Most NK propaganda I've seen was along the lines of "everything is fine and our great leader is wonderful", whereas NRA propaganda I've seen is more like "they're out to get you in every corner, you're and your family are in imminent danger all the time, even NOW! GO, HURRY, ARM YOURSELF BEFORE THEY GET YOU"
Dana Loesch looks to me like someone that's possessed by a demon or something. Her eyes look like they're completely black and it's creepy as fuck. She seems very militant and hostile for such a submissive brainwashed parrot. Her NRA handlers clearly trained her well. She gives off a definite black widow vibe.
I remember when the NRA was all about gun safety, with weekly programs educating everyone about proper cleaning techniques and proper storage, but now it's just a right-wing propaganda machine.
We laugh but we're all forgetting the episode of Scooby-Doo where Scrappy dumps a clip into Old Man Withers. This is serious people, if we don't learn from this we'll end up with a gritty reboot of 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo!
Most gun owners are intelligent respectable people, but that doesn’t mean everyone has the right to own fire arms. It is a privilege that should be earned and respected.
That's pretty presumptive. What qualities exactly are needed to own a gun, aside from only shooting it when necessary? Intelligence? Beauty? Monetary worth? Once you start applying a standard by which you gain the basic right to protect yourself, you've added that qualifier to their right to life itself. There's no reason that qualifier wouldn't have been skin color or sexual orientation in the past (and probably still today considering how hard it would have been for those groups to fight for their rights). One should never need to earn their chances at survival. Now, if you'd said you need to qualify to own a dog, I'd be right there with you.
TheKaiTetley - Exactly right. Just like drivers licenses...when someone is no longer able to operate a vehicle safely, their license is restricted, or even revoked. Guns should be 'doubly so', considering their lethality.
Well, that was pretty presumptive as well, and erroneous in many places too. Monetary worth is ALREADY required to own a gun. It costs money to get a card for one, it costs money to purchase a fire-arm, it costs money to gather ammunition for one. That is already the case, so flippantly tossing it about as a flimsy argument doesn't really do any good. Unless you want to argue that it SHOULDN'T be the case that those things cost money, and then the government would have to supply the entire population with guns. Also, flippantly remarking about intelligence in the same point is hilarious. Of COURSE that should be required, at least some basic form of it, with enough sense to know the ramifications of using such a powerful device. Some might call that "common sense," but that is a TYPE of intelligence. Intelligence isn't just "that-them-there book smarts" and "I.Q." Discerning when shooting a gun is necessary, the sole metric you proposed as determining qualification, is an example of intelligence and would need to be tested for, rigorously. (I am pretty sure that is one of the main tenets -- and potentially the sole tenet -- that the topic creator was referring to when the mentioned intelligence and respectability, and that respecting such a prospect would in turn earn them that privilege. You yourself even mention it to be a privilege to be earned, since you brought up that caveat as well, rendering most of your following statements null.) Lambasting the idea that a person should have to be responsible with guns is utterly disgusting. A fire-arm is not the "basic" right to protect yourself. It is a complicated means of protecting yourself, there are MUCH simpler ways for people to protect themselves. And, self-defense is legal, so... No. The basic right to protect yourself is ensured. A gun is certainly not the right to life itself. That is a hilarious leap. There are many other things that are MUCH more essential to life. So, if your ideology aligns with your text, you would also be in favor of the government (or some presiding body, since lots of people get upset at the specific use of the word "government" even though that is what any powerful presiding body essentially is) providing food, land, shelter, and health-care to everybody for free as well. Those are MUCH more essential needs, therefore, a presiding body NOT doing those things would be even more atrocious negations of a person's right to live. "One should never need to earn their chances at survival." Correct? Those are, after all, your very words. People need to eat, drink, be protected from the elements, and be tended to when fallen ill or injured WAY more often than they need to physically defend themselves. Like... A LOT more. Ludicrous amounts more. Last time I checked, you cannot garner nutrients from consuming a fire-arm. People are generally covered in terms of physical defense by a little thing called society. The overwhelming majority of people simply do not wish to commit harm upon another person, or at least not to the extent of being lethal. Social animals tend to have sympathy for their own species, and often times even other species. As for animal attacks, well, the society we have built has generally been able to do a great job at keeping dangerous animals out as well. Now, these things do bring people to harm and even death, yes, but incredibly less frequently than the factors I previously mentioned. Again, a gun is not the only means of humans even physically protecting themselves. Escape is a fantastic tactic when available. Actual defense is wonderful, grab some gear that requires no training to use. Why not free bullet-resistant vests and helmets to the general populace? And, hey, self-defense, as a tactic -- maybe pick up some martial arts. You cannot be disarmed of a martial art. Somebody cannot accidentally get into your martial art and kill themselves or another