Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

They can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think that was their point. I think their point is you can't predict that, and so it's safer to make the guns less available to everybody. Not saying I necessarily agree, just that it's the more likely point.

 

well yeah that's what a weapon is for, fire arms can be used as weapons you won't get any argument from me three.

In leaning towards more guns can't make us safer for the same reason that they don't cause murder they don't have that capacity. It's just a force multiplier. So the better argument is more armed people makes us safer.

Indeed, what causes someone to commit suicide is some deeper psychological issue and I think we could have a discussion on his to help people mostly young men cope with life, stress and depression. There are deep issues in our culture things most of us would rather not think about but that's the solution.

 

But you can't make guns less available they already are available.

I would argue some of these cases were will known to Police including FBI. The pulse night club guy actually got a bit had an FBI informant as a room mate. The parkland dolt had over a dozen interactions with police in the year leading up to his rampage.

So if red flag laws for example were to be implemented they wouldn't stop any of this it would be used to attack political dissidents. The reasoning behind that is either one of these people that I mentioned could have been arrested and had whatever firearms they had in their possession confiscated possibly even spent several years in jail. Or could have had some sort of psychological intervention. I really think these people come off as sad and lonely and people don't want to do anything to them to make it worse. We'll have to take a different approach to that if we want to solve this problem I don't think you can do anything about the availability of guns because they can just go buy one even if they're not permitted to even if you ban the sale of them Nationwide they can just go buy one.

The anti-gun narrative seems to be based on the idea that the government is altruistic and that they wouldn't let harm come to people the fact is they do.

 

You make no sense. You ARE wasting your time on him. You've posted many comments on this thread.

 

Please quote me saying that.

 

You don't need proof? You get to claim whatever bullshit you like, and everyone else should just believe you? You demand something of others, but refuse to show us yours.

That isn't how debates work. If you think Stewart is in the wrong, pick a quote from the video and link to proof of your side of the debate. It isn't rocket surgery.

 

no, I am slapping around his silly fawning fanboys who think Stewart matters in this national discussion. he doesn't. He has no valid expertise nor education that we should care about. He's a second rate entertainer, nothing more-a smarmy obnoxious loud mouth troll

 

wrong-the duty is upon his fluffers to prove he is right since they are promoting him as some avenging gun banning Idol.

 

to disbelieve an incredible statement by John Stewart no nobody does.

if you're Jon Stewart seems like it. He just claimed whatever bs he liked and expects everyone else to believe it

that's how logic works John Stewart made an incredible claim that I don't believe nobody's made to any effort to support that claim whatsoever it remains incredible so what you need is some incredible evidence to support it.

No that's not how debates work. I don't have to prove his moronic ramblings wrong he has to prove them correct.

 

I would go further and say that his claim is like the claim that Bigfoot exists. You need some pretty incredible evidence to show that Bigfoot exists.

So he's going to have to have some pretty incredible evidence that the number of guns you have or that you're around increases your depression or homicidal tendencies.

It's not that it's just an unsupported claim it's a moronic claim.

 

But show that it's caused by the garden and not like carelessness?

 

As per usual, I have little - to no - idea what you're talking about.

 

4th Circuit looks set to demolish Maryland's "handgun qualification license".

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/...arylands-handgun-qualification-license-n68321

But... Jon Stewart!

 

I apologize. I meant to say show that it's caused by the gun, and not carelessness.

 

exactly.

 

the fourth circuit was the source (thanks to a judge whose son was one of my colleagues at DOJ) of one of the most idiotic anti gun rulings ever. It was so bad that a former Scalia clerk who I worked with suggested that it appeared he was hoping the USSC took it up

 

You have an interesting background.

In this case, the panel seemed to find Maryland Assistant Attorney General Ryan Dietrich's arguments to be stretched, at times, past the breaking point.

'Dietrich was also dinged by the three-judge panel for trying to play fast and loose with crime statistics in the state.'

Judge 'Richardson also took issue with how the state presented data in its brief. The brief contends that gun-related murders have decreased since the enactment of the HQL (Handgun Qualification License) requirement, but Baltimore’s data was not included.

“It seems odd to say it is associated with a decrease in these three counties, but 70% of murders happen in Baltimore City-County,” Richardson said. “The murder rate is higher in 2020 than it was in 2015.”

Ooof!

 

Meh. All Jon Stewart did in the video is express ignorance and support for fascism. Neither one of those is terribly great.

I'd never debate him in a format where he could interrupt me or cut me off.

I'd be happy to debate him on a messageboard forum.

He'd lose.

First, name-calling.

Second, what arguments?

Again, all Jon Stewart did in the video is express ignorance and support for fascism.

Not one firearm has ever gotten up and killed someone on its own.

The real cause of firearm-related deaths are the people who pull the triggers.

For Jon Stewart acting like guns are the cause of gun deaths, I say: nonsense.

Again, not one firearm has ever gotten up and killed someone on its own.

The real cause of firearm-related deaths are the people who pull the triggers.

