« Why? | Main | Links With Your Coffee »

Just Because I Can

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Gun Show - Barrel Fever

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Healthcare Protests

Tags: Daily Show, gun control, healthcare, Jon Stewart

Posted by Norm on August 19, 2009 7:39 AM | Permalink

Comments

Abhilash Nambiar | August 19, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply

What is inspiring people to bring assault rifles to Presidential events, when it is completely unrelated to health care? Well in their mind they are not un-related. Gun-control and compulsory health care represent the undoing of America.

But they are too late. They should have come to presidential events with their gun when Nixon was abolishing the gold standard in 1971. That was the real undoing.

jonathan becker replied to Abhilash Nambiar | August 20, 2009 12:10 AM | Reply

i agree, but they didn't really exist as a political bloc at the time. water under the bridge.

Abhilash Nambiar replied to jonathan becker | August 20, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply

I thought I would mention it. Just in case I invoke someone's curiosity.

leftbanker | August 20, 2009 7:12 AM | Reply

That was the real undoing.

You are kidding, right? Please tell me you are kidding. Yeah, that really undid America. Why don’t we just have a tin standard? Or a lead standard?

Fuck it. Since everyone seems to be armed why don’t we just start shooting? We seem to need another civil war or to be partitioned like India and Pakistan. Hicks get the south and liberals get the two coasts.

RedSeven replied to leftbanker | August 20, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply

I would say corporate person hood is the closest thing that has threatened the fabric of America.

Such comments though are so devoid of context. Back in the 20's and 30's the government would turn out state militias to open fire on protesting workers and blacks and women were not really voting even where they were legally allowed.

Despite some enormous flaws America has consistently improved our internal freedoms even if we have more and more treated the outside world like our servants.

Govt health insurance will no more unravel America than government Firefighters or state universities.

Abhilash Nambiar replied to RedSeven | August 20, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply

I would agree with you corporate person-hood is some sort of sham. As for fire-fighters I know not why you mentioned them. And State Universities, they are not indispensable, but it is one of the more less offensive government run institutions IMO. As for workers being fired at, too little detail for me to comment on.

RedSeven replied to Abhilash Nambiar | August 22, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply

I mention Firefighters and u Universities only to illustrate that public istitutions exist and have largely positive effects on the fabric of america.

Read Howard Zinn's A People's History if you need more context on our governments use of force on its own people.

Abhilash Nambiar replied to leftbanker | August 20, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply

Yo leftbanker,

The Civil war in the US was the greatest carnage this country had ever since. It is still and unbroken record. I would not make jokes about it.

You seem to insinuate that somehow if civilians are allowed to carry guns, wars will be more likely. And then you mention the partition of India, another carnage, where hundreds of thousands died, never mind that gun ownership was and continues to remain almost non-existent in that part of the world. Having guns do not cause people to kill each other. People who want to kill each other find the guns to shoot with. If they do not, they improvise.

Like they did during the partition riots in India and the internal conflict in Rwanda. Lots of people where killed off very quickly using cutting implements. You have cutting implements in your kitchen, so do your neighbors. Yet you people are not killing each other. It is all about the attitude with which you approach the items that you own. Guns do not kill people do. And when people want to kill, they do not need guns.

IlBambino replied to Abhilash Nambiar | August 21, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply

@Abhilash: You appear to be over simplifying and decontextualizing a bit: the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' line neglects to consider the availability and subsequent ease in which gun violence occurs in our country and how it changes our culture. Guns have help create and maintain urban wars in this country. Spend a few evenings in Baltimore, South Philadelphia or Crenshaw, LA and tell me there isn't a war going on.

The Rwanda reference is interesting: talk radio was a major contributor in exacerbating racial and ethnic tensions. Talk radio seems to serve the same purpose in the health care debate. Do we ban radios? No, but when people show up to town meetings with assault rifles, we need to stop quoting the constitution and start behaving like a civilization.

Abhilash Nambiar replied to IlBambino | August 21, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply

You demolished your own argument so I do not have to. Genocide was perpetuated through talk-radio in Rwanda, yet you do not want to ban radios. That is no way to solve problems. And somehow you think banning guns would solve urban wars? Why not cut off hands to stop fist fights? That is the kind of solution you are offering.

