This is in contrast to my usual type of gun cartoon because I was so annoyed about the cartoon I posted last night. Those people who claim “We’ve got to do something about guns!” and demand additional restrictions on the exercise of this specific enumerated right have crap for brains or evil intent. This cartoon illuminates the mental deficiencies and/or deliberate deception.
I’m pretty sure this was in response to the NRA statement following the Newton massacre. This is part of that statement:
I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.
They explicitly say the NRA is deranged. Yet this cartoonist is the one distorting the facts. This cartoonist wants people to believe armed guards protecting school children and teachers would cause children to be afraid. Are Bloomberg and Obama afraid of their armed guards? If they were they could dismiss them. Yet they don’t so one has to assume the guards provide protection. But we have people like this cartoonist attempting to convince people that children will be safer without people guarding them.
Are children safer when there is no one present to protect them from harm or when there are people trained in the protection of others ready and willing to do that job? Who is deranged here?
The truth is that this cartoonist, and anti-gun people in general, think of guns as inherently evil. Some of them literally think guns used in homicides go to Hell. And they claim the NRA is deranged.
The cartoonist has to be incredibly ignorant or deliberately deceptive to claim the 2nd Amendment is about hunting. They have to have completely ignored or want you to ignore, the first part of it. One of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment is the security of a free state. It is not the right to hunt animals. It is the right to hunt tyrants and their minions. If this was not true then why would the U.S. Supreme Court rule that unless the arms have:
…some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
It is specifically military weapons that are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Also, as Weer’d Beard has often said, George Washington didn’t cross the Delaware River to get to his duck blind.
One might think it is odd that anti-gun people will claim we ignore the first half of the 2nd Amendment (“well regulated”) but then they do that themselves when they claim it is about hunting. But what you have to understand is that these people have serious mental issues.
I’ve been in a restaurant that offers a discount to “gun-toters” multiple times and have never seen anything like this happen. I also been in restaurants hundreds of times while I and/or others were carrying and not once have I seen anything like this happen.
The cartoonist has an extremely wild and error prone imagination and/or is prejudiced against gun owners. What would be the response if some cartoonist hypothesized some equally outrageous consequences for a restaurant that welcomed people of color or alternate sexual orientation?
Bigotry and prejudice is never pretty regardless of the target. People should explain this to the cartoonist and the media that propagate this sort of thing.
The misrepresentation, lies, and false implications of this cartoon are almost overwhelming.
I’ll just address a couple of points. There are many more than could be made in this piece of garbage.
The elephant obviously represents the Republican party. Anyone who claims any major political party in this country is so cold hearted as to deliberately disregard the deaths of the innocent victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy has some serious mental health issues. The participants in the gun law debates can disagree on the appropriate response to the event and still see the other side as caring human beings. This cartoonist sees those opposed to oppressive gun laws as something considerably less than human.
This is consistent with many other anti-gun people. They want you dead and portraying gun owners as less than human is one of the steps on the path to achieving that.
The cartoonist is not only prejudiced and has a negative stereotyped view of gun owners but is delusional. Gun ownership rates are difficult to measure but there are a lot of indicators that ownership rates are going up. The belief that gun ownership is going down is comforting to the anti-gun person. Being part of the “herd” is important to them and their “herd” getting larger provides more comfort. As Heinlein said, “Delusions are often functional.”
I am of the opinion that it is to our advantage to let the anti-gun people keep this particular delusion. For now.
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.