@Louise Hayle I would do that ya. Mind you I would attempt to disable, and not kill them, but if it came down to it I would. A thief who steals from someone who isn't even in the wealthy class though has no place in my society. Everyone has the right to a good life, but not all are deserving of it.
No, its spot on. Because the reality rips are like Rick And Morty, meaning they're different, non-real versions, like the black Duckman that pops in and the re-imagined Constitution... it was actually predicting the ~literal~ future... how scary is that?
One of my favorite episodes. So many rapid fire twists, turns, as well as forward and backward references. You almost have to watch the episode two or three times to get all the references and jokes you missed from laughing so hard. And I love Eric Duckman's look at the 'camera', in an animated version of 'breaking the fourth wall' near the end of the clip.
Whats shitty is theres a right way to be and our sociaty is designed to where people who agree with the comment can feel correct and actually keep uphold of their own opression
Actually from what I heard the right to bear arms was for actually militias to be out all the time not for anyone to have a gun heck the NRA for the longest time believe people shouldn't have guns
Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”. Ya’ll played yourselves.
I interpret it as a take that our founding fathers were elitist. Notice the "average Joe" comment. James Madison screwed us over by ditching the Articles of Confederation.
From James Madison's writings in the Federalist Papers where he describes being armed as "an advantage that the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation": "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe," Madison wrote, "which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." They should've just chose someone else to make that line
"And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes" Maybe I don't fully understand Madison's quote, but it sounds like he says bearing arms is not the deciding factor. What does make a difference is the local governing body, that the people have elected and trusted. It is only if those systems run with efficiency and without corruption can an armed population topple an oppressive government.
Man you realize that this was literally just to piss off gun owners, and that you took the bait so hard you felt the need to go on google and find a quote about it right?
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788 Madison clearly meant that citizens should own guns.
Apparently the fact that America is rife is guns is basically the only reason we've never been invaded by another country, it makes them nervous. It saved our ass in WWII and kept the Cold War cold at least, even though I don't know how much it would matter with today's warfare techniques.
@christmastiger: Ha ha, look up history and geography. Geography: the only two land neighbors are Canada (they did invade the US territories multiple times, but never stayed, to not start another costly and never-ending British Crown vs American Revolution war) and Mexico (they did invade the US territories multiple times, but never stayed because their army was shit). History: - WWI happened in Europe, not on the American continent. - WWII happened in Europe, Northern Africa and Asia, not on the American continent. - the Cold War saw no mainland invasion of the two bloc homeland (USSR and USA) solely because of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, that's why the proxy war concept was massively used by both blocs (the Soviet-Afghan War and the Vietnam War, to name the two major ones). The only reasons the US saw no invasion yet is because: 1) it's a very young nation, 2) with no powerful neighbor, 3) all its enemies were exterminated (natives) and their land taken, after countless battles and skirmishes. Today's warfare techniques means small-arms fire is mostly useless: what matters is IEDs/suicide armored trucks, and anti-tank/anti-aircraft missiles. Firing the small 5.56 or 7.62 round at an APC, let alone a tank, with armor plates and glass periscopes easily resisting .50 cal rounds, is laughable - especially when helicopters, jets and drones can spot and kill any target from afar (even at night), completely out of range of any rifle-toting infantry. The Middle-East and Africa is filled up with guns, you can even rent RPD/PK machineguns at the market for a few days, there's AKs and RPG7 every-fucking-where - absolutely no gun control whatsoever - and invasions as well as civil wars happen all the time. "Mah 2nd amendment" fanatics are just lying to themselves, pretending their AR at home magically makes them a "well regulated militia" (ha!) that could topple a tyrannical gov (lol, APC/tanks/helis), because they want to keep their fun toys (understandable, guns are fun) without paperwork (permits/background check/waiting period = tyranneeeeee), and they want to think they're powerful against criminality with a gun in their night stand (surprise: robbers in armed areas bring a gun with them and shoot first, getting a gun would only work if NO ONE else would get a gun - in practice, it doesn't work at all: everyone gets a gun, and criminals end up getting *and* using them). If the US were ANY close to the words of the Founding Fathers, the country would be peppered with ORGANIZED, REGULATED MILITIA units, with officers, mandatory training, discipline, strict recruitment, and hidden weapons caches (including AA MANPADS and AT missiles - Stingers and Javelins). There is none of that, the US Army/Airforce/Navy are the only forces with such assets, and the only weapons available to the citizens are not standardized, not in a regulated militia, not stored in caches but instead spread all over in homes, cars, basements. That's not a well-regulated militia at all. This the exact OPPOSITE of the words of the Founding Fathers, who wanted an organized population capable of forming guerrilla units within a couple of days, and forming into an irregular army (= with AA and AT assets nowadays) within a couple of weeks. Now the only thing we got is a bunch of people with all kinds of guns and ammo, that would be completely inefficient for a civil war, no organization or regulation whatsoever, and an overall ignorance of the Constitution, on top of the Party before Country mentality of most of the citizens. People hijacking the 2nd amendment for their personal egoistical leisure of keeping a gun in their hands whenever they feel like it are a disgrace to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. At least have the balls and say you want a gun w/o any paperwork simply because you want to individually "feel" powerful in a globalized society where we're all increasingly powerless at the individual level, don't bring the 2nd Amendment to justify that personal distress relief.
TubeofDestiny I don’t think most gun owners want unregulated distribution of firearms. They want background checks and for those background checks to be ENFORCED. We are far enough away from most other world powers that getting troops or even planes OVER here would be over-stretching themselves anyway. So on top of not having much air support (since we span from ocean to ocean), any military is gonna deal with over 400 million guns as well as 1 million active police and either the Appellations or the Rockies. Not to mention the middle 1/3 of the country that’s desert or farmland. The US is one of THE most diverse countries in the world. And the Second Amendment helps out just in logical terms. If there was a government overreach that was bad enough to put the citizens against the government, then the government is gonna have a hard time finding citizens to operate those drones. Unlike many other militarized countries, the US doesn’t make us worship the leader. Instead, we worship the freedoms we have and the effort it takes to keep it. So if a leader goes rogue, the military isn’t gonna be brainwashed completely. The Second Amendment isn’t as helpful as it was in 1787, but it still holds true. If a military of 1 million was ordered to go up against 300 million+, the military is still gonna have a hard time of killing 300-1. And what then? Who is left to operate the power plants, farms, etc? The government needs citizens more than they need the government. Sheer numbers is probably enough, but the 2nd Amendment is a nice bit of help.
