The cartoonist speaks (again)

I've taken exception to Martha Rosenberg's support for the civilian disarmament lobby, and their statist agenda, before (also briefly here). Now Martha has apparently decided that it's wrong for politicians to try to convince gun owners that they respect the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

The NRA's "Celebration of American Values" conference last week was supposed to be a ritual of public dotage in which presidential candidates kiss the hem of the NRA's camouflage jacket.

That's called campaigning, Martha, and a politician who doesn't do it is unlikely to be a politician for very long. I realize that you don't share the values being celebrated (that would be American values--this being America, it seems like a good place for them--but perhaps you would be happier elsewhere), but that does not change the fact that gun owners still (despite your efforts) wield considerable political power in this country.

Martha basically goes on to say that while this conference was going on, people were being shot to death in America . . . so, obviously, the Second Amendment doesn't matter, or something, I guess.

She mentions twice that "the NRA agenda" (by which she seems to mean the protection of the Second Amendment) has been run off the rails by the Virginia Tech murders:

Its very agenda is in a tailspin thanks to the Virginia Tech shootings and the school, church and assault weapon shootings which have followed.

And . . .

Nor is it likely the NRA can revive its pre-Cho campaigns for the right to bring weapons to work, to parks and on school yards.

Kinda looks as if she appreciates what she thinks Cho has done for the advancement of her agenda--but she would hardly be the first civilian disarmament advocate to be an enthusiastic blood dancer. By the way, Martha, are you saying that Cho's mass murder spree strengthens the case for rendering people defenseless at work and school?

Then there's the little matter of outright lying (again, hardly a new tactic for the civilian disarmament cheerleaders):

Faced with Somohano's death from a legally bought assault weapon . . . [emphasis mine]

Officer Somohano, you'll remember, was a Florida police officer, recently murdered by longtime criminal Shawn LaBeet. The problem is, LaBeet's murder weapon was not "legally bought"--the laws prohibiting someone with his criminal record from buying guns forced him to buy the gun under an assumed identity--quite illegal. Furthermore, the MAK-90 used by LaBeet is not a so-called "assault weapon" as defined by the now (thankfully) defunct "assault weapons" ban (which wasn't really a ban, but that's another topic).

She ends with this:

No, it's a new day for the NRA with a new sheriff coming to town who may not be sympathetic to the gun lobby--or even a white male. [emphasis mine]

Hmm--could it be that Martha's quarrel is not with gun rights advocacy, but with white males, instead? Yet another trait that seems to be more the rule than the exception in civilian disarmament advocacy circles, as Snowflakes in Hell points out, in reference to Laura Washington.

We see here that Martha is a staff cartoonist. I am not aware of ever having seen any of her cartoons, but I wonder if perhaps she would be better off sticking to those, rather than writing about gun politics.