scare the government or hold it in check.

      I am very sorry, but I have a feeling the only amendment that most of us would take up arms to defend is the second.

      • I doubt even that- people would only take up arms when their lives are indanger, as they should. There is absolutely no justification for violence over legislation that was passed by our duly elected officials. The solution for that problem is the voting booth, not bloodshed.

        I completely disagree with the patriot act and the Orwellian turn our govt has taken, but the mechanisms for fixing those issues are in place, and still valid. The fact is that a majority of people foolishly agreed (or were fooled into agreeing) with the principle.

        Same with torture- it’s not the sort of thing you start a rebellion over.

        If the Oakland PD starts ventilating protesters, and then the feds send in the military to back them up and continue violence- THEN there might be a reason to take up arms. Policy disputes? not so much.

        • I agree with you entirely. My post was in response to the proposition that the second amendment protects all the other amendments. I was just arguing that it is not arms that make our government fearful.

          • You’re absolutely right that the first defense is the ballot box. As much as I dislike political litmus tests, perhaps in our next round of municipal elections for mayors, city councils, etc we could ask candidates whether they would have authorized police to enforce laws to break up or relocate protests. Pro- or anti- Occupy,
            we would at least get a clear idea of how far the elected officials closest to us would go in protecting or restricting the 1st Amendment.

        • You could argue the American Revolution was a policy dispute. If a cop came to your door and demanded all your guns would you fight back? That’s precisely why we have the second amendment. To protect ourselves and yet everyone advocates disarming and a lawyer to get your property back. If some of the people illegally seizing guns after Katrina were getting shot, I have a feeling there would have been a lot less illegal gun seizures. I’m not saying violence is the answer every time you disagree with a policy but if you don’t have a point in your life in which violence is the answer then you’re wasting your second amendment rights.

          • I have to disagree with you assessment about fewer guns being confiscated if a few of the officers had been shot while trying to grab guns. Had this happened, I truly believe that Blackwater security, which was in NOLA at the time and deputized by the governor, would have started being very aggressive in confiscating arms from the locals. I think it is just the other way around: after a few people were killed trying to keep their weapons, the rest would have given them up quickly and without incident. Standing up to or exchanging fire with a very well armed and trained mercenaries is not the same as facing down a local law enforcement officer.

  2. I love how the left will, on one hand, talk about how we can never win in Iraq or Afghanistan, but on the other decide that similar guerrilla movements in the US would have no chance of being successful.

    Not to mention, that *we* have the marines, too. How quickly everyone forgets that many of those who want to own firearms for this reason are ex-military, ex-police, or people who have paid gobs of their own money to receive equivalent or better training.

    • Yeah the nuclear option is pretty ridiculous too- you really think any government would ever nuke their own people and have any hope of ever returning to global legitimacy? We’ve attacked other countries for far less, and I’m sure with the US govt as an enemy that we could make some “friends” with nukes too (pakistan I’m looking in your direction).

      They also assume that the military would 100% support the govt. Not a chance. Certainly some would, but there would be massive defection to any rebellion, just like any other country.

      Furthermore- I think we learned that you can’t win a guerrilla war with an occupation. A few million troops wouldn’t even be able to hold all the major cities in this country, let along actually occupy or control everything.

      Besides, the point isn’t to WIN a revolution- it’s to prevent one from being needed with at least some form of mutually assured destruction.

      • Soldiers leaving the ranks and joining the opposition has to do with the perceived legitimacy of the government. If soldiers (generic term, meant to include marines, sailors, and airforce personel) feel the government has legitimacy, then I have a feeling that most of the military would stay with the government. Look at the whiskey rebellion. This rebellion was put down by militias, not professional military, and this was shorty after the Revolution, so I am not sure about your claim that “massive defection” would take place.

        • Fair point- I was assuming we had reached the point where the government was actively using arms against their own people (any arms, let alone nuclear), and I think that would delegitimize the government to the breaking point you describe.

