Jimmy Kimmel

After the horrific Las Vegas massacre yesterday, late night ‘comedian’ Jimmy Kimmel ranted about the need for more gun control, even though not all the facts have come to light regarding the guns used in the shooting. He spent much of his show shaming Republicans for not increasing background checks or doing more to prevent the mentally ill from owning guns:

“He then tried to shame all GOP Senators, saying: ‘These are the faces Senators who days after the shooting in Orlando voted against the bill that would have closed those loopholes. These are the 56 Senators that didn’t want to do anything about that.’ Facts are damned for Kimmel. The Orlando nightclub shooter didn’t buy his guns at a gun show, so how would that have stopped it?

“The late-night comedian also pointed out that “90 percent of Democrats—I’m not talking about politicians, I’m talking about people—and 77 percent of Republicans support background checks at gun shows.” Which is good, because that’s what happens. “89 percent of Republicans and Democrats are in favor of restricting gun ownership for the mentally ill.” Which comes up in background checks, yet he declared that the GOP Senators voted against those things. Kimmel even admitted that the Vegas shooter wouldn’t have been weeded out this way because he had no criminal record.

“’And by the way, the House of Representatives will be voting on a piece of legislation this week, it’s a bill to legalize the sale of silencers for guns,’ he stated in disgust, thinking that Hollywood’s depiction of suppressors was scientifically accurate. It was yet another Fake News story that was debunked by a more level-headed mind.”

Although we know little about what shooter Stephen Paddock used in his attack, it has been confirmed that he had no criminal background or history of diagnosed mental illness. So unless Kimmel is aware of some mind-reading device that can be used prior to gun purchasing, there is no law that could have prevented this tragedy.

But what we can be sure of is that Kimmel is clearly anti-gun. He doesn’t believe in the 2nd Amendment and thinks guns do not belong in the hands of people like you and me.

So it must be rather embarrassing for him that he just hired a bunch of armed guards to protect him on his show. And why? Because he’s afraid of Trump supporters and protesters at his show:

“Jimmy Kimmel‘s latest crusade against Donald Trump has led to incidents with Trump supporters and has forced the late-night host to up security at his show tapings.

“Sources close to the show tell The Blast that ever since Kimmel re-ignited his campaign against the Republicans’ health care proposals, the comedian has had some issues with protesters at the show.

“We’re told the show has responded by adding security to the tapings — increasing personnel at both the front and back entrances. According to our sources, the additional security consists of highly-trained, off-duty police officers.

“Our sources say that in addition to protesters at the show, several “concerning” emails and letters have been sent to production.”

So it’s ok for an entitled, overpaid Hollywood elitist to have trained guards protect him but law-abiding citizens aren’t entitled to own a gun for protection?

Sadly, we can’t all afford “highly-trained, off-duty police officers” to protect us, so we’re kind of on our own. But hey, screw the little guy, right Jimmy?

I have to admit, there’s one mind-boggling question I can’t seem to shake out of my head. How did Jimmy Kimmel go from exploiting women he called ‘juggies’ jumping on tramploines to the left’s moral authority?

BY Alan Moore

| Managing Editor Of DC Statesman

Alan has previously worked in editorial, marketing, PR, and social networking roles for various websites and news outlets. These include Townhall Media, Newsbusters, MRCTV, and CNSNews. You can follow him on Twitter and on Facebook.

Reference Tags
LIKE us to get conservative news:
  • ernst

    Jimmy Kimmel reinforces his position as the leading late-night leftist hypocrite. Do people really swallow his tripe?

    • Bruce

      YES! He has an audiance full of them every night.

      • Robert F

        Unfortunately you are correct. I stopped watching the late night comedians after Johnny Carson. Leno was all right, but not my cup of tea.

      • jackw97224

        Good on ya mate! I not only dumped late night talk TV, I dumped TV. Radio is a little better but still there are problems. Too many people still believe the myth of “god government.” You might like the No State Project by Marc Stevens (on YouTube). Marc asks the simple question: What factual evidence do you have that the constitution and law apply to me just because I am physically present in some geographical location such as orygun or corruptifornia? The honest judges and prosecutors are dismissing traffic tickets when confronted with this question. Of course there are lots of crooked, dishonest judges. I ran into one in Beaverton Muni, John Mercer.
        Politics is violence. Kimmel conceals this simple truth.
        You might like the Zero Aggression Project by Perry Willis and Jim Babka.

