This is purely about Disney needing to Reset all their property Trademarks. They need to remake every property they have in order for the licensing to remain intact and not fall into Public Domain.

They are doing this for every singe animated move they've made.

Round chambered, hair triggered, tucked into his ass crack?
They better pull his ccw license.

Because we are voting on good or bad videos and content - I'm personally going to down-vote this on the basis that it ads nothing to the music at all, and is just a blatant film-reel promoting this model.
This video is here primarily to promote the model.
as are all of the videos from the YT creator.

Also, I'm guessing the music is poached without license.
So it's not associated with Pink Floyd themselves.

*backup and replace dead video, and with a much better copy of the video. Also it's the whole video.

(edit) This may be the licensed to use yt copy of the video (just in case) https://youtu.be/3vCIgopoVmk

I can't say for sure if this is why that dude was driving so badly, but he never got a license because Texas is among the states that doesn't have a driving privilege card for undocumented immigrants.

Driver's training does save lives, and this particular attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from lawful society just causes a public safety menace without deterring migration.

http://whnt.com/2018/04/18/dashcam-video-shows-house-explode-just-as-texas-officers-arrive/

http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/states-offering-driver-s-licenses-to-immigrants.aspx

Maybe they intentionally made her look different to avoid any issues with licensing.

So it seems driver didn't have a license and hit the gas main. Driver was arrested. Three people in the house were injured. One with 50% burns over her body. All are recovering. No other injuries. https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/New-Dashcam-Video-Shows-House-Explosion-Hurst-480142943.html

(edit) Thanks for adding a description

Funny, that's exactly how my parents felt when I asked them for a car.....
....but they helped my older brother get his hardship license at 14 in Texas, bought him a pickup truck, and replaced it with a new Toyota Supra when he turned 16. I don't think he even paid for gas until he was over 18.
I bought my own 8 year old Pontiac Lemons and paid for my own insurance and gas (and repaired it myself, no money left for mechanics), and got my license with no help at all when I turned 16....and I feel excessively lucky I was fortunate enough to be able to do it.

Bob, I honestly believe you need to be psychology examined. You have apparently gone off the deep end into full blown delusional political paranoia....or perhaps you really are just a Russian troll.

Please acknowledge that your hero Trump has repeatedly suggested that slander and libel laws are too lax (except when applied to his baseless accusations against others) and that the press should be hobbled and stymied if they speak out against him or reveal what he's trying to hide, as in have their licenses and credentials revoked and be sued into bankruptcy or even charged with treason among other sanctions, but published lies that support him are totally acceptable, even praiseworthy.

@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).

Excellent.

"The problem is that very dangerous people have very easy access to very dangerous weapons."

So, there's 3 issues there. Address any ONE of the three, and things would get better. Maybe not "job done" better, but better. Take moderate, corrective steps on all three, and we'd be MUCH better off.

1) Dangerous people. How could we take dangerous people out of the equation? Background checks. Licensing. Revoking gun ownership privileges for convicts and people diagnosed with mental health problems.

2) Easy access. What could we do better to sensibly and fairly restrict access to firearms? Well, lets see ... fucking anything stands a better chance of working than the nothing that we're doing now. So again, background checks, licensing, registration. Enforcement of said requirements.

3) Dangerous weapons. I think a legitimate criticism of "the left"s typical stance on gun control is that they might be a bit TOO focused on this one.
There is some core truth to the NRA harping "guns don't kill people, people kill people." If a murderous psycho decides that they want to kill a bunch of people, they can find ways of doing it that don't necessarily require guns.
However, it is also true that easy access to weapons designed for war can escalate the degree of tragedy quickly.

Basically, this one and #2 are a trade-off. Bolt action rifles and shotguns might be OK with fewer restrictions. Semi-automatic? High capacity? Doesn't it make sense at some point to at least be a bit careful about who we allow unfettered access to these things?


Trump's parroting of the NRA plan to put MORE guns in schools would be laugh out loud stupid if it wasn't guaranteed to end in tragedy rather than comedy. I can't fathom how anyone, even the nuttiest of gun nuts, could think that is a good idea. And I'm actually rather pro-gun. But, c'mon ... some limitations and restrictions just make obvious sense.

A car is a much better and more legitimate general-purpose "tool" than a firearm. But improper use is dangerous and potentially deadly, so we take some common sense steps to try to limit that. Want to drive? Get a license. Pass a safety test. Pass physical and medical tests to show that you are capable of controlling the vehicle. Periodically re-test to stay current. And, expect to LOSE your license if you drive irresponsibly (drunk, moving violations, etc.).

I don't think those are unfair requirements to be granted the privilege of a license to drive a motor vehicle. To me anybody that has a proper respect for the utility of a firearm, and also a respect for the damage that improper use of firearms can do, should be in favor of sensible restrictions and limitations placed on the privilege of being allowed to own and use a firearm, just like we accept for cars.

Even though NZ's laws were relatively stricter at the time, the real issue was that Australia's laws were lax. We went from one end of the spectrum to the polar opposite (which is a not uncommon illogical human reaction to bad events).

The laws you speak of were enacted a few years before Australia changed theirs. The salient point is that they didn't restrict or legislate for some things over the following years.

The standards you have there (fit and proper person) for gaining a license are almost exactly the same as in Australia. The endorsement for getting an AR15 can be obtained by shooting in IPSC or 3 gun competitions. Basically, if you're a fit and proper person and join one of these clubs then you can get an AR15 and full capacity magazines.

Mental health is a completely separate issue that's being used as a distraction. It's certainly worthy of discussion but it does not belong as part of the gun debate.

I am not for banning weapons.

I would, however, set the bar for ownership so high that only committed hobbyists would own the most extreme weapons.

The more potentially impactful the weapon, the higher the bar. I have no problem with someone casually walking into a store and buying a bolt-action .22 target rifle or a break action sporting shotgun with a fast background check. The licensing, training and security check requirements would then grow progressively stringent until you get to fast shooting, large ammo capacity, medium-large caliber weapons. At which point there should be annual training and recertification requirements, in-home verification of safe storage compliance, thorough background checks and anything else.

Any committed hobbyist is already training regularly with their firearms and storing them safely. The certification requirements are no more than a verification of the practices they already follow. What's needed is to weed out the casual purchasers, the revenge-fantasy dreamers and the paramilitary idiots.

I'm honestly rather confused about the NRA stance (or lack thereof) with regards to mental health.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." OK. So... Wouldn't it make sense to go after those people that are the problem, then? Crazies with guns equals pressure to take away the guns from everybody, which is exactly what you don't want. Wouldn't mild inconvenience of background checks / licensing be better than bans? (from NRA perspective)