Clay Bennett by Clay Bennett

Clay Bennett

Comments (10) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. 2011worldchamps

    2011worldchamps said, over 3 years ago

    Yeah but it’s your choice to put your mouth there. Whatever happen to personal responsibility?

  2. curtisls87

    curtisls87 said, over 3 years ago

    Once again, we have an implication by a comic that infers something separate from reality with respect to the ruling in this case. The judge actually recognized that it could be within the purview of a local government to regulate a product, but struck down the law because of it’s capricious and arbitrary nature. As an example, 7-11s were exempt, but restaurants were required to comply.

  3. Rockngolfer

    Rockngolfer said, over 3 years ago

    Do you follow Over The Hedge? RJ has been eating Smackees all week. Comments are good.

  4. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release said, over 3 years ago

    “Even if it requires taxpayer’s money.”

    So you’re in favor of corporate welfare?

  5. Rickapolis

    Rickapolis said, over 3 years ago

    More guns. That’s the answer. MORE GUNS. Give everybody all the guns they want. No limit. No law. THAT will lower gun violence. Right GOP?

  6. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 3 years ago

    Yes, but the judges ruling is pretty squirrely. It’s like the cigarette companies saying that they should be legal, even though any new toxic product would be illegal to sell, because addicted Americans want to be able to choose to keep smoking. Then when you try to restrict smoking in restaurants, they say “but it’s a legal product! You can’t restrict it!” The point of the law is that people can get more than 16 oz by ordering another drink. That’s fine! It’s America, a free country. But enough people will stop at 16 oz. to save New York taxpayers a huge amount in future health costs.

  7. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    I totally agree with “personal responsibility” angle, but, with commerce and advertising, and the fact you can’t BUY a “small” size any more, marketing HAS taken away a lot of that “freedom of choice” from a brainwashed populace.

    Of course the marketing of more guns,mostly to those who already HAVE a lot of guns, and a lot of paranoia, is the result of the same marketing and brainwashing issue.

  8. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    I’m 55, and when I learned to read, I read this message the labels on the sides of packages and cartons of cigarettes:

    “Warning! Smoking might cause Lung Cancer”
    So, Tigger, do you think that warning label belongs there?

  9. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Tigger never reads anything, as you may note there’s never any awareness of what cartoonists, or commentators on these pages say.

  10. AgentSmith101

    AgentSmith101 said, over 3 years ago

    @Redkaycei Repoc

    I’ll bite on that one.

    Not all countries with strict gun laws have lower gun violence. Look at Mexico.

    A great deal has to do with culture and population. Germany, Switzerland, and Japan. Different gun laws, but very little in the way of gun violence. Why is that? Culture. I’ll bet in some countries you could have loaded guns hanging in banners strewn around every populated area and you would still have very little gun violence.
    Ownership is not the demon many paint it to be. It’s the cultural re enforcement that DEMANDS respect at all costs and if you need to use a gun for respect in order to get your anger out then so be it. Or if you happen to be bat crap crazy and just go and find a gun anywhere for your disillusioned use.Blocking ownership and fulfilling the ultimate dream of ‘no guns anywhere’ will not solve anything. In the US, a large widespread population where violent crime occurs will not be deterred by an unarmed population.

  11. Refresh Comments.