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

[Lonestar_logic]

Wrong, only a judge shoud have the ability to deny someone of their rights, no doctor is qualified. What is it that you fail to understand about due process.

What rights am I advocating to deny? And what does due process have to do with background checks?

You deny a persons right to buy a firearm when they are added to the disqualified list on NICS, the opinion of one doctor that can't be cross examined should never be enough to add a persons name to that list. A doctor already has the authority to report a patient they feel is dangerous to authorities and it's up to them to act on that information and provide due process. Simple concept.

Look you really need to learn how to comprehend written English.

I said that something like that needed to be addressed not instituted.

ad·dress (-drs)
tr.v. ad·dressed, ad·dress·ing, ad·dress·es
1. To speak to: addressed me in low tones.
2. To make a formal speech to.
3. To direct (a spoken or written message) to the attention of: address a protest to the faculty senate.
4. To mark with a destination: address a letter.
5.
a. To direct the efforts or attention of (oneself): address oneself to a task.
b. To deal with: addressed the issue of absenteeism.
6. To dispatch or consign (a ship, for example) to an agent or factor.
7. Sports To adjust and aim the club at (a golf ball) in preparing for a stroke.
n.
1. also (drs)
a. A description of the location of a person or organization, as written or printed on mail as directions for delivery: wrote down the address on the envelope.
b. The location at which a particular organization or person may be found or reached: went to her address but no one was home.
2. also (drs) Computer Science
a. A name or number used in information storage or retrieval that is assigned to a specific memory location.
b. The memory location identified by this name or number.
c. A name or a sequence of characters that designates an e-mail account or a specific site on the Internet or other network.
3. A formal spoken or written communication.
4. A formal speech.
5. Courteous attentions. Often used in the plural.
6. The manner or bearing of a person, especially in conversation.
7. Skill, deftness, and grace in dealing with people or situations. See Synonyms at tact.
8. The act of dispatching or consigning a ship, as to an agent or a factor.

 

[OKTexas]

What rights am I advocating to deny? And what does due process have to do with background checks?

You deny a persons right to buy a firearm when they are added to the disqualified list on NICS, the opinion of one doctor that can't be cross examined should never be enough to add a persons name to that list. A doctor already has the authority to report a patient they feel is dangerous to authorities and it's up to them to act on that information and provide due process. Simple concept.

Look you really need to learn how to comprehend written English.

I said that something like that needed to be addressed not instituted.

ad·dress (-drs)
tr.v. ad·dressed, ad·dress·ing, ad·dress·es
1. To speak to: addressed me in low tones.
2. To make a formal speech to.
3. To direct (a spoken or written message) to the attention of: address a protest to the faculty senate.
4. To mark with a destination: address a letter.
5.
a. To direct the efforts or attention of (oneself): address oneself to a task.
b. To deal with: addressed the issue of absenteeism.
6. To dispatch or consign (a ship, for example) to an agent or factor.
7. Sports To adjust and aim the club at (a golf ball) in preparing for a stroke.
n.
1. also (drs)
a. A description of the location of a person or organization, as written or printed on mail as directions for delivery: wrote down the address on the envelope.
b. The location at which a particular organization or person may be found or reached: went to her address but no one was home.
2. also (drs) Computer Science
a. A name or number used in information storage or retrieval that is assigned to a specific memory location.
b. The memory location identified by this name or number.
c. A name or a sequence of characters that designates an e-mail account or a specific site on the Internet or other network.
3. A formal spoken or written communication.
4. A formal speech.
5. Courteous attentions. Often used in the plural.
6. The manner or bearing of a person, especially in conversation.
7. Skill, deftness, and grace in dealing with people or situations. See Synonyms at tact.
8. The act of dispatching or consigning a ship, as to an agent or a factor.

And my point is it has been addressed. Doctors already have the ability to break privilege and report a dangerous patient.

 

[FJO]

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?

H. L. Menken (b. 1880) said ""No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

 

[Contumacious]

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

So much bullshit, so little time:

We have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same regardless of what the feds do - if guns are banned freemen will ignore those laws.

How Has Heightened Gun Control Worked in Australia and Britain?

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

Malcolm sums up:

Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

.

Did you think gun control was going to end all crimes? Do you think any law will stop any action?

So much bullshit is right, seems to me that is what you're suggesting so I wanted to ask head on to be sure

Yo Ding, why the fuck do you believe that banning firearms will stop the criminals from acquiring the same?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

 

[eflatminor]

Sorry, you are wrong.

Or really? So you think America is a pure Democracy where the majority can eliminate the rights of the minority at will? You go with that dumbshit, you go with that...

But for future consumption, please don't use Quinnipiac polls to ever boost your point of view, OK?

