arma virumque cano (et alia)
I'd always respected Stewart, and enjoyed his Daily Show work, despite my assumption that there is not a lot of intersection between his political beliefs and mine (beyond a disdain for Shrubya'--and that's a little too commonplace to celebrate as a point of agreement). Perhaps our beliefs on guns are closer than I'd thought. He sounded like (a vastly cleverer and funnier version of) me.As for Helmke, it's almost as if he enjoys advertising the Brady Bunch's descent into irrelevance.
Paul Helmke is about as full of shit as one can get. That is why when he opens his mouth, shit comes talking out.
C'mon guys. Paul hit the nail on the head. Jon Stewart just made a silly mistake. I don't think he realized he was agreeing with guys like Glenn Beck and the rest of the pro gun crowd by saying what I suppose he thought was funny. I wouldn't be surprised if he retracts it and realigns himself with the rest of his lefty fans. He could pull that off without losing a beat and be funny all at the same time.
Even a lefty like Stewart realizes that an inanimate object does not cause crime. That is just common sense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:I don't think he realized he was agreeing with guys like Glenn Beck and the rest of the pro gun crowd by saying what I suppose he thought was funny.I wouldn't be surprised if he retracts it and realigns himself with the rest of his lefty fans. He could pull that off without losing a beat and be funny all at the same time.Ooh, do I have a revelation for you!I'm pretty sure this wasn't an ill-thought, off-the-cuff joke--if this clip from the Aug. 19th Daily Show, is any indication.The relevant portion, where Stewart praises (and apologizes to) civil rights icon Charlton Heston, starts at about 7:13 into the segment, and goes to the end.Here's an excerpt where he apologizes for: . . . connecting irresponsibly the actions of two psychotics to an entire group of reasonable people expressing their Constitutional rights... the point is, I was wrong and Heston was right.Mr. Stewart, I am very confident that Mr. Heston would gladly and gratefully accept your apology.I'd suggest not holding your breath waiting for Mr. Stewart to " . . . [retract] it and [realign] himself with the rest of his lefty fans."In fact, the realignment of many of his "lefty fans" might happen sooner.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wow, that's a wonderful connection you made. I'd seen part of the clip but had no idea he ended it with the Heston bit.I'm not sure it's a good comparison though. We've got three things here.1. Heston insisting the NRA is not to blame for Columbine and they have the right to hold their convention in Denver.2. Stewart comparing that to folks blaming all of Islam for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists and thereby trying to block the Cordoba House.3. The original point of the post, Stewart's comments that the gun is just a tool and its removal is not the solution to violence.You see, in a pretty slick manner you made these connections which don't really flow one from the other.You may be right about Jon Stewart. Perhaps in spite of his lefty politics, he really believes in the 2nd amendment individual rights. I would never want to pigeon hole him. He could be an avid pro-gun advocate for all I know. But, I see no problem with his admitting it was a mistake to use the old gun-is-only-a-tool routine in order to make a silly joke about how many crazy people we have around.Furthermore, I see no contradiction with his getting back on the gun control bandwagon as far as gun availability goes and having aired that Heston clip to tout 1st Amendment rights. In fact the NRA holding its convention where it wanted to was just that, a 1st amendment issue not a 2nd.
I wasn't trying to be "slick," and I do find myself forced to admit to having made some perhaps tenuous connections--not, again, in an effort to be "slick," but in perhaps a surfeit of optimism.I do dispute your contention that the site of the NRA convention was a First Amendment issue. No one, to my knowledge, argued that the NRA be forced to move or cancel the convention--the whining about the site of the convention was all about the NRA's supposed moral duty to voluntarily do so. The NRA's freedom of speech doesn't really seem to have been at issue.Also, when Stewart says "replace the Second Amendment with the First Amendment," does that not suggest an equivalency of importance between the two? Does his reference in the first place to the Second Amendment not indicate that he does view private gun ownership as a Second Amendment issue, contrary to the ludicrous (and now discredited) view that it somehow is not? How about him referring to NRA members (those, indeed, serious enough about the NRA to attend the convention) as "a group of reasonable people," and his reference to their "expressing their Constitutional rights"?I seriously doubt Stewart is anything like a gun rights advocate. I think he simply wants to stop wasting time and anger on fighting about still more gun laws, when that time and energy could be spent on trying to find real solutions.