Bill Maher: US has bad relationship with guns

[ellisonz]

Published on Feb 28, 2012 by CNN
Comedian Bill Maher says that we live in a gun culture and wonders why people love them so much.

[DrDan]

1. Bill Maher is one smart individual - and hit the nail squarely on the head

[ileus]

2. Probably believes what he see's on TeeVee...

[Upton]

3. Yeah sure..

I run my life according to what Bill Maher says..

Actually, I canceled HBO about a year ago because I've gotten sick of the guy..

[Ashgrey77]

4. Lots of fail by good old Piers.

He just can't understand why they can't get rid of some of the "private property" people legally own. Pesky private property rights and all. I love it when he mentions things like the "right's", "to not have your kids killed at school", but right before that he called the second amendment "An Ideological dream of the right to bear arms, that overides any other rights". It's like he's never read the bill of rights. I don't know, maybe he hasn't considering he's British.

As much as I like Bill, he's like Racheal Maddow when it comes to firearms, I just chose not to listen to it. To bad someone who's really liberal and understands guns couldn't try to explain our side to them in a rational way. I have no idea if they would listen of course.

[hack89]

6. The Brits are comfortable with an authoritarian surveillance state. nt

[DrDan]

7. you are familiar with unalienable rights, I assume

[DanTex]

16. Did it ever occur to you...

...that maybe the reason that you can't find "someone who's really liberal" to explain "your side" in "a rational way" is because "your side" is not rational?

There's a reason that the likes of Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher are one side of the guns issue and Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are on the other. It's because most rational, progressive people actually agree with Piers here, that the right to bear arms should be balanced against other rights, including, yes, the right to not have your kids killed at school. And most of us do think that the NRA's view of the second amendment is a prime example of loony ideological extremism, right up there with, say, Ron Paul's insistence that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional so we should go back to the gold standard.

[DonP]

17. That explains those successful gun control web sites and skyrocketing membership in the Brady group

It's funny (ha ha funny not ironic) how gun control supporters are always telling us how; "Most rational people" or "the majority of progressives" or even the "Majority of citizens" agree with them. But they never seem to actually vote that way do they?

Nobody ever seems to be able to find a single progressive gun control web site with any participation, or show us a rising membership in Brady or any other gun control group. How about finding a single state with a real movement to cancel concealed carry?

Hell, we have proud gun control supporters here from Georgia, Texas, Florida, Maine etc. Where are the petitions to repeal CCW? You can't even find any gun control people here that actually support Brady or any other gun control cause with anything but their mouth.

Sure, come election years they create a new something, like the AHSA - American Hunters and Sportsman's Association to endorse John Kerry, then it mysteriously disappears the week after the elections are over and the Joyce Foundations checks have all cleared.

Please feel free to show us a few examples of "Most", "Many", "The Majority" and "Almost all". IIRC, you probably can't even find a survey on DU2 that ever showed a majority of DU members agreeing with you.

Yeah, I'm sure you represent the majority of thought on this issue, you just can't seem to find any shred of proof of that.

Must be that "Silent Majority" that Tricky Dick was always counting on too.

[DanTex]

33. Do the teabaggers have us outnumbered? Maybe, maybe not.

They won the last election, and a few state legislatures, and with it came a wave of right-wing legislation on issues like guns, abortion, even contraception. But surveys show that the public is to the left of congress on many issues, for example most Americans are in favor of a national handgun registry, and oppose allowing guns in bars or on college campuses.

But even if you are right, the fact that there are more teabaggers doesn't make them rational. Not sure about you, but I was opposed to the Iraq War from the get-go, and the fact that Bush had sky-high approval ratings didn't change my views in the slightest.

As you know, the right-wingers won out, we invaded Iraq, and it was a catastrophe. A lot of lives were lost. Of course, the number of lives lost to gun violence in this country over the same period of time far exceeds the number of American casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9-11 combined.

But I digress. You are right, not all Americans are rational or progressive, and as a result we get right-wing victories like the Iraq war, tax cuts for the rich, mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking abortion, and absurdly lax gun laws.

