E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIt's part of the job description of the editorial cartoonist to tackle the controversial issues of the day, and no debate is more heated following the tragic shooting in Tuscon than gun control and the second amendment.
John Cole, the cartoonist at the Scranton Times-Tribune, weighed in on the issue with the cartoon below, featuring an imagined NRA Memorial in Washington D.C.
Reactions to the cartoons have run the gamut of political thought. Here is a sampling of what we've heard so far from our readers:
MRK: A cartoon that really illuminates the darkness of imagination of the cartoonist. Also his hatred and narrow mindedness.
TRoyal: Oh, I’m sure he’s sorry, gun nuts. What’s so narrow minded about having a statue that shoots bullets? Or is every representation of guns except bathed in the Holy Light examples of “hatred”?
Bosco43: Don’t you go knocking the Glock 33 round clip. It comes in very handy when the 15 round clip just will not get the job done. The founding fathers certainly had such clips in mind when they gave us the right to bear arms.
James II: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. But if you want to take out a crowd, a semi-automatic pistol makes your task far easier than using a pointy stick.
Cornflake: The amount of rounds are really irrelevant. This first one fired by that wacko is too many. It was his behavior that killed and maimed. If he was unable to to acquire the extended clip he would have made due with the standard clip.
Take our poll and comment below to let us know your thoughts about this cartoon and your views on gun ownership and second amendment rights.
Leave a Comment:
(A), It's a cartoon, like Obama as the "Joker, Nazzi, etc".
(B), The N.R.A. Would probably erect such a memorial, given the chance.
(C), If you can't handle the First amendment, than quit hugging the second amendment.
(D) The Constitution is all or nothing. Either you wish to defend it, or amend it.
It does seem funny that if a Democrat gets shot it's the work of a "sick" mind. But if the same thing happened to a Republican, it's the work of some radical "Lefty".
Just like natural disaster, if it happens to a "Christian, it's a test. But if it happens to someone of another faith, it's the wrath of god against "sinners".
Maybe more people would go to Church if they felt welcomed as people and not thought of as "less Christian than me". God made the Heaven and Earth. Last time I checked he didn't claim one Religion, or build any Churches. That's the creation of Man, not "God".
Outlawing guns means that only outlaws will have guns; their potential victims will be less able to defend themselves and thus become easy targets. An armed society is a polite society. Isolated nutcases will always pop up, anywhere, and those set out to harm others will always find their MO.
The right to bear arms (the right to self-defense) is one of the laws of the land, a basic right, protected by the constitution, in order to be able to defend one self, and to change or abolish government when it is becoming totalitarian. Since the American government has become totalitarian already, or at least wholly unconstitutional, it's a bit strange that the NRA and other proponents of the 2nd amendment do not raise more attention to this latter consideration.
The only reason liberals (socialists) fight the 2nd amendment is to disarm the people, and make criminals (which really are kindred spirits to liberals; liberals rob the working class to redistribute their wealth, after taking a significant piece of the loot for themselves) safe.
Do not touch the right to bear arms!
The original intent of the Amendment was to provide for the common defense in a time when there were really no standing Armed Forces like there are today. Every (free, white) man had the right as well as the obligation to participate in this common defense in case the British, the "Indians," or some other outside force invaded and again challenged our freedom.
There was also the part about standing up to a totalitarian gov't that you mention. However, I don't think that is a very realistic thought these days, no matter how out of control you feel the government may become. The heavily armed and well-trained military that I mentioned would kick the crap out of any rag-tag "militias" that had big enough balls and little enough sense to try to "abolish" our gov't. The military is sworn to obey the orders of the officers apponted over them, all the way up to the Commander-in-Chief- i.e., the President. When they obeyed the obviously questionable orders of our last president to invade Iraq, a country that posed little or no direct (or even indirect) threat to the United States or its allies, they proved that they take their oath seriously.
Dow, so you really think that the military is a mindless machine that does the will of the commander and chief? Wow. You're living in a fantasy land.
