Stephen Colbert wants to change self-defense laws

We can certainly agree on that, not normal people. Violent deranged misfits sure, certainly not normal.

So, in your mind, it’s the woman’s fault.

Ok, you go with that.

If she goes to hang out with a group of known rapists? You actually think she should take no responsibility for putting herself in that situation?

Well, there’s only 15 states with Constitutional Carry. Let’s see what happens when it’s all 50.

But hey, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong.

I tend to lay the blame on the person who commits the heinous act, not the victim of the act.

But hey, I’m a bit old school like that…maybe I’m not woke enough?


Are you kidding? Nobody loses money betting on the continued stupidity of the American people.

By your faulty logic, gang shooting shootings should be down, year over year, as they atrit out.

It isn’t happening.

You’ve been wrong for 17 years. Scientifically.


Not just the cops but every law abiding man in the community should have been out there with him.


Actually, sociology believes it is. We have essentially domesticed ourselves.

True, stupidity seems to be a perpetual problem in this country. And I’m I not saying more guns would solve this problem, but perhaps it would provide idiots a bit more pause to reflect on their stupidity before acting on it.

Oh, come on now…it’s not like gangbangers rely on constitutional or ANY legal form of carry to wander the streets strapped. Making it easier for decent normal people to carry will have no effect on gangbangers or other misfits who ignore laws…outside of giving their victims better odds.


Those same idiots will also have guns.

Considering gangbangers and other criminally minded violent misfits, those idiots already have guns. Take for instance that chucklehead Grosskreutz, good thing Rittenhouse also had a gun or that clown may have killed him.


Getting back to the topic of Colberts playing to his dullard base in saying we need to change self defense laws.
Can someone explain how changing such law will discourage violent miscreants from attacking otherwise innocent people?
Or, would this just encourage these misfits to act out their rage knowing their victims may be more hesitant to act in self defense.

I’m of the latter belief, is there anyone of the former belief?


No. Apparently you are completely ignorant of the facts in that case.

Neither the Zimmerman, nor the Rittenhouse incidents bear any resemblance to the “three rednecks” incident. You should just walk away.

1 Like

No … according to the physical evidence collected by the police investigators.

You seem to have missed this part:

"A Texas man is facing a first degree murder charge … :

1 Like

We don’t convict people on “could have been.”


No. It goes well beyond fear. The skate board guy hit him in the head with the edge of the board. His intent to cause physical harm was well established at that point.


They established that they were not afraid for their lives when they pursued the suspected “active shooter” instead of speaking cover. From where they were on the street, they could clearly see that he was running with his arms up (not holding the gun in a threatening manner) directly at the police line.

Why do you think that following the shooting (which they witnessed) that the police ignored Rittenhouse and ran past him toward the protesters?


No you’re not. You’re just making ■■■■ up as you go along.