Cold Dead Hand with Jim Carrey

I love how the guys at fox news get all offended because a "foreigner" gets in on the gun-control discussion as if canadians knew better....

Except they do. And so does every other developed nation in the planet where gun violence is a small fraction of the gun violence in the US.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Jim Carrey is also in Kick Ass 2

Yeah, but 16-yr-old Chloë whassernames the star...and McLovins' funnier!

@2:44 "the freedom of speech", lol blind to the irony.

Edited: tags, for excessive editorial

The Trueman Show was a comedy..?

Did that last guy in the Fox clip actually say, "It's not a wise idea to go into another country and get into their politics."

This is from the network that pushed the Iraq war and pretty much any US intervention in foreign countries?

Heloooo irony is dead to these people.

This is hilarious. Fucking tools.

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, March 27th, 2013 1:12am PDT - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

FACT: Authoritarians support gun control.

Sure Fox went off the deep end. But the real gun nuts are Liberals.

lol i know right, bitch should have said he wasnt funny since The Mask or Liar Liar ... pretty funny as carrey is a legend and these talking heads are just drops in the bucket of hater-ade

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience...."

clearly there can be no realistic compromise i will take joy as you use your gun to shoot a virus you cant see, or to force a doctor to use their training to save someone you shot on accident, and other scenarios where having a gun doesn't mean shit if you dont have other people to help you.... lets all shoot ourselves, you first!

I laughed during it.


Then again, I laughed at this video too.

Why? Because you say so? I don't think you even know what that means.

Gun nuts choose to believe this is all about taking their guns away so they can't fight back when the government comes knocking on their doors for... some reason. Or that it's some furtive attempt by the government to track them and get them in some national database for mysterious and spurious reasons. This belief is often revealed via terse bullet points and catchy, oft-metered phrases that don't require a whole hell of a lot of memorization or deep understanding. Just short, simplistic regurgitations of bullshit from the rightie cesspool they are drowning in.

Authoritarians? Really? An authoritarian would want ALL your guns. Are you saying any government control is authoritarian, or does the term "government control" give you the "1984" willies? Are the old ladies behind the counter at my local DMV authoritarians, or just slaves to them? How about the building inspector? Passport office? Fish and Game Department? The person who decided there needed to be a red light at an intersection where I'd never had to stop on my way to work before? IRS? Why do I need a license/permit for everything? I mean, with the exceptions of my driver's license, passport, tax returns, fishing license, trail park pass, voter registration, car registration, smog certificate, and their records on the amount of water and electricity I use, I just wish they'd respect my privacy, right?

But, this isn't a privacy issue with you guys, is it? This is about the Alex Jones/Bachman/Palin/Beck/Limbaugh (the Thousand-Yarders) fantasy world where the government is out to get you and throw your children into liberal indoctrination camps. This is about "taking your rights" from you. This is about being prepared for the coming post-zombie apocalypse you hope is right around the corner so you can justify the thousands of dollars you spent prepping. A whole industry has sprung up around prepping, and they are happy to stoke your paranoia and reinforce your belief that you really do need all this gear, not to mention the boxcar shelter buried in the back yard with a year's supply of MREs. Money in the bank.

The 2nd Amendment? It's not a holy relic. The Amendments are subject to interpretation and limitation by Congress. If Congress passes an assault weapons ban, it's not denying you your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. It's simply defining it, just as the 1st Amendment has been further defined by the legislative and judicial branches of government since it was ratified. The 1st Amendment doesn't give you the right to slander someone, yell fire in a crowded theater, or reveal state secrets, etc., just as the 2nd Amendment doesn't necessarily give you the right to arm yourself with anything you please, wherever you please.

Good troll, btw.

