Jon Stewart On Gun Control

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 4 years ago in Misc

If at first you don"t succeed, f*ck it.
There are 113 comments:
Male 2,357
@Finker

[quote] please clarify how the police took military control over the citizens and the army without an overall failure to resist the outcome[/quote]
I`d be happy to clarify. Your error is that you assume the police took control of the military, which they did not. Rather, the military was deployed fighting a multiple front war. Other than relatively few officers, most enlisted men in the Wehrmacht were unaware of the atrocities being committed by the SS - a police force. I hope this helps to clear things up.

@Bakcagain21

[quote]I repeat my statement Justices authoritativeness relies on what`s politically prudent always[/quote]
While it`s a lovely thing to say, merely repeating it does not make it any more true.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
@Finker: It`s Obama who`s trying to tell parents how to protect their children, not Bush, not anyone else, it`s OBAMA.

His kids? Armed security.
YOUR kids? Gun Free Zone.

By "your" I mean America, not you specifically, eh?
0
Reply
Male 505
@CrakrJak, I look at your picture below and wonder if you really think all schools should have greater numbers of armed guards per head than the president, and if taxes are going to pay for it? Does your view vary if it is Obma or not?
0
Reply
Male 505
@HumanAction, please clarify how the police took military control over the citizens and the army without an overall failure to resist the outcome - that was my point.
0
Reply
Male 560
@5cats I`m not saying overturn the 2nd Amendment I clarified what J.Stewart said.

Want to keep status quo go ahead. Want to say there are soo many guns out there you wouldn`t get them all so people have the right to own guns to protect themselves once again go ahead. Want to say Assualt weapons, machine guns etc can`t be owned legally or mental patients are already restricted no issue, anti-gun lobby does say some crap. Want to point out removing guns in Oz resulted in less suicides but relatively same amount of murders go for it. Argue it all on it`s merits. 2nd amendment is about having a armed militia not having a gun at home. You can remove guns from homes without changing that, or keep guns at home without changing that. Just stop quoting the 2nd amendment an archaic statement which can not legitimately be shoe horned into the debate. It`s a weak form of arguing on this issue.
I repeat my statement Justices authoritativeness relies on what`s politically prudent always
0
Reply
Male 27
@HolyGod Police and security guards are not the same thing.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
@bakcagain: You make a valid point: laws can change.
However: You want to overturn the 2nd? Go ahead! DO IT!
Don`t mince about PRETENDING you`re not trying to!
Get the support, take a VOTE and overturn the RIGHTS of OTHER Americans! You already have the right to "not own a gun" and simply wish to FORCE others to agree (and comply) with you.

Using cops and soldiers... armed with guns... oh teh irony!

(Yeah yeah! You`re from Europe, I`m from Canada. You still know what I`m talking about.)
0
Reply
Male 27
I just want to point out that assault rifles have been banned before. It didn`t really do anything.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Bakcagain21

The creation of the federal reserve is a vastly different event than the one we are debating. Regarding the federal bank, it was an issue of creating a new law and was heavily contested. On the other hand, we are now discussing the revocation or at least partial revocation of an existing amendment that was not nearly so contested when created.

The problem with your statement that the Supreme Court cannot know what the framers meant is that the Supreme Court is the only entity entrusted with and given the authority to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, if they state that a Constitutional segment means something, then that is what it means - there is no longer room for debate.

Relative to the Justices, we are laymen. Our opinions and interpretations are meaningless because they are the authority on the matter. Therefore, my argument from authority is proper.
0
Reply
Male 560
@HumanAction "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That according to the gun lobby isn`t clear and it implies that your standard citizen has the right to a gun for your individual protection. Another reading could be that everyone is entitled to one rifle and 50 bullets of ammunition which was the swiss model for years. Could mean everyone is allowed to join a militia which stores guns centrally only letting them out for practice.
Yes they were so nice to write it down, but it`s not exactly clear for the purposes you are saying. You and the supreme court can not know what framers meant. The Supreme court does what is prudent or politically acceptable at the time of a case.
Ban guns don`t decide that from other arguments. Just stop claiming authority from a elevated law, which was not made with modern firearms in mind. As not me, u the court know what the
0
Reply
Male 560
@HumanAction Madison vetoed the bank of America in 1814 and allowed it in 1816 having learned it was necessary with how America had changed. He was a Framer who knew that what he meant when he was instrumental in writing the constitution. He had campaigned against a central bank until war with he British made it required) The supreme court in McCulloch v. Maryland invoked the within spirit of the constitution decision to say obviously the constitution allowed the power to make a central bank. John Marshall the lead justic had been against a central bank when he was a framer changed with the times.
Framers knew what they wanted at the time. When times changed so did their opinions and the law get`s updated. The Supreme court does whatever the make up of the court believes is right, I`ve studied it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Bakcagain21

