Since 1983, Bob Gorrell has been an editorial cartoonist in Richmond, Va. first with the Richmond News Leader and then, starting in 1992, with the Richmond Times-Dispatch. On January 1, 1998, he resigned from the Times-Dispatch to concentrate on syndicated editorial cartoons and comic panel features for Creators Syndicate.
© Creators Syndicate, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.
John Deering by John Deering
Walt Handelsman by Walt Handelsman
Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)
Ken M
said, 4 months ago
Priceless. I’m sure that the President only got letters from kiddies wanting guns to be banned, and none from kiddies who like guns. Sort of like how there were a number of districts across the country where Romney got zero votes.
Gypsy8 said, 4 months ago
The real children are those mocking and taking lightly the legitimate concerns of our young for their lives.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
Ha. Yeah. Stupid children. Who the hell do they think they are, wanting to grow up in a safe country. Buncha idiots. We can’t; why should they?
Bruce4671 said, 4 months ago
@DrCanuck
So Doc, have they banned all the guns in Canada yet?
Here, let me give you some fodder for mocking since that seems to be your favorite thing to do.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/01/28/gun-laws-and-the-fools-of-chelm-by-david-mamet.html
ninety_nine_percent said, 4 months ago
Gorrell works for the gun lobby? And doesn’t care about our children being killed?
Radish
said, 4 months ago
Ban brocolee? That letter is from the senior George Bush.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
@Bruce4671
Yeah, I read Mamet earlier today. Quite the looney-tunes, huh.
pirate227 said, 4 months ago
Another product of the Texas public school system.
lonecat said, 4 months ago
@Bruce4671
That Mamet is really something else. His understanding of Marx is of course simply pathetic. And this was perhaps my favorite paragraph in the whole article:
“The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.”
It is simply impossible to read something like that and take anything he says seriously. Is he amazingly stupid, or is he deliberately making this stuff up? Or both.
dtroutma
said, 4 months ago
Written by a TEA party or JBS tyke “home schooled”? Oh, right, they LIKE guns with extended clips, armor piercing rounds, and taking target practice on those nasty kids who go to public schools.
Bruce4671 said, 4 months ago
@lonecat
I have NO idea. Somethings are just a hoot and then you forget about it. But if you take a step back and squint then maybe you can see some logic in that paragraph.
Why would a government make laws that favor one race over another? Certainly it can’t be because one group was placed at a disadvantage for years and it is only right to even the playing field until they “catchup” so to speak. Of course they are just as able to function in the desired way but just need training. So it would only be a temporary thing that would soon outlive it’s purpose and can be done away with. Seeing as how we are all “equal” and all. RIGHT? So how long does it take? 100 years? But since the government continues the program, strengthens it, puts more money into it all the time, THEY must think that one group can NOT function without an artificial advantage, even though we ALL know it isn’t true. Everyone is equal, everyone should be treated the same as if we were all one big happy family (which we should be).
Squinting hard enough yet?
rightisright said, 4 months ago
Children are preferable to liberals, who are merely childish.
Gresch said, 4 months ago
An example of how ineffective the teachers of Chicago have taught our children… provide any proof that this is not BHO’s current reading level…
TJDestry
said, 4 months ago
Um … gosh … what insights. Only stupid people want to be safe. Or something.
lonecat said, 4 months ago
@Bruce4671
Let’s think about this for a minute. Mamet says that affirmative action programs are based on the idea that “black people have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences.” This is of course quite contrary to the history of affirmative action programs. (I feel that it’s silly even to argue this point — only a very foolish person could say what Mamet said, and there should be no need to argue against it.) Clearly the basis of affirmative action is the belief that black people have just as much ability as white people, but they have been systematically denied the opportunities, through education or employment, to develop or use those abilities. I do not believe that any serious person could deny that black people were denied such opportunities, and I do not believe that any serious person could believe that affirmative action is based on the belief that black people have fewer abilities than white people.
+
Just for illustration, here’s how we do affirmative action in employment where I work. We have identified several “affirmative action categories”, which includes people who belong to visible minority groups (this includes but is not limited to “black people”), members of first nations, and women. The rule is that when two people of EQUAL qualifications are being considered for a position, if one of them belongs to an affirmative action category, that person must be given preference. We are never asked to give a position to someone less qualified than another applicant. So there is never a suggestion that anyone has been hired without being fully qualified for the position. Furthermore, when a certain percentage of those employed in a certain department belong to one of the categories, then the program doesn’t apply. For instance, the rule is that if 40% of the employees in a department are women, then the program no longer applies to women. As it happens, in my department we have about 45% women now, so women are no longer considered an affirmative action category. Thus the program is designed to put itself out of business.
+
I fully agree with the hope that at some point affirmative action programs will no longer be necessary. If you would like to argue that they are not necessary now, go ahead. I would need to see some good evidence, since I think there is some pretty good evidence that they are still needed. An argument that they are no longer necessary is a legitimate argument, perhaps right, perhaps wrong. But an argument that affirmative action programs are based on the idea that black people have fewer abilities than whites is intellectually bankrupt, and not to be taken seriously by serious people.
+
Sorry to go on about this, but I spent time in jail and I got beat up on picket lines fighting against racism, and I just don’t take it kindly when I read the kind of garbage Mamet wrote.