[DonP]

40. It must be nice to view the world so "simply"

So anyone that doesn't see it your way must be a T Bagger, huh? All those Dem reps in Illinois fighting for CCW are all T Baggers I suppose? As well as the Dems that voted to allow it in all those other states including yours, T Baggers one and all I guess?

And those "powerful" T Baggers pushed through a lot of "lax gun laws" in the last year? (Pssst, they have only controlled the House since January of 2011) Perhaps you can you give us an example or two of those "lax laws"?

Maybe you can explain why, when Dems controlled both House and Senate as well as the WH, no new gun control passed?

And WTF does any of that and the Iraq war have to do with the fact that there is no organized gun control movement or even a single web site devoted to it?

You are really having a hard time accepting that you are the one that is way the fuck out of the mainstream on this. But the good news is that what you "think" the gun laws should be doesn't matter a bit.

And ... if you live in a state that allows CCW, ... and you're not doing anything to repeal it, ... you're a hypocrite for whining and complaining about gun laws and doing nothing about it.

[DanTex]

41. "Simply"?

It is a fact that the vast majority of the "gun rights" movement are conservatives. Sure, there are some Democrats tossed in the mix, just like there are surely some anti-gay Democrats, or some Democrats that favor tax cuts for the rich. But without the right-wing crazies, the "gun rights" movement would be nowhere.

Examples, well, in Virginia the one-gun-a-month law is being overturned by Republicans. The Heller decision overturning DC's handgun ban was brought to us by five right-wing supreme court justices. "Shall-issue" in Wisconsin was signed by none other than Scott Walker. And so on.

Anyway, you can define the "mainstream" to be the side of the militant gun fanatics if you want to, and surely you'll get a lot of militant gun fanatics to agree with you. But the fact remains that there are few (if any) examples of intelligent and rational progressive voices on the pro-gun side. If I'm out of the mainstream, then I'm in good company.

As far as what is truly "mainstream", I'd point members of the "reality based community" to opinion polls showing that the country is pretty closely divided, primarily on ideological grounds, on the gun issue, in the same way that they are on many many other issues, but that many sane gun laws, including a national handgun registry, enjoy the support of comfortable majorities.

But the more important point is that I don't care at all what you consider "mainstream". You see, I'm not a centrist, I'm a liberal/progressive. I don't strive to be on the same side as the "mainstream" on issues, I strive to be on the side of logic and of justice. My opposition to the Iraq War surely put me "outside of the mainstream" at the time. Heck, according to polls, the fact that I oppose teaching creationism in schools puts me in a minority. And?

[DonP]

42. Opinion polls? Really?

You mean the ones that all gun controllers believe fervently in? ... But can never seem to get anyone to actually vote that way? Those opinion polls?

Silly me, I define mainstream as the way most people actually vote and what they actually support with contributions and do with their time.

You know, the same ones that have voted in CCW in 49 states so far and throw gun control politicians out on their ass now and then until most won't touch the issue.

You know Mainstream, as in I still can't get an answer to where are all your gun control supporters online? Why isn't there a single website for gun control out there? Let me guess, "Silent Majority": just like Tricky Dick" relied on?

Or why can't "the most popular gun control organization" in the country find any actual members, even here on DU?

And again, why aren't you doing anything about gun control and the repeal of CCW in your own state? Let me guess, just too darned busy posting your opinions to print out and circulate petitions?

On behalf of all us "militant gun fanatics", thank you for being so typically apathetic on this issue and we encourage you and your friends to keep up the good work of doing "abso-fucking-lutely" nothing about your beliefs.

[TheWraith]

18. Your problem is, you redefine anyone who disagrees with you as not rational.

So Gary Kleck, a lifetime liberal Democrat and ACLU member who tells you you're wrong, isn't rational. Howard Dean, when he's presiding over the state with the loosest gun laws in the country and earning the NRA endorsement eight times, isn't "rational" until he caves to placate the base when he's running for President. The many Democratic legislators leading the fight in Illinois to bring it in line with the rest of the country aren't "rational." Jerry Brown, who as CA AG was a supporter of the Supreme Court cases against restrictive gun laws, isn't "rational." Russ Feingold, who turned around after he realized the complete uselessness of things like the Assault Weapons Ban, isn't "rational." Eleanor Roosevelt, who is probably the only person besides the Secret Service ever to have been packing a pistol inside the White House, wasn't "rational."

