How the fuck is Marvel this dumb. How the fuck do they keep shooting themselves in the foot like this...

How the fuck is Marvel this dumb. How the fuck do they keep shooting themselves in the foot like this. What was the need or reason for this shit

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Based Marvel. Time to drive the Cucks away and embrace Patriotism. The Millitary deserves respect boyos.

t.Not American, and I say that unironically.

If they wanted to backpedal on the leftist pandering, this wasnt the way to do it. Moreover, the real problem is the writers and lack of editors, so no matter which way the pendulum swings its going to be shit

Why are they upset about this? it is just a advertisement.

I think marvel should just go with fast food like DC.

Already a thread.

Not the military, you dunce.
Weapon production.
The same guys that sell to the army also sell to anyone else.

>Marvel is teaming up with one of the biggest arms manufacturers

Never thought I'd see a Marvel/Nintendo team-up.

>yes they are OUR guys now! lets forget about all the shit they have done!
you people are so easy to buy
doesnt matter the political side.

... I don't get it.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

>online advertising

no one even cares, it's just an add

Tony Stark should be the sideline photo.

First hooters now this. No idea what's going on.

What happened with Hooters?

Its a bit odd considering Marvel canceled the Punisher panel in light of the Vegas tragedy and yet they will publish a comic created by a weapons manufacturer. I dont care either way, its just rather conflicting and it angers their leftist followers.

In promotion with Sonic Team or SEGA I think.

>teaming up with the exact thing Tony Stark has regretted being part of since the first Iron Man

>DC KFC
>Sonic Hooters
See, THIS is how you do corporate partnerships Marvel.

This is because he's part of the Trump administration isn't it

I'm convinced Marvel is purposefully comitting suicide for some unknown reason

I'm actually probably against this if they make drones and warplanes and shit but I'll let it slide since it's making liberals who want comics to be political cry.

>We are delaying The Punisher in light of the recent shootings
>But hey, we're partnering up with a literal weapons manufacturers the next day! Buy our comics!

They realize comics are dead and they are the king of movies

It's easier to kill 50+ people with guns than with a buttering knife, though.

Ones an immediate response to a tragedy, which is honestly just being oversensitive because it's not like Punisher has jack shit to do with that.
This project probably won't be done for months and it's a fucking company.

Sure but if you choose to kill 50+ people you are to blame, not the person who sold you the weapons.

Depends how much you butter your knife.

Are you upset?

>Filthy Chink
How's being 13 years old?

Blame Ike Pearlmutter

So you hate people on your own side so much you want to turn comics into propaganda against them?

But why are buttering knifes still banned in Bonglandistan?

Aren’t those the kind of people who’d easily appear as villains in the newer marvel stories?

>japanese hooters
>largest size is A-cups

I don’t see the problem. Marvel is liberal. Liberals love war.

Now that's just being pessimistic. If you work hard and don't give up, you can kill a hundred people with a butter knife.

pretty sure Americans just order assault rifles on Amazon.com

Why not? Iron Man was a hit.

>nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people

Are we talking just a butterknife or butterknives? Because I would bet money that one knife would break before the 50 kill mark.

But let's consider that the weapon was modified so that instead of being semi-automatic, it would be actually automatic, so it's more a matter that the guns industry doesn't actually do shit in order to not let people with ACTUAL MENTAL ISSUES get to modify weapons.

So? Gun control only works for mass shootings not 99,9% of the violence, random thugs will steal from you with knives or simply ambush civilians using groups.

Wasn't it just a special stock that lets you fire a semi-auto really fast?

Mental illness is a scapegoat, people with mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violence than aggressors

Well yeah. The nuke didn't make and arm itself

>Marvel
>Makes movie about character that rejects arms dealing
>teams up with arms dealers
It's like they ignored their own rules because it's convinient or something?

So let's let every citizen who can buy a gun have a nuke

The guys record was clean. He had absolutely no history of mental illness.

Yeah but it's embarrassing and attention grabbing.
That's the crux of these, they want to feel safe, not be safe. And banning modifiers used in a big tragedy will make them feel safer even if ultimately they won't greatly impact anything.
Sure why not? They just have to buy the thing.

But doesn't any kind of people with sociopathyic/psychopathic episodes get considered as a mentally ill person at the end of the day?

It technically makes the firing so fast that it ends like an automatic gun, so there's that.

Kill dozens with a butthering knife is still ridiculously easy though.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Kunming_attack

Northrop Grumman basically is the real-world equivalent of Stark Industries.

You can't really defend yourself with a nuke without also threatening both yourself and other innocents simultaneously so it ain't covered by the amendment. Firearms are necessary for civilian ownership in a free and civilised society.

Marvel are the virtue signalling cuck kings, they are never to be embraced again.

...

>Sure why not? They just have to buy the thing.
See, this is why gun nuts are retarded. They literally want anyone who can get one to have a nuke. What do you even say to this sort of stupidity?

That was 4 guys in China. People were probably literally running into their knives. And that's only 30 kills for 4 guys. They got outdone by single guys atleast 3 times.

>You can't really defend yourself with a nuke without also threatening both yourself and other innocents simultaneously so it ain't covered by the amendment
Sure you can. By the exact same token, you can't defend yourself with a gun without threatening both yourself and innocents simultaneously, so they aren't covered by the amendment. Sounds like you're trying to INFRINGE.

More like "be careful what you wished for, you may get it".

