Colbert Rips New Speaker’s Pathetic Maine Shooting Response

You are what you eat.

But seriously, it's blood.

“I eat pieces of shit like you for breakfast!” -Shooter McGavin

Oh God the only time fascists start wanting to be a grammar Nazi.

It's semi automatic weapons. Just because you can switch out one pin to make it full auto means nothing.

It's a magazine not a clip!

Just like every word in the world, they're all made up and become defined by the culture using them.

If I say assault weapons and you understand what I mean, then the word is fine.

Once you get into the legal areas, absolutely everything needs to be defined. Under assault weapon it'll start listing every type and parameter with strict definitions of what they mean. They like to pretend that's not part of the bill though lol.

Calls for gun prohibition just increase funding for Republicans.

Isn't Alex Jones still claiming that Sandy Hook is a false flag by fake actors?

And didn't he just lose a billion dollar lawsuit?

Prays are worthless without thoughts as well.

Lol I specifically said varmint control, if you live on land that has coyotes or whatever all the power to you.

Look at all this naysaying bullshit. Honestly 99.9999% of people aren't going to lose their life over having a gun or not. Maybe a few guns will remain hidden or in black market or whatever, but how many more school shootings will it take before we actually try something instead of just pointing out the reasons it won't be easy and throw up our hands?

It's disgusting and I'm tired of it.

I think the issue that a ban will take years to effectively cool the possession of assault weapons is not actually an issue worth stalling over. While a lot of people tend to look at a law as "if it's not immediately 100% effective it is garbage" in reality if you call for a refund based recall it will take a chunk out of the total guns out there. Patience is nessisarily.

Seizures of weapons in illegal transport or market will eventually account for another chunk. Guns are regularly stolen from home break ins so a lot of personal arsonal will find it's way into black markets. Over time when the things can be reported when used in gun clubs or spotted in the wild you take away a lot of the "fun" quotent of owning the weapons making surrender much more likely. The legal ramifications of finding the weapons in self defense cases motivates from another end. If you can't use them for self defense then the argument of what the point of having them gets stronger. A lot of people own these weapons in part for the same reasons they do expensive cars - the joy of using them and the cashe of bragging and showing them off. While 2nd amendment stans might hoarde them for ideological reasons they probably are gunna be forced to make them hard to find and make sure they don't mention them to young children who might narc on them making kids getting their hands on them less likely.

The more effectively useless and detrimental you legally make something over time you do wear away at the trouble and anxiety required to maintain ownership. What the US should aim for is long game de-escalation. If people don't start the process it just means the payoff is gunna be that further down the road.

How it went is Australia (trust me, we had shitloads of guns, buddy) was, people who wanted to hand in the small selection of banned guns, did, the people who didn't, didn't. Then regularly the cops do an amnesty day, where you can hand in any illegal guns, no questions asked. If they change their minds. People still own guns. You don't ban them all, just the unnecessary ones, and you regulate who can buy them, kinda like getting a really easy drivers licence.

Well it's both. Having access to such weapons when someone is mentally ill is a bad combination. And having mental health going unchecked just makes it hard to capture the rage.

The fact is this issue is not just the guns or the people. It's both. And everyone trying to separate them is not understanding the true nature of the problem.

It's already banned. WTF are you on?

The Founding Fathers would never have signed the Bill of Rights if they thought it would ever be amended in any way, yeah. Great point.

Well when laws are woefully out of date they deserve to be shit on. That’s how democracy and progress works.

I dunno man, if golfing killed 100,000 people a year don't you think someone would investigate? Why should this sport be different?

As it is, the most dangerous sport in America (mountain climbing) kills 30 people a year.

Are you more free because the GOP refuses to regulate the militia? These people aren't. Are we more secure? Absolutely fucking not. Go back and read your precious bill of rights and tell us what the point of the second amendment is. Republicans wipe their ass with the bill of rights.

Let's not let women or black people vote either /s

It's fine, just because you want a killing machine doesn't mean you or anyone else is entitled to it. Guns in 1776 were a little different than what we got now. I like guns and I think they're neat, but the proof is in the pudding. They're doing more harm than good.

If we have black markets for guns like Australia has them I think we'll be in a much better position than we are today.

I mean.... The rest of the world proves that you're wrong. Like the whole world. They don't have this problem. America does.

The only thing expanding the black market is legal gun sales. Black market guns don’t just fall off the truck leaving the factory.

That isn't even the issue here. This was an individual who was becoming more mentally disturbed and voluntarily checked himself into a psych hospital. It should not be controversial whatsoever that we enforce laws to remove guns from these individuals until the time an independent psychiatrist clears them.