Wrong, actually. The constitution does state the right for anyone to own a gun. You have to remember the contexts not just for how the words are used but the meaning they had back then. Back then when they said something needed to be "Regulated" they didn't mean restricted and controlled the meant "Made regular" as in commonplace and available to everyone the same way cars are today, except even more so in fact.
I dont get what the show is trying to say. James Madison literally sent a letter of marque and reprisal telling a private ship owner that the second amendment protects their right to carry CANNONS aboard their ship. Back then the laws were no holds barred. Semi-automatic weapons did exist in their primordial form at the time as well and were protected under the constitution. I don't really get what the show is trying to say because I seen it as "James Madison didn't support 2nd amendment" but like... that's just blatantly wrong on every level
@@corvonics6383 I mean, at WORST the Forefathers would have wanted people to learn how to use guns before owning one. But they still wouldn't go for even a fraction of the gun control the USA has today. Madison would shit bricks.
If that were true, Scream Lord, then you're trying to say that the meaning of "well regulated" in the context of "well regulated militia" is really "You, and You, and You get a gun! Mandatory guns for everyone!!"?? Somehow I doubt that was their intent. In any case, THINGS HAVE CHANGED OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS. You know they didn't have automatic weapons and so on back then when they wrote it. This is all about an *amendment* to the Constitution, which means it's not set in stone and it CAN and SHOULD be amended as appropriate and necessary. Massive population growth and automatic/semi-automatic guns are part of what's changed and it needs to be regulated, restricted, controlled, or whatever you want to call it.
Only Israel deserves self defense, now if you excuse me we have to go watch terrorist acts be staged so we can go to war again for Israel. I love being American
+Alfredo Cósar A tyrannic government might fall into this category. Think it can't happen? This isn't the first Republic country and it won't be the last and corruption appears to already be there.
Thanks, I am a badass, I have a phd in asskicking. Call me Dr. Asskick, since I legally changed my last name to Asskick. I will go against the fucking "Word" with a gun, assuming you meant world.
Wait, is the joke supposed to be that the same people who defend freedom of speech are more likely to be defenders of the 2nd amendment and thus be offended by the gun comment even though it's feedom of speech?
I think it's that the phrasing implies the reverse of what Madison says in the video. First Amendment "Congress shall make no law..." and Second Amendment "...shall not be infringed" would mean state/local government and large companies can restrict free speech but nobody can restrict guns. However, a lot of people try to argue that the Founding Fathers wanted free speech to be nearly absolute but would've been fine with extensive gun control. (Not that we want to restrict free speech either, but as a point of contrast it makes the wording more noticeable.)
Freedom of speech includes freedom of response. If you say something stupid people have the right to tell you what you said was stupid. This isn't an infringement on speech. It's the process working as intended
The federalist papers state that 1 Joe Average is the militia and yes, has a right to own a gun 2 Joe Average has the right to own any gun the military can
By all means don't own a gun then, let the burglar take whatever he wants from your home, let the mugger have your wallet, keys, and cards. I know I won't let them have mine.
Shane Angus Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”. Ya’ll played yourselves.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - Madison, Federalist Papers #46. Yeah, sorry, Madison presupposed the average American had and would continue to have firearms, as a logical and necessary deterrent against a overreaching federal government (which is why he mentioned it here as a way to console people worried about the federal government becoming too powerful).
James Madison was also an anti democratic elitist. It's hilarious how people in this comment section go and point out how James Madison was a terrible guy, but as soon as you find something you agree with you immediately change your mind. As though that somehow excuses his other insane beliefs.
I'm out here laughing about the 'Joe Average' and everyone is out here getting insanely butthurt about it. Goddamn, I hate politics. Instead of politics, I think we should have a bunch of random animals in office and whatever is alive after a week should permanently be the ruler/s of the US.
he was anti-democratic. He was pro-republic which is why he structured the nation as a democratic-REPUBLIC. Don't get how ppl aren't taught that the US isn't a traditional democracy
@@corvonics6383 I just found the quote. It is that the purpose of government is to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Not sure if it’s accurate though but I don’t doubt that he truly felt such sentiments.
@nuclearcatbaby1131 that's not elitist. The right to the fruits of your labor is a well recognized Natural Right. Therefore, a government must defend that right as opposed to the majority deciding it has more power than the individual. This is why America is a Republic. Democracy is a Tyranny of the Majority. If you think the rich individual shouldn't have their rights maintained I'll just assume you're in favor of lynch mobs too
@@user-ld9tf4td8s I mean it’s elitist for them to have guns but not the poor people. What, does having less to defend make them less deserving of arms?
Okay, but carrying a gun is a form of speech, in that you are non-verbally communicating that you are not afraid to defend yourself with lethal and unnecessary force.
Seems like the writers didn't do their historical research. "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
@@citizenofsquatopia5868 Saying something that's objectively false and then saying "gotchya" when you're proven wrong is not bait, it's stupidity. Are you stupid?
@@citizenofsquatopia5868 why would they care about baiting people? So people can write them an angry letter. This show was pre-social media so triggering outrage didn’t go as far as today.
"Freedom of Speech" must also be compatible with "Responsibility of Conscience". If you aren't responsible for the words that you think, speak or write, then the 1st Amendment is totally invalid.
@potrelviewer9536 no, *people* either do harm or they do not. Freedom is just a concept exercised or repressed depending on state mandate. The idea that freedom does more harm than good is the axiom of every fascist and totalitarian in human history.
@@shrederman9838 Stating that Americans are to have the right to bear arms, but then saying after the fact that only a select few should have access to a gun is indeed a strong example of cognitive dissonance, because those beliefs are contradictory. If it had been the case, the American revolution would never have even happened. Despite the fact that James Madison's brain got swiss-cheesed, it still works in the context of the episode, since the time distortion going on here can explain his cognitive dissonance.
