As editorial cartoonist for The Journal News in New York, Davies cuts to the chase on every major issue, deftly penetrating the spin and obfuscation to show readers what’s really at the heart. His caustic wit combines with a strong moral sensibility to render the complex comprehensible.
© Tribune Media Services, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.
Jeff Danziger by Jeff Danziger
John Deering by John Deering
Comments (29) (Please sign in to comment)
mdavis4183
said, 4 months ago
Both are semi automatics.
omQ R said, 4 months ago
@mdavis: Nah, only the above one is. The Pixel version means you can hold down the fire button and get continuous firing.
From what I have observed, the latter usually held by automatons (no, never had the fascination for FPS games)
BrassOrchid
said, 4 months ago
What about the collective version where one man controls entire armies of guns without any ability of the populace to provide meaningful resistance to wrongful death? The search for a philosopher’s stone magnetic mono-pole continues.
onguard said, 4 months ago
The deadest school killing did not involved guns. The Dem Lib Agenda must be served . ……. After new restrictions, millions of good honest citizens could become Criminals.
Chillbilly
said, 4 months ago
Leftists should arm themselves against the impending attack on America by hate-filled right-wing extremists.
.
That’s the only useful purpose of guns other than hunting.
MortyForTyrant said, 4 months ago
By the way: there is also the “plastic home made” version. Using a 3D-printer some guys tried to build the middle bit of an assault-weapon, the one that is restricted in sale, and combined it with the other bits they could buy openly. It only worked for three shots, but that was the first time they tried and they are bound to improve. So, when banning assault-weapons all PARTS also have to be banned. But a clever guy with a decent machine-shop could build one anyway. Sigh! It’s a really sad, sad situation…
Bruce4671 said, 4 months ago
@MortyForTyrant
AGAIN! Your thoughts add to the truth that banning a gun is NOT going to keep those that want it from getting it.
meetinthemiddle said, 4 months ago
@Bruce4671
Bruce, pitting any proposed restriction against any specific anecdote will always expose loopholes. No regulation will close all doors, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t things that could improve the situation. Drunk driving still happens; that doesn’t mean we should rescind all the laws against it.
From what I’ve heard about Newtown, essentially none of the regulations bandied about would have mitigated that. His mother was the registered gun owner, she’d accumulated her collection over time, and she was the guardian of her mentally precarious son and would have had to seek treatment for him. The only proposed regulation that may have mitigated things even slightly is the reduced magazine size.
But many of the proposals on the books could well have helped prevent Columbine, VT, or Aurora.
One of my wife’s friends got her gun license in Germany, and from what she said about the process there, I thought it sounded great. To get the license, you had to take a very detailed safety course plus there was required range time and marksmanship. When someone has a license in Germany it definitely fulfills the “well-regulated” part.
Tigger
said, 4 months ago
Both are exactly same
BrassOrchid
said, 4 months ago
@Bruce4671
And banning tyranny is probably failing also.
Bruce4671 said, 4 months ago
@meetinthemiddle
Hey, personally, I have no problem adhering to the current laws concerning gun ownership and use where I live. I make it a point to educate myself – every time – concerning the laws in states where I may travel and abide by them as well.
We already HAVE laws that severely restrict the ownership of true “assault” weapons as they are defined by the defense department. New laws will only impact those that will obey them in the first place. That leaves out criminals and the mentally impaired, the very ones that commit every one of the tragedies that have or will happen.
The knee jerk feelgood reaction is not the way to go. Calm down, find and address the real problems. Hopefully that is what Obama and Biden are going to do, but I have my doubts knowing their past history on gun control.
meetinthemiddle said, 4 months ago
@Bruce4671
So Bruce, what would your reaction be if it came down to closing the gun show loophole and banning clips > 10 rounds? Personally, if the Feds thought it was worthy to standardize history and math teaching, I wouldn’t mind seeing some better standards for training and licensing. Like I said earlier, there should be mandatory range time to get licensed. You should have to shoot at a target with a shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun.
Thanks for being a responsible gun owner, as are so many.
I don’t quite get what all the hysteria is about. The previous assault weapons ban a) had silly exceptions so most guns could get out of it and b) grandfathered guns already in possession, so any effectiveness was very limited. It also came before Obama was anywhere in office. Why the “they’re going to take our guns!” sky-is-falling reaction?
John Russco
said, 4 months ago
@meetinthemiddle
real good word!
echoraven said, 4 months ago
@meetinthemiddle
“One of my wife’s friends got her gun license in Germany, and from what she said about the process there, I thought it sounded great. To get the license, you had to take a very detailed safety course plus there was required range time and marksmanship. When someone has a license in Germany it definitely fulfills the “well-regulated” part.”
Not a fan of gun control. Too Hitleresque. This though, I have no problem with. Europe also require more from people before they can drive than we do.
ReFlex-76
said, 4 months ago
“Pixel” – video games. I’m amazed nobody here got that.