However, if this is the argument that you are presenting to @Cajun, then the argument boils down to this:

I know exactly what the Founding Fathers said; they were so kind as to write it down;

On the other hand, you speculate about what you think they meant or would have meant.

How is it that you consider these arguments to be equivalent? My hand holds the actual words, along with the supportive Supreme Court interpretations. Your hand holds nothing more that "No way they would have done that now-a-days!"
0
Reply
Male 4,431
Yeah, a whole ten minutes of reasonable discussion, considering both sides, and what do we see here? Whatever.
0
Reply
Male 560
@Cajun "That`s like saying how modern day medical science is sufficient for the point being made about how effective modern medicine is. In case you didn`t know, only 1/20 gun injuries are fatal."

No it`s not a glock can have anywhere between 8 and 33 bullet cartridges. And can easily fire everyone of them within a minute(and more). A musket with a lot practice you`d fire 4 shots in a minute. It`s comparing bicycles which you don`t need insurance, with car`s which you do. The danger potential has increased which is why it`s stupid quoting really old laws which didn`t comprehend the technological changes. The road laws sufficient for horses and carriages had to be updated for car`s as car`s are more advanced. That`s the point I was explaining which you don`t get either. I don`t give a poo about deaths, or injuries(which would be higher then in muskets day) I`m saying make arguments that don`t rely on archaic laws, they are out there.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] Shouldn`t our children at least be as safe as our president?[/quote]

They should, and by every measure they are. Our schools are for education not for panopticon TSA checkpoints.
0
Reply
Male 1,920
@El_Chinche
Most College campuses already have police.
If we can do this for community colleges, then why not for other schools?

Go to Google, click Images, then type "Campus Police"

Here is some of what you will find:





0
Reply
Male 154
finally someone gets at the real issue. its not black and white, and there are numerous factors that come into play into an issue like this.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
El Chinche: Shouldn`t our children at least be as safe as our president?

And if more guns make people less safe, then please explain this.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
@El_Chinche

Yes and a place with only armed military and police isn`t a police state. I don`t know about your school but my high school felt alot like a prison to me although I went to trade school.
0
Reply
Male 546

0
Reply
Male 546

0
Reply
Male 335
Well, he is usually pretty funny....just not this time.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
5Cats

"@HolyGod: What do you think a "gun free zone" is? They take the gun away from the security guards!"

I`ll reply to this just because it is completely factually incorrect.

Columbine was a gun free zone. They had an armed guard.

My mall is a gun free zone. I see armed police in there all the time.

"Gun free zones" do not apply to security personnel and police.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@El_Chinche You got it exactly backwards. The situation you depict is the RESULT of giving up our freedoms. The armed guards are only necessary because we passed unconstitutional laws that DISARMED the faculty and staff.

Of course, I will allow the possibility that your post was sarcastic, but given the political bent of the vast majority of the posters here, I consider that to be highly unlikely. Correct me if I`m wrong.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
[quote]I have not heard a single person say lets take guns away from guards, or police, or the military.[/quote]
@HolyGod: What do you think a "gun free zone" is? They take the gun away from the security guards!
>Virginia Tech: Gun free! No armed security = one man killed all those people un-opposed! He didn`t have "high capacity magazines" either, he just re-loaded! No one there to stop him.

>Newton: Gun free zone! NO SRO = single gunman had no opposition.

>Aurora Theater: Gun free zone! He cose THAT theater because of it. Get it yet?

The gun-grabbers are the one who demand "gun free zones" AND try to pass laws telling YOU where you can and cannot carry your weapon. Why? Do the criminals obey these laws? ffs. The ONLY reason is to take other people`s rights away.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HolyGod

[quote]Let`s outlaw 100 round barrel magazines. If manufacturers couldn`t produce them their availability would go down drastically.[/quote]
Perhaps it will help if I am more specific in my criticisms of your "solutions".

