Jim Morin by Jim Morin

Jim Morin

Comments (21) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 4 years ago

    What the founding fathers said:

    Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist. – John Adams

    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams

    Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent? – Samuel Adams

    The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the U.S. from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. – Benjamin Franklin

    The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

    The Constitution is not an instrument for the gov’t to restrain the people. It is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry

    The great object is that every man be armed. – Patrick Henry

    Those that hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. – Patrick Henry

    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. – Thomas Jefferson

    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants. – Thomas Jefferson

    Americans have the right and advantage of being armed—unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

    A well regulated militia, composed of the whole body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country. – James Madison

    To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Madison

    Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth. – George Washington

    When firearms go, all go. We need them every hour. – George Washington

    The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference—they deserve a place of honor with all that is good. – George Washington

    So Doc, Our founding fathers were well aware of the importance of being able to have the means necessary to protect themselves, their neighbors and the country from assault whether from an enemy within or without the country. And no, they did NOT mean “flintlocks” but “firearms” of current technology.

  2. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago

    This is what the founders did when Alexander Hamilton, in order to pay for debt accrued by the colonies during the revolution, put a tax on whiskey and the first anti tax lobby rose up in protest. It was called the Whiskey Rebellion.
    and btw, Dr. Canuck…
    in regard to your comment under Drew Litton’s hockey editorial….
    I don’t believe a Canadian can be considered an objective voice where hockey is concerned.
    (insert evil grin here)
    Oh…and I was also surprised to discover your country has its own Strategic Reserve…of Maple Syrup. That’s awesome. The Waffle and Pancake eaters of America will praise the foresight of our Northern Neighbor.
    Being a REAL southerner, I prefer biscuits with butter and molasses or honey and a side of good ol’ grits. When my diet permits.

  3. ODon

    ODon said, almost 4 years ago

    I am comfortable with the thought that our forefathers were true statesman who, having a standing army, would not tolerate the excessive death by gunfire of today’s America.
    If you want quotes how about: " I am sorry to inform you that your _____ has been killed." Repeat ad nauseam.

  4. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 4 years ago


    AS am I O’Don. However, I am not comfortable with the idea that our forefathers would rectify the situation by taking the right to bear arms away from citizens.

    There is a solution. You won’t like it either. You use a gun in a crime you are out of here no exceptions. A tad harsh but it would be effective.

  5. ARodney

    ARodney said, almost 4 years ago

    Harley thinks that the idea that fire should be regulated is really funny. He’s obviously never designed a building. Fire is regulated a lot more than firearms are. Outdoor fires were banned for about six months in most Western states last year because it was the hottest year on record and thousands of famlies lost their homes to drought and climate change.

    We will always regulate arms — unless you’re one of those who think it’s fine for Iran to get a nuclear bomb. It’s a question of where you draw the line. How many people should you be allowed to kill at one go? Conservatives try to pretend that arms control is an absolute: ALL weapons or NO weapons, in hopes that they can prevent the line from being redrawn more rationally. It’s time to start ignoring them.

  6. ODon

    ODon said, almost 4 years ago


    We’re not talking about taking guns away but restricting the availability of some guns and some magazines. A sane approach to an insane problem. Something our forefathers would likely grasp.
    As far as your solution what about those who commit mass murder as their entry level crime. Too late for those victims.

  7. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Doc; you’re probably well aware the founding fathers weren’t too sure the Frenchies wouldn’t try coming south from your area either, or north from that territory we later bought from them to end that end.

    Clown, at least until sepsis set in, a musket ball of the day was pretty benign compared to the damage a saber, tomahawk, bayonet, or even a mace could do.That’s why duels were fought with pistols, as being a more “survivable” way to settle an argument, Hamilton not withstanding.

    Also, when NRA and “gun nuts” finally recognize the first sentence of the Second Amendment, not the last, and recognize that the Articles of Confederation called for all those “arms” to be strictly controlled by THE STATE until needed to repel INVASION, or REBELLION, they MIGHT show they know history, and what the actual intent of the amendment was. It did NOT, EVER, suggest that rising against a democratically elected government, in a republic, not a monarchy, was intended, or valid. Trying to tie the founders words, and “quotes” (out of context) to overthrowing the government they were intending to create, is not ignorance, but stupid. They hated a foreign power, even the monarchy that sent them, or their predecessors to this country, often as indentured servants (white slaves) dictating from abroad, what they saw as “unjust” laws, infringing on their “rights”, to get rich and keep the proceeds!

  8. zellich

    zellich GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Comment on a comment:
    "no it is 2nd because the 1st is the declaration of the individual, then you need a way to defend what you are declaring. The pen is only mightier then the sword because has to stand behind what is written. "

    Sorry, all amendments are numbered in the order in which they were ratified. In the order in which they were listed when sent out for ratification, the current 1st and 2nd were 2nd and 3rd; the original “first” amendment was never ratified.

