Jon Stewart Eviscerates OK Congressman On Gun Issue

[Geoist]

It cannot be said enough, Jon Stewart is a national treasure on the level of George Carlin.



A few thoughts:

Love Jon's point about the domestic abuse home with the guns ('why shouldn't the cops feel safer knowing there's guns in that home?')

Also love how he immediately disarms any attempt to claim he wants to ban/confiscate all guns. This is an issue of regulation, not banning.

I just wish he would run for office but I understand his disgust with the thought.

Hilarious how Rep. Dahm doesn't even know what an anecdote is.

 

[JRTurner]

Oh man---I need to go take a cold shower--Jon Stewart is HOT!

Thank you for making my day

 

[mrjurrs]

It cannot be said enough, Jon Stewart is a national treasure on the level of George Carlin.



A few thoughts:

Love Jon's point about the domestic abuse home with the guns ('why shouldn't the cops feel safer knowing there's guns in that home?')

Also love how he immediately disarms any attempt to claim he wants to ban/confiscate all guns. This is an issue of regulation, not banning.

I just wish he would run for office but I understand his disgust with the thought.

Hilarious how Rep. Dahm doesn't even know what an anecdote is.

Jon Stewart is the man.

 

[MamboDervish]

A few thoughts:

Love Jon's point about the domestic abuse home with the guns ('why shouldn't the cops feel safer knowing there's guns in that home?')

Also love how he immediately disarms any attempt to claim he wants to ban/confiscate all guns. This is an issue of regulation, not banning.

I just wish he would run for office but I understand his disgust with the thought.

Hilarious how Rep. Dahm doesn't even know what an anecdote is.

Brilliant.

 

[Slyfox696]

That was a blowout. I do not understand why these politicians continue to sit with interviews with people who are so obviously much better at it than they are. Stewart completely outclassed him in every way.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Wordsmith Stewart faltered and capitulated 17 seconds in . . . (on like, you know, legal facts) and doubles down on his flawed thinking with the pretense "just for clarity's sake" that he's "not against the 2nd Amendment" after being corrected by Dahm.

Yeah John, you sure are against the 2ndA, when you misrepresent that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that is "well regulated".

 

[mrjurrs]

Wordsmith Stewart faltered and capitulated 17 seconds in . . . (on like, you know, legal facts) and doubles down on his flawed thinking with the pretense "just for clarity's sake" that he's "not against the 2nd Amendment" after being corrected by Dahm.

Yeah John, you sure are against the 2ndA, when you misrepresent that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that is "well regulated".

1 That is not what he said
2 I bet you don't even know what well-regulated refers to.

 

[SMTA]

That was a blowout. I do not understand why these politicians continue to sit with interviews with people who are so obviously much better at it than they are. Stewart completely outclassed him in every way.

Pure arrogance, coupled with stupidity.

 

[RF667799]

Wordsmith Stewart faltered and capitulated 17 seconds in . . . (on like, you know, legal facts) and doubles down on his flawed thinking with the pretense "just for clarity's sake" that he's "not against the 2nd Amendment" after being corrected by Dahm.

Yeah John, you sure are against the 2ndA, when you misrepresent that it is the right of the people to keep and
bear arms that is "well regulated".

Some folks are just in love with the idea of a well regulated people. I sometimes wonder what causes that.

 

[Slyfox696]

Some folks are just in love with the idea of a well regulated people. I sometimes wonder what causes that.

Love of America? Fondness for the Constitution?

 

[RF667799]

Love of America? Fondness for the Constitution?

No. That might be the answer given sometimes, but I think it's probably more personal than that, which leads to an overwhelming desire to regulate people. Might have something to do with wanting to be in control, but not finding much satisfaction for that in reality. I doubt that is the extent of it though.

 

[CLAX1911]

It cannot be said enough, Jon Stewart is a national treasure on the level of George Carlin.



A few thoughts:

Love Jon's point about the domestic abuse home with the guns ('why shouldn't the cops feel safer knowing there's guns in that home?')

Also love how he immediately disarms any attempt to claim he wants to ban/confiscate all guns. This is an issue of regulation, not banning.

I just wish he would run for office but I understand his disgust with the thought.

Hilarious how Rep. Dahm doesn't even know what an anecdote is.

He accepted Jon Stewart's dishonest framing.
Stewart falsely thinks first a gun registry is even legal it isn't at least on the federal level due to the FOPA. Then he also falsely thinks background checks will do something. They exist already they don't do anything.

So even though Stewart is dead wrong he still out witted his opponent which is why debate isn't useful.

I'm curious if there was any tricky editing occurring.

 

[Geoist]

Some folks are just in love with the idea of a well regulated people. I sometimes wonder what causes that.

Idk, maybe ask the social conservatives who want to regulate what we citizens read, hear, and see.

Meanwhile, liberals/leftists are far more interested in regulating industries/corporations.

