Join me on Facebook!
Follow me on Twitter!
More 'toons here!
Or subscribe here.
My interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the people have the right to overthrow the government by force of arms if it becomes abusive of its power.
I think the law on guns should allow law-abiding citizens (adults who are not convicted felons, mentally ill, or convicted sex offenders) to carry small arms (handguns) on their person in public, and to maintain caches of firearms in their home or business. However, they should be held responsible for maintaining and keeping these weapons safe. In addition, people who use guns in the commission of a crime should be hanged (literally, complete with rope and gallows and jeering crowds).
I think my proposal is fairly reasonable. Allow lawabiding, sane adults to keep and carry guns, but come down like a ton of bricks if they're ever misused.
uuh dude, what you're describing is called TERRORISM, and it's generally frowned upon. you'll learn about it in school.
There is another term used when someone tries to overthrow the 'abusive' goverment with weapons: terrorists. The gun nutters always drag out this 'we need em' to keep the government off our backs. Go ahead, shoot a cop and try to use your second amemdment right as a defense. Its such a weak reason to have everybody packin. Drunk people with guns kill people for no good reason. Just look at when all the murders happen in your town. Friday night???
Some of these commentaries indicate that there is a misunderstanding of the Second Amendment. Those who have read the legal opinions from the Supreme Court know that it only guarantees the right to bear arms to members of the “well regulated militia” and that the Supreme Court to date has determined this militia is the National Guard (this could change in future opinions). For this reason, the National Guard is not restricted in its bid to bear arms. The fact that you cannot own a nuclear weapon is derived from the fact that you are not protected under the Second Amendment.
That said, this legal opinion could change, but that is the way things are in the United States today. There is no right to bear arms for everyone guaranteed by the Constitution.
One of the commentators complained that the police in his local community were not protecting him (indicating that he needed a gun to protect himself). Any time there is a breakdown in your local community, then it makes sense to work to fix the community. If the roads are not being paved, will you buy a paver? More than likely you will go to your city council and complain. Likewise, it makes a lot of sense to pressure your local police force to shape up (most likely through the Mayor's office).
Any way, those are my thoughts. Happy New Year to everyone.
Funny, according to the political thought of the time, the Bill of Rights protects rights that are inherent to humanity. So we have established that the BoR was written to protect existing rights, so the Right to keep and bear arms is older than the constitution. Next, the existance of the National Guard, was codified into law in the Early 20th century. Prior to that (and also listed in the US Code) the militia is composed of all Able-bodie adult men (due to equal opportunity, this should be revised to apply to women too). So, by law, all able bodied adults already had the right to keep and bear arms before the addition of the National Guard. Its creation did not replace the civilian militia. Additionally, the National guard is a government entity, and the govenrment has never seen the need to make law allowing it's own bearing of arms, as it wouldn't be necessary.
As the supreme court ruled in US v. Miller, the issue at stake was not whether miller had the individual right to bear arms, as his case would have had no standing if the court thought he didn't. The issue was whether the weapon he was in possession of, a sawed-off shotgun, was useful for a militia purpose. Since Miller and his lawyer didn't show up for the hearing, and the court was unaware of the use of sawed-off shotguns by the militia, they ruled that his weapon was not protected by the Second Amendment. Had miller been caught with a machine gun, an obvious militia-useful weapon, they might have ruled differently. Sawed-off shotguns and machineguns are regulated by the very same law. Under this ruling, the right to keep and bear arms is inferred to be an individual right.
In addition to that, all the other parts of the Bill of rights apply to individuals, the Second amendment is no different.
Finally, it is unreasonable to expect even the most capable police force to be able to protect everyone at the same time. It takes no more that a few seconds to kick someones door in and beat them to death with a rock. No police force would be able to stop that. In fact, the US Supreme Court has ruled that police do not actually have the responsibility for the safety of individuals, only the community as a whole. The ability to defend oneself when the police can't is at the heart of the right to keep and bear arms.
As an aside, nuclear weapons are not protected since they are not suitable for use by the militia. They have no training value, and are of no practical use in protection against "invasion or insurrection". They also cannot be made safe as arms can. A gun can be unloaded making it no more dangerous that a golf club. The materials required in a nuclear or other WMD are inherently dangerous just having around.
