Fear the Wrath of Cyber-Hannity

David Weigel | May 22, 2006

Liberal blogger Tim Brayton has the second in a multi-part analysis of the saddest monument in the 21st century's culture war - the pro-War on Terror, anti-liberalism comic Liberality for All. In the LfA universe, Al Gore was elected president in 2000. Rather than solving global warming, Social Security, and hurricanes, Gore ushered in an age of American defeat and retreat. In the year 2021, the fate of the US rests with a cybernetically-enhanced Sean Hannity and his ally G. Gordon Liddy. How bad is this comic? Well, here's the G-Man's monologue upon cradling a rare contraband firearm.

The XM-9...You know, I evaluated the XM-8 model for the NRA. Before the organization was officially disbanded...So many cold, dead hands.

Comments

|5.22.06 @ 12:13PM|#

The XM-9...You know, I evaluated the XM-8 model for the NRA. Before the organization was officially disbanded...So many cold, dead hands.

Not to mention, so many lawsuits from XM Satellite Radio for trademark infringement upon their name. ;)

|5.22.06 @ 12:46PM|#

I'm looking forward to the return of Black Helicopter conservatives once Hillary's elected. She's coming to tap yer phones, take yer guns, and send you to Gitmo!

|5.22.06 @ 12:58PM|#

The real Black Helicopter Conservatives never left, Brian. They're just obscured among the rest of the 9/11 Conspiracy Crowd.

|5.22.06 @ 12:59PM|#

The XM-9...You know, I evaluated the XM-8 model for the NRA. Before the organization was officially disbanded...So many cold, dead hands.

In what universe is this evidence that the comic is bad.

|5.22.06 @ 1:17PM|#

The XM-8 is indeed a real rifle manufacturered by Heckler & Koch. Supposedly it's their attempt at coming up with a new design to replace the currently issued M-16.

I handled an XM-8 at SHOT Show a couple years ago. Neat rifle.

More info here:
World. Guns.ru entry on the XM-8

Note that this is a firearm that would be prohibited from civilian ownership in general, and G. Gordon Liddy in particular, owing to his status as a convicted felon.

wingnutx|5.22.06 @ 1:22PM|#

I'll buy it if Robo- Jonah Goldberg makes an appearance.

|5.22.06 @ 1:26PM|#

I don't know about sending me to Gitmo, but she certainly was coming after my guns.

I pine for a simpler time, when the left's war on self defense made them so easy to hate that all of my political decisions were made for me. Since they more or less stopped that, I have to think more about the choice between the poo sandwhich and, you know, the other guy.

|5.22.06 @ 1:37PM|#

Agree with Jason Ligon. The left find the concept of self defense and responsible gun ownership positively offensive.

For that reason alone, I am unlikely to ever vote for a Democrat.

R C Dean|5.22.06 @ 1:38PM|#

Since they more or less stopped that

But only until they get the majority back, Jason. You don't really think they now have a principled belief in the human right to defend yourself, do you?

|5.22.06 @ 1:41PM|#

It sounds like "The Turner Diaries".

|5.22.06 @ 1:43PM|#

WARNING! SEMI-OBSCURE SIMPSONS REFERENCE BELOW:

So what's more fearsome--the Cyber Hannity or the Robotic Richard Simmons?

|5.22.06 @ 2:06PM|#

Mediageek.
It must be a scary world you live in.
I don't know any "lefties" that are offended by self-defense or responsible gun ownership.

Some just think that owning a gun is different than owning soft cushion (or a comfy chair)... and maybe, just maybe, should come with additional responsibilities.

I think, by the way, that gun regulations lean in the wrong direction. You should be able to restrict guns that are useful in crime and domestic violence (small & easy to hide), but let anyone have weapons that would be useful in keeping government troops in-line. Bazookas for all. And the logic behind concealed weapons laws, give me a break. If you want me to worry about mugging you, wear the gun outside your jacket.

I am serious.

|5.22.06 @ 2:16PM|#

"It must be a scary world you live in.
I don't know any "lefties" that are offended by self-defense or responsible gun ownership."

Really? Gee, then perhaps you'd like to square that with the fact that the ban on so-called "assault weapons" was drafted by a Democrat and passed by a majority-Democrat congress.

Or how about when Ted Kennedy called for outlawing .30-30 ammunition, the most ubiquitous deer-hunting round in America?

