An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Jon Stewart’s Extended Parody of Fox News’ Glenn Beck (Video)
Mar 19th, 2010 | 11 responses
Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart did an extended parody of Fox News’ mega-ratings powerhouse, conservative host Glenn Beck (warning some adult content):
11 Responses to “Jon Stewart’s Extended Parody of Fox News’ Glenn Beck (Video)”
That was an AWESOME parody!
But, as usual, a progressive misses the point behind Beck. Stewart says Beck believes the individual progressives are a “cancer”. Not so (of course). However, Progressivism as a ideology many times goes against the Constitution. That's the part I have a big problem with. I also have a problem with many unconstituional ideals within Conservatism. From time to time, Beck even brings those up, but not nearly as often.
As I've said before, pass whatever legislation you wish – that's Democracy in action. But we ALL must do it within the bounds of the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN AND INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
Here's a few examples:
Corporatism: Unconstitutional as it empowers something other than individuals for whom the Bill of Rights was written.
Gun Control: Unconstitutional – period.
Legislation of relationships: Unconstitutional (yes this includes Civil Unions – but NOT gay marriage since the marital relationship is one instituted religiously).
Executive War Powers: Unconstitutional.
Forced buying of health insurance: Unconstitutional.
and so on.
So no gun control means no age limits, no background checks, no waiting period, no concern about the person's state of mental health, is that right?
Sure…let's let 8 year old kids walk into any store and buy an Uzi so he can play war with a friend and accidentally kill said friend, no questions asked…
Sure…let's let a person furious over a stupid spat with his/her spouse/family member/neighbor walk into any store and buy a gun in order to kill that person in the heat of anger, no questions asked…
OK, I'll take this as long as we can sell bullets and ammunition for $5,000 each. The right to bear arms says nothing about ammunition…the guarantee is that you can have the gun, not that it actually works.
I'm not a fan of Beck and especially a critic of what he has been doing lately, but 99.999999%+ of the attacks on Beck by the lefties only lower the lefties much more, which is predictable as it is normal.
I join normal people in being more annoyed at his marketing stuff and personality cult than any overuse of “progressive” as a synonym for extremist-left and demon of choice currently.
* * *
“But we ALL must do it within the bounds of the Constitution”
Unfortunately, this has been more in the breach than in its observance since the 1930s. There is a vast group of people that doesn't understand or prefers it that way. (they look to Washington for everything)
* * *
“So no gun control means”
It means no federal gun controls, at least, according to the Constitution, and this may involve rights (which we already know are individual) held by all US citizens, which states and localities can't infringe. There is a Supreme Court case being reviewed right now, about Chicago area dinosaur-city gun controls, that should resolve the issue of what state and local governments may do. There's no need yet to rush to remove metal detectors in local court buildings (and in airports). What those of us who are informed are interested in, is to what extent this case will resolve all state-local versus federal jurisdictional boundaries, in a general sense, possibly. There's much in that case, as I've stated on a number of earlier occasions.
“I'll take this as long as we can sell bullets and ammunition for $5,000 each”
You're dead wrong morally as well as legally, of course, as you're trying to interfere with gun rights, though you have noteworthy company in the past. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one of those in Congress who has sought a 10,000 per cent tax on ammunition before. (This has been written about on this site by me on a number of occasions, too.) Any such gimmick merits no respect and should be stillborn. (The kinds of interferences the feds have now with suppressors and machine guns are actually open to intelligent scrutiny and review, but will probably never be reformed as they should be.)
You have suitable company in the authoritarian Far East, too, Anna. Malaysia, for example, may still have the death penalty for unlicensed ammunition in any amount in one's possession with a license to have it. The same is probably true for guns, themselves, I believe.
On a more realistic note, where there are problems with bad gun use by bad people, such as in parts of Los Angeles, there have been, in the past at least, temporary bans on ammo sales prior to and during days of known problems, like July 4, when people (at least when Iived there) shot guns all night and shot at things like strings of parked railroad cars and at housing projects at random, at night on July 4.
That's not the same as the totalitarian nightmare of prohibitive taxes on ammo all year, bans on sales all year, or strict gun controls of all kinds (no handguns at all, no transporting even locked-in-case long guns through certain territories, etc, totally un-American nonsense).
