Colbert’s Gun Control Analogy Backfires Big Time, Viewers Give Him Brutal Reality Check

Stephen Colbert is among the late night television hosts who genuinely seem to believe that they have been crowned America’s moral conscience, and as such, he decided to comment on last weekend’s mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas. However, his gun control analogy backfired big time as his own viewers quickly dealt him a brutal reality check.

Stephen Colbert (Photo Credit: Screengrab/YouTube)

“You wanna do something, but nothing gets done. No one does anything,” Colbert complained after Devin Patrick Kelley shot up a rural Texas church. “Nothing gets done to control the guns that kill 10,000 people a year around America, not just in these mass killings.”

“Five thousand years ago if your village had a tiger coming into it every day and was eating people, you wouldn’t do nothing,” lectured the washed-up comedian, according to BizPac Review. “You would move the village, you would build a fence, or you would kill the tiger. You wouldn’t say, well, I guess, you know, someone’s going to get eaten every day because the price of liberty is tigers.”

Of course, if your village has a tiger problem, the solution is relatively simple. Just shoot it with a gun.

The good people of Twitter were quick to point out the obvious for the late-night host.

National Review editor Charles C. W. Cooke offered another solution to kill Colbert’s metaphorical tiger after USA Today suggested that the rifle used by Sutherland Springs shooter Devin Patrick Kelley could have included a “chainsaw bayonet” modification.

Just as the solution to Stephen Colbert’s tiger problem is quite simple, so is the logic surrounding gun control measures. Colbert and his ilk seemingly do all that they possibly can to guilt politicians into “doing something,” but you’ll notice that they offer absolutely no ideas whatsoever as to what should be done. Perhaps that’s because we’ve already tried instituting gun control, and the experiment failed miserably.

Take a look at Chicago, for example. Barack Obama’s hometown has some of the strictest gun control laws in the entire country, yet violent crime rates are astronomical. Indeed, it seems that every time we turn around, the gang-ridden city is breaking one of its own records for the number of murders committed in the time span of just one weekend.

Could this be because law-abiding citizens do not have firearms to protect themselves against the threat of violent criminals who have little regard for laws prohibiting them from owning weapons? That is the obvious answer, though I wouldn’t recommend holding your breath waiting for Stephen Colbert to admit it.

Making something illegal does not magically prevent access to it. Sure, we could ban bump stocks, but what would this accomplish? If a criminal wants one, he’s going to find a way to get it just like a druggy will find a way to secure their next high, even though it may be illegal. Meanwhile, though, legislation banning something like bump stocks will open the door for more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners who would never harm anyone in the first place.

Stephen Colbert was right about one thing, however. You should definitely exercise your right to vote whenever you have the opportunity to do so, but don’t vote for someone who will “do something” emotionally charged without giving it the proper thought and consideration. We have watched Democrats do as much over the decades and we are still paying for many of their misguided and politically expedient decisions.

FOLLOW us on Facebook, Gab, & Twitter!