Register for a FREE GoComics account and get this plus any other comic strip delivered to your Personalized
Comic Page, Daily. With a free account you will be able to build a Comic Page filled with the Comics you
want to see each day.
With the largest collection of Comics and Editorial Cartoons online there is plenty to choose from. Upgrade
to a GoComics Pro account (Only $.99/Month) and have unlimited archive access to decades of comics.
Puh-leeze. This is the exact type of misguided fear mongering that the left is trying to portray of legal, responsible gun owners and the NRA. The streets will not be full of people toting assault rifles and hip-slung 6-shooters. Grow up.
" The streets will not be full of people toting assault rifles and hip-slung 6-shooters. Grow up." Ummmm….that’s exactly what the N(o) R(esponsibilities) A(ccepted) wants to be able to happen. That may not be their direct desire, but they want that to be possible. Any rational though on the pro-gun-nut side is impossible. Any realistic resolution to the problem, and yes it is a problem, is impossible due to the gun-nuts. No one wants to ban all guns. No one wants to confiscate all your guns. The pro-control “nuts” simply want responsibility, something the NRA has demonstrated they are rabidly opposed to. It is always someone or something else’s fault. It’s eh mental health system, but then the NRA flat out refuses to agree to background checks. so how do we identify who is crazy and wants to buy or possesses a gun? The NRA won’t let us be protected proactively from those it says shouldn’t have guns, which at one point they claimed was no shouldn’t be allowed to have any or as many guns as they wanted. So yes this is exactly the scenario they want to be able to happen. And yes, it’s time to grow up and face reality. There is a problem in this country, and only with sane, rational and mutual efforts from both sides will it be solved. Only one side doesn’t want to solve it. That side is the pro-gun-nuts and they want no accountability or responsibility to gun ownership. Every other right afforded us by the constitution has been conditionalized to require responsibility on the part of the individual utilizing that right, except for gun ownership. And just why is that? Yeah, it’s time to grow up, so that our children might have that chance as opposed to being murdered by someone who never should have been allowed access to a gun but for the unrelenting efforts of the NRA to remove all responsibility from gun ownership.
I agree to a point. This did seem out of left field until you think about it. Look at zoidknight’s comment for some context regarding the lunacy of a portion of the population. “Americans defending their homes” from armed intruders. Cupid is armed. If Cupid enters your home isn’t he an armed intruder? So shouldn’t you be able to defend your home with a gun? I know I am more cynical than you but after analyzing the cartoon for a moment I saw a commentary there. Perhaps not the commentary but at least one of possibly many. And I think right or wrong, agree or disagree, it was a clever portrayal of the eagerness with which some would brandish their weapon “in self-defense” regardless of how ridiculously overreaching that reaction was.
But in the bigger picture I agree, “editorial cartoonists are getting hard up for new material.”
guns don’t kill people liberal leftist nuts do – everyone of the nuts that have shot people up are liberals or kids that grew up in liberal homes… Most mental cases are liberals – the liberal type of thinking rots the brain…
It’s not the responsible gun owners, it’s the irresponsible ones, of which there are many. Like the woman who dropped her gun in a MacDonald’s and shot her husband, to name just one. Could have easily been someone’s kid. Or the guy in Columbus whose SUV was hit by an egg, and chased down one of the kids in the group (not the one who threw the egg, even) and shot him dead. Or the guy in a Subway, I think it was, who got into a pushing match with another customer and then shot him dead because he “thought his life was in danger”. Or the guy who shoots his neighbor’s dog, and maybe the neighbor, because the dog pooped on his lawn. THOSE are the gun owners we worry about, and they all started out as “responsible” gun owners, until they proved they were not, and by then someone was dead.
@ken but the streets are full of nuts slinging guns. That’s what we have, hard to deny. newtown, aurora, zimmerman, ex-cops, the news is full of them and their handiwork – seems like everyday. you don’t think the above short list is a problem?
As a musician and sound man, I learned early on that if you are involved in a bar fight, whether you are trying to break it up, or even if you are just punched at random—you’re thrown out. No one can tell how involved you were, so all involved are removed.
Now, generalize this one: dark movie theater, movie playing with lots of volume. Suddenly, smoke in the air, then bullets in the dark. 5 people stand up and start shooting. Logic dictates more innocents will be shot by six shooters than by one.
Then the cops arrive, the lights go on, and there are 5 people holding weapons (the original shooter ducked out the fire escape). Who’s responsible? Who gets arrested? Better wear your white hat, or carry a card that says “good guy”, or you’re going to jail, especially when they determine that one of the deaths was a result of your bullet.
When the cops were shooting at people trying to cross the Mississippi River bridge after Katrina, how well would your second-amendment rights have been upheld (and supported by the NRA) if you had shot back?
And how about the guy who was shooting at a pair of car-jackers in New Orleans when an off-duty officer shot him dead for shooting at unarmed, fleeing civilians? Didn’t see the NRA help him out.
This is a complicated problem that cannot be solved with simple slogans. Best of luck to us all.
According to veteran Ohio cartoonist Stahler, the most satisfying part of his job is "those days when I can load my ink cannon with fodder faster than I can fire it."
Small World by Tom Briscoe
Scott Stantis by Scott Stantis
Comments (19) (Please sign in to comment)
mikefive said, 3 months ago
I think that editorial cartoonists are getting hard up for new material on this subject.
zoidknight said, 3 months ago
@mikefive
Well, you do not expect them to show Americans defending their homes against criminals do you?
