The first image I have is pretty straight forward:
Yep, fat, creepy, menacing, crazy-eyed, this is what all 2nd Amendment activists look like. Well except for all of them. Of course Democrats have done this before:
I know a lot of black people, and they didn’t even get the COLOR right. These don’t even look like humans. Of course that’s the point. In the Democrat-Controlled Jim Crow South they didn’t consider Black citizens as human, or even citizens.
That’s the point, and what’s going on here. Better to make the pro-gun people look more like Warcraft Orcs than humans because ENEMY! It’s much easier to hate what is alien to you, than your next door neighbor who owns guns and doesn’t support stupid laws. Hell easier to just paint us as monsters than even TALK about their political agenda because even up-front honesty is a losing strategy.
BTW have you noticed that when pro-gun cartoons occasionally pop up (The “Progressives” generally have that market cornered, but pro-liberty people can draw too!) have you noticed that the anti-gun straw is generally drawn looking like an average person, and the satire is in the actions and dialog of the anti-rights person?
I just did a quick google image search and I had to wade through dozens of anti-rights cartoons to find these two:
In the first one the violent guy and the gun control guy look pretty much the same, and given that there is no context given this is neither a positive or negative comparison, just his words set him up as illogical and irrational.
The second one the “gun control” guy is in a suit, and good looking. This is a POSITIVE image, but since he’s acting like a fool it sends the message.
Still with a reality like this:
The bulk of the anti-gun forces are aging woodstock hippies with grey hair, and upper-middle-class lives. Yet we always seem to portray anti-gun people as an everyman with a logic problem rather than an out-of-touch hippie in the Autumn of their years. I’m fine with this.
Next up is this little bit of hilarity.
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/22447698117376170/
Now here’s a question for the readers. Is this a straw man, or is it how they REALLY see the world? The gun calling the shots and the “gun nut” just along for the ride?
Also here’s a great example of standard anti-gun cartoons. Yeah we can tell both guns are supposed to be AR-Style rifles, and the sight on the one we see the most of looks a bit like a Trijicon ACOG. Still the artist has no idea how any of these devices work, so the more you look at them the more non-functional the rifles and scopes look. I mean the ejection port is on the wrong side, and looks non-functional, there’s no safety lever on the gun. The stock appears to drop off for no reason in the back. The mag well looks more like an AK-style one. What’s with all the pokey bits on that gun? I’d hate to shoot one, as it would likely feel like holding a cheese grater! Also what’s with those front sights?
They don’t understand the first thing about guns, but that doesn’t mean they’re not knowledgeable to demand their ban, and restrictions on our rights.
A lot you can learn from looking at the channels where the antis talk to each other!
BTW-Is there anyone else who sees a problem with those reasonable-sounding background checks? Bureaucratic mission creep is what I’m thinking of. Back door prohibition by expanding the list of disqualifying criteria. There’s one anti-gun group (the Gabby Giffords thing) that talks about “other dangerous people” who ought to be barred from buying guns. Broad brush there, with plenty of room for political mischief..
The ex-felon gone straight who wants to protect himself from former criminal associates. The veteran successfully treated for PTSD who lives in a rough neighborhood. Are these people being denied the ability to purchase a firearm?
” . . .[A]ging Woodstock hippies . . .”. The profile’s not unfair. There really is a very small segment of society that believes the best way of dealing with crime is unilateral disarmament enforced by the very government they claimed to once despise.
The main issue I have w/ the background checks is the slippery slope that I’ve talked about for years and the anti’s have now proven in Illinois.
MDA pushed for ‘Closing the Gun show loophole’ in Illinois (even though it was already closed) and UBC’s. It was given to them (sort of) as a pacifier during the CCW debates. Now that they’ve got it, they’re going after the gun stores, using zoning as their weapon.
FFLs are issued at the discretion of the ATF, further licenses already issued have been revoked or suspended because of simple clerical errors like allowing customers to write “y” or “N” rather than “Yes” or “No” on paperwork, as well as other bullshit. And that’s without getting into state restrictions and zoning.