      • Marty

        My philosophy is Objectivist; my politics is Libertarian. Mostly! I agree with you very close to 100%. I stand foursquare for Life, Reason, and Liberty—without qualms or reservations. I like your post, JackW!

      • jackw97224

        @Marty, I pay attention to politics but I recognize it as violence and thus I choose not to participate in politician organized crime, i.e. I don’t vote and as such I agree wit the Jehovah Witnesses who do not vote either. i see voting as an act of violence which sanctions politicians to use their power to deny free will, freedom to choose. One of the horrible manifestations of organized main stream religion (MSR) is that they have sold out to the political elite. If the clergy of the MSR had stood up to the rulers of the world at the time of WW I then they could have prevented the massive slaughters. MSR condemned itself as apostates and people need to be honest and admit this terrible history. I am reading a book titled: American Churches and the First World War, Gordon L. Heath. Every page is filled with excuses that the clergy spew for their support of the political leaders. It is exceedingly disappointing that there are 2 great commandments, love God and love your neighbor and to have preachers or priests tell their congregations to love your neighbors and then in the next breath say, now, go on out and kill your brothers. It is preposterous to claim to be a Christian leader and say such duplicity. BTW, I found this interesting:
        Excerpt From The Watch Tower September 1, 1915 by Charles Taze Russell:
        Recently in Canada the Editor was astounded by the activity of the preachers there – especially those of the Church of England. One was out in khaki uniform marching through the streets with the volunteers. Asked by a college friend, “Did I see you in the ranks?” he answered, “Yes I wanted to encourage the boys.” And did you think of going to the front, to the trenches?” “Not a bit of it!” He was merely acting as a decoy [Judas Goat] to get others to the front;
        just as a bull which they have at one of the Chicago stockyards, meets the animals about to be slaughtered and, tossing his head in the air, becomes their leader up the gangway leading to the slaughter [abattoir]. There he knows his little niche, into which he glides and is sheltered; while the others drive and press one another forward to the slaughter.7
        6Russell, “Christian
        Duty and the War,” The Watch Tower, 1 September 1915, 260-61. Watch Tower
        Reprints, 5754-55.
        7 Ibid, 260, Watchtower
        Reprints, 5754

        And I am not a member of the “Witnesses” but I like them and have learned much about the Bible from studies.

      • Marty

        I like this post, too, Jack. Reminds me of another time when the song “Sky Pilot” was being played on the airwaves.

      • jackw97224

        Right arm bro. I’m an old fart, don’t know “Sky :Pilot” but I did watch Sky King episodes in the afternoon as a kid.

      • Henry L

        I am so totally in agreement with you.

      • Henry L

        Shows you how many idiots we have in this country.

    • tbs

      Not me! He can be replaced with someone who has respect for this country and unites instead of divides! Take away his body guards and their guns and see how he would react! Be very very interesting to hear the squeals like a spoiled childish brat!
      Bye, bye Jimmy! Glad I am not one of you dumb followers to think you can save me from these attacks, without guns!

      • jackw97224

        Yeah, but tragically, near 65 million or so voted for the queen witch in the 2016 elections. The “poison” Kimmel” spews is lethal to those who will not see, those who do not perceive the hours or their inspections.

    • Concerned

      Yes. Jimmy clearly does not understand that a back-ground check is required when you buy a gun. This back-ground check is done by the FBI and includes checking for any history of mental problems. Therefore, gun ownership by the mentally ill already is NOT allowed. Contrary to the lies of the Left, there ARE already back-ground checks at gun shows.
      These liberal folks are having a very difficult time in understanding the law that is already in place. Perhaps a big issue is the lack of prosecution of felons denied gun purchases:

      http://freebeacon.com/issues/prosecutions-lying-gun-background-checks-fall-new-low/

      The report shows that, during Obama’s administration between 2008 and 2015, the FBI denied 556,496 gun purchases following background checks. During that time period, the report shows that only 254 false statements were even considered for prosecution, amounting to a 0.04% prosecution rate. The USAO said the decision not to prosecute background check-related crimes was the result of a shift in policy by the Obama administration following the Sandy Hook school shooting in 2012. Although other administrations have also not prosecuted these felons.