@@shrederman9838 Ahh, I see your brain was also swiss-cheesed. People are free to bear arms and/or to form militias. America is the land of the free, where all men are created equal. Thus, there is no distinction between an elite "militia" class with certain rights, and a "citizen" class that does not have those rights. You can continue to believe that all are free, but some should be more free than others. However, if that is your attitude, you might want to examine your own cognitive dissonance before accusing others of it.
How many Average Joes today are forming militias to fight against tyranny today? Cause lately it seems that all average joes do with guns is shoot up schools, rob and steal, start riots, join in gang warfare, commit acts of rape towards women and children, or join terrorists hate groups like the KKK. I’m not saying Average Joes shouldn’t have guns, but there should be a understanding that that gun needs to be used responsibly and for ethical intentions
@@johnmartin4119 There are more instances of defensive gun use than initiatory gun violence, according to the CDC. One study said that there were at least 500,000 defensive incidents each year.
So the writer of this episode clearly hasn't read Federalist 46 (written by Madison) "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
Of course he isn´t rejecting the notion that people has no rights to bear arms, but simply that it specifically does not apply to people named Joe Average. People take really take the founding fathers too seriously
Hahaha no Madison said and I qoute: The ultimate authority resides in the people alone, the advantage of being armed which the American people possess over almost every other nation in the world forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.
Yup, that was that dude. He also thought the natives were too stupid to integrate, thought whites shouldn't hang around them for too long "lest they succumb to the charms of their savage freedoms" or some BS like that, and that's why we have reservations. Shaked the hands of peasants with one hand and held his nose with the other. Real cool guy, that one.
Ps... *IT WAS A JOKE!* Take the first thing he said at 0:47 and replace "freedom of speech" with "the right to bear arms". The second sentence is meant to derail expectations and be controversial for comedic effect. I cant believe there are people who cant understand a simple setup joke!
I know this is satire and sarcasm, obviously the creators had a liberal bent to them. However, this is exactly what a lot of people on the very far left believe.
Whoda think a 90's adult cartoon would have an overly liberal political lean. Good to see Duckman was as famous as the Simpsons, or South par.. Wait. Oh.
Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”. Ya’ll played yourselves.
I know you NEET weebs would prefer for _everything_ to be run like nipnongland, but we already have a superior form of governance, so, fuck off and hands off my 2A.
Trying to decipher whether this is a pro-gun joke or not is funny because he literally opens by saying Freedom of Speech applies to everyone and everything all the time, a characterization a lot of conservatives would give, and then jumps across the isle to say the average Joe shouldn't have guns because "we're not stupid," a characterization a lot of liberals would give. Both have a sort of biting criticism -- the classic, "conservatives are dumb, liberals are condescending" line -- and so you end up with a joke that makes a dig at everybody in only a few seconds. Like the rant with the two doctors, if you see yourself reflected in the humor, it should be as unsettling as it is funny.
This had to be a joke, i mean look at all the comments flipping out at how outrageous it would be if it was legit commentary. If anything, this joke has demonstrated that people are educated on this matter due to how important it is to them.
'It's a joke!' What's the joke? There's no funny part. It's just the writer's rhetoric about how gun laws 'should' be presented lightly (As well as the writer's rhetoric on 'freedom of expression'). I do hope that they don't actually think it's an accurate representation of the original intentions of the Bill of Rights or Madison, but maybe that's affording them too much charity.
What if said person bearing arms is either doesn’t know how to use a gun, is incredibly irresponsible, is a known criminal or terrorist, is some sort of rapist, or has a history of violent tendencies ?
Muhammad Ali When your life is an immediate danger would you rather WAIT FOR THE POLICE or use your gun? Literally hundreds of thousands of crimes are stopped by civililians with guns.
The point of the second amendment is to is about defending yourself using modern equipment. It was written with the intent that should the government try to mess with your rights, you could overthrow them. America was founded on revolution and by revolution it will die.
@@corvonics6383I doubt random citizens could defend themself against an entire tank and people with military training with guns. I think you’re forgetting the fact that people didn’t have tanks or even a proper military in the 1700s. With how much control and information they already have on us, if they really did want to become a tyrannical government they would have already done so already.
@@MB-eh2kp the Vietnamese did it. We were the strongest superpower at the time and pumping shitloads of money into our military for the war. Do you think that US soldiers would attack their own ppl? Maybe some would but most would go to their families and help them fight back. a tyrannical government doesn't have to use their own military to be tyrannical like that. Especially in a day in age were international armies like NATO peacekeepers and PMC's are everywhere. Just because chances are bleak doesn't mean we shouldn't have one at all
You know, I always liked Duckman and I believe part of that is the fact a lot of my own personal morals and opinions often fall in line with the writer's. I have no problem with firearms, but I do believe in stricter gun control. This is a personal opinion I've had that I have never forced on anyone and have only brought up in appropriate situations. I am often treated like I am a fucking lunatic trying to destroy America. And the first thing these mouth breathers bring up is the god damn constitution, these imbeciles worship a god damn piece of paper with religious zealotry that is over two hundred years old, when even the people who wrote the paper knew that over time the world and society as a whole would change and as a result, so would the need for the constitution to change as well. I see a ton of comments on here saying that the statement on guns didn't fall in line with the character that is Duckman and I disagree completely. As a character, Duckman is a very thoughtful individual, they've simply given up on life, they're done and they don't want to pander to your fragile emotions. He understands that it isn't always appropriate to just issue firearms to people and that the system we have is deeply flawed.
@@murderalphabetinc.5162 I don't believe any of the people I know who owns firearms would ever be able to realistically do what you're asking. It's just another excuse.
@@murderalphabetinc.5162 Saying an extreme is not an argument lol But if you want a real extreme, the storming of the Capitol happened because of people with this paranoid mindset in a nation that's way better off than ones with actual tyrannical govs. It just (fortunately) didn't end with mass bloodshed
@@hubguy Imagine saying the peaceful occupation of the Capitol is evil and extreme, but murdering dozens of black people and torching dozens of black businesses is "mostly peaceful".
Just wanted to throw out that if you're pissed off about Duckman cracking a joke on gun rights then congratulate yourself on falling prey to their humor. Take a joke and settle down
Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”. Ya’ll played yourselves.
