Scanning Around With Gene: Gun for the Whole Family

When it comes to liberties, the right to bear arms is, for many Americans, one of the most important, defendable by death if necessary. Despite this, the right to manufacture arms is not so clear. Be it sky-high insurance premiums, expensive labor contracts, government regulation, or wrongful-death lawsuits, most gun manufacturing has moved overseas. So it wasn’t a great surprise to read that one of the most-recognized American firearms brand, Winchester, is planning to shutter its factory in Connecticut next month (shown here in better times). In its heyday, the factory employed as many as 1,800 workers and could churn out 300,000 guns a year.

To me, a big-city, left-leaning, blue-state, pacifist liberal, it seems clear that the gun industry has outlived its usefulness. Looking at old gun ads feels just like looking at old cigarette ads — it’s hard to believe we didn’t see the downside that loomed behind the smiling faces of happy gun-toting family members (shown here in a 1972 Christmas ad for Daisy rifles).

Winchester, founded in 1866, is the gun brand most associated with the taming of the wild West, at least when it came to rifles. The company produced reliable, reasonably cheap weapons, and worked hard to establish a distinct image for its brand. From the beginning, Winchester favored a rugged outdoor look for its advertising, as shown here in a 1904 magazine ad and color poster.

Winchester is owned by a Belgian firm now, but in its prime during the early 20th century, the Winchester Repeating Arms Company represented the epitome of American manufacturing and American branding. Famous for its calendars, posters and other printed material, Winchester commissioned a variety of artists to illustrate the uses of Winchester rifles, as shown in the images below. The first, by artist H.G. Edwards, is from a 1921 promotional calendar. The second, by illustrator W.R. Leigh, is also from a promotional calendar, this time from 1917.

John Wayne favored Winchester Rifles in his movies, it was a Winchester that starred in the title role of the TV series The Rifleman, and a 1950 Anthony Mann movie was all about one of the most popular Winchester rifles ever made — the Winchester ’73. The film starred Jimmy Stewart, Rock Hudson, Tony Curtis, and Shelley Winters.

Most gun manufacturers were careful to officially portray their products being used against animals, tin cans, or other “harmless” targets, though at times some brands played off the fears of individuals living in tough times. Here, in a turn-of-the-century ad for Iver Johnson hand guns, a police officer is shown battling a knife-wielding assailant, but at least it’s the good guy who has the gun.

The groups most targeted in gun advertising have always been hunters and shooting sportsmen, and those images are still conjured up by gun advocates defending automatic-weapon ownership. Accordingly, branding for many guns and ammunition boiled down to pictures of choice game, be it ducks (shown below in a ’40s ad for Super-X shotgun shells), pheasant (from a 1952 ad from Xpert Shotgun Shells), or antelope (in a 1962 ad for Savage Rifles).

In fairness, gun manufacturers always seemed to promote responsible use of weapons. The relationship between guns and alcohol was done mostly by alcohol manufacturers who relished in the rugged male image of hunters bagging game. Here, from an ad for Paul Jones Whisky, a properly fortified hunter does much better under the influence than if he had gone into the woods with a bottle of Coke.

Since you can’t have hunting without hunting dogs, illustrations and photos commonly included man’s best friend. Here are several examples: a 1950s ad for Colt (showing that you didn’t even have to stand up to kill game), a Winchester ad from the mid-’60s, and a 1959 Federal Duck Stamp illustration by Maynard Reese.

Hunting is apparently very much a father-son affair, though in my family it was actually my sister who took an interest in guns. I’m fortunate that my father wasn’t a hunter, though he did have an extensive gun collection. So while he took me shooting to a firing range once, I never had to endure any wilderness moments with Dad. Shivering with Pop in a misty duck blind is just the kind of place where the talk turns to the birds and bees and other uncomfortable subjects. Here are two father/son gun moments, starting with a 1949 ad for Winchester, followed by a 1930s ad for Daisy rifles.

Unlike cigarette companies, who have to appeal to children indirectly, gun manufacturers have always been free to target youngsters directly. And so they did on a regular basis, as shown in these ads from Boy’s Life Magazine. My favorite, the first ad for Daisy Air Rifles, suggests that “the happy Daisy boy” asking for his first gun is just “the strong, upstanding American man in him asking for a chance to grow.” Gun training, the ad goes on to say, is recognized by both fathers and mothers as building character and “manliness,” all in the context of “clean-cut, harmless fun.” That ad is followed by another Winchester ad, and finally another 1968 ad for Daisy.

