I’m a professional gun blogger. I get paid to surf the Internet for firearms-related material on your behalf. So it behooves me to watch anti-gun agitprop on YouTube and the mainstream news nets. But there are times when making it through an entire anti-gun video is harder than watching my daughter’s soccer team get trounced by the competition. In this case, we have Amy Schumer, first cousin (removed, but not far enough) of veteran gun-grabber, New York Senator Charles Schumer, telling Americans that their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right should be infringed by gun control legislation. Why? Well . . .
You’ll have to watch the video to find out. Good luck with that.
When Schumer (the younger) pretends to not be able to say the Lafayette shooter’s name – a classic bit of theater – I wanted to press the stop button more than I want Barbara Palvin to teach me how to speak my father’s native tongue (so to speak).
If you can make it through Schumer (the younger’s) and Schumer (the elder’s) statement, you get bonus gun rights advocate internet points. If you can’t, let’s just say “firewall.”
I like her comedy but not her political stance.
Couldn’t do it, had to shut it off when she stammered at the shooter’s name, you’re a stronger man than I.
She should just leave and take her 2 chins with her.
Classy. I like how you attacked how she looked when you don’t agree with her. Oh wait, that’s exactly what the anti gunners do when the person speaking is male and white.
This guy. This guy right here gets it. I like this guy.
Thank you; ad hominem attacks are always dismissed, even by those who disagree with you. Do you disagree with her? Cool, say why. Attacking her for being not some ideal is not going to win you points with any side in an intelligent discussion.
Anyone else here worried that her involvement might accelerate the anti-gun movement’s apparent revival?
Seems like both her last name, and sudden success (Trainwreck) are bolstering her credibility…
Well, I’ve never seen any of her stuff as I dismissed it as drivel, I’ll be doubly sure not to watch any of it now.
I’ll bet if I infringed on her right to eat donuts she’d be up in arms, so to speak.
No, I don’t worry too much when the “celebrity of the week” mouths off about the “cause du jour”.
Yeah, me either. I don’t even know who she is or why someone thinks I should care what she thinks about anything.
Don’t know what she looks like and would not know her if I bumped into her on the street. (thus admitting I did not even TRY to watch that vid…)
I believe I’d rather have my spleen ripped out through my dillywacker with a rusty soup spoon than endure any amount of time listening to these two blowhards spew their unConstitutional gun hating rants.
But thanks for axin’!
Sorry RF. Not compensation would be worth subjecting myself to 2 schumers at once even for a few seconds
Beat me to it Sammy.
I would rather give myself a vasectomy without anesthesia than listen to he who’s name must not be said aloud.
You need to put the video on auto play
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
Sammy,
I heard that all the way over here!
Over my laughter…
Another Celeb to add to the list of folks who don’t deserve my money. I make it a point to pirate the work of anti-gun celebs rather than go pay to see their movies. Hollywood is getting pretty cheap for me to enjoy these days…
+1 I used to watch a lot of Amy Schumer’s stuff and her show but I will no longer be contributing any $$ to anything she does.
::shrug:: I’m not getting all upset about it but I do voice my opinion with my dollars. I just wish that more celebrities understood the entire younger generation is not statist. It’s just the vocal ones that make it look that way.
It would also help if conservatives would stop hiding behind Bibles and alienating most of my generation.
Don’t worry, the Nu-Hollywood machine is very good at this. She’s an idea candidate for getting on TV and spouting about a cause. Then will come the DUIs, the drug possession, hell maybe even a shoplifting charge. or a good old fashioned racist rant. Then she’ll be done with, and we’ll wait for the next one.
By the way, I’ve been wondering ever since she popped up on a Comedy Roast what the hell she was doing on TV. She’s not attractive, she’s not funny, and the camera seems to do her no favors on either front. Then I saw Chucky Schumer on TV and it was like HOLY SHIT! I get it now!
Humor is subjective. You don’t think she’s funny ::yawn:: cool.
By her own admission, she’s a big fan of catching hold of one of the guns that Senior Drill Instructor Gunnery Sergeant Hartman referred too….
Can I have those 02:08 minutes of my life back please. Wow that was tough to pay attention to.
The whole ‘firewall’ thing… She obviously does not know criminals can get past them. Just like a door to a room , doors/firewalls/laws keeps the wimpy criminals and honest passer-byes out.
