Mike Lester by Mike Lester

Mike Lester

Comments (29) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. feverjr

    feverjr said, almost 4 years ago

    Taxidermy of Dummies.

  2. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 4 years ago


  3. Krazy Ig Katz

    Krazy Ig Katz said, almost 4 years ago

    The former owner—a prepper— shot himself and is now stuffed & mounted. The current one is a dummy because he has not learned to secure his weapon properly — it’s about to tip over and blow his head off.

  4. minos

    minos GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    One week after Sandy Hook, and lo! – the creatures that live under that big, flat NRA rock come creeping back out of hiding. And here is their best argument, the fantasy of yet another dickless wonder trying to compensate for his inadequacy with too much gun for the likes of him.

    Gotta love it. He (in his dreams) bagged the elementary-school shooter! Problem solved. Or is that a SWAT Team guy? How many kids, teachers and cops got killed by those high-velocity rounds? That’s the nice thing about fantasy – no cleanup costs.

    Nobody needs those kinds of guns. If you bought ‘em to resist the government, dude, it’s not enough. If you bought ‘em because you don’t see how it’s any of your neighbors’ business if you want to be the RL incarnation of “ Call of Duty,” it’s too much. If you think a firefight between untrained idiots is a good thing to have around children, you’re a lunatic loser, kinda like the guy who shot up Sandy Hook. No guns for you. Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

  5. vwdualnomand

    vwdualnomand said, almost 4 years ago

    i thought that conservatives hated teachers. they say teachers are the scum of the earth, lazy, incompetent, drain on society…and they want to arm them?

  6. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 4 years ago

    The man reading has an “assault weapon” at ready behind him. Is the trophy shooter on the stand wearing bulletproof armor, which would justify the ownership and use of a military weapon, or was he just masked and wearing an overcoat? Does this cartoon reference the “daydream” of the gun owner who kills in order to save lives and has mounted his kill to celebrate the moment?
    Does Mr. Lester suggest a person who would use a gun to stop a killer would also WANT to keep such a trophy?

  7. Ransom D Stone

    Ransom D Stone said, almost 4 years ago


    Right on, except for the 2nd Amendment which was distorted by the SCOTUS who leaped from an ‘organized militia’ to ‘everybody can have and carry a weapon’ in one deadly act of misinterpretation.

  8. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    @Ransom D Stone

    “In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia12 and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes.”

    It’s always frustrating when the SCOTUS rules against your personal beliefs, but it is binding nonetheless. Obviously “lawful purposes” is the key here, but extremists on both sides will interpret that according to their personal agenda…

  9. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    More animosity and name calling, that will be sure to help resolve a very complex and contested issue in our country…

  10. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, almost 4 years ago

    I have no problem with someone owning a handgun to protect their home, or even getting a conceal carry permit to protect themselves on the street (although I do find that a bit paranoid and fearful). What I do have a problem with is someone who thinks an automatic rifle is necessary in the hands of a civilian in public. I fear the vigilante, who legally buys a gun and looks to stop crime himself. That is called Münchausen syndrome. It is dangerous and the easy availability of high capacity high power weapons makes them more dangerous. I have known two people diagnosed with this, and both owned guns. The last one I knew, one of my wife’s former students, is now in jail because he set fire to a dorm. He felt the students did not take the last fire drill seriously enough, so he started the fire, called the fire department, and organized the evacuation. He saw nothing wrong with his actions. He owns (or owned) six guns and carried a loaded AR-15 in his back seat. Does the fact that he was undiagnosed until his arrest make you feel safer? To all people who knew him, he seemed like a very active community leader who did what he could to improve the world around him, but would put lives at risk to look like a hero. Imagine if he had been driving by and THOUGHT he saw a crime and opened fire. That is what I see in this toon. A wanna be hero who thinks it is his duty to stop the next massacre, ready to open fire on the first “suspicious” person in his neighborhood. Ask George Zimmerman how well that worked out.

  11. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago


    " I fear the vigilante, who legally buys a gun and looks to stop crime himself. That is called Münchausen syndrome."

    What you recount is clear evidence that we have evolved into a sick society. Now we want to be able to pass a few laws, make speeches about how outraged we are and continue to ignore the cause of the problem.

  12. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Far too rational.

  13. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, almost 4 years ago

    I (nor anybody on the left that I have seen) am not advocating prior restraint, because it is unconstitutional like you said, but also impractical. That argument has come from the right to avoid talking about restricting access to certain weapons. The first thing I heard was “don’t take away guns, lock up all the crazies and this won’t happen”. As I pointed out in other posts, that would entail locking up a good portion of our citizenry and nearly everyone between the ages of 13 to 24. The only way to identify someone who MIGHT snap is to get them to seek a psychiatrist. The only way that becomes practical is with universal health care so that every family can afford to get their children and loved ones help to prevent them from going off the deep end. Even then, what parent wants to see their own child institutionalized if they have not committed a crime. There are millions of people with Asperger’s who can function in society who are non-violent, they just do not always take other people into account when deciding upon their actions. They cannot be locked up just because there is a potential based on someone else’s previous actions which says they may be capable of violence.
    So understand the stances here – liberals are more for controlling these massacres by controlling the weapons available to the public, therefore keeping the second amendment intact in word and spirit by allowing civilians to keep and bear arms, but understanding there is no longer a need for military grade weapons among the general public. The conservatives have been shouting to “lock people up” to avoid them from committing the crimes because they want access to whatever weapons they choose.

  14. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 4 years ago


    Should we lock up the guns or lock up the people? Which of these choices is more in line with the Constitution? Which is more in line with the society we want to have?

  15. M Ster

    M Ster said, almost 4 years ago


    I don’t have a problem with people owning guns to protect themselves in their homes. I do have a problem, however, with people legally carrying concealed weapons without undgergoing enough training to know when and when not to use them. One of the good guys at the gathering where Gabby Giffords was shot was legally carrying, didn’t get his gun out in time, and later admitted that he had his eye on the wrong person. Fortunately he didn’t get his gun out in time.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (14).