Shooting guns was not limited to boys and their fathers, of course, and gun manufacturers courted the Mom market as well. Most of these images didn’t show up until the ’50s and ’60s, however, when women were moving out of the kitchen more. An adventurous Mom could double her fun as shown in the Colt ad below from the late ’50s, or could pair off with Grandpa as in the 1952 ad that follows, or simply watch hubby shoot his rifle as in the third, early -50s ad.

Moms weren’t as interested in killing animals, however, so gun shooting had to be portrayed more as a competitive skill, as shown here in two ad. I love that the first ad, from 1952, shows the family taking turns shooting at a target placed strategically in front of one of the home’s glass windows.

You can’t shoot without ammunition. I particularly enjoy the illustrations of bullets like these ads for Remington ad and Peter’s High Velocity Bullets, both from the mid-’50s.

No discussion of guns, and particularly Winchester rifles, would be complete without a reference to the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, California (below). That sprawling, weird mansion was the product of Sarah Winchester who, on the advice of a spiritual advisor, spent her inheritance continually building on to her home to atone for the guilt her family shared for all the deaths caused by their firearms. But that’s a story for another column.

With the exception, perhaps, of abortion, there is no topic that generates such passion as gun control and gun ownership. Intellectually, I can appreciate the importance of citizens to be able to arm themselves and rise up against oppression, but clearly something has gone wrong. Most of the gun ads I found for this week’s column showed images that are hard to argue with — rugged individualism, father/son bonding, family fun, victory over our enemies. However, I did find the ad below, fittingly from Winchester, that hinted at the sort of gun violence to come. Snipers don’t hunt deer — they hide out in school book depositories, clock towers, and the hollowed-out trunks of beat-up Plymouths. But those aren’t images you’re likely to see in any gun advertising.

Tags
Posted on: February 6, 2006

Gene Gable

Gene Gable has spent a lifetime in publishing, editing and the graphic arts and is currently a technology consultant and writer. He has spoken at events around the world and has written extensively on graphic design, intellectual-property rights, and publishing production in books and for magazines such as Print, U&lc, ID, Macworld, Graphic Exchange, AGI, and The Seybold Report. Gene's interest in graphic design history and letterpress printing resulted in his popular columns "Heavy Metal Madness" and "Scanning Around with Gene" here on CreativePro.com.

31 Comments on Scanning Around With Gene: Gun for the Whole Family

  1. Is this a feature article, intended to spotlight aspects of our industry? Or an anti-gun editorial? Obviously the latter. I did pass this link on to two friends, for the imagery, which was great, but not for the column itself. Please don’t waste your audience’s time with content like this. The subject matter could have been discussed in historical terms and related back to areas of craft, such as typography, ad formats, etc. But the author chose to be the center of the story, instead.

  2. How does this type of commentary fit into a scope of this publication? We come to you to get the latest news, reviews and how to’s relating to the creative industry. Not for commentary about some off related controversial subject.

    Furthermore, what qualifies this writer to offer his expert opinion on this field?

  3. I come to this site for news and info not some polical commentary. Knock it off and get back to the business at hand (Graphic Arts)! Maybe Gene should find another soapbox to stand on where people would care what he thinks.

  4. An interesting article and entirely appropriate on a web site that deals with the commercial use of images to shape public opinion and purchasing habits.

  5. It amazes me that someone can offer political opinion on something they have absolutely no knowledge of or experience. A total waste of pixels on my screen.

  6. Gene…..as a more conservatuive, right-leaning, outdoors and hunting enthusiast, I appreciate the tone you set in this article…..well done!

    Just as you poke fun at the Daisy ad in front of the window (where was THAT editor!), I need to point out that the pheasants that I have viewed, photographed, and hunted, don’t look much like the illustrated bird you id’d as a pheasant……it may be in the same genus/family, just not commonly known as “pheasant”.

    Thanks for the nostalgic views of the ads, they bring up great memories!

  7. I think it’s important to examine how the imagery we use in our industry reflects society’s opinions and attitudes.

    Whether you disagree with Gene’s personal opinion or not, it’s a valid article.

