Join me on Facebook!
Follow me on Twitter!
More 'toons here!
Or subscribe here.
"You are an imbecile nonetheless."
keep it civil for crying out loud!
I would vote for him, wow he really has my American ideals at heart. Doh he is Jesus
Like it or not, the people that have the guns are the ones who have the power. Voting and politics only have power because the powers that be AGREE (or not) that they do. Do you really trust ANY government not to tread on your rights - if all you can do is protest and vote, and the government has, all of a sudden, decided that neither of these acts have any power, you, my friend, are a slave. Powerless and the mercy of your MASTERS.
Soviets - no guns. "had we attacked them in stairwells and alleyways; with pokers and knifes and bricks, none of us would be here [the gulag]." Famous quote, i forget who. :(
Nazi Germany - no guns. Hitler disarmed every one in the 1930's
Roman tributary provinces - practically no weapons. the skills of blacksmith and forgery were highly regulated.
Tokugawa Japan - peasants not allowed to carry swords after 1605. One of the first acts carried out by the new Bankufu (I'm spelling this wrong) after stabilizing the country was, going around the countryside gathering up all the peasants arms, for their own good of course. This lead to 250 years of complete tyranny for the peasants.
The list goes on, and on, and on.
Humm...well, I happen to be a gun toting liberal, but did you even watch the video? What do guns have to do with the waste, no accountability, lies and on and on about the occupation of Iraq. Support our troops by no body armor, no bennies and paying contractors way more...yeah, that is supporting our troops all right. Just like a conservative to change the subject when he has no argument.
Your "logic" is as flawed as the 2000 and 2004 election voting results..GUNS don't make us safe. Laws do, and electing honest American's to officer that REALLY LOVE our COUNTRY, and not CORP $$$$ as our current officials do will make us safer w/o guns. Idiots with guns do not make us safe. These cartoons make people think..guess it didn't work for you?
Laws make us safe???.....LOL. You're joking, right?
Perhaps rape victims should be telling their attackers that there's a law against sexual assault rather than shooting them. Ya, that'll work. Hopefully you "get" the sarcasm....I'm laying it on pretty thick.
EEEEKKKKK,now this person really scares the ba-geebies out of me.
Idiots with guns!, sure would of been great if there were an idiot with a gun on campus to take that crazed gunman out before he shot and killed all those students.
In a perfect world, your right, there would be no need for weapons, but then as you would agree, were not living in paradise now are we!
yes and the enforcers of those laws in the end use what tool to get R done ? ? ?
Thank you very much for this useful article. I like it. ankara nakliyat evden eve nakliyat ankara evden eve web tasarımı rüya tabirleri tuzcuoğlu
Hah, if laws makes us safe, we should be the safest nation on the planet, of all time even, 25,000 page law manuals, just like a warm, fuzzy blankets.
Thank goodness laws make us safe. Seriously. I feel better knowing that a senator blew a bill out his butt out of concern for my safety.
ENFORCING laws creates safety. Use of force is one way to do this.
Liberals love to ignore human nature for some reason and claim legislation is all we need. (Why can't we just understand each other?? Boohoo.)
Has anyone seen Bowling for Columbine? Michael Moore says that in Canada, 30 million people have 7 million guns, only the media doesn't make it seem like everyone is coming to get you. They don't go around yelling "SOMEONE WAS SHOT! OH NO!". People (at least in Sarnia and Windsor) don't lock their doors. They aren't the five locks and a rifle security nuts Americans are. So maybe it was how we are told to fear. Fear the Communists, they're taking over. Fear Saddam Hussein, he may kill children. Fear terrorism, it is VERY LIKELY your plane will explode.
When people fear for their lives, they will do ANYTHING to feel safe. The pilgrims were afraid of going to jail so they left. Then, when they arrived, they were afraid of the Indians. Then they were afraid of witches so they burned people. The white people were afraid of work so they took Africans to the New World and made them do work for nothing. Then they were afraid of slaves uprising so Samuel Colt made the revolver. Then they were afraid of the free slaves, so they made the KKK. Skip 80 years to 1955, when Rosa Parks wouldn't move to the back of the bus, not only were whites afraid of Communists, they were afraid of blacks so they released attack dogs and sprayed nonviolent protesters. Then the black people were now treated as equal under the law (wink wink) and the white people were afraid that they would be killed by the blacks so they fled to the safety of gated suburban communities where everyone was white and they were safe with their security systems and deadbolt locks and guns. THE END!