Hah that was exactly my thought. Just more security theater that anyone with just a little desire can get past easily.
I watched this on the boob tube(get it?) and had to flip the channel. I do the same for rev. al,jesse j.,fadda’ phflegma,streetlight garry mccarthy and barry soetoro(and others). Life is too short to spend it barfing…
Watching 2 Schumers?…….ONLY if swapping for jail sentence.
Some things are torture then there’s…….masochistic self abuse.
A movie mexican once said~ “We don’t need no stinking internet points”……..
Her humor’s often funny, but if nothing else, I’m glad she’s now formally “outed” as a lefty activist so I’ll not watch her anymore. Not just on our own issue, but in general, the socialist, collectivist, victicrat fascists of Hollywood will only be muzzled when there is a penalty to be paid for expressing their politics publicly. They have every right to do so, but we have every right to refuse to watch and/or listen to any of their “art” in response. Actions and words ought to have consequences, and far too many of our people just keep on watching films/shows and listening to music from leftist ideologues. When you do that, you are subsidizing their views, by increasing their popularity. They shut up only if and when we stop giving in and giving them our money and/or time. Or at least, if they keep yammering anyway, no one cares.
No chance. I’d rather shave my eyeballs.
Keep your eyes peeled Ralph
Why would I watch a kapo like Chuckie and his overweight cousin? He wants my gun but is willing to burn to death the Jews of Israel. Do ya think his morals are a little screwed up? Can you say “self hating Jew “?
One of them is a comedian and the other a lying tyrant, right? Which is which? Both sound like they’re mocking me and lying to me.
Not sure why anyone would pay attention to the political views of a comedian ? Though I suppose there are quite a few, not too bright, voters who do.
A pair of smelly vagina jokes? No thanks, my sense of humor is pretty broad but after Andrew Dice Clay I don’t much care for the anatomy jokes….. especially if they’re trying to impose their insanity on me.
“you’ve got herpes because i’ve got herpes. byyyee!”
I watched it. It’s good to get the blood boiling once in a while and remind us what we’re up against. But two minutes was about all I could take of this.
I did kind of like the part where the guy said he wanted to hold the gov accountable for doing well their job. I mean, it’s kind of a novel concept that you don’t let people report in ways that are flat out negligent.
If the tools that were existing were actually used and the laws pertaining to perjury and 4473s enforced we probably wouldn’t have this problem. That’s not even getting into guns that were turned loose during F&F.
No thanks. I have better things to do with my time than listening to these freakazoids.
I finally caved, it wasn’t that bad I guess, get back to me if you can make it through 5minutes of one of her standup routines.
The whole “I think I’m funny because I have no social morals and act like a pig” genre is full. The only thing she brings to the table is shouting “bitch” after all her punchlines…. I guess that liberates women? My wife sure didnt get it if it does.
It’s nice when one POS evil house of blue (D) bag calls out another liberal and they hug over it. That way we don’t have to wonder.
Cack-Sackers all.
FUNY – you pissant little state with your mouthy tyrants and their lackeys. You need to get your a_ _ over to Staten Island and pick up whatever piles of sh_t you don’t attempt to bury at sea.
Gmme some Miami 2017.
Ten seconds. Now I’m going to go play with the cat.
I’m all about preserving our Second Amendment rights, but I don’t think the Founding Fathers intended to guarantee those rights to spousal abusers and the hopelessly delusional.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I didn’t hear anything about outlawing specific types of weapons, high capacity magazines, preventing law abiding mentally sound persons from purchasing either, or collecting a database on gun owners. I DID hear about states being rewarded for sharing records on spousal abuse and involuntary commitments with the Feds, and enhanced enforcement of existing laws designed to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. Let’s concern ourselves with people who want to take EVERYONES guns, and leave the Schumer cousins alone.
A national background check system is fatally flawed from the start. It’s nice sounding, feel good measure that does no good. The last dozen or so big spree killers bought their guns through the system, some despite being prohibited possessions. If they got guns when they shouldn’t, think of how many others are being wrongfully barred from ownership through a faulty system.
Really, this offers no solution, as two decades of rights-infringing experimentation with it has proven. All background checks are good for is to introduce a bottleneck on transfers, which the government can throttle to choke off private ownership.
