Shades of gun bigotry

[Neverwinter]

With all due respect (and I really do mean that), do you truly believe that? Honestly now.

Please dont take that personally or as an attack aganist others here. It is NOT meant to be. But if you want to understand where I am coming from, do look at the posts as an outsider would.

There is quite a few educated posters on this fourm - but a vast majority ...sorry, but I would have to respectfully disagree.

RE: cartoon - mass media is meant for consumption by the masses. The cartoon feeds into common stereotypes of firearm owners. Stereotypes are often (not "always", not "mostly" mind you) portrayed for a single reason. They are often true.

Mass media is there for ONE REASON ONLY:

Titillation, not information.

This has been the case for as long as I can remember (20+ years). This will not change w/o a massive outcry from the majority.

Stereotypes do not have to be often true to be effective. The tendency for people to seek out confirmatory evidence for their own preconceptions will make up for a lack of quantity.

Stereotypes should always be challenged, with as many contradictory examples as possible.

 

[Yosemite Sam]

We can just fight back with our own cartoons.

 

[Autolycus]

This is the same playbook that the Teabaggers were using during the Teaparties. Racism and stereotypes without a full understanding.

 

[bdickens]

This is the same playbook that the Teabaggers were using during the Teaparties. Racism and stereotypes without a full understanding.

Look in the mirror.

 

[wishin]

Musick

RE: cartoon - mass media is meant for consumption by the masses. The cartoon feeds into common stereotypes of firearm owners. Stereotypes are often (not "always", not "mostly" mind you) portrayed for a single reason. They are often true.

Surely, you jest? Even if you think many THRers are stupid, you don't really think the cartoon character is perceived as us? How many people do you know who feel firearms owners are grossly overweight, scraggley bearded pinheads from a podunk mountain shack? Stereotypical? I for one, have never encountered a gun nut that comes close to this rendition except in the movies. In all fairness, you did say, "often true". Might you agree that in this case it's a poor portrayal - done to ridicule?

 

[JohnBT]

"However, he says he’s in Staunton, Virginia, and that’s an odd attitude for that neck of the woods, or at least, for the Shenandoah Valley."

Not anymore, the high real estate prices in Charlottesville (U. of Va.) have driven hordes of liberals over the mountain to Waynesboro and Staunton. And maybe down I-81 from the Harrisonburg/James Madison U. area. I don't think the Mennonites and Amish in that area sell too many farms to developers.

If it weren't for the liberal influx I'd agree with you completely. Hunting was, and is, a big deal in that part of the world. My mother was born in Waynesboro in 1924 and she still had family there up until last year. A cousin of my dad's was county sheriff of Augusta for 25 years or so back starting when I was a kid. (I looked it up - '57 to '84.) My parents retired and moved to Stuarts Draft in 1990 and moved to assisted living in Harrisonburg in 2007, so I'm still through there every week and meet a lot of people while taking care of their business and medical needs and stuff.

And my favorite gun store is between Waynesboro and Staunton in Fishersville. Dominion Outdoors.

 

[svaz]

How many people do you know who feel firearms owners are grossly overweight, scraggley bearded pinheads from a podunk mountain shack? Stereotypical? I for one, have never encountered a gun nut that comes close to this rendition except in the movies.

I do.

But to be fair, he is "good people"; honest as the day is long and generous to a fault - and he's not a "gun-nut" per se, but he does enjoy them (more of a car nut, really). He is also someone I'd rather have as a friend than some hoplophobic, Grace Kelly-watching, Springsteen-listening, self-righteous, prejudiced doodle scrawler.

 

[Walkalong]

There [strike]is[/strike] are quite a few educated posters on this [strike]fourm[/strike] forum.

There, fixed it for ya.

We at THR are like most groups. We have very educated folks, not so educated folks, and everywhere in between. We also have a multitude of professions represented here. Doctors, lawyers, computor programmers, secretarys, diesel mechanics, pilots, truck drivers, you name it.

All are at least to some degree pro gun. Some more than others. Many are liberals, but I suspect we have more conservatives than liberals.

The cartoonists on both sides do the same thing to some degree.

 

[huntsman]

Our South campus hospital recently fired a maintenance man for carrying a pistol around the hospital, while on duty, showing it off and talking about how he had 20 guns. (moron)

This does not help, and since many of the folks who witnessed his behavior do not know any responsible gun owners, they are quick to believe all the crap the media pushes on them. Why wouldn't they?

Please define "responsible gun owners"

Simply put, the majority of gun owners are middle class. The vast majority of RKBA advocates are educated (look at THR for example), politically active citizens.

Why does this matter? Are inalienable rights only for the educated or of a certain class? Or is the 2nd amendment only for chino wearing suburbanites who attend rallies and shoot at "gun ranges"? Is the cartoon inflammatory? Yes but I find some responses even more offensive.

 

[NMGonzo]

I don't look like that guy.

 

[Warhawk83]

I live in NE Louisiana, in my experiences hunting and range shooting, I see all different kinds of people. Well heeled and educated people, and dirt poor uneducated people. People from all walks of life enjoy the shooting sports,to characterize all gun owners as redneck idiots is wrong.

This country was founded by men who fought oppression, WITH GUNS, Mr. liberal would be speaking in a British accent ,paying taxes with no representation, and teaching his son Futbol if it weren't for gun owners. Hell, that's probably what he wants anyway.

I read the responses and most were well written and appropriate. As stated earlier, this guy is paid to "stir the pot" and he did. Just watch, comments won't be accepted soon enough.

 

[Artiz]

I'm often referred to as the anti-social, paramilitary paranoid everyone talks about... I'm OK with that.