    Direct comment on Morin’s editorial cartoon:
    Ignorance abounds, both technical and historical.

    Firearms before the Revolutionary War included multi-shot repeating flintlocks – in the NRA Firearms Museum’s mid-18th Century section, you can find a very well designed 7 shot repeater, and two different types of 12-shot repeaters of simpler design; there were also multi-barrel “volley guns” which fired all barrels at once. I read several years ago that there was a full-auto flintlock made in the 18th century (fired all charges sequentially with one pull of the trigger), but I can’t find a reference to it now. Hundreds of years before, the Chinese had a magazine-fed repeating crossbow. The founders, many of them being tinkerers and inventors, as well as being extremely well-read, certainly had a pretty good idea of what kind of “arms” a soldier might have. Remember, they also had hand grenades, mortars, and rockets then, as well as personally-owned cannon and armed ships.The founders would NOT have expected the government to “regulate” (that’s not what the word means in the 2nd Amendment, anyway) more lethal arms than those then in use, as the 2nd was written to recognize the necessary right of the citizenry to have the same arms as used by anyone’s standing army or Organized Militia.

  9. zellich

    zellich GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    “We’re not talking about taking guns away but restricting the availability of some guns and some magazines. A sane approach to an insane problem.”

    No, that’s an insane approach to something that is a criminal problem, not a gun problem. We already have over 20,000 gun control laws on the books, not ONE of which EVER prevented a crime from being committed. The mis-called “assault weapon” and standard-capacity magazine ban of which you prate was the law of the land from1994 to 2004, and did nothing to prevent the 1999 school massacre in Littleton, CO. That law was allowed to sunset because everybody recognized that it had not had any measurable effect on crime of any kind during the decade-plus it was in effect.

    It doesn’t matter what kind of new law you create (can you think one up that hasn’t already been passed? I doubt it), it runs up against the rock-solid fact that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. What that means, is that your wonderful new law would ONLY affect all the law-abiding gun owners in the US (somewhere between 30 and 80 million of them), without even inconveniencing a single criminal. That is neither an effective nor a sane approach. And it is also an “infringement” on our rights, as recognized by the Constitution, so it’s not even within Congress’ power (that’s why the 1968 Gun Control Act and the subsequent Brady Act don’t regulate intra-state gun sales between private individuals – they couldn’t stretch the “interstate commerce clause” that far, no matter how hard they tried – it’s also why the 1934 National Firearms Act taxes transfer of full-auto weapons, but does not prohibit their possession by individuals).

  10. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago


    I don’t know who you are, and I don’t know how much I’ll agree with your positions, but I really enjoyed your presentation. Please continue contributing.

  11. CasualBrowser

    CasualBrowser said, almost 4 years ago


    “There is a solution. You won’t like it either. You use a gun in a crime you are out of here no exceptions. A tad harsh but it would be effective.”
    How is would this have been a solution to the Newtown massacre, or murder/suicides?

  12. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    As suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions, I suppose it should carry the death penalty?

    Almost all fatalities in “hunting accidents” are the result of LEGAL owners using LEGAL guns, and in recent years, even some AR type weapons have been involved. As noted above, all those folks committing suicide are of course, “criminals” as well.

    I would also like those stating there are 20,000 gun control laws (some say 50,000!) come up with even 100 that are actually DIFFERENT laws, not just repetition of the same laws from one jurisdiction to another. Slight variance of “carry permit” regulations from area to area are also NOT “different” laws, the basic law is simply that you have to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Felon in possession is both federal and state, but just one law, namely a felon can’t have access to a firearm. Now if you want “different”, how about the LAW in some areas that some felons CAN clear their record, and carry weapons again! Hmm, that’s not a restriction on the “right to possess”, but rather, the opposite, but it IS a “gun law”.

  13. Rocky

    Rocky said, almost 4 years ago

    It is not the governments job to regulate anything.It is most certainly not the governments job to interfere in the day to day lives of its citizens or to usurp States Rights.

    And it is in no way the governments job to try to collectively abolish individual rights.

    Each person may forfeit his or her rights if they abuse them to the harm of others. But to take everyones’ rights away because of what a handful of people do is like abolishing the freedom of the press because one tabloid prints libel.

    The sheer foolishness of anyone who believes that laws stop criminals is unbelieveable.

  14. ODon

    ODon said, almost 4 years ago

    Read the word “would” in my comment then, agree or not, you should understand my statement.

  15. ODon

    ODon said, almost 4 years ago

    Again to your asinine comparison I say ban birth and in a few generations we can solve all of mankind’s problems.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (6).