Is it possible to have an opinion somewhere between pathetic fanboyish gun worship and idealist delusion? At first the second amendment was there because people were afraid their local militia were going to be disbanded by the government. Then it was the possibility of landwar invasion. Now that we're all pretty sure that's never going to happen, the only vestige clung to in this debate is the omnipresent "mugger/home invader."
These people are not supervillains. A simple pistol is enough for people- nobody needs a rocket launcher to combat a home invasion. Normal criminals aren't armed with flamethrowers, they've got dim lights and just enough firepower to scare you into giving them your money. How about working on economic fixes for the poor so this isn't such a pronounced problem? Oh, wait, no, that would be socialism, because there's no such thing as nuance and the lower class deserves what it gets.
And another thing. This isn't the Wild West. And it's a good thing, because all you people who brandish and brag about your pieces would be the first to get shot in such a setting- while taking a bath or heading to the outhouse, because you fools already threw away your greatest weapon: the element of surprise. They always shoot the sheriff first.
Is it possible to have an opinion somewhere between pathetic fanboyish gun worship and idealist delusion?
It is but it's obvious that you don't take the high ground in this case...
the only vestige clung to in this debate is the omnipresent "mugger/home invader."
No mention of the overthrow of a tyrannical government? There is more proof that the founding fathers had this in mind than anything you ever mentioned.
These people are not supervillains. A simple pistol is enough for people- nobody needs a rocket launcher to combat a home invasion.
No one has mentioned a rocket launcher. Why is it that you feel the need to lash out at others ("pathetic" "fanboyish" "idealist") with misplaced hyperbole? What makes it Ok to do what you condemn others for? Again, no one has said anything about legalizing a rocket launcher. If you can't stick to the facts it makes it seem, to me, that your point of view is weak and that you need to bolster it with skewing reality to outright lies.
How about working on economic fixes for the poor so this isn't such a pronounced problem? Oh, wait, no, that would be socialism, because there's no such thing as nuance and the lower class deserves what it gets.
Yeah, let's keep feeding money into an already broken system. We can't afford what we have today but the obvious solution to the problem is to bend to the wants and needs of the criminal element and hope that they play nice. Maybe you think we should also send them crack, heroin and meth with their welfare checks? These people don't want jobs, they want handouts. The American public isn't ready for the social changes that would be needed for drug legalization and the drug problem is a big factor in street violence. That's the problem that we need a solution to.
Looking at the vote, it's amazing that the majority of the voters would like to lose their means of self-defense. It probably means they already do not own guns, and find them scary. These people should think again: do they feel they have the right to steal other people's money for their own benefit, if not directly, then through government taxes (for the other) and subsidies (for themselves)? Do they not believe in property rights? Well, then they probably should be scared.
Guns are harmless in the hands of peaceful, law-abiding citizens. And exactly these are the citizens who through (unconstitutional) anti-gun laws are robbed of their right to own a gun. Surely the vast majority of gun-owners hopes never to have to use it, except for training purposes on the firing range. Just like they hope never to have to use that fire-extinguisher, or call on their fire-insurance.
I forget which state it was, but when the right to own guns was honored again the amount of robberies and burglaries in that stated dropped by some 98%. It's not the use of these guns, it's the fact that robbers and burglars know their victim may be able to kill them, that causes them to think again. As I said: an armed society is a polite society. And if 'We, the People' need to take on the totalitarian state, one cannot have enough firepower. That has nothing to do with 'pathetic fanboyish gun worship' or 'idealist delusion', but with common sense and the desire to keep your freedom.
"Totalitarian State?" This isn't the 'idealist delusion' I was referring to, but it's a great candidate- anybody who thinks they're ever going to be able to stop this imaginary police state situation from happening is absolutely kidding themselves. You would get rolled over in moments no matter how many weapons you had. The government will always have more power than you- it's a simple numbers game. But that's the thing- they're not out to get you like that. They're barely competant enough to continue to cheat us. I'm telling you, nobody has any good reason to possess that level of armament, at all. Pistols and simple rifles are enough.
The Egyptian government had more power than their subjects... Think about it.