No Dan, the problem is that continuing to support policies which are a complete failure at their goal is not rational. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the drug war? How about the American public's attitude towards it for decades upon decades? Think about that for a second, and then tell me if you believe it's impossible for honest people to endorse and support incredibly bad policy in the mistaken belief that it's a good thing. That's the problem with the attitude towards firearms by many, many liberals, particularly those who've never even held a gun and don't understand the first thing about them--but they still have very strong opinions, mostly based on beliefs that are completely wrong. Hell, I thought the same way at one point. Then I learned more about the subject.

The fact is, gun control doesn't work. It's never worked. And what's more, over the past 20 years it's become electoral poison, because despite what you may think, most Americans do not feel the same way you do. It's the equivalent of overturning Roe vs. Wade; a relatively small number of very loud people support it, and it works in some areas, but it is not a nationally popular opinion. The sooner that people on our side realize this, and realize that sticking to this bad and antiquated policy is hurting the Democratic Party, the sooner we can deal with things that actually matter and actually bring down crime, like poverty, drug law reform, mental health, etcetera.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. Bravo!

[DanTex]

37. Yours is that you think you know more about the subject than anyone with a different opinion.

I assume that the source of this "learning" was the same toxic mixture of gun blogs and FOXNews/WashingtonTimes etc. that makes up most of the sources that pro-gunners here link to. What Rachel Maddow appropriately termed the "'pry it from my cold dead hands,' unreadable, all-caps, guns forever rabbit hole" that is internet gun propaganda. With maybe a little Gary Kleck/Don Kates sprinkled in for pseudointellectual value.

The whole notion that you have "learned more" about the subject, and after "learning" you have come to realize that the NRA was right after all, reminds me of a recent Paul Krugman blog entry about the so-called "smart idiot" phenomenon: that conservatives with a college education are actually more likely to be mistaken on scientific or factual issues like global warming, or whether Obama is Muslim, than non-college educated conservatives. And one explanation for this is that the more educated conservatives spend more time watching FOX and reading WorldNetDaily, so they become more indoctrinated.

Seems the same extends to guns. Your ordinary NRA member might know how to say "guns don't kill people", but you won't find them confidently making incorrect claims like this. That requires some "learning".

[Straw Man]

43. Rachel Maddow?

What Rachel Maddow appropriately termed the "'pry it from my cold dead hands,' unreadable, all-caps, guns forever rabbit hole" that is internet gun propaganda. With maybe a little Gary Kleck/Don Kates sprinkled in for pseudointellectual value.

Rachel Maddow? The woman who inveighed on the air against "all-plastic guns" that are invisible to metal detectors?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41157187/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show-tuesday-january-th/#.T0-zBke1iso

Such guns do not exist. They have never existed. Glock has claimed to have the technology to build one, but one has never been built. Read the transcript linked above to see how hard she tries to give the impression that these guns are a clear and present danger without actually lying outright. Then ask yourself if she has any right whatsoever to accuse anyone else of "propaganda."

[Clames]

53. Maddow...

...there's a lot going on there...

Some gems from that article.

Yes, it was Ronald Reagan in 1986 who signed legislation, making it illegal for run-of-the-mill, everyday U.S. civilians to continue purchasing machine guns.

Except it isn't illegal, just a lot more expensive.

Up until six years ago, it would not have been legal for Jared Loughner to have bought the 30-round magazine he had in his Glock when he allegedly went to this Congress on Your Corner event on Saturday morning in Tucson.

Load of crap. She should have Googled the term "pre-ban" on that one.

But who is going to stand up, who is going to be the one—who is going to be the one to stand up against Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Frank Lautenberg‘s bill to fix what elapsed in 2004?

Be the one? More like who stood up for that bill? No surprise there.

It‘s an idea called ammunition coding. The idea is that you give every round of ammunition a unique fingerprint at the time it‘s manufactured. Then if that ammunition is used in a crime, law enforcement will be able to trace the origin of the ammunition.

