Gun cartoon of the day

H/T to Weer’d Beard for the email pointing me to the image here.


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”.

Third, advocating for background checks to exercise a specific enumerated right is crazy talk.

Markley’s Law in Playboy

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.”

Gun cartoon of the day


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.

Via an email from Weer’d Beard who sometimes follows Baldr Odinson.

Bigotry is alive and well


Via Linoge.

@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:


For more background on the Democrat’s political platforms from that era read this and this.

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.

Gun cartoon of the day


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?

Gun cartoon of the day

Via Weerd.


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.

Gun cartoon of the day

I have QOTD posts for Markley’s Law scheduled into 2014 so I’m not hurting for Markley’s Law Monday material. I received a pointer to this cartoon via “someone adverse to email” and decided to post it in a more timely manner.

Found here:


Heavy sigh. With a clean canvas and with virtually only space restrictions on what they can say the best they can come up to attack gun owners is to invoke Markley’s Law? That’s pathetic.

Gun cartoon of the day


There are so many things wrong with this that I wouldn’t even try to enumerate all of them but here are the first two that come to mind:

  1. “Assault weapons” use a medium power round that would be either illegal (in many states) or unethical to use for harvesting an animal as large as a bull elk. The use of such a rifle would most likely result in the animal being wounded and getting away. It would not reduce it to a bag of bloody, shredded, meat.
  2. An image that properly illustrates “The civilian need for military-style assault weapons” is one like this:

Update: A better image from S Andrew Nicol:


Gun cartoon of the day

From here:


I don’t think I have ever heard it was “one tiny step”. But certainly a good case can be made that gun control was required for every genocide.

But the cartoonist isn’t really concerned with the facts. He just wants to dehumanize gun owners. Which, by the way, was also a requirement for nearly every genocide.

Gun cartoon of the day

Found here.


I’m not even sure what the cartoonist is trying to say. Is it that NRA members are empty headed?

Has this guy ever looked at the demographics of gun owners versus the general public? 37% of gun owners are college graduates and 30% have done post graduate work. And this includes people so young they would not have had time to complete college.

In the general population of 25 and older (note the biased sample compared to gun owners!) 40.58% have college degrees and just over 12% have Masters, Doctorate, or professional degrees. There does not appear to be justification for claiming gun owners are uneducated or empty headed.

Hence, I must conclude that the cartoonist is the one who is uneducated based on his willful lack of knowledge on the demographics of gun ownership.

Gun cartoon of the day


From The Patriot Post.

What if the president were to publically announce they were going to sign an executive order to “research” the detrimental effects of free speech or Christianity? Or how about the prohibiting the reading of material from international sources that had no “sporting or scientific purpose”?

Why can’t people see how disturbing it is that a single person has the power to place restrictions on a specific enumerated right? It’s a really bad precedent to allow.