Skip to main content

It's very hard to write about this cartoon without first issuing a spoiler alert.  If you want the full experience of the cartoon, stop reading now and watch the cartoon.  Strangely enough, I had started writing this cartoon before the Washington Navy Yard killings.  After reading about the current state of gun control, and after being deluged with news about controlling Assad's chemical weapons, I just had to make the comparison.

All of the NRA justifications for unbridled gun distribution seem to work just fine when it comes to chemical weapons.  If only Assad had Wayne LaPierre, he'd be doing much better in the eyes of the world.

An attention-getting mass shooting like that at the Navy Yard just barely scratches the surface of the problem with guns in the United States.  The real weapons of mass destruction that don't discriminate between young and old, combatant and noncombatant, are running rampant in cities like Oakland, Detroit and Chicago.

Enjoy the cartoon, and send it along to your friends and enemies.

[Ominous/scary advertising voice over]

They're trying to take away your right to defend yourself.

But if someone is out to harm you or your family, you'll do whatever it takes to stop them in their tracks.

Now the politicians even want an invasive "national registry" to track your weapons-- a government registry that will reveal the exact location of your concealed weapons.

That's right.

They're trying to take away your right . . . to chemical weapons.

Why should you give up your ability to defend yourself with extra lethal force?

More people are killed every year by automobiles than by chemical weapons.

Used safely and in self-defense, chemical weapons can actually save lives.

If more people carried and concealed chemical weapons, your particular bad guy would think twice before trying to harm you.

America's tradition of chemical weapons goes back generations,

And only an over-reaching despot would ever suggest chemical weapons be restricted.

Chemical weapons don't kill people, people kill people.

We've been successful in pushing legislation allowing chemical weapons in schools, churches, theaters, casinos, parks and college campuses, all across the nation.

Which is why we urge you to support pro-chemical weapons members of Congress and state legislators every way you can-- tell them you demand the right to stand your ground with decisive lethal force.

Because when chemical weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have chemical weapons.

Originally posted to Comics on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 06:50 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The CC thing reminds me of the drone thing. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek, IndieGuy, QuiteDragon

    I don't see why either of them matter as a detail and think it's frankly an emotional distraction (especially for those who want to see less of each) from the real issues: shootings and airstrikes.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:12:29 AM PDT

  •  Quite right you are (13+ / 0-)

    2nd Amendment refers to arms, not guns.

    And I'd also point out "Bear" is in the same sentence as "keep".

    So if there can be no gun control, there can be no arms control. And you can bear them wherever you want, because there can't be control of that, either.

    Also, an IED is an arm, just like a chemical weapon or a gun.

    So, logically, we have two choices:
    1) The uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms means that any US citizen can carry a bomb onto an airplane as carry-on luggage, or
    2) Gun control is consistent with the 2nd Amendment

    Choose one.

    I'm on a mission! Testing the new site rules.

    by blue aardvark on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:12:38 AM PDT

    •  The RKBA group can enlighten you (7+ / 0-)

      with a few thousand well-chosen words why "arms" only refers to thingies with barrels that use gunpowder to accelerate bullet-like objects.

      It's a little like theology; you need an expert to decode it.

      ... but He loves you! -- George Carlin -- (-7.25, -6.21)

      by Tim DeLaney on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:20:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I want my laser gun (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, dewtx

      Being able to kill evil-doers while they are trying to do me harm is my personal responsibility as the head of my family.  When it comes time for me to stand my ground against the hordes of criminals who mean to attack my family I will need arms that are superior to those used by the criminals.  

      My laser gun would allow me to kill several of them at a time - cutting them right in half with one sweep of the gun.  Bullets are way too inefficient, as far as I am concerned.

      And I have a Constitutional Right!


    •  Speaking of guns and carry-on luggage (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, gffish, Joy of Fishes

      I just learned that at the Miami airport alone they confiscate about 1200 guns a year from the carry-on luggage of dumb and absent-minded people going through screening.  

      Maybe I'll quit grumbling about the inconvenience of standing in line, taking off my shoes and belt, and removing my laptop computer from my carry-on bag.
      In 2012 that airport had 314,453 commercial flights take off.  That averages out to 0.38% of flights there would have a passenger with a gun if they didn't have the screening.  Only it would be a lot more if people didn't expect the screening and usually leave the gun at home or put it in their checked luggage.

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 08:49:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  claymores (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      It has always been my position that the only way to defend your home against an invader with a gun is a perimeter of claymores.  The only way to defend against a car jacker is a car that impart lethal doses of electricity, gas, or in a another way destroy the assailant.

      The problem with the NRA is that they like to play with toys.  The US long ago removed the right of an individual to bear arms.  The only entity that can currently truly defend itself int the US is the US government.  This was arguably not the intention of the founding fathers(no standing military allowed).  When one actually talks about using force to solve problems, rather than simply playing games with guns, everyone freaks.  But really that was the original plan.  Sometimes violence is the solution, and arms were around for more than murdering defenseless bears for food.