$44M says nope...

[gejohnston]

45. so, scientific credentials matter if

you like the results, but are automatically hacks if you don't even if their credentials are just as good or better? That is what it sounds like.

pseu·do·in·tel·lec·tu·al? ?[soo-doh-in-tl-ek-choo-uhl] Show IPA
noun
1.
a person exhibiting intellectual pretensions that have no basis in sound scholarship.
2.
a person who pretends an interest in intellectual matters for reasons of status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates

Don B. Kates, Jr., attended Reed College and Yale Law School. During the Civil rights movement, he worked in the South for civil rights lawyers including William Kunstler. Thereafter, he specialized in civil rights and police misconduct litigation for the federal War on Poverty program. After three years of teaching constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal procedure at Saint Louis University School of Law, he returned to San Francisco where he currently practices law, teaches, and writes on criminology.

https://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php
credentialed scientist and respected department head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Maddow
TV personality that we both like and agree most of the time with.

[DanTex]

46. Actually, Rachel Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar with a PhD from Oxford.

In any case, by pseudointellectual I generally mean people who think they know more than they do. In this case, I was referring to pro-gunners who have read a couple articles by Kleck/Kates, accept what they say uncritically, ignore all the evidence to the contrary, and then go on about how knowledgable they are compared to "many, many liberals, particularly those who've never even held a gun and don't understand the first thing about them".

In reality, such pro-gunners are usually just as clueless as they were before reading Kleck, because rather than trying to incorporate what Kleck has to say into a rational worldview, they instead take it as gospel and become even more indoctrinated and impervious to facts. And this is the "smart idiot" effect that I was talking about.

[gejohnston]

47. you missed the point

Just because she is a Rhodes Scholar does not make her more of an expert on guns or criminology than Kleck or Kates. That does not make her more of an expert on the civil rights movement than Kates or Kunstler. She can learn and talk about it, but they were there.

pseudointellectual is the definition of people who think they know more than they do. In this case, how about anti gunners who accept whatever (for example) MAIG, Hemenway, or anyone else, ignore any evidence to the contrary, or even the quality of the research, and then go on about how " If you don't agree with me on this one issue, you must be a tbagger, climate change denier, creationist, right wing nut, hidden criminal, yahoo who prances around....".

It is not being "pseudointellectual" to expect those who propose regulations to have a working knowledge of what they are regulating. That should be the bare minimum. They should also have a working knowledge of current federal laws as well as knowing something about the countries that they point to. At the very least, it avoids them making fools out of themselves with press conferences like this:

Of course, there is the "barrel shroud" gaffe.

or expose themselves as being arrogant and clueless
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=16886
All of which does your side more harm than good with mainstream US, but then that works for me.


In reality, most anti-gunners are usually just projecting their narrow and two dimensional world view into what they define as "rational." They do this while claiming to be open minded, logical, etc. Of course, there are right wing Brady supporters, like CCW holder Sylvester Stallone, Donald Trump. Problem is, right wingers do the same thing. That is why it all sounds like the same song with different singers.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Then she has even *less* of an excuse for her factual inaccuracies.

As a side note, I'm glad to see you're changing up the genetic fallacy with an argument from authority.

[Simo 1939_1940]

39. Bravo indeed, and bookmarked. NT

[Ashgrey77]

21. I'm not republican or a conservative

My side is LIBERALS that own firearms. What you said is insulting, offensive, and a personal attack.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Ron Paul (or any other candidate)

...says somethings just to attract attention and make the news. If the FR is unconstitutional, then maybe a change is required.
Various parts of the Constitution have been changed. The reason there is a divide over the RKBA along party lines is that when a number of Ds embraced gun-control (and various Rs did not), the NRA endorsed the Rs as a party. The D party has since taken up the control agenda to merely distinguish themselves from the Rs. This is all a 'party' decision now because of contributions in both directions by some 1%ers.

BFHD

[AtheistCrusader]

70. You know, it's funny. Maddow is a great news anchor, and does solid research on every issue BUT this

one. Going so far as to tell people not to believe anything that comes up in a simple Google search about the nature of certain firearms.