Uh... yeah. That's exactly how history was. Exactly.
Wow someone obviously fully takes everything Michael Moore says at face value. How about you actually read the texts of the time period instead of making generalizations about that time. Actually learn your history and read it with open eyes. Yeah we currently live in a culture of fear as an off shoot of the cold war (legitimately scary times. Just because we currently live in this culture does not mean our entire history is based upon it. Please learn your history, and quit spouting ignorant -------.
You're so right. We never killed or used force on any Native Americans, Mexicans, Japanese, African Americans, ever! Glad you pointed out the ignorance.
For the Love of All Those
Who Are Evil!
Resist them NOT!
Love that Hitler!
Love that Pol-Pot!
Love that Mao-Se-Tung!
Love that Valdamir Lenin!
Love all those that belive that you and me are not fit to defend
this nation, or the people of any other, from the real cold-blooded killers of the next mass killer head of state!
Heck, hunting season is Always Open for Tyrants!
And all of their useful idiots!
Damned stupid fools! Can't wait to get in line for the next one! Eh?
Wasn't "Valdamir" a character from Harry Potter?
p.s. you sound deranged.
No, that was Voldemort.
Apaprently "Lenin was one of the leading political figures and revolutionary thinkers of the 20th century, who masterminded the Bolshevik take-over of power in Russia in 1917 and was the architect and first head of the Soviet state."
I never heard of him, so I looked it up. ^_^
The main reason for the first amendment, was not for hunting, or even really for self-protection, it's purpose was to give the people a way to rise up against a government that strayed from the will of the people. Governments, as a rule do NOT oppress an armed populous. The first battle in the Revolutionary war (Lexington/Concord)was fought because the King's army was sent to occupy the militia arsenal at Lexington.
It's the SECOND Amendment, folks, and - yeah - the purpose was to have a "standing militia" as protection against invasion. They hadn't really gotten a "nation" together; hence, no organized military to keep France, England, Spain and anybody else with ambitions from taking it all away. But we have a system in place now for protection against such things. Wave the flag all you want, but there are too many guns available in our society and too much in the way of "entertainment" like Grand Theft Auto video games. Children, babies! are dying in neighborhoods out here in LA and disillusioned tennagers in the Midwest are taking their angst out on each other. That was NOT what the formulators of the Constitution had in mind, trust me.
That may have worked back in an age when the nation's army consisted primarily of infantry with rifles, horse-based cavalry, and largely stationary artillery. But in this age of tanks, jet aircraft, bombs and missiles, a nation at war with itself has far more potential to bomb itself into ruins than it does to succesfully stage an uprising. As unfortunate as it may sound, if our government to truly become opressive, then with the exception of systematic and widespread assassinations (also very difficult to pull off) there would be very little anyone could do. In that light, barring hunting, personal protection, collection, study, or other less innocent motives, there is little or no reason for anyone to *need* to own a firearm in this day and age. And while I don't expect the government to ban personal firearms altogether, a stricter system of registration and tracking, as well as a ban on assault weapons, seems at the least appropriate.
As an American citizen living on a military base in Germany, I can say this from my own experience: there is very little in the way of violent crime in the country, where gun ownership is both limited by the government and frowned upon by the public as unneccessary and dangerous. The nationals over here don't feel any need or desire to own a gun in order to feel secure against their neighbors, countrymen, government, or psychopaths... and without easy access to guns, the psychopaths over here certainly have less of an opportunity to make a name for themselves. After all, guns don't kill people. But they sure as hell help.
Germany has not exactly been an historical bastion of freedom; in fact, it's probably a shining example of why private citizens should own weapons. I'm sure the German Jews in November 1938 would've liked to have been able to defend themselves against Nazi tyranny.
Oh, wait, one of Hitler's first acts was to ban Jewish gun ownership.
Being good Germans, the German Jews turned in their guns which were proceeded by German government requests to register their guns.