Understand this: Rights, like people, must be treated equally. Finding ways to take away rights that seem unpopular, or obsolete, merely opens the door to taking away other rights later. After all, what right does anyone have to buy books, when the government runs perfectly good libraries?
It's interesting to me that gun-haters think the National Guard is supposed to be the infamous "well regulated militia". Well the Founding Fathers intent is obvious* that they opposed a standing federal army. The NG is most definately a standing federal army as thier chain of command ends at the presidents desk. Its not assault weaponry or hand guns that should be banned, its actually the National Guard.
* James Madison:
"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops"
The well regulated militia was formed from private citizens to deal with a tyrannical goverment. It was never a goverment sponsored group. The National Guard is just that not a militia.
On the police the courts have ruled that they have no obligation to protect you.
" When guns are outlawed, Only outlaws will have guns." What is so hard to understand about that quote? Does anyone who wants more laws really beleive that is the answer? Just look at the laws we have now and look at crime rates, The laws are not stopping anyone but honest LAW ABIDING citizens!
Here is another quote that I think is so very true. "The difference between a Liberal and a Republican is one mugging" Well you beleive what you will, But I will beleive that only I can protect myself and my loved ones from any danger and I'll let the police investigate as usual. They are not there to protect anyone of us unless you are lucky enough that they happen to be on the spot at the right time.
Check out a book from Amazon " Thank God I had a Gun" by Chris Brid. Its 14 short storise of self-defense shootings and a really good story of what happened in New Orleans when the goverment went and stole peoples guns for their safety.
Your arguments sir are fatuous and insultingly stupid. Clearly you like to quote others instead of thinking for yourself. "When guns are outlawed...." give me a break!
Other countries, you know the other funny shaped blobs in that atlas thingy, don't seem to have any where near the problems of the USA. British police don't even carry firearms.
I think the answer really is though, to issue everyone in the US a gun (semi-auto minimum)and unlimited ammo (Armour piercing is so alluring don't ya think), cut off all the airports and ships and then turn off the TV. I'd give you guys a month. Tops.
The wholesale slaughter would be legendary and the rest of the world can get on with our lives.
"our lives"? Figures you aren't from around here.
While a horrible cliche, the phrase is absolutely true in two ways. First, banning guns has not seemed to make it too difficult for "outlaws" to obtain them. Further, like the drug trade, restrictions and demand can create a large incentive for criminals to import and sell them. Second, while you don't consider it a right, many do, and will refuse to give them up if banned, making them "outlaws" too.
Your broad brush portrayal of the average American as ignorant of the rest of the world does not help your credibility or advance your position.
I would love it if I was given a free gun and unlimited ammo. If possible, I would request an M-16. My friends and I would have a great time shooting old appliances and cars full of holes, before a tasty barbecue. TV is overrated anyway.
Oddly enough, until 1934, there was no real gun control in the US. A twelve-year-old could go into a hardware store and buy a submachinegun, or order one out of the Sears catalog shipped right to his door. Interestingly, there were no school shootings either. With that in mind, the possibility exists that the availability of guns might not be the cause of all the violence in the world. Murder, rape, assault, robbery, and war were well-known far before someone though of using the combustion of sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate to propel a lead ball at great velocity.
We already have guns, champ. With pretty close to unlimited ammo, although the prices are crazy these days.
LAW ABIDING CITIZENS NEED GUNS
All you have to do is look at areas where guns are banned or heavily regulated and you will see they are the highest crime areas in the country. Look at Washington DC, after the gun ban murder rates went through the roof.
By the way British Police do carry Guns. At one time they had a homogenious society but no more and they have the problems that come with that.
In Switzerland everyone is issued a gun, no problems there.
"Other countries don't seem to have any where near the problems of the USA. British police don't even carry firearms."
There is no more legally owned handguns in UK and crime (with firearms) rate is soaring an average 40% each year.
Cops were not armed, they are now issued submachine guns.
That's a very depressing solution. I hope you were joking. Guns are bad and no one should have them.
P.S. I'm pretty sure that British police carry guns NOW. Before, they didn't.
It's too late to say guns are bad no one should own them. Most everyone already has one. Besides there's no way to get them away from everyone who has one and I don't think they should.
