Watch Jon Stewart's epic takedown of Second Amendment absolutist Rep. Nathan Dahm

Originally published at: Watch Jon Stewart's epic takedown of Second Amendment absolutist Rep. Nathan Dahm | Boing Boing


“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

That sound pretty absolute - more absolute than “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

And yet there are numerous laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”.

None of the rights in the Constitution are absolute.


Man, that would’ve been a devastating argument if gun fetishists were open to facts or reason.


Stewart: No, I’m not gonna say it like it’s an opinion. That’s what it is. It’s firearms. More than cancer, more than car accidents. And what you’re telling me is, you don’t mind infringing free speech to protect children from this amorphous thing that you think of, but when it comes to children that have died, you don’t give a flying fuck to stop that, because that “shall not be infringed.” That is hypocrisy at its highest order.

Goddamn I love and missed this man so much.

The way he connects things so simply and purely is just superb. He makes it look so easy. And the underlying bedrock of what he really cares about and pursues, the place of integrity and compassion where he constantly comes from, is just inspiring.


Important that these sort of ‘stunning’ interviews still occur. Yet a whole lot of them could be much shorter if it was reckoned prior to the discussion that the singular goal of the interviewee, easily transcending avoiding hypocrisy or consistency, is: money. They are being paid to promote guns and pursue any progressive freedom their money suppliers tell them to. What’s sort’ve stunning is these guys think that they can take part in such an interview and come out with something editable which will make them look good. (“ey the fox’news’ editors can now replace Jon Stewart’s voice with an A.I. voice promoting pederasty”) -sigh-


That is a major factor for sure but I do not think it is the only one. A lot of these people really are dedicated to unrestricted gun ownership because it is part of their core identity. Charlton Heston certainly didn’t need whatever speaking fees he got from the NRA.

It’s a death cult, and like any large cult you’ll find a mix of cynical grifters and true believers.


Agree it won’t change the minds of those who’ve already dug in their heels. But these sorts of conversations are important for reaching that middle sliver of people who still haven’t made up their minds or can reasonably swayed. They can often swing elections on key matters.

Basically, every bit helps…


The next time Mr. Dahm has a campaign rally or any sort of town hall type meeting where his constituents are allowed to be in the same room with him, I want to see Jon Stewart and a camera person follow one of his constituents as they attempt to bring a firearm into that meeting.

I want to see the security personnel turn that person away.

I want to see Mr. Dahm argue why that security guard, that venue, or Mr. Dahm himself should not be sued for infringing on that constituent’s absolute right to keep and bear arms.


As another scenario, if Mr. Dahm has a young child or other relative (niece, nephew, etc.) I would like to know if he would try to refuse or take away a gun given to that child as say a birthday present. Would he infringe that child’s absolute right to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second Amendment?


I was of the pro gun camp until a college history professor asked me to determine:

  • How does the NRA finance all of the benefits proffered to its membership, and how much would it cost to implement? (follow the money)
  • Are the collected membership dues sufficient to sustain these efforts? (does it add up)
  • How are these shortfalls fulfilled? (who pays for what)

(Answer: Gun manufacturer lobby dollars/NRA sponsorship, by turning their membership into a pro gun PAC.)


This dude needs to learn what “anecdote” means.


And the absurdity of his argument is that there are already numerous laws restricting the free use of firearms. A person can’t go and buy a machine gun without an excruciatingly onerous background check, can’t own a howitzer at all and sure as shit can’t own a Stinger missile. There is literally nothing in the ammosexual repertoire that bears the least bit of scrutiny.

As always, I am absolutely shocked that these meatheads think they can go toe to toe with Jon Stewart.


I love that JS brings up the ‘everyone is for SOME kind of gun control’. For example, I should not be allowed to purchase a tank w operable weapons (to say nothing of just driving it around the streets, over cars and such…) I don’t think my crazy neighbor needs tactical nukes. Nor should he be allowed to purchase an F-16 w a full load of weaponry. Or artillery. Or a bazooka. Land mines? An aircraft carrier? Join a militia/the Army if you want to operate said machinery.

gd ammosexuals… nuts (actually just another wedge issue that’s gotten inflated to ridiculous proportions)

I’m not even particularly anti-gun: I took my 16 year old to the range to shoot clays. Now that he’s an adult, he goes with his friends. One of my brothers hunts regularly, the others occasionally. Do I want a gun in the house? Absolutely not.

This dude is just: guns, guns, guns, guns, GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS


No need to stretch that far. Prisoners in prisons aren’t allowed guns. That violates the language of the 2A, the way these guys interpret it. So, in reality, they do support gun control; it’s perfectly ok to restrict it from those people. So once they acknowledge that there is room for gun control, it’s just a negotiation on where to draw the line.


Do people not watch his show before agreeing to be interviewed or do they think they are smarter than the last person he interviewed?

That’s a rhetorical question. Of course they think they’re smarter than a comedian.

They are not.


I’ve always wondered that too. My take is that these kinds of doofs are just raw meat. Some one has to show up to the debate-that-can’t-be-won. Someone has to be thrown under the bus.

It was just brilliant when Jon asks, Is voting a right? And what do you have to do when you vote… Register. Ha! Brilliant! The doof knew he was getting eaten alive.


And for the right wing mentality of many americans that Line is a crooked as a gerrymandered line in a red state. Should the alleged members of antifa have the same gun rights as proud boys? I wonder how they would come down on that.


And in many of the states with the least restrictive gun laws, voting requires registration, multiple forms of ID, and has timing restrictions that block out people who work. There is only one polling place for several million people.

That’s one of the challenges to Oregon’s gun control ballot measure that passed last year: access. The jusge who is blocking the measure says that there is insufficient access to the pemitting system, which makes it too restrictive. Um, hello? Same with voting in states that try to suppress voter turnout.


I love how he leads the meathead down the path of having to acknowledge one must register to vote in order the exercise that right but tries as hard as he can to keep from saying the actual word. And yet cannot fathom that registering their ownership of a firearm is not a violation on their rights.


“We have already established that your virtue is negotiable. Now we’re just arguing about the price.”


That’s why the only option is to ban all sales of new semi-automatic firearms.

The gun fetishists are determined to undermine everything. So let’s do something that will reduce the number of firearms.