The Second Amendment is there for contingencies. What happens if the government falls apart? What if there's a disaster? What happens if we're invaded? What happens if a dictator came to power in the US? These are the questions that the founding fathers were trying to address over the long term. We've seen too many incidents lately to believe that these things can never happen in the US. You should try living along the Mexican/US border these days and watch the drug cartels a few hundred yards away shooting anything that moves.
Guns are, by the way, illegal in Mexico, but that doesn't seem to stop them.
A right to own a gun is just as enshrined as the right of unapologetic liberals like Mark Fiore to put up propagandist crap like this. Do you need to register your mouth before speaking? Do you need a license to speak? Speech has often proved far more dangerous and deadly in world history than a gun.
You might want to ask those German Jews about how dangerous speech can be, especially in recollections about Hitler, but you aren't going to find very many of them. The Germans killed most of them.
I also don't buy the argument that any civilian weapons are useless against modern military weapons. All you have to do is look to Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Irregular forces have been very successful in all of those theaters.
I'm sure the soldiers of the Revolutionary War, fighting against the most modern British weapons of the day, would also disagree with the belief that lightly armed irregular forces have no impact in a battle.
Private gun ownership is an important guarantee for the entire Constitution.
There is effectively a ban on Assault Weapons - for back in the early 1900's - the NFA (National Firearms Act). There are ALOT of restrictions on who can own/possess a fully-automatic weapons, or a "destructive device" or even a shotgun with a barrel under 18 inches...
Assault "Style" weapons were banned by Clinton - oh yeah you rifle that "looks" like a military rifle but can only fire semi-automatic just like those other semi-automatic non-military looking rifles...
Oh NO that rifle has a pistol grip!!! That means someone is going to use it for bad things!
The Assault weapons ban limited high capacity magazines on weapons (because a gun pointed at me with one bullet makes me feel safer than a gun with ten bullets in it)
We already have the laws in place - if a criminal has an AK-47 then charge them with violated a federal law - the NFA. If they have a semiautomatic AK-47 "looking" weapons well then the COPS already have better weapons...
Lets enforce what we have - talking does nothing.
This guy doesn't even know the first amendment from the second. And the grammar is faulty. Maybe he didn't go to school.
Thank you for pointing that out. unfortunately i did go to school, that is probably why i am so stupid. Thanks again for pointing out my mistakes!
Boo hoo ...
Not only are the later parts of this nonsensical but I object to Lenin being listed among the others. And it can be said that before Chairman Mao lost his mind, he was far better than Chiang Kai-shek, who was a brutal fascist.
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
Funny, Guns don't appear on this list maybe we should make these Illegal. It' do as much good.
Heart disease: 652,486
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,074
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 121,987
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 112,012
Alzheimer's disease: 65,965
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,480
Source: CDC Deaths: Final Data for 2004, Table C
Terrorism isn't on that list, does that mean it is not a threat that should be dealt with?
You are absolutely, totally retarded. Go away.
Two answers. 1) The logic is deeply flawed because of the intent factor. Guns don't happen, cancer does, for example. Guns are manufactured, marketed, and lobbied for. The other arguments on the page in favor of guns are also deeply flawed. I do not think anyone truly believes that all guns can or should go, but rather that serious regulation is needed. The idea that the people will rise against a tyrannical government is nonsense. GWB and his cronies have virtually opposed every Amendment of the Bill of Rights except the 2nd Amendment. So: Where are all the patriotic gunholders.... ?Sitting home and cheering. I am sorry to say, but most rabid gun supporters have been totally brainwashed, just as a bunch of Germans were in the early '30s. You fellows just repeat the same nonsense that is promulgated by the NRA without thinking. And it really sounds very silly.
2) Actually, there is an attempt to indirectly regulate a lot of those diseases. The way you eat can be a cause of heart disease. People are trying to lobby against fast food, for that reason. Not the government, of course. Smoking is also a cause of heart disease, respiratory syndromes and cancer as well. And countless research labs are doing work trying to find cures for many of the illnesses and conditions you mention. So there is a real opposition there and in some cases the government is involved. The EPA regulates a variety of things and even --occasiobnally, when not in the hands of industry shills -- asks that industries clean up their poisonous messes (the gun industry just washes its hands of the victims). As for accidents: Why do you think, for example, there are speed limits? Answer: To reduce the number of accidents. So there is regulation in place. A lot of it, and rightly so.