with it. A dog cannot accidentally step on the trigger of a martial art. A martial art cannot jam or misfire. Why not free martial arts training to the general populace? Mace? Electrical stun equipment? Melee weapons? Why is it legal to carry a concealed fire-arm but not a concealed blade, or club, or even an open sword or something? Concealment is actually worse, since a perpetrator can then assault much more stealthily, and potential perpetrators can be dissuaded by the visible presence of other people carrying such self-defense tools on them. There's loads of options out there, yes, many do still have down-sides, literally everything will, but those down-sides are way less down than those of fire-arms. (I will get to an extra-case later, when it becomes relevant.) There are already plenty of qualifiers and standards to gain the other, more immediate and constant, means of a basic right to life that I stated earlier. In order to attain food, water, shelter, and health-care you need money, which you need a job for, which you need another person to allow you to be granted. So, why is money not free? Or jobs? Or just the requirements for life themselves? (Yes, there are programs to help support these basic necessities for people who need it, but almost none of them do enough. Yes, the people who cannot afford to buy their own are -- SOMETIMES -- granted them, but be aware, those people are malnourished and ill. They are still dying of starvation and disease, just slower.) Heck, in order to get and maintain a job, go gather food, and seek medical care, a person is often required to have a car as well to get to these things in any semblance of a sane amount of time. Oh, dang, but cars also have those pesky qualifiers on them for public safety, like requiring a person know the rules of the road, the communication of signs, and how to operate a vehicle in order to earn a license. Or, if not that, then some sort of public transportation system, which many places do not possess, and can often not be realistic as an efficient means of travel in a sane amount of time, and usually cost money. Hey, back to that problem again. Okay, so now you want to go off the grid, you've jumped the shark and want to be done with this whole society thing since The Man is keeping you down. Not only is that a dumb idea (since society has an almost terrifying amount of benefits from it, and few, small detriments comparatively to both its benefits and the pros and cons of any other potential way of life -- since that's the way we built it over time, better), but now you also need land to live off of. Hey, if that's somebody else's, they're gonna' have you arrested, and it most likely is somebody else's, since most hospitable places have been claimed by now. So, you should buy a big chunk of land for yourself. Oh, wait, the money problem again. And land also has those darn qualifiers on it, like being able to maintain it in a way that prevents it from being hazardous to the public, and signing papers that denote that you are responsible for said land. Qualifiers, in general, are a good thing anyway. Systems of rules and regulations and prerequisites put in place in order to maximize safety and efficiency and minimize risk of harm and failure. Scientifically formulated by rigorous testing of different variables that interact within any given human and societal system and interaction. (Yes, science cannot test for literally every variable and set of variables since those are infinite, but it is better than anything else we got on the matter, since anything else is essentially an uneducated guess. Also, yes, sometimes policy does not reflect scientific consensus, and that can be frustrating, but it most often is, or at least tries to come as close as possible while having to co-exist with every other policy and not step on the toes of any of those.) Yes, policies of the past may have been influenced by things outside of science and reason, but we are getting exponentially closer and closer to having verifiable science and policies based on that, and we have been for a decent amount of time. We are asymptotically close now in most fields. Of course there is room for improvement, and I welcome said improvement, but the room for it is not very large. Remember those vehicles? Making sure somebody has sufficient eye-sight, cognitive function, and stature in order to operate a car with regards to the well-being of the public and the driver is such a pain. So, apparently there is a sensible qualifier for owning a gun, that much was given and acknowledged near the beginning of our respective statements, but the tone taken afterwards seems to imply that testing a person on such a metric is somehow morally wrong and intrusive or even oppressive. It is necessary to test whether a person has the mental fortitude and discipline to use any device that can easily accrue harm, especially if accidentally. This is a reason the parallel between guns and cars is used so often, a small, unintentional slip-up can severely injure or kill a person, easily, with zero ill intent. This is why we have the term negligence. And yes, we have that because our qualifiers for access and use of these things are imperfect, they will always be, but they are scientifically formulated to maximize positives and minimize negatives. These systems catch more unqualified people than then they let through, and they let more qualified people through than they incidentally deny, both by vast majorities. If a person is prone to brash behavior, becomes easily incited into aggression, and does not consider the ramifications of their actions, then they need to be barred from having access to dangerous devices. They will enter, or cause, more situations in which they will become aggressive and impair their judgement. In reference to fire-arms, this person will bring about more events in which their compromised mentality will cause worse outcomes. This person is a bigger threat to others than others are to them.