“But we ALL must do it within the bounds of the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN AND INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.”
It also includes the intentions of those who ratified the document, and the intentions of those who wrote and ratified the many amendments to it. (This has nothing to do with the illegitimate “living constitution” beloved by selective liberals; that is a constitution who gets successive different meanings given to it by judges and activists who simply want what they want.)
I could go into detail about the selectivity of the lefties who decry “old” this or that but still claim First Amendment rights (often where there aren't any) but that's just standing over an already dead opponent.
J.D. that Chicago gun control case is hopefully going not only to resolve state-local gun control limits, but be more general insofar as demarcation of boundaries of US citizenship rights versus state-local controls.
So, the mere suggestion of charging enough for ammo just to make some person that really shouldn't be shooting that gun stop and think is on par with the death penalty for unlicensed guns and ammo?! Talk about a false equivalence!
In JD's eyes, even any temporary bans on ammo sales that even you think is acceptable would be unconstitutional since he's so unequivocal on the constitutionality of gun rights.
So let me pose this question…if there is absolutely no gun control, what do you do to reduce gun-related crime? Let everyone shoot it out ala the Old West? Let urban centers become true war zones? Why not issue every kid in school his own gun? It sometimes amazes me that the gun fetish (yes, for many it's a fetish) is so strong that they are even against common sense rules such as background checks, age limits, waiting periods, etc.
Hi, Anna,
“So let me pose this question…if there is absolutely no gun control, what do you do to reduce gun-related crime? Let everyone shoot it out ala the Old West? Let urban centers become true war zones? Why not issue every kid in school his own gun? It sometimes amazes me that the gun fetish (yes, for many it's a fetish) is so strong that they are even against common sense rules such as background checks, age limits, waiting periods, etc.”
Well, hopefully you read my note that no, we needn't rush yet to remove metal (weapon, gun) detectors in court houses and in airports!
The big answer is to repair the culture and instill decent conduct and personal responsibility in kids of all ages. I know you won't find that sufficient. We also need a good justice and corrections system to correctly punish misuse of guns and remove dangerous people from the rest of us (while not wasting money and lives incarcerating those who shouldn't be – this is far from limited to guns and drugs).
I actually don't have a problem with some gun controls where they are needed (court houses and airports being the favorite examples). I also believe the Constitution as interpreted correctly gives state and local governments some ability (police powers) to enact some reasonable laws (which can include something you might have thought of on your own, limitations on the use of firearms, even if possession is legal; Phoenix metro, for example, has county laws prohibiting discharge of firearms within a certain distance of any occupied property). (You ought to be able to shoot your own guns on your own property, recreationally as well as in self-defense, and some discharge laws that most consider reasonable would prohibit this; we need to be careful of what we seek in the name of safety or security.)
Many of us support some things like background checks (otherwise we don't have as much right to complain later when a felon gets a gun, do we?). Closing the gun show loophole should be done.
In a better world, we'd even have testing and qualification, if not licensing, to operate guns with a bore size over 7 mm for a rifle or 10-11 mm for a handgun. (Recoil management, proper aiming)
I'm afraid if you dislike handguns particularly, you lose the logical argument about limiting guns to what is needed rather than what may be desired. The handgun is the ideal close-range self-defense gun, more than any long gun can be.
Part of the problem is the legal environment, with our Second Amendment. (You can't claim the First in defense of “art” and ignore the Second for owning and possessing guns, though many liberals do this.) Hopefully this court ruling, which is about gun control in your Chicago area, will clarify what state and local governments can do. A lot should be possible with “police powers,” as well as maintaining community order. We do have precedents for local or state gun controls that have been set already — those court houses and airports. Actually, more than just the places where there are metal detectors and guns are prohibited. Guns and other weapons — all weapons, which is what I'm confident you're after — are prohibited in other public buildings and on many private establishments, as well as on transportation such as Greyhound (no weapons, no alcohol and other drugs, fewer problems).
Part of it is the passage of time and the decline in interest in recreational shooting and in hunting. This is accompanied by population growth and Boomer retirement eventually in rural and exurban places where gunfire is associated with crime and is an unwelcome nuisance they will want abated.
I did read your comment re: metal detectors and you are among the more reasonable on the right when it comes to guns (wow, never thought I'd say that about you!
