Jon Stewart on how Navy Yard shooter was f’g crazy but still bought a gun

This is a must-see. Jon Stewart walks through all the background we had on the Washington, DC Navy Yard shooter, all the “crazy” on the guy over the past ten years.

This included the family reporting that he suffered from “mental illness” for a decade.”  Twice he was arrested in “minor shooting incidents,” including shooting in an apartment, and harassing a construction worker by shooting out his tires.  The last shooting case led to his being discharged from the Navy Reserves, but that still wasn’t enough to stop him from getting a gun.

Then, last month he called police to say that he was hearing voices, people were stalking him, and using a microwave to send vibrations into his body.

But Stewart goes on to note that none of this would be enough to prohibit him from buying a gun.

But he STILL was permitted to buy a gun a few days ago and go on a killing spree on a US military base.


Jon Stewart:

CyberDisobedience on Substack | @aravosis | Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

31 Responses to “Jon Stewart on how Navy Yard shooter was f’g crazy but still bought a gun”

  1. Tóti says:

    Were those sending him voices the in the same circle as those who write gun laws?

  2. mike31c says:

    I believe the NRA gun nuts has made it clear that terrorists and crazy people are entitled to buy guns.

  3. karmanot says:

    You must live in Oakland!

  4. karmanot says:


  5. karmanot says:

    Surely you mean Hilarity?

  6. karmanot says:

    That’s works. I was going Graham as Baby Jane.

  7. karmanot says:

    David Sedaris has got this covered:

  8. zorbear says:

    Hey, if it works for blind people, why not crazy blind people?

  9. lynchie says:

    You can say that again. Where are the radicals from the 60’s, well mostly dead or have decided to join wall street. Many of the people I went to college with never went to Vietnam. They lived the good life while many of us were drafted and went to that hell hole. Those left behind and were able to get on the gravy train and now make policy or tilt the table in their favor. We need some radicals. OW has been discredited and has no substance, rank and file middle class will never protest or march on Washington because they know the military police state will arrest, harass, tazer , pepper spray and ruin their lives.

  10. BeccaM says:

    Less than two decades ago, NRA’s Wayne LaPierre was saying yes, we should keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, and there probably should be measures in place to make that happen.

    Now, in 2013, America has devolved to the point where even that has been declared unacceptable. Apparently it’s a Constitutionally guaranteed right for crazy people to own firearms.

  11. Indigo says:

    I regret not voting socialist in the last election. This next time, I’m almost certain that’s what I’ll do and be done with it. Where’s Angela Davis when we need her?

  12. Naja pallida says:

    The trouble is, he and Colbert are the only ones preaching. Politicians certainly aren’t. Other pundits are not. The death lobby has drown out the gun control lobby on every front, to the point where nothing can even be discussed any more.

  13. Naja pallida says:

    We tend to consider any incident in which someone is not actually shot to be minor. Effectively downplaying the danger involved in having a tool that is only intended to kill in the hands of people that the public good should not permit to wield such power.

  14. lynchie says:

    That is what the Dems are counting on the “lesser of two evils” horseshit. Just as Bill has recast himself as this humanitarian, one must never forget he passed NAFTA, he changed the bank rules under Larry Summers, he passed sweeping changes to the welfare rules to make the GOP happy and Hillary was right there with him. I vote “none of the above” and feel good. A third party will never happen. Dems and Reups will never allow it. They aren’t going to let anyone in on their gravy train. Bushs/Clintons have done enough to us. We don’t need a continuation of bad policies by the same worn out ass wipes who have been wrong on every issue. We are in a downward cycle and I don’t see anyone on the horizon who can change it. But we can’t just accept Hillary because…..I won’t buy it and that dog doesn’t hunt.

  15. Indigo says:

    Exactly. “The lesser of two evils is still evil.” -Jerry Garcia

  16. TheOriginalLiz says:

    The trouble is, he and Colbert are preaching to the choir. The people who need to have this pointed out to them don’t watch the show/clips and are often too willfully ignorant to understand the point being made.

  17. HolyMoly says:

    Which pretty much sums of the state of affairs in this country. You can vote for one self-serving, greedy, egotistical one-percenter, or you can vote for the other self-serving, greedy, egotistical one-percenter. The only difference would be in a few wedge issues, over which both candidates would breathe a lot of hot air, but would never actually do anything about, because then they would no longer have a wedge issue to campaign on. So neither one is really any better than the other. A wolf in sheep’s clothing or a wolf.

    There are other alternatives out there, other potential candidates who would be a darn sight better than anyone from either of our country’s “royal” families. Either a better, more qualified candidate from within the two major parties or a better, more qualified candidate from a third party (NOT Ron Paul!).

    I know, I know…”A vote for third party candidates is a vote for…” which is always the line you hear from the guy or gal who wants your vote. There’s a bit of a conflict of interest in their concern-trolling, wouldn’t you say?

  18. Indigo says:

    I don’t deny any of that. But who’s the alternative? Please don’t say Governor Christie. And trust me on this, if former Florida governor Jeb Bush runs, he’s going to make Hillary look compassionate.

  19. lynchie says:

    Yeah. she would control us right into a war in Syria. She is all about banks and wall street and has never done a single thing for the poor and middle class. So control all you want but we don’t need another tool of the 1%

  20. Indigo says:

    I wish I could but events need better control and if ever there was a control freak on board, it’s Hillary.

  21. lynchie says:

    please say you are being sarcastic

  22. FLL says:

    Stewart made any number of astute observations about gun control, but please, please go to the 2:10 mark in the second video for Stewart’s epic high-camp sendup of gun rights advocate Lindsey Graham. Stewart channels Blanche Dubois from A Streetcar Named Desire, and hilarity ensues. Lindsey Graham and Blanche Dubois will forever be linked in the public imagination.

  23. BeccaM says:

    Yeah, well, the same private contracting company that performed Alexis’ background check was the same one that did Edward Snowden’s.

  24. The_Fixer says:

    Yeah. I think anytime a bullet goes zinging by anywhere in my general vicinity, it’s anything but minor.

  25. SDB1 says:

    Problem with this logic is our government handles the background checks for gun sales. His employment background check with the third party vendor had nothing to do with his ability to purchase a firearm. The background checks are only good if the information is actively reported. We don’t need to alter the second amendment to get more accurate background checks. We need more accurate information reporting.

  26. Badgerite says:

    John Stewart nails it. That is exactly right. According to the NRA and the GOP the only part of the Bill of Rights that is absolute, is the Second Amendment. And that is just crazy because as I understand it, the percentage of the population that even owns guns has been decreasing over time. So why is this Amendment considered to be so inviolate. It is getting to be like ‘the tail wagging the dog’. An overwhelming percentage of the population want effective, meaningful and universal background checks. So what is wrong with the GOP that they will not allow that to happen?

  27. JayRandal says:

    Barn doors on guns wide open in US now so crazies with guns can go nuts nationwide. I just try to watch my back wherever I go now and if I see somebody with guns I leave promptly. Lottery of death.

  28. Naja pallida says:

    This is what happens when we contract a private company to do the background checks. What incentive do they have to be thorough? Money? What would happen if they started rejecting a bunch of candidates? Then they might go with another company that won’t reject so many!

  29. Monoceros Forth says:

    Coincidentally, a small item in the Guardian pertains to Alexis’s somehow passing a background check in 2007 despite having been arrested in Seattle for shooting out a coworker’s tires in a rage:

  30. Indigo says:

    Maybe I’m ready for Hillary after all.

  31. pappyvet says:

    “minor shooting incidents,” Really ?

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS