Pro or Anti-Gun?
- Thread starter Edward429451
- Start date
- Status
chaim
Member
I think it is trying to make us look like yahoos. It isn't saying we need the assult rifle to keep "them" from getting our guns but to keep "them" from getting our assult rifles. When looked at with the awareness that most Americans when polled (and I realize the polls use leading questions) think "assult rifles" should be banned (based on a misunderstanding of what commercial "assult rifles" are capable of, what real "assult rifles" are, even what real "assult rifles" are capable of, and again, on loaded questions) the cartoon looks very different than when seen in a vacuum. From that perspective (most Americans seeing "assult weapons" as BAAAAD), it is trying to make us look like extremists and yahoos. Think about the message that most non-gun people (the fence sitters, hunters and others, not the unreachable antis) will take from the cartoon, not what gun people see when they look at it.
We desperately need to take back the debate and to start defining the terms (why should sporterized military rifles be called assult rifles to begin with?- educate, educate, educate, the masses).
We desperately need to take back the debate and to start defining the terms (why should sporterized military rifles be called assult rifles to begin with?- educate, educate, educate, the masses).
TheLastBoyScout
Member
ANTI!
Because you cannot see what he's sighting in on, you don't know which "they" he's talkin about. Without anymore than that vague pronoun, the cartoon suggests that even the shooter isn't sure of his target, and because the the viewer can't see, the viewer assumes there's nothing there.
Because you cannot see what he's sighting in on, you don't know which "they" he's talkin about. Without anymore than that vague pronoun, the cartoon suggests that even the shooter isn't sure of his target, and because the the viewer can't see, the viewer assumes there's nothing there.
DMK
Member
I say it's Anti.
In this country, there is an assumption that one does not fight the government's immoral or unethical behavior with violence. I'd even go so far to say that many folks would consider that terrorism.
It is assumed that the proper venue for airing greivences with the government is by protest, peaceful civil disobedience, civil and legal litigation, voting, and lobbying.
It seems to me that this cartoon is intended to portray gun owners as a violent bunch who would kill other citizens or local authorities because they are threatened by the current laws.
Keep in mind, there are a great number of folks who couldn't care one way or another about guns or gun laws. However, paint a picture of a guy with a rifle poking out the front window in their neighborhood and suddenly "becomes" their problem too.
This by the way, is the same exact picture that the media keeps painting every time somebody gets arrested and has "too many" guns in their home or posession.
In this country, there is an assumption that one does not fight the government's immoral or unethical behavior with violence. I'd even go so far to say that many folks would consider that terrorism.
It is assumed that the proper venue for airing greivences with the government is by protest, peaceful civil disobedience, civil and legal litigation, voting, and lobbying.
It seems to me that this cartoon is intended to portray gun owners as a violent bunch who would kill other citizens or local authorities because they are threatened by the current laws.
Keep in mind, there are a great number of folks who couldn't care one way or another about guns or gun laws. However, paint a picture of a guy with a rifle poking out the front window in their neighborhood and suddenly "becomes" their problem too.
This by the way, is the same exact picture that the media keeps painting every time somebody gets arrested and has "too many" guns in their home or posession.
Zundfolge
Member
While I think the cartoon is more harmful to the RKBA cause then helpful, It looks like it was done by one of those pro gun types we all wish would shut up and stop making us all look like a bunch of paranoid loons.
Kind of in the same vein as those "when all else fails, vote from the rooftops" t-shirts and the "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand" bumper stickers.
Kind of in the same vein as those "when all else fails, vote from the rooftops" t-shirts and the "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand" bumper stickers.
10-Ring
Member
I'm going w/ my first impression & say it's ANTI!
Schuey2002
Member
ANTI 
nualle
Member
It's Anti.
The argument in the caption is circular, which makes the guy an idiot, and simply contrarian, which implies he's antisocial. The image supports the caption by showing the guy as a dangerous fool. He's taking aim at... what? whom? does he even differentiate?
What makes it ambiguous to pro-gun freedom folks is that we automatically read a whole argument (touching on origin of sovereignty, limited scope and role of gov't., etc.) between "I need a gun" and "because they're coming to take it."
The argument in the caption is circular, which makes the guy an idiot, and simply contrarian, which implies he's antisocial. The image supports the caption by showing the guy as a dangerous fool. He's taking aim at... what? whom? does he even differentiate?
What makes it ambiguous to pro-gun freedom folks is that we automatically read a whole argument (touching on origin of sovereignty, limited scope and role of gov't., etc.) between "I need a gun" and "because they're coming to take it."
Edward429451
member
Everyone made good points. I have been swayed and changed my vote (in my mind) to it must be anti. You all are like a spotlight in the darkness. Must be why I hang out here. So many good points that I never considered.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Anti.
Hypnogator
Member
Anti -- Intended to make "assault weapon" owners look like the kook fringe. While it may expose the anti's goal of outlawing "assault weapons," it makes that goal look "reasonable" by taking dangerous weapons away from kooks like the owner portrayed. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
it depends on the audience it is displayed to.
we see it as satire, a sarcastic look at gun control.
the others see it as a lunatic who is willing to kill over the threat of his personal property being confiscated.
of course, we know that if 'they' do come for our huggable 'machined parts' 'they' are going to come in heavy with guns drawn, thus threatening our life.
we see it as satire, a sarcastic look at gun control.
the others see it as a lunatic who is willing to kill over the threat of his personal property being confiscated.
of course, we know that if 'they' do come for our huggable 'machined parts' 'they' are going to come in heavy with guns drawn, thus threatening our life.
Monte Harrison
Member
Not so much anti-gun
as it is anti-gun-OWNER. This is bigotry.
as it is anti-gun-OWNER. This is bigotry.
cratz2
Member
Looks pretty Anti to me.
Or maybe extremely nut-case Pro.
Or maybe extremely nut-case Pro.
It is anti.
The shooter (and the character making the statement) is using circular logic to express his point of view...thus maikng gun owners look like idiots at best, paranoid and dangerous at worst, as he is pointing it out his (supposedly urban) window and at the reader.
Very anti.
Mike
The shooter (and the character making the statement) is using circular logic to express his point of view...thus maikng gun owners look like idiots at best, paranoid and dangerous at worst, as he is pointing it out his (supposedly urban) window and at the reader.
Very anti.
Mike
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
