62 replies to this topic

[Earwolf Admin]

The recent events in Connecticut have inspired us to discuss the topic of gun control. Guests Paul Rust, Dominic Dierkes, and Sean Clements debate gun control with a human who Matt had a short dialogue with on Twitter. This episode’s also full of movie theater heroes, gun cars, and body occupying demons. Be sure to pick up an improv4humans shirt from the Earwolf Store and follow @MattBesser on Twitter to send in your improv suggestions. Music by Bobby Matthews and Dragoon. You can also now get Matt Besser’s new comedy album “The Six Most Important Sets in the History of Standup” at mattbesser.com!

[Sean G]

New no-no: If Improv 4 Humans is going to start making two hour-long episodes with what sounds like another session of "Case Closed!" on an awesome controversial topic, then I'm going to be even more excited when I see Paul Rust is one of their guests. New no-no!

[Gym Sockerman]

New no-no:
If you're not going to play the theme song at the very top of the show, then I'm going to make my own theme song and play it at the very end. Okay?

This episode really encapsulates what I love about Improv 4 Humans. Sketches start somewhere specific, trying to make a statement, but the performers don't let that get in the way of the comedy that's clearly developing in another direction.

[Neclord]

A fucking great episode. The post-interview sketches were off the charts. Some amazing banter too.

[Consept]

Only besser can do it this good! Matty beast helped me figure out my own position on the issue. I was flipfloping on gun rights but certain guns don't need to exist. The shotgun thing is a good way to keep these home protection arguments in check

[Gym Sockerman]

I'd be fine with completely abolishing the right to own guns, but I thought the caller did a pretty good job with his side of the argument. Though when he was talking about the media's treatment of the rifle in his car it sounded really "LEAVE BRITTNEY ALONE!" Kind of how dare the media photograph that helpless rifle. That's what ran through my head anyway.
But I know that public speaking really makes you go off the cuff and you might not say exactly what you mean, so I'm sure that wasn't the sentiment he meant to get across.

But as an innocent civilian, I don't feel the least bit safer knowing that there are random "responsible" strangers with concealed weapons.

Though the uprising against the government argument is a complete joke. There is no way that the population of this country is capable. People are too lazy and too comfortable.

[RIP Spirit Bear]

If the gov'ment takes our guns, and satelites, and tanks, and fighter jets, and nuclear submarines, and special forces ninjas, and drones, and thousands of trained personnel how are we gunna defend ourselves 'gainst them Obamaniacs when they come to force us to do abortion and read books!?

[MattCameron]

I just got done laughing for an hour and I'm about to download this. Fingers crossed!

[Jacob C]

This is why improv4humans is arguably the best podcast out there.

Also: "One Ply toilet paper: for people that hate their own butts."

[Julia Hays]

So Matt Besser and his fellow humans can literally make any topic hilarious, right? Because that's what I've learned from this podcast!

P.S. Can't wait to read your gun tweets in eight weeks, bros!

[Dave Duktewich]

I wish you could of asked him why he had a carry conceal permit to protect his houes. This was a great exchange.

[BroccoliRob]

I really like Matt's "Shotgun Compromise." Want a gun? Fine, have a shotgun.

The guy they interviewed seemed level headed, but I didn't like his arguement that it was impossible to regulate guns any further because "there are too many guns already out there."

[BroccoliRob]

I really like Matt's "Shotgun Compromise." Want a gun? Fine, have a shotgun.

The guy they interviewed seemed level headed, but I didn't like his arguement that it was impossible to regulate guns any further because "there are too many guns already out there."

[Cabbagehead]

Great episode Matt. You guys took a serious subject made some really good points, but were able to keep the show light as well. I'd recommend this ep to anyone who has questions on guns, and their proper uses.

[MattCameron]

Dave Duktewich, on 20 December 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

I wish you could of asked him why he had a carry conceal permit to protect his houes. This was a great exchange.

He would have just said, "Just for that situation we saw at the movie theater!"

[vgfitzger]

As long as we're talking about subverting clauses of the bill of rights for the sake of safety, let's put the rest of it on the table.

