Bill Maher: It’s ‘Ridiculous,’ ‘Quaint’ & ‘Nonsensical’ to Think 2nd Amendment Can Prevent Tyranny

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Indeed, it would never get to that point. The military will have things under control in a short span of time.

Indeed, the vast majority of citizens would not shoot at anyone!

Perhaps some of the military personnel would die, but not that many compared to the renegades.
That is a lot of assumptions
 
Let us hear your assumptions on the matter. Do you believe it’s reasonable to assume that the renegades would have a fighting chance against the military?
I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume the military would start to actively attack citizens. For reasons listed before
 
I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume the military would start to actively attack citizens. For reasons listed before
The thread is about the renegades taking up arms against the military, in which case the military would presumably need to fight back.
 
The thread is about the renegades taking up arms against the military, in which case the military would presumably need to fight back.
Actually this thread was about Bill Maher not knowing what he was talking about - see your first post.
 
Actually this thread was about Bill Maher not knowing what he was talking about - see your first post.
Address the issue, and not criticize the author. Did you read the article? If you did you would have seen that the article speaks about Waco, TX, and uses it to affirm that it’s absurd to think that taking up arms against the military can prevent (perceived) tyranny.
 
Address the issue, and not criticize the author. Did you read the article? If you did you would have seen that the article speaks about Waco, TX, and uses it to affirm that it’s absurd to think that taking up arms against the military can prevent (perceived) tyranny.
The thing is a few of us think the issue IS the author, or rather, that the author doesn’t know what he’s saying
 
The thing is a few of us think the issue IS the author, or rather, that the author doesn’t know what he’s saying
Well, articulate that in your posts using some sort of rationalization.To simply say you disagree with him is a very weak defense, indeed.
 
Well, articulate that in your posts using some sort of rationalization.To simply say you disagree with him is a very weak defense, indeed.
I, personally, have nothing to add that has not already been said, and do not feel the need to repeat it.
 
Well, articulate that in your posts using some sort of rationalization.To simply say you disagree with him is a very weak defense, indeed.
Because Maher was so articulate in how he stated his position? Perhaps using more curse words like he did would make it a stronger statement? :rolleyes:
 
Because Maher was so articulate in how he stated his position? Perhaps using more curse words like he did would make it a stronger statement? :rolleyes:
Why not address the issue instead of mocking the author: Is it reasonable to think that a small group of renegade gunslingers could defeat the military?
 
Why not address the issue instead of mocking the author: Is it reasonable to think that a small group of renegade gunslingers could defeat the military?
Please - the story here is Bill Maher and his stupid statement.
 
Please - the story here is Bill Maher and his stupid statement.
Yet again, why not address the issue instead of mocking the author? Is it reasonable to think that a small group of renegade gunslingers could defeat the military?
 
Because you’re out of ammunition on the real issue.
I don’t need ammunition for the “real issue” others are using it better than I. The issue here is that this guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top