  8. Gene, you should have kept all your letterpress equipment to offer yourself some protection against thugs that would think of using guns against innocent people. I think it would take a little more than a Winchester to go through Heidelberg armor. Thank God for the freedom we all enjoy because honest men and women, like the ones portrayed in these ads, have taken up arms against the bullies whom oppose freedom around the world every day.

  9. Could the “sniper” ad have been targeted to the military? Obviously a difficult concept to get but a very probable answer.

    “Snipers don’t hunt deer — they hide out in school book depositories, clock towers, and the hollowed-out trunks of beat-up Plymouths.”

    You’re are confusing MURDERERs with SNIPERs. Every reference you made was referring to a deranged murderer… not a sniper. By even putting those two words in the same sentence you disrespect every REAL sniper that has worked hard to protect this country so you could make ridiculous comments like that.

    “I did find the ad below, fittingly from Winchester, that hinted at the sort of gun violence to come…. But those aren’t images you’re likely to see in any gun advertising.”

    You are not likely to see an advertisement from Ford or GM about how cool you’ll be driving under the influence and killing people in one of their new vehicles, are you? That scenario happens far more often than gun violence but that’s not the intention of the auto makers, it is not controllable by them, nor is it by any stretch of the imagination the normal outcome of driving a vehicle.

    The same can be said of firearms. Considering how many guns there are they are rarely misused.

  10. The article “There’s No Ignoring Guns” is poor journalism and totally inappropriate for this site. I have cancelled my e-mail newletter and will not visit these pages again.

  11. I’ma huge fan of Gene’s work, but I think he fell a little short on this one. I’m one of those blue-state liberals as well, but hunting also takes up a considerable part of my free time, even if it is more with a bow than a gun.

    Gene’s reference to Automatic weapons is a misnomer. I happen to own a SEMI-Automatic Winchester 1200 Autoloading (more appropriate terminology) Shotgun. All that means is that rounds can be fired in succession, one round being fired with each pull of the triggger. This is especially handy when hunting flushing birds or fast-moving rabbits. Fully Automatic weapons (think AK-47s) are illegal in this country, and no self-respecting hunter would even consider using such a weapon in his or her pursuit.

    Fact of the matter is, despite what Gene may be trying to portray here, hunting and the shooting sports are safe, family-friendly activities, and they also happen to be on the rise. It’s a great way to spend time with your children and family, promote outdoor activities, learn CONSERVATION and build relationships.

    Hunting ads like these are a throwback. Yes, hunting is KILLING, it’s not harvesting, collecting, or whatever else you want to call it. We put animal heads and skins in our trophy rooms, and we’re proud of the heritage we have, those of us that pursue game as we do. We put meat on the table (anyone who huts strictly for trophy has no business in the woods) and sustain and support our families

    I think regardless of the subject, though, Gene needs to do a bit more research into something if he’s going to take such a defining position. You could shoot holes through some of his arguments with one of those 50’s Daisy airguns.

  12. I never thought of Creativepro.com as an outlet for one-sided political thinking.
    Will Gene’s next article be exploring the composition and layout used in the posters and ads of Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany?
    I’m cancelling my email subscription so I don’t have to see that one.

  13. To quote George Washington:

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples’ liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. …events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are indispensible.”

    To quote Tench Coxe:
    “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised…might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed…in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

    One question: Do you trust your federal government to do the right thing? Ever? I rest my case.

  14. Guns appears to bring out the irony of life, so it is no surprise that the reactions were so strong. My home, Connecticut, a blue, liberal leaning state if ever there was one is, or was, home to Winchester, Marlin, Colt and Ruger. Even Eli Witney of New Haven applied his revolutionary concept of mass production to the manufacturing of firearms. The tone of the article was not blatantly antigun, so to get a response such as that of japhillips makes one wonder if a gun should ever be placed in the hands of japhillips. I grew up with guns…had about 40 of them by the time I went into the service. My father was an associate editor of Field and Stream, wrote a daily Rod and Gun column for the NY Times for 25 years and wrote over a dozen books on hunting and fishing. As a youth I poured through the gun magazines and loved the ads as much as the content. I don’t hunt any more, but still appreciate firearms and their value both as artifacts and as weapons. So guns are in my blood. Those ads were talking to me. But so does gun control. And responsibility. Ironic, huh?