      If this is the case, the U.S. is not even prosecuting people who are violating existing laws. Why do people think that more laws will help, particularly with the crazy folks and the mentally ill? The problem is the people, not the guns.

      Remember Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Castro, and most European countries have had stringent gun control. Generally, private citizens in China are not allowed to possess firearms. “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” – Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938. Is this what people want?
      Therefore, even if fascists and communists did not totally outlaw guns, they used their brown-shirts, black-shirts, and party enforcers to totally control guns.

      • jackw97224

        Yes, Kimmel is a filthy deceiver. He conceals the truth.

        Martin Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation:

        First they came for the Socialists,
        and I did not speak out—

        Because I was not a Socialist.

        Then they came for the Trade
        Unionists, and I did not speak out—

        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

        Then they came for the Jews, and I
        did not speak out—

        Because I was not a Jew.

        Then they came for me—and there was
        no one left to speak for me.

        Kimmel displays ignorance and evil.

      • Concerned

        Very well stated. Our second amendment was put in place for just this reason. However, at the time, it was to protect the newly formed United States of America from the British. As we know, the British came back for the War of 1812. But it would also make sure we could defend ourselves against any other outside forces (including France and Spain).

      • jackw97224

        It is important to keep in mind the Marc Stevens question: What factual evidence do you (politician, judge, cop, prosecutor, bureaucrat in general et.al.) have that the constitution and law apply to me just because I am physically present in some geographical location such as orygun or corruptifornia? Honest judges and prosecutors are dismissing traffic tickets when this question is put, but crooked, dishonest ones will just disregard the simple truth that they lack such factual evidence. You might like Lysander Spooner’s No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority and The Zero Aggression Project by Perry Willis and Jim Babka.

      • Concerned

        Thanks, food for thought.

      • jackw97224

        Good on ya mate! You evidence an open mind. Would that more people emulate you.

      • ernst

        Nice idea, but no cigar. About the only place with no government is Antarctica or parts of Somalia. Antarctica is too cold to breathe and Somalia is run by gangs, which is to be expected where there is no formal government. We are generally better off with formal government, particularly representative government. See what happens when you ignore the IRS!

      • jackw97224

        With no experience it is bothersome to reject the idea of voluntary contracts. There is history that shows such forms of organizational government do work. To those who get tangled up and demand that I and others leave, I refer them to the Kelly Diamond article:

        Expatriation: If You Don’t Like It, Leave!
        http://www.globalwealthprotection.com/expatriation-leave-opt-out/

        FEBRUARY19, 2013 BY KELLY DIAMOND 11

        By: Kelly Diamond, Editor

        When we are told to “leave” because of our views toward government, is that a cruel suggestion or
        sage advice?

        I say, rather than leave, let me opt out! [If you really live in a nation that prides itself on “freedom,” then everyone should be free to “opt out” of any politician scheme, especially those unethical ones that loot A to satisfy B!

        I think Kelly has in mind freedom to choose without fear of being forced to obey by some government thug.

      • ernst

        I agree that government is at times obnoxious and often odious. Alternatives are worse. There are many examples of no government; take the US Wild West. He with the fastest gun and/or the biggest gang did what he wanted. While this may be deemed a meritocracy, it was not so good for most people. Most people are well-served by a government to stabilize society. Maybe you would prefer to live under Gengis Khan? That is tribal government, anyway. Human nature is to work for more control of one’s environment, ecological and social. This is a survival mechanism. This imperative is unavoidable and makes simple, peaceful, unenforced social contracts unworkable.

      • jackw97224

        It may be fine for you to sanction someone else to force you to behave but to sanction someone else to force me to behave in a way that you desire is a manifestation of slavery. If one wants freedom, then he must face the reality that there will always be fad actors and then the criminals will be punished. The alternative is tyranny and governmenttn acts preemptively based on the decision of government employees. Voting is an act of aggression. Politics is violence. The slaughters of wars and the economic recessions and the attendant ruination and misery and pain are evidence of this simple truth.

