Guns & Ammo Network

Collapse bottom bar
Politics Second Amendment

Missouri Gun Rights Bill Sponsor Gets The Daily Show Treatment

by Martin Hobe   |  May 10th, 2012 21

Anyone who has watched The Daily Show has witnessed the sensationalized spin put on by the creative editors to make the show humorous. Jon Stewart and his crew are not journalists by any means. They are comedians. That is why the show airs on Comedy Central, not a major news channel.

But in an interview with State Rep. Wanda Brown (R-Lincoln), The Daily Show’s Aasif Mandvi asked about her sponsorship with the bill HB 1621. Under this bill, it makes discrimination due to gun ownership and concealed carry unlawful in the workplace. The law was backed by the NRA and had strong support on the Missouri Congress floor.

“This is preventative to protect the Second Amendment for everyone in the future,” she told Mandvi.

The law does not allow gun owners to bring their gun to work, free of consequence from their superiors. If person breaks a contract or code of the owner of the business of property states workers cannot have a concealed weapon on the property, that this law does not protect person if they are fired.

But Missouri law does not protect against discrimination towards gays, lesbians, transvestites or bisexuals in the workplace.

Brown argues, along with her supporters on the floor, that this issue is not related to HB 1621.

Also, as reported by the Missouri News Horizon, she said the inspiration for the bill came after federal agents refused to inspect a meatpacking plant because the owner carried his concealed weapon to work everyday.

“I’m giving everyone the right to protect their Second Amendment and their job at the same time,” Brown told the Missouri News Horizon.

In her interview with Mandvi, Brown seems uncomfortable when put on the spot, and has a hard finding the words she needs to both state her point and not look like a fool. Mandvi asks questions to try to catch Brown in a lie or reveal her true feelings about the LGBT community, but he moves farther and farther away from the original point.

The Daily Show does this on a consistent basis. To ensure the interview is entertaining, they formulate questions that turn the interviewee’s words around on them, or stray so far from the initial issue at hand, throwing the interviewee completely off guard. On more than one occasion, they have taken a story completely out of context to get a cheap laugh.

To help hammer their point home in this story, the editors cleverly used images of children with guns and a video of people shooing out of the bed of a moving truck to show their viewers a picture of how the editors at The Daily Show believe gun owners behave.

Though the show sensationalizes the story to make it entertaining, the argument given by The Daily Show does hold water on the floor of the Missouri Congress. This debate has been flowing through the veins of the state’s government for some time now.

So one could foresee the backlash of law to protect those who are seemingly pretty safe from discrimination in the workplace, while the LGTB community is left in the dark.

But Brown tells Mandvi this is not a civil rights debate, as much as it is to protect the Second Amendment rights of Missouri citizens. It is to protect gun owner’s rights from a society that is regulating gun control and concealed carry more and more each year. This argument is clouded by The Daily Show’s crafty take on the story.

Do you believe the members of the LGBT community deserve the same rights that gun owners are getting under this law? Or is The Daily Show working their magic to poke fun at gun owners and do you believe the two issues are separate?

Also, is this law a necessity, and do gun owners need protection from discrimination in the work place? Or does the Second Amendment provide us with all the protection we need to stay safe from gun control discrimination?

  • Shadow

    The Daily Show with John Stewart? Never heard of it. : )

    • Karl

      Wasn't he a race car driver?

  • Edge

    I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for people made to look like fools on that show. Had they done any research beforehand…meaning watching even just a couple of episodes…they would know that unless you have a pretty liberal disposition they will probably make you look like an idiot.

    They should've declined an interview. Why a serious politician would grant an interview from anyone from Comedy Central is beyond me. I like the Daily Show because I find it funny and take it for what it is…pure entertainment. If you have a serious issue you want to voice don't do it on the same channel that brought us South Park, That's My Bush, and Crank Yankers.

    • Joe

      I do not think that they had to try very hard to maker look like an idiot

  • stew

    I don't think the Daily Show is against the Bill. They are just trying to highlight the inequality the LGBT community is subjected to under Missouri law.

    • jim

      of course they are against the bill. it's an obvious waste of resources.

  • John

    Just watch the video in question, thought it was pertty damn funny; I say watch then talk.