  15. Once again an inanimate object is made to blame for people’s actions. As a woman, a hunter, and somewhat a liberal (depends on the issue); I take exception to Gene’s comments.

    I grew up in a hunting family and safety was paramount. I was taught to that to hunt is a right and a privledge to be cherished and not abused. We ate everything we shot and continue to do so today.

    I enjoyed the ads as part of our heritage. And support the laws that keep people from suing gun manufactors. Too many people in our society take no responsibility for their actions; it being easier to blame someone else or something else.

    Gene, if you don’t hunt that is your right as is mine to hunt. Just don’t use such a broad brush to paint everyone that does hunt and own guns with a negative brush.

  16. For the most part I enjoyed reading your opinion piece, as firearms and shooting sports have long been a part of my life. Sadly though, despite years of history where firearms and their legitimate uses have helped to secure our freedoms, our Media insists on focusing undue attention on the acts of a few aberrant members of society who choose to misuse firearms and thereby inflict grievous injury on innocents.

    I suspect that the “Sniper” add was directed at our Military, perhaps a century ago when the rifle depicted was state-of-the-art. At that time it wasn’t unsual for the New York Times to editorialize on behalf of our military’s choice of weaponry.

    Don’t besmirch our men at arms who rigorously train for their assigned duties. None of the individuals referred to in the author’s statement can legitimately be called “sniper.” Plain and simple, they’re all cowardly murderers, nothing more.

    Firearms – indeed any tool – have as much potential to do good as evil.

  17. The article would have been just fine if the author had
    just given his thoughts on the ads, in the historical
    sense, and he should have kept his opinion of firearms
    out of the article. I am a hunter, like many others who
    responded. There are those out there, in America, who
    would love to have all guns banned. If they want to ban
    something more deadly than guns, they would have to
    ban swimming pools and automobiles. More young people are killed in auto accidents each year, than are
    killed with a gun. More young children are drowned each year, in swimming pools, than are killed by guns.
    I do not believe the anti-gun people have done their
    homework!!!

  18. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the lawful use of firearms; in fact,
    it should be encouraged. The old saw is absolutely true; guns don’t kill people, people kill people. There are about 40,000 deaths a year on the highway and about 10,000 gun related deaths. More than a million citizens protect themselves from harm each year using firearms. Those who have protected themselves appreciate them because they have been saved by the correct use of the tool.

    The obvious bias against guns is evident in the article; it is truly naive and uninformed.

  19. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

  20. I sincerely appreciate all the comments and cop to making a gross oversimplification of a complex subject. I thought that by admitting my political/philosophical colors up front I could avoid a “fair and balanced” take on the subject (which is the lazy form of writing I prefer).

    Of course there are responsible gun owners, and anyone who eats meat and criticizes hunters is foolish. As I said, my Eagle-Scout father owned guns which he appreciated simply for the mechanics, construction and history, which I can also appreciate.

    And while I want to believe we should not penalize responsible citizens for the acts of a few irresponsible ones, we do that all the time. In this state the Sudafed is now kept locked behind the counter because it’s used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. I can’t legally buy pot even though I believe it’s possible to use it responsibly and without consequences to society. Why are guns so sacrosanct?

    I’d like to know what those opposed to gun control think of a nation like Iran’s right to develop nuclear weapons. Isn’t it the same argument? That they have a right to arm themselves equally to their enemies, and that more weapons are actually a deterent to their use? Seems scary to me, but if we don’t have a right to restrict our own citizen’s access to weapons, what right do we have to restrict access of another nation?

    I have been spending a lot of time in a high-crime section of Oakland, California recently working on an extended project. I’m scared every time I have to go out to my car late at night, despite the liberal in me not wanting to stereotype the urban scene. But the fact is, many more people are shot and killed in this area than in other places I’ve lived.

    I’ve been robbed at knife point in my life and that was close enough. My problem with guns is that they can empower people who may otherwise be cowards. And of course I know it’s not the gun that’s robbing me, and that eliminating guns won’t eliminate crime. But the ease at which a 14-year-old can get a weapon (before they have the maturity to understand it’s power and consequences), seems in conflict with a responsible society. I know that there are already laws that should prevent that 14-year-old from getting a weapon, but at some point it seems that the sheer volume of guns in society increases the odds I’ll get shot during the execution of a crime. I really hate making it so easy for someone (or some nation) to have power over me, and I reject the idea that the only solution is to arm myself even more.

