Dick Locher’s ability to capture the absurdities of life through political cartooning culminated in his winning the Pulitzer Prize in 1983 and garnering top honors from the Sigma Delta Chi/Society of Professional Journalists in the same year.
© Tribune Media Services, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.
Drew Litton by Drew Litton
Chan Lowe by Chan Lowe
Comments (24) (Please sign in to comment)
mattWVL said, 6 months ago
So I thought it was a guy who went in and killed all those kids, I didn’t realize a gun walked in and went off on those poor kids.
braindead08 said, 6 months ago
@mattWVL
^ Any gun control legislation will inevitably lead to the confiscation of all guns, right?
mickey1339
said, 6 months ago
@braindead08
I answered your question on the other board. As a further point, Gov. Cuomo in New York is putting out statements about confiscating guns in New York. Sorry for the link but they are direct quotes and I couldn’t find any “non-partisan” reports. This is one of the reasons people get so adamant and reactionary in their response…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2971279/posts
Radish
said, 6 months ago
@mattWVL
Heroin does nothing until some idiot picks it up and uses it. It is illegal so that idiots won’t use it.
braindead08 said, 6 months ago
@mickey1339
Yeah,I read your answer and responded.
-
I ask the same question a lot because most NRA adherents are convinced that any limitation = confiscation. Until there is some agreement that there can be limitations, it doesn’t make sense to spend a lot of time discussing individual proposals.
-
There is also the matter of how much effort (money) the NRA fights against enforcement of gun laws, an issue that is largely ignored.
Stipple said, 6 months ago
@Radish
Very good point, I do notice that America has no heroin users. Making it illegal works like a magic charm.
.
All those countries where heroin is legal in have crime and addicts everywhere.
mickey1339
said, 6 months ago
@braindead08
“There is also the matter of how much effort (money) the NRA fights against enforcement of gun laws, an issue that is largely ignored.”
I understand your feeling about this, and it is well established that they have a strong lobbying arm to their organization. They also have a really effective legal group. Conversely you can find liberal organizations and heavy money supporters that do the same. It’s why I’m a libertarian and support the growth of “other” political parties. The lobbyists have too much control over our system.
FWIW, I fully expect an assault weapons ban, high cap magazine ban and tighter laws on background checks, the last of which I am an ardent supporter. Living in California we have some of the strictest laws in the country.
flake-67121 said, 6 months ago
don’t let the leftists make the problem even worse. “Gun control” is not about guns, and it’s not just people you hate who will be controlled.
Anthony 2816
said, 6 months ago
If the Founding Fathers didn’t want everyone to have large clip automatic assault rifles, why would they have written the Second Amendment???
Gresch said, 6 months ago
Maybe guns are there to protect us from the people who tell us there is no need to own one…
dtroutma
said, 6 months ago
Just saw a report on “bullet proof” backpacks for kids. The material WILL stop three rounds from a 9 mm, at point blank range. There’s only one little problem, the device will NOT stop the .223 rounds fired at Sandy Hook. Small caliber, high velocity bullets, will NOT be stopped by “bullet proof vests”. In fact there is no vest out their without ceramics that will stop a .22 magnum round.
Superman might even be concerned.
cjr53 said, 6 months ago
@dtroutma
Plus, the children don’t wear the backpacks all the time and they are typically on their backs, not on the front of their bodies. Nifty half-baked solution.
Mental health and regulation of assault weapons in addition to the ammunition is more likely to produce better results.
fritzoid
said, 6 months ago
@Gresch
“Maybe guns are there to protect us from the people who tell us there is no need to own one…”
Maybe guns are there to protect us from the people who say they need to own them.
There’s the old joke (to the extent that it’s a “joke”) that anybody who WANTS to be President should be disqualified from seeking the job. I suggest that wanting to own combat weaponry might be the primary reason to be careful in allowing it.
You want to keep a pistol (secured) in your home to get the drop on an armed invader? I have no personal problem with that (I wish you lotsa luck, though – I’ve said elsewhere that the guy who’s PLANNING to use his gun has an advatage over the guy who’s merely “prepared” to). But you want to keep a private arsenal, and you think you need MORE because you’re afraid they’re coming to take what you already have? Big time flashing red lights. THAT’S what happened at Waco.
There’s a line from “48 HRS” about copkillers that goes “They say cops ain’t in the revenge business, and you and I know that ain’t exactly true. But it’s also true that any [fluffernutter] crazy enough to kill a cop is that much MORE dangerous to civilians.” I’d expand that to “Any [fluffernutter] crazy enough to prepare to hold off soldiers.”
DrCanuck said, 6 months ago
@fritzoid
^ I’ve always found it so interesting that the Rednecks who make the most noise about “honouring the troops” are the ones most prepared to shoot them.
echoraven said, 6 months ago
The cartoon paints legislation as a cure all to gun violence, but isn’t killing school children already illegal?