Matt Bors by Matt Bors

Matt Bors

Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. PlainBill

    PlainBill said, almost 4 years ago

    The NRA’s dream – and every rational person’s nightmare.

  2. aaum13

    aaum13 said, almost 4 years ago

    Mass shootings are not a gun control issue, they are a MENTAL HEALTH issue.

  3. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, almost 4 years ago


    Agreed. And anyone who wants the freedom to conceal-carry or open-carry is essentially saying they want the freedom to live in fear.
    And this is coming from a gun owner.

  4. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago

    I hunted birds and deer when there were places close by to do so. I’ve never felt the need to use a military grade weapon to do either. I support the 2nd amendment, but where are the “WELL REGULATED” militias by whom these weapons are meant to used, militias the 2nd amendment implies should be in place? If Ms. Lanza’s ownership of a military grade weapon had also required her to be part of a civil defense ‘militia’ regulated by local authorities, there would have been that much more scrutiny and opportunity for “well regulation” to take place.
    The 2nd Amendment is not endangered by limiting the number of shells/bullets a weapon can fire before the shooter reloads. I do not share the paranoia of individuals who seem convinced a ban on assault rifles and cop killer bullets will enable a Congress and Presidency to become a dictatorship.
    I do believe the old Civil Defense Corp should be reactivated, the Civil Air Patrol is one of the few hold overs from that time. Under a Civil Defense umbrella, guns and gun owners can not only be “well regulated” as the 2nd amendment seems to want, but people with exotic and powerful weapons could be available to assist the police when police find themselves outgunned by criminals, cartels, or terrorists. It will also reduce the number of accidental gun deaths occurring from gun owners who rarely fire their weapons and/or have little knowledge to how to use or care for them.
    It is also important to end the gun shows like the ones in my state of Virginia be forced to enforce waiting periods and background checks. Those checks would not have stopped some of our most recent attacks where legal weapons were used’ but if they stop one person from having a gun who should not, it could be a lifesaver.
    & with great sadness,

  5. ARodney

    ARodney said, almost 4 years ago

    There are many other countries with as many guns as we have, and none of them have close to the number of mass shootings we do. The big difference is regulations (the second amendment starts with “A Well-Regulated…”). We should ban all assault weapons and magazines over six bullets (those are purely designed for killing lots of people, and we shouldn’t be surprised when they are used for their only purpose). It won’t stop all killings, but it’ll stop a lot of them. Closing the gun show loophole is a no-brainer, 76% of NRA members are for that (though not, of course, the NRA itself). We should look at Canada’s regulations, they seem to work quite well.

  6. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Any of you proponents of absolute gun rights care to argue that the death toll would have been as high if the shooter only had access to a revolver & a bolt action rifle?

  7. AgentSmith101

    AgentSmith101 said, almost 4 years ago

    Actually, I do feel safer with people who conceal carry. My chances of living through a shooting massacre just went up. This is going to sound trite, but police respond after the fact. 10 mins vs. 30 seconds is a long time. I’ll admit there are many details and complications to concealed carry, but we already hear the alternatives in the news every day.
    Banning assault weapons and bullet amounts are useless and distract from the national conversation we should be having about mental illness. The “crazies” as everybody calls them also is very telling about the stigma of mental illness. I agree that anyone who goes into a school and kills innocent children is certifiably insane, but how about getting them and their families some help before they pickup a gun. And yes, tea parties, this may require a tax or some support for decent healthcare in this respect.
    I don’t think everyone needs to or should conceal or open carry, but nor should people go absolutely nuts when someone does. Although I will put my money where my mouth is and suggest that if you want to conceal or open carry that proper self defense training and a psych eval should be involved.
    This may also put a damper on people who get their panties in a bunch when restrictions are suggested for gun shows or private sales.
    Like I’ve said in other posts, I don’t like lobbying and revile the way the NRA handles gun issues, but banning things is not the answer just as arming everyone isn’t. Gun owners need to have an honest discussion and offer some alternatives, because as a gun owner and a parent of elementary school children I get the message the other side is saying: We’re fed up of the death of innocents!

  8. D Lee

    D Lee GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Dianne Feinstein’s bill is the right idea, but the wrong solution. There is no point in outlawing guns. They are out there, there are millions, they are made of metal and will last for a thousand years if they are kept oiled. Failing that, I could find materials in my basement that would produce a workable gun, and it doesn’t take much knowledge of the subject to figure out how to do it.

