The Second Amendment

http://jondornart.com/cartoons/page/2/

Team member name: Emily Lindley

Publication: jondornart.com/cartoons Date: 12/21/2012

Cartoonist: Jon Dorn U.S./International

Title of cartoon: “Military-grade free speech” Cartoon: # 1

What action is taking place in this cartoon? What is the context?

The cartoon represents a man in a white collar suit with a tie shooting a military-grade fire arm in his front yard. There are sandbags and barbed wire covering the front yard of the man’s home. In the background it appears to be the man’s son looking outside a side window in the house. The boy is staring at the man and impersonates the action of holding a firearm while a gun is being shot. The man is wearing an army styled helmet and talks about the first amendment right of being able to have a military-grade fire arm that Obama cannot take away.

The cartoonist's persuasive technique is a combination of exaggeration and irony. The gun symbolizes how an average American has the opportunity to own a large firearm in a family household setting. On July 31, 2013 the Senate administered a law that places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons. In order to register the weapons a fingerprint-based background check is mandatory from the owner to ensure mental stability (whitehouse.gov, 2013). Irony is expressed by the intensity of a man with his attachment to a powerful weapon. The first amendment protects the right to petition government for redress of grievances that gives citizens the right to complain or request help from the government with no consequences. The first amendment is being magnified in the cartoon by citizens representing to right to have a gun in a family household.

Which side is supported by the framing of the cartoon? 

The framing is positive for the democratic view on gun control. The cartoon demonstrates how the intensity of machine-grade weapons is resembled in situations where they are not needed. A white collared working man does not need to shoot a high-powered weapon in his front yard for the enjoyment of it.

What evidence can you give that the cartoon supports one side or the other?

The cartoonist is supporting the Democrats by showing the need for limitation on gun control and framing the need for gun control. It is disturbing to see a man shooting a powerful weapon in his front yard yelling about his first amendment rights while his son is watching from a side window.

What reality is constructed/framed by your issue?

The reality of the issue is that citizens are using powerful weapons for unnecessary situations. The cartoonist demonstrates how citizens are taking advantage of the right to own guns. The cartoon constructs the idea that gun control needs to be monitored for the use of safety in certain situations. There is no logical purpose to use a weapon unless needed in protection, survival or food scavenging. American gun owners are increasingly keeping firearms for protection instead of for hunting and sporting purposes, according to a new poll by the Pew Research Center (USA Today, 2013).

Analysis

In this cartoon irony shows how citizens are taking advantage of amendment rights that were written when guns were used as a way of survival. We live in a society where hunting for survival is not the main source of food and guns are more of a recreational hobby.

Among gun owners surveyed, 48% said they own them for protection, while 32% said they own a firearm mainly for hunting purposes. That's a large shift from 1999 when 26% of those surveyed said they owned a gun for protection, while 49% said they used it mainly for hunting, according to an August (The Washington Post, 2013).

The cartoonist portrays the reality of how guns are used in unnecessary situations and how the reaction from angry citizens is reflected to younger generations and supporters for gun control. 

http://www.cagle.com/tag/2nd-amendment/page/13/

Team Member Name: Chris Glaittli

Publication: The Cage Post Date: December 18th, 2012

Cartoonist: Bob Englehart U.S./International: US

Title of cartoon: "Repeal Second Amendment" Cartoon: # 2

What action is taking place in the cartoon? What is the context?

Uncle Sam is teaching a classroom about how to change America’s gun culture! On the blackboard, listed twelve times is “Repeal 2nd Amendment”.  Englehart created this cartoon and posted underneath the cartoon that he expected “to see concrete changes come from President Obama’s speech and presence in Newtown the other night” (Englehart, 2012). Two days before, December 16, 2012, President Obama had traveled to Newtown, Connecticut and gave a speech at Newtown High School two days after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting.

The analogy or comparison between two unlike things, a complex situation and a situation with a more familiar tone as outlined in the Cartoonists’ Persuasive Guide, Englehart displays an ordinary classroom, Uncle Sam, and twelve easy steps to resolving an issue, all things that we have all heard about or are familiar with. The complex situation shown within this cartoon is the urge to repeal or revoke the 2nd amendment.

According to Legal Information Institute from Cornell University, the Second Amendment states “ 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” (Legal Information Institute, No Date).  Many people found that the Sandy Hook shooting was a very big reason for the repeal of the 2nd amendment because of the twenty children and six adults that died. According to an article from RT, a news network that covers the stories that mainstream media often misses, Connecticut enacted a gun law that “ requires gun owners registered military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines with state officials by the end of last year”. Almost 350,000 assault weapons were unregistered despite the newly enacted law. As this was only one of the many attempts to decrease or repeal the rights the 2nd Amendment gives to US citizens, the refusal of many gun owners has become somewhat of a problem within the United States.

Tone of the cartoon:

1) Which side is supported by the framing of the cartoon?

It is clear that the side towards those who are pushing for the repeal of the 2nd amendment. I say those who are pushing for the repeal but it is unclear in the research to say that a certain political party, Republican or Democrat, strongly is in favor of  a side of the gun control debate. Engleheart set up the question up in the cartoon: Whats the simple way of changing America’s gun culture? Englehart then formed the answer repeatedly: Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

2) What evidence can you give that shows the cartoonist supports one side or the other?

The repetition of the black board is more than enough evidence to say that Engleheart supports the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. The addition of Uncle Sam in the picture tells the viewer that this is for all US citizens to hear.

3) What “reality” is constructed/framed about your issue?

