So… do you think the artist thinks that when they go for a walk in Seattle, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Dallas, Tampa, Phoenix, or any of the state parks in (probably) 40 different states? Of course not.
Then why the big deal about National Parks? It’s those damn uppity gun owners–they let them go anywhere rather than staying in their place where they belong.
Joe, I just realized what you do. You turn everything into an example of the persecution of gun owners.
“It’s those damn uppity gun owners–they let them go anywhere rather than staying in their place where they belong.”
You’ve got a good point that if guns are allowed in State parks, why are people making a big deal about the National Park rule. But when you turn it into additional evidence to support your persecution complex, you’ve lost it. When you put those words quoted above into the mouths of gun control people, you’ve lost it. That’s not at all why people support gun control. It has nothing to do with “keeping you down” or keeping you “where you belong.” It’s about minimizing gun violence, which I admit is a debatable idea, but it has nothing to do with bigotry against gun owners and no similarity to the KKK and all the other nonsense you keep preaching.
Thanks Sparky!
http://www.weerdworld.com/2010/quote-of-the-day-7/
FYI, this cartoon also flies in the face of many Anti’s calls for limitation of CCW. People like Ubu keep saying CCW shouldn’t be allowed in urban areas because of population density and danger of stray shots….but also CCW shouldn’t be allowed in wild areas, because they don’t have the crime of urban areas and gunnies are just being “paranoid”.
Again ban lead because its bad for the environment, and ban non-lead ammo because its “Armor Piercing”
And like all statements from the anti-freedom side they can quickly be contradicted by facts.
The same reasoning of running over someone’s right to privacy was used by the Texan village idiot in his Patriot Act..
Assuming the above quote is true (which is a hell of an assumption to make concerning an inveterate liar), then, please, explain the above cartoon. How will banning lawfully carried firearm in a national park minimize gun violence? What evidence is there to support that position? For that matter, why is “gun violence” so very important to you, while you continue to blithely gloss over “violence” as a whole? (Actually, that last question is purely rhetorical – you and I both know the answer, and I tire of reading your lies.)
The simple truth is that the vast majority of states in this great Union have seen fit to restore Americans’ rights within municipal, county, and state parks… and you know what happened? Well, there were not any mass shoot-outs (which are already illegal), there was not any kind of reportable uptick in poaching (which is already illegal), there were no park rangers ventillated over people making too much noise in the campgrounds (which is already illegal – the ventillation part), there were no swaths of the forest mowed down as idiots used it as their own personal firing range (which is already illegal), there was a fat lot of nothing. Well, nothing, aside from the states in question deciding to dig their collective heads out of their collective arses and retract their restrictions on rights that they never should have implemented to begin with (which, in the end, is the real reason you disagree with the idea, I would wager).
So, I will ask again: what evidence does the cartoonist (and you, for that matter) have that allowing firearms into national parks would increase “gun violence”? I will save you the trouble: none. So what reason does the cartoonist have for penning the above doodle? I will again save you the trouble: it was his way of expressing his intolerance of anyone who would hold a differing opinion from his own.
In short, he let his bigotry flag fly. It somehow does not surprise me that you would defend such an activity.
So I will make you a deal, Sparky. I, at least, will stop acting in the manner that you have arbitrarily and condescendingly labeled as “our persecution complex” just as soon as you stop looking for any and all possible excuses to abridge, infringe upon, limit, regulate, restrict, minimize, and generally destroy our Constitutionally-protected, naturally-granted rights.
Deal? Otherwise, the famous quote about paranoia definitely applies.
How is is possible to have an argument about this without knowing what is meant by the term “gun violence”?
“…is IT…”
I note that the cartoonist considers a pocketknife a valid and useful tool for a foray into the wilderness… Why not consider a firearm a useful tool as well?
Apparently, you are not familiar with FDV (Federal Dementia Virus). See, here in Ohio, many people are carriers of the virus and don’t know it either.
They have lawfully carried their concealed handguns in state parks for years, but as soon as they venture into a national park, the virus goes active and they go crazy, shooting every hiker, biker and bambi in sight.
Other federal areas can cause the virus to go active, like government buildings, post offices, etc. So in case you have FDV, be careful venturing onto or into federal property.
Dann in Ohio
You’re right, Mike, none of these cartoons is even remotely bigoted against gun owners:
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/07/31/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/07/31/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/07/21/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/07/17/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/07/15/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/07/07/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/30/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/27/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/24/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/21/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/18/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/06/10/gun-cartoon-of-the-day/
Most of the gun control weirdos I’ve met fall into two classes:
1. Wimps who feel offended by the fact that other people are taking the initiative to protect themselves and their families; and
2. Actual criminals who really don’t want unarmed victims.
More and more, I’m starting to suspect # 2. Not only have you admitted to illegally owning guns, but you give off the vibe of a lowlife. You seem like one of those guys who always hangs around druggies and who, while not quite ready to make the move to become a professional robber, is quite willing to indulge in petty burglary and con jobs.
Tell me, do you charge people to watch your girlfriend taking a shower?
And none of the dick jokes (sorry! I meant “insightful analyses of ‘compensation disorder’ by skilled amateur psychologists”), redneck jokes, or assumptions that lawfully armed citizens are simply wannabee vigilantes simply itching for an excuse to blow someone away show prejudice or stem from bigotry.
…oh, and there couldn’t possibly be any reason to have a firearm for self defense in a National Park…
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hB0B5qIFEqMDeeaj_JGZgZMr6klQD9HFHJDG0
Thanks for the laugh, Ken.
Well, in all fairness, Mikey, we’ve been laughing at you for quite a while, so it’s only fair that we return the favor.