Mr. President, How’s that hypocrisy working out for you? Perhaps you would like some prejudice and bigotry to go with it? Oh! That’s right, your plate is already overflowing with those as well.
I’m not sure “The DUM-DUM” is the best caption. More like “The Truth Be Known.” But then the image would have to be changed to match.
I think this is exactly correct.
Note the shoes.
Via Tyler Durden, How Gun Laws ‘Work’ In Reality.
This message in this is so obvious and we have been saying this sort of thing for so long that it would be difficult for me to be convinced those pushing gun control don’t also know this. For nearly 20 years I’ve been asking, “What is the real reason they push gun control?” Examples:
- What’s the real reason?
- Quote of the day—John Lott
- Quote of the day—Daniel Greenfield
- Quote of the day—Andrew Scott
- Do you trust your government?
- Quote of the day—Lyle
- Quote of the day—Dennis Henigan
- Quote of the day—Neal Knox
- Quote of the day–Jeff Knox
- Quote of the day–Neal Knox
- A cultural issue
- Quote of the day–Ingrid Peritz
- Another back-door registration scheme
- I think we are done here
- It’s not about preventing crime
- Canadian gun registry hits
I probably should make that a category on my blog.
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.