Bill Maher Exposes Anti-Gun Congressman

Bill Maher probably wasn’t trying to become the Second Amendment’s newest spokesman.

But during a recent panel discussion about the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision involving marijuana users and gun rights, he ended up making one of the strongest arguments for armed self-defense you’ll hear on television.

Collion Noir certainly thought so.

In a recent video (see above), Noir broke down Maher’s exchange with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), arguing the conversation revealed a fundamental disagreement over who bears responsibility for protecting you when things go sideways.

The discussion started innocently enough.

Maher admitted he’d like to own a firearm but currently doesn’t because federal law has prohibited unlawful marijuana users from possessing guns. A restriction the Supreme Court recently ruled cannot automatically apply without violating the Second Amendment.

Then came the moment that caught Noir’s attention.

“I can’t expect the police to be everywhere,” Maher said. For Noir, that’s the entire debate in one sentence.

“Give Maher credit,” Noir said. “He’s not playing.”

Noir argued Maher recognized something many gun owners have believed for years: when danger arrives at your front door, you’re usually on your own until law enforcement gets there.

The conversation shifted when Maher criticized California’s self-defense laws, saying they can leave homeowners worried they’ll face prosecution even after defending themselves.

Khanna responded that he supports investing in police and public safety and doesn’t believe “everyone takes justice into their own hands.”

Noir wasn’t buying it. According to him, Maher had just explained why relying solely on police isn’t always realistic.

“When a stranger is already inside your house at 2 a.m., the nearest cop is minutes out,” Noir said. “And minutes is the whole ballgame.”

He also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, noting that courts have held police generally do not have a constitutional duty to protect any particular individual from private violence.

That reality strengthens (not weakens) the argument for lawful self-defense. But the exchange didn’t end there.

When Maher asked whether someone should be able to defend themselves if an intruder is already inside the home, Khanna agreed that self-defense is appropriate.

But moments later, he pivoted to mentioning the Trayvon Martin case and concerns about people taking the law into their own hands.

That shift became Noir’s biggest criticism.

He argued the conversation moved from discussing a clear-cut home invasion to invoking a highly controversial case with very different facts.

“You hand this man the cleanest scenario on earth, a stranger inside your home at night, and his first instinct is to grab one tragic outlier,” Noir said.

Noir also argued that discussions about firearms often follow a familiar pattern.

“They always start with, ‘I respect the Second Amendment,’” he said. “Then comes the word ‘but.’”

Everything after the word “but” is usually B.S. “I support the Second Amendment, but…” has become the standard disclaimer before proposing another restriction.

The problem is those restrictions come with real-world consequences. When help is minutes away and danger is already inside your home, rights matter.

Bill Maher, of all people, seems to understand that. Rep. Khanna either doesn’t or simply doesn’t think your right to defend yourself outweighs his faith in government. That’s a question every voter should be asking before the next election.

*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***

https://gunsamerica.com/listings/search