Gun Supply Outlet Selling Effigies for target practice that look Just Like a ‘Zombie’ Obama

Little Green Footballs discovered this  video from Zombie Industries, showing an obvious effigy of President Obama as a target. The Zombie shooters are targeting has been given the name Rocky. Their website reads, “Use any and all means to decapitate zombie.”

This is a promo for “Zombie Night” at a shooting range in the author’s state.














Diane Sweet from Crooks and Liars reports:

The NRA cares more about your “right” to blow effigies of your president to bits more than it cares about the safety of America’s children, and the only thing it cares more about than that is the money that its members send them.

Our Founding Fathers couldn’t possibly have had shoot ’em up nights at the shooting range with bleeding zombies in mind when the 2nd Amendment was written. The majority of Americans support a ban on high-capacity clips. This Zombie Night promo just reaffirms for me that the NRA and Mr. LaPierre are completely disconnected from the people they claim to be looking out for.



Wayne LaPierre and his ilk’s histrionics are more about profit, not actual human life which Republicans claim to hold so dear them.  A quick look at their Facebook page confirms that they are a right wing outlet.  They are calling for more NRA members and also promoting Sean Hannity’s show. 

  • Cathi Peyton Erman

    This is appalling.

    • Anomaly One Hundred

      Sick stuff, huh?

      • Bob Cronos

        What’s sick is that you are comparing our beloved President to a Zombie named Rocky…

        • Biting Reality

          What is sick is your support for your own hubris

  • Pat Nader

    I wonder how those freaks of nature would feel if one of their loved ones was killed in a shooting or those in office that are trying to stop the ban. You think they would grab a gun and go shooting.

    • LibertarianAtheist

      Just a little perspective for you.

      My cousin was shot by his alcoholic father. I feel just as strongly about the right to bear arms as I did before that.

    • Rick Halle

      I would be extremely angry at the legislators that created a law that makes schools gun free zones where criminals that ignore laws know they will not face any opposition. Whoever was responsible for creating this law is indirectly responsible for the lives of all 26 people through the unintended consequences. I.E. They were negligent for failing to see what the result of such a law would be. I would be doing my best to find a really good lawyer willing to find a way to hold them responsible for this irresponsible law.

  • Darrell West

    These are some sick people that I ever seen

  • Rough Acres

    The love of money is the root of all evil. The love of destruction is the root of madness.

    • LibertarianAtheist

      So Obama is evil and a madman?

      “So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked
      what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t
      exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them.
      Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal
      with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is
      not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the
      looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by
      the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?” – Ayn Rand

  • Lazaro Cardenas

    This is disrespectful and offensive.

  • LibertarianAtheist

    Where is this mannequin ever described as an Obama look alike by the people who created it? Can you provide that source?

  • Shihtzuman Dph

    Any time you even mention guns the gun nuts go crazy. Say you want Universal background checks or an assault weapons ban they lie and say we want to ban all guns

    • LibertarianAtheist

      What exactly is an Assault Weapon? Assault is an action, and last time I checked inanimate objects cannot perform actions without a user. Unless you are talking about a Semi-Automatic Rifle, like an AR15. Which is being debated to be banned because of recent tragic events while ignoring the fact that are used in less deaths than blunt objects. And where do you get this information that proponents of gun rights “lie and say we want to ban all guns?” What most gun rights advocates do is ask people who want “Assault Weapons” banned is to be philosophically consistent because it’s a complete contradiction to think that banning one type of a gun is going to stop insane people from doing insane things.

      To quote the great Penn Jillette while talking on this very subject. “You can’t stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws. That’s insane!”

      Universal background checks already exist.

      • Biting Reality

        Another overly exaggerated statement by a less than honest apologist for social disease. Your twisting of semantics doesn’t mean squat other than a nice attempt to keep yourself in a state of denier’s homeostasis.
        There are specific definitions for “assault weapon” (as defined not just by law and lawyers but by manufacturers themselves) and your attempt to change them to fit your agenda is much like the attempt to twist the idea of “personhood” to mean the formation of viable sperm that may or may not fertlize an egg…(the “blunt objects defense” is as corrupt and is getting old. Try changing it up a bit with something real)

        Your definition of “insanity” is exactly what? For there are many in the field of psychology that would define the “need” or “desire” to own a gun without any immediate and obvious threat or because of an “imagined” threat as pathological.

        In fact “hunting” for food in the US is about as rational for 90% of us as Bull and Bear fights. “Protecting” from “predators” a direct result of our own hubris,stupidity and personal belief in “manifest destiny” – We encroach on lands and slaughter the food sources for those creatures who have lived harmoniously without us, then bitch when fluffy gets eaten then justify more slaughter of the predators, then bitch when the vermin grow in ridiculous numbers because we removed the checks and balances.
        What passes for “Hunting” by the majority of Americans is not a sport, it is murder, and “first blood” is only a rite of passage into psychopathology

        As far as the society at large, an overly bloated society based on virtually nothing of substance cannot sustain itself and dies – The US acts out its downward spiral with the excesses of consumerist consumption and blood lust trying to cover and fill the hole in its soulless being- Every overbloated society throughout history has done the same – life becomes worthless.
        It can be shown in the Maya, the Inca, the Greeks the Romans, the Egyptians, the Europeans and now in the US.