We do have to die of something. But it is different if your kid is killed by some wanker with a gun. There is will and intent there. I know some people who have been through it, and it is a lifelong trauma. You can all cackle away for the gun lobby here protected behind the barrier of Internet anonymity. But you will look like idiots facing a parent who has lost a child to the gunfire of some creep. And I don't only mean the nutcases, but the upstanding and completely paranoid citizens who pull a gun on someone knocking on their door.
The figure of gun victims only speaks of the people who have died from gunshot. It does not include the number of crimes committed by people holding guns, from robbery to rape. Nor does it include the the number of injuries, some severe, caused by guns. But WTF. You don't convince Moonies, Scientologists or old Nazis either. Once the brain has been washed, it pretty much stays that way I have found. A kind of Stockholm Syndrome. Or like smokers say (and I was one): I just like smoking. Actually, smokers are mostly just addicted.
Just a question: Does 'accidents' include accidental shootings? My suspicion is that the Cheney quail-hunting episode would be classified as an 'accident' rather than as 'homicide' if his lawyer pal hadn't pulled through.
Yeesh. I'm the worst kinda-pro-gun advocate around.
You just don't read far enough. Homicides are at place 15 in the list...
You know, I'm not for banning all guns. Guns do have a purpose for hunting and home protection. But the weapons that I'm referring to are rifles and shotguns. I used to hunt and never came into a hunting situation where I needed an assault rifle. I never came into a situation where I needed an automatic handgun, either. I did learn to use an assault rifle and an automatic hand gun in the Marine Corps. They had uses there. But I also learned how to only fire at what I intend to kill, to only point the weapon at something that I intend to fire upon and I also learned how to hit what I aimed at, unlike many people with guns. It's one thing to have an assault rifle in a fire fight with multiple enemies. It's another thing to have an assault rifle to "hunt". One other question comes to mind. If only law abiding, background-checked citizens are able to obtain guns, then there is a disconnect in the ability of criminals to obtain them. If they are getting them then maybe some of those law abiding folks aren't so law abiding. And the argument that those weapons may have been stolen from a registered gun owner kind of defeats the argument for home protection and tells me that they weren't secured in a safe manner, which tells me that they could have been reached and used by a child. I support the right to keep and bear arms, but I also support the revokation of that right from folks who have questionable or criminal backgrounds. And I support a long waiting period. I can't imagine a situation where not being able to purchase a gun the same day would cause me to miss out on hunting or cause me to be threatened in my home while I wait for the proper paperwork to go through. These argument for looser gun control don't stand up to logic.
And another illogical argument. "Guns kill less than heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc..." So, by that way of thinking we should just forget about working on curing all diseases except heart disease until that's cured, then we can worry about the others? Do you see the flaw in this way of thinking? And I can't remember the last time I've heard of someone attacking a school with heart disease.
I'll refrain from mentioning the old adage of "the bigger the gun, the smaller the..."
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It doesn't say "the right to hunt shall not be infringed". It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Once you start tightly regulating a fundamental right, it's a slippery slope to losing it. If you lose one right in the Constitution, what keeps the government from making the other rights "negotiable"?
The Patriot Act is an example of going down that slippery slope.
Automatic weapons are illegal in the united state for personal use without a special license.
Yes they are illegal.
Oh, so only military and police should have assault rifles? No, don't think so. We might have to protect ourselves from them since now citizens are considered combatants... boy, you better wake up.
I agree. We should also have access to tanks, as you never know when Canada will get pissy and invade. Landmines should always be completely legal. I can't keep the damn kids of the lawn any other way. And christ...what about them towel heads in arabia!? I'm a gonna need my own nooocular war head if I have any hopes of saving m'familee from them islamofascist terrists!
The thing is, almost all of the causes up here are diseases. No one's gonna argue that guns kill more people than cancer. But diseases have to be cured not illegalized.
Guns have killed many many people lately. People are getting guns very easily and then using them on people. Just owning a gun actually INCREASES the likelihood that you will use it on someone.
