Chuck Asay by Chuck Asay

Chuck Asay

Recommended

Comments (83) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. greyolddave

    greyolddave said, about 1 year ago

    I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that we have a right to kill with firearms. It also says something about being orderly. The NRA solves the problem by claiming to be “crazy”. We have a “right” for any person to have any weapon. We do NOT have an obligation to be “orderly”.

  2. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, about 1 year ago

    Asay living in the past. As usual.

  3. ODon

    ODon said, about 1 year ago

    Cruz as the rational Senator? Irrational.

  4. DesultoryPhillipic

    DesultoryPhillipic said, about 1 year ago

    @greyolddave

    I don’t see anywhere that it “obligates” anyone other than the government. Let me re-read it though. I might have missed it.

  5. Jase99

    Jase99 said, about 1 year ago

    The way I read the Second Amendment it applies to the states, not individual citizens.

  6. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 1 year ago

    @Xabulba

    A perusal of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers might clarify that for you. Those papers are must reading.

  7. dtriedel

    dtriedel GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    So what’s the limit?

  8. The Wolf In Your Midst

    The Wolf In Your Midst GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Remember that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY STATES that one of the duties of the militia is to defend the nation and its government from threats, foreign and domestic- including insurrectionists. So when the “Don’t Tread On Me” crowd decides that it’s time to “go shoot the gub’ment”, it’s every true gun-owning American’s patriotic duty to put them down.
    I mean, we do still care about the Constitution in this country, don’t we? I mean the WHOLE thing, not just the parts some of us like.

  9. comics

    comics GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    The right to bear arms has been infringed since before I was born. I can’t buy a nuclear warhead or an RPG or a tank. How am I supposed to defend the nation with a semi automatic?

  10. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Xabulba

    At the time it was conceived and written, the term “militia” refereed to every adult male in the population of age and physical capability to serve as a combatant in the defense of the community . Not every male currently in a military organization.

    The definition persists.

    MILITIA

    all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. (dictionary.com ex 3)

    the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service (websters ex 2)

    So we may quibble about what well regulated means but the fact that a militia is composed of citizens that are NOT part of the military but are private citizens is the point.

    Now why is it necessary for citizens to be armed? To maintain freedom. Freedom from what? Tyranny. And what is that?

    Again from webster:

    TYRANNY

    oppressive power, especially : oppressive power exerted by government (ex 1)

    And dictionary.com

    arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority. Synonyms: despotism, absolutism, dictatorship. (ex 1)

    So IF a government wanted to more power and the ability to force it’s decision on the citizens what is the first thing it would seek to do?

    Well there are others who have asked that question and observed that the first step is to disarm the population.

    To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Madison

    NO my brother. We do NOT forget the first part of that statement. Now tell me how you can blatantly ignore the rest of it and concentrate on the last words "SHALL NOT be infringed.

  11. DGF999

    DGF999 said, about 1 year ago

    @Bruce4671

    Well said!

  12. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @ahab

    Yes, ahab, that might be a fine thing to do. But tell me, how many of the law abiding citizens that own and maintain a firearm or two walked into that school, yelled “freedom for the people” or “support the NRA”?

    It was one mentally unstable young man with a vicious PLAN to outdo other mass killers. Nothing is being said about his politics. Why? Because he didn’t have any affiliations, well none that I can find.

    But you in YOUR wisdom think that restricting those that obey the laws will prevent other such incidents.

  13. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, about 1 year ago

    Just for fun, let’s turn this 180 degrees. I hear and read a lot about what “anti-gun” (for lack of a better term) people want to do, or at least what “pro-gun” (again, apologies for the term) people think that anti-gun people want.

    Let me ask the gun owners who are responsible: what do you think needs to be done to reduce gun violence? Can we all agree that there are some people who shouldn’t be allowed access to weapons? Isn’t the “devil in the details”? So, what restrictions can we agree on that will actually address the problem without burdening responsible gun owners? If the answer is to arm everyone, do you think that people should be able to buy them with no restrictions and no training? If you feel that everyone needs to be trained in use and safety, how is it best presented?

    Do you feel that we just need to enforce existing laws? If so, can you agree that the ATF needs a full-time head? What about background checks? Should we continue to destroy records immediately? Should we continue to restrict law enforcement from access to the ATF database? Should we consider background checks, even at yard sales or for people who sell them out of their cars?

    Or should we just accept the fact that innocent people will continue to be killed, and that this is just the consequence of a free society?

    Please do not read anything into this that isn’t there. I am not picking a fight. I do not claim to know all the answers. I see and hear a lot of finger-pointing and unnecessary enmity, and do not want to stimulate more of the same. Please be constructive and non-judgmental. Thanks for your consideration.

  14. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    I am a Libertarian. I am an avid target shooter (competitor) and still teach people gun safety and help them develop “shooting skills” (for competition and self-defense). I hate prohibition because first and foremost it doesn’t work. With all of this lofty discussion of the Second Amendment which we’ve had ad nauseum, doesn’t it occur to anyone that this is not truly the will of the people? It’s the will of many on these boards, but we are not a representative voice of the country. I believe the SCOTUS decision on Heller resolved the private ownership issue separate from the militia issue. I would be thrilled if they instituted the California gun laws nationwide. We still maintain our right to own firearms and shoot in spite of very strict regulations. Our gun laws are just about the strictest in the country. I would even add to them with regulations about mandatory training for first time purchasers and initiate a “safe storage” requirement.


    Well guess what? Pure and simple, like it or not, once more politics abound. Red state democrats fear a backlash at the next election over this issue and Harry Reid knows it. Surprisingly to many of you, they were also besieged with huge volumes of email and phone calls for support for gun ownership and against this proposed legislation. Once you get out of the metropolitan areas America is still a fairly conservative country. Aside from that, they tried to do too much the first time around. If this would have been solely on background checks I think it would have survived.


    Hunting and the shooting sports are declining without any legislative assistance. It’s just not as popular as it once was, although every time we have one of these uproars gun purchasing spikes, typically with people that were considering buying their first gun but had been putting it off.


    We know that the majority of these mass murders are mentally ill and many have already been in the mental health system. What happens when we talk about enforced mandates for reporting these people? Mumble, mumble, grumble, oh well, ahh, oh yeah, the ACLU will shoot it down! The country fought like cats and dogs (and still are) over universal health care, but does that include the mental health system? Of course not, we can’t afford it they say so blithely. Pass it off to the states or that’s not our problem or??? Oh yeah, we don’t have the money for that. Okay, look to the defense budget. A measly 10% reduction in defense would serve nicely as a contribution to the mental health system.


    Last but not least (a sigh of relief) we sure quickly ignore the social problems and the media influence that contributes to this violence. America is not England, Australia or many other countries that have instituted gun control. Our country has a much more violent culture and we really like guns! Many of those ivory tower types think it might have something to do with the feeling of insignificance or emasculation that many feel today.


    That’s it, thanks for letting me share…

  15. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, about 1 year ago

    @I Play One On TV

    What seems to derail debates over guns is the all or nothing attitude.
    The pro side might say they don’t want any restrictions. That any law outlawing a type of gun is the first step towards outlawing all guns.
    And they have a point there.
    I have actually heard the anti gun side use the term first step.
    But the idea that 40% of gun sales do not require a background check is scary.
    I am for requiring background checks and charging $5 or so. I am also for banning the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
    I think these two laws could pass if it was guaranteed that it is not a first step toward confiscation.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (68).