For Jon Stewart's claim that life would be easier for the police if only we could abolish civil liberties... assuming for the sake of argument that that is even true, so what?

What's next, letting the police beat confessions out of suspects?

There. I've addressed his "arguments".

 

The video claims that abolishing Australia's freedom led to fewer murderers using guns when they kill people.

I accept that that is true. But I really don't see how it matters whether someone is "murdered with a gun" or "murdered with some other kind of a weapon".

It seems to me like murder victims end up just as dead no matter what kind of weapon is used to kill them.

I'm not sure what point you are referring to. I didn't see any points being echoed. He merely asked for a summary of John Stewart's points.

I also didn't notice any points being demolished in the John Oliver video.

Again, I don't see how it matters whether someone is "murdered with a gun" or "murdered with some other kind of a weapon".

 

I'm just starting this thread and don't know if anyone ever answered your question, but I watched the video, and John Stewart had two points.

One, he acted like guns are the cause of gun-related deaths, as if those deaths would never have occurred if guns did not exist. He didn't state this outright, but it was the underlying theme of most of his ranting.

Two, he claimed that the Second Amendment makes it more difficult for the police to do their jobs, and bemoaned this claimed fact as if things would be so much better if we could do away with civil liberties in the name of making things easier for the police.

I guess he had another point. In the first two seconds of the video he started talking about the words "well-regulated". But he abandoned that point nearly instantly when the state legislator pointed out that those words apply to the militia and not to the people.

 

That wasn't merely interpretation.

It is a fact that no gun has ever gotten up and killed someone on its own.

The real cause of firearm-related deaths are the people who pull the triggers.

And in reality the cause of their death is whoever pulled the trigger.

I am arguing with it.

The fact that guns do not cause people to commit suicide seems relevant to a debate about whether guns cause suicides.

So what?

The victims would be just as dead if they were killed with a different sort of weapon.

Probably. But... so what?

The victims would be just as dead if they were killed with a different sort of weapon.

Doesn't seem that way to me. I notice you didn't rebut it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that that is even true, so what?

Is there a point or was that just random trivia?

 

I'm not so certain about that. Evil sucks from our perspective, but without it, how do we know what 'good' is? It's a yin/yang thing. I also don't think it's 'sick' that we want mind altering substances, it's just a trait of our species. Whether it's a feature or a bug is up to you, I suppose, but I certainly don't find it to be a bug. Mind altering substances, used properly, can be quite pleasurable, and can turn an ordinary and boring situation into one that is fun and friendly. Sometimes very friendly!

But, that is one reason why the war on drugs is pointless. You cannot legislate an innate desire out of a species, any more than you could eliminate heart disease by making it illegal. It is also the only way to make 'illegal' drugs safe. Every single day I take a crapload of percosets and almost every day, a xanax or three. Both of those are pills that have been counterfeited by criminals using fentanyl, I would guess either because it's easier or cheaper. Quite a few have died after acquiring what they thought was one of those two drugs that I take legally, when if they had taken one of mine, nothing bad would have happened.

If for NO other reason, quality control is why it's time to end the useless war on some drugs. Like the other type of prohibition we tried, it has the same results. Enriching criminals and making the product dangerous.

 

One of my favorite false arguments of Pro 2A.

If inanimate objects are harmless, why can't I buy a nuclear bomb?

But oddly enough, 77% of murderers choose to kill with a gun.

Are you claiming that they would be as effective with a knife? A hammer perhaps?

 

Not false. The argument is quite real.

Do you want the raw Constitutional answer, or the answer that the courts would use?

I'll provide both. First, the raw Constitutional answer.

Since nuclear bombs are not the sorts of weapons that are operated by individual soldiers, they are not something that the people have the right to have under the Second Amendment.

Examples of weapons that an individual soldier would operate include things like bazookas, hand grenades, and submachine guns.

Now, the answer that the courts would use.

Because nuclear weapons are not necessary for effective self defense, and because the private possession of them would be harmful to society.

Both parts of that sentence need to be satisfied before a weapon can be outlawed. Both parts are satisfied in the case of nuclear weapons.

So what?

The victims would be just as dead if they were killed with a different sort of weapon.

Yes. It may not be quite as easy as using a gun, but a murderer will have no trouble surmounting any additional difficulty posed by the use of an alternate weapon.

 

Guns at home in a safe will not help people defend when out in public.

So "more guns" in itself does not make people safer. What is needed is "more guns being carried in public all the time".


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you are correct about what I think I heard.

But I don't think that my conclusion is false. He clearly acted like guns were causing deaths. And he clearly bemoaned the fact that we can't violate the civil liberties in the name of making life easier for the police.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So why do you think we provide police officers with guns?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm unsure why you hear it all the time. It's not an argument that I tend to use unless someone else brings it up first.

But anyway, it is not the raw number of guns that makes people safer. It is the number of guns that are on hand right when there is a need for self defense.

So what really needs to increase is the number of people who carry guns in public everywhere they go.