Oh goody! Another “conversation” about how guns will/won’t save us, started off by someone who has a pronounced fetish to be known as a pistol..No doubt, we’ll learn a lot here.
The flyers of those planes lack imagination. While Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson are tragedies, the elimination of guns is no guarantee of a safer and more secure society. We can just as easily imagine bequeathing a totalitarian police state to our children with the disarming of the populace. Perhaps not immediately, but it would come.
I dislike the cartoon for so many reasons.First – King Kong was a victim. Kidnapped from his island (where, of course, he was a curse to the islanders) and transported to the city as a money making resource.Second – the airplanes are doing just what LaPierre says need be done to fight "bad guys’. Each of those planes would normally be armed with twin machine guns. They’re using guns to fight against guns. Tho, I see no art depicting bullets being fired. Will the planes just ram Kong?Third – Kong is using a gun to what? Protect the children in his other hand? If the cartoon is to be accurate and Kong is protecting what he loves, there should be politicians in his hand, not children.The NRA is not Kong. Gwangi maybe, but not Kong. Nahh…the NRA is the shark from Jaws. Mindless, hungry, and too dangerous to be allowed to continue in its current form.Send in Dreyfus and Scheider.C.
Just a note: The agency I worked for possessed a weapon (22 caliber) which used a 500 round magazine. It was meant to be used in case of a hostage situation. The weapon is no longer in use because it was deemed “inhumane”. A short burst would make a person’s head disappear. I thought it was a nice deterrent to hostage taking.
An inanimate object is not evil, only the intentions and the actions of people make it so. I agree with a poster that this issue should not fade but I had hoped that logic would have entered the debate. People are perfectly willing to vilify the NRA yet it was NOT the NRA that made “gun-free zones” popular. Further, no one is wiling to discuss Connecticut’s already strict guns laws and how totally ineffective they were at keeping a man with obvious mental issues from stealing them and breaking into a school. Yes, Lanza’s mother owned the guns, and she had every right to do so, but do you honestly think that if she didn’t have guns, he would not have found another gun or another instrument to commit his crime? And, speaking of “gun free zones”, why is it none of the anti-NRA zealots question why these incidents seem to happen more at so called gun-free zones? The shooter in Aurora, CO bypassed several theaters closer to his home that did not proudly display they was a “gun-free zones”.
Rockngolfer: Sounds like love, or a case of terminal stupidity when convicted felons still pack heat.
Ima: of the three cases I cited in another post, one fatality was an NRA member. The kid killed with a shotgun had been through the NRA hunter safety program. The lady killed when the pistol fell was just unaware the gun was there and so easily dislodged, and able to fire. I’ve seen so many NRA folks do stupid things with guns, it definitely challenges their “Armed Citizen” columns. Actually, most of those tales also reveal someone who’s too stupid to be trusted with a firearm.
Funny….not ONE person here even TALKING about how every one of these lunatic mass shooters were all drugged up on depression medication. THIS is the issue, NOT guns!
My cousin did two tours in ‘Nam and was shot five time in the back by a man who was mad my cousin, who became a teacher, gave a brother an F and kept him from playing football for a season. The man, a white male in Miss, did not time.My cousin’s brother was shot by his step children who had just been given their first samples of “crack” and were simply too high to realize what they’d done. While they endured very little ‘punishment’, they have still not forgiven themselves for that night.My hometown is named for a native american accidentally killed by hunting settlers. Your question is valid, and vivid.and timely.Respectfully,C.
For the NRA its all about money,most gun nuts dont know the that the NRA gets one dollar of every bullet,magazine and gun sold in the U.S.A ,follow the money people,its not about the right to bear arms,its simply a money making issue for them,their trying to protect their sacried cash cow,plain and simple.
sw10mm over 11 years ago
No one says anything good about the san antonio shooter two days after the ct shooting. Maybe because he was shot before he could do any damage.
Chillbilly over 11 years ago
Oh goody! Another “conversation” about how guns will/won’t save us, started off by someone who has a pronounced fetish to be known as a pistol..No doubt, we’ll learn a lot here.