      • ernst

        I think the world is likely a better place that someone like you is in the condition of slavery. Lack of understanding of human nature and society is dangerous, particularly in one who claims preternatural knowledge. Anarchists like you have exactly led to great wars and absurd misdirections in society. I wish you great ruination and misery.

      • jackw97224

        Well, the fact remains that it is immoral for you to impose your beliefs on me or anyone. You might be called to judge a transgression but to use violence/force/aggression preemptively is just tyranny. The reality is that if one wants to live in a freedom to choose condition then he must realize that there will always be bad people. Enslaving me et.al. will not eliminate evil and in fact slavery facilitates evil.

      • ernst

        You should find an island where you can live in harmony and peace with yourself – where no one will interrupt your dreams.

      • jackw97224

        As I pointed out, you have no right to dictate. You clearly have a problem in that you think you are righteous in justifying political thuggery to get your way. This is not a healthy mental condition and in fact suggests a sociopathic tendency. Casting pejoratives only exposes failure.

      • ernst

        I was not dictating, only suggesting. It seems you would be happier in circumstances where your dreams are not impinged upon by reality. I assure you I am very happy with my life, socially and otherwise. There are benefits to understanding reality; you should try it.

      • jackw97224

        Again with the pejoratives. As I said, sociopathic.

      • ernst

        For yourself, I imagine that “happier” is a pejorative.

      • jackw97224

        Face it, you believe in using violence to get your way and are happy to hire thugs to impose your beliefs so as to relieve you of the almost certain damage if you tried to aggress.

      • ernst

        No, I am not a member of Antifa nor BLM. I expect that the only violence here is reality’s reaction to your absurd imaginings.

      • jackw97224

        You have already made it plain that you approve of using government to impose your beliefs and that is pure evil.

      • ernst

        Unfortunately, civil order, from which we all benefit, does not happen by itself. You are living in some lala land. Would you prefer life under Al Capone or Gengis Khan? Much better we all have at least a little say over the nature and direction of government. There will always be some kind of control over society – it does not happen by itself.

        Show me one example of the society you imagine. A fictional account by Sir Thomas More does not count.

      • jackw97224

        @ernst, I grew out of such ignorance in my late 30s. I realized how pedantic my views were, how selfish, how unreasoned. Check out the WWW for anarcho-capitalism and how it is been successful until politicians ruined it.

        A World Without Nation-States
        By Mark Nestmann
        Nestman.com
        September 14, 2017
        I’m a child of the 1960s and 1970s. I grew up in the era of the war in Vietnam, hippies, LSD, and “do your own thing.”
        My friends and I never understood how the “land of the free” could round up eighteen-year-old boys and force them to fight in a war that was 8,000 miles away.

        More than 50,000 US soldiers died in that war, including a few of my friends – and untold millions of Vietnamese people.

        My circle of friends thought there had to be a better way. And there is. It’s a decentralized world
        without nation-states, without government coercion, without war, and without the enforced extraction of wealth via taxation.

        A world like this isn’t just a pipe dream, either. Throughout history, societies have successfully existed this way. One of the best-documented examples was in central Turkey, at a site now occupied by the modern city of Catalhoyuk.

        There are more examples if you are open minded enough to perform the search.

        I’m glad I shed the immorality of believing in political violence to get my way; it was shameful but I am so much better off having rid myself of such evil.

      • ernst

        I hop[e you enjoy your life in dreamland.

      • jackw97224

        @earnst, you have abandoned the field and lost by default, it is a maxim. Snowflakism, SJWs, commie/socialism are just immoral schemes and terribly pedantic.

      • Marty

        For myself, I’d choose Capone. He had cool cars, lots of whiskey, “and the dames! Oh, the dames!”

      • ernst

        And he languished in prison for years and finally died of brain rot from syphilis. Life under his purview was usually short-term.