Very odd indeed. I can rarely, if ever, find any foundational error in her team's research on ANY other issue, from civil rights to war correspondence, but on guns she falls flat every time.


Very strange.

[PavePusher]

5. This is a comedy culture. We love comedians.

We're never going to get rid of all the comedians, but do we have to adore them, do we have to love them so much?

The only thing Bill is kissing and polishing is his ignorant, bigoted, arrogant ego.

"Maybe we need a 'feel bad' story..." Fuck you Bill. Fuck you and your glaring desire to dance in the blood of the victims.

[Hoyt]

13. Maher once spoke of gun carriers by saying they should go home and masturbate in their barrels.

[rl6214]

22. Yeah, that's about what we should expect from the likes of him and you.

He has no class.

[Hoyt]

26. Don't see him promoting more guns and in more places.

[rl6214]

28. Don't see anyone in the 'gun culture' promoting MORE guns, they are promoting gun freedom

and that just chaps your ass.

[ellisonz]

14. "dance in the blood of the victims."

You guys really seem to love that phrase...

In fact, a quick google search shows it being used almost exclusively by anti-gun control zealots.

[Remmah2]

34. The shoe fits. nt

nt

[pipoman]

8. The love-hate relationship between DU nd Maher is facinating..

myself? I've been driven to complete indifference toward the guy, he is a comedian (and not that funny I might add) with the same things everyone else has..an a-hole and opinions..sometimes the latter are actually the product of the former..

[oneshooter]

9. And I am pretty sure that the OP conciders him an expert on constitutional law and the BOR.

After all he is a comedian, and the OP loves cartoons.

[MicaelS]

11. That's because Maher is like Ron Paul

Maher, like Paul, says things some DU members like to hear.

All some people hear is "anti-war, and anti-drug war" and they're so ecstatic over those, they never hear the rest.

[ellisonz]

12. I've always appreciated what he has to say. n/t

[DonP]

10. I wonder if he's told his Hollywood friends to do away with the bodyguards?

Is he pressuring Clooney to get rid of his armed bodyguards? Maybe he told his buddy Hefner that he really doesn't need those armed guards at the mansion? Has he explained that Rosie doesn't really need the armed guards for her kids protection?

I wonder if he has ever employed security for himself or if the producers have them for the HBO show studio?

I guess it's OK to use that silly 2nd amendment if you're rich and famous enough, but the proletariat need not apply.

Hollywood and hypocrisy are a fact, not just a nice alliterative device.

But thanks for confirming that your an elitist dickhead Bill.

[Starboard Tack]

58. What is your problem with celebs having armed bodyguards?

They are targets in a culture that embraces carrying guns around. What's your excuse?

[DonP]

59. Just typical hypocritical assholes, that's all

After all, everyone who supports gun control knows in their heart that Leonardo DiCaprio's life is much more important than a single mother on the South side of Chicago. Right?

The rules should be different for all those 1%ers because they're famous.

I actually have no problem with the ones that quietly carry or hire protection and go about their business.

My issue is with the hypocritical asswipes that hire armed security then preach to everyone else how evil it is to have guns. (Take a bow Rosie)

[Starboard Tack]

60. Take a deep breath and think about it.

Has nothing to do with wealth or being a single mother in Chicago. It's about credible threats and occupational hazards and common sense.
The average person on the street never feels threatened and never thinks of carrying a gun. Celebs, as an occupational hazard, draw the attention of extreme elements, many of whom carry guns. There lies the dilemma. Politicians and most people in the public eye may be adored by many, but also piss a lot of people off. You sound like you're pretty pissed off yourself and probably carry a gun. Not a good mix.
I actually considered buying a handgun last year for the first time, as a result of reading all the angry posts by pro-gun proliferators here on DU. I got over it when I realized that much of what I read here is bluster and bravado from a handful of armchair cowboys.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Ah, another telepsychologist, with a sideline...

...of determining others' needs for them from a distance. We are blessed to have you in our midst!

[Starboard Tack]

64. Thank you. It is always a pleasure

[DonP]

63. You're soooo right

Wow! I never thought of it that way before.