First, let`s look at mass shootings in the US that have used 100+ capacity magazines. I`ve gone back as far as 1989 so far and I see 1 (Aurora). Next, let`s see how many mass shootings used (not just had, but actually used) more than 2 firearms. While it`s a little more difficult to find stats on guns used vs. those in possession, it appears that the vast majority of mass shootings use exclusively or almost exclusively 2 firearms at most (most actually only use 1).

Your solutions are silly. They`re like saying: we have a problem with counterfeit $20 bills. We should get rid of $100 dollar bills.

... and I`m supposed to go along with this why?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
[quote]They kill THEMSELVES. They don`t kill 20 kindergarteners.

You get the difference right? I fully support every individuals right to make personal choices with consequences for themselves.[/quote]
@HolyGod: Tell that to @patchy and @FoolsPrussia! Lolz! Kinda ironic, eh?

Again I repeat: taking guns away doesn`t prevent suicides AT ALL. So why include them with a discussion about GUN VIOLENCE & mass killings? >>Because he`s talking about one thing, and quoting stats for a different thing!
>>Does one add suicides to the number of murders? They both "cause death" right? But they`re different things, yes?
0
Reply
Male 17,511
HG: [quote]if the sandy hook shooter had only one gun maybe we would have 8 dead kindergartners instead of 20.[/quote]

Wishful thinking, like yours, wouldn`t changed the outcome of that day. Your stuck on the stupid idea that `guns` are the problem. The lack of guns in the UK hasn`t lowered their violent crime rate, which is the highest in the EU.

What you`re talking about makes about as much sense as this.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]So there are places where this does not happen. COME ON.[/quote]
However, you ignore the OBVIOUS by comparing the two: they are different countries. The culture is different; they have different demographics; there are stark geographical differences, etc.

By comparing the two, you imply that a causative link exists between "strict" gun laws and an absence of mass shootings. Yet, there are countries with "lax" gun laws that do not have these problems either. So, at best, you can hope for a correlation between these variables.

In your own word: COME ON.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

"So you can`t go on a killing spree with one rifle and one handgun????? News to me!"

Holy s.hit dude. Gen regulation will not stop mass killings. It will not stop murder. I am not an idealistic moron.

However if the sandy hook shooter had only one gun maybe we would have 8 dead kindergartners instead of 20. If you don`t think that is better than maybe you should talk to the parents.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
HumanAction

"What then, if there is no such solution?"

Well they don`t have theater, school, and mall massacres in England do they? Japan? China? France?

So there are places where this does not happen. COME ON.
0
Reply
Male 14,331


Ever wonder why the media seems to be reporting shootings and gun crime more and more often with UN small arms treaty talks approaching?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Finker

[quote]The army as a whole didn`t have qualms about taking on civillians with guns. If that is different in the US then why not just rely on the fact that the army won`t turn on civillians.[/quote]
The Wermacht, as in the German army, did not turn on their own citizens. In fact, by most accounts, they were considered an honorable fighting force by the Allies; their name was forever tarnished by the POLICE FORCE known as the Schutzstaffel.

If modern history is any indication, it is far more likely for a police force to attack citizens than an army. Therefore, the argument must be regarding the proposed firepower of police rather than military.
0
Reply
Male 546

0
Reply
Male 2,357
@HolyGod

[quote]The left proposes things to try to stop that from happening. Then you guys say no. But I notice you never really propose any solutions yourself.[/quote]
In many cases, it is better to propose no solution than bad solutions. Of course, you assume that there exists a solution to the problem. What then, if there is no such solution? Then, inaction is far more preferable to action.

[quote]You can only have one hand gun and one rifle[/quote]
What of the farmer who enjoys hunting deer and must also tend to prairie dogs on his land? Certainly he should be allowed two rifles such as a .223 and a .300.

This fascination with magazine size and "assault" rifles, despite their relatively infrequent use in gun violence, amuses me.
0
Reply
Male 505
@McGovern, I was just saying it wasn`t having a gun that allowed him to achieve what he did, if he had pulled that gun then he wouldn`t have achieved anything. The army as a whole didn`t have qualms about taking on civillians with guns. If that is different in the US then why not just rely on the fact that the army won`t turn on civillians. If they do, then they are much better equipped than in the past.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]You can only have one hand gun and one rifle[/quote]

So you can`t go on a killing spree with one rifle and one handgun????? News to me!
0
Reply
Male 9,769
Mcgovern1981

"Or mabey you could look at the person and what caused them to do such a thing."