Even if you don’t buy into my view of the government’s ill intentions with background checks, then at least believe your own assessment of their so-called solution’s pisspoor performance.
I agree, their call for action wasn’t as bad as I expected. I would call it Schumer light. Compared to the Empire State’s Draconian gun laws, this whole thing left me snoring. Meh.
I’d suggest tempering your optimism for a little, until all the details are out. In the clip above, Schumer started saying the legislation would “close..” at 1:10 and caught himself. I bet that “the gunshow loophole” would have been the next few words. And I watched the press conference live. Amy Schumer said that she’s “not against the 2nd Amendment” but she’s just advocating some “restrictions” that will “protect everyone”. Gee, that’s funny because I didn’t hear any restrictions in Chuck Schumer’s list. Is there something they’re not telling us? Do we have to pass it to find out what’s in it? Don’t forget, Chuck Schumer was behind the Manchin-Toomey fiasco, which tried to close the non-existent “gun show loophole”.
Details matter. Maybe wait for them to be fleshed out before giving it a thumbs-up or thumbs-down.
Also, I hope Amy Schumer becomes the face of the next gun control push, because if her performance at this presser and her subsequent performance on The Daily Show are any indication, it’ll do us nothing but favors. She can’t break character for more than a few seconds to pretend to be serious. She was talking about the theater shooting on The Daily Show and making sex tape jokes for chrissakes. Please, PLEASE let this women do the Sunday talk show circuit and talk about gun control.
Paul,
There are two ginormous risks when we discuss government power to disarm people because they are “spouse abusers” or “involuntarily committed”.
Let’s talk about spouse abusers. All a woman has to do is say that her spouse shook her and threatened her to get an immediate restraining order — which virtually always includes an order to disarm the spouse. And regardless of how easy/difficult it is for a woman to get a restraining order and/or an abuse conviction, all that does is prevent the husband from purchasing a firearm at a federal firearm licensee. That does NOT stop a husband from purchasing a firearm from a street thug. Nor does it stop a husband from holding firearms back (in hiding somewhere) upon issuance of his restraining order nor sentencing if convicted. Finally, neither a restraining order nor an abuse conviction prevents the husband from harming/killing his wife with a rock, club, hammer, knife, or car.
Now, let’s talk about barring sales (of anything, firearms or otherwise) to people with “mental” conditions. First of all, psychology is anything but an exact science. That problem aside, millions of people experience conditions such as depression. Will seeing your family doctor, psychologist, or psychiatrist for depression and taking medication bar you from purchasing and/or owning firearms? How about postpartum depression? New mom’s have killed their own babies while experiencing postpartum depression. Does that mean we should disarm new moms who experience it? Should we disarm all new moms in an abundance of caution? In other words, which “mental” conditions trigger action to disarm someone? Who defines those conditions? Who diagnoses those conditions? Remember, many Progressives believe that you are by definition “mentally derranged” if you want to own a firearm for any reason and fail to believe in the Almighty State’s ability to protect you. And recent history shows us that governments have used this angle to imprison political enemies. What makes you think that our government wouldn’t hesitate to use such a “lever” to squash us? Remember, we cannot vote from prison or a mental hospital.
At first glance, it might sound good to prevent “spouse abusers” and “mentally ill people” from purchasing firearms. In practice there are huge risks to people who do not actually abuse their spouses and people who are not at any risk at all of harming anyone because they are supposedly “mentally ill”. Finally, remember, we are talking about government here. What makes you think they would administer a new initiative/law any better than all of the existing initiatives/laws that they already botch horribly?
Her comedy isn’t bad, at least her stand-up act and her show, though I haven’t seen her movie. We enjoy the show when we catch it and when it’s over we get on with our lives. We’re not invested in the comedian herself.
As much as you can tell from afar, she seems like she’s probably a decent and caring person. A little loose and a bit of a lush, but that’s her decision, or it just may be a public persona.
I’m not sure if she’s just being duped by an opportunistic relative, or if she’s seeking attention for herself, but I’d guess it’s both plus some ignorance and genuine emotion binding it all together. Howsoever, I’d bet that any other time she would make fun of celebrities, who are no more than harlots and harlequins for our amusement, parading around spewing policy prescription as though they’ve any idea what they’re talking about. For taking herself way too seriously, she should be shunned.
