Banned where? I've never seen it in Germany but i can't imagine it being banned here, at least not for its innuendo. Maybe because of trademark infringement?

how dare you infringe my right to die on the road you big government commie socialists

It's not a partisan issue, Bob. The "debate" is being stifled by the NRA - a prime example of pure capitalist interest infringing on public policy. The NRA doesn't truly care about gun owners' rights, or the 2nd amendment. It only cares about the money it gets from the gun companies. Conservatives' voices are being taken away from them by this industry lobbying group. You should be angry about that.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

This brings up some interesting points.

What is an "assault rifle"? My grand-dad's 303 bolt action rifle was used to fight Germans in the war. It was an "assault rifle". Yet I don't believe this is what you mean. Do you mean AR-15s or similar? The AR in AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle. It was a select fire gun (capable of automatic fire). The civilian version is semi-automatic. It isn't an "assault rifle" but you could use it as one. You can use any gun as an assault weapon if you so choose to designate it for that purpose.

You may not need a semi-auto for deer hunting, but hunting doesn't end with one animal. Going duck hunting - it's much easier with a semi-auto and 6 round versus a 2 round break action. Going on a pig hunt (for animal destruction). You'll want a semi-auto with a high capacity magazine.

What about home defense? You most certainly DO need a semi-auto long gun. If you choose a pistol over a long gun then you are putting yourself at a massive disadvantage - and the whole point of using a tool to defend yourself is to give yourself an advantage over the aggressor.

Should a gun be harder to get in the USA? In my opinion yes. It should be harder. Whether that is by making ownership of some firearms dependent on being an active member of a club (where the club has the requirement to be each other's keeper) or stopping unvetted second hand sales or some other solution or combination thereof, I don't know the answer. But the two suggestions I've put here are a really good start. Along with a storage onus (don't properly store your firearm and it gets used in a crime - you get a BIG fine). Basically I believe there are plenty of solutions that won't infringe on an American's 2nd amendment rights to acquire and own a firearm.

*dead -- "'Big Fish - Funniest Animate...' The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement..."

*dead -- "'Bugs Race - Funny Brilliant...' The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement."

*dead -- "'Introducing Dirk Breaka - F...' The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement."

*dead -- " 'Bizarre Atlanta Thrashers W...' The YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement."

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

Bob, please, for God's sake, learn about your country.
Using your platform to peacefully express your personal politics...nothing could be more American or more pro-American values.
You are dissing the flag and the freedom it stands for by trying to infringe on their rights to speak and protest peacefully....but you stand up for murderous white supremacists and secessionists (true pure anti-Americans) who you believe should have immunity and the public's understanding because they're protesting statue removals.
Shameful, disgraceful...and ignorant.

Edit: Because I'm certain you don't know, the taking a knee thing was a suggestion from a Marine as a way to protest and show respect to the flag and servicemen. It's how they greet fallen soldiers. It's not anti flag, anti America, or anti soldier/police. That's all 100% misdirection being used to divide by those who benefit from division.

*dead copyright infringement

A book cannot infringe a trademark merely by referencing it. A movie can just by showing it.

Odd, as a Canadian (from Ontario even), I've never heard of this guy or his video and "out for a rip" has generally been a well established phrase used by motorheads for who knows how long - but certainly well before 2015. Still, best of luck, definitely shouldn't let massive corporations get away with trademark infringement; they certainly don't look the other way when the little guys accidentally slip up.

Your video, When you potentially get to sue Coca-Cola for infringement, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.