Mike Lester for December 22, 2012

Taxidermy of Dummies.

What?

The former owner—a prepper— shot himself and is now stuffed & mounted. The current one is a dummy because he has not learned to secure his weapon properly — it’s about to tip over and blow his head off.

One week after Sandy Hook, and lo! – the creatures that live under that big, flat NRA rock come creeping back out of hiding. And here is their best argument, the fantasy of yet another dickless wonder trying to compensate for his inadequacy with too much gun for the likes of him.

Gotta love it. He (in his dreams) bagged the elementary-school shooter! Problem solved. Or is that a SWAT Team guy? How many kids, teachers and cops got killed by those high-velocity rounds? That’s the nice thing about fantasy – no cleanup costs.

Nobody needs those kinds of guns. If you bought ‘em to resist the government, dude, it’s not enough. If you bought ‘em because you don’t see how it’s any of your neighbors’ business if you want to be the RL incarnation of “ Call of Duty,” it’s too much. If you think a firefight between untrained idiots is a good thing to have around children, you’re a lunatic loser, kinda like the guy who shot up Sandy Hook. No guns for you. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

i thought that conservatives hated teachers. they say teachers are the scum of the earth, lazy, incompetent, drain on society…and they want to arm them?

The man reading has an “assault weapon” at ready behind him. Is the trophy shooter on the stand wearing bulletproof armor, which would justify the ownership and use of a military weapon, or was he just masked and wearing an overcoat? Does this cartoon reference the “daydream” of the gun owner who kills in order to save lives and has mounted his kill to celebrate the moment?Does Mr. Lester suggest a person who would use a gun to stop a killer would also WANT to keep such a trophy?curiously,C.

I have no problem with someone owning a handgun to protect their home, or even getting a conceal carry permit to protect themselves on the street (although I do find that a bit paranoid and fearful). What I do have a problem with is someone who thinks an automatic rifle is necessary in the hands of a civilian in public. I fear the vigilante, who legally buys a gun and looks to stop crime himself. That is called Münchausen syndrome. It is dangerous and the easy availability of high capacity high power weapons makes them more dangerous. I have known two people diagnosed with this, and both owned guns. The last one I knew, one of my wife’s former students, is now in jail because he set fire to a dorm. He felt the students did not take the last fire drill seriously enough, so he started the fire, called the fire department, and organized the evacuation. He saw nothing wrong with his actions. He owns (or owned) six guns and carried a loaded AR-15 in his back seat. Does the fact that he was undiagnosed until his arrest make you feel safer? To all people who knew him, he seemed like a very active community leader who did what he could to improve the world around him, but would put lives at risk to look like a hero. Imagine if he had been driving by and THOUGHT he saw a crime and opened fire. That is what I see in this toon. A wanna be hero who thinks it is his duty to stop the next massacre, ready to open fire on the first “suspicious” person in his neighborhood. Ask George Zimmerman how well that worked out.

Far too rational.

I (nor anybody on the left that I have seen) am not advocating prior restraint, because it is unconstitutional like you said, but also impractical. That argument has come from the right to avoid talking about restricting access to certain weapons. The first thing I heard was “don’t take away guns, lock up all the crazies and this won’t happen”. As I pointed out in other posts, that would entail locking up a good portion of our citizenry and nearly everyone between the ages of 13 to 24. The only way to identify someone who MIGHT snap is to get them to seek a psychiatrist. The only way that becomes practical is with universal health care so that every family can afford to get their children and loved ones help to prevent them from going off the deep end. Even then, what parent wants to see their own child institutionalized if they have not committed a crime. There are millions of people with Asperger’s who can function in society who are non-violent, they just do not always take other people into account when deciding upon their actions. They cannot be locked up just because there is a potential based on someone else’s previous actions which says they may be capable of violence. So understand the stances here – liberals are more for controlling these massacres by controlling the weapons available to the public, therefore keeping the second amendment intact in word and spirit by allowing civilians to keep and bear arms, but understanding there is no longer a need for military grade weapons among the general public. The conservatives have been shouting to “lock people up” to avoid them from committing the crimes because they want access to whatever weapons they choose.

Pardon, but I don’t see how you can get prior restraint out of Fourcrows’ comment. Please explain your reasoning here. What I’ve seen in this forum is some conservatives saying the problem is mental health and people should be locked up, and some liberals and leftists saying that’s no solution.

Mickey: the SCOTUS also said in the D.C. case that the “right” does NOT take away the governments right to REGULATE those firearms, as per the Second Amendment.

Interesting that after the school kids got mowed down, nobody in the unrestricted gun crowd noted the number of ARMED police officers killed since that incident. When armed, trained, cops, with body armor, are killed, what chance does the homeowner standing naked in his bedroom, even WITH a handgun stand? Or, how many more kids will be killed in the crossfire between a nut and an armed, panicked, teacher? Every “test” has proven MORE will die in a crowded classroom, OR movie theater, if even trained personnel shoot back, when shot at for the first time in their lives. There is NO comparing shooting range experience, and the experience of actually being shot at. THAT experience is the ONLY “training” that might, just MIGHT, help.