Never do.

Hey, since you're back, why don't you tell us how criminals in other countries obey their laws....

Idiot.

did the founders intend for a government run by 10% of the people?

The founders intended that no majority, no matter how large, could vote to suppress the rights of a minority, no matter how small. I don't care if 99.99% of the people wanted to ban certain books, it is not their right to override the rights of the .01% to read those books.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So much bullshit, so little time:

We have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to life and to defend the same regardless of what the feds do - if guns are banned freemen will ignore those laws.

How Has Heightened Gun Control Worked in Australia and Britain?

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

Malcolm sums up:

Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.

.

Did you think gun control was going to end all crimes? Do you think any law will stop any action?

So much bullshit is right, seems to me that is what you're suggesting so I wanted to ask head on to be sure

Yo Ding, why the fuck do you believe that banning firearms will stop the criminals from acquiring the same?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.

Is that to me? Because if it is, I'd like to know why you believe I believe that when I never said or suggested it?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You deny a persons right to buy a firearm when they are added to the disqualified list on NICS, the opinion of one doctor that can't be cross examined should never be enough to add a persons name to that list. A doctor already has the authority to report a patient they feel is dangerous to authorities and it's up to them to act on that information and provide due process. Simple concept.

Look you really need to learn how to comprehend written English.

I said that something like that needed to be addressed not instituted.

ad·dress (-drs)
tr.v. ad·dressed, ad·dress·ing, ad·dress·es
1. To speak to: addressed me in low tones.
2. To make a formal speech to.
3. To direct (a spoken or written message) to the attention of: address a protest to the faculty senate.
4. To mark with a destination: address a letter.
5.
a. To direct the efforts or attention of (oneself): address oneself to a task.
b. To deal with: addressed the issue of absenteeism.
6. To dispatch or consign (a ship, for example) to an agent or factor.
7. Sports To adjust and aim the club at (a golf ball) in preparing for a stroke.
n.
1. also (drs)
a. A description of the location of a person or organization, as written or printed on mail as directions for delivery: wrote down the address on the envelope.
b. The location at which a particular organization or person may be found or reached: went to her address but no one was home.
2. also (drs) Computer Science
a. A name or number used in information storage or retrieval that is assigned to a specific memory location.
b. The memory location identified by this name or number.
c. A name or a sequence of characters that designates an e-mail account or a specific site on the Internet or other network.
3. A formal spoken or written communication.
4. A formal speech.
5. Courteous attentions. Often used in the plural.
6. The manner or bearing of a person, especially in conversation.
7. Skill, deftness, and grace in dealing with people or situations. See Synonyms at tact.
8. The act of dispatching or consigning a ship, as to an agent or a factor.

And my point is it has been addressed. Doctors already have the ability to break privilege and report a dangerous patient.

They have the ability but they should be required.

 

[kwc57]

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.

Negative. We have a representative government. People elect their representatives based on common shared beliefs and values. They know that their representative will represent their wishes and desires. Yes, if they quit representing their constituents, they will lose their job in favor of someone else who will be elected based on common shared beliefs and values who will properly represent their wishes and desires. See how a representative government works? Just because Obama states his opinion that it is "good for the country" does not make it so. Passing legislation against the desires of the constituents who elected you to office is breaking a trust and shows poor judgement, conviction and character.

Then there is the whole problem for the liberal panty wetters of that damned old pesky constitution.

 

[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.

Negative. We have a representative government. People elect their representatives based on common shared beliefs and values. They know that their representative will represent their wishes and desires. Yes, if they quit representing their constituents, they will lose their job in favor of someone else who will be elected based on common shared beliefs and values who will properly represent their wishes and desires. See how a representative government works? Just because Obama states his opinion that it is "good for the country" does not make it so. Passing legislation against the desires of the constituents who elected you to office is breaking a trust and shows poor judgement, conviction and character.

Then there is the whole problem for the liberal panty wetters of that damned old pesky constitution.

Aww that's cute!

 

[OKTexas]

Look you really need to learn how to comprehend written English.

