Worst Political Cartoons

[Lithp]

"Draconian"? Don't you think that's a bit of an overexaggeration? That denotes an unfair, barbaric law, usually related to harsh punishment. Frankly, the whole entitlement to guns is just a weird quirk that the US developed &, if it weren't in the bill of rights, it'd probably be done away with by now. Most things in the bill of rights are considered basic human rights, the guns stand out as a weird exception, & that's probably why people want to ignore it.

The problem is, you can't just ignore the 2nd amendment without raising the possibility that you can ignore the others. But really, that's always been true, rights are an illusion, the Constitution has been reinterpreted before, & most of our laws don't actually come from it.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Is it possible that part of the reason for the severe gang violence in the US is the ready availability of legal guns?

While possible, there are many other contributing factors that we could fix without either amending or circumventing the Constitution, like poverty, discrimination, and access to quality education.

Also, just something political that annoys the fuck outta me: people, typically non-Americans, that say we should just ignore the 2nd Amendment because it "was made by some old fuckers over 200 years ago."  Yes, let's ignore what is essentially the founding legal document of our entire nation, the one that outlines our rights and our most fundamental laws as a society.  Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, what's considered the very core of our nation's being.  Yes, just ignore it and impose draconian, no-guns-at-all legislation, because the Constitution is over 200 years-old.  That will end well.

Nah, I understand it. People 237 years ago were, well, fucking idiots. Plus, their guns took several minutes if you wanted to fire a second shot. I have a feeling they didn't quite expect modern guns. Let's be conservative and say you could fire once per minute. That's one bullet per 60 seconds. Let's take a modern assault rifle with thirty rounds. Let's say, six seconds? That's thirty times as many bullets in a tenth of the time.

[R. U. Sirius]

Is it possible that part of the reason for the severe gang violence in the US is the ready availability of legal guns?

While possible, there are many other contributing factors that we could fix without either amending or circumventing the Constitution, like poverty, discrimination, and access to quality education.

Also, just something political that annoys the fuck outta me: people, typically non-Americans, that say we should just ignore the 2nd Amendment because it "was made by some old fuckers over 200 years ago."  Yes, let's ignore what is essentially the founding legal document of our entire nation, the one that outlines our rights and our most fundamental laws as a society.  Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, what's considered the very core of our nation's being.  Yes, just ignore it and impose draconian, no-guns-at-all legislation, because the Constitution is over 200 years-old.  That will end well.

Nah, I understand it. People 237 years ago were, well, fucking idiots. Plus, their guns took several minutes if you wanted to fire a second shot. I have a feeling they didn't quite expect modern guns. Let's be conservative and say you could fire once per minute. That's one bullet per 60 seconds. Let's take a modern assault rifle with thirty rounds. Let's say, six seconds? That's thirty times as many bullets in a tenth of the time.

Nitpick: A skilled shooter with an 18th-century musket such as used in the Revolution could load, aim and fire three shots a minute. Still significantly slower than modern weapons, but significantly faster than what you were suggesting as the average.

[RavynousHunter]

Is it possible that part of the reason for the severe gang violence in the US is the ready availability of legal guns?

While possible, there are many other contributing factors that we could fix without either amending or circumventing the Constitution, like poverty, discrimination, and access to quality education.

Also, just something political that annoys the fuck outta me: people, typically non-Americans, that say we should just ignore the 2nd Amendment because it "was made by some old fuckers over 200 years ago."  Yes, let's ignore what is essentially the founding legal document of our entire nation, the one that outlines our rights and our most fundamental laws as a society.  Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, what's considered the very core of our nation's being.  Yes, just ignore it and impose draconian, no-guns-at-all legislation, because the Constitution is over 200 years-old.  That will end well.

Nah, I understand it. People 237 years ago were, well, fucking idiots. Plus, their guns took several minutes if you wanted to fire a second shot. I have a feeling they didn't quite expect modern guns. Let's be conservative and say you could fire once per minute. That's one bullet per 60 seconds. Let's take a modern assault rifle with thirty rounds. Let's say, six seconds? That's thirty times as many bullets in a tenth of the time.

Without dragging this into a gun debate, and this will likely be the last I have to say on this matter (for now, at least), I fail to see how them not being able to see how fast and far weapons technology would advance over more than two centuries has any bearing on the argument for/against gun control and the 2nd Amendment.  They couldn't have foreseen how far medicine has advanced, either, but that, like this, would have zero bearing on an argument for/against nationalized health care.

[PosthumanHeresy]

Is it possible that part of the reason for the severe gang violence in the US is the ready availability of legal guns?

