Bill Maher Quotes

The Second Amendment does protect the right to people to possess weapons for self-defense in the home. That's what the Supreme Court said.

If somebody gets injured, they ought to have their day in court.

People do have a right to protect themselves, and they are not protected by the justice system.

Why should a man have a better right to kill his neighbor with a house than with an axe in the street?

Experience has taught me that privacy truly is the touchstone of our criminal justice system.

I do like to have guns around. I don't like to carry them. But I like - if somebody is going to come into my house and I have not put out the welcome mat, I want to stop them.

If you are foolish enough to defend your own home against burglary, expect to be arrested, fingerprinted, DNA-swabbed, and probably charged.

I legally can punch someone in the face and not get arrested for it, which most human beings can't do.

I'm very mindful of the need to ensure we have a criminal justice system in which people have confidence.

Guys, gals, now hear this: No one wants to take away your hunting rifles. No one wants to take away your shotguns. No one wants to take away your revolvers, and no one wants to take away your automatic pistols, as long as said pistols hold no more than ten rounds. If you can't kill a home invader (or your wife, up in the middle of the night to get a snack from the fridge) with ten shots, you need to go back to the local shooting range.

As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of 'self-defense.' In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.

In the Second Amendment, it's not about hunting, it's not about target shooting, it's about protecting your home and your family and your life.

The right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.

Being a public defender makes you incredibly paranoid - and I would say with reason - about law enforcement.

More than 90 percent of criminal cases are never tried before a jury. Most people charged with crimes forfeit their constitutional rights and plead guilty.

While not explicitly articulated in the Constitution, the presumption of innocence has, through Supreme Court opinions, become a fundamental tenet of our criminal-justice system, and rightly so.

I don't get to sue just because I don't like something.

If everyone charged with crimes suddenly exercised his constitutional rights, there would not be enough judges, lawyers, or prison cells to deal with the ensuing tsunami of litigation.

Every honest citizen, man or woman, if they want to have a weapon in their homes - depending on certain criteria - should be able to have one.

For far too long, victims' rights have been discussed only in the context of sentencing. Sentencing is very important, but the debate obscures something much more fundamental: most victims have so little faith in our criminal justice system that they do not access it at all.

When law enforcement violates departmental policies or operates outside of its certified training, it should not be insulated from liability to the victims of these breaches.

A lot can be debated about criminal justice and its delivery system.

In our justice system, everyone who is charged with a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. It should go without saying that people who are not charged with a crime also are presumed innocent.

People are innocent until they are proven guilty, and we will make sure that stays the case.

The law protects nothing in that very respect, in which it is, at the same time, in the eye of the law, a crime.