If the press weren't free to sensationalize these shootings into historical watersheds, turn the gunmen into dark anti-heroes and rattle off death counts like high scores, maybe disturbed individuals wouldn't be inspired to try and become famous by commiting suicide by massacre.

What about freedom of speech? If film makers, game developers and authors weren't free to depict and describe violence and cruelty, maybe the gunmen wouldn't have been pre-desensitized to the violence they were planning and never be able to take a life.

Taking away protections of search and seizure would free the government up to do routine checks on every gun owner's home to make sure their weapons are locked up safely out of the reach of their pyschotic sons.

If the government could force a state religion down our throats maybe the fear of eternal damnation would enough to prevent a shooting.

If there was no due process and no restriction on cruel punishments maybe the promise of swift and sure retribution would make all violent crime a thing of the past.

If you trust the government enough to restrict your ability to physically resist and rise up against tyranny, why don't you trust the government to remove all of the safe guards put in place by the bill of rights to prevent tyranny?

[Brett Morris]

vgfitzger, on 20 December 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

As long as we're talking about subverting clauses of the bill of rights for the sake of safety, let's put the rest of it on the table.

you can be for gun control and be just as in line with the constitution as ted nugent. we all agree on some form of arms control, the "yer destroying the constitution!" argument doesn't work very well.

Quote

If you trust the government enough to restrict your ability to physically resist and rise up against tyranny, why don't you trust the government to remove all of the safe guards put in place by the bill of rights to prevent tyranny?

this isn't the 1800s, "the government" has nuclear weapons, satellite guided missiles, drones, etc. the idea that the we're just around the corner from beating back the government with hand guns is so funny to me.

[Corky Kneivel]

I've yet to llisten to the episode but I cannot wait.

Okay that statemen tis a falsehood because obviously I am taking the time to write this.

vgfitzger, on 20 December 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

As long as we're talking about subverting clauses of the bill of rights for the sake of safety, let's put the rest of it on the table.

I'll happily discuss the remainder of the Bill of Rights with you as long as you acknowledge that the Bill of Rights concept of, and reason behind claiming it a right as decreed by God, bearing arms in no way resembles life as it is lived in 2012. The fundamentals of everything else you mentioned: due process, freedom of the press, separation of chuch and state, still apply (and have been an ongoing national discussion as modernization dictated) but fervent defenders of the constituational right to bear arms have vowed to act like there have been no changes in the last 2 and a quarter centuries regarding the readiness of, accessibility to, and technology of keeping guns.

The United States of America is no longer just a loose confederation of newly founded states still afriad of an invading superpower, and each other, and that there will never be a need for armed militias of landed gentry. Tyranny and subversion of democracy in 2012 is effected with voter fraud, and back room machinations your guns will never protect you from.

And to your last paragrapg regarding "the government": you do know who "the government" is don't you? Its us. Its voters. If we the people decide, after FINALLY engaging in open public adult discussion, that arming every white male landowner isn't a natural law, then its not fear or out of safety or cowardice. Its grown ups understanding cause and effect.

[Josh T1326657816]

I usually hate listening to these call-ins, but I have to say, this call in discussion was one of the best I've heard. I honestly expected another ridiculous caller and just ripping him to shreds. I kind of feel like this was a worthwhile discussion.

I think the problem is no one even wants to talk reform, even though most, like this guy, would probably be ok with it.

[vgfitzger]

Brett Morris, on 20 December 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

the "yer destroying the constitution!" argument doesn't work very well.

Straw-man arguments rarely do.

Brett Morris, on 20 December 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

this isn't the 1800s, "the government" has nuclear weapons, satellite guided missiles, drones, etc. the idea that the we're just around the corner from beating back the government with hand guns is so funny to me.

I'm not interested in the logistics of a treasonous uprising. I'm interested in just how far we are willing to tolerate constant restrictions of our rights, trading freedom for safety at every turn. If you think that the desire to have any small guarantee to soften the ever looming threat of intolerable oppression isn't valid just because of the existence of nukes and drones, well there's nothing that can be said to you.