Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, over 1 year ago

    4. Tax ammo to pay for gun-related healthcare costs.
    5. Require liability insurance on every gun.

  2. Keith Russell

    Keith Russell said, over 1 year ago

    Poor Obama is taking a 5% pay cut because of the budget crisis, so why is he wasting time and money going to Colorado to campaign for gun control? Shouldn’t he be in the White House doing something, isn’t that what he’s supposed to do?

  3. John Locke

    John Locke said, over 1 year ago

    I think all government elected officials should be required to go home and work another real job for 6 months out of the year. If they aren’t governing, they’re performing an actual service to their constituents.

  4. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 1 year ago


    4. And if you reload your own? How’re you going to tax that? Not to mention you are impugning the ability of lower-to-middle class families to use their firearms by imposing a tax.
    5. Why? Give me one good reason to explain why I should have to pay any sort of insurance on a Constitutionally-mandated right? The premiums on something like this would make it cost-prohibitive for all but the most wealthy, thus denying access to someone’s Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.

    As a liability insurance adjuster, insurance is meant to indemnify the financial loss incurred from a loss through the result of the owner’s negligence. Are you claiming that the murders that are committed with firearms are the result of negligence? I would say not.

    Negligent discharges resulting in injury or death are miniscule (606 deaths in 2010), and iirc are frequently covered by homeowners liability insurance. Why? Because they are an accident. Intentional acts are not covered by insurance policies because those are not the result of negligence.

    So having liability insurance wouldn’t do anything to stem gun violence in this country. Besides, do you honestly think a criminal is going to not only register his weapon, but also insure it? Try to engage your brain before you spout foolish and useless talking points from the far left.

  5. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago


    On your point four, minorities are more likely to be poor so could that not be called racist. The first gun control laws were meant to keep guns away from blacks. Not calling you that but I want you to think about it please.

  6. Rodent50

    Rodent50 said, over 1 year ago

    Tax ammo? Tax gun owners with an insurance mandate?
    Talk about a regressive idea. So we make the most responsible gun owners, those who actually spend time training, pay for the 2 shots (of stolen ammo) fired by a criminal. The left really love their collective punishment don’t they?

    Where’s Mr. 99% to protest that the radical rich will be allowed self-defense, but he won’t be able to afford it?

    Both ideas are backwards anyway. If we’re going to add yet another tax, we should tax those who choose not to provide their own first line of defense. The cost of encouraging crime by providing a supply of defenseless victims should rest on those who shirk basic civil duties.

  7. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, over 1 year ago

    US Constitution, 2nd amendment, says “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
    IMO every restriction placed on people owning Arms, or being restricted from buying or trading Arms, or being restricted in purchasing Arms Ammo, or being mandated into spending personal money to buy “liability insurance”…every government restriction is an Unconstitutional Infringement!
    P.S. Obama is dancing on the US Constitution, and dancing deliberately on the Constitution, while elsewhere trying to re-assure the American People that “Our Founders’ system ‘constrains me’ and so government cannot be tyranny or dictatorship….” DUH.

  8. Ruff

    Ruff GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago


    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    You forgot half of it. The well regulated militia.

  9. cubefarmer

    cubefarmer said, over 1 year ago


    Right, so only the rich people you claim to hate can defend themselves and the rest of us are supposed to what? Just shut up and die like good little victims?

  10. curtisls87

    curtisls87 said, over 1 year ago

    @John Locke

    I’d take it a step further. Congress should only meet for 2 months every other year!

  11. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Its a ridiculous looking cartoon cause Ramirez drew it.

  12. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago


    Amen brother

  13. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago


    Yes a well regulated militia is a good thing, but the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” that is where your argument falls apart. It does not say the right of government to take arms from the people. It does not even say even who regulates.

    In early days of the United States it was the colonial government not King George and later it was the states. It wasn’t till after the war of 1812 that the federal government took a hand in Militias then later the National Guard.

  14. jack75287

    jack75287 said, over 1 year ago


    Hey his artwork is great the best cartoonist today.

  15. d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C and Martens Release

    d_legendary1 Demands Dr.C and Martens Release said, over 1 year ago

    Let’s get it right Ramirez: ASSAULT RIFLE BAN STYLE.

    No right winger has yet to produce any factual laws that prove that anyone wants to take their guns away.

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