Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Recommended

Comments (26) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    So the right to bear arms is a right and left thing? And here I thought it was just a simple right telling us what the government can not do. You know from that silly little thing called our constitution. You know the 2nd thing mentioned. I mean it was not as important as the 1st thing but I guess we need to get smart left thinking people on that court to read between the lines and tell us what it really means.

  2. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Oh no hide the family and wrap them in bubble wrap. That gun might cause “a fatal accident” It is just waiting to happen don’t you know. We must run to our courts right now to tell them they must get big mother government to take these harmful toys away from us.

  3. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 4 years ago

    harley, they have opened the door to having no restrictions of ANY kind on guns. News story: “Herb Titus, counsel for Gun Owners of America, told NPR that challenging the ban on [guns for] domestic violence offenders will be first on his slate of issues to tackle using the high court’s new ruling. It might sound weird to single out people who beat their children and spouses as a minority group in need of having their civil rights protected, but as gun proponents like Titus see it, firearm ownership is not a privilege, it’s a constitutionally protected right, and it should not be revoked on the basis of a minor criminal conviction. “And it’s not as though we don’t know how guns play into the domestic violence equation. Approximately 700 women are shot and killed by their intimate partners each year. In fact, American women are twice as likely to be killed by their partner as a stranger – and guns cause that risk to skyrocket. One study showed that access to firearms increases the risk of partner homicide five-fold.” http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/7/1089 Like I said earlier: let’s be honest here. The NRA is willing to let people get killed by the violent, the nutcases, and even terrorists in order to “protect” their Second Amendment rights. They want no restrictions whatsoever, despite the mass of past law and precedent. Admit it: this is an activist judicial decision, which overturns centuries of precedent.

  4. Jade

    Jade GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Your right to shoot someone in the face: more sacred than your right to marry the one you love.

  5. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, almost 4 years ago

    http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/30/gun-shy

    good article showing the phoney arguments from the 4 Liberal Justices in their dissent to Monday’s 5-4 ruling. Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion…I wish I could find Alito’s arguments quoted in a similiar article…

    IMO the wannabe dictators first disarm the citizens. Then the People have no defense against a government gone bad. And I see an American government going bad.

    Our Founders wrote about the possibility in the future that Americans would need to oppose a wayward government. That day is nearer now.

  6. Justice22

    Justice22 said, almost 4 years ago

    ^ The wayward government just ended though there are still remnants.

  7. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, almost 4 years ago

    MM you forget the Founders set up a government where debate pro and con is expected on every issue of law.

    The NRA is opposed by many Lib/Left groups like the Brady Campaign….using the same tactics to get their arguments before the government that has the power to legislate.

    The problem with legislation seems to me to be that so few bad and likely unconstitutional laws are challenged!

    In this case…gun ownership is a federal constitutional RIGHT. Period.

    Liberals make the oath of office “to support and defend the US Constitution” meaningless when they assert that it is supposed to be “interpreted” so that the original clear meaning is nullified.

    And what good is a “Right” if feds and states and cities are free to pass tons of regulations and time delays and high fees?

  8. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, almost 4 years ago

    Jade…what an inane statement…you equated the right to own a gun with “your right to shoot someone in the face”!

    NOT…!!!

    Every gunowner must obey other laws against using the gun to commit crimes, including attempted murder.

    Shooting someone in self-defense is not a crime.

  9. dwnoname

    dwnoname said, almost 4 years ago

    if your dick cheney you apparently have the right to shoot someone in the face

  10. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    harley, they have opened the door to having no restrictions of ANY kind on guns.

    close but no! The government should not restrict gun ownership. But of course to a lib that does mean none. I mean if we do not have mother government telling us what we can not do we will just turn into caveman beast and shoot everyone. Instead you are the one that does not want to follow the rule of law back to the basics of what we can do. That would mean personal responsibility,and no purpose for mother government.

  11. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    The “original clear meaning” is that if you are in a well-regulated militia” you have a right to “bear arms” , like swords and muskets, to protect the nation and community against invasions.

    The Court still specifically supports REGULATION, they just rejected a BLANKET BAN on all possession in the home, and they stated that the FEDERAL ROLE takes precedence over the states, (or cities) in defining the scope of those regulations.

    I agree that five of nine may have lost touch with the document they’re supposed to uphold.

  12. 3139lip

    3139lip said, almost 4 years ago

    Ever since the W presidency I have become a supporter of the right to bear arms, because it is a lot harder for anti-democracy tyrants to rule over an armed populace than an unarmed people.

    That said, it is obvious that the right is subject to reasonable rules. I think even the NRA wouldn’t support the right of private citizens to own nuclear bombs. So the issue is really about what rules are reasonable in what place and under what circumstances.

  13. Harleyquinn

    Harleyquinn GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    I have been doing a lot of reading lately about this,. The “militia” clause was debated and rewritten many times but the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ” was present in all of the revisions and debates. Now to what purpose those guns where kept can be modified. But unlike the libs of today they saw no problem with the ownership. They where not worried about ownership. From some of what I have read they believed more guns in the hands of individuals was a good thing.

  14. Jade

    Jade GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    “Jade…what an inane statement…you equated the right to own a gun with “your right to shoot someone in the face”!”

    In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile. http://law.jrank.org/pages/10128/Self-Defense.html See Also: In Defense of Property

    <3

  15. rotts

    rotts GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Here’s the 2nd Amendment text, in case you’ve forgotten:

    “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.”

    It’s written in the vernacular of the late 18th Century. If it were written in today’s vernacular, albeit with the same intent, it would likely read:

    “Because a well-regulated military is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    It’s obvious that the reasoning behind the granting of this “right” is to insure that, since there was at the time no official standing army, any potential conscripts would likely have their own weapons, so the government wouldn’t have to provide them.

    Today, all “militias” (military, National Guard, police, etc.) are provided weapons, and are not allowed to use their own. Therefore, the second amendment is essentially meaningless today, when taken in the context of its original intent.

    And aren’t strict Constitutionalists fixated on the Constitution’s original intent?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (11).