Owning a computer with an Internet connection increases the likelihood you will use it to stalk someone, or infect other computers with a virus, or lure a child of sex, or ....
Better shut your computer off before you hurt someone with it, Chuckles.
Owning a gun INCREASES the likelihood that I will use it on somebody?!
Take a critical thinking class! How on earth am I going to use a gun I DON'T have?
And another point.
It's may be easier for criminals to get guns now than it has been at other times and in other places, though i doubt that, but it's harder than ever for law-abiding citizens to get those same guns. Gun control only controls the people who care about the law, not the ones we're all worried about- violent criminals. I say, forget gun control, we need gun education! People who acquire guns for the purpose of shooting other people are going to learn how to shoot them one way or another. We need to educate everyone about proper handling and storage for safety reasons, at the very least. Whether you want to own guns or not, the odds are high that every American will come into contact with them at some point, so isn't it safer that we all know how to treat them when we do?
Boy is this site filled with disinformation agents! You make the dumbest comments I've ever seen. Just owning a gun actually increases the likelihood that you will use it on someone? Give me a break. Where'd you learn that ------- propaganda? Faux News or the Communist News Network?
All of my guns have been bought from gun shows. I have had to go through the background check for every single one. The so called "gun show loop hole" is that if my grandfather wants to pass on a rifle to me, I dont have to go through a background check for him to give it to me. That is a private transaction. If a person sells guns for a living, they must meet numerous federal requirements and keep insane amounts of records on every transaction. Private transactions between individuals like grandfather to me or my brother selling his gun to his neighbor do not require background checks because neither my grandfather nor my brother are selling guns for a living.
Oh and I noticed you left out the part about the estimated 2,000,000 defensive uses of firearms in the US each year... look that one up on google, you'll see what I'm talking about.
How are a private transaction with your grandfather and no background checks at gun shows related? Unless your grandfather gives you his gun at a gun show...?
It suppose what I'm interested in knowing is: can I go to a gun show, meet some guy there that I've never seen before, and have him sell me a semiautomatic weapon or an assault rifle without any kind of a background check?
Also, 2,000,000 defensive uses per year seems ludicrously high. In an average lifespan of 80 years, that would mean 160 million Americans (more than half) would use a gun for defensive purposes at least once in their lifetime. Some basic probability crunching with those statistics indicates that it would be highly unlikely for any 25-year-old to know fewer than 40 people who pulled a gun on a criminal. And yet I know thousands of people and none have ever had to defend themselves with a gun. I've spoken with quite a few law enforcement officers over the years, and many of them make it 50 years in the force without having to draw their weapon.
Not that I'm against guns (I see good points either way), but you really can't hope to bring people on-side by dregding up flawed statistics.
Go to a gun show in a state where private transactions are allowed (they're banned in many states), and you will find that the vast majority of the sellers there are licensed gun dealers. About 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 is a private gun owner/collector who has rented a table at the show on a one-time basis in order to sell off some of his guns because he needs the cash. The vast majority of these are hunting rifles and shotguns but you will also find a few handguns.
This is the "gun show loophole" often talked about.
The 2 million defensive uses per year statistic was based on an extensive telephone survey conducted a decade or so ago by researcher Gary Kleck. He has released his raw survey data for other sociologists to chew over. Those opposed to gun ownership conclude that people who answer the phone are damn liars.
Meanwhile, the FBI estimates an average 500,000 defensive uses of firearms per year. This is likely a conservative estimate. Kleck's own estimate ranged from 1.5 million to 2 million.
Anyway, 2 million defensive uses does not mean that over 80 years, 160 million people have used a gun defensively. Some people live in dangerous areas and could have used their guns more than once. Also, since people can be born, and die within an 80 year span, 160 million is far less than half of all Americans who were alive at some time during that span. I'm not a demographer so I don't know how many Americans have existed from 1928 to 2008, but the number is undoubtedly much larger.
I myself have used my gun in a defensive situation, about 5 years ago. So now you know at least one person who has. ;-)
> This is the "gun show loophole" often talked about.
Thanks for the reply; I posted the original comment.
So at a gun show, I can buy one of these guns off of a private owner/collector's table without a background check?
