Pat Oliphant by Pat Oliphant

Pat Oliphant

Comments (50) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, about 2 years ago

    Regulated by the NRA of course! They represent the gun manufacturers don’t they?

  2. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, about 2 years ago

    Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution lists the powers of Congress; here is the text of Clause 16:
    .
    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    -
    And for those who think the 2nd Amendment was written so people could be armed to fight a tyrannical government, just the opposite is true. Here is the text for Clause 15 of Section 8:
    .
    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTION and repel Invasions;
    .
    (My caps to emphasize that militias exist to fight against those who seek to overthrow the government. Washington called the militias into service during the Whiskey Rebellion.)

  3. mickey1339

    mickey1339 GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @Newshound41

    “And for those who think the 2nd Amendment was written so people could be armed to fight a tyrannical government, just the opposite is true. Here is the text for Clause 15 of Section 8:”


    SCOTUS has already ruled that the right to bear arms (private ownership) is a separate issue than tying it into having a ready militia.

  4. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, about 2 years ago

    The 2nd Amendment says nothing to counter Clause 16:
    .
    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.
    .
    The question is, who regulates the Militia, and the answer is Congress. Nothing in the 2nd Amendment takes away that power.
    The present day Militia, the National Guard, still follow training procedures set by the Federal Government and are still subject to being put under Federal authority.
    The 2nd Amendment was adopted in December 1791. Congress still saw it as their responsibility to regulate Militias in May 1792 when they passed a law requiring Uniform Militias throughout the United States.
    Washington used his powers to call up Militias more than 2 years after the 2nd Amendment was adopted to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.

  5. edinbaltimore

    edinbaltimore GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    For those who talk about original intent, history is a b—— ain’t it?

  6. Newshound41

    Newshound41 said, about 2 years ago

    @mickey1339

    I am not saying individuals do not have the right to arm themselves. I am saying the idea that this right exists to fight a tyrannical government is false.
    The greater threat at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment was invasion from abroad or insurrection at home. The US did not have a large standing army after the Revolutionary War. An Army or professional police force were considered a threat to individual rights. There was also a question of cost. By establishing Militias, they provided cost effective way to deal security issues. Remember, the wording in the 2nd Amendment is “…, being necessary to security of free state,…”
    Security can mean fighting common criminal activity and insurrection as well as invasion from the outside.

  7. Leo Autodidact

    Leo Autodidact said, about 2 years ago

    Just a reminder that the ANTI-Federalists were quite clear on the dangers of “Standing Armies” and we are seeing, on a daily basis, that THEIR forecassting skills were CLEARLY SUPERIOR to those of the Federalists.

  8. John Locke

    John Locke said, about 2 years ago

    In this country, police of all stripes are VERY careful dealing with citizens. We can be dangerous. That is a good thing; just ask the Jews from Europe or Kulaks from the Ukraine. The danger from guns is minute compared to the danger from government.

  9. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, about 2 years ago

    @Newshound, Mickey, and Richard- Great debate with well stated views. Keep it up.
    The great comments above the one I’m posting gives me little to add, however…
    As I looked at the cartoon, I suddenly recalled that delightful scene from Crocodile Dundee where the ’Roo hunters found themselves being shot at by a kangaroo.
    A deer with an anti tank gun would fit in real nice in this toon.
    @ Nightgaunt – I used to think the NRA was a lobbying arm for sportsmen. It is now my opinion you are correct and the NRA is now the lobbying arm for manufacturers, distributors, and anti government militias.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  10. saywhatwhat

    saywhatwhat said, about 2 years ago

    @Leo Autodidact

    The Federalists were not in favor of a large Federal army. Ignorance is the greatest enemy of democracy.

  11. meetinthemiddle

    meetinthemiddle said, about 2 years ago

    @mickey1339

    But only recently and overturning 200+ years of rulings that went the other way…

  12. Night-Gaunt49

    Night-Gaunt49 said, about 2 years ago

    We need to up grade our mental health facilities and identification and treatment. Instead they get dumped into penal institutions to suffer horribly and in some cases die prematurely.

  13. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @John Locke

    "In this country, police of all stripes are VERY careful dealing with citizens. "

    Being armed with guns has nothing to do with the amount of respect you receive from police. We know gang members are often armed. People who look like they may be gang members aren’t exactly treated with deference by the cops.

    The reasons why our police don’t bully & harass everyone are that we have a relatively honest police force & we have recourse to the courts. Our system still has a lot of flaws, but I’ll take our police over those of Mexico or Afghanistan.

    I’d be curious to know if anyone thinks the police in Germany, Australia or Japan are oppressing their citizens because they have fewer guns.

  14. Uncle Joe

    Uncle Joe GoComics PRO Member said, about 2 years ago

    @edinbaltimore

    It may be a coincidence, but the people who talk loudest about “The Founding Fathers”, seem to have a weak grasp on history. Michelle Bachmann is Exhibit A,. There are plenty more here.

  15. prfesser

    prfesser said, about 2 years ago

    The function of SCOTUS is to determine if an act of legislation is consistent with the Constitution, not to determine what the Constitution should or should not be taken as saying. Too often, SCOTUS has taken an activist position and presumed to reinterpret the Constitution, and that is why we have problems with how the Constitution deals with firearms.
    -
    Newshound41 is completely correct. The “civilian” militia has been generally interpreted to mean police forces, but I think it most applies to maintaining a National Guard – each state maintains it, and it is under the authority of the executive of the State. This was intended to avoid the possibility of a Federal military force stepping into a state under any pretense to exert Federal will on State’s behavior.

  16. Load 15 more comments. | Load the rest (35).