Tom Toles by Tom Toles

Tom Toles

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 6 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.” 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.

  2. Jade

    Jade GoComics PRO Member said, over 6 years ago

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

  3. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, over 6 years ago

    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.

  4. Justice22

    Justice22 said, over 6 years ago

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

  5. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, over 6 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?

  6. disgustedtaxpayer

    disgustedtaxpayer said, over 6 years ago

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


    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.

  7. dwnoname

    dwnoname said, over 6 years ago

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

  8. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 6 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.

  9. 3139lip

    3139lip said, over 6 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.

  10. Jade

    Jade GoComics PRO Member said, over 6 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. See Also: In Defense of Property


  11. rotts

    rotts said, over 6 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?

  12. Prof_Bleen

    Prof_Bleen said, over 6 years ago

    Does anyone who trots out the “need to protect ourselves from the government” canard ever consider how well an AK-47-armed gun nut would do against an Abrams M1A1 tank? Or a squad of soldiers armed with M16s and flamethrowers? Didn’t think so.

  13. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 6 years ago

    disgustedtaxpayer: First, do you see ANYONE here trying to disarm the citizens? Answer: No. Second, would you care to agree with my statement, then? That putting guns back into the hands of proven violent people and letting them shoot their wives is simply the price we must pay for an absolutist Second Amendment? Third, as you pointed out, everything is debated. Yep. Including the Second Amendment, which simply does not say what the NRA wants it to say, which is: everyone is entitled to all the weapons they want, with no restrictions. Fourth: how do you feel about states’ rights? Funny how the right, which consistently defends them, has come down hard against them on this single case…

  14. Justice22

    Justice22 said, over 6 years ago

    NRA is motivated by only one thing, the coveted dollar. I was a member for many years, but it became too political for me. Take away the money and the NRA officials would disappear.

  15. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 6 years ago

    I don’t “like” guns, but have them, and know how to use them.

    Prof Bleen- take that AK-47, I take my Remington 700 BDL with bull barrel and good sight- don’t need a tank to take out a platoon, give me some elevation, some cover, and I rule the day. A Barrett .50, and I take your tank too.

    Which, both of those are legal weapons that the writers of the Constitution couldn’t have conceived of at the time. (Well there may be a little issue with the armor-piercing incendiary rounds.)

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).