> The 2 million defensive uses per year statistic was based on...
I'll have to take a look at the stats. Telephone surveys typically take tens of thousands of dollars to conduct, even when the survey group is only a thousand people. Larger polls are much more expensive. Even if Dr. Kleck had an insane research budget of $1M, he could have probably have interviewed a maximum of 50,000 people. This is a huge sample size, and critiques of his report ream him out for having an extremely small sample. If he used the standard sampling (1000), each reported gun use would up the 'total number of defensive uses' by 300,000 on average.
Meaning that if one of the people in the survey happened to be a gangster, and (legitimately) claimed that he'd used a gun for defensive purposes five times last year, America would suddenly find itself with 1.5 million new 'self-defence' uses after one telephone call.
The other issue is bias. A non-gun-owner who's interviewed, we expect, will always answer 'zero' (since it's hard to defend yourself with a non-existent gun). A gun owner who has used a firearm for self-defence will answer (we suppose) 'one'. A gun owner who has not used a firearm for (legitimate) self-defence will answer 'zero' with probability 1-p, and 'one' with 'lying' probability p. Assuming p isn't quite zero, the total number of false self-defence uses is always biased positively. In fact, with the sample group of 1000 listed above, we find that the whole 2.5 million defensive uses could be accounted for by eight people (0.8 percent) exaggerating the number of defensive uses per year by one.
And the bias problem isn't actually taken care of by the sample size. Even if Dr. Kleck interviewed every man, woman and child in America, if 0.8% of them lied, you'd still find yourselves with 2.5 million erroneous gun uses.
The 160 million stat is accurate if we assume a constant population over time (which admittedly a poor approximation), and a uniform distribution for gun usage. Say it's the year 2000. For the average lifespan of 80, the range of people that 'touch' the year have birthdates ranging from 1920-2000. If the age distribution is uniform, the average age of the interviewees is 40. Assuming defensive uses are uniformly distributed over a person's lifetime, an 'average' 40-year-old will only have defended himself half as many times as he's going to, so we double his reported number. (Note that we can use averages here due to the nature of the distribution; normally you have to integrate.) But doubling the number is equivalent to assuming he's twice as old. This leaves us with the 2.5/year stat being effectively reported for an 'average' man over an 'average' 80 year period, or, 160 million people using guns once in their lifetime.
You're absolutely right to point out that gun use is concentrated and that the number could be 20 million using a gun eight times on average. The problem is, if defensive uses goes any higher than 2 (or even 1), it makes you wonder if the gun-bearer isn't living a lifestyle that attracts violence. Or, if 'defensive uses' really are 'defensive uses'.
For those of you who think the 2nd ammendment is "outdated" and should be removed: What happens if we piss China off and they get a bunch of row boats? they could amass an army of about 200-300 MILLION people. How are we supposed to fight that?
With 200-300 MILLION ammerican citizens armed with their personal weapons, ala insurgency style...
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese Navy)
And here's a thought: We once thought this country was "alcohol crazy" and decided to ban it. We called it "Prohibition". how well did that work out for us again?
Wow, you're even worse than Bush. He invaded two countries illegally with his bs of WMDs, mushroom clouds, and threat to the US. Now you want us to believe that we need to arm ourselves to the teeth in anticipation of "they could amass an army of about 200-300 MILLION people. How are we supposed to fight that?"
You need to slow down on your meds. They are seriously affecting your ability to think rationally. China has no plans to invade the US, no intelligence agency anywhere in the world has even hinted at that possibility, especially the row boat part. :) You are totally dilusional.
What next?? Will the evil doers of DC Comics suddenly appear in the US to take us over? How about the Lizard people from the star Sirius?? Are they planning an attack too?? That has just as much a chance to happen as 300 million Chinese in row boats crossing the Pacific Ocean to invade the US. I guess our satellites can't detect anyone crossing the Pacific Ocean in row boats, right??
Actually, Prohibition worked pretty well. The number of people who abstained from alcohol use went up. After Prohibition, we can now definitively state that most crime is committed while perpetrators are under the influence of alcohol.
As to your comment about Chinese people in rowboats, I think its logic (or lack thereof) stands on its own.
More information about formatting options