Parody Through Caricature

I have to hand it to whoever created this blog. It was hard to tell at first whether it was real. But I’m fairly certain it’s parodying our opponents by use of caricature. How else do you explain a gem like this?

It’s come to my attention that gun owners belong to the NRA and are Tea Party Insurrectionists Extremist Gunophile Fetishists. It’s also notable that they will often give up their families, careers, and even their life to have “Wild West” type shootouts over minor disputes such as parking spots or to compensate for some other shortcoming. Again, this is not personal conjecture but consensus among the public as verified in the Comments sections of several web sites. That’s not to say that they don’t favor common sense civilian disarmament polices such as the prohibition of AK-47 Assault Weapons since they can now safely be considered Weapons of Mass Destruction, and have no civilian use, or the reasonable ban of Glock brand machine pistols since they have no militia use and therefore, are not protected by the Second Amendment.

It would be funnier if it was more of a caricature, though. Unfortunately, it’s not really much of one. I think if the folks over CSGV were to see this site, they’d be regular readers.

7 thoughts on “Parody Through Caricature”

  1. Come on, Sebastian. How can you not like this?

    “Even though [the Huffington Post] posts articles that are almost exclusively anti-gun violence and whose members are always anti-gun, the comments section was full of support for gun violence by NRA Baggers and posts by anti-gun violence members were mostly those who’s arguments were weak, full of speculation, and contained little or no supporting links. This is proof positive that the planned deception has been at work to post over and over, and to flag thoughtful posts by anti-gun violence members so that they are removed and only those from well-meaning but less than thoughtful remain.”

  2. Yeah, I can’t see the use of “no civilian use!” and “no militia use!” in the consecutive sentences as being anything but parody.

    Normally it’s not even the same person doing both claims – and if they do, they separate them rather more (and I suspect, charitably, that they don’t even see the contradiction).

  3. The first time that I glanced at the site, I thought, “Ah, just another anti-gun blog”. Now that you point it out, you’re right: it’s almost certainly a parody site!

    While it’s nice to have blatant parodies, subtle parodies probably have their role, too. I’m not quite sure it is (and I’m not in the mood to think about such things right now), but it won’t hurt to see how things progress. :-)

Comments are closed.