This exemplifies the poor stereotype they have of gun owners. I suspect the only reason the artist used a waiter with a tie and a wine bottle instead of some bucked-teeth inbred stereotype opening a bottle of bear was to increase the contrast between the two frames.
I cannot recall when the U.S. Congress ever approached anything like a NRA “theme store”. Other than getting the regulation against firearms in national parks thrown out (ETA: and being able to check your gun onto Amtrak) what law has the NRA been able to get legislated out of existence in the last 20 years?
Alternate reality. It has to be an alternate reality these people live in.
[This is a set up for a set of cartoons related to a NRA proposed theme restaurant in Times Square. Many people may not realize there was such a proposal.–Joe]
Again, limiting the potential “solutions” by misstating the problem.
I guess women shouldn’t be allowed to possess firearms then.
I “wonder” if there were people making “jokes” like this about “allowing” women to vote and to drive automobiles too.
What I really wonder if this artist would still have any publications purchasing his work if this had been about any other topic than gun ownership.
A little different flavor than usual. This is because Rob Robideau wanted a “good gunny cartoon“. This doesn’t quite qualify but it does show that some artists do “get it”.
This is a rather odd and telling way to represent a civil rights leader.
The artist apparently doesn’t realize this has never been an issue at the level of the Supreme Court. Even the Cruikshank decision in 1875 and the Miller decision in 1939 supported the individual rights interpretation. And if they would have read the Heller decision they would have realized this was settled law two years ago rather than something new with the McDonald decision last week.
But, by definition, bigots have little need of facts to maintain their belief system.
[H/T to Reese who sent me an email with the link to this cartoon.]
The artist limits “the solutions” by posing “the problem” as he does. Just as we would, and should, if we pose the problem as a civil rights infringement problem. I’ve posted on this general topic before (and here).
As a wise engineering manager once told me, it is more important to define the problem than discover a solution. We can’t let the anti-freedom bigots define the problem.
Alan Gura spoke about this some with us bloggers at the NRA convention this year. He is of the opinion the NRA is an expert at legislation and lobbying but that in our current situation civil rights lawsuits are most effective. This is not to say that we can’t have two or more solutions to the same problem but that we should recognize the problem can be framed multiple ways and that depending upon the framing we change the solution set. And with those changing solution sets it may be that a different set of experts are needed.
As if this would be a bad thing. They don’t even consider the possibility that existing gun laws that prohibit the innocent from defending themselves are both unconstitutional and unconscionable.
I had two different people suggest this cartoon for today.
The artist thinks this ruling went too far? As if the incredibly tiny step of recognizing the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms means cities and states may not enact total bans on handguns in the home for self-defense implies unfettered access to rocket launchers for non-adults.
Penis “jokes”, freedom is about killing people, guns are only good for killing, armor piercing bullets, and racism. Not bad for a four panel cartoon.
But they left out kids killing kids, explicitly saying gun owners are stupid and crazy, the NRA is a lobby for greedy gun manufactures, and we worship guns.
Would a political cartoonist say this about “allowing” blacks the right to vote and keep their job? Yet the anti-gun people talk about the Supreme Court “allowing” people to own firearms.
Don’t forget what Bill Clinton said about rights.
The baby’s name is McDonald.
The “proud parent” really should be labeled “SAF“. But since the cartoon was drawn many years ago with a completely different intention they can’t really be faulted for that particular error.
The intent, of course, was to claim the NRA has no limits as to who may own and use a gun.
As if it has ever happened at any gun show, NRA convention, a gun range, and any other place where nearly everyone has a gun.
It only takes one solid data point to disprove a hypothesis and we, over the years, have millions of solid data points. Do they have even a hint of one?
There is no clue this artist has heard of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arm. There is no clue they understand that evil is enabled by gun control.
They did do a fairly good job of rendering the guns so I guess I can’t insist they are totally clueless.
The Million Mom March stated their beliefs as:
All Americans have the right to be safe from gun violence in their homes, neighborhoods,
schools, and places of work and worship. All children have the right to grow up
in environments free from the threat of gun violence. Gun violence is a public
health crisis that harms not only the physical, but also the spiritual, social,
and economic health of our families and communities. The availability and
lethality of guns make death or severe injury more likely in domestic violence,
criminal activity, suicide attempts, and unintentional shootings. It is possible
to reduce the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun violence with
reasonable, common sense policy.
With such a warped sense of what a right is, or can be, it is no surprise they didn’t last long. Now the Million Mom March essentially no longer exists (it’s “officially” part of the failing Brady Campaign) and the NRA is stronger than ever.
Who’s the moron now?
I think this was published during the active reign of the Beltway Snipers.
It’s not funny. There is not even a hint of an element of truth in it. What is the point other than to demonize the NRA?
Would this be appropriate if it “NAACP” or the name of a gay rights organization were substituted for “NRA”? After all, the snipers were people of color and probably were gay. But there is no evidence either of them were members of the NRA.
This is being extremely selective in the studies quoted such that only those that support their agenda are mentioned–even if those studies have been refuted. It then becomes a willful lie (explained in Chapter 8 of How To Lie with Statistics) by extending the studies correlation conclusions by flat out saying correlation means causation.
As if the tragedies were the responsibly of the NRA and completely ignoring the fact that in nearly all mass shootings the victims were disarmed by their governments and left essentially defenseless. It is the NRA that works to enable the victims to protect themselves via training and repeal of the laws that made them defenseless. The NRA attempts to solve the problem created by the government and this artist attempts to turn public opinion against the NRA and prevent the NRA from saving lives.
Actually there are some similarities in gun ownership and worship. But it not in the way the artist portrays it here. It seems pretty clear to me that the artist is scornful of the concept of gun ownership and recognizing our inalienable right to keep and bear arms.
The similarities are that both are specific, enumerated, rights guaranteed to be protected by the U.S. Constitution. Both are essential for a free society to remain free. And of course both have cults, fringe leaders, have silly arguments over unimportant details like which is better a Glock after being baptized in the river, or a 1911 after being sprinkled with Holy Water.
If they would just think of us a religious group with gun ownership being the only criteria for membership in the church it would make things a lot easier and simpler for them to understand (I am not the first to suggest this but I can’t remember who I should give credit to). Simple is important because so often they have problems understanding even when you use simple words and concepts.
Imagine what that would mean: The Church of Gun would be the single largest church in the country, no taxes when you worship at a recognized range, and membership wouldn’t mean you were perfect–I would just mean that you were saved.