I get zero points. And I’m damn proud of it.
Amy Schumer isn’t funny or talented. Why the hell should I care what she thinks?
I’m not into suffering fools so I’ll pass on watching the video.
I watched this AND the Martin Sheen video. I’d like to redeem my points for a CMC Trigger.
Thanks!
JR you are a better man, or had more to drink, than I. Made it to 38 seconds on the Schumer vid, couldn’t finish the Sheen one either. My hat is off to you.
I went to You Tube to get the full effect. Don’t, there is no full anything.
Amy Amy Amy Amy. We pay you to entertain us, not give us your flawed politics.
Can’t we free up some federal dollars to commit the constitutionally ill, like Sen. Schumer?
People like Schumer are far more dangerous than crazy people with guns. Crazy people with guns can be shot by a good guy with a gun.
Meh.
I was trying to talk the wife into going to see Amy Schumer’s new movie. Well, I won’t have to do that now…
I tried to watch it, but could not finish it when the fake tears start flowing. When she started faking concern about the current LIBTARD AGENDA she became another faceless blithering IDIOT to ignore for the rest of her existence. I thought she used to be funny until she got on this bandwagon.
I am a bit surprised at the uniform rejection of this proposal. The substance of the proposal is exactly what many of us have called for on this very forum. We have said that instead of passing laws that disqualify more and more classes of people and/or guns, how about enforcing the laws we have and properly implementing the systems we have. That is what they *say* they are proposing.
We should say, “Yes, finally.” But we should then ask, “What protections will you include to avoid abuse? Here are our concerns.” We can then talk about what has already happened with the VA (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/senator-grassley-letter-to-eric-holder-why-are-veterans-on-the-nics-gun-ban-list/) and what the President appears to be proposing for Social Security. We can talk about how someone needing help managing their finances is not evidence of being “mentally defective” that should preclude gun purchases or ownership.
This proposed legislation could be the very vehicle to undo what the VA has already done to our vetertans and head off the potential harm to Social Security recipients.
You are assuming that the people pushing this are capable of (or willing to) work and negotiate in good faith, that they have all of our best interests at heart. Observing their actions over the last couple of decades, and reading about their actions going back to the beginning of the leftist movement in America, lead me to reject these assumptions.
Old Ben: I assume no such thing. I do not expect good faith from Schumer. But Chuck Schumer has no ability to unilaterally craft the final legislation.
I believe in seizing every opportunity to advance our own narrative, while demonstrating that *we* are the reasonable ones, seeking fact-based policies. We have facts on our side, and we do not serve ourselves well by disengaging from the debate.
Perhaps the NRA agrees with me. Looks like the same idea: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/08/05/sen-cornyn-r-tx-proposing-gun-background-check-bill/?subscriber=1
Hat tip to M’lady for not saying the shooter’s name. Don’t give those pukes any publicity.
So no word on how this bill would comply with HIPPA?
How about we have the agencies responsible for firearms actually perform their duties. Things like;
– entering pending drug charges in a timely fashion (Charlestown shooter)
– not approving someone who lied on the form, and you knew that (Garland shooter)
– not approving someone with a history of arson, domestic abuse, mental illness, and a protective order (Lafayette shooter)
These people were already disbarred from possessing firearms. We don’t need new laws. We need existing laws enforced.
Loved the part where Schumer almost said “close the -” (gun show loophole) but caught himself- he remembered that proposing that on the first date has never gone anywhere, and got back on message.
Looks like he thinks he’s got a wingwoman to make the sale to America, by having his wingwoman sell the public on just a kiss. But we all know Schumer’s a grabber, and if he gets a kiss, he’ll go for the jewels without waiting.
Someone who wants to violate other’s rights never changes. Even with a wingwoman sticking up for him, he’s no different.
This must be Chuck’s reboot of “Chasing Amy”…
“We have your gun in the middle of a four way intersection. We have Santa Claus, a dues paying MDA member, a gun friendly Dem and the actress who claims to support 2A, but….Which one will grab your gun first?”
“The I support the 2A, but actress of course… The rest are figments of your imagination.”
The actresses, who are currently writing a comedy screenplay together, showed off their new best friendship, with Lawrence even kissing Schumer’s feet. Today I went to the natural history museum.