'Daily Show' Segment Shows Exactly Why The US Can't Pass New Gun Laws

[ClosedCaption]

Daily Show On Gun Control Laws - Business Insider

"Last week, we learned that while our Senate was unable to pass even the most basic gun control measures, Australia has had a successful gun control scheme for almost two decades," "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart said, introducing the segment.

Oliver talked to Australian politicians who said they were outed from office because they supported new gun measures after a 1996 mass shooting that killed 35 people. Supporters of Australia's laws cite the fact that Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not experienced any mass shootings since.

Oliver shamed the four Democrats that voted against background checks last week — Sens. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

He mocked them for having the "courage" to "reduce the rate of political suicide" in Congress.


Read more: Daily Show On Gun Control Laws - Business Insider

Basically the reason we cant get real gun control here is because pols don't want to lose their jobs.

[ame="http://youtu.be/TYbY45rHj8w"]http://youtu.be/TYbY45rHj8w[/ame]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In other words, besides the whole constitutinal argument, they are acting on behalf of the people that elect them?! We have to put a stop to that!

 

[ClosedCaption]

In other words, besides the whole constitutinal argument, they are acting on behalf of the people that elect them?! We have to put a stop to that!

No they are acting to protect their asses. If you watch the clip the most important thing and the idea of a successful politician is to get re-elected.

But don't clog your mind up with new information, you might hurt yourself.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you slow, or stupid? If they want to get re-elected, they need to actually represent the constituency. If the constituency wanted tighter gun laws, they would voted favorably for the measure. Since they want to be re-elected, they did not, because obviously that is not what their constituency wants.

Real rocket science here, fella.

 

[OKTexas]

And why would they have to worry about their jobs if a majority of Americans favored the legislation? Can you say someone is lying here? You can't say on one hand that a majority support the bill and then refuse to vote for it because it will cost you an election, that doesn't add up.

 

[RDD_1210]

It's self interest/preservation that causes these politicians to refuse to pass sensible gun control measures. They know that their opponent will be able to skew public perception of a population that is mostly idiots to believe that because that candidate voted for universal background checks, etc...that he/she is obviously anti-constitution or some other BS that rubes such as TakeAStepBack and the rest of the uninformed population will lap up.

 

[Truthmatters]

Are you slow, or stupid? If they want to get re-elected, they need to actually represent the constituency. If the constituency wanted tighter gun laws, they would voted favorably for the measure. Since they want to be re-elected, they did not, because obviously that is not what their constituency wants.

Real rocket science here, fella.

how did the 10% who dont want background checks get 50% of the representation in the congress?

 

[RDD_1210]

And why would they have to worry about their jobs if a majority of Americans favored the legislation? Can you say someone is lying here? You can't say on one hand that a majority support the bill and then refuse to vote for it because it will cost you an election, that doesn't add up.

For the same reason that people were against Obamacare but liked all the individual components that actually made up the bill. Dishonest politicians prey on the weak minded with ideas like "death panels" and "ban of all guns" to get the people to go against even sensible legislation.

 

[Little-Acorn]

how did the 10% who dont want background checks get 50% of the representation in the congress?

By saying one thing to a poll when it didn't matter to them, and something else to their congressman when it did.

 

[eflatminor]

Supporters of Australia's laws cite the fact that Australia had 13 gun massacres in the 18 years before the 1996 gun reforms, but has not experienced any mass shootings since.

That's a lie. They had a mass shooting in 2002 when a university student shot and killed teachers and students. They also had another mass killing in 2000 when 15 were killed...but since the bad guy didn't use a gun, I guess those people are somehow less dead....

I notice Stewart and his flunky also overlooked the fact that violent crime increased following the firearms confiscation. Oh those pesky facts that don't support your agenda...

They also didn't mention that since the gun ban, Australia has a higher rate of rape than the US. Yep, the rate of rape in Australia is 150 times that of the US. I guess their idea of gun control is giving a 120lb woman the 'right' to fistfight a 250lb rapist. Talk about a war on women!

Then there's this little fact: Australia ranks 1st, that's right NUMBER 1, in total crime victims per capita....43% higher than in America. All those unarmed civilians have resulted in the highest crime rate rates in the world...and you're celebrating? Sick, just sick.