)
It's the gung-ho NRA types where anything reasonable is tantamount to paranoia that really grinds my gears. Any police power to control guns results in shrieks of “They're taking our guns away!”. Who's to say for the NRA crowd that if states/municipalities can't “infringe” on their precious gun rights due to the Chicago SCOTUS decision (heaven forbid that it goes that way) that their fight ends there? They'd then go after the no guns in court houses, airports, schools and promoting concealed carry for everyone. They are literally for ditching current civilized society for the Old West.
Anna,
Incidentally, you're smarter than nearly every one of the other gun critics. You'll notice that nobody else, probably, that you review has ever noticed or stated that the ammunition is as part of the threat as the guns are.
In fact, if you review literature from gun owners or enthusiasts (fetishists? Only those who use the gun for self-actualization, more than any automobile) you will find that one of the oldest and still best safety rules for gun handing and storage is to store (and even transport) guns and ammunition separately.
(There's more: for example, I own two bolt-action rifles, and it's no challenge at all for me to remove the bolt when such a gun is not in use. That converts the gun to an inert, useless hunk.)
Yes, L.A. area had suspensions of ammo sales around especially-dangerous wild-gunfire nights.
Yes, Moynihan was the most noteworthy guy in our federal government who wanted a 10,000% tax on ammunition.
“It is time the Federal Government began taxing handgun ammunition used in crime out of existence.”
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/04/us/moynihan-a…
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/07/weekinreview/…
P.S. The Wild West? You know most of that was just legend and bluff, don't you?
http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-…
I will close with something that makes you feel better. Some things in our system may be outmoded (and not quite right to begin with), and one of my current favorite authors has reminded readers like me that we no longer live in an agrarian society or in a frontier where violence to defend one's self and interests was an unfortunate necessity in a poor, developing place. We aren't that way any more (even if liberal critics fear we're heading back in that direction post-1980).
“It's the gung-ho NRA types where anything reasonable is tantamount to paranoia that really grinds my gears. Any police power to control guns results in shrieks of 'They're taking our guns away!'.”
I believe they overreact sometimes. I can give an example — armor-piercing ammunition. Is there a “right” to this for individuals that should be defended at all costs, and is every possible kind of restriction a move down the slippery slope to complete registration, and eventual confiscation and disarmament? I don't believe so. (And I am wary of a rush to overregulate guns into extinction.)
I have bought .22 rimfire tracer ammo, but some might outlaw centerfire tracer ammo someday, and more importantly, all armor-piercing and incendiary ammunition. People don't really need this!
Handloading (home making of ammunition, typically from reusing spent cartridge cases, i.e., an example of environmentally benign recycling practice), which has always been with us, continues. A really overboard government would have banned all supplies and outlawed handloading already.
Two extra points.
1. The .22 rimfire (.22 Long Rifle cartridge and its relatives, the CB, Short, Long, etc.) is the underpowered junior “pop gun” relative of the centerfire cartridges, but .22 guns are possibly the ones with the biggest record of injury and death. Maybe. It's not just a question of limits on the power of arms (banning the .50 BMG) that will solve the violence consequence problem.
2. “promoting concealed carry”
Interestingly, when I lived in St. Louis, there was controversy about revising the state constitution or state law in Missouri to permit concealed weapons. At this time the intent of those who wrote the state constitution was in question, and at least one of the “founders” had said that as far as he was concerned, concealed weapons were only sought by “knaves” and other criminal types.
FYI.
“So no gun control means no age limits, no background checks, no waiting period, no concern about the person's state of mental health, is that right?”
You're being irrational, Anna.
Voting is a right, but 8 year olds cannot do that either. All “rights” are granted upon adulthood. Your rights (other than from abuse and the like) are under parental domain until 18 years old. So let's stop with the silly comments, shall we?
And if I have a spat with a friend/girlfriend, I can STILL kill them without a gun. PEOPLE are the problem in this nation – not weapons. You want to control guns for people who wish to obtain them LEGALLY and use them responsibly – leaving the criminal element to continue to buy them illegally as they do now – with no “waiting period”.
And ammunition IS a part of ARMS. Which part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand in the Second Amendment? No arms shall be infringed. Arms are NECESSARY for the arming of individuals in the event of foreign intrusion or sedition.