Comments on The NRA's Graphic Novel

was that done by the guy who does perry bible fellowship?

Well, I'm convinced! I'm buying a gun and joining the Pink Pistols!

My stock message for the NRA:

TGOFPHC

Thanks Gun Owners For Protecting Habeas Corpus. Thanks a fucking lot.

PS: Thanks also for your great work on domestic spying. We'd have no rights left if it wasn't for you (fucking) gun owners.

If the country ever descends into that kind of turmoil, your home arsenal's not going to do a damn thing to save you.

I love, love the graphic style of the art.

I have never seen an angrier lobster.

If this leaves you hankering for an even more telling glimpse into a little-understood corner of right-wing apocalyptic ideology, the Capitol Hill library has a copy of the graphic novel version of Left Behind. Beats reading the actual book, anyway.

@6: There is a Graphic Version of the Left Behind series??!!! WOW!! Tell me they have a graphic version of a hot sweaty gay orgy!! PLEASE tell me they do 'cause I am SO buying it!!!!!

@3, you know, if lefty folks showed a fraction of the energy, organization, and lobbying commitment fighting for the 4th amendment that the NRA does for the 2nd, we'd be living in a different world.

As for that, I honestly don't get why the gun nuts aren't RABID about illegal searches, "sneak and peek" warrants, elimination of writ of habeas corpus, et.al. After all, these were the same people who were calling the ATF "jack-booted thugs" only a few years ago.

After all, isn't what's been going down over the last 7 years EXACTLY the kind of tyranny that the gun nuts supposedly need to keep their guns close at hand to fight?

I guess free speech doesn't matter as long as you get to keep your shootin' irons.

The graphic novels dovetails nicely with what I hope is the cornerstone of the 21st century economy: whiskey and bullets.

Just Me: To each their own Rapture.

@8

Gun nuts don't really know much about liberty besides the liberty to own guns. They would be equally happy under Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez or George Bush. Do anything you like, just let me have my gun.

It's all you liberal hippie tree-huggers who'll be the first to go when the rabid nuclear bio-zombies attack. As for me, I intend to have my shot-gun and silver armor-piercing shells ready. Me and Bill Richardson...

The problem is that most second amendment advocates (but not me!) don't think Bush is any worse than Clinton- remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? Bush has picked his fights very cleverly- the gun guys don't care about Gitmo and extraordinary rendition because, to put it mildly, they are not "internationalists."

Bush hasn't had any high profile ATF and FBI domestic fuckups, otherwise you'd hear just as much vitriol from the gun set.

Plus, let's face it, both the progressives and the conservatives have created an environment where you can choose to support the first or the second amendments, but you are unwelcomed by both groups if you support both of these constitutional rights.

Well, and there's also the fact that shrub is "their guy", so they'll forgive pretty much anything he does, short of another Waco or Ruby Ridge style shoot-em-up, as Big Sven points out. And even if something along those lines were to occur, they'd probably work real hard to rationalize it, if only to prevent their heads from completely exploding over the pressure of all the cognitive dissonance.

And you know, all those guns are only of any use so long as you've got the ammo; once that runs out, they're about as effective as clubs and sticks.

The only canon in my home arsenal is my digital camera. Probably more effective these days than a .45 semi-auto anyway.

This is old news.... I downloaded this from the NRA website back in December of 2006. Huh?

Good work Dan; when you aren't able to compose a cogent argument against a person's right to bear arms, just be snide.

What a winning argumentative technique.

Irony intended (you dirty pinko)

What's wrong with cop-killer bullets?

C'mon people! I thought for sure there would be a mention of this:

The second amendment does _not_ grant the right to bear arms to everyone. So for all you people saying that the NRA is protecting the second amendment, shut the fuck up!

If you read the amendment (unfortunatly, most gun owners can't read, they don't need to either, they got guns). It grants the right to bear arms "in order to form a state militia". No one ever bothers to consider that. This requirement was fulfilled by the creation of the national guard.

How many gun owners want to be part of a militia? Very few. They want to kill people who are stealing their stuff, because, c'mon, whats a life compared to property? In Texas, nothing.

Oh yes... yet another example of the GOP's 2008 strategy:

FEAR! FEAR!! FEAR!!! FEAR!!!! FEAR!!!!!

BE AFRAID! BE VERY AFRAID!! HATE YOUR NEIGHBORS WHO AREN'T AFRAID ENOUGH! FEAR! FEAR!!!!!

I have never known a more cowardly bunch of people than so-called "conservatives". Every last one of them is scared of their own shadow.

Just Some Guy, your comment, ad hominems aside, is inaccurate. You pretend as if the interpretation of the second amendment is a resolved issue; which of course it is not.

Since you inaccurately quote the amendment, let me quote it correctly:

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What constitutes a militia is of course what's in contention, but if you read the contemporaneous accounts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) you will see that even at the time there were those who saw the amendment as a bullwhark against dictatorial government and those who wanted tighter government control of weapons.

To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

My own feeling is that the ambiguity needs to be decided one way or the other by the Supreme Court; if the court holds that civilian firearms are not covered by the 2nd amendment, those of us who feel otherwise will attempt to amend the constitution further to override this interpretation. If the court holds that we do have a right to bear arms independent of the government; you who feel differently can likewise avail yourselves of the constiutional remedies.