Jon Stewart nails the Gun Nuts,again...

[BigBlue]

.....pretty good,even if you are a radical gun nut.

Jon Stewart on Fox News’ response to gun control proposal | TPMDC


David Taintor-January 18, 2013, 8:08 AM16933
Responding to conservatives on Fox News claiming President Obama is acting like a king or tyrant by calling for new gun control measures, Jon Stewart reminded viewers on Thursday that “when tyrants want things done, they generally don’t ask their legislative bodies if that would be OK.”

“They tend to proceed, what’s the word I’m looking for, tyrannically,” Stewart said.

Maybe it’s the President’s executive orders that smack of authoritarianism to gun advocates on the right, Stewart said. But the measures include launching a national dialogue on mental health and directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes of gun violence.

“Really? Tyranny?” Stewart said, adding that those measures don’t sound like Hitler.

Watch the video:

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by BigBlue

.....pretty good,even if you are a radical gun nut.

“Really? Tyranny?” Stewart said, adding that those measures don’t sound like Hitler.

:

This is what is frustrating about Stewart because he is smarter than this. No, Obama is not rounding people up and shooting them, breaking down doors and confiscating weapons. However, he is pursuing clear violation of the second amendment and he is not using the amendment process to do it. He has and is using executive orders, bypassing the democratic process entirely.

Further, and this is the worst, what does John think Obama's true goal is, what would our gun laws look like if Obama could have what he wanted? That speaks for itself. Clearly. Especially when we're talking about a person who derisively and dismissively speaks of folks 'clutching to their guns and bibles' whenever someone disagrees with his Lordship.

Tyranny is not just Adolph Hitler. Or Mao or Stalin. Hitler, especially Hitler, very much followed the established democratic process's of Germany.

Until he had enough power to no longer need to.

Worse yet is that Stewart is smart enough to know that however Obama, or Bush, or whomever, goes about getting what they want that, at least, skirts the constitution, if not outright trample it, that way, that new precedent WILL be used by someone else coming down the pike in the future to scrape away, or tear away, more and more of our constitutional protections and it might not be for things Stewart is for.

[tommyjo]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Tyranny is not just Adolph Hitler. Or Mao or Stalin. Hitler, especially Hitler, very much followed the established democratic process's of Germany.

Hitler followed the "established democratic processes" of Germany? Really? Well, maybe if viewed from an extremely narrow viewpoint...in that there was a process...however, your insuation that Germany was a beacon of democracy is not consistent with the historical record:

in 1919 the Weirmar Republic was created to replace the imperialist form of govt under Kaiser Wilhelm.

In 1924, the Nazis (led by Hilter) attemped and armed rebellion.

In 1930, the depression took its toll on the German economy

In 1933, the Nazis took power by winning the election...began persecuting Jews.

In 1934 he declared himself Fuher...

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by tommyjo

Hitler followed the "established democratic processes" of Germany? Really? Well, maybe if viewed from an extremely narrow viewpoint...in that there was a process...however, your insuation that Germany was a beacon of democracy...

Do you just make #### up in your head or simply can't read?

It's fine with me if you don't know jack #### about Hitler's rise to power but, it's not fine with me if you want to claim I said things I didn't.

[laynpipe]

Just 2 quick points for Larry.

One - the law of the land says that its not against constitutional rights for the government to impose "reasonable" regulations on the constitution.

Two - I keep hearing folks say that Obama wants to take away their guns. Well, the proposed regulation that I have read seems quite the opposite. It gaurantees citizens the right to have any kind of weapon they want as long as it is not military in style and use a clip that has 30 rounds. (obviously thats not all of it, but a summary)

Yet, people keep saying he wants to take their guns. I have been in the presence of Obama a few times now while he gave speeches. On one occasion he specifically stated that he beleives in our right to own a gun and does not want to take that away from us.

This leads me to beleive that there is a faction of our people that are trying to stir up fear among Americans to make them think Obama wants to completly take their weapons and trample their constitutional rights. In my opinion, this all boils down to money. "Lets scare the crap out of everyone so they hurry up and buy a bunch of guns". Think about it.....the NRA and the gun dealers are making a mint right now based on something that I read as completly opposite of the fear they are spreading.

And just for the record, I totally beleive in my right to own a gun and in fact own several. I will not give them up !

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

This is what is frustrating about Stewart because he is smarter than this.

You keep saying that but I have never seen evidence of it. Every time I've ever watched Jon Stewart it's the same spiel:

1. He says something stupid and inaccurate, accompanied by a doctored video
2. Then he makes a funny face and mugs it up
3. That's how his audience knows to laugh and cheer

He plays to the lowest informed people in our nation. He's Beavis and Butthead masquerading as a "news" person. One missed bath away from Honey Boo Boo. It's shocking how many people name him as their favorite source for what's going on in the world.

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

Originally Posted by GURPS

The problem with the Obama the tyrant theory or that Obama is biding his time until he can make himself king is that he would have done that in his first term if he planned to. For two ears he had the backing of the house and senate and he didn't make any changes to the structure of power. Same goes for "taking all of our guns". He could have probably passed an AWB, or possibly even more restrictions during his first two years.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by laynpipe

Just 2 quick points for Larry.

One - the law of the land says that its not against constitutional rights for the government to impose "reasonable" regulations on the constitution.
.

It is terrifying to me that anyone would say '...for the government to impose...' instead of 'for us to impose on ourselves'. It really does. Too many people think our money belongs to the government, our secrets belong to the government and that government is more important than the citizen.

We have an amendment process to change ANYTHING we like about OUR constitution. When we subvert it, we harm all of us.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by thatguy

Wirelessly posted



The problem with the Obama the tyrant theory or that Obama is biding his time until he can make himself king is that he would have done that in his first term if he planned to. For two ears he had the backing of the house and senate and he didn't make any changes to the structure of power. Same goes for "taking all of our guns". He could have probably passed an AWB, or possibly even more restrictions during his first two years.

I do not fear Obama becoming some sort of king anywhere near as much as I fear the abject failure of the right to oppose someone so lame.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by laynpipe

Two - I keep hearing folks say that Obama wants to take away their guns. Well, the proposed regulation that I have read seems quite the opposite. !

So, 'quite the opposite' would imply that the proposed regulation seeks to expand gun rights, yes? Wouldn't that be 'quite the opposite'?

So, to be clear, to me, more restrictions are not 'quite the opposite' of 'taking'.