Pro or Anti-Gun?


March 22, 2003, 10:56 PM
Forget where I got this. Oh well. Is it pro or anti-gun? Personally, I think its fiercely pro-gun. I suppose it could be construed to make gun owners to look like wackos. What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "Pro or Anti-Gun?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
March 22, 2003, 11:08 PM
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).

March 23, 2003, 12:06 AM
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.

March 23, 2003, 12:32 AM
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.

March 23, 2003, 12:48 AM
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.


March 23, 2003, 01:01 AM
I'm going w/ my first impression & say it's ANTI!

March 23, 2003, 02:20 AM
ANTI :barf:

March 23, 2003, 02:26 AM
Caption is pro.

Drawing is anti, or just dumb.

March 23, 2003, 08:56 AM
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."

March 23, 2003, 10:10 AM
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.

March 23, 2003, 03:40 PM
anti. they are portraying a very limited veiw of the purpose of an "Assault Rifle" It has a lot more uses than "it's just there to defend itself"

March 23, 2003, 03:50 PM

March 23, 2003, 04:27 PM

March 23, 2003, 04:40 PM
Because it doesnt matter WHO is coming to take it. :)

March 23, 2003, 08:06 PM
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:

March 23, 2003, 08:16 PM
That is a negative graphic.

No fence-sitter will be swayed in our direction by it.

Just a goon with a gun.

March 23, 2003, 09:07 PM
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.

Monte Harrison
March 24, 2003, 11:40 AM
as it is anti-gun-OWNER. This is bigotry.

March 24, 2003, 01:28 PM
Looks pretty Anti to me.

Or maybe extremely nut-case Pro.

March 24, 2003, 01:40 PM
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.


If you enjoyed reading about "Pro or Anti-Gun?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!