Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
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.”
SEE ALSO: Gary Wetzel: The One-Armed M60 Stand in Vietnam
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.
SEE ALSO: DNT Hydra HS335R: Five Thermal Jobs Under $1,800
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! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
Citizens in the revolutionary time used the most modern guns of their time. Today we are doing the same for our personal use as well as our
needs for self protection against possible foreign military aggression should that become a reality.
Firearms are a fundamental part of our lives. I was born in 1949 and when I was a least 5 years old, my Daddy gave me a .410-gauge single shot shotgun and took me hunting. My Granddaddy would come on weekends and get me to go hunting with one of my cousins when I was in the second grade and above.
As a southern born man, I felt a deep responsibility to protect those in my family and to defend that which was mine.
People, especially politicians, feel that responsibility is now in the hands of our law enforcement officers. Back in the day, that certainly could have been acceptable in small towns in our state, but that is not the case today. The police tasked to protect every citizen in our country are stretched way too thin to do that. With low pay and a work schedule that leaves little time for family or friends, men and women today have lost interest in serving in Law Enforcement. They still have pride in their communities, but sort of in a personal feeling.
So, guns are a way of life in our communities. People talk about assault weapons, military style weapons and the likes, as though they are a special item meant only for the military. If that were the case, then gun manufacturing companies would not be allowed to produce civilian versions of these weapons, but our constitution does not allow our government to restrain them from making them for law abiding civilians to purchase, that is it in a nutshell.
What are you supposed to do when you live in a rural area and under IDEAL conditions it takes 15-20 minutes for law enforcement to get to your house? Longer when there’s a couple of trees across the road and I’ve never seen a police car with a chainsaw in the trunk. I’m pretty certain our Founding Fathers were intelligent enough when limiting the powers of control the Federal government has over We the People to understand that even under the best circumstances, a FREE Person is responsible for their safety and the safety of their family…
Kind alike “I support the 13th Amendment” but I want chattel slavery legal in my state.”
lololololol
Who needs guns for self defense when guys like this jerk have armed guards? Idiots.
I have seen video footage of Maher claiming to be a gun owner who would NOT give up his guns as long as criminals had access to guns. While being interviewed on BBC Radio and also several episodes of “Real Time,” Maher claimed he owned two guns. Now Maher is saying that he does NOT own guns because he is a marijuana user? Hmmm, a faulty memory will sometimes expose the duplicity. This Maher is a “walking contradiction” on gun ownership, embrace this guy at your own peril.
“falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”
i rely on glock security for all my protection needs!