(Continued.) And that is only one potential cocktail of dangerous behaviors that person could have. Just one of those could be enough. And there are many other individual behaviors out there that can and do also easily lead to ugly events transpiring. Not to mention how many other behavioral cocktails may exist that any single facet of might seem fine, but end up volatile when mixed with others. And for my last point. Dogs. Why would dogs require qualifications to own if guns do not? Dogs are more beneficial than guns, and less detrimental. Any historical evolutionary anthropologist will tell you that dogs are the reason we humans get to have the society that we have built today. It has been built upon the backs of our ancestors and their dogs. Incredibly far back in human history, dogs are one of the most prominent forces that allowed us to explore, survive, and settle the vast world around us. The domestication of dogs is one of the largest keystones in the progress of humanity. (Yes, way larger than black-powder, or fire-arms.) Also, dogs save more lives in physical protection from opposing humans alone than guns do, and dogs can save lives in many other ways as well -- fetching assistance, floating a person in danger of drowning, sniffing out explosives and dangerous substances, noticing threatening animals well before a human could. Not to mention the non-life-threatening ways that they can work better than guns, such as stopping or even preventing break-ins and robberies. Dogs even aid in various other facets of life for many people as well, such as seeing-eye dogs, seizure-mitigating dogs, therapy dogs, pest control, and the list goes on and on. Dogs also provide less detriments than guns. Dogs cause less injury and death, and dogs are MUCH harder to use to COMMIT violence onto another person, since that requires training a dog to do that, and a gun is a simple tool to be easily operated at the pull of a trigger for any means of any intent. Yes, dogs can "misfire" and "jam" essentially, by lashing out and not providing protection respectively, but do so less often than fire-arms, and less catastrophically as well. So, why would a person not have an inherent right to a dog without qualifiers getting in the way as well? As stated, dogs are better at ensuring a the basic right of a person to live, which you put above all else. (I do not inherently support or reject any of the specific examples used here, many of them were either hyperbole or conclusions based on my dissections of proposed points, or both. Just putting this disclaimer here so people can, hopefully, sort the obvious hyperbole into its own category and my inferences of others' points into its own without trying to counter them as though they were my serious and genuine proposals. This comment was to address the logical conclusions of some assumptions and ideologies -- and the errors within those -- and how patently absurd those ideologies, assumptions, and conclusions are on a near fundamentally incomprehensible level. Side note, I didn't even know UA-cam comments had a character limit. Oops. I mean, I knew they would HAVE to have one, but I had imagined it would have been a monstrous amount that no human would ever feasibly reach without specifically trying to. Well, I guess that makes me a monster then. Oh well. Anyway, dogs are good. Dogs are best. Take care, everybody. Toodles.)
..BEARS SHOULD BARE ARMS!..ar15's..teach coward hunters a lesson and why not arm wild boars and deer's...God Bless America! & Guns!.. "what a country".. Good dog..get you a biscuit for being a goood doggie!..
Wow. Steve'O and TheLateShow got some hot female actresses for their skits. Remember Melania's more beautiful twin? This is becoming a very much welcome trend.
It's a stupid argument. By their logic, if there was a wave of stabbings, encouraging more people to carry knives with them would be the only way to reduce the number of people getting stabbed.
If I was American I'd get offended and try to escalate the situation until one of us either walks away or gets violent. But I'm not, so I'll leave a thumbs up and be on my way.
Well, they got one thing right: dogs and bears are rather closely related, both belonging to the caniformia suborder. So I will take a stand here and now and say this: if racoons are allowed to bear arms, than so should bears, dogs and walruses! ;D
Ironic to think every NRA convention is full of gun owners not allowed to bring them in, seems like even they think is risky to have a room full of people carrying weapons around....