For your PS comment you are wrong. British police do not carry guns. They are allowed to under certain circumstances carry them and they have to sign them out. I know this because I have Brit friends.
I'm pretty liberal but I don't think they should take our gun rights away. People do hunt and they should be allowed to have a gun for this. I'm not sure how I feel about hands guns.
Also commenting on the other person who said everyone should carry a gun I'm not sure if I agree with that either. Too many people will pass mental health checks and those people will be walking around with guns. Hell look at some of the crazy cops we have that shouldn't even be carrying them! Cops that fire guns in their own home, cops that their wives disappear and cops that go on shooting sprees (like in WI). The whole world has gone mad so maybe we do need something to protect ourselves from the cops and weirdos.
Alan Greenspan!!! A good guy! That's the funniest, and one of the most ignorant, opinions I've ever heard. Yes, he is intelligent, and maybe before he went to work for the FED Reserve, he might have even had an honest bone in his body. The whole Federal Reserve Act is un-Constitutional, and will eventually sink this country into a depression that will make former ones seem like a trip to Disney Land. As far as guns go, I think we should have the right to arms, but that's not to say there are not serious problems with gun control. You don't need an assault rifle for protection; and we need to do a better job of trying to make sure they don't end up in some crazy man or woman's hands, gunning down our loved ones. But I firmly support the right to carry a 45 or a shotgun, which is all the protection you should ever need...but most likely, our 2nd amendment, like the 4th and some others, will eventually be stripped away by our own gov't, since the Bill of Rights seems to be on its way out.
Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one with a different perspective on the INTENT of the second amendment.
I believe that in 1776, ownership of firearms was ASSUMED. People had them to hunt for meat and to defend their crops and live stock against deer, wolves, cougars, etc. as well as to defend their families from bad guys. Not to mention their use in stealing land from Native Americans or keeping slaves.
I believe it would no more have occurred to Jefferson and Co. to ensure an individual’s right to ‘bare arms‘, then it would have occurred to them to ensure an individual’s right to have a fireplace, a horse, or a shovel.
What I believe the point of the second amendment was the right to have a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. A right to a LOCAL CITIZENS ARMY. They mistrusted central omnipotent authority and wanted to secure a population’s ability to resist tyranny. It’s why they also prohibited a professional standing army.
You can argue about whether one should still currently have an unqualified right to have firearms or not, but I believe the second’s original point was about giving the citizenry ‘TEETH’ to constrain imperialistic tendencies in the government.
Anyway, I haven’t seen this addressed. Has anyone postulated about the ‘illegality’ of a state’s National Guard being under the control of the Federal Government?
Vincine, you are most definitely on the money. But it's a little late now....Which is why I say our 2nd amendment rights will probably be stripped away by the Fed Gov't, like the 4th and others have, as the gov't continues to ignore the will of the American people and instead supports big money corporations and special interests...aka, fascism.
You have an interesting "different perspective" on the "intent" of the Second Amendment. But, here's another "perspective" for you to consider...
The Framers of the Constitution, CLEARLY had two separate concepts in mind as they wrote the Constitution. They thought about what "powers" belonged to the government, (which they referred to as "the state"), and those powers/"rights" that belonged to individual citizens, (which they referred to as "the people").
The term, "the people" was used in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. How is it then, that the term, "the people" can be read to mean, "an INDIVIDUAL right", in ALL of the other Amendments, BUT NOT IN THE 2nd????
I would LOVE to hear your "perspective" on that! If you would care to email me with your thoughts, I would gladly read them and respond. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Joe, I think you misunderstood what Vincine was saying. The Constitution was our Rebublic's Charter, and its main purpose was to restrict the powers of the Federal Gov't. All powers not delegated to the FEDERAL gov't, are then reserved to the States and People. Yes, it is an individual right; that's not what Vincine was saying. He was saying that the reason this right was given was in large part to have a well-armed militia, which is a deterent against exactly what we have now: a gov't totally out of control, with no one being held accountable for anything! They had just fought the British for these same reasons, and the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is supposed to be our protection against a tyranical Central gov't. You guys are fighting when, if you just calmed down, you'd probably realize that WE THE PEOPLE need to stick together against the massive repressive forces that are being set up against us.
“How is it then, that the term, "the people" can be read to mean, "an INDIVIDUAL right", in ALL of the other Amendments, BUT NOT IN THE 2nd????”
