When I started reading this I was working myself up for a rebuttal but by the time I finished I decided it wasn’t worth it.
Mr. Biden, two sides can play that game.
We are all very aware of your position on how to deal with the criminal use of guns. Does that mean politicians friendly to us should be able to pass or repeal laws or regulations without input from you and your ilk?
And if the cartoon was drawn from our perspective we would have you dancing with glee on the bodies and blood of children because of the increased opportunity to infringe upon our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. And that would be more accurate than how the NRA is portrayed in this cartoon.
This is so absurd that it doesn’t even qualify as a straw man.
But this is what they think of you and want others to think of you. I can only think of one reason for this. It’s propaganda to justify treating us as less than human.
It’s what to expect from statists:
This is what they think of the NRA and gun owners who stand up for their rights.
Perhaps they think it is about money.
Or they cannot comprehend that we have principles regarding the Bill of Rights.
Or they cannot comprehend that guns are also used to protect innocent life.
Or maybe they know better and just want us to not be able to protect ourselves.
In any case they must not succeed.
When has the NRA or even an NRA member caused harm to anyone in our schools? Sure there probably has been someone, somewhere, who abused his or her spouse or kids, but the correlation of the NRA with violence of any type anywhere is almost for certain to be near zero or even negative. Get me a citation and then we can talk about it. But violence in the schools? Only in their dreams. Such a correlation would be their favorite wet-dream come true.
What if they had drawn the 2nd Amendment or the Bill of Rights at the door trying to get in? That would have been more accurate portrayal of their true concerns but their ill intent would have been more obvious.
These people are the enemies of freedom and want to knock down all barriers to unlimited government power. Private ownership of firearms is one of those barriers.
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.
This is what they think of you.
They think gun ownership is a relic from the past. What they don’t realize or want to admit is that restrictions on weapons is from the dark ages and the time of kings and tyrants. Free people own weapons to protect themselves and other innocent life. Serfs, peasants, and slaves may not. They want to return to the time of serfs, peasants, and slaves. They are the ones stuck in the distant past.
This is what they think of you:
- They have some sort of empty headed mutant view of NRA members.
- They believe gun manufactures influence gun owners more than the other way around.
- They believe increased gun ownership increases “the carnage”.
All those beliefs are easily disproven. They have a prejudiced view and they are sticking with it. This makes them bigots.
First, there are a lot of people that want to take our guns. Haven’t they ever heard the phrase “assault weapon ban”? Or how about New York’s SAFE act?
Second, invoking Markley’s Law is an automatic fail in the “discussion”.
This is in the 2014 Jan/Feb issue of Playboy magazine (page 238):
As Barb said when I showed it to her, “I can barely get the joke.”
Could it be they actually think in those terms and it make sense to them?
Via email from Jay F. who says, “Perhaps the antis really are addicted to this sort of thing.”
It’s a Markley’s Law Monday gun cartoon!
The real message of course is the same as if blacks, gays, women, or some other minority showed up to a “presidential event”. Gun owners are a minority and need to get out of the political closet and show their numbers. That this cartoonist thought it was appropriate to say something like this just shows what a prejudiced bigot he is.
@davidhorsey at @latimes made the cartoon at the top. It is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. The poster at the bottom is actual political material from sometime during reconstruction after the Civil War.
Here is another poster created by a northern Democrat:
Now that racial bigotry is no longer fashionable Democrats have turned to prejudice and bigotry against gun owners. I don’t think it was a coincidence that as the civil rights movement of the 1960’s gained traction the anti-gun movement gained traction as well. The Gun Control Act of 1968 passed as a means of restricting access to guns by blacks.
Anti-gun people are the KKK of the 21st Century. There were members of the KKK that were tried and sent to jail decades after their crimes. The intervening years enabled prosecutors to find juries who would convict them. The criminals couldn’t imagine the political winds changing so much that they could be charged with a crime for beating or lynching a black man.
Today the anti-gun people who want us dead and actively pursue legislation to violate our rights cannot imagine they will ever be held responsible for their actions. But it is plausible we can do the same with the crimes these people are committing today. However unlikely it seems today it is still possible. And if we don’t work toward that goal then it won’t ever happen. If we work toward that goal we might achieve it. Opportunities will arise and we will take advantage of them to make progress on that path. The Internet is forever and the evidence will be there when the prosecutors decide to start enforcing the law.
I have no idea what the cartoonist was thinking. This makes absolutely no sense what so ever to me.
The right to keep and bear arms is an explicitly enumerated right in the Bill of Rights on equal ground with the rights listed on the sign. “Union rights” are not explicit in the Constitution or BOR but some aspect of a union have implicit protection such as freedom of association. But how do gun rights threaten any aspect of the other rights or of someone wishing to be a member of a union?
My best guess is the cartoonist has crap for brains. Does anyone have a better idea?
As Weerd points out this is a straw man argument.
I also wonder if there is some “Freudian slip” in regards to almost all the triggers looking more like fishhooks than a real trigger. The overweight gun owners is an almost universal stereotype (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and of course the original classic first gun cartoon I clipped from a newspaper, and wrote the editor about, from the mid-1990’s).
It’s true that guns are successful conflict resolution tools. But the nature of the conflict for which they are appropriate and advertised for would be more along the lines of, “Home Invasion Deterrent”, “Personal Protection on the Street”, “Grizzly Bear Repellent”, and “Rodent Population Control”. Nothing on the entire set of NRA web sites or in any of their literature would even hint at any of the things this cartoons explicitly claims.
Our enemies cannot succeed on the basis of facts and things we claim. As one anti-gunner finally admitted, “You … are too strong for me. By that I mean a great compliment. Your knowledge of the subject is too great for me to compete with.” They must, by necessity, live in an alternate reality where they think we say things that we do not and then gleefully shoot down their imaginary foes.