Well that isn`t a solution now is it. What is your solution?

Because here is one I have. You can only have one hand gun and one rifle, like they do in Israel. Let`s also say they must be in a locked gun safe. That way when the sandy hook shooter went to his law abiding mother`s "arsenal" he wouldn`t have had access. Even if he forced her to open it he would have only gotten one hand gun and one rifle.

Perhaps he wouldn`t have been able to do nearly as much damage.

Let`s outlaw 100 round barrel magazines. If manufacturers couldn`t produce them their availability would go down drastically. Would they still be available on the black market? Sure. But they would be much harder to get. Perhaps the aurora shooter wouldn`t have been able to get one.

See those are possible solutions. Now if you don`t like them counter with some
0
Reply
Female 8,058
Mmm- well- you still need to do some research Duckie. Parts of the EU, and to some degree the Euro are having as much trouble as the US- but last time I looked the UK still had the £ and we are not anywhere like as bad as many other countries- it is doubtful we will be either. But- we are all Europe I suppose- so some of us have guns... aren`t we the lucky ones.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]He achieved more with his brain than the gun though.[/quote]

So if that fails just give up?

@HolyGod

Or mabey you could look at the person and what caused them to do such a thing. How will more laws help when the killer broke the ones in place?
0
Reply
Male 505
@McGovern, and Schindler had a gun. He achieved more with his brain than the gun though.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

"Lets just ignore history it`s not like it repeats itself......"

So then if it does you are OK with rooms full of dead 6 year olds every once in a while?

Because here is what I know. The left proposes things to try to stop that from happening. Then you guys say no. But I notice you never really propose any solutions yourself.

So it sounds to me like you are basically saying you accept mall, theater, and school shootings as a necessary evil to keep the 2nd amendment as un-infringed as possible. Is that accurate?
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]McGovern- go back to school. Schindlers list- Jews- all that stuff? Germany dear- not England. The Nazi party were VOTED into power because Germany was in economic meltdown. If you must invoke faulty analogies then at least put a bit of effort into it..[/quote]

Economic meltdown kinda like the EU huh. It was Germany so something similar could never happen in the UK. Lets just ignore history it`s not like it repeats itself......
0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]you have also said previously that this couldn`t happen in the US not because the people carried guns but because the military with the heavy artillary would not carry out the orders of the government[/quote]

Well that all depends on the situation. Germany did have people who refused to carry out orders like ummmm hmmm who`s that guy oh ya Schindler!!
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Warsaw rebellion shows otherwise they lost and if beter armed probably still would have but they would`ve definatly been quite the pain. It beats the alternative they had.
0
Reply
Female 8,058
McGovern- go back to school. Schindlers list- Jews- all that stuff? Germany dear- not England. The Nazi party were VOTED into power because Germany was in economic meltdown. If you must invoke faulty analogies then at least put a bit of effort into it..
0
Reply
Male 505
@McGovern1981, you have also said previously that this couldn`t happen in the US not because the people carried guns but because the military with the heavy artillary would not carry out the orders of the government. Seems that is not always the case, you can`t have it both ways.
0
Reply
Male 646
@CrackrJak - "selective extrication of text", is a bold statement from someone completely making up a quote.

@Cajun247 - The cite supports a fair and true discussion about gun control. Calling me ignorant for wanting that shows how low you value honesty and truth in society.

Adams is speaking of private defense, not of hoarding weapons so that one day you may be able to play Rambo against the US or any other country.

I am surprised at the logic> "the army and police need bigger guns to do their job properly"..."I need bigger guns to protect myself from the Army and Police who now have bigger guns"
0
Reply
Male 505
@McGovern1981, yes, that all sadly happened despite lots of armies with guns opposing it.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
McGovern1981: And by Godwin`s Law, you`ve now lost this discussion.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
I`d also like to take the time to point out that yesterdays shooting in Cali wasn`t done with an assault weapon with a gigantic magazine meant only to kill *people*. In large numbers. It was done with a shotgun, only two people were even shot, and most importantly NOBODY DIED. Which I will take over the deaths of 26 innocent women and children any day.