        What you call “insane” is no more or less than sensitive and/or “chosen” individuals acting out the disease of a society that loses itself.
        In fact all “social ills” are that thing. Individuals selected to act out the dis-ease of a nation.

        What you choose not to realize is that you are an integral part of that dis-ease for you and I and everyone else in this society are what creates that pathology and promotes it and feeds off of it.

        Some of us are “aware” just enough to be outraged and try to change the course, or at least be on suicide watch; others play games with semantics in denial of the barrel on which their society is giving tongue as it slowly eases the trigger

        • LibertarianAtheist

          You know, you are pretty well spoken for some one who can’t see simple logic. What is really a social disease is the opinion that taking away rights from 99.99% of law abiding citizens because .01%. It’s the opinion that any majority can easily vote away the liberty of a minority. It’s the opinion that any one else thinks they know what is best for me. That is a social disease. Sorry, I don’t accept that you know what is best for me.

          Tell me how well the gun ban is working in Mexico? What about the UK and Australia’s absurdly high violent crime rate?

          What I am sick of is people talking about how a civilized nation should act. Who are you to say what a civilized nation is? You are not God and DEFINITELY not my God. How a society should act should not be based on an elite group of people who think they know better. Most humans have an inherent set of ethics and morality. I know it’s wrong to murder another human. I know it’s wrong to steal from another human, to rape another human, to do ANYTHING that would take away their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What I buy, own, and do with my life is my business as long as I maintain that morality. It is not your right to take anything away from me because you feel you know what is best. THAT is a social disease. Elitism.

          One thing I love is when I see Democrats say “If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.” Yet, they can’t apply that same reasoning to guns. Why is that? Arguably abortions are murder. I do not believe so, but you can argue the point. It’s not philosophically consistent. It’s not twisting anything when I say that banning one type of gun is philosophically consistent. It’s the absolute truth. These “Assault Weapons” you speak of cause less than 500 deaths a year. If you are going to advocate banning them, advocate banning them all. But then you wouldn’t be for banning guns, you would be for banning guns from law abiding citizens. You should be advocating people with guns to take away guns from people with guns. Silly, isn’t it? This is exactly why the term gun control is nothing more than a doublespeak term worthy of an Orwellian society.

          Guns are not the problem. We already have nearly 20,000 laws regarding guns. And a criminal who’s intent to use the gun for wrong does not care about any of them, and 20,001 is not the key number that will stop them.

          I have a right to protect myself or my loved ones using ANY means necessary. I believe in having the advantage. And yes, having an AR15 in my home gives me that. If you feel you do not need the same. That is your choice. So stop advocating to take away my choice because you feel it’s better for your vision of society.

          It’s pretty obvious you feel strongly about certain issues. Like gun ownership and hunting. But what you have to realize is not everyone shares these same opinions. And as long as they aren’t invading your personal liberty, you have to right to say what they do with their life.

          Also, there has been only ONE weapon ever described as “Assault Weapon.” That is the USMC S.M.A.W. MK-153, Other than absurd definitions in absurd laws have any other gun been described with the word “Assault.” It is our government, media, and advocates for gun control who has added the word to further their cause by adding a word meant to scare those who are not knowledgeable about how the gun works.

        • Rick Halle

          Which definition shall we use? The term assault weapon has a number of legal definitions that the states have arbitrarily made. It’s fluid and they change it at will. Shall we use the term as most often recognized by firearm owners? If so then we already have laws that make it extrememly difficult and expensive to have one since the term applies to weapons that can be set to be fully automatic and they must have been manufactured before a certain date (1986 if I recall correctly). Shall we use the definition New York State has for it? Or the one Washington State is proposing in bill #5737? If you use the definition as this bill defines it then almost every rifle and handgun used for self defense would become an assault weapon. The handgun I have for self defense of myself and my family would become an assault weapon according to the Washington State definition which is absurd. A few rifles and revolvers is about all that would be left. Our legislators are intentionally using the term which has no true definition and then changing the definition at will to try to take away as many guns as they can. Saying that they are not taking away all guns is BS as that is exactly what they are working towards. If you don’t think so then either you know nothing about guns or are not reading the bills being proposed. The only way gun control would work without causing more deaths than they save would be to take away every firearm from everyone on a global basis. Short of that they will always find a way into the hands of those that would use them for criminal purposes which puts everyone that is law abiding at a disadvantage. Regarding the immediate, obvious, or imagined threat you need go no further than the evening news to see that there really are criminals out there that will use deadly force to act out thier crimes. Even more obvious is that none of us can predict when or where these acts will occur. Personally I take responsibility for my own defense (asking criminals to wait for law enforcement to show up is also absurd) and have insurance that might help even the odds if I ever find myself in that situation. Do you have car insurance? Do you wear a seat belt? Why? The odds are pretty small that you will get in an accident next time you go somewhere so that must be an imagined threat and therefore it’s stupid to wear a seatbelt or have insurance. Personally I wear a seat belt every time I get in a car or a helmet when I get on my bike. Seat belts have never saved me and I only had a helmet save me once but I still use them since they increase the chances of survival just in case that imagined threat happens. For this same reason I choose to exercise my right to bear arms. I hope I never need to use any of them but I consider having and using them is smart planning.