While possible, there are many other contributing factors that we could fix without either amending or circumventing the Constitution, like poverty, discrimination, and access to quality education.

Also, just something political that annoys the fuck outta me: people, typically non-Americans, that say we should just ignore the 2nd Amendment because it "was made by some old fuckers over 200 years ago."  Yes, let's ignore what is essentially the founding legal document of our entire nation, the one that outlines our rights and our most fundamental laws as a society.  Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, what's considered the very core of our nation's being.  Yes, just ignore it and impose draconian, no-guns-at-all legislation, because the Constitution is over 200 years-old.  That will end well.

Nah, I understand it. People 237 years ago were, well, fucking idiots. Plus, their guns took several minutes if you wanted to fire a second shot. I have a feeling they didn't quite expect modern guns. Let's be conservative and say you could fire once per minute. That's one bullet per 60 seconds. Let's take a modern assault rifle with thirty rounds. Let's say, six seconds? That's thirty times as many bullets in a tenth of the time.

Without dragging this into a gun debate, and this will likely be the last I have to say on this matter (for now, at least), I fail to see how them not being able to see how fast and far weapons technology would advance over more than two centuries has any bearing on the argument for/against gun control and the 2nd Amendment.  They couldn't have foreseen how far medicine has advanced, either, but that, like this, would have zero bearing on an argument for/against nationalized health care.

Actually, it has tons of bearing. They couldn't have known how important health care would become. It was pretty much pray and hope you don't die. There's no point in funding that. However, if they knew we'd be able to save millions with national health care, they'd likely want universal health care.

Is it possible that part of the reason for the severe gang violence in the US is the ready availability of legal guns?

While possible, there are many other contributing factors that we could fix without either amending or circumventing the Constitution, like poverty, discrimination, and access to quality education.

Also, just something political that annoys the fuck outta me: people, typically non-Americans, that say we should just ignore the 2nd Amendment because it "was made by some old fuckers over 200 years ago."  Yes, let's ignore what is essentially the founding legal document of our entire nation, the one that outlines our rights and our most fundamental laws as a society.  Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, what's considered the very core of our nation's being.  Yes, just ignore it and impose draconian, no-guns-at-all legislation, because the Constitution is over 200 years-old.  That will end well.

Nah, I understand it. People 237 years ago were, well, fucking idiots. Plus, their guns took several minutes if you wanted to fire a second shot. I have a feeling they didn't quite expect modern guns. Let's be conservative and say you could fire once per minute. That's one bullet per 60 seconds. Let's take a modern assault rifle with thirty rounds. Let's say, six seconds? That's thirty times as many bullets in a tenth of the time.

Nitpick: A skilled shooter with an 18th-century musket such as used in the Revolution could load, aim and fire three shots a minute. Still significantly slower than modern weapons, but significantly faster than what you were suggesting as the average.

Okay, going with a skilled shooter, three shots every sixty seconds vs. an unskilled moron doing ten times as many in a tenth of the time.

[RavynousHunter]

I know I said the last post was the last I'd say on this topic, but I feel the need to clarify one final thing: I'm not saying everyone should have access to guns all the time.  I support well-reasoned, well-enforced regulations on gun ownership including background checks, psychological checks, waiting periods, and reasonable restrictions on what a civilian can purchase.  I think, if you can prove that you can use a gun safely and are not a known, violent criminal or someone whose mental health is in serious question, then you should be able to acquire, for instance, a Colt M1911 or R700, but not a CAR-15 or AK-47.

[MadCatTLX]

I know I said the last post was the last I'd say on this topic, but I feel the need to clarify one final thing: I'm not saying everyone should have access to guns all the time.  I support well-reasoned, well-enforced regulations on gun ownership including background checks, psychological checks, waiting periods, and reasonable restrictions on what a civilian can purchase.  I think, if you can prove that you can use a gun safely and are not a known, violent criminal or someone whose mental health is in serious question, then you should be able to acquire, for instance, a Colt M1911 or R700, but not a CAR-15 or AK-47.

You realize a 1911 would pose far more danger than an AK, right? Second, due to recent events in my area, I think I damn well need quite a few guns. I'll be making a thread later, but the long story short if that I'm dealing with people with the mentality about like that of the character Vaas from Farcry 3, and potentially in bed with the local law enforcement.

[PosthumanHeresy]

I know I said the last post was the last I'd say on this topic, but I feel the need to clarify one final thing: I'm not saying everyone should have access to guns all the time.  I support well-reasoned, well-enforced regulations on gun ownership including background checks, psychological checks, waiting periods, and reasonable restrictions on what a civilian can purchase.  I think, if you can prove that you can use a gun safely and are not a known, violent criminal or someone whose mental health is in serious question, then you should be able to acquire, for instance, a Colt M1911 or R700, but not a CAR-15 or AK-47.