    Bullets, on the other hand, are time consuming to make and require specific equipment. Production of enough to do serious damage would require planning and patience that are not characteristic of those who shoot up elementary schools. And, working on such a project might attract the attention of someone sane.

    Bullets can be individually stamped, and their sale can be registered, so that every bullet can be traced back to the person who purchased it. This way, a guy who wants to buy a couple boxes of bullets to go shoot deer, or the woman who wants a box to keep with the gun in her bedside drawer, won’t set off any warning bells. But the guy who is buying an arsenal will attract attention before he finds a more lethal way to do it.

  9. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    You did nothing to refute my point. If he had to stop & reload, more children could have escaped & an adult could have subdued him.

  10. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    In 1927, you could buy sticks of dynamite at the local hardware store.

    Nowadays, you need to go through an extensive permit process & background check to buy high explosives like dynamite. There are limits on how much you can purchase & you need to document what purpose the explosives are for. Why is it wrong to insist the same for guns?

  11. cjr53

    cjr53 said, almost 4 years ago


    And uncle ronnire raygun helped shut down places for the professionals to help and keep the crazies off the streets and away from guns.

    Started in California and then took it National.

  12. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, almost 4 years ago

    Uncle Joe: The writers of the Second Amendment were not thinking about three shots and five seconds to reload. What they were talking about was one shot (two if you had a double barrel), a big cloud of blue-gray smoke to show where you are, and 30 seconds (45 for both barrels) to reload – if you are in practice. I own the kind of guns they were thinking about – flintlocks.
    The second amendment was in answer to “provide for the common defense” in the Preamble to the Constitution. This can, as it is now, be done by a standing army, which Elbridge Gerry said was as much a threat to freedom as a standing committee. It can be done by mercenaries, which they had experienced from Hesse Nausau. It can be done by conscripts, which most immigrants from continental Europe had experienced. So, they went for a “well-regulated militia” which was already in place in the Constitution clause declaring the president was “the commander in chief of the army, and of the navy, and of the militias of the several states.” Such a body can be well trained and effective, but being part-time is not likely to be used to invade other countries.
    Switzerland is used as an example of everyone being armed. But one better not be seen carrying that rifle unless in uniform and going to the local range to fire those 20 rounds and be issued 20 more, nor be unable to produce those 20 for inspection at all times. Switzerland can mobilize in two hours and be on wartime footing in two months. It would take the US six weeks and six months to do the same if actually invaded instead of doing the invading.

  13. NebulousRikulau

    NebulousRikulau GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    If ‘concealed carry’ and even ‘open carry’ isn’t stopping the crazies, then why do they keep going to ‘Gun Free Zones’ to do their killing?

    BTW, I think that there should be better regulation of firearms.
    “Better” does not necessarily mean the same as “More”.

  14. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, almost 4 years ago

    Theophilous Joiner: Nearing 80, with knees damaged by an idiot who thought 50+mph was a proper speed to run a red light in downtown Dallas, I still rather try to outrun a knife than a bullet.
    Dr. Canuck: Because we never had a Tommy Douglas. It is expensive for an individual to get diagnosis and treatment for mental problems, no matter the savings to the general public. Insurance company profits are far more important than healthy citizens or public safety. Also, long guns are harder to conceal than handguns, giving something of a warning.

  15. Mikeyj

    Mikeyj said, almost 4 years ago

    My ex (online) GF used to wonder why I wanted her to come to Canada and refused to even think about moving to be with her in the USA, listening to you insane gun fans shows me that I made the right choice, no one is advocating banning one shot hunting rifles (Mind you, I think hunting is also evil, but, harmless to humans, other than rare occasions) but, rather to ban high powered guns which can only be used for killing others and handguns which, due to their small size can easily be concealed. The truth is, the only difference between a SO-CALLED “responsible gun owner” and a murderer, is an argument with one’s wife or neighbour or losing it in a traffic accident. And saying that someone needs an assault weapon to keep his home safe should realise that in that situation, having a gun will likely just get you killed, because by the time you say “Hands up, scumbag”, he will have put 3 or 4 slugs into your body.
    I know and have several American friends, our neighbours to the south are genuinely good people but… your guns laws (in the name of freedom) are simply insane

  16. Load the rest of the comments (7).