Jordan Klepper argued why the U.S. needs gun control by using “football terms” in the wake of a shooting that killed one person and injured over 20 others at the Kansas City Chiefs’ Super Bowl parade Wednesday.
“America needs a defensive strategy that will stop a guy from getting the ball in the first place,” said Klepper, guest host of Thursday’s edition of “The Daily Show.”
He continued, “Not just hope someone tackles him before he gets to the end zone – that’s not a winning strategy, unless you’re playing the Jets. Also we need to limit the size of the ball, that ball is a weapon of war, the founders didn’t anticipate the ball would be this big. I’m in too deep with this metaphor, I hear it now. You get the idea.”
Klepper added that it’s “infuriating” that people aren’t going to get to have “an honest conversation about America’s gun problem” following the shooting. …
“Instead, we’ll be having a conversation about America’s parade problem,” said Klepper before the headline of The Associated Press’ story on likely changes to championship parades flashed beside him.
“Should they have more security? Should they be smaller? Should they replace the confetti with Kevlar? Should the parade just be an email? It’s not fun but those are all the ideas we’re allowed to have.”
8 Responses
Because you have *zero* intentions of having a good-faith discussion, that’s why, you lying sack of sh!t…. 🙁
“Why can’t we have an honest conversation?”
-Proceeds to ramble with metaphors and analogies that avoid reality entirely.-
Its sad that anti-gun people think this is a joke and want to use it for ‘media diarrhea’. Look at these snide remarks he throws in there (e.g. “Should they replace the confetti with Kevlar? Should the parade just be an email?” Jordan Klepper is just another of the clowns in the anti-gun freak show circus.
The 2A community has been trying to have an “honest conversation”, for literally three decades (and actually longer), and every time clowns like this and the rest of the anti-gun turn it into, basically, “were gonna take the guns of the law abiding and have control over that constitutional right and the heck with their constitutional rights.” and that kills any chance at further “honest conversation”. Well, we’re to the point where we are going to stop trying to have a conversation about it and that has already started on the civil disobedience front – we are not going to let you take our constitutional rights away like you want to do, period.
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
— Patrick Henry, 1788”
https://www.socratic-method.com/quote-meanings-and-interpretations/patrick-henry-are-we-at-last-brought-to-such-humiliating-and-debasing-degradation-that-we-cannot-be-trusted-with-arms-for-our-defense
“In his famous quote, … Patrick Henry expresses the concern and frustration over the idea that a society might reach a point where its citizens are deemed unfit to be entrusted with the responsibility of bearing arms to defend themselves. This quote, spoken in the context of the American Revolution, highlights Henry’s strong belief in the fundamental right to self-defense and the importance of an armed citizenry to uphold liberty. At its core, Henry’s quote questions the notion that a government or any authority should decide whether its people can be trusted with weapons. It calls attention to the inherent danger of giving too much power to those in authority, potentially leading to a state of subjugation and degradation for the people. This sentiment resonates not only within the historical context of the Revolution but also in modern-day discussions surrounding gun control and personal liberties. However, beyond the surface interpretation of Henry’s quote lies a deeper philosophical concept: the fine line between trust and control. It raises the question of whether trust can truly exist in a society without allowing individuals their rights to bear arms. This concept introduces a broader discussion about the balance between personal freedom and governmental control, forcing us to contemplate the nature of trust itself. Trust is often regarded as a crucial pillar of harmonious human relations. It implies a willingness to place confidence in others and assumes a certain level of responsibility. But what happens when trust is arbitrarily withheld? Is it truly trust if it is imposed by external forces, rather than freely given? These questions force us to critically evaluate the nature and legitimacy of trust that is conditional upon surrendering certain rights and freedoms. One could argue that trust cannot exist without a sense of autonomy. A society that is deprived of its ability to defend itself through arms becomes wholly dependent on the government for its safety, which raises concerns regarding the potential for abuse of power. Henry’s quote reminds us of the dangers inherent in this dynamic, urging us to question whether a society that cannot be trusted with arms is truly trusted at all. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the concept of trust and control extends beyond the realm of arms. While Henry’s quote primarily focuses on the right to bear arms, it serves as a broader metaphor for the potential erosion of trust in the face of excessive control and authority. It prompts us to think about the ways in which trust can be undermined by the overreach of those in power, leading to a degradation of societal bonds and a loss of individual freedoms.In conclusion, Patrick Henry’s quote serves as a powerful reminder of the delicate balance between trust and control within a society. It challenges us to critically evaluate the nature of trust itself and raises important questions about the legitimacy of trust that is imposed by external forces. Beyond its historical significance, Henry’s words prompt us to reflect on the potential dangers that lurk when authority is allowed to dictate the rights and liberties of its citizens. By contemplating the philosophical concept of trust in relation to control, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the issue of arms and individual freedoms.”
“…we’ll be having a conversation about America’s parade problem…”
Ok, howsabout a conversation about America’s gang problem? But, leftists won’t go there.
The conversation they don’t want is dealing with gang violence…
Garbage ideas and proposals should not be debated but the person demanding they be discussed at a bare minimum kicked out of society, because to have a “conversation” implies their “argument” or position has any merit or even should be considered, it shouldn’t.
I think we might have an ineligible receiver downfield. There is a penalty for that infraction, but the game itself is still perfectly legal. If an ineligible player gets caught breaking the rules, they and their team are punished immediately. The coach and other team members typically work with the erring player to avoid the infraction. If the infraction is not caught and the offender is not penalized, then the improper actions will continue until the game is no longer recognizable.
Another way of dissuading improper actions is the use of instant replay. The offending player is identified immediately, and every viewer sees the offender, and the refereeing crew remembers to watch for that errant play. Consistent offenders are punished, or otherwise kept out of the game. Maybe identifying the offenders and putting them where they cannot play the game would help them remember not to Mess around and find out what happens.