It's a mix of due to their stylistic choices being annoying and for a video you're attention is more captured. Where for an article (especially their short articles) you can read it and be done with it.
Now when their vids do address gun control, that'll get my interest enough to mock them.
Like when they had a vid about how "nobody wants to take your guns" put up right after a vid about how great Australia's gun control was.
Or when they tried to mock gun owners not trusting the state... right when they had an article admitting that militia folk are right not ot trust the goverment.
Yeah, so when I see a new vid with this byline:
You know what. Maybe Trump is after banning all the abortions (or restricting it to just the rich and connected via an expensive onerous permitting regime. Maybe his court pics will overturn Roe V Wade. (I have my doubts, and even if they did it wouldn't yet be a ban on abortion, but it would open up a massive can of worms on the state and federal level).
And the whole gun issue seems to be secondary. As none of the comment-folk (youtube or Cracked) are (at this writing) mentioning guns. At all. Which is funny because normally when Cracked goes anti-gun it stirs up a predictable response (kinda like this.)
But you know what's really, really funny? Cracked repeatedly does the "We don't want to take your guns, you're just being paranoid." I mean yesterday they had an article saying that.
But today? That little byline admits that they see the issue as binary choice between gun rights and reproductive rights.
I mean if one looks at the context of SCOTUS and fears that it's guns versus abortions...
then doesn't that mean that Second Amendment people's concerns of overturning a landmark pro-rights case and ushering in prohibitionist laws are just as legitimate of Reproduction rights people's concerns of overturning a landmark pro-rights case and ushering in prohibitionist laws?