To say nothing of the myriad lefties who continually call for so-called "Smart Guns," integrated locks, and laws mandating that firearms should be required to be locked up, unloaded, at all times.

|5.22.06 @ 2:18PM|#

"If you want me to worry about mugging you, wear the gun outside your jacket."

Some states still have legal open-carry. It's a courtesy thing. Since your average person would flip out at someone walking into a Burger King with a pistol on their belt, those who wish to carry a defensive implement oblige those around them by covering the weapon up, lest others get agitated.

|5.22.06 @ 2:32PM|#

Mediageek

Did you read my comment? Congress does not = most people.

As for "those who wish to carry a defensive implement oblige those around them by covering the weapon up, lest others get agitated."

That is so polite of you. And why do you think the average person reacts to your gun as they do? That, I think, is the crux of the issue. Maybe it because they realize that, for the most part, even in the US, we don't really need guns to safely buy a burger. By the way, I am far more likely to think you are up to no good if I find out you are hiding your weapon than if I see you openly wearing it. Do me the favor of allowing me the chance to decide if I want to stand in line behind the paranoid twit with a pistol... that would be the polite course.

wingnutx|5.22.06 @ 2:33PM|#

I don't know any "lefties" that are offended by self-defense or responsible gun ownership.

Apparently you've never met my sister, or any of her million-mom friends.

|5.22.06 @ 2:38PM|#

You should be able to restrict guns that are useful in crime and domestic violence (small & easy to hide), but let anyone have weapons that would be useful in keeping government troops in-line.

Aren't fists the most common weapon in domestic violence cases, followed by feet, belts, knives, lamps, cookware, and hands about the throat?

|5.22.06 @ 2:43PM|#

"Did you read my comment? Congress does not = most people."

Indeed I did.

"That is so polite of you. And why do you think the average person reacts to your gun as they do? That, I think, is the crux of the issue. Maybe it because they realize that, for the most part, even in the US, we don't really need guns to safely buy a burger."

Again. If a person chooses to carry a defensive implement, be it pepper spray, a knife, or a pistol, what business of yours, or anyone else is it?

"By the way, I am far more likely to think you are up to no good if I find out you are hiding your weapon than if I see you openly wearing it."

Well, bully for you, but that puts you quite out of the mainstream, unless you're talking circa 1850. If someone has gone through the hoops to get a carry permit, why do you even care what their method of carry is? Next you'll probably be clucking your tongue at people who choose a kydex holster over a leather one, or something similarly inane.

|5.22.06 @ 2:48PM|#

I don't know any "lefties" that are offended by self-defense or responsible gun ownership.

BWA HA HA "HA" HA HA HA HA HA HA!

R C Dean|5.22.06 @ 2:48PM|#

You should be able to restrict guns that are useful in crime and domestic violence (small & easy to hide)

Except these are precisely the same guns that are also useful for self-defense. So sorry, but you simply cannot sort guns that are criminals from those that are good citizens.

This unfortunate phenomenon has something to do with the fact that guns are inanimate objects. Its their owners who are criminals (or good citizens, depending).

Now, if we could only pass laws attacking the root of the problem by prohibiting people from engaging in crime and domestic violence. . . .

R C Dean|5.22.06 @ 2:51PM|#

You should be able to restrict guns that are useful in crime and domestic violence (small & easy to hide)

Except these are precisely the same guns that are also useful for self-defense. So sorry, but you simply cannot sort guns that are criminals from those that are good citizens.

This unfortunate phenomenon has something to do with the fact that guns are inanimate objects. Its their owners who are criminals (or good citizens, depending).

Now, if we could only pass laws attacking the root of the problem by prohibiting people from engaging in crime and domestic violence. . . .

If you want me to worry about mugging you, wear the gun outside your jacket.

I don't want you to worry about mugging me in particular, I want you to worry about mugging anybody. Anyone who lives in a concealed carry state benefits from the fact that the crooks just don't know.

If this makes you uncomfortable, I suggest wearing a t-shirt that says "I am unarmed and defenseless."

|5.22.06 @ 3:01PM|#

Guys guys, this conversation on the importance of the 2nd amendment and who does or does not hate it obscures us from the real issues ... shitty comics.

wingnutx|5.22.06 @ 3:02PM|#

Next you'll probably be clucking your tongue at people who choose a kydex holster over a leather one, or something similarly inane.

