Gun cartoon of the day


This is what they think of the NRA. They think guns are more important to us than the lives of children. If this was true then why, after the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre was it that the NRA advocated for armed guards at schools? And why did President Obama advocate for restrictions on gun owners that would not have affected any of the school shooters?

The more accurate cartoon would have been one where President Obama is depicted as hating guns more than wanting to protect children. Every school shooting is another opportunity for him and his ilk to attack the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms rather than mitigate or solve the problem.


21 thoughts on “Gun cartoon of the day

  1. Also to note that President Obama opposed armed guards at school, yet sent his children to a school with armed guards (aside from the secret service detail).

    Interesting how that works.

    • Comrade, you should know better that laws are for little people, and that those among us who are “more equal” are not constrained by these nuisances.

  2. Didn’t Columbine have an armed guard? Wasn’t an armed guard one of the first people shot at the Navy Ship Yard?

    • Are you seriously arguing that Naval Facilities shouldn’t have armed security?

      Well at least you’re not using the Navy Yard shooting to try to push for a background check law or a magazine ban.

      Also by your logic every time a cop is killed that just shows that police shouldn’t be armed.

      • No, I’m saying “what good are armed guards”? Are they really any better than what Obama proposed?

        • Given that Obama proposed a private sale ban in reaction to a shooting where there was no private transfer of guns…

          Obama also proposed banning guns based on cosmetic features… also due to the actions of a state that had a standing assault weapons ban.

          Are you honestly this obtuse or just ignorant of what you’re advocating?

        • So, Obama should dismiss the entire Presdiential Protective detail because:

          A. “Armed guards are useless” – according to you and him.

          B. As proof of (A), several US presidents have been shot despite Secret Service protection.

    • Indeed, Ubu there was!

      That’s why I support both uniformed and armed security if the location so desires, but also I’m against magic signs that say “No Guns Allowed”.

      It makes some sense in places like court houses and airports where there are bottle-neck secure areas with metal detectors and guards, still even those places the assault can happen AT the checkpoint like at LAX.

      Strangely you don’t see those kinds of shootings OUTSIDE of “Gun Free Zones”, and that’s an issue anti-rights people don’t want to discuss.

      • Secure perimeters may actually be warranted for a few restricted scenarios (e.g. courtrooms) but they inherently create a bottleneck outside the perimeter that can form a very high-value target (as the LAX shooter demonstrated.)

    • And we all know how those events turned out.

      Yes, according to the official statement he was at lunch off premises, he engaged one of the shooters at 60 yards with his pistol, the murderers retreated into the school and began the slaughter and the guard waited for the SWAT team to arrive, according to doctrine.

      This is like arguing against Radar in WW2 by saying that there was Radar operating on Oahu on December 7, 1941, and we know how THAT day turned out, so why spend money on Radar when we need more ships.

    • “Didn’t Columbine have an armed guard? ”

      Already answered.

      ” Wasn’t an armed guard one of the first people shot at the Navy Ship Yard?”

      Don’t know offhand, but it’s immaterial. What you are arguing is very much like Windy describes. “X didn’t work in this situation, so isn’t it ineffective in every situation (carefully not noting the innumerable times it DID work)?”

      You lose.

    • The SOLE armed guard in Building 197 was killed AFTER the gunman had already penetrated the outer perimeter, and knew that only the one, fixed in location (I work for NAVSEA, know Bldg 197 at WNY well) guard he had to eliminate, and then there would be NO ONE able to respond with a gun for a few minutes.

  3. This cartoon suggests that the NRA (or rather its members), because of their desire to protect the right to self defense with firearms, relishes the idea of the slaughter of innocents.
    By that logic, then, every one in America who has a bottle of wine or beer or distilled spirits in his or her home not only enables but relishes the idea of people consuming alcohol and driving while intoxicated, causing accidents in which innocents are killed.

    • Reality is it’s the gun grabbing tyrants who get excited and happy over murdered children.

  4. Note the use of “our” kids. Your kids are “our” kids to the Progressives, and why should you have exclusive rights to bring them up when they’re “our” kids? Answer; you don’t.

  5. “President Obama…hating guns more than wanting to protect children. Every school shooting is another opportunity for him and his ilk to attack the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms rather than mitigate or solve the problem.”

    This drives to the heart of the matter. What we have here is an analog of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

    It’s the use of children as human shields, essentially, in an attempt to paint certain people or principles as hateful. People are expected to believe that THAT is “compassion”.

    As I heard recently; Progressives have no interest in SOLVING problems. They’re interested in USING problems to their advantage.

    Launching missiles from a school or a hospital, housing kids in an armory, etc., are dumb slobs’ methods at best. Using “gun free zones” to attract insane killers by offering them “fish in a barrel” is more clever and devious, but the motivation is the same.

Comments are closed.