*he he* Saw the thumbnail. Thought dana loesch said some bat shit crazy things again. Pleasant surprise. Also whatsup with the actors eyes? It was like a damn doppler effect. Just... drawing me in.
But unless that dog has a class 3 firearms license it can't get ahold of any *automatic* rifles. Also if arming all dogs slightly increased gun violence, but dramatically lowered *overall violent crime rates,* Fido would get an AR. As an added benefit, these dog's country would never be gripped by tyranny like Barkzil, Beenglend, or Yippan. *Thanks founding fathers*
The dog insisted it was only standing it's ground, no charges have been filed.
Where was the good dog with a gun?!?!?
Running away with its tail tucked between its legs. Not every dog can be Lassie like in the movies.
The good dog was Boomer. He was in Hope County, Montana.
Shot by a trigger-happy police dog.
Wipapa McGregor *Im your good dog with a gun! Yes i am! yes i am* 🐕 🐕
The good dog with a gun was Sam from Sam & Max.
I have the right to bare arms- so I’m wearing a tank top. Woo! 😎
The real ads make you feel like you are watching propaganda from North Korea.
Most NK propaganda I've seen was along the lines of "everything is fine and our great leader is wonderful", whereas NRA propaganda I've seen is more like "they're out to get you in every corner, you're and your family are in imminent danger all the time, even NOW! GO, HURRY, ARM YOURSELF BEFORE THEY GET YOU"
I hate to be a downer; but they look like any other American Propaganda I've seen.
Proud Californian and fake ones make you lose brain cells
Dana Loesch POTUS 2020!!!
Greg M there’s an NRA channel?
When the dog heard he had a right to bear arms, he had two paws.
Ry Sun ..lol..
😢
Ry Sun 👈 Must be a Late Show writer 😂😂😂😂
I laughed harder than I should have
Much Hotter than the real Dana Loesch! 10/10
Jeff Lock all the plastic surgery she has u would think she was shot by a shotgun then had work done and that was the best they could do.
Idk, Dana is pretty fine 🤷🏻♂️
Right before I wanted to post the exactly same comment, I saw yours. LOL.
Dana Loesch looks to me like someone that's possessed by a demon or something. Her eyes look like they're completely black and it's creepy as fuck. She seems very militant and hostile for such a submissive brainwashed parrot. Her NRA handlers clearly trained her well. She gives off a definite black widow vibe.
Love that spoof!
That dog needs more time at the range.
Unfair gun laws make it illegal for him to get the permit until he's, like, 140 in dog years.
I knew this was coming ever since I heard that news story. A "good dogs with guns" joke would've been just too easy to pass up.
mdudegamer Yea, when I first read the story I made the same joke. It could've also worked with boy
i was hoping for a "good boy with a gun", but i'll happily take this.
“You can have my gun when you take it from my cold, dead paws.”
She's Amy Rutberg.
No thanks necessary.
From Daredevil?? Holy shit, she looks totally different with black hair.
Dave H.
Who was she on Daredevil? I don't recognize her either.
Marci, Foggy's girlfriend. I think they're back together now right?
#SHOOTNRASAVEKIDS
Hawt
You can have my dog's gun when you can pull it from his cold dead paws.
Dont bring a chew toy to a gun fight!
Gilles Albert 😂😂
They missed the opportunity to say "Good boy with a gun" instead of "good dog with a gun"
Holy shit.... ten points to the writers room . Just perfect
coin420 Ten points to Gryffindor.
I remember when the NRA was all about gun safety, with weekly programs educating everyone about proper cleaning techniques and proper storage, but now it's just a right-wing propaganda machine.
Stephen Colbert is so funny 😂 I love his show
OMG, I laughed so hard I almost choked.
Bet that dog was just dancing.
We laugh but we're all forgetting the episode of Scooby-Doo where Scrappy dumps a clip into Old Man Withers. This is serious people, if we don't learn from this we'll end up with a gritty reboot of 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo!
Doesn’t Flim-Flam have a 20-to-life sentence?
1:07 "Ginger, no!" Someone's gotta remember that old Conan O'Brien sketch.
Anyone up for getting chump a dog?
..yes! Get him several!..
1 i will do in honor of my new favorite name, old one eye, lmao, saw that on benny hill in the 70's
Lmao that ending!
I always though arming grizzly bears with battle axes would be cool.
