Jerry Holbert by Jerry Holbert

Jerry Holbert

Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Next topic please. This is beating a dead horse. Oh wait, maybe a dead person? I always get confused over those humorous sayings…

  2. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 years ago

    @ mickey – They want to make horsemeat a food product to be sold in markets and restaurants. Our media loves dead horses.
    I’ll add two points, the first-
    Politicians who let any lobby buy their vote are dishonorable, unethical, and immoral.
    The second-
    There is a great argument for ownership of personal firearms to defend your home and person happening on my tv as I type this.
    Massachusetts police are searching for the second person responsible for the Marathon bombing. They have shut down entire towns in the Cambridge area. One is dead, the other is at large. The fact that he doesn’t know who has a gun and who doesn’t may well be the reason he hasn’t tried to hide in a house.
    Just a thought.
    Tigger said I hate guns. He don’t know me very good, do he?
    Good luck to the men and women of law enforcement and the citizens of the Cambridge area.

  3. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, over 3 years ago

    “During the Clinton presidency, NRA president-for-life Wayne LaPierre raised vast amounts of money with direct-mail campaigns against both Bill and Hillary Clinton for supposedly coddling criminals. Dubbed “Crimestrike,” the NRA crusade pushed prison construction, mandatory minimum sentencing and sundry other panaceas designed to position the NRA as the bane of muggers, rapists and murderers. Those themes echoed traditional Republican propaganda messages dating back to the Nixon era, when the presidential crook himself often derided judicial concerns about civil liberties and promised to restore “law and order.” (When Nixon henchmen like the late Chuck Colson went to prison themselves, they often emerged as prison reformers and civil libertarians, of course.)
    “But in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, with the NRA angrily opposing any measure designed to hinder criminals from acquiring firearms, the public is learning who is really soft on crime.
    “Police officials across the country want universal background checks, magazine limits, and stronger enforcement against illegal weapons sales, but the NRA and its Republican allies insist that such changes will penalize legitimate gun owners. Or they complain that criminals mainly obtain weapons by stealing them, so restrictions on sales won’t make any difference.”
    Thanks to Joe Conason

  4. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago

    If they had limited Senate bill S.649 to backround checks it would probably have passed easily. But. noooooo. They had to add a bunch of other regulations and modifications to existing regulations to the bill. By doing these addons they wind up with legislators that object to some of the additions. More addons, more objections, bill failure. We shouldn’t necessarily be criticizing the legislators, but criticism of the process that causes bills like this to be voted down is definitely in order.

  5. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, over 3 years ago


    I still think the blame should also lie with the legislators. The process exists as a way to check the power of the executive branch, which has no line item veto. Many riders are added to bills SPECIFICALLY to make the bill fail in Congress, or to draw a veto from the President. Congresspeople take advantage of this in almost every bill.
    I am unaware if there is a provision in Congress allowing them to edit a presented bill, or if a new bill must be drafted all over again, thereby exposing it to the same exact systemic flaws a second time. All of our “pork barrel politics” comes from this process, so I believe that is why it is never addressed. If the Congressional leaders were allowed to remove riders and secondary provisions before presenting a bill for a vote, the process would be a lot smoother and our budget a lot smaller.

  6. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, over 3 years ago

    If law-abiding citizens permit their backgrounds to be checked then only criminals won’t be checked.

  7. STLDan

    STLDan said, over 3 years ago

    The NRA baltently lied about the Bill by saying it would create a database of gun owners so eventually the goverment could come and take your guns. The Bill specifically made that illegal. What do all you NRA supporters say about that? Anyone? Anyone?

  8. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 3 years ago

    I care little for back ground checks one way or another. Criminals will use fake I.D. or buy them from other criminals. More and more likely criminals will make guns themselves, Google 3D printing. On the other hand it will stop some of the least capable of criminals.

    A gun registry is another more dangerous thing, once you have it, anybody that comes along can take your guns. Not this president then the next or the next but they will be taken. Also will it be in the public record, so any idiot can come along and steel your gun(s). We already saw what happen with that Newspaper releasing register gun owners name and addresses. They released addresses of policemen and prosecutors with law abiding citizens.

  9. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago


    “The NRA baltently (sic) lied about the Bill by saying it would create a database of gun owners….”

    Under Subtitle B—Requiring a Back
    ground Check for Every Fire

    Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). Upon taking possession of the firearm, the licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee.

    Unless I am misreading this, it is an attempt to create a paper trail of every firearm sold, even those sold between individuals ergo a data base is created. Once that data base is created….?

  10. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C's Release

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


    In layman terms (since you obviously can’t read legalise) the law states that one person can’t sell to another person unless an intermediary (for example a gun store) signs off on the deal. Nothing in there is talking about gathering the information for a data base. You’re projecting your worst fears on something that is even written in there.

  11. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    @Respectful Troll

    “The fact that he doesn’t know who has a gun and who doesn’t may well be the reason he hasn’t tried to hide in a house.”

    What makes you say he isn’t hiding in a house? Only 12% of Massachusettsians own guns, so that seems an unlikely theory.

  12. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Thanks. The bill is not finished thanks to Reid’s No vote.

  13. STLDan

    STLDan said, over 3 years ago

    that is not creating a database lol you are a joke. That just means the transaction is done just like any other transaction that is done in a gun shop. That is closing the gun show loop hole, why should they have different rules?. Why is everyone on your side such a liar? Now go ahead and post the section of the law that makes creating the database illegal..oh wait, you won’t do that? That doesn’t help you spread fear now does it? I own several guns and a CCW permit and I am for any gun laws because I care about the 11,000 plus killed in America every year, unlike selfish people like you who just want what they want everyone else be damned. In my state you can walk in, buy a hand gun, well any gun, and walk right out in about 2o minuets. That is ridiculous. You want to own a gun, fine but it should be harder than purchasing a pack of gum at 7/11 and there is no reason for a citizen to be able to own an assault weapon, NO REASON. If you are a nut job using the excuse of protecting yourself from a tyrannical government then your tin foil hat is slipping. If you think a group of yahoos with AR-17s can fight off the US Army you are a bigger joke than I thought. If you think, in the Unites States Democracy the way to make changes is by using a weapon instead of your right to vote then you are a terrorist. So what are you? A terrorist, incredibly selfish or just some conspiracy nut?

  14. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 years ago

    @Uncle Joe

    Hello Uncle Joe,
    I didn’t know the percentage of gun ownership in Boston, and that’s why I use the words, “may well be”. At the time I wrote that statement, the police had not yet begun their house to house search. Now that they are, and now that you’ve told me how few guns are owned in Boston, and assuming these individuals might have known that number, I’ll change the words to “could possibly be”.
    I know its a theory, but it’s not totally lacking in potential.
    I saw the police are doing a second sweep of the area. I hope they catch him alive without any more deaths.
    Hope I didn’t offend you, Uncle Joe. You’re one of the good ones.

  15. STLDan

    STLDan said, over 3 years ago

    Do you have a social security number? Guess what? You are already in database! What are you gun nuts so afraid of? You people and your conspiracy theories, I dont know if I should laugh at or pity you…

  16. Load the rest of the comments (1).