The reality is that serious action needs to be taking place in order to protect the lives. Sandy Hook was a tragedy because the shooter had 3 semi-automatic weapons in his home and was able to procure these weapons and use them to gun down innocent lives. No one likes a death count and that is why the gun control debate will always be a hard one to resolve because there are so many different sides to it. Although Englehart used Uncle Sam as a representation of the people of the US, it is hard to do that because there are so many different opinions and thoughts coming into the debate from all different areas that it will be hard to bring about one simple solution. In other words, it is possible that repealing the 2nd Amendment may not be enough to completely stop guns from firing off where they shouldn't be.

http://www.davegranlund.com/cartoons/2013/01/10/second-amendment-and-nra/

Team Member Name: Braden Clark

Publication: Dave Granlund Political Cartoons Date: 1/10/13

Cartoonist: Dave Granlund U.S./International (circle or highlight)

Title of cartoon: "Second Amendment and the NRA" Cartoon: # 3

What action is taking place in the cartoon? What is the context?

The cartoonist is giving an example on how our perception of the second amendment has been fogged over the years.  Originally the second amendment stated “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”  (Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Mason, Henry & Others, 1791).  But the NRA, in the cartoon, is taking this way out of context, saying that all these unnecessary weapons fall underneath the second amendment, when the founding fathers never intended for that.

Tone of the cartoon:

Symbolism, is used here.  In the first picture it shows what the founding fathers initially believed, but in the second image it takes the idea of the first image and blows it out of proportion.  They are both the same picture in a sense, men holding weapons standing on something.  Where it alters is with the second picture, the NRA is taking advantage of the second amendment.  It says, to me, that the NRA claims that these guns and obsession of guns is essential for their safety.

1) Which side is supported by the framing of the cartoon?

In this cartoon, he doesn’t come out and say exactly which side he is supporting, but what he is doing is poking fun at the NRA.  In his cartoon, the NRA is taking what the second amendment actually is and milking it for all it’s worth.  He’s inferring that the NRA claims that all of the weapons in the picture fall under the second amendment, when originally that is not what the founding fathers had in mind at all.

2) What evidence can you give that shows the cartoonist supports one side or the other? 
If the cartoonist had to be on one side, I would say he was against the NRA.  In his cartoon it is obvious that his example of the NRA is similar to the founding father example.  However, it alters in many ways, instead of standing on a block of stone, the man stands on stacks of ammo and he isn’t holding one rifle.  He is holding numerous amounts of firearms across his body. 

3) What “reality” is constructed/framed about your issue?

The reality framed in this cartoon is how much over exaggeration America has perceived the second amendment.  American’s are worried about their gun rights being taken advantage of, but the founding fathers never really anticipated the amount of weapons we actually could hold.

http://www.cagle.com/2013/03/second-amendment-debate/

Team Member Name: Braden Clark

Publication: Colorado Springs Gazette Date: 3/22/13

Cartoonist: Chuck Asay U.S./International

Title of cartoon: "Second Amendment Debate" Cartoon: # 4

What action is taking place in the cartoon? What is the context?

This cartoon is giving an example about a debate that happened between Texas Tea-Party Senator Ted Cruz and longtime serving Senator Dianne Feinstein.  In the first cartoon it is Cruz describing the second amendment to Senator Feinstein, claiming that right to bear arms shall not be infringed.  In the second cartoon, it is Senator Feinstein obviously not understanding the concept of the second amendment.  She claims that the second amendment is saying that Americans have a right to have arms, not guns, but actual arms.  It is also important to notice the founding fathers are surrounding the two politicians, where they seem to be happy with Cruz but seem to be displeased with Feinstein.

Tone of the cartoon:

Irony is used in this cartoon, Irony because in fact Cruz is a hypocrite when it comes to the second amendment.  Apparently in 2008 he argued that the Supreme Court would take away our rights to the second amendment (Ungar, 2013), and now he is arguing on the opposite side.  Also, it is Ironic that the Founding Fathers are present as well, and they seem to be pleased with what Cruz is saying but somewhat annoyed from what Feinstein is saying.

1) Which side is supported by the framing of the cartoon?

This cartoon is siding pro-gun rights to be restricted, the cartoonist makes it seem like Cruz is a very sophisticated man and actually know what he is talking about.  Whereas, Feinstein resembles a child throwing a temper tantrum, and she clearly doesn't understand the concept of the second amendment.

2) What evidence can you give that shows the cartoonist supports one side or the other?

The fact that the cartoonist felt that it was necessary to add the Founding Fathers showing support shows that he is for gun restrictions.  It also helps that he made Feinstein look rather foolish and childlike, as if her point of view is unimportant and the people who follow her are equally uneducated on the topic.  Also, having Cruz hold the second amendment in his hand, he seems like he is trying to convince Feinstein what he is actually talking about, but she doesn’t want anything to do with what he has to say.

3) What “reality” is constructed/framed about your issue?

The actual debate between these two was rather interesting and the cartoonist does a poor job describing Feinstein’s side of the story.  She said, “The first amendment won’t start banning books, so why would we do the same thing to the second amendment?” (Ungar, 2013).  Her argument is valid, and the cartoon doesn’t give her respect in that aspect.  Cruz then went on and questioned Feinstein and asked her “Would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall only apply to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?” (Ungar, 2013).  The cartoon doesn't really perceive an accurate description on the argument held by the two politicians, whereas it somewhat makes fun of Senator Feinstein and supports Senator Cruz wholeheartedly.

All information, including pictures, on this site are for educational use only. This use is protected by the educational fair use provision of the United States Copyright law, www.cetus.org.