I agree that anecdotes don’t constitute proof, but they do have a use in argumentation — see Aristotle’s Rhetoric for illustrations. Meanwhile, you didn’t show that anything he said constituted prior restraint, so I assume you’re giving up that position.

"It seems to me that conservatives (and libertarians like me) seek not to imprison everyone, but to hold each accountable for his own actions. "Then maybe you’d be willing to accept the fact that your guns are statistically more likely to kill yourself or a family member than a burglar.

I don’t know any liberals who think, “All power derives from the barrel of a gun”… certainly not legitimate power.

I have to wonder about all the ranting about not letting our Second Amendment rights be infringed. There are already restrictions on what guns people can own. You can’t buy a new machine gun. Where’s the outcry over that?The idea that you need an assault rifle to protect your home is ludicrous. If you actually have the gun safely stored, you’re not likely to have it ready to stop any intruder. If you keep it laying around loaded like Lester is foolishly suggesting, you’re more likely to see on of your kids kill themselves while playing with it. If you think your kids know better, think again:ABC News Experiment Pairs College-Age Kids and Guns

I read the full post, and I don’t see any justification for a claim that Fourcrows was arguing for prior restraint. Unless you mean that restrictions on gun ownership constitutes prior restraint? Is that your claim? In that case, I think you are mistaken.

Here’s some stuff on prior restraint — just wiki, but I think it’s probably okay for our purposes:

Prior restraint (also referred to as prior censorship or pre-publication censorship) is censorship imposed, usually by a government, on expression before the expression actually takes place. An alternative is to allow the expression to take place and to take appropriate action afterward, if the expression is found to violate the law, regulations, or other rules…..Not all restrictions on free speech are a breach of the prior restraint doctrine. It is widely accepted that publication of information affecting national security, particularly in wartime, may be restricted, even when there are laws that protect freedom of expression. In many cases invocation of national security is controversial, with opponents of suppression arguing that government errors and embarrassment are being covered up….

Notice, by the way, that some restrictions on the press have been allowed by the courts, even thought the first amendment clearly says no abridgment — so if the court can say that the first amendment has exceptions, surely the court can say that the second amendment can have exceptions.

The first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

My Agenda? This thread is dying anyway. Might as well risk a tl;dr

Goodness @phdtogo, what an excitable African PhD you are! I have concerns about some parts of the Constitution. I mean what’s up with that stuff about three-fifths of a person? We should, at least, repeal THAT.

But no, I don’t have any immediate issues with the division of powers. Right now, I’m worried about gettin’ my money’s worth out of the 2nd Amendment. As the poster above points out, we aren’t getting our “well regulated militia,” and we’re paying a mighty stiff price for it in terms of murder and general mayhem. It just seems that the 2nd fails to deliver what it promises.

I guess I should’ve been clearer. I’d like to repeal and re-enact the Mighty 2nd. If a “well regulated militia” is so important to us AND we are willing to continue paying the blood-price we’re paying now, we’ll reenact it as is. Simple, huh? Of course, if we DO want a “well-regulated militia” strong enough to effectively resist the tyrannical government, we could amend the 2nd require all gun owners to organize, and allow them to purchase and own even more powerful weapons – y’know, tanks and AA rockets and Scud missiles and whatnot. That would increase the blood-price as militias squabble like Crips and Bloods over turf and our cities turn into Somalian wonderlands, but at least we’ll have that “well regulated militia” of excitable gun-boys.

OR we could decide that our National Guard IS that well regulated militia the Founders wanted us to have. Rather than letting any citizen of whatever sanity buy an assault rifle with firepower the Founders never imagined, we’ll just stay friends with our NG neighbors who have the keys to the NG armories. Reenact the 2nd to require a NG, and leave out that part about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” It’s the Constitution, Doc. It ain’t holy scripture. It can be changed.

So what I’m saying is that it’s unlikely that the American public would be willing to continue to undergo the bloody assaults on public peace and order made possible by the ready availability of rapid-fire, high velocity weapons, just so gun afficionados can continue their bromance with lovely, smooth, exciting phallic weapons. I mean, if gays can get married, why can’t guys who are into it pose shirtless in the mirror with their large, dangerous, powerful guns? Why can’t a guy compensate for his inadequacies by purchasing increasingly larger, smoother, thicker weapons, and yes … even sext his friends with his latest poses, like any other guy with an iPhone shoved in his pants? Why can’t he go to gun shows, and let other guys feel his guns and let him feel theirs? What’s the harm?

It’s romantic, Doc, but I think gunphilia-aphobes will win the argument because the harm of all that is stacking up like Connecticut body bags. Back to fappin’ to pictures of guns on the internet, I guess. Seems SO unfair, I know, but those twenty dead kids just kinda kill the mood anyway, don’t ya think?

Seriously? That’s what you took from that tl;dr? You’re right, I DO want to take away your right to defend yourself. Darwin does too.

Sheesh.