Candorville by Darrin Bell


Comments (21) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Ira Nayman

    Ira Nayman said, about 3 years ago

    That’s actually an intentional misreading of the Second – oh, why bother? Never mind…

  2. simpsonfan2

    simpsonfan2 said, about 3 years ago

    The NRA won’t want any stricter gun laws until someone does a mass shooting at their headquarters building.

  3. herdleader1953

    herdleader1953 said, about 3 years ago

    I’ve never been to the NRA’s HQ but I would bet there are plenty of armed people there who would object most strongly to being a victim.

  4. TheSkulker

    TheSkulker said, about 3 years ago

    No, “Historically” we are not part of the militia. [Nor is the US Code the constitution].
    It wasn’t until the 60s or 70s that the politicized right wing judges stared “reinterpreting” the constitution did we get into this mess.

  5. cdward

    cdward said, about 3 years ago


    And probably shoot each other in the process…

  6. cdward

    cdward said, about 3 years ago

    We’ll start off by saying that under the law you cited, nobody over 45 qualifies. While that’s not technically true, understand that the National Guard as we know it was created in 1903. Ptior to that, we were talking about state finded militias, many of which still exist today. Thhey were irregular but not unorganized. They had the same military hierarchy as federal troops thouh not every state was organized exactly the same way. It was obligatory for eligible citizens to be part of it and to appear for regular training. This was the "well regulated militia the 2nd Amendment spoke about. Now, if you want to reinstitute mandatory membership in the militia, I’m okay with that. But let us not forget the cintext.

  7. DavidHuieGreen

    DavidHuieGreen said, about 3 years ago


    Don’t know about right wing judges, but the idea that the purpose was to regulate the militia by unrestricted right of the militia to arms is simply too twisted to contemplate. It led folks to form groups they called militias to affirm their rights. That led the groups to work some of the people up to antigovernmental frenzies.
    Groups don’t have rights; they have powers.
    INDIVIDUALS have rights.
    The Supreme Court, which by definition can never be wrong, has reaffirmed the right is an individual right, not a right or power of a group.

  8. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, about 3 years ago

    Does the second state how many or what type of guns? Since you can easily regulate without “breaking” it.

  9. DavidHuieGreen

    DavidHuieGreen said, about 3 years ago

    @Tue Elung-Jensen

    It says the right “shall not be infringed.”
    When people start talking about any form of infringement, other people fear they’re trying a back-door approach to taking away their rights and leaving them helpless and dependent on the benign government for their protection.
    Since most people distrust members of government of other political parties, they are not certain government will always be benign and effective about protecting them.
    Scared people tend to be armed people, so the attempt to disarm or “regulate” them actually is counterproductive.

    And then there are the nut jobs who will be dangerous if free, no matter what law exists. As seen above, we need reliable ways to identify and treat them or else confine them for the safety we need for our children.

  10. pschearer

    pschearer GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    ObamaCare: Socialized medicine by any other name would smell as foul.

  11. saturnsport8k

    saturnsport8k said, about 3 years ago

    What is the proposal to prevent the mentally ill from buying knives? Baseball bats? Cars? Fertalizer for explosives?

    Those adjucated mentally ill are already banned from buying firearms. how are you going to make it MORE banned?

  12. Gee Man

    Gee Man GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago


    Socialized medicine smells foul – like the socialized medicine that works better than the US system in terms of health outcomes, at lower cost, in every other modern democracy?I guess the US needs a dose of that bitter medicine, eh?

    So what is the objection of “conservatives” to “socialized” medicine: lower costs, or better outcomes, or both? Or, is it simply that hanging a “socialist” label on it makes it inherently evil? (God save us from healthy citizens who don’t lose their homes and livelihoods to random accidents and medical emergencies, and can go on contributing usefully to society!).

  13. Gee Man

    Gee Man GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago


    The mentally ill are banned from buying firearms? By laws and screening processes that are full of loopholes? You and the NRA are pretending there is an effective screening process, when for most jurisdictions, there is anything but. How do you think nuts keep getting guns and ammo and going on sprees?
    As for pretending equivalence in deadly potential of bats and knives and cars – that’s just a non-sequitur. When’s the last time someone took a bat or a knife or a car on a rampage in a mall or school or movie theatre? Go ahead, take your time there, I’m sure you’ll come up with some minor example, if you Google long enough….
    Fertilizer – already restrictions and monitoring on who can buy it in bulk. Maybe that’s why Tim McVeigh’s attack hasn’t been repeated?

    Here’s some food for thought – in the US this year, toddlers with guns have killed more people than terrorists have (four, in the Boston Marathon bombing)), vs 11 kids killed by toddlers with guns up to June 12 – and several more since. So, as an American, you may be 4 times more likely to die at the hands of a toddler than a terrorist.

    How’s that well-regulated militia working out for ya?

  14. amaryllis2

    amaryllis2 GoComics PRO Member said, about 3 years ago

    SkepticCal, the right-wing started beating that drum after the polls came out saying Hilary would win by a majority of voters both Democrat and Republican—they needed a way to tear her down, fast. Then her dear friend Chris died, and instead of mourning and honoring one of the best diplomats we had in the service—someone who frequently ditched the security rules in order to make friends and contacts where he was serving (I know someone who served overseas with him)—that was the Koch Brothers and Limbaugh’s cue to try to bring down her poll ratings, and any chance to get back at the black guy in the White House was a bonus.

    We allowed them to create a scandal out of a terrible tragedy and by so doing smashed the legacy Chris left of of honoring and respecting one’s enemies and winning them over to be our friends.

  15. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, about 3 years ago

    Richtmyer: Continuing to leave matters of life and death in the hands of private profit, your money or your life, insurance companies is socialist? What do you use for a dictionary?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (6).