I said that something like that needed to be addressed not instituted.

ad·dress (-drs)
tr.v. ad·dressed, ad·dress·ing, ad·dress·es
1. To speak to: addressed me in low tones.
2. To make a formal speech to.
3. To direct (a spoken or written message) to the attention of: address a protest to the faculty senate.
4. To mark with a destination: address a letter.
5.
a. To direct the efforts or attention of (oneself): address oneself to a task.
b. To deal with: addressed the issue of absenteeism.
6. To dispatch or consign (a ship, for example) to an agent or factor.
7. Sports To adjust and aim the club at (a golf ball) in preparing for a stroke.
n.
1. also (drs)
a. A description of the location of a person or organization, as written or printed on mail as directions for delivery: wrote down the address on the envelope.
b. The location at which a particular organization or person may be found or reached: went to her address but no one was home.
2. also (drs) Computer Science
a. A name or number used in information storage or retrieval that is assigned to a specific memory location.
b. The memory location identified by this name or number.
c. A name or a sequence of characters that designates an e-mail account or a specific site on the Internet or other network.
3. A formal spoken or written communication.
4. A formal speech.
5. Courteous attentions. Often used in the plural.
6. The manner or bearing of a person, especially in conversation.
7. Skill, deftness, and grace in dealing with people or situations. See Synonyms at tact.
8. The act of dispatching or consigning a ship, as to an agent or a factor.

And my point is it has been addressed. Doctors already have the ability to break privilege and report a dangerous patient.

They have the ability but they should be required.

Required to do what, have an opinion? What do you do about a doctor who is a dedicated anti gunner and thinks anyone who owns one is dangerous, should they have the ability to make a call to NICS and add a name to the data base and use the excuse, the law requires it, with no fear of repercussions? How far down that road are you willing to travel?

 

[kwc57]

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.

Negative. We have a representative government. People elect their representatives based on common shared beliefs and values. They know that their representative will represent their wishes and desires. Yes, if they quit representing their constituents, they will lose their job in favor of someone else who will be elected based on common shared beliefs and values who will properly represent their wishes and desires. See how a representative government works? Just because Obama states his opinion that it is "good for the country" does not make it so. Passing legislation against the desires of the constituents who elected you to office is breaking a trust and shows poor judgement, conviction and character.

Then there is the whole problem for the liberal panty wetters of that damned old pesky constitution.

Aww that's cute!

Awww, I see you share Obama's clueless view on how the constitution and government work! Thank you low information voter! I hope we survive your ineptitude.

Clue: the US President doesn't rule by decree......no matter how much he thinks so.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Negative. We have a representative government. People elect their representatives based on common shared beliefs and values. They know that their representative will represent their wishes and desires. Yes, if they quit representing their constituents, they will lose their job in favor of someone else who will be elected based on common shared beliefs and values who will properly represent their wishes and desires. See how a representative government works? Just because Obama states his opinion that it is "good for the country" does not make it so. Passing legislation against the desires of the constituents who elected you to office is breaking a trust and shows poor judgement, conviction and character.

Then there is the whole problem for the liberal panty wetters of that damned old pesky constitution.

Aww that's cute!

Awww, I see you share Obama's clueless view on how the constitution and government work!

How? Because you just said it?

Thank you low information voter! I hope we survive your ineptitude.

Clue: the US President doesn't rule by decree......no matter how much he thinks so.

Can you tell us how Columbus discovered America next? I love these child like views on govt.

 

[OriginalShroom]

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.

If they are afraid of losing their job, that means there are enough people who are in their district who would disagree with them.

In other words, their voters don't want more gun control and that is who they were elected to represent, not some twits in another part of the country.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Because the NRA is well funded and wields more political power than 300 million other ppl.

How is this hard for ppl to understand?

And who funds the NRA???

Not the Government like Planned Parenthood.


Voters fund the NRA.

 

[Politico]

Pretty much sums it up.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Because the NRA is well funded and wields more political power than 300 million other ppl.

How is this hard for ppl to understand?

And who funds the NRA???

Not the Government like Planned Parenthood.


Voters fund the NRA.

Answer: 3 Million ppl and they are more organized and have more political power than 300 million.

 

[Pete7469]

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.

New information? What? That bed wetting liberals have no respect for the real rights enshrined in the Constitution and will only defend the "rights" they've fabricated out of steaming piles of bullshit?

That's not "new information".

 

[OriginalShroom]

Because the NRA is well funded and wields more political power than 300 million other ppl.

How is this hard for ppl to understand?

And who funds the NRA???

Not the Government like Planned Parenthood.


Voters fund the NRA.

Answer: 3 Million ppl and they are more organized and have more political power than 300 million.

And as it has been pointed out to you time and time and time again.. The majority can not override the rights of the minority. Even if it is a minority of one.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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]The Daily Show: John Oliver Investigates Gun Control in Australia - Part 2 - YouTube[/ame]

You glean all this from a comedy skit, from a comedy show that airs on Comedy Central?
This certainly explains a lot.

 

[ClosedCaption]

And who funds the NRA???

Not the Government like Planned Parenthood.


Voters fund the NRA.

Answer: 3 Million ppl and they are more organized and have more political power than 300 million.

And as it has been pointed out to you time and time and time again.. The majority can not override the rights of the minority. Even if it is a minority of one.

Yes it has...which is why you repeating it is baffling