Jon Stewart's plea for gun control
Gun-control advocates, IMHO, make themselves part of the problem sometimes not because of their arguments, but that some of their solutions come off sounding bit too drastic, self-righteous in demonizing, oversimplying the issues surrounding the problem like Micheal Moore's recently said all guns, regardless of caliber, type, should be registered in a federal/state database just like cars and pet collars. That's another typical over-exagerration from Moore's that even his supporters admit, hurt him and give his enemies ample ammunition to discredit him and his beliefs---even though Moore is a NRA member.
I don't see why it would be seen as a disgustingly over the top statement. I don't things need to go this far to the left, but if you think about the statement it isn't that insane. Dog collars? So a dog's collar has to be registered and yet a gun does not? Cars are registered so that the police can track them or that if they cause harm they can be easily tracked. Why can't guns be tagged the same way? If a person's main reason for owning a gun is legal protection, then he shouldn't be afraid of the government knowing how many guns he owns.
What's with this insistence on a "Conversation" that I keep hearing? Every anti-gun statement I hear tends to be an emotional plea about how important it is we have a Conversation. It's apparently very important to have this Conversation Right Now. Earlier on we couldn't have this Conversation; however, Right Now It Is Finally Time To Have This Conversation. When I agree to the conversation, I get more emotional pleas from people who have never seen or touched a working firearm in their entire lives.
If gun control is so important to Stewart, why does he spend all but 30 or so seconds of it making emotional pleas and mocking the easy targets of right-wing media outlets instead of making actual suggestions? I'd be happy to have this super-important Conversation people seem to want so much if it consisted of actual logical proposals instead of them yelling "we have to do SOMETHING!!!!!!!1" over and over.
Gun owners can be so touchy. I've owned a gun. I've shot many guns. But I don't feel like I need to have owned a gun to try and understand the issue. This isn't like cancer, where you can never understand what it is like until you've had someone close to you die from it. Many of our legislators make laws about abortion, illegal drugs, prostitution, alcohol and infinitely more things without ever having experiences with those issues (well besides prostitution probably).
Jon Stewart shows those wack jobs because:
1. it's good ratings and funny
2. because these aren't just wackjob hobos holding up signs that say "the end is near" as drivers by throw their garbage at them. These are people who have entertainment shows on news networks with millions of viewers. These are people who affect opinions. People who don't follow issues will believe mostly what they hear (on both sides) and i think it's very important to show these people as wack jobs. They actually affect people's opinions, and therefore affect political change.
The current stated policy of our government to push more gun control down the throats of law abiding citizens, while ignoring greater issues (debt ceiling, spending, term limits, education, etc) speaks volumes concerning the scope/scale of ignorance running rampant across this country.
Any attempt to amend the constitution while looking at only 1/10th of 1% of any given sample (in this case firearms related deaths) is foolhardy and not based on any clear/rational thought process. IMHO, that itself should bring pause to those who care to remember that ANY change to the Constitution of the United States should be carefully considered and intended to truly right an injustice and benefit the majority. Not any one faction, interest group, or media center.
I say these things as a veteran and military member of over 20 yrs service. I long ago swore to defend the Constituion of the United States and I hate to see one of its core principles attacked to benefit flimsy ideals, haphazard methodology/philosophy and personal agendas.
Now...I would be hypocritical if I didnt respect others right to differ. Lets just say we agree to disagree.
A nation's first service is to protect it's citizens. If guns are an issue with keeping it's citizens safe, then the government owes it to it's people to protect them. It isn't a small sample size. Many would say that the UK has a similar financial status to us. We have at least a 3 times higher rate of murder than they do. I know that many cite the fact that knife murders have gone up, but overall murder has still gone down since banning firearms.
Is banning firearms the solution? probably not. But what Jon stewart is saying is that every time someone tries to come up with a solution they're barked back with "2ND AMMENDMENT!" to the point that you can't even get a point accross.
How about this solution? If your fear is that some day you'll have to fight as a militia (north korea land attack, zombies, aliens, etc.) which is probably unlikely since i'm sure we'll be fighting a nuclear battle, have guns only available to those who have ever had military training. If you want to own a semi automatic weapon, then you must go through yearly mental checkups and renewal process similar to driving a car. If we are attacked by north korea, you have a better chance of protecting american soil as being part of a well trained militia than you do as the crazy tim robbins character in War of the Worlds.
If your issue is that you may want to overturn the US government if they get too full fo themselves, well then I don't know what to tell you. The US government shouldn't be interested in you having a gun.
If your issue is home protection, I think the odds are tiny that you'll be attacked by a Warriors-like gang of baseball bat carrying thugs that you'll need to mow down with a banana clip. 6-8 shots in a revolver should be plenty to hold off someone robbing your home.
Do I probably have the best solutions? I'd imagine not, but this is what left moderates or the left want, a discussion. And as long as either side is pandering to their voters they're going to take hard line stances that don't help anyone.
You have to admit that Jon stewart makes a good point. Cigarettes are legal, but we plaster "this may kill you" all over it.
People yell about how drunk drivers kill people, so we should be able to keep our guns! Well that's like saying prostitution is legal in nevada so I should be able to keep my weed! They aren't comparable. But if they were, we highly prosicute drunk drivers, even if you dont' harm anyone, and there are numerous campaigns demonizing drunk driving.
We live in a society that is meant to keep it's people safe as if they were idiots (don't burn yourself with coffee!) and yet these toys that are created to harm are available to pretty much anyone illegally or legally. When the stock market crashed it was time to talk finance. When ships sink it's time to talk tighter ship regulations. Chinatown bus here crashed and killed people and then NY strictly regulated to the point that many had to close down for shady practices. Jon stewart is right in that this is the time to talk about it. When tragedy happens is always the time to talk about it, guns are no different.