      • generalisimo

        Do not believe for a moment that those of us that believe in liberty, and are against the arbitrary tyranny of coercive government, do not understand the need for regulation and governance!
        Regulation and governance are absolutely essential for peace and cooperation, but one does not have to arrive at these ends through coercion or aggressive violence. The key is to understand that human beings have unalienable and inviolable rights and to respect those rights above any other consideration or expedience. Allow people to freely associate (liberty) and arrive at regulation voluntarily through contract (property). This is the moral and economic thing to do. Our founders understood this, and sought to establish a system that would minimize the necessary coercion of the state by “binding him (a coercive actor) down with the chains of the constitution” to quote Jefferson (parenthetical is mine). However, the enemies of liberty and the ignorant have weakened those chains to the point where it is now the individual that is restrained, and the state that is justified by the constitution! America is not a government, but a nation of individuals that share common values.
        The government we have is a consequence of our values as a nation. Today, our values, at least those of the majority, are now those of the collectivist of varying degrees (both R and D team are statist), not of the individualist. So we have a collectivist government that subordinates the individual to it, rather than the original intent that was exactly the opposite.
        If I were you I would educate myself on the superior morality and utility of individualist values as opposed to collectivist values, like nationalism or socialism.
        Mises.org is a great resource for this kind of exploration.

      • ernst

        We generally agree. It is a difficult balance, adequate governance to maintain safety and security without excessive repression while providing common civic services.

      • generalisimo

        What is never considered, and what is by way of reason the most productive and moral arrangement, is that voluntarism (free association and contract) can provide the essentials and the luxuries that men need and desire. It is a dogma that is tightly held that the state and its monopoly on the use of coercion is necessary and preferred.

        Coercion offers less utility. Coercion necessitates aggression against rights. Why we feel we must organize from a lesser position I cannot explain, except that it is dogma.

        I’ve been reading of late on the uses of the blockchain, in the institutional arrangements we require to cooperate, fascinating and exciting.
        https://medium.com/@cryptoeconomics

      • ernst

        If only people bargain in good faith… If only people keep their agreements… Alas, when things get tough, the tough get going, and they usually go the direction they see best serving their individual benefit regardless of agreements. Agreement without enforcement is a nice idea but not worth much. Utopia has been shown to not work.

      • generalisimo

        Don’t confuse non-aggression and pacifism.
        No one is saying we don’t protect people’s rights and prosecute criminals.People who violate the rights of others (assault, steal, break contract, etc.) are criminals and subject to justice. Justice is an extension of self defense, and following due process, is about the compensation of the victims of aggression against their rights. So nothing prevents the pursuit of justice, to bring redress to the victims of aggression. Enforcement of rights is necessary and preferred, but this enforcement always follows a crime, never proceeds it, as this would be the initiation of aggressive coercion.
        There is nothing utopian about this arrangement. It simply replaces state institutions with market institutions that operate not by coercion, but by contract.
        There are fleshed out systems proffered by many libertarian authors. I’d recommend Rothbard’s “For A New Liberty” if you have not read a good one.

      • ernst

        I have read Libertarian diatribes and find them universally Utopian. It does not work for many reasons. The “market correction” concept often takes so long to effect results that the profit is realized and gone before the correction has any effect. It just does not work. For example, if you have an industrial process polluting a river and being much more profitable than its competition which cleans its waste, how long will it take for the market to correct this? How many dead fish and how many dead people? And if the effect is not terminal, how long will it take for a court to determine the relative damage? Too long! Reasonable regulation is necessary, though sometimes onerous.

      • jackw97224

        @generalisimo, stated very nicely. I have read Rothbard’s For a New Liberty, an approve of it, though I seem to recall I had some small reservations. I really liked Rothbard’s The Political Thought of Étienne de
        la Boétie

        As you probably know, Boétie says that people approve of organized crime, politicians/leaders, because it is traditional. How utterly sad. It would be nice if government schools taught people this simple truth and how mistaken it is.

        Regards.

      • Marty

        If I may say: “Ahh! Rothbard! The old curmudgeon!” I had the pleasure of hearing him speak at one relatively small gathering of like-minds! I’ll never forget his opening two short sentences! [Quotation by request!]

      • generalisimo

        Please share!

      • Marty

        Another great post, Jack! I wonder: Did we ever meet when I lived in Cali? Hmmmm…

      • jackw97224

        Well, Marty, corruptifornian is a rather large geographical area. I live in the central area near Fresberg. Thanks. Clearly, ernst believes in sanctioning the politicians to use force/violence to impose his opinions, which as I pointed out is very unhealthy, morally defective. Hang in there.