@@rasengdori13 Eventually it comes down to Poes law Do you see the folly now? Gun rights should exist, although, for those who are insane Im not so sure
@@chewcacachewpipi8879 Literally a large portion of the comments are upset about it. There are entire wars going off in comments over it. Definitely wouldn't say no one but go off ig
Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”. Ya’ll played yourselves.
@@demiurgeobzen327 - Whine about busybodies who invade people's lives and demand the world change to their whims with the backing of corporations and mass media, more like. Miss me with that "person of color, women, and people of different sexual orientations" bullshite. You're six years too late to use those talking points.
well Tomas Jefferson did write a piece stating all Americans have a right to own cannons
Good guy Thomas Jefferson.
@Louise Hayle Good things must be fought for. And good things must be defended. Anything less is to good to be true.
@Louise Hayle I would do that ya. Mind you I would attempt to disable, and not kill them, but if it came down to it I would. A thief who steals from someone who isn't even in the wealthy class though has no place in my society. Everyone has the right to a good life, but not all are deserving of it.
ua-cam.com/video/aqBw3H_Ik3s/v-deo.html
Jefferson didn't even believe in standing armies.
Been binging on Duckman's rants on society and issues. Gotta say, this was... not what I was expecting.
I have to agree
No, its spot on. Because the reality rips are like Rick And Morty, meaning they're different, non-real versions, like the black Duckman that pops in and the re-imagined Constitution... it was actually predicting the ~literal~ future... how scary is that?
One of my favorite episodes. So many rapid fire twists, turns, as well as forward and backward references. You almost have to watch the episode two or three times to get all the references and jokes you missed from laughing so hard. And I love Eric Duckman's look at the 'camera', in an animated version of 'breaking the fourth wall' near the end of the clip.
Duckman Comedy Rant: Everyone should grow a pair and take a joke
Duckman on Gun Control: And I took that personally
Are you talking about the message of the show itself, or reactions to it?
Whats shitty is theres a right way to be and our sociaty is designed to where people who agree with the comment can feel correct and actually keep uphold of their own opression
It actually makes sense, as James Madison was an anti-democratic elitist who looked down on the plebs.
@@nuclearcatbaby1131 I never thought I'd read something about a founding father looking down on plebs
@@kamikaze4172 I can’t remember where I found it but I definitely saw something where James Madison expressed such elitist viewpoints.
I-I think that was a joke and wasn't legitimate cometary on gun control.
Actually from what I heard the right to bear arms was for actually militias to be out all the time not for anyone to have a gun heck the NRA for the longest time believe people shouldn't have guns
A Guy name Lex That’s completely false in every way. ua-cam.com/video/Hx23c84obwQ/v-deo.html
Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”.
Ya’ll played yourselves.
@@rasengdori13 People being hypocrites? On the internet? What is this, sci fi?
I interpret it as a take that our founding fathers were elitist. Notice the "average Joe" comment. James Madison screwed us over by ditching the Articles of Confederation.
From James Madison's writings in the Federalist Papers where he describes being armed as "an advantage that the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation":
"Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe," Madison wrote, "which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
They should've just chose someone else to make that line
"And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes"
Maybe I don't fully understand Madison's quote, but it sounds like he says bearing arms is not the deciding factor. What does make a difference is the local governing body, that the people have elected and trusted. It is only if those systems run with efficiency and without corruption can an armed population topple an oppressive government.
Man you realize that this was literally just to piss off gun owners, and that you took the bait so hard you felt the need to go on google and find a quote about it right?
@@Ronnie-Bagpipe Yes
Who knew this show would predict the ass backwards argument of the left today lol.
Which one of the other Founding Fathers that signed off on the second amendment should have said it?
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
Madison clearly meant that citizens should own guns.
Apparently the fact that America is rife is guns is basically the only reason we've never been invaded by another country, it makes them nervous. It saved our ass in WWII and kept the Cold War cold at least, even though I don't know how much it would matter with today's warfare techniques.
christmastiger I understand what you mean. A gun won't save you from an IED but thankfully, that threat is not common.
Yes, using Madison is particularly egregious. It's like portraying Goebbels saying "The Jews? I love those little fuckers!"
@christmastiger: Ha ha, look up history and geography.
Geography: the only two land neighbors are Canada (they did invade the US territories multiple times, but never stayed, to not start another costly and never-ending British Crown vs American Revolution war) and Mexico (they did invade the US territories multiple times, but never stayed because their army was shit).
History:
- WWI happened in Europe, not on the American continent.
- WWII happened in Europe, Northern Africa and Asia, not on the American continent.
- the Cold War saw no mainland invasion of the two bloc homeland (USSR and USA) solely because of the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, that's why the proxy war concept was massively used by both blocs (the Soviet-Afghan War and the Vietnam War, to name the two major ones).
The only reasons the US saw no invasion yet is because: 1) it's a very young nation, 2) with no powerful neighbor, 3) all its enemies were exterminated (natives) and their land taken, after countless battles and skirmishes.
Today's warfare techniques means small-arms fire is mostly useless: what matters is IEDs/suicide armored trucks, and anti-tank/anti-aircraft missiles. Firing the small 5.56 or 7.62 round at an APC, let alone a tank, with armor plates and glass periscopes easily resisting .50 cal rounds, is laughable - especially when helicopters, jets and drones can spot and kill any target from afar (even at night), completely out of range of any rifle-toting infantry.
The Middle-East and Africa is filled up with guns, you can even rent RPD/PK machineguns at the market for a few days, there's AKs and RPG7 every-fucking-where - absolutely no gun control whatsoever - and invasions as well as civil wars happen all the time.
"Mah 2nd amendment" fanatics are just lying to themselves, pretending their AR at home magically makes them a "well regulated militia" (ha!) that could topple a tyrannical gov (lol, APC/tanks/helis), because they want to keep their fun toys (understandable, guns are fun) without paperwork (permits/background check/waiting period = tyranneeeeee), and they want to think they're powerful against criminality with a gun in their night stand (surprise: robbers in armed areas bring a gun with them and shoot first, getting a gun would only work if NO ONE else would get a gun - in practice, it doesn't work at all: everyone gets a gun, and criminals end up getting *and* using them).