^Fletch, if I could upvote your comment 15 times right now I would.

textbook troll. insult and run away.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Great quote from Jim on the brouhaha: "I'll just say this: in my opinion Fux News is a last resort for kinda-sorta-almost-journalists whose options have been severely limited by their extreme and intolerant views; a media colostomy bag that has begun to burst at the seams and should be emptied before it becomes a public health issue."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/03/29/Jim-Carrey-blasts-Fox-News-over-Cold-Dead-Hand-criticism/UPI-74931364591982/#ixzz2OylvdlrH

standard hypocritical bullshit. my right to criticize is valid, but not yours

People love to use the analogy that weapons bans are the same as reasonable limitations on your 1st amendment rights. They use arguments like "You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater", "You can't Slander", etc. but there is a big difference.

An assault weapons ban basically equates to "you may not own this item" the restrictions on 1st Amendment rights say "you man not use a word in this very limited list of situations".

If they were truly equal then the "reasonable" restriction on your 1st amendment right would be "You may not EVER use the word FIRE. Not in a crowded theater, not at home, not at work, not ever. Remove it from your vocabulary and we will not teach it to people who learn the language in the future."

No one would find that reasonable and everyone would fight to protect their right to use the word "fire" in safe, appropriate conversation.

Now lets take that and reverse it. Let's apply what everyone says are reasonable restrictions on our 1st ammendment rights and apply them to our 2nd ammendment. If you did that then you would havesomething along the lines of the following: "You may own the gun but you may not use it in these very limited list of situations".

Oh wait a minute! That's what we currently have. "You may own your gun but you may not use it to rob a store, murder someone, threaten someone, etc."

I am not trying to convince everyone that my side is right. I am just pointing out that you need to be careful when you start restricting ANY constitutionally guaranteed right. Take the restrictions that you think are fair and apply them equally to any other right that you have and see if they still sound "Reasonable".

...here's to whistling into the wind...

What did infringed mean in the 18th century?

Did the meaning change? Or the reason for it?

Fletch pretty much said everything i wanted to say. Possibly the stupidest thing that has come out of gun lobbies is the parking lot sales where guns just disappear from the system. And no amount of "militia" rhetorics make any sense; if government wants you, they'll get you. They do have stealth bombers ffs. Your AR-15 won't even make a scratch on that tank running your house flat. In order for personal weapons to be a viable counter balance to military forces is when you are some where along ratios of 1/10, not 1/10000. You make a lot more damage under oppression with a wrench, wire cutter or blowtorch in the dead of night than what armed confrontation with superior force will achieve.

I would like to see a graph comparing USA personal guns vs the full miltary power.

I'm pretty pro-gun. I grew up in Kansas in a home with a .22 rifle, and had many friends that had a much more extensive arsenal in their homes. One "gun nut" friend had somewhere around 10 high-powered rifles, roughly the same number of shotguns, 3-4 pistols, and even an AR-15 (civilian version of M-16) with extensive clips, flash suppressors, etc. purchased before the "assault weapons ban". That family was very responsible with their guns -- all locked in gun cabinets, fully unloaded, separate from ammo whenever not in use, sons all trained to use them responsibly, etc. I think a family/individual should have the right to do all that stuff. For defense, for hunting, as a farm "tool" (a firearm can be invaluable for protecting livestock, eliminating varmints and pests, etc.), for "home defense" (the least practical/intelligent use of firearms by a civilian IMHO), or even just for entertainment / target shooting -- whatever your reasons I think you should be able to legally purchase just about any kind of firearm.

That being said, the NRA goes completely off the deep end with some of the things it opposes. The Brady Bill, waiting periods, background checks, etc.? I'm fine with those "limitations", and I think that the NRA loses legitimacy putting up a fight against very reasonable measures like those. I understand the threat of slippery-slope issues, but waiting periods and background checks aren't going to bring the whole system down and definitely would do more good than harm.

All that being said, while I somewhat disagree with Jim Carrey's message in the "Cold Dead Hands" video, I liked it and could appreciate it as a good piece of satire expressing his point of view. The Fox News blowhards need to "Lighten up, Francis".

Oh, ffs. Do you have a 2nd Amendment right to own a tank (with ordnance)? A TOW missile? A nuclear device? Claymores? Don't these arms fall under your "you may not own this item"? And are you really trying to equate words that people know with guns that people can buy? Do you think that Congress has the power to limit hate speech by striking the words "nigger", "fag", and "spic" from the minds of 300 million people? So, yeah... different. Just not in the way you are trying to spin it. One doesn't simply purchase words and sentences in a store. Your argument is compositional fallacy.

