Joel Pett by Joel Pett

Joel PettNo Zoom

Comments (30) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. narrowminded

    narrowminded said, over 1 year ago

    Politicizing a heinous criminal act. Typical progressive.

  2. ARodney

    ARodney said, over 1 year ago

    Actually, Ima, it was all but four of the Republicans and four conservative democrats. The liberal senators voted for the ability to prevent such tragedies in the future. But majority rule no longer operates in the senate, due to Republican abuse of power. Fortunately, I suppose, the Affordable Health Care Act did get passed, and it will save even more children’s lives than the gun safety legislation would have. But it would be nice to have intelligent conservatives again, so that we could save lives on both issues, rather than hearing ignorant claims of how freedom must necessarily require more innocent death.

  3. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @ARodney

    How does passing another law requiring background checks that will be impossible to enforce and which those that would “kill innocents” will ignore appear to you as a way to prevent another such tragedy?

    Personally, you can pass all the checks you want into a person background. I have no problem with it. I can pass it.

    But what else was in that bill? (S374)

    http://www.examiner.com/article/universal-background-check-bill-is-designed-to-land-you-prison

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/275587-10-gun-bills-introduced-in-first-day-of-the-house

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

  4. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    I would put forth an observation on the American people in response to this issue. First, it is inane and ridiculous to propose that any senators or typical gun owners would endorse or condone an act like Sandy Hook. The super heated level of dialog that is promoted, better said opinion, that comes out of this topic is essentially fueled by the real pain and horror that all people experience.


    Typically, many Americans want the government to pass a restrictive law to control the problem. More laws fix everything when heinous acts like this are perpetrated. Typically they are short sighted or go to extremes in their proposal. Cartoons like this one come out regularly, gun owners (and the NRA) are accused of condoning murder of children by their resistance to more legislation. Gun owners, even those who are generally supportive of our most recently proposed legislation become very defensive at the accusations, labels and insults hurled at them. That’s not to unusual in our super heated media climate that exists today. Aside from that, to repeat a phrase used before for situations like this, “don’t shoot the messenger (pun intended).”


    I wonder how long it will take before the media realizes we are saturated with these vulgar cartoons that seem to have no limit to how demeaning they can be. But the real effect is to turn people off. Like it or not, Americans have short attention spans. Add to that the latest Gallup poll listed gun control fairly low on the list of American’s concerns, (#9 of 16) most of their concerns being unemployment, government deficits, safe to say our economic malaise in general. Yes there is an adamant group (GC is evidence) who are rabid supporters of gun control. But when you couple that voice with all the others (Diane Fienstien, Michael Bloomberg, Governor Cuomo) who are screaming for prohibition people dig in their heels and resist. Add to that a poorly written bill that was political and not practical in origin, plus people start looking at the Second Amendment issue as symbolic of government trying to control their choices and rights as an American citizen.


    FWIW, I’m done posting on this issue. I feel like at this point it’s mired in emotion and generally speaking we’re just yelling at each other. I like mediating my student’s in a “solutions” discussion on such issues. One came up with a two paragraph proposal on the private sale/transfer, gun show (public venue) regulation that could have passed congress if they were just concerned with substance and not politics.
    They constantly restore my faith, in spite of their obsession with cell phones, iPads and other social communication devices. One of our future discussions will be the “artificial sense of urgency and importance” that we have created that mandates this “need” to constantly be “in touch.”

  5. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Dycel

    When you are in favor of tying a DL to ALL rights then let’s talk.

    I don’t have a problem. I already have a CWP. All my weapons have a paper trail.

    Now let’s do that for guns, but let’s do that for votes as well.

  6. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @mickey1339

    ’ First, it is inane and ridiculous to propose that any senators or typical gun owners would endorse or condone an act like Sandy Hook.’
    -
    Obviously, no one condones such murders. However, when the pattern of fast firing weapons coupled with high capacity magazines emerges in all of them, insisting on the legal status quo comes close.
    -
    I don’t think there is a snowball’s chance of prohibition happening. I don’t remember those people screaming for it, but even if they did, elimination of these massacres would eliminate such talk.
    -
    I guessing your students’ solution would be a model of common sense and worthy of enactment, but if it were actually proposed in a legislature, how many New York minutes would it take before it was labeled ’Obama’s coming to take your guns!’?

  7. michelledavis4

    michelledavis4 said, over 1 year ago

    @Mr. King

    :-D

  8. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago

    Ok, this one says more about Pitt then anything else or the Senate.

  9. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @jack75287

    ^ Right!
    And people who criticize the decision to invade Iraq are just not supporting the troops.

  10. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 1 year ago

    @ARodney

    Don’t waste your time stating facts to Ima.

  11. mdavis4183

    mdavis4183 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    This one says Pett isn’t playing with a full deck. Het Pett:, here’s the huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge bacxklash against the NRA:
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/five-sad-pictures-from-todays-anti-nra-march/article/2528129

    A generous estimation of the crowd size would have been about 100 people, including members of the media.

  12. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Tigger

    ^ No, it would have been filibustered.
    -
    That said, I agree that Reid should not have agreed to the 60 vote passage. Republicans would have taken the heat for the filibuster.

  13. echoraven

    echoraven said, over 1 year ago

    @mickey1339

    Don’t know what you have for brain food, but I want some of it…

  14. Anthony 2816

    Anthony 2816 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Ms. Ima

    “Strong conclusion, take away the guns from honest civilians.”

    I suppose asking you how background checks at gun shows would “take guns from honest civilians” would be a waste of time?

  15. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    @Anthony 2816

    Well, you know, every state that has background checks is overrun with gun-toting criminals. Every honest civilian has had his guns confiscated.
    -
    No honest civilians exceed the speed limits in those states either. If they do, their cars are confiscated.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (15).