If the US were ANY close to the words of the Founding Fathers, the country would be peppered with ORGANIZED, REGULATED MILITIA units, with officers, mandatory training, discipline, strict recruitment, and hidden weapons caches (including AA MANPADS and AT missiles - Stingers and Javelins). There is none of that, the US Army/Airforce/Navy are the only forces with such assets, and the only weapons available to the citizens are not standardized, not in a regulated militia, not stored in caches but instead spread all over in homes, cars, basements. That's not a well-regulated militia at all.
This the exact OPPOSITE of the words of the Founding Fathers, who wanted an organized population capable of forming guerrilla units within a couple of days, and forming into an irregular army (= with AA and AT assets nowadays) within a couple of weeks. Now the only thing we got is a bunch of people with all kinds of guns and ammo, that would be completely inefficient for a civil war, no organization or regulation whatsoever, and an overall ignorance of the Constitution, on top of the Party before Country mentality of most of the citizens.
People hijacking the 2nd amendment for their personal egoistical leisure of keeping a gun in their hands whenever they feel like it are a disgrace to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. At least have the balls and say you want a gun w/o any paperwork simply because you want to individually "feel" powerful in a globalized society where we're all increasingly powerless at the individual level, don't bring the 2nd Amendment to justify that personal distress relief.
TubeofDestiny I don’t think most gun owners want unregulated distribution of firearms. They want background checks and for those background checks to be ENFORCED. We are far enough away from most other world powers that getting troops or even planes OVER here would be over-stretching themselves anyway. So on top of not having much air support (since we span from ocean to ocean), any military is gonna deal with over 400 million guns as well as 1 million active police and either the Appellations or the Rockies. Not to mention the middle 1/3 of the country that’s desert or farmland. The US is one of THE most diverse countries in the world. And the Second Amendment helps out just in logical terms. If there was a government overreach that was bad enough to put the citizens against the government, then the government is gonna have a hard time finding citizens to operate those drones. Unlike many other militarized countries, the US doesn’t make us worship the leader. Instead, we worship the freedoms we have and the effort it takes to keep it. So if a leader goes rogue, the military isn’t gonna be brainwashed completely. The Second Amendment isn’t as helpful as it was in 1787, but it still holds true. If a military of 1 million was ordered to go up against 300 million+, the military is still gonna have a hard time of killing 300-1. And what then? Who is left to operate the power plants, farms, etc? The government needs citizens more than they need the government. Sheer numbers is probably enough, but the 2nd Amendment is a nice bit of help.
Rick Sanchez needs to hang out with Duckman
@Sister Supersonic which one
The one with the dragon
Rick and morty cant even hold a candle to duckman
Wrong, actually. The constitution does state the right for anyone to own a gun.
You have to remember the contexts not just for how the words are used but the meaning they had back then. Back then when they said something needed to be "Regulated" they didn't mean restricted and controlled the meant "Made regular" as in commonplace and available to everyone the same way cars are today, except even more so in fact.
I dont get what the show is trying to say. James Madison literally sent a letter of marque and reprisal telling a private ship owner that the second amendment protects their right to carry CANNONS aboard their ship. Back then the laws were no holds barred. Semi-automatic weapons did exist in their primordial form at the time as well and were protected under the constitution. I don't really get what the show is trying to say because I seen it as "James Madison didn't support 2nd amendment" but like... that's just blatantly wrong on every level
@@corvonics6383 I mean, at WORST the Forefathers would have wanted people to learn how to use guns before owning one. But they still wouldn't go for even a fraction of the gun control the USA has today.
Madison would shit bricks.
@@corvonics6383 well technically automatic not semi unless there's another 19th 18th centruy innovative firearm I haven't heard of
@@cd0m613 the chamber’s flintlock machine gun was on the USS constitution if i’m not mistaken
If that were true, Scream Lord, then you're trying to say that the meaning of "well regulated" in the context of "well regulated militia" is really "You, and You, and You get a gun! Mandatory guns for everyone!!"?? Somehow I doubt that was their intent. In any case, THINGS HAVE CHANGED OVER HUNDREDS OF YEARS. You know they didn't have automatic weapons and so on back then when they wrote it. This is all about an *amendment* to the Constitution, which means it's not set in stone and it CAN and SHOULD be amended as appropriate and necessary. Massive population growth and automatic/semi-automatic guns are part of what's changed and it needs to be regulated, restricted, controlled, or whatever you want to call it.
The artstyle reminds me of Aaahh Real Monsters.
Ive just watched a dozen Duckman rants and I couldnt comment except for this one. This is a kids show according to UA-cam. 😒😒
I've noticed. Even the one where he kills those two bears are apparently for kids.
@@cloudthelemon756
The one where? He killed Fluffy and Mambo in every/almost every episode. Running gag.
@@Babbleplay I think it was a compilation of it
@@cloudthelemon756
Oh, you meant the comp video. My bad; I thought you meant one, specific episode. My bad.
That actually seems off for a duckman rant. I figured he'd go off about the right to protect yourself or something.
Protecting yourself and your home from brigands and dictatorships is Anti-Semitic. Didn't you read the memo? /s
Well he has a pretty big beak so I was expecting it.
Only Israel deserves self defense, now if you excuse me we have to go watch terrorist acts be staged so we can go to war again for Israel. I love being American
@@UltimateThanos bro what
@@UltimateThanos Protection yourself from harm is Anti Semitic?
Rick and Morty wishes they were this smart
Then how is Joe Average expected to defend his freedom of speech?
+Alfredo Cósar A tyrannic government might fall into this category. Think it can't happen? This isn't the first Republic country and it won't be the last and corruption appears to already be there.
sure, you againts the fucking word with a gun...go ahead badass
Thanks, I am a badass, I have a phd in asskicking.
Call me Dr. Asskick, since I legally changed my last name to Asskick.
I will go against the fucking "Word" with a gun, assuming you meant world.
We just have to trust our government. I know I don't, but if they decide to completely turn on us, the guns aren't gonna help
Nigga are you high, there is 300 million+ guns in the US the government would fall long before the people.
