Jim Carrey's 'Cold Dead Hand' furore!

[Camy]

It seems that gun loving middle America doesn't get satire. Carrey's 'Cold Dead Hand' sketch hasn't gone down terribly well. Sad.

Watch it here

[JamesSavik]

Yeah- I think the smirking little shit is the worst kind of trash.

He is the worst sort of hypocrite hiding behind the guns of his paid security goons why denying the "commoner" the same protection.

Assholes like Carrey want to bring back feudalism where the rich can lord it over us serfs without consequence and that ain't going to fucking happen.

[Chris James]

James...James...James, I don't think you get the nature of satire either. Unfortunately for Jim Carrey this little Hee Haw moment was hardly funny, just like his career at the moment. You can't get angry at Hollywood stars for having armed guards when lunatics are allowed to have guns. Stalking the stars seems to be a California pasttime and those poor folks must worry like hell about their families.

Or maybe you are just pissed because they spoofed Hee Haw. I hear it is still popular in reruns across the Southland. Smile, don't take life so seriously.

[FreeThinker]

I think that pro-gun people need to calm down and accept that:

a- no one wants to disarm you. You can have your handguns to protect yourselves. The Muslim Kenyan Socialist BLACK man in the White House is not going to cut your penis off and take your gun.

b. We advocate background checks. More than 90% of Americans support background checks. Will it completely end massacres? No, and we know that. But, Adam Lanza's mother wouldn't t have had an arsenal in her house along with an emotionally disturbed son.

c. There is only one reason to have magazines with thirty rounds and that is to kill, not for protection and defense, but to kill and attack. There is NO legitimate need for a thirty round magazine unless conservative, southern, right-wingers are indulging their favorite wet-dream fantasy of rising up against the Fed's and reliving the 1860's.

d. It is argued that the Second Amendment is absolute and NO restrictions on the right to bear arms is permitted. HOWEVER, we DO recognize limits to Freedom of Speech. We don't permit yelling "Fire" in a theater. Because of the anti-communist right-wing hysteria of the Red Scare of the 1920's and again in the 40's and 50's, we don't permit advocating the armed overthrow of the Government (remember that, righties). AND, we don't permit photographic child pornography. So, should we use the right-wing logic (there's an oxymoron) and apply that to Freedom of Speech? Are we permitted to publicly advocate support of terrorists? Freedom to bear arms is "absolute," supposedly. So is Freedom of Speech? Clearly not. Reasonable restrictions CAN and SHOULD be placed on freedoms.

Why do so many police chiefs and police officers (at least outside the South) support rational and reasonable restrictions on gun ownership?

The NRA response to all this is that we don't have enough guns. In a nation of 320 million people, we have 350 million guns. Is that not enough? We have a higher per capita number of guns than any other nation on earth, but we have more gun deaths per capita than any other country, including Somalia and Afghanistan! More guns! We need more guns and more profits for the gun manufacturers, which is who Wayne LaPierre REALLY represents. And, lets not forget the words of the Tea Party candidate for the Senate from Nevada in 2010, Sharron Angle, that if they can't get their way at the ballot box, conservatives should "consider their Second Amendment options." We all know what that means. Or the right-wing candidate for the House from Florida who said that if "ballots don't work, bullets will." We know what the right-wing really thinks in this country.

And, the last thing I want to see when I go into a restaurant is a bad guy shoot a gun and then sixteen other people suddenly standing up and start firing and police officers storming in and not knowing who's a bad guy and who isn't.

No one wants to take your handguns. No one wants to take away your hunting rifles. No one wants to emasculate you. We just want to reduce the number of gun deaths, just like those dreadful "dictatorships" like Britain, Canada, and Australia.

[Cole Parker]

Well said.

C

[DesDownunder]

From the outside looking in, it appears that some Southern white 'gentlemen' are sticking to their guns in memory of the slavery as practised by their forefathers.

Slavery in this instance is more than just being used as a means for another's end; it is restricting others from being themselves, under threat of violence...and, in this case, at the point of a gun. It has reached the absurdity of someone being told to obey the belief of those who hold the gun, or they will stand their ground and shoot the non-believer.

Threats of violence are used to instil fear and intimidate civil discourse at the cost of the right to dissent, and it is not okay to corral and hog-tie opinion and then shoot-out human rights equality.

There seems to be a bizarre attempt to use the Second Amendment as if it were a religious Commandment that overrides the First Amendment for the sake of a religion.

It is all the more satirical when the irony of the enslaved wanting to be free and equal, under the Constitution, is taken into account.

[Merkin]

FreeThinker's comment deserves to go viral.