          • Only if the people that the government were using deadly force against were friends of the soldiers or people that they sympathize with. If say 60% of the soldiers have the mentality that civilians shouldn’t own guns and those are the people that the government are killing, then at least 60% of the soldiers would support the government.

  3. Ask little bill where free shit paid for by others is listed in the Constitution, I’d like to end the welfare state before it’s too late. What a bunch of tools. If a 6’5″ 275 guy breaks into her house and attacks her she’ll be wishing there was a gun in her hand. Pompous twit.

    • Wishful thinking. Not that I advocate violence but . . . . . she shouldn’t bother asking for help when it does occur

  4. The big lie here is that almost every amendment in the Bill of Rights is under assault, not just the 2nd! As far as I can tell, only the 3rd Amendment remains secure, and only because the left hates the military.

  5. The pendulum, she is a swingin’! Those who would simply wish away one of our most basic and fundamental NATURAL rights are worth less than the oxygen required to keep them alive! Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting!

  6. Yeah, the whole resisting tyranny/keeping the other rights safe argument doesn’t hold a lot of water. Millions of guns in private hands didn’t keep the Patriot Act from being passed, didn’t stop warrantless electronic eavesdropping, hasn’t put the brakes on militarizing the police in pursuit of an endless “war on drugs,” hasn’t prevented endless detention of/assassination of American citizens, and on and on.

    You want to talk about the basic human right to self-defense, now, that’s a compelling argument. I wish he’d gone that direction, instead, because the “resisting tyranny” argument only makes him sound crazy and thus makes doubters feel even more justified in opposing gun rights.

    • it doesn’t even protect the right to bear arms. take for instance what happened in new orleans after katrina: the cops went around disarming people and what did the people do? they complied and then whined about it after the fact. if the jews in nazi germany had been armed as so many of us think would have solved their problem and then acted as most americans do when we are told to disarm, ie comply and whine it wouldn’t have done squat for them. the only thing that protects against tyranny is the willingness to shoot pigs in the face, regardless of the right to bear arms enshrined in law.

      • True. But Katrina did create an awareness of such things and brought about The Oath Keepers. So while it is a problem, it’s now a known problem, and more people take notice of it.

      • The jews were armed in Germany. No one resisted because of the “slow creep” of anti-jew policies and finally their kidnapping.

        Unless the government comes out full force killing civvies, no one will rebel. The slow erosion of our liberties will continue, mostly because even those with guns can’t seem to control their politicians.

  7. They used to claim that equal protection under the law for African-Americans was not important either. No matter what other people say, I have the inalienable right to do whatever I want that does not infringe on the rights of others. Owning a gun does not infringe on anyone’s rights, so stop complaining MSNBC.

  8. It’s a funny show. Bill Maher is a funny guy. He can often make great points. And sometimes very stupid ones.

    I saw this episode and was not happy about the comments made by the MSNBC correspondent, and less happy about so called pro-gun guy Bill Engvall. As a hunter and gun enthusiest, you’t think he would have had better talking points to respond with when talking to 2A.

    There is a reason our forefathers put the second ammendment right after the freedom of speech. Because number 2, ensures number 1 will never be tread upon.

  9. Dan, It’s very difficult for any of us to be objective, but I swear, making my best effort to step back and compare the speakers objectively, I think Maher made more sense than Issa.

    • The whole discussion on the importance of 2A or the value of gun ownership is largely a nonesensical conversation to begin with.

      Its a protected right. In of itself, it is benign.

      The conversation regarding specific guns to outlaw, is also nonsensical as the motive of most people who want to eliminate 2a, is to eliminate a percieved threat. And their isn’t a correlation between any threat that can be eliminated, and the number of guns or type of guns available to the general public.

      Guns scare people. Some more then others.

      I’ve heard very few…if any logical arguments against the second amendment or limiting the type of firearm one owns, that can with stand any scrutiny.

    • Someone who opposes the 2nd Amendment thinks the anti-2nd Amendment speaker makes more sense? Wow, didn’t see that coming.

