Nick Anderson by Nick Anderson

Nick Anderson

Comments (31) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Darsan54

    Darsan54 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    It’s less likely for the mentally ill to inflict violence than to have violence inflicted on them.

    The problem is more our propensity for solving whatever problem with violence and the availability of guns just makes it easier.

  2. PepeLePew2010

    PepeLePew2010 said, over 2 years ago



  3. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 2 years ago

    It always seems to come down to a culture of guns, easy access to guns, and guns to solve personal issues.

  4. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, over 2 years ago

    But if you stop the “Mentally Ill” from acquiring any and all assorted weaponry, you might have to stop some Ordinary Gun Loving American Citizens. The NRA wouldn’t like that.
    Think of all the angry people you know who haven’t QUITE popped their corks yet. Who’s going to tell THEM no rapid fire weaponry, let alone single shot, eh?
    And what about the military personnel coming home from overseas deployment, taking an honorable discharge, you know those people who are offing themselves at the rate of about ONE A DAY? Who’s going to tell them they’re “Mentally Ill” before they can head off to their local NRA armed support and distribution Center, huh? Weepy old Boehner? I don’t think so

  5. ODon

    ODon said, over 2 years ago

    Food for thought: Cigarettes are inanimate objects also.

  6. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 2 years ago

    Yep, it’s just a lump of metal, plastic, gun powder, lead, tin or whatever until someone picks it up and pulls the trigger.
    Guns are too easily available and are often used to resolve issues in the heat of the moment. And, worse, picked up and used to accidentally hurt or kill someone, often by children.

  7. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 2 years ago

    The second amendment is straight forward plain English. It needs no interpretation.

    Though everyone seems to take a crack at it. Here is some “expert” opinion.
    My OPINION is that this statement is self explanatory.

    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.

    If you succeed in removing weapons from the hands of the people, then they will be at the mercy of both government AND criminals.

  8. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago


    Below I have posted the first ten amendments. Notice that the only one which has an introductory explanation is the second. All the others just get right to the point (Congress shall make no law, No soldier shall, and so on). For some reason those who framed these amendment thought that they had to explain why the right to bear arms should not be infringed. They could have left off the explanation; the amendment could begin “The right of the people…”, but it doesn’t? Why did they add this explanation? Should this difference in phrasing make a difference to the interpretation of the amendment? The courts have generally though that it doesn’t make a difference. As a literary scholar, I think all the words have to be taken into account. But that’s probably why I’m a literary scholar and not a Supreme Court Justice.
    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Amendment II
    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.
    Amendment III
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
    Amendment VI
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
    Amendment VII
    In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
    Amendment VIII
    Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  9. midaswelby

    midaswelby said, over 2 years ago

    A few days ago, I pointed out that the base was a Gun Free zone, and was met with criticism and denial by people who should have known better. Today, there are people who are unwilling to research the intended purpose(s) of the 2nd Amendment, and want to “interpret” it to fit their fantasies.
    The fact remains, this shooter killed himself as soon as he was confronted by someone able to defend herself. Reverse the Clinton directive about guns on military bases so America’s Bravest can defend themselves!

  10. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 2 years ago

    We used to just put the crazies in a psyche ward, but thanks to the ACLU we now live amongst them.

  11. lonecat

    lonecat said, over 2 years ago

    I usually don’t post on gun control; although I favor some reasonable control (whatever reasonable means) I am not opposed to gun ownership overall, and I think that the second amendment gives broad rights for gun ownership. My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the problem in the US isn’t so much the law but the social attitudes towards guns.
    But the point of my post was actually somewhat different. Bruce was claiming that the second amendment needs no interpretation. I don’t agree. Language always has to be interpreted. Sometimes the interpretation is so quick and free of problems that we think there has been no interpretation, but that’s an illusion. For example, the second amendment protects the right to bear arms — well, what kind of arms are included? All kinds? The courts have generally said no, but that’s an interpretation.

  12. dzw3030

    dzw3030 said, over 2 years ago

    “We need a better people.” And you’ll define “better”? I think lichentunes has an accurate description of our problem.

  13. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 2 years ago

    Denied a leave pass, Lopez decides he will settle the issue with the aid of a gun. Most certainly a very insensitive approach to a personnel issue.
    Lopez was a soldier at Fort Hood, a sprawling military base where men are stripped of sensitivity and taught to kill dispassionately, and if you wear the uniform you are hailed a hero. If you do a really good job of killing, you will be awarded medals. If the killing and violence upsets your psyche, you will be treated for mental illness.
    Fort Hood, one of around 1000 U.S. military bases and installations around the world for the main purpose of asserting U.S. power and influence on weaker peoples and nations. Where one of the main tools of the trade is the gun, and the deadlier the better.
    Then there is puzzlement when one of their own attempts to resolve a personal issue with a gun. Perhaps mental illness and/or intellectual issues are at the root. But perhaps they are looking in the wrong place.

  14. zekedog55

    zekedog55 GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago


    Ah, Gypsy! Your reason and logic is indeed refreshing…

  15. foofinho

    foofinho said, over 2 years ago

    mental illness needs to be treated. Ignoring it and hoping for the best is not an option.

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