How many times have they tried to repeal the 2nd amendment? You’d think they’d give up by now. They’re wasting even more time than those trying to unfund the ACA.
There already are restrictions on weapons ownership (try to buy a fully automatic machine gun, or assemble a bomb). The question has always been “where do you set the bar?” Apparently, the ability to use armor piercing bullets and combat weapons to kill five policemen or forty civilians is not enough for the NRA. There’s money in those gun sales, and the deaths of Americans and cops are acceptable. The sniper in Dallas was using his weapons exactly as the NRA intended. To attack the American government.
The irony in the gun debate is that the sniper in Dallas was exercising the EXACT right to fight the “evil, tyrannical government” that gun rights activists claim is inalienable. That is, gun rights activists want their guns to be able to stop the overreach of government power—and that’s the same exact twisted stance taken by the murderous sniper.
Thi should have been a clear message to all you civilian gun enthusiasts who think, in the final analysis, that your guns give you the power to fight our government with force. If you choose to use your weapons in that fashion, be prepared to lose. Your armed resistance will be crushed. Bank on it.
Meanwhile, vigorous gun control (actually probably “handgun control”) is a matter of public health and safety. Guns magnify human reactive and proactive emotional responses to stressful situations. They bring out the most primitive part of our neurology, catering to the impulses of the lower brain structures and hormonal impulses. Interestingly, these same brain structures and hormones drive the emotional reactions of the gun lovers in these comments. That’s why there are always so many comments whenever the toon is about guns. It drives those amygdalas and hormones crazy.
So go ahead guys, prove me wrong. Show a reasoned approach instead of the knee jerk profusion of a myriad of overly emotional comments.
“Heroic police officers”; so common a phrase. Want to see a hero? Take another look at Jonathan Bachman’s image; IMO that young woman is more heroic than most members of the police force.
Ooh! Ooh! Criminals don’t obey laws! Let’s do away with all laws! Except the ones we like, right? How many times is this inane argument going to show its dead face?
Laws are there so we will have the ability to punish crime. We don’t do this by shooting everybody we see who looks like a criminal to us.
As long as we’re dredging up the old arguments, how about all you geniuses who think liberals want to take every gun away go start your own little enclave in Somalia? (Oh, that’s right. It’s full of “those people,” isn’t it?)
Now, when the next person yells “Blue lives matter!” just reply with “ALL LIVES MATTER” and see how happy they are to accept your well-meaning correction.
All of these folks who worry about gun related deaths overlook: Drinking behind 1 in 10 deaths of working-age adults (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/26/drinking-alcohol-alcoholism-binge-deaths-fatal-cdc/11384335/)
I guess they are too much in their cups to worry about alcohol related deaths, since it would require them to give up an addiction. Sad.
As Justice SCALIA wrote in “DC vs Heller”, it isn’t about repealing the Second Amendment, but ENFORCING IT, as in “well-regulated”, which Scalia stated is the DUTY of government when you leave your domicile with a firearm.
Backround checks (supported by most NRA folks), magazine capacity limitations (opposed by NRA), not selling armor piercing bullets (opposed by NRA), licensing gun owners as CCP programs do (opposed by NRA), Government keeping records of sales more than current five day limit to have same capability as NRA and weapons manufacturers to keep records of sales on file permanently(opposed by NRA).
Ending straw sales, or ease of selling stolen weapons that can’t be traced, would deprive many “criminals” of access to firearms, especially high capacity killing machines like MACs, and others that are NOT “assault weapons”, but used far more often in criminal activity and mass killings of four or more, like in drive-bys etc. in gang wars.
Dtroutma almost 8 years ago
Broken record and they don’t care how many broken lives, they won’t play a new one.
rpmurray almost 8 years ago
How many times have they tried to repeal the 2nd amendment? You’d think they’d give up by now. They’re wasting even more time than those trying to unfund the ACA.
ARodney almost 8 years ago
There already are restrictions on weapons ownership (try to buy a fully automatic machine gun, or assemble a bomb). The question has always been “where do you set the bar?” Apparently, the ability to use armor piercing bullets and combat weapons to kill five policemen or forty civilians is not enough for the NRA. There’s money in those gun sales, and the deaths of Americans and cops are acceptable. The sniper in Dallas was using his weapons exactly as the NRA intended. To attack the American government.
twclix almost 8 years ago
The irony in the gun debate is that the sniper in Dallas was exercising the EXACT right to fight the “evil, tyrannical government” that gun rights activists claim is inalienable. That is, gun rights activists want their guns to be able to stop the overreach of government power—and that’s the same exact twisted stance taken by the murderous sniper.
Thi should have been a clear message to all you civilian gun enthusiasts who think, in the final analysis, that your guns give you the power to fight our government with force. If you choose to use your weapons in that fashion, be prepared to lose. Your armed resistance will be crushed. Bank on it.
Meanwhile, vigorous gun control (actually probably “handgun control”) is a matter of public health and safety. Guns magnify human reactive and proactive emotional responses to stressful situations. They bring out the most primitive part of our neurology, catering to the impulses of the lower brain structures and hormonal impulses. Interestingly, these same brain structures and hormones drive the emotional reactions of the gun lovers in these comments. That’s why there are always so many comments whenever the toon is about guns. It drives those amygdalas and hormones crazy.
So go ahead guys, prove me wrong. Show a reasoned approach instead of the knee jerk profusion of a myriad of overly emotional comments.
Cerabooge almost 8 years ago
“Heroic police officers”; so common a phrase. Want to see a hero? Take another look at Jonathan Bachman’s image; IMO that young woman is more heroic than most members of the police force.
Kip W almost 8 years ago
Ooh! Ooh! Criminals don’t obey laws! Let’s do away with all laws! Except the ones we like, right? How many times is this inane argument going to show its dead face?
Laws are there so we will have the ability to punish crime. We don’t do this by shooting everybody we see who looks like a criminal to us.
As long as we’re dredging up the old arguments, how about all you geniuses who think liberals want to take every gun away go start your own little enclave in Somalia? (Oh, that’s right. It’s full of “those people,” isn’t it?)
Kip W almost 8 years ago
Now, when the next person yells “Blue lives matter!” just reply with “ALL LIVES MATTER” and see how happy they are to accept your well-meaning correction.
dickgray Premium Member almost 8 years ago
All of these folks who worry about gun related deaths overlook: Drinking behind 1 in 10 deaths of working-age adults (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/26/drinking-alcohol-alcoholism-binge-deaths-fatal-cdc/11384335/)
I guess they are too much in their cups to worry about alcohol related deaths, since it would require them to give up an addiction. Sad.
Happy Two Shoes almost 8 years ago
Republicons are such good little puppets of evil.
Dtroutma almost 8 years ago
As Justice SCALIA wrote in “DC vs Heller”, it isn’t about repealing the Second Amendment, but ENFORCING IT, as in “well-regulated”, which Scalia stated is the DUTY of government when you leave your domicile with a firearm.
Backround checks (supported by most NRA folks), magazine capacity limitations (opposed by NRA), not selling armor piercing bullets (opposed by NRA), licensing gun owners as CCP programs do (opposed by NRA), Government keeping records of sales more than current five day limit to have same capability as NRA and weapons manufacturers to keep records of sales on file permanently(opposed by NRA).
Ending straw sales, or ease of selling stolen weapons that can’t be traced, would deprive many “criminals” of access to firearms, especially high capacity killing machines like MACs, and others that are NOT “assault weapons”, but used far more often in criminal activity and mass killings of four or more, like in drive-bys etc. in gang wars.
UpaCoCoCreek Premium Member almost 8 years ago
When did Mr. Magoo become a congressman?