Consider this cartoon from Liberal Lite:

A high-powered rifle in the hands of someone who would like to kill a Conservative (Jim Flaherty? Stephen Harper?) over the decision to bring income trusts in line with other taxable investment vehicles.
But since it is a kitten holding on to the sniper's rifle, this is a cartoon?
I didn't realize it was that easy to avoid being accused of advocating violence. Just slap a kitten over the image of the lynch mob hanging a black man in America's South, or over the image of the concentration camp guard herding Jews into the gas showers, or over the image of the lone assassin taking aim at a public figure, and it becomes an amusing cartoon and clever political commentary.
I suppose there is one way to find a bit of humour in this otherwise very unfunny image and caption. If it weren't for the fact that the posting is on a Liberal blogger's website, one could (with a bit of effort) interpret this cartoon as mocking the anger voiced by people like Garth Turner over the income trust decision.
But then it would suggest those people are on the edge of violence, and I don't think that's true.
No, it's not even funny then. In any case, that's not what was intended, and I don't know why I'd go to the effort of trying to make this image and caption even slightly acceptable.
It should be noted, of course, that this image is well known on the web. Typically, the captions delve into cat psyche and motivations ("All dogs beware") or associate the cat with gun enthusiasts in an attempt to embarrass them ("Charlton Heston's new kitten"). That's not the case here. By turning the kitten's target into the punchline, you are essentially saying that even cats are so angry over the income trusts decision that they want to kill Conservatives for taxing them, which in turn subtly suggests that plenty of humans do too. That's not really funny. I know I'm analyzing too much, but humour is hard to do, and when it's done badly like this, you can't help but be offended.