This isn't even just because of mass shootings. I'm worried about all the veterans with PTSD and depression who could commit suicide. We need to understand that taking someone's guns when they're in that state is helping them and could save their lives.

I will be the first person to protest if they illegitimately do this to people. I'm more concerned about the mental and physical health. Guarantee the return of their guns, or even allow a trusted individual to take them -- just create incredibly steep charges if the person with custody of the guns hands them over prematurely and suicide or homicides happen.

None of this should be controversial. It literally helps no one to leave them with the guns. We can figure out a holding process for the firearms to ensure it isn't abused to take guns away and that people have their property returned. But there should be absolutely no disagreement that people who are actively having mental health crises shouldn't be near guns until they've recovered.

Then let the get it guns in the black market. No reason we have to be selling military-style weapons to crazy people at retail.

This is a bullshit argument with no merit and you know it.

I used to never smoke weed because it was so hard to get it just wasn't worth the effort. Now that it's legal and there's a dispo right there, I always have my weed on me. availability matters.

It'll absolutely reduce the number of guns purchased and owned by the general population. Gun control isn't an all or nothing situation.

The black market might expand, but that's one more deterrent for new attackers. However, the issue is that in the US alone there are something like 300million guns already in circulation or owner by private individuals. So a buyback program would need to happen as well and I don't know how realistic that is. We've had mass shootings for decades and this government can't do shit about anything any more as all bipartisan good will has completely evaporated and the discourse has become so toxic.

I'm sure it has nothing at all to do with the base.

Exactly, you're mentally stable until you're not. And lot's of things can trigger a crisis.

He was such a nice guy, who would have thought!

Havent seen the militia link yet. Care to share a link?

Permanently Deleted

Definitely one way of trying to . One question though, who's going to pay for all that?

The mental health services are not going to be free and the gun owners certainly won't be cool with paying it. The government definitely won't pay for it...See, this is why I say I have no faith that the problem won't be solved any time soon, if ever.

Too many hard and expensive choices to make that will prove massively unpopular with large parts of either side of the argument.

Involuntary commitment disqualifies a person from owning guns legally. It's essentially never happens though.

I hear calls for things like Red Flag Laws from conservatives pretty often, actually.

That's a super odd take. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to own guns. My grandfather was a farmer and they're just standard tools on a farm.

Because he's arguing in bad faith. He's removing blame from the ease of access to guns in a disingenuous, JAQing off way.

That statement came across as the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument that is used against gun control, saying that it makes no sense to restrict guns when it's the person using the gun who decides to kill, and if that person is motivated enough they can do damage even without access to firearms, so why bother?

I don't think that's your point at all, but people always reflexively downvote over shit like that.

Gun ownership is a touchy issue to the US population in general. shrugs

Ease of access to firearms is a massive part of the problem, but saying that I will be downvoted even more. Add in the fact there are people having mental issues and breakdowns more than ever, and you can see why mass shootings are increasing.

Simply put, it's not an issue that is going to be solved any time soon, if ever. It is a highly politicized issue, which you can tell by the ferocity of the responses I got to my flippant original comment.

For real, I feel like their comment was literally only about the mental stability of these shooters. That's it. But people read into what isn't there and assume it's a bad faith argument against gun control.

you have to register your car with the government

Only to drive on public roads. You can own one and drive it around on your own property with no registration or a license at age 13 if you want. It's not a perfect analogy.

Bruh, you have to register your car with the government, you lose your license for driving drunk, you have to pass a test to prove you know how to drive.

yeah no one has ever driven an unregistered car or without a license

We should have the same and more controls on guns. This isn’t an either/or situation. Both cars and guns need sufficient controls to prevent deaths and injuries.

if we had the same or more it would still be less than the barrier of legal gun ownership in many states. anyone can get a license without actually knowing how to drive in a meaningful capacity. driving tests are insanely simple and you only have to take them once. sufficient controls would be reducing the reason to use either, whether it is justifiable or not. as it stands cars are still killing more people than guns but there is no national conversation on adding more restrictions on motor vehicles. this shows the reaction to the atrocities committed by mass shooters is just that, an emotional reaction in the heat of the moment.

Guns aren't built to kill people. Even the military has guns whose primary purpose isn't killing people.

It's amazing to see a perfectly wrinkle-free brain in action

yes they are

Because it's impossible to be a leftist who supports guns. Get fucked with this terrible take

Because it's impossible to be a leftist that supports guns. As long as the cops and government are armed, so should the people

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/03/29/guns-leading-deaths-children-us/

Similarly, capping the age range at 17, instead of 18 or 19, also alters the result, as children aged 17 and under have a greater risk of dying of vehicle-related injuries.