    Anyway, my apologies to responsible gun owners if it seems like I criticized you (which I don’t think I did). If everyone was responsible in the use of guns (or Sudafed), we wouldn’t need any restrictions at all. I personally think the odds my country will be taken over by a tyranical dictator or military junta are a lot less than my chances of being caught in the sites of a cracked-up punk, so that’s the narrow-mindset I’m “coming from.”

    And of course it should go without saying that the viewpoints expressed in my column are not necessarily that of Creativepro. To penalize them is like rejecting all the great music on satellite radio just because of Howard Stern. I hope the chance of good debate is always preferable to political correctness, even in these specialized pages. And just in case it helps, I’m collecting “hippie/peacenik” art for a future column and it’s not all flattering!

  21. This is a website dedicated to the art and craft of creating effective printed materials. Mr. Gable’s value judgements and political commentary have no place here, nor do his cynical, snide remarks about father-son relationships or family values that happen to be outside his apparently narrow experience.

    Perhaps in this venue he feels that he is among the like-minded, preaching to the choir, and his dogma will fall on appreciative ears. Perhaps he feels that his opinion is sufficiently disguised as humor that it will pass as amusement.

    Not so, Mr. Gable. Not so.

    Michael Wade

  22. Don’t mock it! It’s true — you can double your fun with a Colt! I was shocked at the end of my 16 hour firearm safety course to find that my favorite handgun was a full-frame Colt 45!

    “Snipers don’t hunt deer…” Are you joking here? Snipping is exactly what hunters do. The word snipe means, “a shot, especially a gunshot, from a concealed place” and does not mean, “crazy man on bell tower” as you suggest. I think the word you’re confusing “sniper” with is “terrorist.” How did your editor miss that one?

    “That sprawling, weird mansion was…to atone for the guilt her family shared for all the deaths caused by their firearms. But that’s a story for another column.” I hope that the other column will be written by someone else or I hope that in your next column you can get back to discussing the advertising style, color, fonts, design elements or other relevant topics.

    And, in short response to your inquiry about gun control vs. nuclear weapons…gun rights and nuclear weapon rights aren’t similar issues at all but to argue your point anyway, in a state I used to live in they DO restrict access to weapons to people who commit violent crimes. Violent criminals cannot legally obtain a firearm in that state. So I guess if gun vs. nuclear weapon rights compare equally to you then the fact that we can (and do) restrict weapons for violent people in our country should help you understand how a group of nations called the U.N. could restrict nuclear weapons to a country they deemed to be violent.

    There are many towns within our country where guns are owned by more people than not and where it is not scary to walk to your car at night. You don’t have to live or work in Oakland. Being fearful of guns is not your problem…putting yourself in a high-crime area full of bad people is.

  23. I usually find most left-leaning liberal attitudes to be unreasonable and inconsistent. Example: many individuals following this manifesto are strong proponents of abortion but oppose capital punishment. Inconsistent but liberal. Kill babies but save criminals.

  24. In my family I have 2 brothers and 5 sisters. We range in age from 61 to 46.

    My father taught each and everyone of us how to handle a firearm first then shoot it when we were very young. Then when the State of Washington required that kids under 18 pass a test to carry a firearm to hunt, he took my younger brother and myself to the course. Which we both pass easily.

    My other brother who is the oldest child in the family, fought in Vietnam. When he retuned he worked for the Secret Service. My younger brother is the City Engineer in the Public Works Dept. for a small city. And I am a Disabled Police Officer.

    One of my sisters is a Grade School Teacher. My oldest sister works for the State as a Supervisor with the Department of Social & Health Services

    My father served with the Army in WW2, Korea and with the Navy in Vietnam. 4 of my fathers brothers also served in WW2. 2 of my mothers brothers also served in WW2.

    And when it comes to hunting everyone in our family (male & female) has hunted. From squirrel to Elk. They were some of the best times we had as a family. As we would spend most of the time playing cards or board games.

    And those ads of the children all smiling and happy that they got a new rifle or Daisy BB gun for Christmas. Well their true. Because I’ve been there. That was the smile on my face and my brothers. And my friends. Oh yea, my friends all had rifles too.

