Bogus premise. False conclusion. 100% prejudice and paranoia against the inalienable right to self-defense.
This certainly isn’t the way the cartoonist intended it but when I saw this I thought, “I’m all for saner gun laws. Guns are how mothers protect their children.”
If the cartoonist had realized people would so drastically misinterpret it would they have expressed it like this? I assume they would not. If this assumption is true then doesn’t that say something about the mind of the cartoonist?
They must have difficulty in comprehending the mindset of others, right? Is that the type of person who should be driving our public policies? I say no. If they can’t comprehend there even exists another viewpoint how can they possibly weigh the pros and cons of an issue? They can only be advocates for their narrow-minded views.
Because it is applicable to current events I’m posting a gun cartoon that is actually more pro-gun rather than the anti-gun type I usually do.
Our opponents think they are clever but they are simply wearisome. Ammo bans don’t pass constitutional muster any more than gun bans do. It just costs us time and money to slap them down. Again.
We really need to prosecute these people and put an end to this type of nonsense.
This is deliberate deception on the part of the cartoonist. Over half of the deaths by bullets are self inflicted and there is no gun specific preventative that could successfully reduce the number of suicides. Beyond that death by bullet is not an “epidemic”. Both the absolute numbers and especially the raw numbers have been dropping during the last couple of decades despite there being more guns and bullets in circulation, more people having easier access to them, and more people being able to carry guns in public.
The cartoonist furthers their deception by ignoring the potential risk of Ebola. Some strains of Ebola have a 90% death rate. Even if it were as low as 25%, as one might speculate it would be with first class medical care, with infection rates as low at 5% of the population this could result in four million deaths in a year in the U.S. You would be hard pressed to imagine scenarios involving bullets that cause that many deaths unless the government were to try confiscation of guns (H/T to Don K. for the link). Which one might imagine the cartoonist is suggesting. Hence we can tentatively conclude the cartoonist is advocating for policies which will increase not only the death rate from Ebola due to resources being moved from mitigation of the Ebola threat but increasing the probability there will be an increase in the the death rate from bullets. That demonstrates crap for brains. But as we can see it is common in their profession.
This cartoonist has some serious flaws. Either their ignorance or their willingness to lie is without practical limits. Furthermore the cartoon ignores the real purpose of this type of rifle and the Second Amendment. It’s not about hunting. George Washington didn’t cross the Delaware River to get to his duck blind.
No. Take it from the women of America. Should a woman, wearing poor shoes for running, or with a young child, be required to attempt escape from one or more attackers rather than standing her ground and defending herself and other innocent life with the best available tools?
Notice the overweight, small headed, “angry white male”, gun owner? The cartoonist is demonstrating their prejudice and bigotry as well as their ignorance of who actually benefits from such laws.
Someone should point out to the cartoonist that guns are an evolved issue and that it is easy to demonstrate the gun is civilization. Furthermore at the time of the wooly mammoth weapons of the day were spears, bow and arrows, and clubs. It would appear the cartoonist would prefer we revert to such primitive times. I find this very confusing. But then, I frequently find people with crazy ideas confusing.
Aside from the false stereotype of the overweight, goofy looking, flannel shirt wearing, gun owner there is a fair amount of truth in this.
Well-regulated as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller decision is close to what the cartoonist says (Heller pages 23 and 24) :
… the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Of course the cartoonist intended to portray the NRA as ignorant and ridiculous but instead demonstrated their own ignorance and prejudice. You should not be surprised. It is “par for the course”.
Ry sent me an email with a link to this collection of gun cartoons. A few are duplicates of my collection but there a bunch of new ones as well. I’m going to be posting the ones I’m fairly certain are new to this blog starting with:
Not-so-smart? So perhaps our brainiac cartoonist could answer the following questions:
- What happens when the batteries go dead when the gun owner is in a life or death situation needing the gun to save their life?
- What happens when the gun is in the opposite hand from the watch, wrist-band, or hand with the RFID embedded chip which is occupied holding their child’s hand or a phone with which they are trying to call the police while in a life or death situation?
- What happens when the bad guy has a transmitter broadcasting on the same frequency as the RFID chip and the gun owner is in a life or death situation?
- Why do no law enforcement organization or military use this technology on their guns?
The answers are:
- The gun owner and perhaps other innocent life die because of a dead battery.
- The gun owner and perhaps other innocent life die because the RFID chip is out of range.
- The gun owner and perhaps other innocent life die because the RFID chip is blocked from authorizing the gun to shoot.
- Because they are smart enough to know the technology will put them and other innocent life at risk.
And furthermore the NRA and most gun owners don’t have a problem with the existence of “smart guns”. They have a problem with and correctly do object to the mandating of “smart-guns” on Second Amendment grounds.
“Smart guns” aren’t smart except in some very limited circumstances. This cartoonist isn’t very smart and should seek help for their prejudice.
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.