Huh? I said I think the Framers of the Constitution ASSUMED the individual DID have the right to have firearms. They just didn’t think it needed to be spelled out. I don’t think they thought they should spend their time listing everything that an individual should have the right to, like wheel barrels, hats, buckets, 'firearms', etc.
“You guys are fighting when, if you just calmed down, you'd probably realize that WE THE PEOPLE need to stick together against .”
I’m not fighting Joe. I’m fighting ‘the massive repressive forces that are being set up against us’.
Leaving aside the simple fact that there is an insane amount of gun violence in America, an issue that ought to be on people's radar screens is the suicidal and homicidal ideation caused as a "side effect" of so-called anti-depressants. A huge percentage of mass murderers in recent years have been or had recently been under the influence of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors prior to or during their rampages. These drugs have been described as "taking the brakes off" violent suicidal and homicidal thoughts and behaviours thus allowing people to act out their violent fantasies. Do your research. Work place or school shooting? Think SSRI's. (As for gang-bangers, drunken rednecks, vice-presidents and other criminals and idiots, I don't know what kind of dangerous pharmaceuticals they might be on...)
Leaving aside the simple fact that there is an insane amount of gun violence in America? There is? How about all the drunk drivers killing people every day at a rate 100 x that of fire arm deaths? Outlaw beer and cars...... Everyone will be safe then. I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
Boy, nobody gets as radically defensive as the redneck gun owners.
After the shooting in the Nebraska mall tons of Nebraska people wrote in to say they pack a gun everywhere they go and if they had been there they would have shot him.
Remind me to stay out of Nebraska and Nebraska malls.
Lack of education and money has made a lot of crazies there.
Doesn't that make you feel safe to know people all around you in the mall have weapons under their coat?
30% of the population do.
I bet you are the type to call those people "paranoid".
Seems to me that you are the one who is paranoid.
"Remind me to stay out of Nebraska and Nebraska malls."
They don't want you there. To think people are crazy because they want to stop someone from killing people, is the very essence of evil and is a very sad sign of the times.
Apparently, there were NO, "people in the mall carrying weapons under their coats", as the "crazy", suicidal, homicidal, maniac with the rifle was the ONLY one with a gun! So, he was FREE to kill "at will" until he wanted to stop all on his own, or until "someone" with a gun could show up and STOP him!
Contrast THAT incident with the one at the church in Colorado, where an ARMED citizen, (female security guard), was on the scene and able to take on the "crazy", suicidal, homicidal, maniac before he could KILL many more than what he was able to!
NO ONE has anything to FEAR from an armed LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN with a gun, unless, you are a "crazy", suicidal, homicidal, criminal!
By the way, how "small minded", bigoted, and unenlightened remark is it, to assume that if you own/carry a gun, you must be a, "poor and uneducated crazy"?
"NO ONE has anything to FEAR from an armed LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN with a gun,"
See that right there is the problem. They probably AREN'T being a law abiding citizen when they pull their gun on you. Maybe they were fine 5 minutes beforehand, but that isn't going to do you any good when the shoot you down NOW.
Uh dude, technically law abiding citizens SHOULDN'T carry around guns. Only TRAINED AUTHORITY FIGURES should do that. Mainly because people that just go to Wall-Mart and buy guns then carry them around in public places to seem tough might either fire the accidentally and kill themselves or they might get angry at someone and pull it out. This could provoke someone who is mentally ill to start shooting. Also if a law abiding citizen's gun got into someone else's hands (especially a young child's) then they could fire accidentally and kill themselves or someone else.
BOTOM LINE: Its stupid that the government allows people, other than authority figures, to buy things that can only be used to kill people. Which is illegal and wrong (DUH!)
" BOTOM LINE: Its stupid that the government allows people, other than authority figures, to buy things that can only be used to kill people. Which is illegal and wrong (DUH!)"
How can people really believe this? Are you being sarcastic?
When a young lady stops a rape/homicide with a firearm, you don't think, "Wow, I'm glad she had that firearm to protect herself"?
Only someone completely detached from reality, someone who has had a sheltered life could believe what this person said.
Ordinary people need to protect themselves and their families. They need training and everything a police officer has.