 

[Bix]

Originally Posted by musick
With all due respect (and I really do mean that), do you truly believe that? Honestly now.

Please dont take that personally or as an attack aganist others here. It is NOT meant to be. But if you want to understand where I am coming from, do look at the posts as an outsider would.

There is quite a few educated posters on this fourm - but a vast majority ...sorry, but I would have to respectfully disagree.

Well, taking our self-reporting at face value, it would seem that the vast majority of members responding to polls on the issue have some level of education beyond high school / GED:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=342210&highlight=level+education

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=250216&highlight=level+education

I suppose whether or not that counts as 'educated' could be debatable, depending on one's frame of reference - but it is certainly a reasonable basis for hso's assertion.

 

[Erik M]

Opinions emailed to editor, also registered and posted a comment to the creator.

 

[dmancornell]

Anti-victim leftists follow a standard totalitarian dictum on propaganda, to slander and dehumanize the targeted group until they are no longer considered civilized or acceptable. Then they can be liquidated without public opposition.

And to f*** up the asshat cartoonist's assumptions, I have a BS/EE and MS/EE from Cornell University, so I can trump whatever educational pedigree he flaunts. And I'm not white, nor do I have a beer gut.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Emotional appeals, demonizing and out and out lying are effective tools pretty much used on both sides of the political stripe. Those willing to find the truth will, those that seek to justify their preconceptions will find examples even if they have to invent them. When the many are judged by the few, the actions of the many are irrelevant

 

[Kimber45acp]

This isn't just a shade of bigotry, this is full blown bigotry aimed at poor people, overweight people, people who may not have perfect teeth, as WELL as gun owners.

Everyone here should write a letter of complaint to this scumbag's bosses and demand that this offensive trash be removed from their servers. http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=CUSTOMERSERVICE03

Oh, and here is the information for the bigoted creep who drew that trash (he's MORE than a cartoonist there) http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/personalia?ID=jmccloskey&template=pers

 

[Shadow Man]

There is quite a few educated posters on this fourm

That would be "There are quite a few educated posters on this forum"

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Back on topic though: political cartoons have been around as long as newspapers have. Nothing short of bankrupting or boycotting the papers is going to make that stop...unless we (the responsible gun owners) take it upon ourselves to educate the rest of America instead of sitting in front of your screen and getting upset and then promptly forgetting about it as soon as you get up...which is what I admittedly did.

 

[Kimber45acp]

Here's what I wrote on their "contact us" page:

I want this message forwarded to management. I cannot believe the bigoted and offensive content from Jim McCloskey that you published (and continue to host on your servers). Can someone tell me HOW you find this bigoted cartoon even remotely acceptable http://www.newsleader.com/apps/pbcs...cript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest

That excuse for a political cartoon is bigoted against overweight people, the poor, people with less than perfect teeth, as WELL as anyone who owns a firearm. Seriously, how do you defend publishing that garbage? Mr. Jim McCloskey thinks it's a harmless political cartoon, yet he insults so many people who have NOTHING to do with the gun rationing law he loves so much. Is THIS how you view your readers if they dare to desire to purchase more than one firearm? Are you kidding me? So if your readers dare to purchase more than one firearm, YOU see them as mentally ill, fat, paranoid, missing teeth, ugly, inadequate etc? WOW! If you have a shred of dignity you will remove that trashy "cartoon" from your website and reprimand the bigoted individual who pushed it.

 

[Kimber45acp]

I fix'd Jim's cartoon

 

[wishin]

Svaz

I do.

LOL. I guess that's the law of averages! Please post photos.

 

[savit260]

Maybe would could lobby for a "one newspaper a month" law. I wonder how the media would react to that?

 

[svaz]

LOL. No pics, sorry. Kinda like the guy in the pic, but no hat and fewer teeth. Bless his heart*.

My new favorite quote:

Prejudices are what fools use for reason.

*(In the Deep South, any non-malicious bad-mouthing must be followed by 'Bless his/her heart' - kinda like the 5-second rule when you drop food on the floor.)

 

[wishin]

Maybe would could lobby for a "one newspaper a month" law. I wonder how the media would react to that?

Think we can get the idiot cartoonist to do the same caricature with newspapers in his clutches? Maybe a green visor too.......

 

[bhinks]

Here is my response, conveniently posted to their website via Kimber's link:

I would like to express my disgust with Jim McCloskey's recent cartoon regarding Virginia's one gun a month law. His stereotypical portrayal of gun owners as ignorant slobs was not only incredibly offensive to responsible gun owners everywhere, but also completely counterproductive. Mr. McCloskey has every right to disagree with myself and others about the effectiveness or necessity of this law, and I realize that political cartoons are meant to provoke to debate, but even in that format, one should at least TRY to make some sort of real argument against the law, rather than making base, ad hominem attacks. I may not currently be a resident of Virginia or a subscriber to your publication, but I may be stationed there shortly and I can assure you that solely because of Mr. McCloskey's disgusting cartoon and your paper's decision to print it, neither I nor anybody I can persuade will ever subscribe to your publication. I can also assure you that a great many of your current subscribers are offended. Gun control is always a hot-button issue and tends to raise some strong emotions, but this type of low-brow and irrational attack is absolutely uncalled for; you have disgraced yourselves and angered the vast majority of responsible American gun owners. Shame on each and every one of you.

If you have a minute, I'd encourage everyone to send them a comment. I wouldn't be surprised if THRs active membership rivaled the VNL's subscribership. A strong response by the gun-owning on this kind of attack each and every time it's discovered is how we can start to change the culture.