You realize a 1911 would pose far more danger than an AK, right? Second, due to recent events in my area, I think I damn well need quite a few guns. I'll be making a thread later, but the long story short if that I'm dealing with people with the mentality about like that of the character Vaas from Farcry 3, and potentially in bed with the local law enforcement.

I think we all know you need to become the Postal Dude from Postal and wipe out your town.

[LeTipex]

Is it possible that part of the reason for the severe gang violence in the US is the ready availability of legal guns?

While possible, there are many other contributing factors that we could fix without either amending or circumventing the Constitution, like poverty, discrimination, and access to quality education.

Also, just something political that annoys the fuck outta me: people, typically non-Americans, that say we should just ignore the 2nd Amendment because it "was made by some old fuckers over 200 years ago."  Yes, let's ignore what is essentially the founding legal document of our entire nation, the one that outlines our rights and our most fundamental laws as a society.  Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, what's considered the very core of our nation's being.  Yes, just ignore it and impose draconian, no-guns-at-all legislation, because the Constitution is over 200 years-old.  That will end well.

I don't have a horse in the gun control race (As in, I think that people should be allowed to have gun, but that it should be significantly more controled than say, getting the right to drive a car, but since I live in europe, who cares), but...
You're aware that a lot of countries do change their core texts sometimes, right? As in, France for example is now well into its 5th constitution (and people are starting to think that a 6th would be a good idea), and it's doesn't look like it has changed into a draconnian hellhole because of that...

I find this veneration for old texts a bit unsettling, really...

[Askold]

I don't have a horse in the gun control race (As in, I think that people should be allowed to have gun, but that it should be significantly more controled than say, getting the right to drive a car, but since I live in europe, who cares), but...
You're aware that a lot of countries do change their core texts sometimes, right? As in, France for example is now well into its 5th constitution (and people are starting to think that a 6th would be a good idea), and it's doesn't look like it has changed into a draconnian hellhole because of that...

I find this veneration for old texts a bit unsettling, really...

I like you already.

[guizonde]

Is it possible that part of the reason for the severe gang violence in the US is the ready availability of legal guns?

While possible, there are many other contributing factors that we could fix without either amending or circumventing the Constitution, like poverty, discrimination, and access to quality education.

Also, just something political that annoys the fuck outta me: people, typically non-Americans, that say we should just ignore the 2nd Amendment because it "was made by some old fuckers over 200 years ago."  Yes, let's ignore what is essentially the founding legal document of our entire nation, the one that outlines our rights and our most fundamental laws as a society.  Not to mention that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, what's considered the very core of our nation's being.  Yes, just ignore it and impose draconian, no-guns-at-all legislation, because the Constitution is over 200 years-old.  That will end well.

I don't have a horse in the gun control race (As in, I think that people should be allowed to have gun, but that it should be significantly more controled than say, getting the right to drive a car, but since I live in europe, who cares), but...
You're aware that a lot of countries do change their core texts sometimes, right? As in, France for example is now well into its 5th constitution (and people are starting to think that a 6th would be a good idea), and it's doesn't look like it has changed into a draconnian hellhole because of that...

I find this veneration for old texts a bit unsettling, really...

by some counts, france has had 23 different constitutions, not just for republics (like the 5th), but including the jacobin, the monarchy, the montagnarde, etc... yeah, constitutions don't last long over here...

[lord gibbon]

Exactly, France has changed it's constitution many times, and yet it is still one of the more successful of Nations. There is this attitude of worship toward our nation's founders that confuses me. I guess it's because of our nation's relative youth. The second amendment is just as relevant as the third, and yet I see none defending the third with such rigor. Just because things have been a certain way does not mean they must be that way. Humanity and society must always continue to advance, to take on new ideas, to learn and to grow, else they will die. This attitude of fear and hate toward gun control is harmful to the advancement of human society.

Sorry for the rant, but this is something I'm very passionate about.

[Lithp]

I find this veneration for old texts a bit unsettling, really...

I kind of like some aspects of government to be unchallengeable, because then you can't be like, "You know that 19th amendment thing? Lol, nevermind." Trouble is, it has to be good to start with, which it often isn't.

[KZN02]

Not sure if it belongs here, but the base pic is recognizable.

[lord gibbon]

Say, ICK, I don't know if it's just me or not, but half of your cartoons are just showing up as little x's on my screen.