      Slow day, mike?

  10. The key phrase here is other constitutional rights we’re given.

    We haven’t been “given” any rights by the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful government — we were born with them. The purpose of the Constitution was to etablish a federal structure and to limit its power. The Bill of Rights set up boundaries on the government to protect the people. This is a concept that the statist asskissers and sycophants in the MSM cannot get into their empty little heads.

    • Since the government is the lefty’s version of sacred and the president is their god, then it makes sense that they’d see any rights as “given” the same way we rational people see ourselves as born with them.

    • Ralph, I actually watched the show friday, and I wouldn’t have expected less from Bill Maher or the skirt from MSNBC. But what really scared me was Bill Engvall’s response. Here is a guy who represents middle America more than just about any other personality, and what he says is listened to like the old E F Hutton commercials, and he says that crap about banning large capacity magazines and that no one needs Ak’s or Ar’s. I sat there in shock, for I thought he would be our voice on such a left leaning show, but he didn’t, and he should be ashamed. And America should remember that when his shows are in town or his CD’s are for sale!

      • Engvall has CLEARLY displayed that he is part of the
        problem. Who does he think he is, Ed Schultz?
        (MSNBC host who claim’s he is an “outdoors man”, yet
        also parrots the idiocy of “who needs a XYZ to of weapon?”

        btw i have always thought Engvall sucked as a comedian any
        ways, this merely confirms my suspicions

  11. I don’t agree with how some people use the freedom of speech. Surely if we limited everyone to 1 day a year when they can say whatever they want, that should be sufficient. Who could possibly need more?

    • The first ammendment was written in a different time. The founding fathers never could have predicted the Internet ( or radio, TV, etc). No one NEEDS to communicate their ideas with that many people that quickly. Maybe we really need to re-examine the first ammendment.

    • “I don’t agree with how some people use the freedom of speech. Surely if we limited everyone to 1 day a year when they can say whatever they want, that should be sufficient. Who could possibly need more?”

      I like the way you think.

      “The first ammendment was written in a different time. The founding fathers never could have predicted the Internet ( or radio, TV, etc). No one NEEDS to communicate their ideas with that many people that quickly. Maybe we really need to re-examine the first ammendment”

      @Levi B
      You started a movement!

  12. The smarmy elitism projected by Ms. Anti-2nd quite nearly made me throw my laptop across the room.

    The fact that people this galactically stupid are a) Hired by anyone, and b) Given a soap box, really just blows my mind.

    Issa was surprisingly level-headed in that gaggle of lunacy. Good on him.

  13. The pretty lady probably lives in a secure building, or a gated community. Most of her friends think like her and agree the solution for world peace is disarming all the ordinary people. None of her family owns guns or has any experience with them so all guns are scary devices that only do one thing, kill indiscriminately.

    How about we move her to a less safe environment, have her walk alone at night, maybe a housing project with interesting people all around.

    911 is only a phone call, operator, hold music, and a patient wait away.

  14. She probably thinks that the Civics course she cut in high school has something to do with Honda, and Physics has something to do with prunes.

  15. I have said it before i will say it again. The armed forces have taken a lifetime oath to withold and defend the constitution. If there is ever a true tyranny thenthe armed forces will desert and steal military equipment. Its not like they are going to nuke our own country

  16. Why listen to anything this woman has to say on the subject?If she doesn’t want a firearm,she needn’t buy one.
    Neither she nor her allies will roll back the 2nd Amendment nor the decisions made by the Supreme Court relating to it.
    Bill Maher is a piece of dirt,end of story there.
    Engvall is a fool because when you give an inch,they take a mile.
    I bet Ms.Wagner has boundless empathy for poor,underprivileged offenders who use guns every day to terrorize their communities.
    Their victims?Not so much.
    Aside from the defense against tyrrany,firearms are necessary for defense against everyday predators.
    Or hunting-or target prectice-or just collecting-it’s none of her damn business.

Comments are closed.