They condoned blatant political propaganda in comics, they'll get it, WARTS AND ALL.

>See, this is why gun nuts are retarded. They literally want anyone who can get one to have a nuke. What do you even say to this sort of stupidity?

Are you honestly taking that post seriously? slap yourself you drooling libtard.

So you DON'T think everyone should be able to have a nuke? Why are you infringing on the rights of citizens to bear arms?

A gun is not gonna just start shooting itself on its own but an improperly stored and maintained nuke could kill millions even if no one intentionally uses it, not really comparable. Also, there is no way to fire a nuke at a target and have it kill only hostiles. You can use a gun to fire only at intruders but if a nuke kills hostile forces it will definitely also kill innocent civilians.

Because those nuts probably realize no single nut is going to be able to afford a billion dollar nuke let alone in secrecy.
It's an absolutely retarded scenario.

>Court an audience that is infamously easy to make angry
What could go wrong?

I don't like guns, but you niggers are retarded if those are your arguments.

>be British
>pick up stick
>get arrested for felony possession

The guy was a millionaire, any gun control that they ever wanted to pass in the US wouldn't have stopped him.

What about the literal STOP ALL THE GUNS gun control?

Yeah an accident can happen while shooting just like you can accidently hit and kill an old lady in the middle of a fist fight with some thief

A nuke in the other hand will always cause damage to a city sized area, you can't avoid that.

>So you hate people on your own side so much you want to turn comics into propaganda against them?
I think they need to learn the consequences of over-politicizing comics, namely sometimes the people politicizing the comics will be people you vehemently disagree with and you won't have a leg to stand on if you've been advocating politics in comics all this time only to change your mind when the politics being advocated are not your own.

>A gun is not gonna just start shooting itself on its own but an improperly stored and maintained nuke could kill millions even if no one intentionally uses it, not really comparable.
So guns never misfire? Guns never kill anyone the owner didn't want?

>Also, there is no way to fire a nuke at a target and have it kill only hostiles
Sure there is.

>You can use a gun to fire only at intruders but if a nuke kills hostile forces it will definitely also kill innocent civilians.

And if a gun fires into a crowd, it can also kill innocent civilians.

Gee, user, you sure are making a good argument for gun control. I thought the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

So you are cool with every asshole owning a nuke, got it.

Based Marvel getting kids to join Blackwater to further fuel the military industrial complex (sorry Larry Hama)

That's untrue. Firing a gun accurately is deliberate and exact. I can shoot a man near a crowd without harming anyone else. Nukes are environmentally dangerous and effects a massive area without regard. They are only useful in conflicts between two completely separate. Guns are for personal defense and also defense against oppressive police occupation by your own government. Police states are run by people not vehicles or bombs. That is what the Second Amendment is for. Defense of its people from criminals and from its own government should it become oppressive.

Impossible, 300 millions country sharing a border with mexico.

now we're talking

So you're saying that it is okay to restrict arms ownership based on the firepower of the weapon? Too bad it doesn't say that anywhere in the second amendment.

Could've been worse. Could've been Monsanto :^)

You know that doesn't stop rich people

There is no way to use a nuclear bomb without severely damaging the environment. If you use one you will harm innocent people no matter what. You are wrong.

So you're saying that it is absolutely okay to restrict the second amendment based on firepower and potential damage to civilian lives. Got it.

>>So you are cool with every asshole owning a nuke, got it.

why not? the government has them and they're the biggest asshole.

Not legally.

...

See:

Is that even considered arms?

does this mean that comic captain America will be allowed to carry a firearm again?

Criminals don't care about that shit

Guys, they brought nukes into the equation. Don't entertain that idiocy

>Complain about Marvel being nothing but lowbrow SJW pandering with shitty books, horrible writing and morals that seemingly conflict themselves
>Now instead team up with the military complex which is probably one of the most corrupt industries in the world that profit from human tragedy and political standstills
They're not even extreme leftists. Marvel is just plain run by bad people. Like I had my guesses since they nearly crashed the entire industry in the 90's from the speculation boom but I always assumed it was just sheer stupidity then anything.

But is what he said wrong at all?
The answer is no.

If you think that anyone should be allowed to own a nuke, you're retarded.

No. Second amendment refers to firearms, not massive environment destroying explosives. The founding fathers foresaw development of fully automatic weapons but not of the nuclear warhead. Civilian should be able to own any kind of personal firearm they want without restriction. The founding fathers literally thought that it was okay to own cannons so anything up to a Canon is protected by the second amendment by virtue of intent.

If you think anyone would be able to afford a nuke you're retarded.

I bet you think there is a big red button in the White House.

>pic of Captain America
>not Iron Man
This is hilarious.

Firearms can be used without harming innocent people. If there was a firearm that it was literally impossible to fire without hurting innocent civilians then yes, I'd say the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover that.

Why is this bad?

Not according to the Second Amendment. This guy seems to be misinterpreting the definition of the word arms in regards to the way that the constitution is written.

It was always interesting to me that people brought there own canons to battle in the War for Independence.

>No. Second amendment refers to firearms
Where does it say that in the text of the second amendment?

>The founding fathers foresaw development of fully automatic weapons but not of the nuclear warhead

What, like your precious pucklegun that fires 9 rounds a minute, 67 times less frequently than the Vegas shooter's gun? You can't say that they foresaw that. That's dishonest.

>misinterpreting the definition of the word
Is't that what they always do?