Jeff Stahler by Jeff Stahler

Jeff Stahler

Comments (14) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Yochanan204

    Yochanan204 said, almost 4 years ago

    Gun control: Sight alignment and trigger squeeze.

  2. Trantor0815

    Trantor0815 said, almost 4 years ago

    Don’t ride a dead horse. Gun control has nothing to to with forbiddung all guns. I think even the most “left” liberals don’t want that.
    You say self defense – nobody with more Brain as a Talitubby defend himself with an assault gun in his house against “bad guys”. You have a wide sread of pistols and revolvers for that.
    Weapons that are only build for man-hunting shouldn’t be available for civilians.

  3. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, almost 4 years ago


    Your logic would then apply to automobiles that exceed the speed limit. So no car should be available that goes over 65mph?

  4. ODon

    ODon said, almost 4 years ago


    Continuing on with your “logic” if a person is able to drive a car over 65 mph they should be jailed.

  5. dannysixpack

    dannysixpack said, almost 4 years ago

    ^well we can agree on one thing. but why do you think he’s a ‘lib’?

  6. Trantor0815

    Trantor0815 said, almost 4 years ago

    ..and there a rep has it wrong. The 2nd was never written against the goverment → it was written that people are able to PROTECT the goverment against forces who want to overthrow it.
    You are jumping to short. I can’t remember that a car – doesn’t matter how fast it is – was build for killing masses of people in short time.
    And to put it in your words: A race car should be driven by a racedriver on a racetrack. And not by a novice on the main street.

  7. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, almost 4 years ago


    What you stated in this post is the truth. But please do not expect the ultra conservatives here to even listen, let alone to agree, even in part as any moderate would.

    Just on the one point alone, history tells us that at the time of the framing of the second amendment (and for most of its history) unlike its potential enemies the US never had a large standing army. Therefore it was necessary and prudent for the government to frame the ability of average citizens to know how to use firearms, so in any kind of attack upon the US they could respond quickly.

    Perhaps in the future when vehicles can automatically drive themselves safely, we might just be able to truly regulate their speeds to reasonable limits, that would save many lives. Thus limiting our “freedom” to be killed or maimed for life in high speed accidents!!

  8. Bruce Wallace

    Bruce Wallace said, almost 4 years ago

    NEWS FLASH: 98,816 elementary schools in the United States did NOT have a mass murder on Friday!
    In a related story 55 million legal gun owners in the US did NOT commit a mass murder on Friday. And it appears that all non-registered and illegal gun owners but one ALSO did not commit a mass murder on Friday.

  9. spyderred

    spyderred said, almost 4 years ago

    All this hysteria about guns is fanned by members of Congress who continue to resist any effective treatment programs for the mentally ill, preferring to just dump them into society and then take the resulting tragedies as a chance to look moral and upright.

  10. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Fact: over 90% of all fatal auto accidents occur UNDER 35 mph!! “Speed kills” is an overstated misunderstanding of fact, it is the sudden stop that kills.

    Which a 180 pound man, exiting a vehicle, or hitting a solid object inside the vehicle without a seat belt (or newer air bag system) from a speed of 35 mph, receives the same impact energy as being shot with a 30-06 rifle bullet!

    Hunting deer, elk, pigeons in the park, ducks, geese, or defending oneself from an assault, does NOT require an automatic, or semi-automatic weapon with over 30 rounds in the magazine, or even more than 5 to 12 rounds maximum, in a rifle or handgun. So called “assault rifles” are NOT needed for any civilian purpose, period.

    Those claiming same are “necessary” or protected by the Second Amendment, would also give grandma a Formula One, Indy car, or NASCAR “stock car” capable of 200 plus miles per hour, to get eggs at the supermarket, or maybe her “Depends”.

    We need rational regulations, not more “pro-gun” rhetoric and false fears placing more in our nation in danger every time some “drunk driver” gets hands on an over-powered and unnecessary piece of “hardware”.

  11. Justice22

    Justice22 said, almost 4 years ago


    Agreed, I like guns and have hunted and used them for defense of lives and property, but I would gladly give up my guns to prevent the sensless loss of life we have just witnessed. Again, I say that the average citizen has no need for semi-automatic weapons for hunting or self defense. =In the news yesterday, a man was shot to death in his home when he ordered a guest to leave, called the police and refused to obey their demands to lower his weapon. Sad, and probably would not have happened if he had not had the gun.

  12. echoraven

    echoraven said, almost 4 years ago

    How about we make killing kids (outside the womb) illegal?

    …waitaminit it ALREADY IS illegal? Go figure.

  13. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    “Your logic would then apply to automobiles that exceed the speed limit. So no car should be available that goes over 65mph?”

    Actually, I’ve long believed that. Maybe not 65mph, but maybe 100mph? Outside of a racetrack, you can’t legally drive that fast anywhere, and I think it’s stupid to have cars on the road that the police can’t catch.

  14. colcam

    colcam said, almost 4 years ago

    It sounds like “we are liberals, we are right, and we will use the police and military that we own to force you to agree with our wishes.” OR ELSE.

  15. Refresh Comments.