If we stop selling guns and bullets, they will become an increasingly rare commodity. Having had guns pointed at me twice in hostility and having gotten through it each time without weapons, I see no need for carrying a concealed gun. If you have a gun, you're 4.5 times as likely to be injured or killed by the other guy than if you don't. Even if the odds were even...they stink.
The Second Amendment does not, despite jaundiced interpretation by the current Supreme Court, guarantee anyone the right to carry a multiple shot automatic weapon that can be concealed on one's person. They simply didn't exist when the Constitution was written. A need for a militia was thought necessary since state and Federal military presence was weak and instant communications didn't exist. If you want a gun as set by the Second Amendment, get what the authors thought you should have: a single shot muzzle loader.
What is crystal clear is that guns in the hands of people kill. 30000 people every year die in gun related incidents. Some are because of nuts, some are in commission of crime, some are death by cop scenarios, some are about kids taking parents' guns, some are about misidentification of people in the home, some are cops who pulled over the wrong guy and some are just accidents without clarification. Without the presence of guns, none of them would have happened.
Let's put this another way: guns don't 'protect'. They might intimidate. They might occasionally stop a situation...but the numbers DO NOT justify the numbers of people, good people all (until they aren't) ...who have them.
Oh, and for the idiots who can't count: if you have a 10 bullet magazine, you can't kill 6 and wound about a dozen more.
If you look at it from another point of view you can also say "If you want a gun as set by the Second Amendment, get what the authors thought you should have: The same firepower of the standing army."
See, I can do it too!
Oh, for the idiots who think like this: You obviously don't know jack about ballistics and have even less of an understanding of how fast a weapon can be reloaded.
Actually, once you get past self-defense and suicides the number is more like 14,000. That includes accidental shootings. Let's not try to make that number seem like something that it isn't.
Sorry, but this isn't a realistic situation. Guns are and guns will always be an element in society. Even if the government had the ability to take every gun they could find all that would do is disarm the legal owner. Few crimes with firearms can be linked to legal weapon owners.
Those who value the Bill of Rights should not shun the Second Amendment. I offer Sweden as an example of a country that requires all households to be armed, and they have successfully defended their country's neutrality through two world wars. It is no coincidence that the Soviet Union disarmed it's citizens.
Regardless of what some would have you believe, hardly a day goes by that some law abiding gun owner doesn't foil a crime through the threat of deadly force. It is this right to self defense that the courts have upheld as the fundamental tenet of the Second Amendment.
Perpetuity.
Perpertuity.
I think they should re-instate the ban on extended ammo clips to prevent tragedies like that in Arizona.
The cartoon was not as shocking as Sarah Palin's website with crosshairs on 20 congressional districts and the message let's take back these districts. If anyone had put crosshairs on Palin, there would have been an incredible uproar from the far right.
@Bob:
56% of gun deaths are suicides. When you can have guns there'll be more people shooting themselves than taking pills or jumping off buildings. Two thirds are gang related: criminals killing other criminals. So the number in itself doe not really prove anything.
Besides: about 40.000 people are killed yearly in highway crashes alone, and then there's the rural traffic death toll. What do you propose? Ban cars? Without the presence of cars, none of these accidents would've happened.
No police officers were killed with assault weapons in 1992. Four died in 1993, after the gun-control lobby started telling people that assault weapons were the best way to kill police officers.
What people don't seem to get is that calling for bans on certain types of armament is NOT going to remove the armament from society. It mean that only law-abiding citizens won't have them.
The only way to 'ban' certain type of armament is to make sure these do not get manufactured. And as the state and the weapons industry are in bed together, with the state loving all these high power gimmicks and stuff (IT desperately wants them), it's a snowball's hope in hell you'll ever get anything like that accomplished.
Making things illegal is just that: making things illegal. It does not stop these things from existing, hence certain people will have them. It's as simple as that. And it creates crime, of course: see how banning alcohol created organized crime, like banning drugs does these days.
Forbidding things only serves to enlarge government and to increase its power, to the expense of the law-abiding citizens freedom. It's amazing how many people call to have their liberties reduced in exchange for a false sense of freedom.