Or something insane, like 9mm being a better round than .45ACP.

:D

|5.22.06 @ 3:06PM|#

RC Dean,

I am unarmed, but can dispatch you with my bare hands...

;~)

I actually agree with most of your points. Maybe I am a poor communicator today. I meant to convey the fact the the 2nd involves a check on government power more than anything else. It is not aimed at your right to self-defense, but rather as a balance on the government monopoly on power.

But

"Anyone who lives in a concealed carry state benefits from the fact that the crooks just don't know."

Is both conjecture and silly. Crooks/violent criminals are risk takers... they will be far easier to deter with open carry. (and please don't point me to a study. I've read 'em on both sides and the results are a wash.)

|5.22.06 @ 3:09PM|#

So the results are a wash, but concealed carry having a net positive effect at criminal deterrence is wrong because you say so?

|5.22.06 @ 3:19PM|#

When the studies are equivocal, then I go with common sense. I don't have the power to determine the nature of truth. I just states my opinion.

Try it sometime. Pick a fight with the toughest guy in the room. Once with a gun on your belt. Once with a gun hidden in your pocket. See which time you get punched.

dhex|5.22.06 @ 3:33PM|#

"In what universe is this evidence that the comic is bad."

in the one where it isn't a punchline but a prognosis.

i mean, that's pure high comedy. i just wish they were joking.

|5.22.06 @ 3:36PM|#

Pick a fight with the toughest guy in the room. Once with a gun on your belt. Once with a gun hidden in your pocket. See which time you get punched.

Um, I think the idea is that if you have to carry the gun on your belt, criminals will only target people without guns on their belts. If criminals don't know who's carrying and who isn't, then even people who don't carry get some benefit. Florida, as I recall, experienced this in a big way--they had to stop identifying rental cars 'cause car jackers, to avoid locals that might be carrying, started targeting tourists exclusively.

When I worked in a hospital, they made a point of not identifying the AIDS patients--that way, the employees treated every patient like they had AIDS. ...This seems like the same kinda thing. I think I'd rather criminals treat every would be victim as if they were armed. My understanding is that although crime rates don't always go down when concealed carry is introduced, the kinds of crimes change. ...There aren't so many strong arm muggings, not so many carjackings, etc., etc.

|5.22.06 @ 3:45PM|#

"Try it sometime. Pick a fight with the toughest guy in the room. Once with a gun on your belt. Once with a gun hidden in your pocket. See which time you get punched."

See, here's the thing.

I don't go around picking fights with people.

No wonder you're so freaked out by concealed carry.

|5.22.06 @ 3:46PM|#

For my money, Jack Chick still walks away with whatever prize is awarded to the worst comics in mankind's history. Liberality for All doesn't come close to that benchmark.

|5.22.06 @ 3:49PM|#

To me, it's a personal preference thing.

It's not anybody's business what method someone chooses to carry a defensive implement, except that of the person who opts to exercise their right to self defense.

|5.22.06 @ 3:54PM|#

for what it's worth, i know seemingly a million democratic voters that own guns. they tend to vote for democrats because guns are not the most important issue to them. (been to a union hall lately?)

i've been around guns and handled as many guns as the next guy and i really don't care if people carry them or not.

and that comic sucks.

however, the one thing that makes me skeptical about the effectiveness of concealed carry or even of openly carrying a gun - is that the thing that makes so many crimes successful (sorry, couldn't think of a better word) is the element of surprise.

by the time you realize you are in a situation where you could use your gun, most likely you are already mugged or carjacked.

so i'm skeptical, but i don't begrudge people the sense of security that carrying most likely brings. perhaps there's value in that.

|5.22.06 @ 4:16PM|#

Arguing from first principles, the right to self defense is as fundamental as any premise of living in society I can think of. There is no analogous right for MainStreamMan to see what is in my pocket.

Arguing from consequences, the relative physical might of a guy like MSM is precisely why it is important that my wife has the option of turning a physical assault into a 5 lb problem, with a short reset.