 

[Slyfox696]

No. That might be the answer given sometimes, but I think it's probably more personal than that

Just so we're clear, you claim ignorance and wonder what causes something, but then when you're directly told what causes it, you say that cannot possibly be the reason and you'll tell us all what the REAL reason is?

Did I get that correct?

 

[Slyfox696]

Stewart falsely thinks first a gun registry is even legal it isn't at least on the federal level due to the FOPA.

Yes, because a government that passed FOPA and would pass a gun registry law couldn't possibly also pass a law repealing a previous one. That's just exactly the kind of logic I'd expect.

Then he also falsely thinks background checks will do something. They exist already they don't do anything.

Yes, if only Stewart had said multiple ways in which background checks could be made more effective...

So even though Stewart is dead wrong he still out witted his opponent which is why debate isn't useful.

Or maybe just beyond the grasp of those with intelligence too limited to understand that Stewart wasn't wrong at all?

 

[CLAX1911]

Idk, maybe ask the social conservatives who want to regulate what we citizens read, hear, and see.

Meanwhile, liberals/leftists are far more interested in regulating industries/corporations.

Not really leftists (not liberals those are opposites) support and vote for corporate welfare. And make laws to fulfill corporate desires.

I would argue the war in Ukraine is all to help out the corporations.

Halting the keystone XL Pipeline was it strictly so that the railroad could continue to be the primary transporter of petrochemical products.

They're giving incentives to people to buy electric cars all this means is however many dollars the incentive is that's how much more the companies are going to charge for the car so it's welfare it's just giving money that you've taxed from people who can't afford an electric car to a billionaire.

And don't get me wrong Republicans are just as bad but you think leftists aren't this bad and absolutely are you just don't want to see it.

The left also wants to censor what you read and watch too they just do it through bribing corporations. See the Twitter files and then working with the FBI to censor truth about covid but turning a blind eye to the child pornography and the person high up in the Twitter ranks that consumed it. You excuse all of this by saying it's a private company that if it's working with the FBI it isn't.

 

[RF667799]

Just so we're clear, you claim ignorance and wonder what causes something, but then when you're directly told what causes it, you say that cannot possibly be the reason and you'll tell us all what the REAL reason is?

Did I get that correct?

Just because I wonder what causes it, doesn't mean I have no idea at all, nor do I have to accept the answer of whatever a random poster decides to splash across my screen. And I didn't say that what I was considering was "the REAL reason". That's in your head. Were you interested in discussing the issue, or something else?

 

[RF667799]

Idk, maybe ask the social conservatives who want to regulate what we citizens read, hear, and see.

Meanwhile, liberals/leftists are far more interested in regulating industries/corporations.

Oh, there's no shortage of it.

 

[Slyfox696]

Just because I wonder what causes it, doesn't mean I have no idea at all

But it does state your admitted ignorance. So when you have someone explain it to you, saying they are wrong makes you look rather foolish.

You don't want to look foolish do you?

Were you interested in discussing the issue

You mean the issue where you state your ignorance, I inform you, and then you, in your ignorance, say that I cannot possibly be right because I point out the extremely close link between the subject of your ignorance and the answer?

Sure, we can discuss that. But I have a feeling we are not going to get very far if you, in your ignorance, tell other people who are clearly more informed than you that they cannot possibly right about why they think something. In fact, I have a strong suspicion you will end up looking foolish. But if you want to discuss the subject of your ignorance and/or your disdain for the United States Constitution, then I suppose we can.

 

[RF667799]

But it does state your admitted ignorance. So when you have someone explain it to you, saying they are wrong makes you look rather foolish.

What did you explain? In fact, you followed your "answers" with question marks. Were you wondering also? Are you not sure, though apparently well informed on the matter?

You don't want to look foolish do you?

You mean the issue where you state your ignorance, I inform you, and then you, in your ignorance, say that I cannot possibly be right because I point out the extremely close link between the subject of your ignorance and the answer?

I wonder why the Moon is so bright tonight...

Because its green cheese is radioactive.

No. That's not it.

Well I gave you the answer and you're ignorant for rejecting it.

Sure, we can discuss that. But I have a feeling we are not going to get very far if you, in your ignorance, tell other people who are clearly more informed than you that they cannot possibly right about why they think something. In fact, I have a strong suspicion you will end up looking foolish. But if you want to discuss the subject of your ignorance and/or your disdain for the United States Constitution, then I suppose we can.

How did you become more informed about why some people have an immense hard on for regulating other people, regardless of if those other people are harming anyone with their peaceful pursuits? The hesitant "answers" you provided didn't reveal much. Love of country...fondness for the founding documents. Sounds like patriotism. Were you trying to say that patriotism leads to an overwhelming desire to regulate people? I think people who's patriotism leads them that way, got it wrong.

 

[CLAX1911]

But it does state your admitted ignorance. So when you have someone explain it to you, saying they are wrong makes you look rather foolish.

You don't want to look foolish do you?