Would it perhaps help the gun nutters if we stopped activating their Pavlovian response to the phrase "Gun Control" and instead started using the term "Massacre Control" instead???
0
Reply
Female 2,228
V I`m confused, gun nutters first say that gun control doesn`t work and never can work in any situation, folks will just get guns anyway no matter what. And then they go all full Godwin and start spluttering and foaming at the mouth about Nazis and Hitler.

Which one is it folks? You can`t have both. (Also, Germany isn`t the UK. The More You Know).
0
Reply
Male 14,331
Ya go to the UK no guns fro citizens just the government what could go wrong....
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]However do you really feel it is such a detriment to the second amendment to do things like make it illegal to buy a gun in this country without a background check?[/quote]
Not if it`s implemented by the states (though I still wouldn`t support it)... However, I have to ask: why do you suppose that it would be effective in the least?

Afterall, we have background checks and licensing to determine whether or not a person is proficient to safely operate a motor vehicle. Despite this, roughly 6 million accidents occur each year and roughly 25% of drivers experience an accident each year.

Why do we suppose such measures would be anything more than a massive waste of funds? Evidence shows that the government is not particularly good at determining an individual`s proficiency.
0
Reply
Female 8,058
HolyGod- just come over here, you might get punched, and Dappy might spit on you- but your chances of being shot are negligible. Much safer I promise you- and as for the idea that we are the top of the violent crime league I would like to remind you that being shouted at or pushed are both counted as violent crimes...
0
Reply
Male 14,331


Yet it`s the evil "assualt weapon" they want to get rid of.

[quote]Don`t we already? Smoking is banned in a lot of places.[/quote]

Yet people still do it hmmmm interesting.
0
Reply
Male 9,769
OldOliie

"The day I can walk into his studio without encountering an armed guard is the day I will listen to his arguments."

I have not heard a single person say lets take guns away from guards, or police, or the military. Why do you guys keep saying that. I am very much in favor of well trained professionals having guns. Why bring up something NOBODY is arguing against?

I`m not even saying let`s make it so people can`t own guns. I own a gun.

However do you really feel it is such a detriment to the second amendment to do things like make it illegal to buy a gun in this country without a background check?

Let`s try some little things. Can we try SOME little things to try to help the situation without you guys acting like it is the death of the second amendment?


0
Reply
Male 9,769
McGovern1981

"More than 500,000 Americans die from smoking-related causes each year."

They kill THEMSELVES. They don`t kill 20 kindergarteners.

You get the difference right? I fully support every individuals right to make personal choices with consequences for themselves.
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Do you want to control that aspect of peoples lives too?"

Don`t we already? Smoking is banned in a lot of places.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
More restrictions on guns because an individual can`t be trusted with such power and responsability but allow people to have children without question.....
0
Reply
Male 14,331
More than 500,000 Americans die from smoking-related causes each year. Do you want to control that aspect of peoples lives too?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"You cited suicide statistics, care to backpedal any further?"

CAjun, why don`t you go back in the conversation and see where 5Cats claimed the 30,000 gun deaths was a lie? That`s all I was refuting. Suicides are deaths, no?
0
Reply
Male 4,242
i could take out 20 kids with a musket and a bayonet.

but everyone knows wheels kill more kids then any other man made object
0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: Still not staying on topic. Stewart didn`t say "gun homicides" he said "gun deaths" and just because you are likely accurate that gun control won`t decrease overall suicide rate, you still can lump it in with other causes of death. Is this somewhat disingenuous to do? Perhaps, but that wasn`t what @FP was contending. You disputed the figure and @FP sourced it. He wasn`t engaging in the morals of gun statistics, he was providing the source, and although roughly 30,000 deaths has an asterisk beside it, it is *technically* correct, and your accusation of Stewart as a liar was false. I happen to agree with you 100%, that gun control won`t affect overall suicide, and I also think that lumping it in with homicides is overly simplistic, but that`s why people have the ability to look things up for themselves and not just parrot whatever Jon Stewart, Bill O`Reilly or whoever else says without looking into it first yourself.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
@patchy: "killed by guns" is open to interpritation: it USUALLY means someone else killed you, not self-inflicted death.
Suicide is a seperate catagory: accidental poisonings and suicidal poisoning are different, ok?
So would "more gun control" LOWER overall suicide rates? NO. The studies show it does not.
So why "lump in" suicide with the homicide? Dishonesty, that`s all. He talks about one thing, then quotes stats about a completely different thing.

Saying it`s "America`s #1 problem" is stupid beyond all measure.