Arguing from tactics, open carry incites the gun grab from behind or in crowds, whereas concealed carry allows for close body contact and control of a weapon the other guy doesn't know about.

|5.22.06 @ 4:21PM|#

Downstater, like most things in life, there's no guarantee. But having a defensive weapon, and more importantly, a mindset to remain aware of your surroundings is much, much better than nothing at all.

|5.22.06 @ 4:59PM|#

mediageek,

i completely agree.

|5.22.06 @ 5:36PM|#

After a year in Viet Nam (68-9) I was a leftist political organizer: a nuts & bolts guy. Vermont, and Wi. I was (and am) a shooter, I load my own, I instruct people on safe & proper use.
It was the inherent hostility of "progressives" to self defense that made me walk away from what passes as a Left in this country. After 35 friggin years. Dont even TRY to tell me progs support self defence. My first step as a citizen of Arizona was a concealed carry permit. A .38 special went with me like my car keys. No one ever saw it, because no one ever needed to.
you progs dont actually WONDER why you are generally disliked/mistrusted by regular, normal, working people, do ya?
My firearms aint killed anybody, yet. Liberal support for say, the Contras, or high altitude bombing of Central Europe, or that ghastly creature Albright have butched hundreds of thousands.
Concealed carry. Its what free & soveriegn people do, if they choose to.
Rights arent "granted"- you are born with them.
Jezus Im tired of prog sniveling about this.

|5.22.06 @ 5:54PM|#

The homo-erotic potential could best the Heman cartoons of the early 1980's

"The New York City faction of F.O.I.L. is lead by Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy and Oliver North, each uniquely endowed with special abilities devised by a bio mechanical engineer affectionately nicknamed �Oscar�."

|5.22.06 @ 6:35PM|#

you progs dont actually WONDER why you are generally disliked/mistrusted by regular, normal, working people, do ya?

Mmm, I don't know where people get the idea that this place is crawling with "progs."

|5.22.06 @ 6:39PM|#

I think he means MainStreamMan.

|5.22.06 @ 6:43PM|#

Does anyone else find it amusing that you have to buy this series from "A Comic Collective?"

|5.22.06 @ 8:49PM|#

Ain't been called a prog in a long time.
I believe I was arguing that the 2nd is a tool for assuring limited government power, but whatever...

Mediageek.

Ain't picked a fight in my life.

Ain't felt the need to carry a gun to avoid violence in my life (your suggestion to be aware of your surroundings works much better).

Those who carry a gun to protect themselves find themselves in a precarious position: pull the gun and escalate the situation towards deadly force... not the best way to keep yourself safe IMHO...

But if you feel it is... then please wear that attitude on your sleeve, as it were.

|5.22.06 @ 8:55PM|#

Meanwhile, back in reality:

FBI's Saturday night Capitol Hill raid raises alarms
On Saturday evening, the FBI raided the Rayburn House Office Building office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-La.. The former Speaker New Gingrich, R-Ga., sent a strongly worded e-mail Sunday night (obtained by CongressDaily):

"There is no excuse for the FBI for the first time in history searching a congressional office and apparently doing so in total [dis]regard of due process as it relates to the legislative branch. The president should respond accordingly and should discipline (probably fire) whoever exhibited this extraordinary violation. The protection of the legislative branch from the executive branch's policing powers is a fundamental principle which goes all the way back to the English Civil War ... the most blatant violation of the Constitutional separation of powers in my lifetime."

|5.22.06 @ 9:03PM|#

DFTTbot

|5.23.06 @ 11:10AM|#

MainstreamMan.

Here's the deal:

When it comes to the issues and reasons for carrying concealed, you're trying to offer input on something you obviously have zero experience on.

It's cute, really, but of very little utility to anyone with any sort of real-world experience in the matter.

Cheerio,
MG

|5.23.06 @ 12:39PM|#

Mediageek.

You make lots of assumptions about my real world experience.

It's cute really but of very little utility...you get the picture.

My final word on the matter is this.
You have the right to do whatever you deem you need to do to keep yourself safe. But to claim that a concealed weapon keeps you safer than an openly carried one shows very little understanding of who is a threat to you and how they are likely to behave in the two situations.

Pretend you are being polite to those nervous non-gun carrying others if that makes you feel better, but in the end, by-and-large those who hide their weapon are just too scared themselves to stand up, out in the open, and assert their right to carry a gun.

The reason comes from something that is talked about a lot on these boards. They are acting outside the norms of their community, and don't feel comfortable with the (potential) scorn. So to avoid the scorn, they hide their gun. They are not doing it to make others comfortable, they are doing it to make themselves comfortable. The hidden gun makes them feel powerful. It doesn't make them safer, it makes them (and others around them) less safe (something I have lots of real-world experience with). It's not cute. It's paranoid. All the rest is just rationalization.

|5.23.06 @ 12:56PM|#

"The hidden gun makes them feel powerful. It doesn't make them safer, it makes them (and others around them) less safe (something I have lots of real-world experience with). It's not cute. It's paranoid. All the rest is just rationalization."