"Authority figures" haha that makes me laugh. Just call 911 while you're getting beaten, or if you're trapped in a mall with an active shooter, just call 911 if the national guard is beating to the ground because he thought you might have a gun.
Murders and rapes never happen, because we have 911 to call.
uuh. ever heard of tazers, mace, and pepper spray? you can use those to stop people from attacking you without killing them. Oh and about the snotty remark you made about being attacked. That's the reason that they should have more police in the mall. Oh and what would the murderer be using? A GUN YOU RETARD!!! that's exactly why no one should have them!!!!!!!!!!! Honestly you people are so stupid!!
I agree. Firearms aren't the only means of protection. Only, people choose guns more because they make them feel strong. Often people buy them because they feel weak or insecure. Either that or they have a mental illness of some sort. Actually, a lot of people that buy guns are the ones that should be pitied, because they probably don't realize how horrible guns really are until one takes the live of someone close.
So only the mentally ill own guns? So that would mean all cops are crazy because, they own their own private firearms on top of what they are issued. I, myself, must be crazy because I too own firearms. As a matter of fact, I am perfectly sane. I am also a social worker with my Master's degree in Psychology.
The views many, including yourself, have that say "all guns are bad, and only crazy people would own them", do nothing but make you look foolish.
I have a valid License to Carry Firearms, and I am also a competitive pistol shooter and Range Safety Officer. Safety is paramount to me as well as protecting myself. Any one person that has ever uttered the phrase "there is never a cop around when you need one", should be knowledgeable enough to know that the police forces are not always there to hold your hand throughout life.
If you are at home and it's AM, and someone is breaking into your house, what will you do? You call the cops, but you know it's going to take some time. So while you are huddling in the corner hoping they do not come upstairs; I will be huddled in the corner, armed and ready, so that no harm can come to myself or my family.
It is your God given right to protect yourself, not a government granted privilege. You can choose to ignore it, and hop nothing ever comes to pass, or you can make the choice to be ready God forbid anything should happen.
So, what can be said about a highly educated man, of sound mind, who chooses to carry a firearm for self-defense and the defense of others? I have carried a weapon for many years now, and never have I harmed anyone with it, nor have I had a reason to. However, I also have car insurance on my vehicle, though I don't plan on being in an accident. An ounce of prevention my friend, an ounce of prevention.
I own guns too but nobody needs an assault rifle for anything but to kill people.
They are way to easy to get and no use to anyone unless you want to kill people.
Also way to easy for the mentally ill to buy a gun just like Mark says.
What exactly do you think guns are for primarily?
They are for killing people or animals. Sure, people use them for target shooting or hunting, but the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with either. The 2nd Amendment is about KILLING PEOPLE; specifically tyrannical government or foreign invaders.
An 'assault rifle' is an efficient and necessary tool to such a task. Taking them out of the law-biding citizen's arsenal will only lead to enslavement of the populace.
There was a political cartoon long ago that summed it up best.
A Colonial Minuteman/Yeoman Farmer is standing with his musket. A British Red Coat with his musket asks, "What does a peasant like you have need of an 'assault weapon' like that?"
The symbolism should be obvious.
While you probably have no idea what constitutes an "assault rifle" your implication is that I want to kill people.
It's analogous to saying "No one needs high speed internet access. It's of no real use except for downloading pirated movies and child porn."
The moment we start restricting freedoms based on "need" is the moment we are no longer free. Basing those restrictions on the evil things done by some evil people is no better. There are an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the US. If, like the video says, 30,000 people per year are killed with guns, that means less than one hundredth of one percent of guns are used for killing. Yet, somehow guns are the problem. Reminds me of the fact that a person is more likely to die driving to the airport than in a plane crash, yet fear of flying is quite common. Doesn't make much sense either.
I don't need my "assault rifle" any more that you need whatever guns you own. I use mine for recreation and personal defense if necessary. For all I know, I might be defending myself from you and your guns. Tell you what: You give yours up, and I'll think about giving mine up. But not too hard. Deal?
who needs guns? who knows..i guess i dont need a car, food, or electricity either? our forefathers mustve gotten it all wrong with the second amendment..then the rest must be bogus too? yeah that first amendment..you love that one im sure. next you'll be doing cartoons on how abortions are protecting the environment...
lol. When you analyse it, in a way abortions COULD protect the environment.