And I am not a fan of people who use the word 'we' in a conversation, as if they know the whole world has given them permission to speak on their behalf.

And your ending, love your ending 'we need to stop quoting the constitution and start behaving like a civilization.'

Since when did the constitution become incompatible with civilization?

RedSeven replied to Abhilash Nambiar | August 22, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply

You think its too soon to make Civil war jokes? Can we make roman empire jokes yet?

The 600k that died in the civil war don't compare to the 60 Million that died in WWII even if there was a smaller number of American dead.

That said, people are less likely to hack people with cutting implements than they are to simply shoot them.

Abhilash Nambiar replied to leftbanker | August 20, 2009 6:59 PM | Reply

Why don’t we just have a tin standard? Or a lead standard?

Ok, you asked the question, so I will answer it. Gold was money, which is why there was a gold standard in the US. Silver was money too, some countries had a silver standard. Some had a bimetallic standard, which was a very bad idea. There was no tin or lead standard, because tin and lead where never money.

Perhaps what you want to know is how did gold or silver becomes money? I can answer that question, but seeing that your question was meant to be rhetorical, I choose not to. If you are really interested, I will.

RedSeven replied to Abhilash Nambiar | August 22, 2009 7:24 PM | Reply

His point is that money has a representative value and metallic standards are silly. It's a means of exchange. We can alter our currency to suit our needs.

Zaphod for President | August 21, 2009 10:13 AM | Reply

As our resident gun nut, I feel the need to state that these fools are doing more damage to my 2nd Amendment rights more than Obama could ever hope to.

Also, Wyatt is hysterical as always.

jillbryant2003 replied to Zaphod for President | August 22, 2009 10:02 PM | Reply

As the resident gun nut, tell me one more time what is wrong with gun control? I find it frightening that this is legal (but, I don't live in New Hampshire so it's just one of those oddities I'm marveling at from afar). What is the point of this guy being able to carry a (loaded) gun in this situation?

jonathan becker replied to jillbryant2003 | August 23, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply

What is the point of this guy being able to carry a (loaded) gun in this situation?

the point he's making is that you have a right to do whatever you're legally allowed to do, and he thinks his legal right to carry an unconcealed firearm is in danger.

i always thought it was funny when people (including jon stewart) make fun of the fact the gun was loaded. i mean, wtf is the point of carrying an unloaded gun? you're just asking for trouble. :)

jillbryant2003 replied to jonathan becker | August 23, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply

Funny :) I do understand this guy's point - I don't understand the law's point. Why should people be allowed to carry a loaded gun into a crowd? You know how towns in the "Wild West" wouldn't let people run around with guns because there was sure to be trouble? Why is it any different now? I think people should be able to have a gun in their house for protection if that's what they want (although their level of care and responsibility toward their children and guests should be very high.) I think getting a concealed weapon permit should be difficult but doable for those who feel the need but....this? C'mon!

What are the rules in Israel?

jonathan becker replied to jillbryant2003 | August 26, 2009 2:06 AM | Reply

the rules in israel for personal firearms (as opposed to army issue, which belong to the government) are pretty much the same as in the usa- that is, if you want one you have to prove that you're basically sane and responsible and understand the relevant laws relating to it's use and actually know how to use the thing. and, of course, that you haven't been convicted of a felony or provided any other reason to assume you might be less than sane or responsible. maybe the u.s. is less strict about vetting gunowners, i don't know, i suppose it goes by state law.

it's obviously different in that government issued weapons are ubiquitous on the streets. and i think concealing a firearm is illegal, like in america. but it's kind of a moot point here- you can't conceal an m16 and they're all over the place anyway.

jonathan becker replied to jonathan becker | August 26, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply

something i'm not sure you have over there- not having had the "advantage" of years and years of unrelenting terrorism :( is that here, if you want to enter a space where the public gathers (eatery, theater, bus station, doctors office- ANY enclosed public space) with an unconcealed firearm, you must present your gun liscence to the security guy at the door (aha!) or be a soldier or cop, in uniform, with i.d.

considering that you don't have any such system in place over there, it would be a good idea to take this into consideration when your mixin' up your firearm law medicine.