Comments (15) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   win said, about 2 years ago

   If we could only stop shooting each other.
2. 

   J. Short said, about 2 years ago

   Let the commentary begin. Try to play nice everyone.
3. 

   treesareus said, about 2 years ago

   Prohibition of alcohol failed. Prohibition of drugs has failed. Neither of them were protected under the Constitution. Prohibition of guns will be a bigger failure, since people have seen what happened in other parts of the world when citizens are stripped of their guns.
4. 

   DDS029 said, about 2 years ago

   @J. Short

   I’m just glad I got in early today, so I can just move on. Not enough comments to get me even interested in playing today.
5. 

   Justice22 said, about 2 years ago

   This administration does not call for the confiscation of guns. In effect it would reenact the Brady law and call for more intense background checks including for gun shows.
6. 

   ferritt123 said, about 2 years ago

   No. You should try to harness the energy of a 2 or 3 yr. old.
7. 

   YokohamaMama said, about 2 years ago

   From what I can see – and I have lived in many countries where people don’t own guns – when people are stripped of their guns, they stop shooting each other. And anyway, no-one wants to strip you of all your guns, just battlefield weapons.
8. 

   sandflea said, about 2 years ago

   @treesareus

   Paranoid?
9. 

   Redkaycei Repoc said, about 2 years ago

   @treesareus

   Like England? or Sweden?… Somehow I fail to see your point….
10. 

    chireef said, about 2 years ago

    we have restrictions on the first amendment (freedom of speech, no shouting fire in a crowed theater) why not be equally sensible when it comes to the second?
11. 

    Daeder said, about 2 years ago

    If we can’t settle the gun debate, might as well solve the energy crisis.
12. 

    YokohamaMama said, about 2 years ago

    My use of “battlefield weapons” was a trifle imprecise, but any weapon that can shoot dozens (again imprecise as I have never lived in a country that allows civillians to own guns except for hunting) of bullets without reloading is totally unnecessary for personal self defence – except perhaps for a Self Defence Force, which I am guessing is what Obama wanted them for. I meant semi automatic weapons, which, in my opinion (not bias) only belong on a battlefield/war zone, if anywhere.
13. 

    Seeker149 said, about 2 years ago

    Wow, the comments above make an even stronger case for the scientists in the comic.
14. 

    YokohamaMama said, about 2 years ago

    Like I said, any gun that allows someone to mow down 26 innocent people in such a short time does not belong in someone’s home gun cupboard, whether they are battlefield weapons, assault rifles or whatever other fancy name you give them. It is not what they are called, but what they can do that is the problem.
15. 

    YokohamaMama said, about 2 years ago

    @flake-67121

    By the way, since when do people who disagree with you become Commies? I am not a Commie, but I am in favour of keeping assault weapons out of the hands of citizens who, as far as I can see, have no need for them. Can someone tell me, without quoting the Second Amendment Rights, why any individual NEEDS such weapons?
16. Refresh Comments.