An Evolving Ape apparently it's a thing in Russia, they arm bears with Russians.
seems like there should be a Molly Hatchet album cover there somewhere.
I have a gun dog myself. She's more into collecting than shooting.
In Soviet Russia, you have the right to arm bears...
Lol. Watch the SNL good roaches with guns.
Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah are both geniuses 😂 Ill never stop watching their shows!!!
Accurate AF
very effective portrayal of nra fanaticism by the actress ... she nailed the wide-eyed batshit crazy style of this group of people.
In the end, isn't every dog a good boy or girl? Arm dogs ONLY.
That dog was holding Sweetness!
I FREAKING LOVE THIS!!!!
Who's a good boy with a gun.. You are, you are.. now put it away...
Time to arm the class pets and the helper animals.
Maybe the dog did it in self defense. Maybe the dog felt violated by rough play.
Funny. Bear with arms, lol. Dogs with guns, hum? Off, but humorous.
its funny you can practically buy a gun after you have driving license but you need to be 21 to get drunk.
Most gun owners are intelligent respectable people, but that doesn’t mean everyone has the right to own fire arms. It is a privilege that should be earned and respected.
That's pretty presumptive. What qualities exactly are needed to own a gun, aside from only shooting it when necessary? Intelligence? Beauty? Monetary worth? Once you start applying a standard by which you gain the basic right to protect yourself, you've added that qualifier to their right to life itself. There's no reason that qualifier wouldn't have been skin color or sexual orientation in the past (and probably still today considering how hard it would have been for those groups to fight for their rights). One should never need to earn their chances at survival.
Now, if you'd said you need to qualify to own a dog, I'd be right there with you.
TheKaiTetley - Exactly right. Just like drivers licenses...when someone is no longer able to operate a vehicle safely, their license is restricted, or even revoked. Guns should be 'doubly so', considering their lethality.
Well, that was pretty presumptive as well, and erroneous in many places too.
Monetary worth is ALREADY required to own a gun. It costs money to get a card for one, it costs money to purchase a fire-arm, it costs money to gather ammunition for one. That is already the case, so flippantly tossing it about as a flimsy argument doesn't really do any good. Unless you want to argue that it SHOULDN'T be the case that those things cost money, and then the government would have to supply the entire population with guns. Also, flippantly remarking about intelligence in the same point is hilarious. Of COURSE that should be required, at least some basic form of it, with enough sense to know the ramifications of using such a powerful device. Some might call that "common sense," but that is a TYPE of intelligence. Intelligence isn't just "that-them-there book smarts" and "I.Q." Discerning when shooting a gun is necessary, the sole metric you proposed as determining qualification, is an example of intelligence and would need to be tested for, rigorously. (I am pretty sure that is one of the main tenets -- and potentially the sole tenet -- that the topic creator was referring to when the mentioned intelligence and respectability, and that respecting such a prospect would in turn earn them that privilege. You yourself even mention it to be a privilege to be earned, since you brought up that caveat as well, rendering most of your following statements null.) Lambasting the idea that a person should have to be responsible with guns is utterly disgusting.
A fire-arm is not the "basic" right to protect yourself. It is a complicated means of protecting yourself, there are MUCH simpler ways for people to protect themselves. And, self-defense is legal, so... No. The basic right to protect yourself is ensured. A gun is certainly not the right to life itself. That is a hilarious leap. There are many other things that are MUCH more essential to life. So, if your ideology aligns with your text, you would also be in favor of the government (or some presiding body, since lots of people get upset at the specific use of the word "government" even though that is what any powerful presiding body essentially is) providing food, land, shelter, and health-care to everybody for free as well. Those are MUCH more essential needs, therefore, a presiding body NOT doing those things would be even more atrocious negations of a person's right to live. "One should never need to earn their chances at survival." Correct? Those are, after all, your very words. People need to eat, drink, be protected from the elements, and be tended to when fallen ill or injured WAY more often than they need to physically defend themselves. Like... A LOT more. Ludicrous amounts more. Last time I checked, you cannot garner nutrients from consuming a fire-arm. People are generally covered in terms of physical defense by a little thing called society. The overwhelming majority of people simply do not wish to commit harm upon another person, or at least not to the extent of being lethal. Social animals tend to have sympathy for their own species, and often times even other species. As for animal attacks, well, the society we have built has generally been able to do a great job at keeping dangerous animals out as well. Now, these things do bring people to harm and even death, yes, but incredibly less frequently than the factors I previously mentioned.