      • ernst

        I just believe that your fanciful ideas and dreams are about as workable as trying to live without air. Keep dreaming! It will keep you out of any meaningful or relevant conversation. We may not like politicians, but they will always happen. The idea is to limit their reach and control.

      • jackw97224

        @ernst, you are talking nonsense. You are using pejoratives, which is immature, pedantic. You were given factual evidence of where organizational government, absent political government has worked. Saying that evil is bad but that it always will be here is in part true as that is what the Bible teaches. Satan was given control of Earth for a period of time. And yes, limiting or preventing evil is a challenge, which is why organizational government is a valid option. What you don’t get is that it is immoral to use force/aggression/violence to impose your opinions or beliefs and you are so biased that you are stuck inside the box and unable to think outside of it. Sorry for you but as has been said, you get the kind of government you deserve. The track record of political government is wars of mass slaughter, economic recessions and The Great Depression and the ruination of lives via inflation (=theft). The damage/harm of political government is sufficient for logical/reasoned individuals to reject it.

      • ernst

        You are missing the point. Where can you find a place without government that functions peacefully? You are a silly goose chasing butterflies.

      • jackw97224

        Not at all. It is a question of right and wrong. I do not justify evil by saying it exists and must be accepted. I recognize evil and resist it. Your pejoratives only serve to embarrass you. You clearly believe in using aggression/force/violence to get your way and that is immoral and you simply have not acquired that lesson. You have a sociopathic problem and would be wise to seek counseling. Have you taken the time to visit the Zero Aggression Project? Have you read Lysander Spooner’s No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority? Have you read Away From Freedom by Vervon Orval Watts? Have you read any of Murray Rothbard’s publications such as For A New Liberty or The Political Thoughts of Étienne de la Boétie? Obviously not or you are intellectually corrupt/dishonest.

      • Marty

        They won’t be happy until all firearms—and perhaps all weapons—are solely and completely in the hands of government agents.

  • Philomena

    Jimmy Kimmel should talk about the following.

    Remember when Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch said this? Did she know something when she said this? Was she asking for gun murders?

    Loretta Lynch calls to “Blood and Death in the Streets” to …
    http://www.eutimes.net/2017/03/lor…...
    Something that former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently said is extremely disturbing. She recorded a video message in which she suggested that in the struggle against Donald Trump there is going to be blood in the streets and some people are going to have to die….

    • tbs

      It was planned and she knew the bloody plan! They are so transparent in their dirty deals no one believes they are capable to run a safe country or are truthful!

      • jackw97224

        Sadly, near 65 million voted for the dirty dealer hillary clinton. Most people are willing to sell out for some false promise of safety.

        “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase
        a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” ~ Ben
        Franklin

        Yes, Kimmel is the pied piper leading the rats et.al. to their dooms.

  • John

    Anyone that watches Kimmel, Colbert, and any other late nite libs should have their names on the mentally ill list. No guns or armed security for them!

    • TrueAmerican781

      Replace “late night libs” with most talk shows

    • GrizzMann

      The list is called the Democrat voter log. Includes the dead.

      • jackw97224

        One more thing that everyone should know:

        Niemöller is perhaps best remembered
        for the quotation:

        First they came for the Socialists,
        and I did not speak out—

        Because I was not a Socialist.

        Then they came for the Trade
        Unionists, and I did not speak out—

        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

        Then they came for the Jews, and I
        did not speak out—

        Because I was not a Jew.

        Then they came for me—and there was
        no one left to speak for me.

      • Marty

        There IS a socialist Utopia, after all. It is a place where no one ever has to pay for anything, not food, not, housing, not even clothing, because it is all free. And it is also a place where no one has any guns—except, of course, for those authorized to have them: police, government agents, etc. This Utopia of Socialism is actually nearby: it is your nearest state penitentiary. It is sooo socialist, you don’t even have to decide what’s for dinner!

      • jackw97224

        Heh, heh, heh…yeah, its the truth. I call it the boobyhatch farm and have a long list of commie/socialists, both DemonKraits and Republicrats, that deserve to be there and experience the rot that shove on their opponents and on even their ignorant and dishonest supporters.