Less of the human species messing up the environment. Whats the difference between preventing more humans in the first place in comparison to killing them later on? I guess the first way is less messy.
I would bet that if they saw how the 2nd amendment was interpreted now, they might very well see it as a mistake. My personal feeling is that having a gun is a privalege. To have one to potentially overthrow an elected government is sedition, or perhaps more acurately, treason
.. your next idea is actually not a bad one. I suppose that haveing fewer people in the world IS protecting the environment!
The assumption we "redneck gun-nut traitors" make is that any government in need of overthrowing is no longer elected or not responding to the will of the people, hence, by the Declaration of Independence, needs overthrowing.
I agree they might have seen a mistake and sought to rewrite it to better protect a fundamental individual right.
A privilege? That's pretty funny. Actually it's pretty dangerous to start redefining rights into privileges. Who knows what other things are merely privileges? But that's ok. You seem like the type who needs to be told what to do. Don't question authority. Someone might lose their TV and phone privileges.
Thats nice. At least you admit that it is a right.
Nothing, NOTHING has caused more violence, hatred, and civil unrest as the first amendment. I guess if the forefathers saw the kind of violence resultant from it they never would have made the first amendment.
After all, they couldn't forsee such technology as TV or the internet that could spread so much violence and hate to so many people so quickly.....
wow way to make the VT situation into a joke with your little fuqing cartoon! smooth, genius. that along with the rest of this "comic" strip makes you the "crazy mentally ill" one. did you graduate with an arts degree in animation or something? this is all you can think of doing with yourself? go make yourself useful somewhere else, you disgust myself and millions of americans with your asshat views. thank you.
He didn't intend it as a joke. He was giving an example of how bad giving guns to mentally ill people can be. And in case you didn't notice, the rest of the cartoon is saying that guns are bad too. Did you even pay ANY attention?
Oh and when you say that the rest of his cartoons disgust you, are you forgetting that most of the stuff in them is actually true? Especially the stuff about Bush being an idiot and about Cheney being an evil old man.
The country could be burning down around you and you who still support this treasonist maniacs, Bush and Cheney and you would still have your head up your rear. Those who saw Bush for what he is when he first stole the election had more smarts than those who support him genetically were left without. You need to read Alan Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence. He is a Republican and our best economist. If you are smart enough, I believe you will be surprised. Who will you believe? Alan Greenspan worked closely with many Presidents. He is a man of great education and integrity. Take a little sniff of this economy. What? Now 4T plus in debt? Well, bingo when we started with the Bush madness, we had a 4T plus surplus. And his Administration along with the Republican congress squandered it in the first 4 years and we continue to sink into debt with this b.s. in Iraq. Our troops are broken. How in the H...can we take on Iran. We have been responsible for immense death and life altering injuries to our troops who survive and all for oil. Every time a Republican is in the White House, we have an immense deficit. Check out Alan....or continue to read the ticker tape on the bottom of Fox News. The illiteracy in this country is amazing and sad because we all have to suffer because of stupidity. Propaganda hogs and cement brains! By the way...it is you digust millions of Americans and me. Try English 1.
And now you see the need for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
If this country really goes down the tubes, and some sadistic madman and his chimp sidekick (not Michael Jackson) becomes some tyrannical despot, those guns might help.
While the hippies are protesting and getting teargassed and soaked with firehoses, the gun nuts and I will be loading magazines for our "Assault rifles". Guess which one will have more of an effect.
Liberty comes in the form of boxes. Four of them: The soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box. Use them, as necessary, in that order.
I can see you are a very intelligent person and a good one to judge. You don't even know enough to start a sentence with a capitol letter.
Get over yourself.
I love these cartoons and if you don't then don't read them. Nobody is twisting your arm.
I read every one and enjoy them all.
And yes, I am a gun owner but one with sense enough to be reasonable.
Ahh, the typo, the last bastion for those who cannot refute an intelligent argument.
Big f'n deal that you own a gun. How the hell does that mean you have any authority to comment on constitutional issues or history?
Alls it means it that you are probably trying to seem like you know something when you don't. I doubt you even own a gun.
You have guns so wrong.... thank god theres a 2nd Amendment....
More information about formatting options