Again, a gun is not the only means of humans even physically protecting themselves. Escape is a fantastic tactic when available. Actual defense is wonderful, grab some gear that requires no training to use. Why not free bullet-resistant vests and helmets to the general populace? And, hey, self-defense, as a tactic -- maybe pick up some martial arts. You cannot be disarmed of a martial art. Somebody cannot accidentally get into your martial art and kill themselves or another with it. A dog cannot accidentally step on the trigger of a martial art. A martial art cannot jam or misfire. Why not free martial arts training to the general populace? Mace? Electrical stun equipment? Melee weapons? Why is it legal to carry a concealed fire-arm but not a concealed blade, or club, or even an open sword or something? Concealment is actually worse, since a perpetrator can then assault much more stealthily, and potential perpetrators can be dissuaded by the visible presence of other people carrying such self-defense tools on them. There's loads of options out there, yes, many do still have down-sides, literally everything will, but those down-sides are way less down than those of fire-arms. (I will get to an extra-case later, when it becomes relevant.)
There are already plenty of qualifiers and standards to gain the other, more immediate and constant, means of a basic right to life that I stated earlier. In order to attain food, water, shelter, and health-care you need money, which you need a job for, which you need another person to allow you to be granted. So, why is money not free? Or jobs? Or just the requirements for life themselves? (Yes, there are programs to help support these basic necessities for people who need it, but almost none of them do enough. Yes, the people who cannot afford to buy their own are -- SOMETIMES -- granted them, but be aware, those people are malnourished and ill. They are still dying of starvation and disease, just slower.) Heck, in order to get and maintain a job, go gather food, and seek medical care, a person is often required to have a car as well to get to these things in any semblance of a sane amount of time. Oh, dang, but cars also have those pesky qualifiers on them for public safety, like requiring a person know the rules of the road, the communication of signs, and how to operate a vehicle in order to earn a license. Or, if not that, then some sort of public transportation system, which many places do not possess, and can often not be realistic as an efficient means of travel in a sane amount of time, and usually cost money. Hey, back to that problem again. Okay, so now you want to go off the grid, you've jumped the shark and want to be done with this whole society thing since The Man is keeping you down. Not only is that a dumb idea (since society has an almost terrifying amount of benefits from it, and few, small detriments comparatively to both its benefits and the pros and cons of any other potential way of life -- since that's the way we built it over time, better), but now you also need land to live off of. Hey, if that's somebody else's, they're gonna' have you arrested, and it most likely is somebody else's, since most hospitable places have been claimed by now. So, you should buy a big chunk of land for yourself. Oh, wait, the money problem again. And land also has those darn qualifiers on it, like being able to maintain it in a way that prevents it from being hazardous to the public, and signing papers that denote that you are responsible for said land.
Qualifiers, in general, are a good thing anyway. Systems of rules and regulations and prerequisites put in place in order to maximize safety and efficiency and minimize risk of harm and failure. Scientifically formulated by rigorous testing of different variables that interact within any given human and societal system and interaction. (Yes, science cannot test for literally every variable and set of variables since those are infinite, but it is better than anything else we got on the matter, since anything else is essentially an uneducated guess. Also, yes, sometimes policy does not reflect scientific consensus, and that can be frustrating, but it most often is, or at least tries to come as close as possible while having to co-exist with every other policy and not step on the toes of any of those.) Yes, policies of the past may have been influenced by things outside of science and reason, but we are getting exponentially closer and closer to having verifiable science and policies based on that, and we have been for a decent amount of time. We are asymptotically close now in most fields. Of course there is room for improvement, and I welcome said improvement, but the room for it is not very large. Remember those vehicles? Making sure somebody has sufficient eye-sight, cognitive function, and stature in order to operate a car with regards to the well-being of the public and the driver is such a pain. So, apparently there is a sensible qualifier for owning a gun, that much was given and acknowledged near the beginning of our respective statements, but the tone taken afterwards seems to imply that testing a person on such a metric is somehow morally wrong and intrusive or even oppressive. It is necessary to test whether a person has the mental fortitude and discipline to use any device that can easily accrue harm, especially if accidentally. This is a reason the parallel between guns and cars is used so often, a small, unintentional slip-up can severely injure or kill a person, easily, with zero ill intent. This is why we have the term negligence. And yes, we have that because our qualifiers for access and use of these things are imperfect, they will always be, but they are scientifically formulated to maximize positives and minimize negatives. These systems catch more unqualified people than then they let through, and they let more qualified people through than they incidentally deny, both by vast majorities. If a person is prone to brash behavior, becomes easily incited into aggression, and does not consider the ramifications of their actions, then they need to be barred from having access to dangerous devices. They will enter, or cause, more situations in which they will become aggressive and impair their judgement. In reference to fire-arms, this person will bring about more events in which their compromised mentality will cause worse outcomes. This person is a bigger threat to others than others are to them.