  • Jmanjo

    Kimmel must have practiced his tears and jerky voice before going on air! What a load of horsecrap and then he goes and hire more gunmen to protect his butt, what a two faced jackass!

    • GrizzMann

      They do make a living in the world of make believe.

    • Marty

      Hah! Tonight’s rebroadcast of one of SNL’s 1979 shows features Bill Murray “breaking up” a la Kimmel. Hmm, maybe that’s where Kimmel learned how to do that “broken voice” bit?

  • jhforsythe

    What a hypocrite! He believes in taking everyone’s guns from them, while beefing up his gun-toting security.

    • GrizzMann

      That is what makes him a good Democrat.

      • jackw97224

        Yep! Only those who are blind refuse to see the evil in Jimmy Kimmel. He should be confined to the boobyhatch farm for the balance of his filthy life.

  • Gerry Costa

    All of these gun grabbing libtards are nothing but a bunch of loud-mouth hypocrites. They preach taking weapons away but hire small HEAVILY ARMED armies to protect them. They preach peace, love and unity but then incite violence and riots. Some of these clowns even want to take weapons away from out law enforcement — but they still want their HEAVILY ARMED security. They are pitiful and pathetic excuses for human beings.

  • GrizzMann

    I hope that Jimmy gets trained on how to use firearms properly, Just in case he needs to defend himself in an emergency. Security can and has been breached before.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f18944cf367d21ad27736749fdfd74c911e23fceabf7a129db3ee431368f65a.jpg

  • Frankiedoodle

    Well isn’t that par, for these narrsisstic arrogant people to
    their life is worth much more than yours, guns are ok for him
    and his family to be protected but NOT yours. Everyone
    should boycott his show and sponsor. No one should
    Take anything he says seriously. If he doesn’t believe in
    responsible people owning a gun for protection, then he
    has no right to think it’s perfectly fine for him and his family
    to be protected by a gun. WHAT ARROGANCE!!!!

  • Robert F

    He can rail against one crazy in Las Vegas that killed 58 in a despicable rampage, but what has he said about the 50-55 that are killed by guns in Chicago EVERY week-end. Hypocrisy is Kimmel’s name and a very selective target of his “wit”. A gun is an instrument that does not kill, it is the finger on the trigger that kills. My life has been better since I stopped watching the comedians when Johnny Carson retired.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    Jimmy Kimmel is the “biggest gun” the left can trot out to further its agenda? when you give it some thought; that’s pretty pathetic.

    • jackw97224

      Yeah, it is just lies, lies, lies from the commie/socialist DemonKraits. The spew their venom like it was going out of style. Bye bye Kimmel.

  • domar1938

    Kimmel has a .50 caliber mouth and a .17 caliber brain.

  • jrj90620

    Getting more sleep,since I can’t watch any of these biased late night hosts.Better to watch old Carson repeats.Leno and Carson chose to do entertainment,rather than politics.

  • jackw97224

    Well, Jimmy Kimmel is just a commie/socialist, DemonKrait “statist.” He believes in using force/aggression/violence to get his way. He is deceitful and immoral as he approves of using government/politics to loot A to satisfy B. He believes in looting the taxpayers of their freedoms to choose and of looting them of their wealth so as to impose his opinions and beliefs. Politics is violence. Notice the diabolical irony, Kimmel wants to use force/violence while simultaneously denouncing the same. Kimmel is illogical and duplicitous, he is a sad apple; a sicko. Bye bye Jimmy.

    • generalisimo

      Not to mention, he’s not funny!

  • t goss

    what a hyprocrite this Jimmy Kimmel is.

  • Rickey Cook

    What a punk batch this moron is

  • Henry L

    I just refuse to waste my time with these no-funny comedians.

  • Darrell G. Walton

    Why watch the reprobate or give your money to his sponsors?

  • Joe M

    I read over at naturalnews.com that this guy Stephen Paddock, the alleged shooter, is now known to have been taking the prescription psychiatric medication Diazepam that is known to promote violent behavior and psychotic episodes. Prescription Drugs have been repeatedly linked to other mass shootings.

    • disqus_TzDwhXyBhj

      And no outrage at big pharma. Who spends 80 times more bribing congress than the firearms industry.

  • Paul Clinkunbroomer

    Typical lefty jerk…all tongue, no guts.