A single mother in Chatham or Englewood on the South Side of Chicago really has no "credible threats". Certainly nothing compared to the celebrities you seem to think are high risk and worthy people. I mean, after all Gun Free Chicago only has 300 or so students a year shot in street drive bys and gang fights.

Walking her child to school every day is certainly nothing to compare with the threats the celebrities have, going in and out of the Limo to get in the Viper Room or Harry's and all those other dangerous places where they might be stalked.

And you can put down your copy of Psychology Today now "Sigmund". It's not amateur hour yet.

Besides, I'm not really pissed off and can't carry anything in Illinois ... yet. No reason to be pissed off. Gun control, which you are obviously a big fan of, is an absurd and failed ideology and hasn't had a significant win in court or a legislature in over a decade.

I just abhor abysmal ignorance on display and find people that worship wealthy people and wealthy celebrities beyond pathetic.

[Starboard Tack]

65. Couldn't agree more

I'm glad you are so concerned for the single mother. Maybe you can help her out. I thought for a moment it was you who wanted to carry a gun around. I haven't met any single mothers who are dying to get their hands on one.

[DonP]

66. Here's one you should get to know - Rhonda Ezell - feel free to google her

She's kicked Daley and Rahm's ass in court twice already, fighting for the right to protect herself on the street with a firearm as well as in her home.

And you really should widen your circle of friends. A little diversity is good for you.

[Starboard Tack]

67. I'm familiar with Ezell

She wanted a gun for protection in her home. I don't recall her talking about carrying a weapon, but I'm aware that she has joined with the pro-gun rights folk against the city. I've always supported self defense and homeowners' rights to have a gun if they so desire. If the city is going to issue a firearms permit, then it stands to reason that a range be accessible within the city. My issue is with anyone, including cops and robbers, routinely carrying guns around.
It is a hot issue, because individual rights are important and so is public safety. It's all a question of which has priority. For me, it's a no-brainer. The public comes before my personal whims or fears.

BTW my circle of friends is very diverse in every sense of the word. Several own guns, mostly for hunting, some for home protection. One or two usually have handguns in their vehicles. I prefer not to drive with them, but it isn't a huge problem for me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

68. "The public comes before my personal whims or fears."

Then the prospect of relaxed gun laws in Illinois shouldn't worry you

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime

Chicago population
2,833,649

Murder and
nonnegligent
manslaughter
432

Robbery
14,213

Aggravated
assault
13,757

Houston population
2,280,859

Murder and
nonnegligent
manslaughter
269

Robbery
9,449

Aggravated assault
12,061

[Starboard Tack]

69. Dunno what your point is, but...

you couldn't pay me enough to live in Houston, a place I pass through every now and then, but prefer to give a wide berth to. Rarely stay more than a day or two. Enough time to visit friends.
Haven't spent more than a few days in Chicago, either, but I enjoyed the time I did spend there. Beautiful, vibrant city.

[Glassunion]

15. I like Bill

I do however disagree with him on his views on gun ownership. I also disagree with him on one other view that he has.

Other than that I find him to be well educated in politics. I also enjoy his humor.

[rl6214]

20. Bill Maher has no fucking clue what a 'gun culture' is.

[Logical]

24. What is it? Serious question.

[Glassunion]

25. The root of all evil in the universe?

[rl6214]

27. Google:Wiki

The gun culture is a culture shared by people in the gun politics debate, generally those who advocate preserving gun rights and who are generally against more gun control. In the United States, the term is used solely to identify gun advocates who are legitimate and legal owners and users of guns, using guns for self defense, sporting uses (hunting), and recreational uses (target shooting).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture

Those on the anti-gun side like to use the term as a bad thing as you well know.

[Logical]

29. OK, makes sense. I agree, the antis label all gun owners in that group.

[rl6214]

30. Absolutely correct

as seen in your thread you started about the 'gun culture'.

Thanks.

[aikoaiko]

31. As a first step to a more peaceful society we should prevent kids from learning how to spell 'gun'

Yep. That would make a difference.