HabaneroBuck over 11 years ago
The flyers of those planes lack imagination. While Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson are tragedies, the elimination of guns is no guarantee of a safer and more secure society. We can just as easily imagine bequeathing a totalitarian police state to our children with the disarming of the populace. Perhaps not immediately, but it would come.
echoraven over 11 years ago
The airplanes need a swastika. Pay some homage to a modern gun control success.
chazandru over 11 years ago
I dislike the cartoon for so many reasons.First – King Kong was a victim. Kidnapped from his island (where, of course, he was a curse to the islanders) and transported to the city as a money making resource.Second – the airplanes are doing just what LaPierre says need be done to fight "bad guys’. Each of those planes would normally be armed with twin machine guns. They’re using guns to fight against guns. Tho, I see no art depicting bullets being fired. Will the planes just ram Kong?Third – Kong is using a gun to what? Protect the children in his other hand? If the cartoon is to be accurate and Kong is protecting what he loves, there should be politicians in his hand, not children.The NRA is not Kong. Gwangi maybe, but not Kong. Nahh…the NRA is the shark from Jaws. Mindless, hungry, and too dangerous to be allowed to continue in its current form.Send in Dreyfus and Scheider.C.
Justice22 over 11 years ago
Just a note: The agency I worked for possessed a weapon (22 caliber) which used a 500 round magazine. It was meant to be used in case of a hostage situation. The weapon is no longer in use because it was deemed “inhumane”. A short burst would make a person’s head disappear. I thought it was a nice deterrent to hostage taking.
StoicLion1973 over 11 years ago
An inanimate object is not evil, only the intentions and the actions of people make it so. I agree with a poster that this issue should not fade but I had hoped that logic would have entered the debate. People are perfectly willing to vilify the NRA yet it was NOT the NRA that made “gun-free zones” popular. Further, no one is wiling to discuss Connecticut’s already strict guns laws and how totally ineffective they were at keeping a man with obvious mental issues from stealing them and breaking into a school. Yes, Lanza’s mother owned the guns, and she had every right to do so, but do you honestly think that if she didn’t have guns, he would not have found another gun or another instrument to commit his crime? And, speaking of “gun free zones”, why is it none of the anti-NRA zealots question why these incidents seem to happen more at so called gun-free zones? The shooter in Aurora, CO bypassed several theaters closer to his home that did not proudly display they was a “gun-free zones”.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
RV: It should be “load” us not into temptation.
Rockngolfer: Sounds like love, or a case of terminal stupidity when convicted felons still pack heat.
Ima: of the three cases I cited in another post, one fatality was an NRA member. The kid killed with a shotgun had been through the NRA hunter safety program. The lady killed when the pistol fell was just unaware the gun was there and so easily dislodged, and able to fire. I’ve seen so many NRA folks do stupid things with guns, it definitely challenges their “Armed Citizen” columns. Actually, most of those tales also reveal someone who’s too stupid to be trusted with a firearm.
Don Winchester Premium Member over 11 years ago
Funny….not ONE person here even TALKING about how every one of these lunatic mass shooters were all drugged up on depression medication. THIS is the issue, NOT guns!
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/the-giant-gaping-hole-in-sandy-hook-reporting/
I dare ANY one of you libs to spin outta this one after going to this link!
chazandru over 11 years ago
My cousin did two tours in ‘Nam and was shot five time in the back by a man who was mad my cousin, who became a teacher, gave a brother an F and kept him from playing football for a season. The man, a white male in Miss, did not time.My cousin’s brother was shot by his step children who had just been given their first samples of “crack” and were simply too high to realize what they’d done. While they endured very little ‘punishment’, they have still not forgiven themselves for that night.My hometown is named for a native american accidentally killed by hunting settlers. Your question is valid, and vivid.and timely.Respectfully,C.
hjenks over 11 years ago
For the NRA its all about money,most gun nuts dont know the that the NRA gets one dollar of every bullet,magazine and gun sold in the U.S.A ,follow the money people,its not about the right to bear arms,its simply a money making issue for them,their trying to protect their sacried cash cow,plain and simple.
Rocky Premium Member over 11 years ago
The lawless, be definition, will not obey your silly little laws anyway so what in the world is the point in passing them in the first place?
Anyone who truly believes otherwise is a danger to themselves and everyone around them.
Rocky Premium Member over 11 years ago
Oh, and hjenks, that statement is the most absurd thing I’ve heard since Feinstein last spoke.