Wait, is the joke supposed to be that the same people who defend freedom of speech are more likely to be defenders of the 2nd amendment and thus be offended by the gun comment even though it's feedom of speech?
I think it's that the phrasing implies the reverse of what Madison says in the video. First Amendment "Congress shall make no law..." and Second Amendment "...shall not be infringed" would mean state/local government and large companies can restrict free speech but nobody can restrict guns. However, a lot of people try to argue that the Founding Fathers wanted free speech to be nearly absolute but would've been fine with extensive gun control.
(Not that we want to restrict free speech either, but as a point of contrast it makes the wording more noticeable.)
Nobody's saying he can't say it, we're just saying he's wrong.
Freedom of speech includes freedom of response. If you say something stupid people have the right to tell you what you said was stupid. This isn't an infringement on speech. It's the process working as intended
@@user-ld9tf4td8s despite your lack of commas, you're absolutely right. If you say something, stupid people have the right to disagree.
I have a roommate that looks like duck man
The federalist papers state that
1 Joe Average is the militia and yes, has a right to own a gun
2 Joe Average has the right to own any gun the military can
Didn't really make a case for gun control, did he?
The average joe doesn't have the right to a gun as that is just crazy.
...Seemed like a solid case to me
@@rileyk5228 no
Uh, yes.
@@rileyk5228 Sure, but James Madison never said that, and said exactly the opposite on multiple occasions.
@@rileyk5228 The average joe IS the well regulated militia silly.
YOU HEAR THAT, JOE AVERAGE???
By all means don't own a gun then, let the burglar take whatever he wants from your home, let the mugger have your wallet, keys, and cards. I know I won't let them have mine.
Shane Angus Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”.
Ya’ll played yourselves.
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - Madison, Federalist Papers #46.
Yeah, sorry, Madison presupposed the average American had and would continue to have firearms, as a logical and necessary deterrent against a overreaching federal government (which is why he mentioned it here as a way to console people worried about the federal government becoming too powerful).
James Madison was also an anti democratic elitist. It's hilarious how people in this comment section go and point out how James Madison was a terrible guy, but as soon as you find something you agree with you immediately change your mind. As though that somehow excuses his other insane beliefs.
When a 90s show baits you so hard you gotta find a quote lol
Whoa whoa whoa, nice quality!!!
I haven’t seen Duckman in YEARS
The amount of people in these comments that don't get the joke is astounding.💀
Read the comments section...mistake. I must have been insufferable 10 months ago.
I'm out here laughing about the 'Joe Average' and everyone is out here getting insanely butthurt about it. Goddamn, I hate politics. Instead of politics, I think we should have a bunch of random animals in office and whatever is alive after a week should permanently be the ruler/s of the US.
I seem to recall a quote from James Madison showing that he was an anti-democratic elitist who looked down on the plebs so this makes sense.
he was anti-democratic. He was pro-republic which is why he structured the nation as a democratic-REPUBLIC. Don't get how ppl aren't taught that the US isn't a traditional democracy
@@corvonics6383 I just found the quote. It is that the purpose of government is to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Not sure if it’s accurate though but I don’t doubt that he truly felt such sentiments.
@nuclearcatbaby1131 that's not elitist. The right to the fruits of your labor is a well recognized Natural Right. Therefore, a government must defend that right as opposed to the majority deciding it has more power than the individual. This is why America is a Republic. Democracy is a Tyranny of the Majority.
If you think the rich individual shouldn't have their rights maintained I'll just assume you're in favor of lynch mobs too
@@user-ld9tf4td8s I mean it’s elitist for them to have guns but not the poor people. What, does having less to defend make them less deserving of arms?
I don't know which James Madison this is supposed to be.
hes just as confused as i am about this joke
I liked the video
Man, going back to this clip right now with the recent shooting might give you time to think.
The feds gave Joe Average arms
The federalist papers beg to differ.
Stop DOING that!
○Stop DOING that!●
Okay, but carrying a gun is a form of speech, in that you are non-verbally communicating that you are not afraid to defend yourself with lethal and unnecessary force.
who the fukk is Duckman and why is he on my UA-cam recommendations all of a sudden
Jesus, the sheer randomness of this brilliant and deranged scene!
Seems like the writers didn't do their historical research.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison
You fell for their bait then lol. They most likely made him say that in the show to trigger gun owners
@@citizenofsquatopia5868 "Jokes on you, we were only pretending to be retarded. Bet you feel stupid now, huh conservatards?!"
@@citizenofsquatopia5868 Saying something that's objectively false and then saying "gotchya" when you're proven wrong is not bait, it's stupidity. Are you stupid?
@@citizenofsquatopia5868 why would they care about baiting people? So people can write them an angry letter. This show was pre-social media so triggering outrage didn’t go as far as today.
@@ColdSHeep lol imagine necroposting by replying to a year old comment because it ticked you off just enough into writing a response.
"Gesundheit"
BEAT
"I'm you from 3 seconds from now"
"I don't care who you *ACHOO* are! I want you out of my house!"
Duckman is a genius TV show
See this is why you shouldnt reality shift
Well...that was unexpected
5D chess: that was alternate universe James Madison if Duckman were James Madison, not the one from our world. "Different me-s" is the hint.
From my cold dead hands duckman
Duckman had a bad take
Well nobody's perfect
Nothing says freedom like the right to shoot people
"Duckman is funny unless it offends something I personally believe in."
no its funny when it makes actual sense
Or when it's just flat out f*cking wrong.
Madison himself rebukes this point in the Federalist Papers
I thought they were referring to a person that I don’t know. I’ve never heard the phrase joe average before.
oooh boy the people who freak out about calling magazines clips are gonna have a field day with this one
"Freedom of Speech" must also be compatible with "Responsibility of Conscience". If you aren't responsible for the words that you think, speak or write, then the 1st Amendment is totally invalid.
Where does "responsibility of conscience" appear in the constitution?
@@MMDelta9 Nowhere, and that's the issue. Unrestrained freedom does more harm than good.
@potrelviewer9536 no, *people* either do harm or they do not. Freedom is just a concept exercised or repressed depending on state mandate.
The idea that freedom does more harm than good is the axiom of every fascist and totalitarian in human history.
