Why is it that "progressive" comics creators routinely question(ed) things like the Patriot Act via superhero power registration as morally repugnant ("under the guise of controlling terrorism, [they] need to restrict the freedoms that Americans regard as their birthright"), yet now have no qualms about doing just that with regards to the Second Amendment?
Ironically, these short memory hypocritical elitists want gun control NOW because of dead children (Ron Marz tweeted "Please, don't bother tweeting at me about your right to bear arms and how it's "people, not guns." Dead children. Again. Just STFU."); yet, in Marvel's "Civil War" series from a half-decade ago, the villain Nitro blew up a sizable portion of a Connecticut town -- including an elementary school. Yet creator Mark Millar opined that the tale was "a story where a guy wrapped in the American flag (Capt. America) is in chains as the people swap freedom for security."
In other words, Marvel's most morally incorruptible symbol and ultimate patriotic icon -- Captain America -- becomes the emblem for lost rights, because a [supposedly] irrational public, as Millar stated, wants to trade freedom for security.
Get it? Our contemporary cadre of "progressive" comics gurus would chide the [Marvel] public for demanding something be done about super-powered individuals -- whose powers dwarf that of modern firearms permitted to be owned by the populace -- yet at the same time they ridicule the [real] public for sticking up for Second Amendment rights provided for by the Constitution, and affirmed by the US Supreme Court.
Because, y'know, "it's for the children."Posted by Hube at February 20, 2013 10:43 AM | TrackBack