Gun cartoon of the day



Even if you ignore the U.S. Revolutionary War (it was prior to the 2nd Amendment but it was enabled by the inalienable right to keep and bear arms) the scorecard is far from complete. It doesn’t show the (probably¬†incalculable) number of tyrants prevented in places all over the world. It doesn’t show the number people murdered by tyrants who successfully infringed the right to keep and bear arms. And it doesn’t show the number of innocent lives saved by people who exercised their specific enumerated right to to keep and bear arms on a much smaller personal scale.


But it’s anti-gun artist. Of course they are going to leave information out and distort things. It’s what bigots do.

7 thoughts on “Gun cartoon of the day

  1. How does the Second Amendment apply to countries outside of the United States? The cartoon clearly says at the top “Second Amendment Scoreboard.”

  2. I subtly, perhaps too subtly, shifted from Second Amendment to the inalienable human right to keep and bear arms acknowledged and guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Sorry about that.

    One of my points was that the artist narrowed the scope of the right to keep and bear arms to just the U.S. and deposing tyrants. Sorry if I didn’t make that as clear as I should have.

  3. Yeah, lots and lots of tyrants. Sure, Joe. And it’s all because the anti-gun people are “bigots.” You poor poor misunderstood gun owners. You truly are in worse shape than the Mississippi blacks of the early 20th century. No wonder you need guns.

  4. So tell me, Sparky, why is it acceptable to discriminate against one naturally-granted, Constitutionally-protected right, but not another? Where is the dividing line? Why is it there? What reason is there for it?

    If you are going to make semantically-null, sarcastic comments that add nothing to the discussion, we might as well expose them for all they are worth :).

  5. Mikeb302000,

    What do you think the response would be if Jews, Blacks, and homosexuals were required to be registered and licensed with the government? What if the law required state approved training before you could own books? What if you could only purchase one book a month? What if many books were banned and there was constant talk of adding more books to the list? What if there were laws against books being too short, too thick, and too cheap? What if there were a confusing and irrational patchwork of laws depending on which state, county, city, and even which side of the street you carried your book?

    I could go on and on but we both realize you are not here for the hunting.

  6. I find this cartoon funny, but in the “I totally disagree with this cartoon completely”. Just what is a tyrant? Isn’t a tyrant someone who tramples on our rights to life, liberty, and property?

    We make the mistake of assuming that, in order to be a tyrant, you have to be in government. Isn’t every mugging the unjust taxation–and potential execution–of the victim? Isn’t every kidnapping and rape an act of unjust imprisonment? Isn’t every murder an unjust execution? Thus, isn’t it the case that every time we shoot a potential mugger, rapist, kidnapper, or murderer, we kill a tyrant? Thus, there should be a lot more tick-marks on the “Tyrant” side than on the “Victim” side…and there’s a strong chance that many of the tick-marks on the “Victim” side belong on the “Tyrant” side.

    The only difference between a criminal tyrant and a civil one is that the civil one has state resources to amplify his actions.

    Oh, and to add that the Second Amendment has done nothing to help defend against tyrants: What about World War II, when the unorganized militia was called to patrol strategic places in Hawaii, and on the West Coast? What about the Civil Rights movement, when blacks who carried guns were able to defend themselves from the Ku Klux Klan? What about a certain incident I read about recently (I can’t remember the name of the town), where the Armed Militia, after WWII, was able to preserve the integrity of the voting, and remove the corrupt government–complete with a couple of shootouts–via the help of ex-GIs and some weapons borrowed from the state’s National Guard?

    I also recall reading a study where the Militia Movement helped encourage the government to tone down their approach to “crazies” after the Waco Massacre: Bill Clinton and his administration was well aware that if they attempted another Waco, the militias would be ready to respond. While there were a couple of standoffs after Waco, they didn’t turn out as bad…

Comments are closed.