 

[Truthmatters]

how did the 10% who dont want background checks get 50% of the representation in the congress?

By saying one thing to a poll when it didn't matter to them, and something else to their congressman when it did.

remember how well lying to yourself about polls worked outed for the republicans and Robmoney?

 

[DiamondDave]

Are you slow, or stupid? If they want to get re-elected, they need to actually represent the constituency. If the constituency wanted tighter gun laws, they would voted favorably for the measure. Since they want to be re-elected, they did not, because obviously that is not what their constituency wants.

Real rocket science here, fella.

how did the 10% who dont want background checks get 50% of the representation in the congress?

Still quoting that false statistic like Obama does with his talk of 'studies' from the early 1990's that were only pols of less than 300 people??

Fact: There is no gun show loophole. All vendors at gun shows must comply with background check laws
Fact: The '90%' number you like to cite has people assuming that there is a gun show loophole and does not mean that they support additional or 'tighter' background checks


You habitually lying hyper-partisan twatwaffle

 

[gallantwarrior]

It's self interest/preservation that causes these politicians to refuse to pass sensible gun control measures. They know that their opponent will be able to skew public perception of a population that is mostly idiots to believe that because that candidate voted for universal background checks, etc...that he/she is obviously anti-constitution or some other BS that rubes such as TakeAStepBack and the rest of the uninformed population will lap up.

This is Alaska. Baggitch knows damned well that his constituency would fire his ass in a NY minute if he voted against our Constitutionally guaranted right to arm and protect ourselves.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Are you slow, or stupid? If they want to get re-elected, they need to actually represent the constituency. If the constituency wanted tighter gun laws, they would voted favorably for the measure. Since they want to be re-elected, they did not, because obviously that is not what their constituency wants.

Real rocket science here, fella.

Right, Politicians always do right by their constituents....I hear you suggesting that but lets hear you say it out loud so we all can have a good chuckle.

 

[Truthmatters]

the American people want to know why 10% of the people get the entire republican party voting against the 90%.


lie lie lie away about your cheating in elections.

Lie lie lie about this is yet more proof you cheat and your the bought party

 

[tjvh]

Still crying about Democrats throwing other Democrats under the bus over the gun issue. Boo f-in hoo.

 

[eflatminor]

sensible gun control measures

You show us something sensible and we'll listen. Enacting laws that only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about your rules is not 'sensible'.

Here's what is:

1. Increase sentences for violent criminals
2. Put more cops on the streets
3. Make it easier to involuntarily commit a mental unstable person (tricky one, granted).

That's how you lessen violent crime.

 

[eflatminor]

the American people want to know why 10% of the people get the entire republican party voting against the 90%.

Because we don't allow the tyranny of the majority to override the rights of a minority.

And your 90% stat is bullshit, but you knew that.

Back to the vodka and paint chips you go...

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Are you slow, or stupid? If they want to get re-elected, they need to actually represent the constituency. If the constituency wanted tighter gun laws, they would voted favorably for the measure. Since they want to be re-elected, they did not, because obviously that is not what their constituency wants.

Real rocket science here, fella.

how did the 10% who dont want background checks get 50% of the representation in the congress?

Don't show these righties the data. They can't stand hard data.

Over 90 percent of Americans support gun background checks: poll
Over 90 percent of Americans support gun background checks: poll | Reuters
By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said.

OOooops! Damn, I did it again.

 

[OKTexas]

And why would they have to worry about their jobs if a majority of Americans favored the legislation? Can you say someone is lying here? You can't say on one hand that a majority support the bill and then refuse to vote for it because it will cost you an election, that doesn't add up.

For the same reason that people were against Obamacare but liked all the individual components that actually made up the bill. Dishonest politicians prey on the weak minded with ideas like "death panels" and "ban of all guns" to get the people to go against even sensible legislation.

Of course all of the taxes and funny math used in Maobamacare would not have been a reason to oppose it. Projected cost have already tripled and it's not even fully implemented yet. You folks just love rewriting history don't ya. People are smart enough to recognize when a bill is crap and the gun bill was exactly that, it wouldn't have done a damn bit of good.