Wait, so carrying a concealed weapon is a risk to everyone around, but carrying one openly is not?

That's essentially what your argument boils down to.

At any rate, feel free to dig up the statistics proving that concealed weapon permit holders have a higher likelihood of being victimized, or of victimizing others.

The bottom line is that you are the one who is uncomfortable with others carrying concealed. The only rational justification for this is if you are a criminal or know people who make a living victimizing others.

If you have no intention of victimizing anyone, then you have nothing to fear from a person who chooses to carry a concealed firearm.

|5.23.06 @ 7:29PM|#

I live in a state with a brand-spanking-new RTKBA amendment to the state constitution, but no concealed carry legislation. As things stand right now, if I owned a gun, I couldn't carry it concealed. If I carried it openly, the cops would arrest me for creating a disturbance. I even seem to remember that wearing a gun in a holster outmy clothes is considered concealed carry by local DAs. [One wonders if there is a market for a transparent holster made out of some space-age material...] The state Supreme Court recently ruled that a person whom kept a loaded pistol in his car while trransporting the day's receipts from his business to the bank late at night was not protected from prosecution, unless he was in "imminent danger." Sheesh!

Kevin

|5.23.06 @ 8:12PM|#

Mediageek.

"Wait, so carrying a concealed weapon is a risk to everyone around, but carrying one openly is not?"

Wha!? how'd you get that?!

Guns (hidden or not) are a risk to everyone around... if you don't get that, I worry about you even owning a gun. There was something above you said about "responsible gun ownership." You realize that guns are dangerous, right?

Let's take a quiz:
Which item increases the chances of someone being shot (whether hidden or not)?

a)a gun
b)a banana
c)a camera
d) a & c

"The bottom line is that you are the one who is uncomfortable with others carrying concealed. The only rational justification for this is if you are a criminal or know people who make a living victimizing others."

Wow, you really lack imagination.

The rational justification for my being uncomfortable is that you feel the need not only to carry a deadly weapon with you (in situations that probably don't present a reasonable risk to your safety), but you also feel the need to hide it. It is the hiding it part that makes me suspicious of your intentions/reasons for carrying it. If you weren't hiding it, I might assume you have a good reason for carrying it.

Deceit was once the hallmark of poor character. Has that changed?

If you have no intentions of victimizing anyone with your gun, why do you feel the need to hide it?

Have a nice day. But watch out. The bad people might get you... unless you can trick them that is. That is what will keep you safe. Tricking them. Those bad people. Must trick the bad people. Must trick the bad people. That'll show them. They don't know what they're in for if they fuck with you. You'll show them. You've got a secret way to get them...yes trick them, trick them, yes my precious. You'll keep me safe. As long as they are nice to me they are safe, but just you wait and see... it'll be like, "you talking to me?" "you talkin' to me?" Then they'll get what they deserve.

Sorry. That was a baseless characterization of you. Only an idiot would accuse you of being a criminally insane victimizer because you stated an opinion on an internet thread.

|5.23.06 @ 10:17PM|#

Dude, you don't even make any sense.

You are obviously not even interested in carrying on any sort of rational discussion and are therefore not even worth responding to.

You have some sort of inane, misguided bias that someone who goes through a training course, a state and federal background check, and then goes to the not-insubstantial cost of acquiring a firearm for personal defense is up to no good because, wait for it...because they opt to put a shirt over that defensive implement smacks of close-minded, unthinking and stereotyping hoplophobia.

But whatever. You just keep right on believing that people who carry concealed are somehow more prone to criminality despite all of the facts.

Because you're just awesome that way.

|5.24.06 @ 11:33AM|#

Mediageek doesn't seem to recognize sarcasm.

I was mocking your inability to recognize that there might be differences of opinion on the issue.

You are the one who assumed that my questioning of the utility of concealed weapons meant I was a criminal.

As for the facts that you imply. I didn't see any coming from your side of the discussion. But there ya go...

I will remember from now on. Presenting opinions that disagree with Mediageek means I am being irrational. Questioning his underlying, unexamined assumptions... well don't even go there.