I’ve been collecting gun cartoons and it’s time to start sharing. Most come from the dark ages of the mid and late 1990s.
Perhaps this will help bring people up to speed on why I think anti-gun people are bigots. Would this cartoon get published in your paper if the target were black, Jewish, or homosexual?
???? I’m not really sure what you mean….
That woman could be the “Open Carry Mom” who was killed in Pennsylvania in the last year. Did the NRA ever say she wasn’t their kind of Mom?
If you tried to create the same cartoon with blacks, Jews or gays; what would it look like? What would it say? Would you show a man holding a baby and a pro-gay organization saying “That’s our kind of mom”? Would that really be funny — considering a lot of straight men hold babies? Would you have to dress him up as a gay man in drag? But then, wouldn’t that look like a woman holding a baby?
I dunno. I’m having a hard time understanding this post of yours.
I guess you are unaware of the idiotic culture war being waged against gun owners portraying us as a bunch of uneducated, unhealthy white rednecks who probably go around fondling their guns every minute or so.
Don’t worry, when this gun owning Vietnamese-American graduates medical school along with a wide diversity of gun owners from all backgrounds in his medical school class, the Hippocratic Oath is just as important to me as the 2nd Amendment.
Even if people like you are so ignorant as to try and take my rights away, I’ll gladly advise you on leading a healthy lifestyle, regardless of whether you own or don’t own guns, and I will not advise you on that matter either.
“I dunno. I’m having a hard time understanding this post of yours.”
I’m sure the people raised in Klan House holds can’t see the offense in this cartoon either
http://theodessafiles.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/nig_image16.jpg (Pardon the offensive link, Joe, but I think it shows the point quite well)
Here’s the lefties’ idea of a mom: (via Moonbattery)
<http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1064917/transsexual-put-kids-in-cages-fed-them-dog-food>
ubu52,
I was specifically thinking of you when I posted that. I did not, even for a moment, imagine you would not get it. I find that you did not get it very, very telling. I’m extremely disappointed because I completely misjudged you.
Black: Mother is surrounded by a large number of kids, crack pipe and syringes laying around. Father has gang clothes on, is has a gun tucked inside his waistband, and is being arrested. He says, “Only one of the kids is mine.”
Jews: Mother is serving an eviction notice and offers to take one of the children for blood libel instead of evicting the family. The father is counting his gold coins.
Gays: Kids cowering in the corner as a group of naked men leering and reaching for them as the “mom” is performing oral sex on one man and simultaneously receiving anal sex from another on the bed nearby. The father is watching and masturbating.
Now do you get it?
ubu is just being coy.
I don’t find the original cartoon particularly funny. Joe’s three different versions aren’t funny either though they do explain how he would change the original.
I didn’t find the original cartoon funny at all. I don’t think it was supposed to be funny. I think it was intended to reinforce condescending and negative attitudes toward gun owners in general and NRA members in particular.
Cartoons are supposed to be funny or, at least, thought-provoking. That one fails.
“Cartoons are supposed to be funny or, at least, thought-provoking. ”
Sometimes they’re just garden variety propaganda.
I’m with Lyle, there is no way Ubu is being genuine.
You’d consider it funny if you were a raging, anti gun bigot. Bigots, like the creator of the depicted cartoon, love crude, negative stereotypes. I’m sure he or she thought it was a big yuk– a real knee-slapper.
It’s very simple. If you hate the idea of unalienable rights, and of the country that first enumerated them in its founding documents, those who uphold those rights are your enemies. You will choose to view them as stupid and evil. If your opponents are stupid and evil, you have an easier time convincing yourself that you are smart and good. You yearn for that to be true, so when you see your opponents depicted as stupid and evil, it’s a big release of satisfaction for you. It’s a hoot.
What we all need to remember is that this is a battle of principles and not of people. Principles are like vapor– they flow from one person or culture or generation to another. Nancy Pelosi may be ugly and dumb as a rock, but that’s got nothing to do with the argument. We may like some of the things Ronald Reagan said, but we don’t worship the man. It’s not about the man. Some who uphold basic human rights may be ugly or dumb too, but it’s not about them either.
Ideally, everyone would uphold the principles of liberty. Whether they be smart, average, dumb, good looking or ugly, strong or weak, black, white or brown, et al, male or female, rich or poor, white collar or blue collar, east coast or west coast, north or south, it’s still about the principles. If certain people (or more succinctly, certain people’s efforts) have to be utterly defeated in the struggle to uphold liberty, there is no pleasure to be had from the fact that someone is experiencing defeat. Not if we’re properly focused on the principles. The pleasure to be had is in knowing that the principles are being upheld.
We’re not saints. Far from it, but in any major struggle, all sides risk being co-opted by the sadists, who simply take pleasure in other people’s suffering. In this particular struggle, that is the thing we’re fighting.