VIDEO: Jon Stewart Explains Why President Obama is Not a “Tyrannical Dictator”

Stewart says, “Looks like a tyrant is anyone sworn to protect the constitution that you didn’t vote for.”

Conservatives across the nation are in an uproar over President Obabma’s proposed gun-control plan, with many going so far as to call him a tyrant. Others have taken to comparing him to dictators throughout history, including Hitler. Statements suggesting if the Jews had guns the Holocaust may not have happened are popping up all over the place. But as Jon Stewart points out so eloquently in this clip from last night’s Daily Show,

 I wish armed Jews in the ghetto could stop Hitler. But my feeling was, France couldn’t, and I’m pretty sure they had guns. Russia had kind of a lot of guns, but they couldn’t stop Hitler—until you factored in the wind chill.

Calling the elected leadership in the US “tyrannical dictators” would have more effect; it would seem if people would first learn what the actual definition of that term is.

Watch the video:

About the Editors

We're all in this together.


  1. wellokaythen says:

    If a Muslim immigrant shot up the school in Newtown, the right would be all over Obama for being too weak, for not doing enough to keep weapons out of the hands of extremists in our country. He’d be branded too soft on crime when it comes to the security of your children, and what we need is someone willing to use his power to make your children safe. The pundits on the right would ask, why wasn’t the government invading the privacy of (Muslim)(immigrant) gunowners, like it’s supposed to? That damned Bill Clinton failed to put a stop to those 9/11 terrorists playing with paintball guns, after all. he should have thrown them in jail on suspicion of being armed, right? A strong president is supposed to pre-emptively limit constitutional rights when it’s people you don’t trust….

    • Richard Aubrey says:

      WRT your last sentence. Precisely. Which is what Obama is doing, to the cheers of your side.

      And I believe it was your side which castigated Bush for failing to connect the dots or keep Muslims off airplanes or something.

  2. Richard Aubrey says:

    Actually, Hitler was, in the last hundred years, in the top three, third, in fact, behind Stalin and Mao. ‘course they had more time.
    How come nobody called Bush “Stalin”?
    But, anyway, there’s your historical background. Mao first, then Stalin, then Hitler. Pol Pot comes in first for percentage of population (about a third) , but his original population was so small his aggregate numbers aren’t that big.

    • wellokaythen says:

      Fair enough, in absolute numbers of genocide victims Hitler isn’t the top dog.

      None of them, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, was a tyrant because he called for a committe of medical researchers to investigate the statistics of a particular social issue or because they asked their legislative bodies to have a discussion about a particular social issue. What Obama is doing isn’t tyranny, it’s quite a bit of the opposite, actually. His approach will actually stall the issue in committee gridlock and blue ribbon commissions and white papers until his term is over.

      • Richard Aubrey says:

        well. So, why didn’t the left call Bush “Stalin”? And Bush, judged by the same criteria, doesn’t turn out to be a tyrant. Knickers. Twist.
        I suppose his approach in the legislature will stall, given the electoral makeup. But the EOs are going to do what they’re supposed to do; make the case to the bitter clingers that Obama and the left are in charge and there’s nothing the BC are going to do about it.

  3. wellokaythen says:

    There’s also a real long-term rhetorical problem with saying Obama is another Hitler. You’ve painted yourself into a corner, because Hitler’s pretty much the worst example, at the end of the spectrum. There’s no place to go after that. What happens when someone comes along later who is actually dictatorial, who is actually worse than Obama? There’s no one worse than Hitler left to use as your analogy. Now you’re just stuck saying that new guy I hate is also like Hitler. Oh, and this other guy who’s even worse, he’s like Hitler, too. That cop who pulled me over for speeding? Total Hitler.

    It’s really curious how poorly people understand the separation of powers. Obama can’t actually pass any laws about gun ownership. Presidents don’t create laws. What I hear a lot of pro-gun people saying is that the government needs to enforce laws it already has. Obama as chief executive has the power to push to enforce the laws more strictly, he’d be called a tyrant for doing that, too.

    • Wasn’t Mao or Stalin worse?

      I’ve often wished that we could have a gun-range here in Aus where you could fire off automatic rifles, military rifles under super strict supervision (without joining the army or cadets). Only time I’ve fired an auto rifle was a 100round automatic air rifle at the show(fair/carnival), I loved the experience not because of the violence but because of having to be accurate. I like to try various things out, I hope to have fired a wide variety of weapons, driven a wide variety of vehicles, tried various hobbies, I admire the technology, the skill, but I hate the violence that comes with it. I’m someone that would totally love to make a sentry robot with miniguns just to shoot some old cars then swap out any lethal weapons for water hoses and water the garden for novelty. Hopefully VR technology will get great enough to replicate the experience before I die.

      Personally I don’t think we should have automatic rifles at home, semi auto rifles probably not, I don’t mind not having a gun but I do hope to one day own one to do target shooting for sport. I am ok with professional shooters having semi auto’s as long as there are background checks.

      But in a time of war you can be damn sure I would want weapons, I would hope to be able to aquire some if I wasn’t evacuated as it at least gives me the chance to try protect myself n loved ones. I’ve wondered though if the shit hits the fan, would a military in desperate situations hand out rifles to everyone or would they just bring back conscription? An armed population is a deterrant, didn’t Switzerland’s every home pretty much having an armed soldier deter him from invading? If you have a country of 10million people, 5million+ who have weapons, would you send in an army with less than 1 million troops? (numbers made up, not actual numbers). Even just armed civilians would surely do quite a lot of damage, the only options would be to destroy every house and pretty much commit genocide and find a way to get the people to surrender or face gunfire potentially from every house, street, etc. Mechanized infantry helps but will people stay inside tanks ALL the time? Hell having a few snipers in the population would do massive amounts to demoralize the enemy, imagine being in an urban environment knowing every nook n cranny could have someone aiming a rifle at you?

      I find it extremely hard to believe an armed population doesn’t deter invaders. There are issues of course with murder but they can be largely prevented by stopping the high levels of abuse that goes on, address poverty, drug abuse, hell spend 500million on mental health and you’ll probably save far more lives. Guns make it easier to kill but you still have to address why people want to kill, what is pushing people to wanting to end someones life?

Speak Your Mind