Fact: "Gun Suicides" outnumber "Gun Homicides" by 2:1? So what`s the solution? Eh? How about suicide prevention rather than gun-grabbing?

0
Reply
Male 5,811
@5cats: You are engaging in strawman tactics when @FP called you out and proved you wrong. I must have missed the part where Stewart said gun control would completely eliminate all deaths caused by guns, maybe because he didn`t say that. All he said was "in a country with 30,000 gun deaths a year" which says nothing about eliminating deaths from guns, mkay? The issue of contention was the number he gave, not any inferred intent behind it. Just suck it up and admit you were wrong, because you were. Just because people would probably have used other methods if guns weren`t available is irrelevant. They DID use guns, so that number is included in the category of "method of suicide" which happens to be guns. Stop changing the subject so you don`t appear to be wrong when you most in fact were. Stay on topic cupcake.
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Colbert/Stewart 2016.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
He`s a puppet and has never been funny. Imagine if he could have a thought on his own and see a majority of the US dosen`t support this push.
0
Reply
Male 259
I am sure people put their fingers and in their ears and said "la la la" under real Hitler`s rule, too.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
klaxor: Your John Adams quote was taken out of context. Adams was NOT saying that `arms in the hands of citizens` would `demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate` as you`re trying suggest by your selective extrication of text.

Adams was warning that individual cities, counties and states could become tyrannical and force it`s own militia into service against another city, county, or state. Adams was saying the militias should only be commanded to follow the law and not become rogue groups of vigilantes.
0
Reply
Male 1,313
Just as I suspected, nothing but mindless yammering underneath a video.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.[/quote]

Who`s being ignorant here? The website you cite doesn`t even outright support the idea of stricter gun laws.

[quote]except in private self-defense[/quote]

That does not necessarily exclude protecting oneself from wrongdoing by the government.
0
Reply
Male 646
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
0
Reply
Male 646
@CrakrJak - You misspelled that. Let me help you.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ---Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The day I can walk into his studio without encountering an armed guard is the day I will listen to his arguments.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
@PAtticakes: The NRA wants make mental illness an issue: the Liberals have said since the 60`s they should be free to live like ordinary folks.
But the truely NEED [email protected]! Over half the "street people were once in mental lock-ups, but released.
Jails are used to help them too, but #1 it`s not the "best place" for them and #2 once released they often stop taking their meds and go back to crime.
Remember, you cannot "force" someone to rehabilitate...

Re-open the Asylums to house the "street people" and offer them a place to go besides prison. Will Biden suggest that, for reals? I`b bet, NO!
0
Reply
Female 465
It is extremely difficult to get mentally ill people off the streets. Why is no one talking about that? And big pharmaceutical companies are pushing antidepressants on as many people as possible. Why is no one talking about that? Some people have serious adverse reactions to these antidepressants. Why is no one talking about that? Is it because the left has been salivating for 100 years to get our guns away from us?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
Were 2/3 of your data refuted by my data? Yes! So the new gun restrictions would prevent suicies = is false. They either wouldn`t drop or they use other methods.
Joh tried to work like it was all murders, and THAT is clearly false.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
[quote]Why are you changing the subject?[/quote]
You listed source claiming 20K sucide death guns. I foined out that other nations resrtcted guns: had a fall in gun rates but rises in other (NO verall benefir) the other show a tiny drop, NOT significant, in gunsuicides,. So adding suicide as a Gun death meaning add that to all methods too.

And Other USA causes are 10X worse but Jon ignores that...
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]A Modern day handgun is sufficient for the point being made about how deadly the modern weapons are.[/quote]

That`s like saying how modern day medical science is sufficient for the point being made about how effective modern medicine is. In case you didn`t know, only 1/20 gun injuries are fatal.
0
Reply
Male 560
@5Cats "Once again: The "Average American" CANNOT OWN "state of the art weapons" ie: machine guns (which includes "assault rifles", btw) rocket launcers, bombs, & etc. "

I wasn`t referring to "assualt rifles" etc (coincidently miniguns are legal (to own not make anymore)) I was just explaining what he means by referring to the second Amendament and muskets. A Modern day handgun is sufficient for the point being made about how deadly the modern weapons are.