(Continued.)
And that is only one potential cocktail of dangerous behaviors that person could have. Just one of those could be enough. And there are many other individual behaviors out there that can and do also easily lead to ugly events transpiring. Not to mention how many other behavioral cocktails may exist that any single facet of might seem fine, but end up volatile when mixed with others.
And for my last point. Dogs. Why would dogs require qualifications to own if guns do not? Dogs are more beneficial than guns, and less detrimental. Any historical evolutionary anthropologist will tell you that dogs are the reason we humans get to have the society that we have built today. It has been built upon the backs of our ancestors and their dogs. Incredibly far back in human history, dogs are one of the most prominent forces that allowed us to explore, survive, and settle the vast world around us. The domestication of dogs is one of the largest keystones in the progress of humanity. (Yes, way larger than black-powder, or fire-arms.) Also, dogs save more lives in physical protection from opposing humans alone than guns do, and dogs can save lives in many other ways as well -- fetching assistance, floating a person in danger of drowning, sniffing out explosives and dangerous substances, noticing threatening animals well before a human could. Not to mention the non-life-threatening ways that they can work better than guns, such as stopping or even preventing break-ins and robberies. Dogs even aid in various other facets of life for many people as well, such as seeing-eye dogs, seizure-mitigating dogs, therapy dogs, pest control, and the list goes on and on. Dogs also provide less detriments than guns. Dogs cause less injury and death, and dogs are MUCH harder to use to COMMIT violence onto another person, since that requires training a dog to do that, and a gun is a simple tool to be easily operated at the pull of a trigger for any means of any intent. Yes, dogs can "misfire" and "jam" essentially, by lashing out and not providing protection respectively, but do so less often than fire-arms, and less catastrophically as well. So, why would a person not have an inherent right to a dog without qualifiers getting in the way as well? As stated, dogs are better at ensuring a the basic right of a person to live, which you put above all else.
(I do not inherently support or reject any of the specific examples used here, many of them were either hyperbole or conclusions based on my dissections of proposed points, or both. Just putting this disclaimer here so people can, hopefully, sort the obvious hyperbole into its own category and my inferences of others' points into its own without trying to counter them as though they were my serious and genuine proposals. This comment was to address the logical conclusions of some assumptions and ideologies -- and the errors within those -- and how patently absurd those ideologies, assumptions, and conclusions are on a near fundamentally incomprehensible level. Side note, I didn't even know UA-cam comments had a character limit. Oops. I mean, I knew they would HAVE to have one, but I had imagined it would have been a monstrous amount that no human would ever feasibly reach without specifically trying to. Well, I guess that makes me a monster then. Oh well. Anyway, dogs are good. Dogs are best. Take care, everybody. Toodles.)
Wow
Will Herman. Bow Wow
I wish there was more gun control in the USA but I'd settle for more gun safety.
dominichokage gun control works as well as the war on drugs
..BEARS SHOULD BARE ARMS!..ar15's..teach coward hunters a lesson and why not arm wild boars and deer's...God Bless America! & Guns!..
"what a country"..
Good dog..get you a biscuit for being a goood doggie!..
Should have went with: " The only thing that can stop a bad boye with a gun is a good boye with a gun"
Not "Muh Gunzz!!" 😂😂😂😂😂
At the end it reminded me of that National Lampoon cover.
Isn't she on Daredevil? I think she was a lawyer who gave Foggy files to help take down Fisk.
does look like her but im not sure. Amy Rutberg?
Yeah, it's her. Wearing a wig, as her Twitter picture shows. Can't wait to see her get a larger part in season 3.
Yep!
Good eye, man.
I would not be the least bit surprised if at least one person in the NRA legitimately does want to arm dogs, and bears, with guns.
