Stephen Colbert wants to change self-defense laws


So, Stephen Colbert wants to change an age old fundamental common law right to self-defense?

I think Stephen Spencer would emphatically disagree with nitwit Colbert. See: Black Man Acquitted of Killing White Man After Incident of “Ugly Racism”

Why would Colbert want to deny Stephen Spencer the right to self-defense and protect white racists?


It is absolutely shameful that those in our mainstream media and Hollywood crowd, having achieved fame, fortune and great success under a free market, free enterprise system, now work to destroy that system and impose a notoriously evil, Cuban style government, on America’s future generation.


Sure he’s against it until you take away his personal security team. And put him in a bad neighborhood. Maybe wear a skirt while he’s at it.


It’s like paying higher taxes, we all have the option to practice what we preach.


I can remember when people actually watched late night shows, mostly if they couldn’t sleep. Now those shows have become political advertisements…exempt, of course, from all funding laws.


Nobody watches the MSM anymore, except politicians and really old people. Their days are done. Colbert doesn’t reach a small fraction of the people Joe Rogan or Tim Pool or many other alternate media people do.

Wow. I guess the Quartering has moved on from complaining about how feminists are ruining Magic the Gathering.

I’ll watch the video after this post. On Rittenhouse, I cannot for the life of me understand how people were against Rittenhouse after watching that video. But i’ll admit that I never followed the case. I just watched the video.

1 Like

Any thoughts on the material in the post or video?

Perhaps this source is more to your liking?


I think that we have a problem that if Anthony Huber had subdued and killed Rittenhouse, he could have claimed that he was acting in self defense against an active shooter and would likely have gotten off.

It is looking more and more that the law protects the person who survives.

And that is kind of a problem.

1 Like

Thats a good way of putting it… :+1:

Thats always been my problem with it…How the hell was anybody supposed to know Rittenhouse wasn’t just an active shooter.

1 Like

Not true. Self defense went away when he initiated the attack. Much like the Arbery case. It is amazing you guys can’t understand the difference between the attacked and the attacker.


There was an active shooter.

I had no idea who he was going to shoot next.

I was threatened by him

I subdued and killed him and saved many lives that night by stopping a crazed killer.

He would get to say all of that and Rittenhouse would not be able to say a thing because in That scenario he would be dead.

Huber would be acting in self defense.

Still no idea why pursuit or running away matters I see.


Once you pursue self-defense is out the window, sorry. What you describe is vigilantism. Not self-defense.

1 Like

If you are gonna subdue someone or try a citizens arrest you better be damn sure you are correct and not use more force then necessarily. Perfect example in the Arbery case.


Active shooter.

Rittenhouse had a rifle. Huber had a skate board.

The only way to stop Rittenhouse from shooting more people was to close that gap.

He was running away.

1 Like

Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

Who knows who he would have shot next.

Anybody who attacked him.

And you would be sitting in jail for life. Video would have proven you wrong.

1 Like