Gun cartoon of the day




The artist apparently doesn’t realize this has never been an issue at the level of the Supreme Court. Even the Cruikshank decision in 1875 and the Miller decision in 1939 supported the individual rights interpretation. And if they would have read the Heller decision they would have realized this was settled law two years ago rather than something new with the McDonald decision last week.


But, by definition, bigots have little need of facts to maintain their belief system.


[H/T to Reese who sent me an email with the link to this cartoon.]


4 thoughts on “Gun cartoon of the day

  1. The “well regulated Militia’ is the people. The founders had just fought a war of independence from the worlds super power and they knew that it would be all to easy to fall back into that tyranny. The only federal power with out a check or balance is the Presidents command of the military. The armed populace is all that separates us from Venezuela or Zimbabwe in terms of transfer of power. No president can declare himself dictator for life, using the military to enforce his will, the militia will be stronger than the military and will restore constitutional rule of law.
    Also note the use of regulated, just like in the commerce clause, it is used in the sense of a watch mechanism. When it is well regulated it works well, all pieces in harmony, none in duress. So contrary to the current trend to eliminate guns, especially of a military look, the constitution actually calls for the populace to be armed in a manner suitable to maintain a free state.

  2. Not to mention the cartoonist is at best semi-literate, not recognizing the difference between a dependent and an independent clause, and the relative importance they bear in defining the meaning of the whole sentence.

    But, then again, these are the same people who believe that interlingual homonyms must of necessity also be synonyms. They sound the same, right?


  3. Yeah, he apparently doesn’t realize that he’s placing emphasis on a clause that suggests the entire populace should engage in paramilitary training with weapons, and that this is so important that the continuing freedom of the country is dependent upon it.

    He’s likely been listening to dingbat disarmament theorists who told him that there’s a comma or something in there and, like, this completely invalidates the meaning of every word in the amendment, (and probably some adjacent amendments, certain private contracts, wedding vows and schoolyard double-dog-dares within a five-thousand mile radius.) Or the super-comma reveals a secret coded message only to government employees, that the federal government can neck-stomp and machinegun people who have funny looking muzzle brakes and stocks on their rifles….or something, I can’t keep up with disarmer logic.

    Anyway, I love it when disarmers make this argument. Great! Where do I pick up my M16, and where do I show up for training?

  4. Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country…? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. — George Mason

    In other words, only bureaucrats should be denied guns. We, the people, are “the only ones.”

Comments are closed.