[gejohnston]

32. New Rule

Just because you have your own TV show, doesn't mean your opinions are more profound and less full of shit than than anyone else's. Why do Americans think actors and comedians make policy makers? We even elected one for president. How did that turn out for 99 percent of us?

[Remmah2]

35. Smart, intellegent, and good looking!

The guy in the middle.

[DanTex]

38. I think Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher are quite a bit more well-versed...

...and have more intelligent views on political issues than most members of congress. On top of that, former comedian Al Franken is one of the most progressive and smartest members of the senate.

[Hoyt]

48. Why would we think gun toters make good policy decisions

[gejohnston]

49. not all toters are created equal

But there are no toters in DC. At least, not legally. So, what's your point?

[melm00se]

36. like many things polls have a spread of results

but here are some results:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 15-19, 2011. N=1,036 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

"Would you favor or oppose a ban on the sale of all handguns, except those that are issued to law enforcement officers?"

Favor: 32%
Oppose: 65%
Unsure: 3%

"Do you favor or oppose a nationwide ban on assault weapons?"

Favor: 63%
Oppose: 34%
Unsure: 3%

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Jan. 13-17, 2011. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1..

"In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"

More strict: 52%
Less strict: 10%
Kept as they are: 37%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 13-16, 2011. N=1,053 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

"Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?"

Favor: 52%
Oppose: 45%
Unsure: 3%

"Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on semi-automatic handguns, which automatically re-load every time the trigger is pulled?"

Favor: 48%
Oppose: 50%
Unsure: 2%

"Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of handguns, except to law enforcement officers?"

Support: 31%
Oppose: 67%
Unsure: 2%


Source

[gejohnston]

44. how about these follow up questions?

What is an "assault weapon"?
What are current federal gun control laws? Please explain current federal gun control laws.

I bet the first answer will be wrong, most of them will have a deer in the headlights look at the second.

[SteveW]

50. Concerning your "assault weapons" question...

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann

The ultimate push-poll, pushed twenty-some-odd years ago. BTW, do you know the "assault weapons"/assault rifle difference?

[pipoman]

51. An excellent example of my point in post #8..

Bill Maher Stands Up For Rush Limbaugh, Decries Advertiser Intimidation

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002394870

[ellisonz]

52. Well considering how ABC dropped him...

...it's understandable that he has that position.

Did you forget?

[Union Scribe]

54. Lol

and people twist themselves into pretzels defending him defending Limbaugh.

[Atypical Liberal]

55. Comparing guns to antibiotics is a poor analogy.

I think it is more appropriate to compare firearms to cars, or motorcycles, or coins, or any other sort of functional collectible item.

I like to collect firearms. I enjoy their historical value. I like their family heirloom nature and the fact that they have been handed down in my family for generations. I enjoy their aesthetic. I enjoy the craftsmanship in them. I enjoy the engineering and metallurgy in them. I enjoy seeing the evolution in technology in them from the muzzle-loaders to modern weapons I own.

And of course I enjoy using them. I enjoy the satisfaction of developing the skill to be able to hit a bulls-eye at 100 yards with a firearm. I enjoy the competition while shooting by myself or with my team mates. I enjoy the learned discipline required to effectively use them. I enjoy the sense of self-sufficiency and confidence they provide knowing that I can provide for and defend myself and my family if I need to.

This is nothing like consuming an antibiotic.

95% of firearm owners don't commit crimes with their firearms. Violent crime is continuing its decades-long decline, even as the number of firearms in circulation increase. I'd say America has a pretty good relationship with firearms.

[guitar man]

56. The difference between Maher and a guy like me

is that he can afford to hire armed bodyguards, I cannot.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

57. onetenthofonepercent: US has bad relationship with narcissistic comedians/celebrities.

Just because somebody's face is on the TV or radio does not give their opinions more weight or factual basis. Maher is an idiot.

[Taitertots]

71. That was pathetic lies and hyperbole

"Guns are a religion", "People love guns", people kiss thier guns... These are transparent lies.

This is nothing but absolute non-sense. Why doesn't he try to produce a coherent argument against gun rights instead of name calling and demonization of gun owners?