  • Martha

    I agree with Stew. This wasn't about harping on gun rights. Rather, this representative made a point of creating legislation to protect gun owners, while rejecting legislation that would protect people of all sexual orientations under the law. They chose to point out a glaring hypocrisy in her views, and did a good job of calling her out in it. She knew she was cornered and should have probably declined the interview if she wanted to avoid the embarrassment.

    Moreover, major news outlets aren't really news outlets. At least the Daily Show, despite being on Comedy Central, pokes fun at the ridiculous charades going on all (both right and left) television news networks.

  • Sk3pticalG33k

    I happen to love The Daily Show with Jon Stewart…i find Jon Stewart to be a highly intelligent and quite humorous individual. I am also a lifetime member of the NRA and support gun rights wholeheartedly. That being said, i would like to say that this is humor. I found it to be highly amusing that the woman had such a hard time explaining a bill that she sponsored, and, when compared to the point that the LGBT community can't get basic freedoms guaranteed to everyone else, it does show the disparate and bigoted world we live in, which is shown in how our elected officials act on our behalf. I agree with another commenter, that if the woman wasn't a halfwit, she should have done her homework and figured out she should have been prepared with solid reasons behind the bill she sponsored…shame on her…Gun owners already have rights, LGBT does not. It's called satire…yet at the same time, it's quite sad that the Constitution is not equally enforced for all citizens.

  • Rain

    Looks like some of the daily show zombies made it over here.

  • jibblets

    @ rain
    go back to your porch red neck.

    • Shadow

      Red neck? Grow up kid.

  • CmacH&K

    Can I just say that I'm impressed by the commentary on this article. I too am a big fan of the Daily Show and would not have expected these responses! Most think of Jon Stewart as huge liberal, but for all the other personalities that have their names attached to the term "NEWS", yes I'm looking at you Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart is very intelligent and balanced in his commentary. He is also incredibly respectful to the people he brings on to interview. Take a look at his interview with Tom Coburn R, OK. You can't love America and but hate Americans. I'm a big guns rights advocate and have no problem taking in what people with different points of view might have. Kudos to all of you for not bringing this discussion down to the lowest common denominator.

    • Marcus

      Well said.

  • Jim

    "But Brown tells Mandvi this is not a civil rights debate, as much as it is to protect the Second Amendment rights of Missouri citizens."

    At what point exactly in the interview did she say that? She spends the first few minutes of the interview accepting Mandvi complements of being a champion for civil liberties. (He of course did this so she would show how hypocritical she is further in the piece.)
    I'm all for gun rights, and born and raised in her district. This bill is a flat out waste of taxpayer dollars for her to restate her parties political position and to get support from pro-gun supporters. Period. Members of our district should be ashamed of electing such a clueless representative.

  • Felox

    I saw a rerun of it tonight. It was very funny. Wanda Brown comes of as an idiot.

  • Super Steve

    While I appreciate the well thought out responses by some and the generally even tone of the article, one this is false. Gun Owner are simply not facing an assault as the article claims. The NRA has done a very good job of buying (ahem…convincing) elected officials to pass more and more lax gun laws. Even in the face of the majority of people who want stricter control (although people do support gun rights to a degree)

  • Derek

    Why would the second amendment need to be protected by HB 1621, that makes no sense. And I dont get how other MO congress people didnt realize this was a complete waste of time and should never have been brought out on the floor for a vote. Complete waste of time.

  • vthacker

    I am a member of the NRA and an avid support of the second amendment. Unfortunately, supporting bills like HB 1621 by Wanda Brown (R-Lincoln) has a negative impact on how gun owners are viewed and the NRA. This type of bill which was nothing more than a waste of time will hurt our image with potential NRA supporters. I have not found one situation in which someone was fired by being a gun owner, unless they violated company policy by bringing that firearm to work. This type of effort continues the perception that NRA members are unintelligent hicks. I provide financial and verbal support but I am not happy that “we” were involved in this ridiculous bill and that “we” supported someone who actually voted against providing protection to Americans who are actually discriminated against. I saw someone refer to her as a serious politician, what a joke, you can’t be serious. Our politicians regardless of the side they support are more like this than people realize, they are morons. This is why I am an independent.

    • Marcus

      Agree 100%.

      • RICE

        Hahahaha.. but we really need gun regulations, also we need to regulate the idiots that are in govenment.. some like Brown need to take some classes about politics or just step down..

back to top