It's likely my definition and your definition of "reasonable" are different, and by no means do restrictions on the 2nd amendment have to be considered reasonable by every person. I'm one person who happens to think an assault weapons ban IS a reasonable restriction. The Bill of Rights is for all Americans, not just gun nuts.

You can spin it any way you like that gets you through your day, but the Constitution is subject to amending, and Amendments are subject to definition by Congress and the courts. An assault weapons ban may piss you off, but it's not outside the purview of Congress, and it isn't a denial of your 2nd Amendment rights.

I wouldn't disagree if the reality of gun violence in this country were different. No doubt the vast majority of gun owners are responsible gun owners. Definitely a case of a few bad apples.

AAT...

Ok, let's play the equivocation game. Instead of a ban, let's just limit what you can do with assault weapons...

- You may not sell one (sorry, manufacturers).
- You may not transport/ship it across state/US borders.
- If you own one, it must be registered, and owning an unregistered assault weapon is a felony.

I'd be fine with that.

Aaaaaaand another thing...

"An assault weapons ban basically equates to "you may not own this item" the restrictions on 1st Amendment rights say "you man not use a word in this very limited list of situations".

Only law-abiding citizens obey the law. The criminals don't bother with the law. Which is why I'm keeping my gun. I want anyone thinking of breaking into my house to know I have a gun and know how to use it. Because when this whole progressive utopia fails because they ran out of our money, there will be a lot of home invasions, carjackings, etc.

I think most people were upset because the skit was Not Funny. It stereotypes gunowners as dumb redneck bible thumpers, when the reality is that a majority of gun owners are non-white. So not only is it offensive, not funny, but also innacurate. Just imagine if he played to a different stereotype, wore black face and called all non-registered gun owners barbaric, ignorant black men. Then would you cross bearing douches deem it appropriate for people to feel offended?

When I said "just about any" kind of firearm should be legally obtainable, I should clarify that I mean guns. Explosive ordinance, anti-vehicle weapons, fully-auto vehicle mounted machine guns, etc. is where I see the line between reasonable and unreasonable.

My problem with getting into regulating "assault weapons" is that I see it as a very real slippery-slope hazard -- unlike restrictions like waiting periods, registration, legal obligations to keep guns locked in cabinets when not in use, etc. etc.

Here's an example: my gun-nut friends had in their extensive arsenal 2 rifles, an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14. The AR-15 is basically equivalent to a military M-16, except the one they had didn't have selectors for 3-shot burst or full-auto (semi-auto only). The Mini-14 was designed around the M-14, which was the military standard-issue rifle until being replaced by the M-16.

Trying to get the government to regulate those firearms seems like a nightmare to me. Is just the AR-15 (M-16) an "assault weapon"? Are they both? I've fired both and I don't think that there is any reasonable way to say that the AR-15 is "over the line" of what a civilian owner should have with the Mini-14 being "ok". The Mini-14 is a fantastic farm/hunter rifle; safe, reliable, and easy to handle -- but in the event of somebody going off the deep end and shooting people up, it is going to be just as deadly/tragic as if they had an M-16.

Basically I think that the right-wing types have a pretty legitimate beef when they say that gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and that therefore most heavy restrictions just affect legitimate, responsible gun owners while doing very little to keep guns out of the hands that you really want them out of. I should look for data about gun crime rates comparing legally purchased guns versus black market sources, and gun-related injury and death rates between gun-nut havens like Texas and my neck of the woods in Kansas compared to more liberal urban areas.

Finally, I guess that I should make it clear that I'm OK with restrictions that require you to prove that you are a responsible owner to have any firearm. Waiting periods, background checks, loss of privileges to anyone with a criminal record, having to register and periodically present your firearms to prove that you aren't re-selling them, etc. I consider all that kind of stuff reasonable limitations on our right/privilege to own firearms. But getting into trying to figure out what does or does not classify as an "assault weapon" goes the wrong direction in my opinion.