@@potrelviewer9536Go to China then
Yes they do
James Madison's brain clearly got swiss-cheesed during the leap.
The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one
@@shrederman9838 Stating that Americans are to have the right to bear arms, but then saying after the fact that only a select few should have access to a gun is indeed a strong example of cognitive dissonance, because those beliefs are contradictory.
If it had been the case, the American revolution would never have even happened. Despite the fact that James Madison's brain got swiss-cheesed, it still works in the context of the episode, since the time distortion going on here can explain his cognitive dissonance.
@@cvdinjapan7935 Militias. Militias have the right to bear arms. Citizens should only have a pistol/shotgun and bolt action rifle
@@shrederman9838 Ahh, I see your brain was also swiss-cheesed. People are free to bear arms and/or to form militias. America is the land of the free, where all men are created equal. Thus, there is no distinction between an elite "militia" class with certain rights, and a "citizen" class that does not have those rights.
You can continue to believe that all are free, but some should be more free than others. However, if that is your attitude, you might want to examine your own cognitive dissonance before accusing others of it.
Yeeeaaahhh, no. A militia is basically a bunch of "Average Joes" with guns.
Did you forget the well-regulated part?
@Peter Kazavis Hard to have a well-regulated militia with a non-infringed selection system.
How many Average Joes today are forming militias to fight against tyranny today? Cause lately it seems that all average joes do with guns is shoot up schools, rob and steal, start riots, join in gang warfare, commit acts of rape towards women and children, or join terrorists hate groups like the KKK. I’m not saying Average Joes shouldn’t have guns, but there should be a understanding that that gun needs to be used responsibly and for ethical intentions
@@johnmartin4119 There are more instances of defensive gun use than initiatory gun violence, according to the CDC. One study said that there were at least 500,000 defensive incidents each year.
@@DonutUnderpants The National guard is a well regulated militia and is full of average joes?
So bare arms meant what, do the YMCA?
So the writer of this episode clearly hasn't read Federalist 46 (written by Madison)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
Of course he isn´t rejecting the notion that people has no rights to bear arms, but simply that it specifically does not apply to people named Joe Average. People take really take the founding fathers too seriously
yeah, I heard that prick changed his last name to Biden at some point.
quite funny reading comments about people being confused about a 90's cartoon not aligning with their views after asuming it would lol
Yeah I’m sure thats what he’d say, even though the opposite thinking is supported by contextual and historical evidence.
How can I trust you Collin. You aren’t even a duck man
Hahaha no Madison said and I qoute:
The ultimate authority resides in the people alone, the advantage of being armed which the American people possess over almost every other nation in the world forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.
That's George from Seinfeld!!
I might be wrong but this joke might be more about how people read the constitution than it is on how it was written.
The three second joke 🙂↕️🙂↕️😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
Then why is that what they wrote lol?
IT REEKS in the comment section, don't go down.
Knife violence
Yup, that was that dude. He also thought the natives were too stupid to integrate, thought whites shouldn't hang around them for too long "lest they succumb to the charms of their savage freedoms" or some BS like that, and that's why we have reservations. Shaked the hands of peasants with one hand and held his nose with the other. Real cool guy, that one.
Love how the comment section is melting!
When is this show getting reboot? I just discovered it and I already miss it.
Ps... *IT WAS A JOKE!*
Take the first thing he said at 0:47 and replace "freedom of speech" with "the right to bear arms". The second sentence is meant to derail expectations and be controversial for comedic effect.
I cant believe there are people who cant understand a simple setup joke!
gesundheit
Don't care what they meant. The cat is outta the bag now.
Da f*ck he don't! Better check with Penn & Teller!
Oh wow this literally the only deal breaker sorry duck guy maybe in another life
George is getting upset!
I know this is satire and sarcasm, obviously the creators had a liberal bent to them. However, this is exactly what a lot of people on the very far left believe.
Well thank God I'm not Joe average
I love this show now :D One of my favorite Klasky Csupo shows.
Whoda think a 90's adult cartoon would have an overly liberal political lean.
Good to see Duckman was as famous as the Simpsons, or South par..
Wait.
Oh.
Joe Average does not have the right to own the high capacity publication device known as a “keyboard”
This is a joke
IT'S A JOKE! You people are aware of the basic concept of a joke, right...?
Thomas Marshall There was no joke it was a message that is ridiculous.
What was the joke? The constitution is no joke.
Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”.
Ya’ll played yourselves.
People are stupid and will be stupid. I figured people understood the joke because of the 'Joe Average' but oh well.
What's with the dislikes?
Joe Average and his army of Joes.
People who have read the constitution, not the Vectorman game manual.
+Discnnect Google+
*people who have Read NRA's interpretation of the 2nd ammendment
Fix'd
I know you NEET weebs would prefer for _everything_ to be run like nipnongland, but we already have a superior form of governance, so, fuck off and hands off my 2A.
watch out your EPeen is showing
Can somebody *PLEASE* tell me the joke because I'm really confused who is Joe average?
ur mom
Swing and a miss on this one
Lol gamer
@@ADogNamedElmolol dog named Elmo…
@@MarMaxGaming its just funny seeing a gamer pro guns
@@ADogNamedElmo 2nd amendment is insanely important, it’s more like pro-history… by the way, tons of gamers agree with this
@@MarMaxGaming yeah, guns are very good for killing people and gamers are known to be very centered and well adjusted
Trying to decipher whether this is a pro-gun joke or not is funny because he literally opens by saying Freedom of Speech applies to everyone and everything all the time, a characterization a lot of conservatives would give, and then jumps across the isle to say the average Joe shouldn't have guns because "we're not stupid," a characterization a lot of liberals would give. Both have a sort of biting criticism -- the classic, "conservatives are dumb, liberals are condescending" line -- and so you end up with a joke that makes a dig at everybody in only a few seconds. Like the rant with the two doctors, if you see yourself reflected in the humor, it should be as unsettling as it is funny.
James Madison was an anti-democratic elitist, that should be taken into account.
Gesundheit
Dang this show seems good from what I've seen, I gotta look further into it
oy vey
This had to be a joke, i mean look at all the comments flipping out at how outrageous it would be if it was legit commentary. If anything, this joke has demonstrated that people are educated on this matter due to how important it is to them.