Firnon Zodd that could backfire on them
From my cold dead paws!!!
"No YOU play dead!" -the dog
Hahaha walk your dog... or else. 😂🐕😱
You wanna see a dog with a gun? Look up Dog Wick. "You killed John Wick's dog's human!"
Stories like "Dog Shoots Man"...always make me laugh. 🤣
"Darwin Awards", anyone...? 👍
Wow. Steve'O and TheLateShow got some hot female actresses for their skits. Remember Melania's more beautiful twin? This is becoming a very much welcome trend.
They scored Amy Rutberg (Marci Stahl from Daredevil) for this. She's also done Stormy Daniels.
That girl who played melania was awesome!!
The dog was actually telling her to go walk off a cliff
Maybe the dog was trying to tell you something?
It's a stupid argument.
By their logic, if there was a wave of stabbings, encouraging more people to carry knives with them would be the only way to reduce the number of people getting stabbed.
You sound like the guy who would start the wave, Mr. TrickwithAKnife.
If I was American I'd get offended and try to escalate the situation until one of us either walks away or gets violent.
But I'm not, so I'll leave a thumbs up and be on my way.
Oddly that’s not the approach we’ve taken in the U.K.
In what way?
Pretty good Dana Loeschckssch. But the real Dana L... whatever Does. Not. Move. At. All. This one moved her shoulders at least three times! 😯
Lemonie Lala
Hahahahaha
That was very funny 👍☝👍🙌
Okay, but you have to admit the dogs in the public eye, like Triumph the insult comic dog, need protection and should have a right to carry.
bear arms hahaha
Nothing better than pets packing heat!
Surreal!
I like the music in the end. Where can I find the whole song for illegal download?
NRA's greatest desire is to have sharks "with laser beams attached to their heads."
Somehow this Dana makes more sense than the real Dana loesch! 😂
Bears = godless killing machines
More parody NRA adverts like this please.
That's Paul Dinello's dog!
Hands needs to be changed to paws in the title!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
[takes a breath]
HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The only way to stop a bad lizard with a gun is a good lizard with a gun. Its the only way.
And what is a dog but "God" in reverse. Exercise your dog-given right to bare arms.
Well, they got one thing right: dogs and bears are rather closely related, both belonging to the caniformia suborder.
So I will take a stand here and now and say this: if racoons are allowed to bear arms, than so should bears, dogs and walruses!
;D
I love America
A bear is just a large dog? Yeah. And a moose is just a large cat, right?
seriously why r there heaven guns
Gauss24 You can't kill an angel with a normal gun
Anthony Smith it’s from American dad
Ironic to think every NRA convention is full of gun owners not allowed to bring them in, seems like even they think is risky to have a room full of people carrying weapons around....
Should be "Keep Your Paws off My Dog's Guns
Obviously these dogs aren't keeping their firearms locked in a safe.
Classic Ricky.
I am a big fan of Riley Dinello!!
Hey, that's Foggy's girlfriend, Marci from Daredevil !
*he he* Saw the thumbnail. Thought dana loesch said some bat shit crazy things again. Pleasant surprise. Also whatsup with the actors eyes? It was like a damn doppler effect. Just... drawing me in.
Don't worry dogs and bears are armed to the teeth
Sounds about right to me
Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
Addendum: And dogs too, if they've got a gun
Pull that trigger, Reilly. There's a good girl. You'll get biscuits for the rest of your life from every decent person in this country.
I bet he never had the safety on. 😲🔫🐶
what? no brown bear in a gillie suit with a barrett? such a waste.
This is traumatic if you've seen Plague Dogs. ;o
Right for bears to have arms.. Please be careful with that joke. It's an antique
RILEY!
But unless that dog has a class 3 firearms license it can't get ahold of any *automatic* rifles. Also if arming all dogs slightly increased gun violence, but dramatically lowered *overall violent crime rates,* Fido would get an AR. As an added benefit, these dog's country would never be gripped by tyranny like Barkzil, Beenglend, or Yippan. *Thanks founding fathers*
BANG B*itches
Gun accidents actually account for a tiny portion of gun injuries and deaths. _But not for want of trying._
She should be Yennefer for the upcoming Netflix witcher series.
Hahahahaha!
Oh wow
LOL
Still stuck on the"automatic rifle" stick? 😋
At this point, I'm not even really sure this is satire.