      Of course, we know that violence never really solves a problem, and applying 18th century philosophy to 21st century portable arms that can destroy a business district in seconds is lunacy.  Which brings us back to the idea that all this argument is just about who has the right to have lethal toys, and who has the right to kill people with minimal consequences.

    •  No (0+ / 0-)

      I do not agree to this either/or.

      I do believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

      But I also believe that every gun owner should have to train and be licensed just as we have to train and get a license just as we have licenses for cars.

      I believe gun owners should carry liability insurance, just like we do for cars.

      Unlike car licenses, I think gun license owners should have to retest.

      I believe background checks are necessary.

      If that is what you mean by gun control, good.

      However, too often gun control has meant gun bans. Banning anything just leads to a lucrative underground market for banned weapons and an increase in associated violence. We saw it happen with prohibition and we are seeing it in the War on Drugs.

  •  As clever, accurate and amusing as this is, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluesee, Joy of Fishes

    the terrible reality is that Justice Scalia ruminated quite recently about whether portable rocket launchers would be included within the "right."   In fairness to him (why should he be entitled to fairness?!), he did not state an opinion.

    Caveat:  I read this only once in an apparently serious article.  However, I have since wondered whether someone might've fallen victim to an Onion satire once again.

  •  I'm waiting for the (6+ / 0-)

    million-gun-march to Grand Rapids Michigan, which will be exclusively for black men wearing hoodies.  Can you imagine even just a hundred black men, carrying guns on their persons, wearing hoodies, marching into downtown Grand Rapids?

    How quickly would they be arrested?

    And more importantly, how silent would be the NRA, and scared little white men, then?

    I'm not an athiest. How can you not believe in something that doesn't exist? That's way too convoluted for me. - A. Whitney Brown

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:56:12 AM PDT

  •  Wait, that's not fair (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dewtx, schumann, Sandino, Joy of Fishes

    What about biological weapons, huh? Biological weapons don't kill people. Not even people kill people! Microorganisms do! Why are my rights to bear biological arms being taken away because some bacteria wants to cause trouble?!

    How long until they come for the biological arms attached to our torsos?!?!

    "Trust not the words of a poet, as he is born to seduce. Yet for poetry to seize the heart, it must ring with the chimes of truth."

    by kamrom on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 07:57:56 AM PDT

  •  To belabor the point for the thousandth time... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, IndieGuy

    1) The Navy Yard shooting was not carried out with concealed weapons. Nor was the shotgun a weapon that is likely to be banned.

    2)  The weapons used in shooting 13 people in a Chicago park probably do get concealed from time to time, but I doubt that any of the shooters had registered them or care about the law in any way.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 08:04:02 AM PDT

  •  Personal nuke for self-defense.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    david78209, dewtx, Sandino, Mokurai

    In Neal Stephenson's prescient 1992 novel "Snow Crash," one of the bad-ass characters totes around a tactical nuke that is tied in to his physiological data.  When the data stops, the nuke goes off.

    Better than any bodyguard; just don't be around him when he has his heart attack or stroke!

    Would our Supreme Court see this as a legitimate 2nd Amendment right?  :-)

    Counting stars by candlelight...

    by frasca on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 08:06:28 AM PDT

  •  I agree that guns don't kill people, people kill (0+ / 0-)

    people. BUT people with guns kill people, so by the transitive power of death, guns kill people.  

    The road to excess leads to the palace of Wisdom, I must not have excessed enough

    by JenS on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 08:09:53 AM PDT

  •  Short take . . . (0+ / 0-)

    This isn't a one-off struggle. This is going to take years, and probably dozens more massacres. It's going to be long, frustrating and bloody.

    Be ready for it.

  •  Bob the Angry Flower did it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The New Golden Age

    ...not that it doesn't bear repeating (often).  well done!

  •  What about bio-Weapons? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, Nattiq, Bluesee

    If somebody tries to steal my car, I don't want to shoot them, I want to give them smallpox.

  •  wow - that's good! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    thank you... and, it is very disturbing, btw.  

    but, good.

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 11:33:54 AM PDT

  •  Slippery Slopes, One Each (0+ / 0-)

    It seems that both sides of the gun control debate are engaging in slippery slop arguments.

    On the pro-gun side, we are being told that a gun registry and background checks are the first step towards the government taking guns away from every citizen. Citizen are urged to arm themselves to the teeth for the coming apocalypse!

    Then on the other side, we have people who think that without a gun registry and background checks, we will open the door to citizens owning anti-aircraft guns and ICBMS! We're all going to die!

    The result is nothing gets done and the whole issue becomes a dog and pony show. It makes me wonder what government and business are really up to while we are distracted by this issue.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site