It is, and a pretty obvious one if you take two seconds to think about it.
Yea its absurd on purpose it seems.
Plot twist: He just meant Joe Average, the black guy who lived a few miles away from him.
Only well regulated militias.
Duckman's black transfemale future self was supposed to be hyperbole. How did we end up in that timeline?
Because life is stranger than fiction.
This is super duper smart
It’s called the second amendment, right to bear arms
Finally, a show that's 100% right and offends everyone because of the truth
Freedom of speech! Lol! Americans, you no longer have that! XD
'It's a joke!'
What's the joke? There's no funny part. It's just the writer's rhetoric about how gun laws 'should' be presented lightly (As well as the writer's rhetoric on 'freedom of expression'). I do hope that they don't actually think it's an accurate representation of the original intentions of the Bill of Rights or Madison, but maybe that's affording them too much charity.
Don't get triggered snowflake
@@CounterCultureHippie "Snowflake" you're still stuck in 2016 I see.
it really isn't funny and the writer is just straight up wrong. Unless its just hate-bait which it probably is
1:04 that was a family guy joke lol (yes I realize this was first)
Then it's not a Family Guy joke.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
What if said person bearing arms is either doesn’t know how to use a gun, is incredibly irresponsible, is a known criminal or terrorist, is some sort of rapist, or has a history of violent tendencies ?
IT
WAS
A
JOKE
CHILL
THE
FUCK
OUT
Looney
I agree with the first half of Jefferson's statement, but the second half is just demonstrably false.
Nicholas Knudson It’s not Jefferson lol
...he straight up identifies himself and you still messed it up??
The average government and police force will do just fine...
Muhammad Ali When your life is an immediate danger would you rather WAIT FOR THE POLICE or use your gun? Literally hundreds of thousands of crimes are stopped by civililians with guns.
@Eaxl They do that already. Guns or not. Especially if you're black. What's your point?
honestly, I've always though that the "right to bear arms" meant that you had the right to defend yourself. which you can do without a gun.
If someone has a gun and you don't, how can you defend yourself? don't be so ignorant to think you can stop criminals from having guns.
The point of the second amendment is to is about defending yourself using modern equipment. It was written with the intent that should the government try to mess with your rights, you could overthrow them. America was founded on revolution and by revolution it will die.
the whole point is to defend yourself from a tyrannical government. I guess I'll just learn to control my KI and Kamehameha the tanks away
@@corvonics6383I doubt random citizens could defend themself against an entire tank and people with military training with guns. I think you’re forgetting the fact that people didn’t have tanks or even a proper military in the 1700s. With how much control and information they already have on us, if they really did want to become a tyrannical government they would have already done so already.
@@MB-eh2kp the Vietnamese did it. We were the strongest superpower at the time and pumping shitloads of money into our military for the war. Do you think that US soldiers would attack their own ppl? Maybe some would but most would go to their families and help them fight back. a tyrannical government doesn't have to use their own military to be tyrannical like that. Especially in a day in age were international armies like NATO peacekeepers and PMC's are everywhere. Just because chances are bleak doesn't mean we shouldn't have one at all
You know, I always liked Duckman and I believe part of that is the fact a lot of my own personal morals and opinions often fall in line with the writer's. I have no problem with firearms, but I do believe in stricter gun control. This is a personal opinion I've had that I have never forced on anyone and have only brought up in appropriate situations. I am often treated like I am a fucking lunatic trying to destroy America.
And the first thing these mouth breathers bring up is the god damn constitution, these imbeciles worship a god damn piece of paper with religious zealotry that is over two hundred years old, when even the people who wrote the paper knew that over time the world and society as a whole would change and as a result, so would the need for the constitution to change as well.
I see a ton of comments on here saying that the statement on guns didn't fall in line with the character that is Duckman and I disagree completely. As a character, Duckman is a very thoughtful individual, they've simply given up on life, they're done and they don't want to pander to your fragile emotions. He understands that it isn't always appropriate to just issue firearms to people and that the system we have is deeply flawed.
So you should allow yourself to be fully subservient to a tyrannical government.
@@murderalphabetinc.5162 I don't believe any of the people I know who owns firearms would ever be able to realistically do what you're asking.
It's just another excuse.
@@Uncle-Jay Why not? It's pretty easy, just give up any and all methods of fighting against tyranny, like those evil, nasty black firearms.
@@murderalphabetinc.5162 Saying an extreme is not an argument lol
But if you want a real extreme, the storming of the Capitol happened because of people with this paranoid mindset in a nation that's way better off than ones with actual tyrannical govs. It just (fortunately) didn't end with mass bloodshed
@@hubguy Imagine saying the peaceful occupation of the Capitol is evil and extreme, but murdering dozens of black people and torching dozens of black businesses is "mostly peaceful".
Just wanted to throw out that if you're pissed off about Duckman cracking a joke on gun rights then congratulate yourself on falling prey to their humor.
Take a joke and settle down
Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”.
Ya’ll played yourselves.
@@rasengdori13
Eventually it comes down to Poes law
Do you see the folly now?
Gun rights should exist, although, for those who are insane
Im not so sure
Good thing nobody here is offended by it, but go off ig.
@@chewcacachewpipi8879 Literally a large portion of the comments are upset about it. There are entire wars going off in comments over it. Definitely wouldn't say no one but go off ig
@@rasengdori13 Anti SJW and SJWs are the same breed, just leaning Right or Left
If the first amendment should have no exceptions, the second amendment should have none either.
Funny that the same -conservatives- people who praise and worship Duckman for defending offensive comedy are the same people who get offended at a Gun Control joke, thus never realizing that Duckman was also talking about them in that video, not just “SJWs”.
Ya’ll played yourselves.
They don't whine at Twitter when a cartoon character made fun of them, though.
@@Shamshiro true
@@Shamshiro No, just whine about the presence of a person of color, women, and people of different sexual orientations in any form of media.
@@demiurgeobzen327 - Whine about busybodies who invade people's lives and demand the world change to their whims with the backing of corporations and mass media, more like. Miss me with that "person of color, women, and people of different sexual orientations" bullshite. You're six years too late to use those talking points.
@@Shamshiro
Uh-huh...