I’ll just note that Mexico has universal background checks, discretionary issuing of permits, and only ONE gun shop in the entire country, and it’s in the middle of a military base in Mexico city, and you may only enter by appointment only.
Now look at a map of Mexico! If you live on the Yucatan peninsula, or near the Arizona Boarder you practically need to take a flight to go buy that 1911 you always wanted. Also given the issues with Cartel violence you might want to take a flight anyway as the people wealthy enough to buy a gun legally likely will be stopped by the Cartels if they travel by road for any serious distance.
Owning guns in Massachusetts is HELL anyway, and yet the antis don’t seem to think I have it bad enough!
Thanks. Man, I’m learning! This ain’t good. I read yesterday Mr. Martinez, whose son was killed at Isla Vista, is on a roll about “background checks”. I put that in sneer quotes because I believe he means prohibition by other means. He’s a lawyer, too, as is his ex-wife.
My part of Ohio is known for political corruption, and it takes no imagination to figure local politicians and corruptible cops will game expanded gun laws to their advantage–when they want to.
Quick story: back in the pre-GCA 1960s, my Mom bought a handgun mail order. .22 caliber, possibly one of those R & G (?) or Roehm (?) things. My Dad had died, our neighborhood was “in transition”, and, I guess, she felt vulnerable. She defended herself with it once without firing a shot when a man known as a career violent criminal, naked and very drunk, staggered onto the porch and banged repeatedly on the door. She presented her weapon, and yelled like a banshee. The assailant passed out, my Mom was badly shaken but okay, and the police hauled the POS away for yet another round of criminal charges.
My schoolboy question for these anti-gunner people is something like: “Does the lawful use of a firearm, or even the mere presentation of a firearm, in self-defense put you at risk for being declared a ‘dangerous person’ under, e. g., the Gabby Giffords organization proposals?”
Another thing that you might not be aware of is the number of 02 FFLs (these would be the class of FFL most gun shops have) shrank by HALF overnight due to an executive order by President Bill Clinton. See all the gun restrictions were getting to be a pain in the ass so often a single person, or a group of people would split the cost of an FFL and run the “Business” out of their house. It meant they could buy in bulk to save prices and sell to family and friends. Also back then I guess you could find some REALLY good deals at gun shows because these “Kitchen Table” guys would buy a table at the local gun show with whatever surplus they had around. Since they had nearly zero overhead their prices were amazing. Clinton declared by fiat that all 02 FFLs NEEDED to have a storefront to be legal, and all the kitchen table guys were denied renewal once their permits were up. A few years back I swung by a farm house that had a sign out front advertising a gun shop. Me and the family member who had spotted the place walked up to the front porch and rang the bell. A man answered and we told him we were interested in looking at the shop. He told us to walk around to the attached barn that looked like it was being used as a garage. He opened the door, and there was a very nice, very humble little gun shop. He had side-stepped the law by making his shop entrance different than his home. Also his shop was technically a different building, tho it was attached.
A gun smith I’ve done some work with has all his shop based out of his garage for the same reason.
Still think about the implications, suddenly HALF of all 02 FFL were suddenly ineligible to hold their licenses! Now couple that with the fiat that you need to go to an FFL to transfer ownership of any gun. Suddenly your favorite shop near your house might disappear for some trivial reason!
Oh and interesting that that lawyer loves background checks, given that the man that murdered his son passed THREE of them over the course of a few years!
Y’know, I want to give the anti-gunners one of those Old Coot speeches from yesteryear’s TV westerns. The conflict starts getting resolved when Ward Bond, or James Arness, or Eric Fleming gives a moralizing speech to one or another of the characters. Here’s my version: “Mr. Martinez, we all know you’re suffering a deep loss. We feel that, too, each of us in his own way. Make your peace as well as you can. But–but–don’t make the mistake of trying to punish the guilty by tormenting the innocent.”
I don’t have the chops to actually pull off a moralizing speech like that, but there ought to be some way of telling the anti-gunners we resent their using politics as personal therapy.