DG, I think this post does a disservice. Your first poster might lead one to believe that you condone the President's use of drones. You don't think that, do you? Your second poster almost placates to the assault weapon crowd.
I believe there is an appropriate place for the use of drones. I don't think any of us have sufficient information to know what goes into the decisions by this administration to use drones. I am in fact very uncomfortable about the use of drones that have caused apparently high civilian casualties in other countries.
But in this country - which is clearly what the cartoon is referencing - drones have been used very successfully to do things like end stand offs with an armed rancher threatening law enforcement in North Dakora, or in the case of the recent old, white, crabby, and flabby Jimmy Lee Dykes, to help law enforcement free a little boy who was being held hostage.
The reality is that crabby old men with guns are NOT a match for drones, should it come to that; and if drones help save lives in this country, then good. I have no objection to drones being used to stop illegal actions, including violent onees by grumpy armed old men like Jimmy Lee Dykes.
As to the second, I'm not sure J.O.B. how you came to the conclusion you did. Both images make the same point. Trying to keep arsenals to use against the U.S. government, or state government, or even local government is stupid.
This past weekend,I made a similar point in a discussion with someone who thought that even a handgun, if it was used right,could overthrow the government despite drones, and tanks, and aircraft carriers.
It can't. Nor can any other weapons in civilian hands; and more to the point, to try is wrong. It is the wrong way to address things we do not like about government, or laws with which we disagree.
So my point in both pictures is the same. The belief that the right to bear arms is the right to assassinate someone or to shoot at law enforcement or to turn civilian weapons on our military is wrong, it is not just wrong or foolish, it is delusional. It is delusional because it exaggerates to a ridiculous degree what can be accomplished by any civilians with guns, and it grossly underestimates what the military can accomplish.
The post is about the collision of that delusion with the hard edge of reality.
The Holocaust occurred because the population of Europe was horribly Antisemitic, not because of guns or the lack of them.
What happens here will be because of a consensus by the majority of what is acceptable, which is that we have had enough of violence from guns.
Political will and attitudes of people, their hearts and minds here, are what matter. We are a nation of laws; no one person makes those laws, and therefore we all have to live according to them.
I'm sorry, I should restate my comment more clearly in regards to the second poster. I am 100% in agreement with you. But in my opinion, that picture could, I say could, validate some of the survivalists arguments. One of the arguments for stricter gun laws is no more assault weapons to citizens. But a survivalist, at least a retarded one, can look at that poster and make an argument for why he needs a tank also.
Tin foil in the kitchen drawer could validate the premise of a survivalist just as well.
Since there is no tank on the viewer's right hand side, he may think he needs one, but he still isn't getting one. Therefore he should rethink surviving war with the U.S. military or law enforcement, since he does not have a tank, drone, aircraft carrier, nukes, etc., and no reasonable prospects of getting them.
DG, I think this post does a disservice.
ReplyDeleteYour first poster might lead one to believe that you condone the President's use of drones. You don't think that, do you?
Your second poster almost placates to the assault weapon crowd.
As far as the humor, I laughed. :-)
I believe there is an appropriate place for the use of drones. I don't think any of us have sufficient information to know what goes into the decisions by this administration to use drones. I am in fact very uncomfortable about the use of drones that have caused apparently high civilian casualties in other countries.
DeleteBut in this country - which is clearly what the cartoon is referencing - drones have been used very successfully to do things like end stand offs with an armed rancher threatening law enforcement in North Dakora, or in the case of the recent old, white, crabby, and flabby Jimmy Lee Dykes, to help law enforcement free a little boy who was being held hostage.
The reality is that crabby old men with guns are NOT a match for drones, should it come to that; and if drones help save lives in this country, then good. I have no objection to drones being used to stop illegal actions, including violent onees by grumpy armed old men like Jimmy Lee Dykes.
As to the second, I'm not sure J.O.B. how you came to the conclusion you did. Both images make the same point. Trying to keep arsenals to use against the U.S. government, or state government, or even local government is stupid.
This past weekend,I made a similar point in a discussion with someone who thought that even a handgun, if it was used right,could overthrow the government despite drones, and tanks, and aircraft carriers.
It can't. Nor can any other weapons in civilian hands; and more to the point, to try is wrong. It is the wrong way to address things we do not like about government, or laws with which we disagree.
So my point in both pictures is the same. The belief that the right to bear arms is the right to assassinate someone or to shoot at law enforcement or to turn civilian weapons on our military is wrong, it is not just wrong or foolish, it is delusional. It is delusional because it exaggerates to a ridiculous degree what can be accomplished by any civilians with guns, and it grossly underestimates what the military can accomplish.
The post is about the collision of that delusion with the hard edge of reality.
The Holocaust occurred because the population of Europe was horribly Antisemitic, not because of guns or the lack of them.
What happens here will be because of a consensus by the majority of what is acceptable, which is that we have had enough of violence from guns.
Political will and attitudes of people, their hearts and minds here, are what matter. We are a nation of laws; no one person makes those laws, and therefore we all have to live according to them.
Too many gun guyz don't seem to get that.
I'm sorry, I should restate my comment more clearly in regards to the second poster. I am 100% in agreement with you. But in my opinion, that picture could, I say could, validate some of the survivalists arguments. One of the arguments for stricter gun laws is no more assault weapons to citizens. But a survivalist, at least a retarded one, can look at that poster and make an argument for why he needs a tank also.
DeleteTin foil in the kitchen drawer could validate the premise of a survivalist just as well.
DeleteSince there is no tank on the viewer's right hand side, he may think he needs one, but he still isn't getting one. Therefore he should rethink surviving war with the U.S. military or law enforcement, since he does not have a tank, drone, aircraft carrier, nukes, etc., and no reasonable prospects of getting them.