Ken M
said, 3 months ago
Puh-leeze. This is the exact type of misguided fear mongering that the left is trying to portray of legal, responsible gun owners and the NRA. The streets will not be full of people toting assault rifles and hip-slung 6-shooters. Grow up.
TheTrustedMechanic said, 3 months ago
@Ken M
" The streets will not be full of people toting assault rifles and hip-slung 6-shooters. Grow up."
Ummmm….that’s exactly what the N(o) R(esponsibilities) A(ccepted) wants to be able to happen. That may not be their direct desire, but they want that to be possible. Any rational though on the pro-gun-nut side is impossible. Any realistic resolution to the problem, and yes it is a problem, is impossible due to the gun-nuts. No one wants to ban all guns. No one wants to confiscate all your guns. The pro-control “nuts” simply want responsibility, something the NRA has demonstrated they are rabidly opposed to. It is always someone or something else’s fault. It’s eh mental health system, but then the NRA flat out refuses to agree to background checks. so how do we identify who is crazy and wants to buy or possesses a gun? The NRA won’t let us be protected proactively from those it says shouldn’t have guns, which at one point they claimed was no shouldn’t be allowed to have any or as many guns as they wanted. So yes this is exactly the scenario they want to be able to happen. And yes, it’s time to grow up and face reality. There is a problem in this country, and only with sane, rational and mutual efforts from both sides will it be solved. Only one side doesn’t want to solve it. That side is the pro-gun-nuts and they want no accountability or responsibility to gun ownership. Every other right afforded us by the constitution has been conditionalized to require responsibility on the part of the individual utilizing that right, except for gun ownership. And just why is that? Yeah, it’s time to grow up, so that our children might have that chance as opposed to being murdered by someone who never should have been allowed access to a gun but for the unrelenting efforts of the NRA to remove all responsibility from gun ownership.
TheTrustedMechanic said, 3 months ago
@mikefive
I agree to a point. This did seem out of left field until you think about it. Look at zoidknight’s comment for some context regarding the lunacy of a portion of the population. “Americans defending their homes” from armed intruders. Cupid is armed. If Cupid enters your home isn’t he an armed intruder? So shouldn’t you be able to defend your home with a gun?
I know I am more cynical than you but after analyzing the cartoon for a moment I saw a commentary there. Perhaps not the commentary but at least one of possibly many. And I think right or wrong, agree or disagree, it was a clever portrayal of the eagerness with which some would brandish their weapon “in self-defense” regardless of how ridiculously overreaching that reaction was.
But in the bigger picture I agree, “editorial cartoonists are getting hard up for new material.”
rickf1968 said, 3 months ago
@TheTrustedMechanic
guns don’t kill people liberal leftist nuts do – everyone of the nuts that have shot people up are liberals or kids that grew up in liberal homes… Most mental cases are liberals – the liberal type of thinking rots the brain…
rickf1968 said, 3 months ago
@TheTrustedMechanic
your thinking is exactly the way most leftist think – stick to working on cars…
neatslob said, 3 months ago
@Ken M
It’s not the responsible gun owners, it’s the irresponsible ones, of which there are many. Like the woman who dropped her gun in a MacDonald’s and shot her husband, to name just one. Could have easily been someone’s kid. Or the guy in Columbus whose SUV was hit by an egg, and chased down one of the kids in the group (not the one who threw the egg, even) and shot him dead. Or the guy in a Subway, I think it was, who got into a pushing match with another customer and then shot him dead because he “thought his life was in danger”. Or the guy who shoots his neighbor’s dog, and maybe the neighbor, because the dog pooped on his lawn. THOSE are the gun owners we worry about, and they all started out as “responsible” gun owners, until they proved they were not, and by then someone was dead.
dannysixpack said, 3 months ago
@ken
but the streets are full of nuts slinging guns. That’s what we have, hard to deny.
newtown, aurora, zimmerman, ex-cops, the news is full of them and their handiwork – seems like everyday.
you don’t think the above short list is a problem?
The Wolf In Your Midst said, 3 months ago
@Ken M
You missed the news story about the guy who walked into a JC Penny with a semiautomatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn’t you?
Justice22 said, 3 months ago
The ’toon is spot on except I love my kids.
TheTrustedMechanic said, 3 months ago
@rickf1968
Typical RWNJ tactic, you can’t successfully refute the point made so you attack the commenter. Go crawl back under your rock.
I Play One On TV said, 3 months ago
As a musician and sound man, I learned early on that if you are involved in a bar fight, whether you are trying to break it up, or even if you are just punched at random—you’re thrown out. No one can tell how involved you were, so all involved are removed.
Now, generalize this one: dark movie theater, movie playing with lots of volume. Suddenly, smoke in the air, then bullets in the dark. 5 people stand up and start shooting. Logic dictates more innocents will be shot by six shooters than by one.
Then the cops arrive, the lights go on, and there are 5 people holding weapons (the original shooter ducked out the fire escape). Who’s responsible? Who gets arrested? Better wear your white hat, or carry a card that says “good guy”, or you’re going to jail, especially when they determine that one of the deaths was a result of your bullet.
When the cops were shooting at people trying to cross the Mississippi River bridge after Katrina, how well would your second-amendment rights have been upheld (and supported by the NRA) if you had shot back?
And how about the guy who was shooting at a pair of car-jackers in New Orleans when an off-duty officer shot him dead for shooting at unarmed, fleeing civilians? Didn’t see the NRA help him out.
This is a complicated problem that cannot be solved with simple slogans. Best of luck to us all.
Radish
said, 3 months ago
NRA hates love.
1opinion said, 3 months ago
@rickf1968
A new old troll. Welcome