Chuck Asay by Chuck Asay

Chuck Asay


Comments (28) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, about 1 year ago

    Jesus would pass the background check and could get a nice AR-15 to protect his flock.

  2. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    I learned trading stocks that people react much more to the perception of an issue than the reality. Although there is no doubt we are a heavily regulated society, the perception on the part of the shooting community goes directly to the threat of confiscation. Because of the emotional outcry from events like Sandy Hook, the knee jerk reaction of many is to cry for England’s level of gun control. They use expressions like “first off, to begin with” which of course makes the shooting community immediately think there is a continuing agenda. This is realistically not an irrational assumption. When one looks at the legislation already enacted to regulate gun ownership it is a laundry list of laws constantly being added to on all levels of government.

    Considering the quantity of laws now in effect, it does beg the question, “why don’t the existing laws work?” IMO this is better stated by looking at the underlying issues that exist in our society that generate these violent acts. We want a quick fix reaction legislatively to try to remedy a systemic problem. Unfortunately history has shown us that it doesn’t work.

  3. Clark  Kent

    Clark Kent said, about 1 year ago

    Put me in charge and I will take away your guns.

  4. DGF999

    DGF999 said, about 1 year ago

    @Clark Kent

    Well, at least we know what Super-Duper Man would do as despotic leader….

  5. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, about 1 year ago

    So which is it? Keep the guns out of the hands of the loonies or no background checks? You either agree that everyone has the right to own a gun, regardless of mental stability or criminal tendency, or you allow background checks to try and keep them away from those who would use them as murderers. Is there something in your background that might disqualify you from owning a gun? Then perhaps you are part of the problem.

  6. michael

    michael GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    I don’t get it. So…. its ok to let someone with a history of violence and mental illness buy a gun because some paranoid fantasy about having a national database of who owns dangerous weapons.

  7. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago


    “So which is it? Keep the guns out of the hands of the loonies or no background checks?”

    Fourcrow’s, TimeWeaver and michael

    For my purposes I support gun control much more restrictive than just background checks, which I have posted about ad nauseum. I live in California and would institute training programs and “safe storage” requirements for first time gun purchasers. My post above just addresses the feelings and reactions of many in the shooting community.

  8. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, about 1 year ago

    This cartoon states the point so very well; I’m sure it is not the point that was intended. First panel: woman asks about background checks. Second panel: man answers about a gun registry. They are not equivalent.

    And this is what frustrates us non-gun-lovers. When I ask what can be done about gun violence, the only and continual answer I get is “You’re not taking away my guns.”

    Sometimes we have to demand that the answers match the questions.

  9. Logan Sackett

    Logan Sackett GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    One point of the 2nd Amendment which seems to be overlooked too often was that if the government ever became tyrannical, the people could fight back as they did when King George tried to confiscate their weapons. A national registry defeats this purpose. I think Ruby Ridge and Waco (both also tragedies) and the heavy arming of government agencies like the IRS show that Washington clearly wants to make it so you really can’t fight City Hall.

  10. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 1 year ago


    Excellent comments today, Mickey.
    I have read your past submissions on gun control and they caused me to rethink my own much more restrictive ideas. I could be quite satisfied with the, was it four conditions?), that you presented.
    I also really like your new avatar.

  11. mtretter

    mtretter said, about 1 year ago

    Maybe we need a national liberal registry too….

  12. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 1 year ago

    @Clark Kent

    If memory serves, you are against the total existence of guns and you also consider the eating of meat to be evil. Some of your other comments in the past give me reason to believe that when the ultraconservatives in GC talk about liberals, they are really thinking of you rather than some of the other less extreme liberal voices here.
    Do you realize that your extremism might give them reason to believe their extremism is justified?
    Reasonable gun laws are on the books but are not being enforced. That’s a problem and we need to fix it, however…comments like yours throws gasoline on the fire and causes those with whom we need to find common ground to become concerned and ask…
    What other freedoms would people like you take away?
    You are are just as scary, and reasonable, as LaPierre when you make comments like the one you made. Delete yours, and I’ll delete this reply.

  13. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, about 1 year ago

    On further thought…the first panel suggests registering owners. The second panel suggests registering guns. I once heard someone say something to the effect that guns don’t kill people, but people do. Using this logic, it makes sense that the people should be registered. I do not favor the Lunatic Registry that Mr. LaPierre suggests; it’s too easily manipulated, and I’m sure no one could agree to all the conditions of membership.

    How about a license to shoot a gun? You need a license to drive a car; you have to know the rules and be able to demonstrate your knowledge and capabilities on a test that you have to renew regularly. This ensures that the shooter at least know some modicum of gun etiquette and safety, while not telling anyone the size of the owner’s arsenal.

    May not be the best suggestion, but it’s better than sitting in your corner and spitting at the guy in the other corner….

  14. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Logan Sackett

    Actually, there is historical record which shows the 2nd Amendment was so southern states could have militas against the possibility of slave rebellions. Thus the 2nd Amendment was never about rebelling against government, but government keeping the slaves and poorer classes down. A lot of myths out there about guns. Like how the wild west was so “free” with its gunslingers. Rather, if you wanted to come into a town, you had to check your firearms at the city limits. That’s why the gunfight at OK Corral was such a shock to people and most gunfights were one guy shooting another in the back. As far as the colonials owning guns, that isn’t what the historical records show. In last wills, you would rarely see firearms listed because they were too expensive for the general populace to own. Myths, myths and more myths is what makes ups this argument.

  15. bztk

    bztk said, about 1 year ago

    Does Chuck think putting his folks in Revolutionary garb lends credence to his point or is that the only thing he can draw, his mind having atrophied along with his drawing skills???

  16. Load the rest of the comments (13).