Jules Feiffer has described Tony Auth best, "His perspective is that of a bemused and often angry comic historian. Irony, never a favorite form with Americans, is his meat and potatoes. He is not smug, and though he can be mean, he is never mean-spirited. Auth is a moralist and an optimist. He insists, even in this day and age, that hope is more than the name of a right-wing comedian or the shtick of a reactionary president."
© The Philadelphia Inquirer - All Rights Reserved.
Chuck Asay by Chuck Asay
Clay Bennett by Clay Bennett
Comments (49) (Please sign in to comment)
Bill Ewing
said, over 3 years ago
Ain’t that the truth, ANandy.
It is amazing how the left can ignore the fact that when the law abiding populace is armed, AND KNOWN to be armed, the crime rate goes down. The average un-brain dead criminal doesn’t know whether the one he is accosting is armed or not. It gives him pause.
Now the brain dead, hop-head is too stupid to live anyway. His attacking a legally armed citizen tends to reduce the gene pool of idiots.
“An armed society is a POLITE society.” R. A. Heinlein.
jkw802 said, over 3 years ago
If what is popular on TV these days is any indication of the general intelligence of the population, then no one should be permitted to carry a gun. Carrying a gun doesn’t make you smart no matter what side of the law your on.
one-non-blonde said, over 3 years ago
the first two posts were right on! Carrying a gun legally requires special training on the law and how to handle it. I spent 8 hours in class to be able to carry.
We need to stop the gun shows that just sell guns to everyone! it’s ruining it for the rest of us legal, law abiding people.
ray32648 said, over 3 years ago
This lefty sees no problem with it as long as every spent round can be traced back to the owner of the gun that fired it.
Now I suspect we’ll hear more of the wingnut scare tactics we’ve come to expect. “Ooooooooo! If they know I own a gun they’ll come take it away! Oooooooo!”
greatblue
said, over 3 years ago
I believe in the right to arm bears, myself.
naxetevitan said, over 3 years ago
True that ammunition can be traced to most guns. Just wait until the phaser becomes popular. No bodies even.
Corosive Frog
said, over 3 years ago
We have the right to drive cars! Down with driver’s licenses!
The best remedy against drunk nut with a big car driving too fast is another car with a bigger car driving even faster!
cdward said, over 3 years ago
A few thoughts. It’s not true that unarmed societies are less safe. In fact, the countries with the strictest weapons laws (Japan, most of western Europe) also have the lowest murder rates. The US, on the other hand, has the highest gun death rate of any wealthy country.
Having said that, I’m not opposed to gun ownership as long as each gun owner is required to receive special training by government certified teachers as a condition of licensing. This is currently not the case, and one gun enthusiast told me he’d rather be dead than required to take the training. Since the second amendment begins, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” it is reasonable to indicate that proper training falls within the understanding of “well regulated.”
lonecat said, over 3 years ago
Good point, cdward. “Well regulated” does not mean no regulations.
Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago
You have the right to bear arms. The state has the right to supervise you in that right. One way to fulfill the spirit and intent of the constitution would be to require a mandatory “basic” training course for all (male and female) citizens in local militia tactics if they want to own and/or carry firearms.
These people would be available for emergency action in their community. It would be without pay as a contribution to their community. And then all would be properly trained in the use and care of their firearms.
I own, I am permitted and I carry when the situation indicates I should. I would support this type of program.
MILDOG172 said, over 3 years ago
It should be required of all qaulified citizens to carry a firearm at all times. Sure there will be some adjustment in population but in time crime will go away. Why do we insist on giving criminals the upper hand.
motivemagus said, over 3 years ago
cdward is right. Will all due respect to the late, great Robert Heinlein, he was hilariously wrong on this point. The Old West (to take one example) was not a polite society, it was a society where people shot at each other when they could get away with it. If you compare handgun deaths, the US is typically in the 15-20,000 range, around 14 deaths per 100K people. That makes us the highest of the 36 richest countries in the world by a significant margin. Northern Ireland has only 6.7, for Pete’s sake. Oh, and the majority of those deaths aren’t fighting off burglars, they are accidental deaths or killing family members (e.g., crimes of passion).
The tougher the laws, generally the fewer the handgun deaths.
celt42 said, over 3 years ago
The Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to bear arms, no matter what the Supreme Court says. Down the years the Amendment has been perversely misrepresented to favour the gun-making industry when all it really does is assume that in terms of the times, the late 1700s, there was need for “a well regulated militia”. It might even be argued that with such a strong standing army, such as the US has today, the Amendment is redundant.
mancocapac
said, over 3 years ago
For you fools complaining about liberals, grow up. Decisions on gun ownership is not a left-right debate. There are plenty of leftists who support gun rights.
Radish
said, over 3 years ago
There were times when I was driving that I was glad I did not have a gun or I would have shot some idiot driver…