    We even took them to school in our cars. And everyone knew we had them in the car. Because they had theirs in their cars. Because as soon as School was out we were all be out in the fields hunting.

    And Sir do you know one thing about all of those rifles, pistols, revolvers and shotguns that we had? We never shot anyone with them. It never dawned on use to shoot anyone with them. We never pointed a gun at anyone either.

    In closing, it is a shame that a person takes advantage of their position to spout their liberal believes in a column that has nothing to do with their rantings. And if you argue that I am spouting my Conservative rantings, your web site does ask for comments.

    Sincerely,

    ED

  25. An armed populace is necessary to defend our freedoms from terrorists and from criminals — and from politicians

  26. Hello everyone,

    I’m pleased that so many of you have taken the time to express your opinions here. A civil discussion that doesn’t attack anyone personally is always welcome on the Creativepro site.

    Terri Stone, editor in chief

  27. Thanks for doing this Gene– over the years things have indeed gone askew.

    Safety, self-reliance, patriotism: all are worthy ideals, but guns have long since ceased to play the vital role in society that they once did and now cause much more harm than good.

    I’m just thankful that times have changed enough that the images you’ve served up here feel so grossly anachronistic. –Of course, what do I know, sitting in the middle of a strongly Democratic, metropolitan district?

  28. No clearer argument against the substance and validity of the opinions in the article can be presented than the author’s own words. “I have never. . .I was ‘spared’. . .although I never,” etc. Then, how can he possibly speak intelligently about the topic? “Automatic” weapons? Automatic firearms are among the most controlled things in this nation. They are virtually never used in crime. . .autos are–and kill more people each year than guns have in a century. Perhaps we need to ban them as well, or perhaps we should educate, promote responsible actions and utilize existing laws, rather than engage in bizarre knee-jerk statements, actions and bad litigation.

    I too have been a voting liberal all my adult life, however, I do not toe a mindless line on all things “liberal,” whatever that means. I entered the practice of law to fight for “liberal” values I believe in.

    I was raised with an appreciation of the fine art and craft of gunmakers military as well as “sporting,” and all the sports that spring from them. I choose to no longer hunt, only because I have no need for the food source. But the shooting sports are a wonderful way to develop poise, and a respect for their potential, as well as a feeling of skill and accomplishment that is part of an important time-honored tradition in this nation as well as the world. Guns have been used for good as much, or more than for bad, as are automobiles and many other things. There is also confidence in being self-sufficient and not a sheep, or victim–to whomsoever may choose to try to oppress or victimize me or mine. This was clearly stated by our nation’s founders.

    Cigarettes are irrelevant to firearms as an anology. History is replete with peoples in nations that were disarmed to their detriment, if not destruction. Why anyone would choose to follow that helpless path is a mystery to me, particularly in a nation whose founders specifically sought to prevent just that, but even more a mystery is why anyone might feel compelled to drag others into that particular sheep’s flock with them.

    My liberal cohorts are obsessed with deciding how others should live their lives, just as much as the right wing–only with the right it’s our bodies and bedroom practices, and with “us” it’s an absolutely paranoid alleged concern for everyone’s “safety.” It is just as bad, and just and mindlessly biased and unenlightened.

  29. You can’t even identify the bird in your pictures correctly, City Boy. Those are not pheasant but bobwhite quail.

    And the reason we never saw a downside to guns in years past is that there was no downside then. It’s people that have changed, not the guns.

    If America does not find its way back to a right morality, we are lost. It happened to Rome, it can happen to us.

    Lee Eschen <leeschen@frontiernet.net>

  30. I enjoy your articles immensely, and this was no exception. The first picture was hilarious! I’m not sure why some of the other respondents seem so hostile. I guess all the nuances of liberalism and conservatism went over my head.

  31. I really think you may be some type of bigot.  After all if some one does not understand another person of a different race because he is uneducated about them and does not know them he becomes afraid and racist.  I believe you are doing the same thing.  For instance the caption for one of the pictures says that a man is punching a horse while holding a gun and the other is holding a deer head.   He is holding the reins really close to the bit and is trying to control his horse.  The deer head is an elk head.  Your are no better than the NRA.  You are extreme to the opposite side of the issue.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*