Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

and my mother was a chain smoker and never had lung cancer while one of my best friends was a health nut-never smoked ANYTHING and died of lung cancer. BFD. and you pretend I am wrong not because you have any valid evidence but rather because it doesn't help your silly argument

 

This is the best response about the entertainer Stewart

 

the counter to that is your insinuation that banning guns would make the country safer

and there are many good reasons to own guns other than making us safer. But I think one of the reasons why we have never had massive authoritarian actions by the government is that we are armed.

 

there is no real evidence that gun control laws do anything to improve public safety though there is also not much evidence that they make us less safe What they do do is piss all over the freedom of lawful people

 

I AM NOT the one performing a Lewinsky on Stewarts argument. If someone wants to fluff it -they need to tell us why it tastes so good to them

 

You only do what I do? I haven’t replied to posts 81 or 92 yet either. Is that why you haven’t?

 

Are you in favor of disarming LEO? If you don't think armed LEO make America safer, then there's no reason why they are funded for weapons.

 

His argument is that restricting guns will save lives. So what? My forefathers wrote that those who would trade essential freedoms for safety are worthy of neither.

The reason for the right to bear arms is as a threat to the federal government. That is why the founding fathers put it in there. They did not put the right in there to increase "safety".

Arguing away constitutional rights for "safety" is to spit in the face of the those who created this country.

How about this Mr Stewart, have the government throw gang bangers in prison when they commit crime instead of giving them no bail release. At this point, I sincerely believe progressives intentionally let thugs out of prison because they want them to shoot and kill people so they can use those crimes as an excuse to strip gun rights from the law abiding citizens they hate and fear.

 

Dance all you want. Stewart made quick work of him.

 

I'm sure those armed during an attempted robbery/assault felt safer having a gun. If you add to their numbers more Americans owning guns then at least America would be perceived as safer.

 

The claim is that more guns is safer, its not.

 

No its not.

 

Did I ever say otherwise? Do you ever bother to read what people write before you make up what they believe?

 

Seriously? You don't think it's perhaps because Colion Noir (whoever that is) turned him down? You just assume that Stewart is afraid to debate anyone else?

You aren't into research at all, are you? And you don't seem to care about context.

 

The guy is a state Senator. Of course he has debate experience. If he doesn't know much about an issue he agreed to discuss, then why did he agree to the interview? Sorry, but you make no sense.

He should have done his homework. He's in good company with several regulars on this forum.

 

The first argument of the Pro 2A is that gun protects the owner.

All other democracies in the world have stricter laws on guns.

UK, Japan, France, Spain, Italy, Canada, Norway, Finland, Sweden...

None of them have become dictatorships since WW2.

 

I like Stewart. He isn't as crazy as most lefties and has some common sense. But he continues to be a lefty.

 

Here in the real world, where facts, truth, and knowledge matter, Stewart is brilliant.

 

Jon Stewart is a very intelligent, knows his subject matter and most importantly has a very quick and nimble mind. That is a lethal combination in debates. If you are going to go up against Jon Stewart you better be prepared.

 

Watch the video. Pick any of his points and debate it. Or is that too much research for you? The only way to win an argument is to contribute your knowledge of the topic, and not simply attack someone with whom you disagree. Try it.

 

Let's try to keep to using the same measure, throughout, OK? I mean, one would think that "violent crime" stats, might mirror gun deaths, but there are a lot more components to the category you are switching to, and when one claims that we are "safer," the most abject proof of failure, are deaths-- is that not true? So let's stick to gun deaths. And you are claiming that this number actually had been coming down, prior to Covid? May we see the figures, underwriting your claim?

 

How silly. @Arkanis is the OP. He started this thread with the clip.

 

Good point. Notice, however, what I deleted from your post and ask yourself why I would.

 

Why do leftists project so much.

If you did your research and cared about the context, you would know that Jon specifically chose Nathan for this. But you haven't even watched the entire thing, have you? At best you watched the edited pirated copy. Leftists have no respect for private property.

 

The problem with your argument and Jon Stewart's is that it is base on the argument that if we increase the number of guns and the nation becomes less safe then guns do not make us safer. That is a fallacious argument and would only be true if there were no other forces that impact safety in this country. If there are other factors, particularly changes in cultural bubbles and how they regard crime and violence, then even increasing the number of guns may not keep up with those other factors decreasing our safety.

For example we can all agree that increasing the amount we get paid at work makes it easier to pay for necessities like housing, food and necessities BUT if other factors cause the price of those things to increase faster than our wages then some could make the fallacious argument that increasing wages makes the situation worse.