Jim Morin by Jim Morin

Jim Morin

Recommended

Comments (35) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    Fail! you Fail to comprehend the 1st thing about guns and the pistol and self defence if you think people pledge to a gun. A weapon is a tool that is to be respected and even feared a little by those who own and carry.
    FAIL!

  2. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, about 1 year ago

    @Harleyquinn

    Yes, fail as in you fail to comprehend the meaning of the comic…

  3. omQ Release the Desaparecidos

    omQ Release the Desaparecidos said, about 1 year ago

    @Tue Elung-Jensen

    You should thank Harley. He often kindly offers himself as the exact example of the caricature the cartoon is portraying.

  4. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 1 year ago

    The cartoon is divisive and unhelpful. A 22 rifle killed my cousin who did three tours in Vietnam. A shotgun killed his brother. Another cousin shot himself while on antidepressants.
    I have as much reason to hate guns as anyone, but I am also a gun owner. I like hunting, target shooting, skeet shooting, and have used a shotgun to make a drunk person who entered my first dwelling put down his own gun and leave.
    It is easy for me to see all sides on this issue.
    Mickey once posted the rules under which he lives in California. Were those the “law of the land”, I believe they would make a difference.
    The man depicted in this cartoon represents the tiniest percentage of NRA members, 84% of whom favor background checks. Mr. Morin would have been better off putting Mr. LaPierre out as the man making the pledge. His loyalty is not to the 2nd Amendment, or gunowners, but to gun makers for whom his organization has become a powerful lobbying group. Were every NRA member to pull out of the organization today, the NRA would still be active and vocal, they would just be getting their funding from the gun makers of the US and the rest of the world.
    Do not attack gunowners, most of them are sensible people who are as outraged by Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, and Virginia Tech as the rest of us.
    If you direct your anger at ANYONE other than the politicians who blocked recent legislation on background checks, or the NRA leadership, not members, but leadership, then you are falling into the trap they have set for us. As long as we argue with one another, we cannot put a united front up against the real bad guys. The Gun Makers, the politicians, and the NRA LEADERSHIP.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  5. drkala

    drkala said, about 1 year ago

    Why can’t the membership change the leadership if it doesn’t represent them?

  6. Adrian Snare

    Adrian Snare said, about 1 year ago

    @Harleyquinn

    I do not think that I am smarter than the average man….but….its so easy ( for me) to see the message…and the solution…
    non-lethal
    a term which quiets the conservatives..
    Their words – fail and fear – so appropriate.

    The NRA has made this grisly bed, how they must learn to sleep in it..

  7. Adrian Snare

    Adrian Snare said, about 1 year ago

    @Respectful Troll

    I accede to your philosophy, in many aspects, TR….Its “better” than mine, RT.
    Yes, I know – clumsy – no ones philosophy is better.. or worse….
    But, I feel that the NRA has made themselves into this creature, if they do not like it, they should rebel from within…
    My solution is “non lethal”…I am a bit “too nuts” to be a gun owner – a personal assessment..
    And another one –
    The gun owners, such as you, RT, must be the ones to primarily design the gun control legislation..

  8. Adrian Snare

    Adrian Snare said, about 1 year ago

    @Ms. Ima

    This statement should cause even the conservatives to oppose it….I would think.
    I find the term “gun safety” to be oxymoronish…

  9. Adrian Snare

    Adrian Snare said, about 1 year ago

    @onguard

    The so-called current background check is, IMO, a POS.
    And this weak-kneed type of legislation will continue until we get some “real men” in OUR Congress.

    This will only be possible when the millions of dollars is removed from the campaign system. and OUR people have the power, rather than the vested power groups , the NRA for one..

    I do not know what this cryptic log is…BUT, my idea is to have absolute complete 100% records (permanent) of each and EVERY gun owner… A sacred trust is a must for those privileged to access this proposed record…We may not , as yet, have the quality of people to access and use these records…
    One cannot come before the other…

  10. Jase99

    Jase99 said, about 1 year ago

    @Ms. Ima

    “The libs want to get rid of the NRA so no organization will teach gun safety in America.”

    If you want to make wild, baseless accusations, you might as well say they’re also looking to kick puppies, fling poo at Jesus statues, and force everyone into polygamous marriages with gay animals. It’s almost as true as the crap you spew now.

  11. Adrian Snare

    Adrian Snare said, about 1 year ago

    @ScottPM

    In truth, “this bill” would save lives in some of the mass murders..
    Naturally, no legislation will be 100% effective…I will settle for 10%..
    “Non-lethal " would do better…..safer ….more effective…
    After all, we want to defend….not kill ???
    right ?? .. or wrong… ?
    #1.. ..
    What is its meaning ? ?
    What are the ramifications ?
    Will I end up in an institution ??

    1. ..
      Weak kneed and loaded with bull feces.
      The very last thing that we want is to have the delusional to own guns…non-lethal means of defense – again….
    2. ..
      IMO, a gun free zone is utterly silly..
    1. .. ..
      Further, IMO, Sandy Hook would never have happened if we had my version of 100% gun control….the shooters mother was delusional, IMO
      I try to place human life above your 2nd amendment rights….I do cringe about all the abortion deaths, but we need a better people….probably need a better people for my 100% gun control to work….

  12. mikefive

    mikefive said, about 1 year ago

    @onguard

    There is no reason for a tirade about about the proof that you think Respectful Troll should have provided. The 84% is within the range of multiple polls taken and would be easily verifiable by you if you don’t stop at the first poll you check that has a different number. Why don’t you provide proof that he’s wrong? There is nothing unreasonable in his post

  13. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 1 year ago

    @onguard

    Onguard, There is a Jihadist militant site on the web that has been shown on some of the news programs lately. In it, the speaker, a white skinned young man with medium brown hair, tells his viewers how they can get all of the guns they need by simply going to a local gun show.. That they’re likely to find fully automatic weapons and not have to submit to a background check and possibly not even show an I.D. He finishes by saying, “So what are you waiting for?”
    The current system is effectively, “aiding and abetting the enemy”. Every hunter and shooter I know supports background checks and are afraid of what will happen to their gun rights if some sensible legislation is NOT enacted. One friend told me that if another elementary school gets shot up with an assault rifle with a large capacity clip, the public is going to go nuts.
    You’re afraid if you give up anything, you’ll lose everything. It may well be that it’s the other way around. If you don’t support sensible, thoughtful regulation of guns, the war on guns can turn into something that NO gun owner wants to see. Not even “non objective” gun owners like me.
    I try to be objective and succeed often enough that only those who are certain I’m a liberal tree hugger, and the few who consider me a Republican in Name Only, will consider my objectivity in the matter to be “destroyed.”
    Respectfully,
    C.

  14. Sharuniboy

    Sharuniboy GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Respectful Troll

    Unfortunately, your point concerning “give up anything” is one that happens to be fundamental. IF we are to “give up” our “right to keep and bear arms”, where do we STOP “giving up”? At the right to worship, or NOT WORSHIP, as we please? At the right to speak freely? At the right to a trial by jury? Or . . .where?


    Ben Franklin, among others, pointed out the simple fact that those who are willing to “give up”, even fractionally, will wind up “totally without” in the end – and deservedly so!

  15. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, about 1 year ago

    @Adrian Snare

    This statement should cause even the conservatives to oppose it….I would think.
    I find the term “gun safety” to be oxymoronish…
    Gun control? both hands holding it while I pull the trigger.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (20).