Same way that all laws over time need to be updated, as they won`t be sufficient for new technologies or situations. But it`s a bit strange to use the 2nd Amendmant in the way that it is by the gun lobby, as it`s out of context in modern day society. How America seeks to update or change their laws is down to them. But It`s an apt comparison to point out the 2nd Amendment was not conceived with even the fire power available in a handgun today in mind. Which is th
0
Reply
Male 330
I love JS but I couldn`t take his squeaky voice.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
To Jon and the liberals` point when conservatives speak of arming themselves against tyranny they are being rather vague and gradiose. However, our history is riddled with circumstances where people CANNOT trust the police to respect their rights or property. Thus they should legally be able to retain the capability to outgun them when such circumstances arise.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote] I never said anything about that[/quote]

You cited suicide statistics, care to backpedal any further?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]As usual, this "News Clown" is not only wrong, self contradicting AND condecending, he`s also following the MSM line to the letter...[/quote]

While I concur this episode didn`t quite give me the laughs like it usually does, you apparently haven`t seen his recent smattering of the "trillion dollar coin".

[quote]In one statement he claims more laws "might help reduce" gun crimes.
THEN he says: the fact that a 10 year stricter gun law had NO EFFECT was irrelivant: more laws are needed[/quote]

Not sure how you can infer expanding what we got. Certainly it would mean changing and eliminating the ones that don`t work.

<@5Cats comment on: Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:46:28 PM>

Yep not defending any of those.
0
Reply
Male 89
So if the 2nd amendment should only apply to weapons of the musket-level technology, should the first amendment not apply to the internet?
0
Reply
Male 3,445
"Wiki Says taking away guns does NOT reduce overall suicides."

Why are you changing the subject? I never said anything about that. You claimed he lied, and you were called out on that. Just admit it.
0
Reply
Male 40,772
@Bakcagain: Once again: The "Average American" CANNOT OWN "state of the art weapons" ie: machine guns (which includes "assault rifles", btw) rocket launcers, bombs, & etc.

So the weapons the gun-grabbers are demanding be restricted, are ALREADY restricted, so what is the point of more laws?

OBVIOUSLY it is to grab (restrict, same thing) more, different kinds of guns.
It`s what happened in Canada, it`s a fact!
0
Reply
Male 40,772
@Ilikelogic: Why? Because this IAB link and your source link BOTH do not work in Canada (and some other countries).
It`s only logical! And it`s the only YouTube one I could find...

@MrPeabody: Nice! As is usual for you.

@FoolsPrussia: Wiki Says taking away guns does NOT reduce overall suicides.
Wiki Also Says Overall? Cardiovascular kills 350,000. Other causes are higher too.

Again, "guns do not kill people" ok? A gun, on a table, with no bullets, never hurt anyone.

A human, using it as a tool, is what causes the harm. Same for arson (ban matches!), car crashes (ban cars!), stabbings (ban knives!) & etc.

Nice try though!
0
Reply
Male 936
@prussia no, i know. I`m just saying that even though the number is 30k, 2/3 of them have nothing to do with the reasoning behind this whole gun debate. People like Jon say 30k deaths and act like its 30k murders when its more like 10k murders.

0
Reply
Male 3,445
@skullgrin: 5Cats claimed 30,000 gun deaths was a lie and I was refuting him.
0
Reply
Male 936
You`re looking at it from today`s perspective. Back then it was a state of the art weapon. That`s the point Jon is missing. The founding fathers of this country saw it fit for the people to own state-of-the-art weapons. Do you really believe that if ar-15`s and the like were available back then that they would have excluded them? You`ll be out of your mind if your answer is yes to that question.
0
Reply
Male 936
@foolsprussia....2/3 of those were suicides. You dont think those people would have found a diff way? The gun was not a factor in their deaths
0
Reply
Male 560
@skullgrin you miss his point. Muskets were seen as sophisticated weapons but could still not be fired as quickly or cause the type of mass carnage modern day weapons could. The danger posed by a lone gunman was pretty negligible once they had to reload after the initial the shooting would be over as the rest of the group of people around would step in. They also were not especially accurate. So the potential danger and harm to others were a lot less when the 2nd amendment was envisaged.
0
Reply
Male 936
I normally like him, but he sounded like a complete idiot in that segment.

for example, muskets were the equivalent of AR-15`s back when the constitution was written. Those were the some of the most sophisticated firearms on the planet at the time.

0
Reply
Male 3,445
@5Cats:

"In 2011, the latest figure available from the Centers for Disease Control,


Accidental discharge 851
Suicide 19,766
Homicide 11,101
Undetermined Intent 222

Total: At least 31940 people died from gun injuries in 2011."

