|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Elmer Fudd will not use a gun in new 'Looney Tunes' cartoons
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Elmer Fudd has made a big change for the newest series of "Looney Tunes" cartoons. In the latest update of the series -- called "Looney Tunes Cartoons" and streaming on HBO Max -- the iconic character will no longer use a gun, according to the people behind the show. “We’re not doing guns,” executive producer Peter Browngardt told The New York Times. “But, we can do cartoony violence — TNT, the Acme stuff. All that was kind of grandfathered in.” |
| Comment by:
stevelync
(6/8/2020)
|
| Another American icon gone to hell because of political correctness |
| Comment by:
jac
(6/8/2020)
|
| Just more liberal indoctrination of our children. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/8/2020)
|
Ditto to the above two posts.
On a slight veer: it sounds like they'd be better of with Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. Lots of Acme contraptions but no guns, 'cuz, ya know, coyotes don't use guns.
Just Rube Goldberg contrsptions. ;) |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/8/2020)
|
| Of course. 'Had to happen. Who else but the original Fudd would give up his guns without so much as a murmur? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
