Erm....NRA in a Comic Strip

J

johnbt

New member
I love Boondocks and have been following it from the beginning.

You've got the grandfather who only wants some trees and some peace and quiet, but the two kids he's raising have some harsh, but independently different, urban views on the world. Throw in the little girl across the street with a white mother and a black father(a lawyer) and you've got some interesting perspectives on modern suburban America.

Check out this early strip. One of my favorites.

http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/1999/04/21/

FWIW, I went to elementary school in downtown Baltimore, high school next to D.C. in Montgomery County, MD, and have lived in downtown Richmond, VA for 30 years.

I love any and all jokes about the people in the suburbs - especially the white-bread-eating folks who never grew up and who are probably still trimming the crust off of their sandwich bread because it's too coarse for their palate.

Years ago, I told a co-worker that I didn't like Richmond's west end suburbs because there wasn't enough variety - nothing but white people and franchises.

To each their own, I guess.

John
 
H

Hutch

New member
WO, the reason the NRA (for all its many faults) is villified so as racist and extremist is really quite simple. If they are racist, then their views need not even be examined, much less considered. There was an editorial in the B'ham News (I kid you not) that directly equated the NRA with the Nazi party. Eventually, enough of this editorial poo-poo sticks, and so then gun ownership itself becomes racist and extremist. Goebbels (sp?) would be SO proud.....
 
4

45 Long Colt

New member
To Mike Irwin and others pointing out this kind of horse puckey DOES need to be taken seriously:

You're probably far closer to the truth than my first, instinctive response to this cartoon series.

I taught my children a number of things from an early age:

1. Guns are always loaded.

2. You must NEVER trust a safety device.

3. There is NO truth on television.

4. If you read it in the newspapers, you need to confirm it somewhere else (besides TV) before you regard it as more than fresh, smelly BS.

5. Teddy Kennedy is a fat drunk who has killed more people with his car than I have with my whole damn gun collection.

There's more, but you get the idea.

You guys are right: I circulate among folks who would never take this seriously, but in today's world there are lots of people stupid enough to let something like this influence them.

I can accept that. But I don't like it.
 
R

Rail Gun

New member
Posted by Mike Irwin:
It's a fineline between speech protected by the 1st Amendment and hate speech.
Click to expand...
Mike, I think this might be the first issue you and Ted Kennedy agree on. Ted Kennedy also believes that 'hate speech' is 'inflamatory' and not protected by the first amendment. This year he even sponsored a bill to make it illegal, Senate bill 625. Under this bill a pastor of a church can be prosecuted for 'conspiracy to commit a hate crime' simply for speaking out on the health dangers and immorality of homosexuality from a biblical perspective.

Like it or not, this cartoon strip is exactly the sort of speech the founding fathers had in mind to protect when they crafted the bill of rights. Political and religious speech was an important freedom to our forefathers because under the oppressive regimes of european monarchs this freedom did not exist. Now you sound just like the liberals in this matter, whining about your hurt feelings and high blood pressure. Well get over it! This is America and we're a free country, and the jerk that wrote this comic is free to say what he likes, and the publisher is free to publish it if he likes. As Benjamin Franklin said "Freedom of the press belongs to the man that owns the press."

And I say all of this as a patriotic American NRA member. I may not agree or like what others say with their freedom of speech, but I will defend their right to say it!
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
Rail Gun,

I disagree, and actually so did the Founding Fathers.

The Founding Fathers recognized that no right was absolute.

While some were troubled by the Alien and Sedition Acts, others, including George Washington, supported the Alien and Sedition acts, recognizing that there is a boundary between free speech and libel, slander, incitation to riot, etc.

While John Adams was troubled by certain aspects of the Alien and Sedition Acts, he still signed them into law, as he recognized that no right is, or can be, absolute.

About the only person among the Founding Fathers who was truly horrified at the Alien and Sedition Acts was Thomas Jefferson, because he was the author of a lot of the libel that was in circulation at the time.

You fail to see my central theme, though, which I've repeatedly stated -- that reverse racism is apparently OK, but were a white to do this, the establishment would be on him like a water cannon on a Selma marcher.

Also, Rail Gun, you'll also please note that NO WHERE am I calling for this comic strips supression by the Government.

What I am screaming about, though, is the obvious double standard being exercised by the Washington Post, the author of this comic strip, and every newspaper that runs this trash, that essentially white criticism of blacks is racism, but overt racism by blacks against whites isn't really racism at all, it's cultural boundary identification.

Have we heard word ONE about the black movement that has been calling for sepratism from whites for the past several decades?

Hell no.

What have we heard lately about white sepratists (NOT supremacists)? Why they're dirty racist bastards who should be gunned down just like Vicki Weaver and Sammy Weaver were.

The latest racism quagmire?

How about Michael Jackson claiming that his record label is racist, when he's spent his entire adult life trying to erase his black features. Nope, that's perfectly fine.
 
R

Rail Gun

New member
Mike, If you're trying to defend the alien and sedition acts as a legitamate boundary on free speech than you really have no idea what you're talking about. The sedition law is accepted as one of the most oppressive tools of political repression in the history of our government. Similar versions of the Sedition law have ALL been struck down by the US Supreme Court, since then. These oppressive laws are tools for repressing political speech, not for criminalizing slander or libel.
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
Jesus, Railgun, you've missed every point that I've tried to make. So far you're 0 for everything.

Please go back and tell me where I'm defending the Alien & Sedition Acts.

Let me recount the points for you:

1. Racism is still racism, no matter which group practices it.

2. Reverse racism, apparently though, is OK in this country when it's blacks practicing it.

3. Even the Founding Fathers recognized that no right is absolute.

I'm not even going to try to crawl into your mind to see how you arrived at the conclusion that I'm defending the Alien & Sedition Acts, or that somehow I'm calling for the Government to step in and quash the Boondocks.
 
M

Mike Irwin

Staff
Oh, and by the way...

The Sedition Law, finessed, toned down, and more highly directed, was a predecessor to many of today's libel and slander laws....

Libel and slander, instead of treasonous activity, was actually the problem in 1800, as Republican newspapers, led by Jefferson, had no qualms about publishing then what today would result in huge judgments against the author and publishing organ.

Yes, the acts were politically motivated to destroy a rival political party, but even so, obviously the some of the "founding fathers" you invoked weren't all THAT troubled by them.

But, once again, that's outside of the points that I've been making (see message above), points which you've continually missed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top