Source
0
Reply
Male 1,920
The following quotation is sometimes attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

This is not something Jefferson wrote, but rather comes from a passage he included in his "Legal Commonplace Book." The passage is from Cesare Beccaria`s Essay on Crimes and Punishments.

Source
0
Reply
Male 646
Imaginary Hitler is the worst kind of Hitler imaginable
0
Reply
Male 3,310
I`d be fine with examining, redesigning and/or actually enforcing existing legislation or adding some if someone could show me how what they are proposing would have actually made a difference in some of the shootings that have taken place. Usually there are people trying to get legislation in place that will jump on the misery and tragedy of a shooting event and when examined, what they are trying to get passed has no bearing on whatever tragedy has occurred.

Perhaps if proposed legislation could be described from this perspective of putting a real world solution into place more gun ownership advocates would have no problem agreeing. Of course this is just a comedian talking and I shouldn`t take him too seriously, I know that. And negating the point of how long a magazine swap would take by that "fast-fingers-Graham" bit shows he is just being entertaining. It just makes it hard to take him seriously about 90% of the things he says.
0
Reply
Male 13
as George Washington wrote,
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

and George Mason said, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
0
Reply
Male 550
Hi, 5Cats,
why would you propose such a low quality link?
We non-americans could watch the original and make up our own opinion about Jon Stewart..

www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes
0
Reply
Male 40,772
5:50 Teh stupid! It never stops!
He calls for "small bore laws" but also supports banning the AR-15 which is... SMALL BORE!

6:00 It`s perfectly legal to own a tank. A guy in London drives one around for fun! Idiot. A CANNON is illegal, already! A machinegun is illegal, already! No one is arguing that, except gun-banners!

6:40 So guns kill more people than cancer (smoking) car accidents (alcohol) fires (arson) ACCIDENTAL FALLS (accidents). It is FAR from America`s #1 killer, nor it`s #1 "problem" and the "solutions" the gun-grabbers offer WILL NEVER WORK, EVER!

7:00 Jon CALLS FOR gun grabbing, then claims "the gov`t isn`t trying to grab your guns" and pretends it`s all a joke? srsly?

8:00 "30,000 Gun Deaths... every year" wait, what? Really? You libtards just give him a "pass" for this blatent lie?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
5:25 "A bad guy with an assault rifle and a bullet-proof vest."

Ok gun-grabbers! Name one mass shooting in the USA where the killer had both those items! I mean a REAL assault rifle, a "machine gun" and a REAL vest, not what the Aurora Movie shooter had (which was an ordinary vest, not the least bit "bullet proof".)

I can think of a bank robbery that featured 2 men like that, but aside from them no one died iirc. And the solution was to GET BIGGER GUNS for the police. They stopped at a gun store and "borrowed some" - truth!

Jon wants "large clip bans", then mentions technology at 5:35. Know those "3D Printers"? You can make a functioning 30 round clip for an AK-47 using one. Or make one in your garage! It`s just a box with a spring FFS!

SO: Even if you rounded up ALL the large clips in the USA, AND stopped more from entering? Are you going to BAN 3D printers too?
0
Reply
Male 40,772
In one statement he claims more laws "might help reduce" gun crimes.
THEN he says: the fact that a 10 year stricter gun law had NO EFFECT was irrelivant: more laws are needed. (2:25 apx)

So the increased # laws has no effect, the solution is make more laws? srsly?

As usual, this "News Clown" is not only wrong, self contradicting AND condecending, he`s also following the MSM line to the letter...

Linky For Non-Americans
0
Reply
Male 39,955

Wow.... usually he`s funnier.
He`s usually better informed.
0
Reply
Male 27
Good post.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Two words only: A. Men. =^.^=
0
Reply
2,845
wow, how uninformative
0
Reply
Male 44
Interesting... I`m one of the right wing `gun-nuts` and I agreed with Jon right up until his last point. History repeats itself whether we accept it or not. Yes, we need to find ways to keep bad people from getting guns. But don`t try to take guns from good people. You`ll never see a greater divide in the states... Thank God I live in Texas!
0
Reply
Male 5,025
As always Jon nails it.
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Jon Stewart On Gun Control [Rate Link] - If at first you don`t succeed, f*ck it.
0
Reply