I truly hope you never have to find out how utterly stupid that position is, because as much as you annoy me, I wouldn't wish death or worse (death of a family member) on even you.

Strawman argument. unless you have some ballistic missiles and plutonium, you've got nothing to worry about. If you are responsible and safe with your firearms, you've got nothing to worry about.

your paranoia is preventing you from living a productive life. you're too busy cowering in your bunker.

Yeah - one demonstration drone strike on a US street and suddenly popguns will lose their sexual potency overnight.

I'm not cowering in any bunker. You guys who think 'it couldn't happen here' are really wishful-thinkers. There is a very thin line between civilization and chaos. Nevertheless, have you ever heard of a home invasion robbery? Happens every day....but not to you, right?

more strawman arguments.

no one has ever said "it couldn't happen." There is no one who thinks that America is magically immune to usurpation.

Here's the thing about that though. there are these wonderful things called warning signs and evidence. indications that we're heading down that road or at the very least THINKING about heading down that road.

none of which has happened yet. And sorry, Republicans losing a couple of elections isn't one of those warning signs...except for the extreme tinfoil hat wearer's in your group.

There are absolutely zero indications that the gov't is trying to confiscate all weapons or become tyrannical. Quite honestly, I don't think most people in America even know what real tyranny is. Having an election and your guy losing isn't tyranny.

When you have actual evidence, maybe the rest of the world will listen. Till then, you're a bunch of paranoid lunatics who are actually more likely to hurt a loved one with a gun than an actual "bad guy"

Their are plenty of non-assault weapons that would not be subject to the ban, and those "dangerous criminals" are using them. They are handguns and shotguns, not automatic weapons.

Well, only one down-vote:

IMO Carey just pissed on what's left of any real career-The producers of Kick-Ass 2 seem to agree that he's not thinking clearly, not unlike some of the peeps on this banal thread.

If you begin with the Kool-Aid being served with semantics like "assault rifle" and end up on a video blog with about 5 videos published with any meat having to do with the recent whack-job mass-shooting, the bulk of whose active users are east/west coast U.S. and outside of the C.U.S....IS IT SURPRISING, that you have a skewed representation of attitudes towards free will relative to firearms in the United States?

I do see these bills introduced in states and nationally the writing on the wall to an eventual fascist future for the entire fucking world, and those who don't, deserve that future.

Carrey's schtick never did it for me after age 16, he's so off in the realm of some EST whack-job in interviews, (like some motivational speaker from a closed-circuit kid's show in Ottawa on at 6 a.m.) and now with this, why the turd even dishonors the memory of Stringbean Akeman by taking a jab at Hee Haw and the fine people of Nashville.

Fuck Jim Carrey, BIG BROTHER say's he's doubleplus unfunny

More proof that facts have a definitive liberal bias, as your claim is 100% absolute bullshit. Guess you need another bogeyman. Unfortunately, about the only group you asswipes haven't blamed for some perceived ill in this nation is the 50+ million paranoid, angry, rightie dolts that vote directly against their interests every two years because they believe every oily huckster that tells them that the country is going to come to an end unless they check all the "R" boxes on election day. Blaming blacks and Mexicans makes it even easier, doesn't it? Douche.

RSNML.

You may be the only sane one here.

Sane sounds so, so....final

It does NOT MATTER one bit if guns are regulated or not during a war. This is not about war, this is about trying to protect people from crazy shits and accidents during 'peacetime'. Obviously, if tyranny happened, and there was mass fear in the populace of this or any country, people find a way to stand up and fight back. Guns will be apart of that, and will be a big part. But these regulations that they are trying to put in place have nothing to do with 'surrendering to big brother'.

I completely understand the idea that this can be a 'slippery slope' that will eventually ban all guns and turn us into slaves... somehow. BUT I have a hope in my heart that most of humanity actually is human, and caring of others. We as a species have survived before the gun and after the gun. Unfortunately I can't say that about alot of the other species.