Jim Morin’s drawings won the Pulitzer Prize for editorial cartooning in 1996. He shared the Pulitzer in 1983 with other members of the Miami Herald editorial board, and was a Pulitzer finalist in 1977 and 1990. His work is syndicated internationally by the New York Times/CWS Syndicate.
The Miami Herald - All Rights Reserved.
Glenn McCoy by Glenn McCoy
Jack Ohman by Jack Ohman
Comments (40) (Please sign in to comment)
Harleyquinn
said, 4 months ago
um no, it was called “arms” for a reason. Remember this the Constitution of the United States was written for the people. Unlike others before it it was for the people by the people. It says what we CAN do and restricts what the government can do. Not the other way around. That is but one brilliant ideal that the founding father put into it. Just because it only says “arms” they where setting up that the fact that we have person freedom. We can act in a way that is for the individual. If that means having a gun, machine gun or tank. If you can act in a way that gets alone with your fellow man, like 99.9% of legal gun owners do, then what is the problem?
tranquil-d
said, 4 months ago
i probably fall in the liberal column but i have to disagree with this comic. it isn’t reasonable to presume the thoughts of the signers of the constitution on the issue of weapons technology a couple hundred+ years later. now, if the comic did that and was actually funny, that would be another thing.
DrCanuck said, 4 months ago
Just a question. Your Founding Fathers put in the 2nd so that Americans could fight against the British. What do you suppose the Fathers would have done if the Americans immediately turned their guns against the Fathers and tried to replace them?
Harleyquinn
said, 4 months ago
@DrCanuck
Your Founding Fathers put in the 2nd so that Americans could fight against the British."
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.
If the founding fathers where not worried “about being replaced” by the sword. They had the pen write in a way to remove them if that need happened. They had the army to back up what then pen wrote.
Harleyquinn
said, 4 months ago
You know, most liberals like Jim are void of history. To state something as stupid as “but what if they got a hold of something that can hurt more people.” The gun back in that day was scary and bloody enough. You went from a sword that you had to be up front and personal most of the time to kill, to throwing a projectile at them from behind a bush 10 or some yards away. They 1 did see the advancement of weapons in their own time, 2 did know the horror of a weapon in the hands of an individual. Just because they did not have modern “assault” weapons, does not mean they could not know the carnage one person could do with a tool. Look at the blood shed that did happen in their time. Did they write all arms but the cannon? all arms but those that can shoot x amount of yards? Nope.
Bruce4671 said, 4 months ago
@DrCanuck
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.
Ms. Ima said, 4 months ago
It was written specifically so Americans wouldn’t lose the right to keep and bear arms. Nuff’ said.
Harleyquinn
said, 4 months ago
Wait, I got it. Loony libs like Jim should say something like, Fire should be regulated. Back then Fire was a means of mass destruction. See the founding fathers goofed up in that they did not say you could bare arms but not fire. we have to limit the damage because fire is so dangerous and I bet killed more and did more property damage then any “arms” an individual at that time could get their hands on.
Respectful Troll said, 4 months ago
@DrCanuck
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande22.html
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.
/sigh
wistfully,
C.
ODon said, 4 months 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.
Bruce4671 said, 4 months ago
@ODon
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.
ARodney said, 4 months 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.
ODon said, 4 months ago
@Bruce4671
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.
rightisright said, 4 months ago
The same argument could be made about lying liberals’ (redundant term) access to computers and the net.
ReasonsVentriloquist said, 4 months ago
As my other persona Dredpiraterobt$ (may the lord have mercy on his soul, but the handle is available, you’d make a great Dredpiraterobt$) has said.
.
Don’t get lost in this argument! It’s not worth having. The solution is determining which of the old fashioned guns you can and can’t have. The Solution is to obsolete those old guns and replace them with guns that are safer. Guns that remove the temptation to steal them. That remove the temptation to take them somewhere where they’ll do human (inhuman) damage.
.
You can have guns, and play Militia, and shoot animals for food sport of shear boredom, but only you can shoot YOUR gun. And you can’t shoot it in a crowded theater!