You mean the issue where you state your ignorance, I inform you, and then you, in your ignorance, say that I cannot possibly be right because I point out the extremely close link between the subject of your ignorance and the answer?

Sure, we can discuss that. But I have a feeling we are not going to get very far if you, in your ignorance, tell other people who are clearly more informed than you that they cannot possibly right about why they think something. In fact, I have a strong suspicion you will end up looking foolish. But if you want to discuss the subject of your ignorance and/or your disdain for the United States Constitution, then I suppose we can.

The most rich person in the topic is Jon Stewart.

He's misinterpreting data he's stating falsehoods two things he stated in his argument are absolutely untrue.

I would engage in debunking the argument but I already had a debunking for it the second he uttered it.

I wonder if he paid this guy he was arguing against to not argue.

 

[Noodlegawd]

It cannot be said enough, Jon Stewart is a national treasure on the level of George Carlin.



A few thoughts:

Love Jon's point about the domestic abuse home with the guns ('why shouldn't the cops feel safer knowing there's guns in that home?')

Also love how he immediately disarms any attempt to claim he wants to ban/confiscate all guns. This is an issue of regulation, not banning.

I just wish he would run for office but I understand his disgust with the thought.

Hilarious how Rep. Dahm doesn't even know what an anecdote is.

Wow, what an achievement. He outwitted a half-wit state senator.

We don't need to believe that "more guns make us safer" in order to not want more gun control, especially what Democrats are pimping.

Raising the speed limit to 65 didn't make anyone safer, but there isn't a daily national debate over that, is there.

 

[CLAX1911]

Wow, what an achievement. He outwitted a half-wit state senator.

I think you're giving him too much credit he didn't out wit him he was just more belligerent and forthright. Just about everything John Stewart said in this was absolutely wrong.

We don't need to believe that "more guns make us safer" in order to not want more gun control, especially what Democrats are pimping.

I think the more guns make us safer thing is a straw man fallacy by the left.

Were technically it's correct more guns do make us safer.

And I'll make this point to show an example of it

Would a rapist be more likely to rape a victim if he knew the victim had a firearm or would he be less likely to do that?

I would argue he'd be less likely to do that almost to the point where it wouldn't happen at all. So just the mere possibility of a presence of a firearm can make us safer.

Another example. The Virginia firearms protest antifa showed up. But they were on their best behavior because 20,000 people were potentially armed all around them.

Threat of death or loss of limb makes people who don't tend to behave a little more likely to behave.

So even though it's simplistic and reductive yes more guns make us safer.

People think twice if it isn't worth their life.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I think you're giving him too much credit he didn't out wit him he was just more belligerent and forthright. Just about everything John Stewart said in this was absolutely wrong.

I think the more guns make us safer thing is a straw man fallacy by the left.

Were technically it's correct more guns do make us safer.

And I'll make this point to show an example of it

Would a rapist be more likely to rape a victim if he knew the victim had a firearm or would he be less likely to do that?

I would argue he'd be less likely to do that almost to the point where it wouldn't happen at all. So just the mere possibility of a presence of a firearm can make us safer.

Another example. The Virginia firearms protest antifa showed up. But they were on their best behavior because 20,000 people were potentially armed all around them.

Threat of death or loss of limb makes people who don't tend to behave a little more likely to behave.

So even though it's simplistic and reductive yes more guns make us safer.

People think twice if it isn't worth their life.

You didn't actually establish that "more guns make us safer" with that analysis. Having a gun could make you less likely to succumb to one kind of danger (like getting raped), but far more likely to succumb to one that is worse or more likely to begin with (like shooting yourself by accident). On balance, all factors considered, it could make you less safe. Whether it does depends on your individual circumstances. But public safety laws are rarely geared toward dealing with individual circumstances. Rather, they are usually designed with an eye toward population level statistics.

But that's beside the point, because we don't need a thing (like guns, or alcohol) to make us safer as individuals or as a society in order to justify having them.

 

[CLAX1911]

You didn't actually establish that "more guns make us safer" with that analysis. Having a gun could make you less likely to succumb to one kind of danger (like getting raped), but far more likely to succumb to one that is worse or more likely to begin with (like shooting yourself by accident). On balance, all factors considered, it could make you less safe. Whether it does depends on your individual circumstances. But public safety laws are rarely geared toward dealing with individual circumstances. Rather, they are usually designed with an eye toward population level statistics.

But that's beside the point, because we don't need a thing (like guns, or alcohol) to make us safer as individuals or as a society in order to justify having them.

Yes I did essentially make the argument that more guns makes us safer.

How many people choose not to attack somebody because they might have a gun on them? Some more people have a gun the more somebody who's a potential victim would be carrying a gun.

To look at it a different way. Let's say you wanted to rip off fort Knox. Would you be more or less likely to do it if the guard were unarmed? We already know you're less likely to do it if there aren't because nobody has.

I would say even if you shot yourself by accident and it wasn't fatal and 90% of the time it's not, with the fire on you are still much more of a threat to someone than if you didn't have one.