Tony Auth by Tony Auth

Tony Auth

Comments (20) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Justice22

    Justice22 said, almost 2 years ago

    Just quit trying to take MY guns from me.

  2. Michael McGuire

    Michael McGuire said, almost 2 years ago

    Nobody is trying to take your guns, just trying to calm your paranoia.

  3. ARodney

    ARodney said, almost 2 years ago

    Let’s see… looking at this cartoon, can I think of a reason the secret service protects Obama’s children whether Obama wants them to or not? The NRA is a morally corrupt organization that makes more money from gun manufacturers than it does from gun owners, it will not accept even commonsense measures to enforce the laws we already have.

  4. masterskrain

    masterskrain GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    I’d like someone to clear up something for me…does the President’s proposed legislation suggest that the Government can “Kick Open Your Door and take away the guns you already own”, like the N.R.A. seems to be insinuating, OR does it ONLY limit the sales of certain types of weapons and ammunition/clips IN THE FUTURE??
    Just wondering…

  5. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, almost 2 years ago

    This is a cut and paste from a post under another toon.
    Having used Fox News as a reference recently, I feel less guilty than usual for suggesting readers go to Dailyshow.com and watch the first 15 minutes of Wednesday night’s show.
    Mr. Stewart’s comedy was forced as he presented a compelling story about the NRA and the ATF. I spent an hour after watching the show and was able to confirm most of it from objective sources. I am angry that I have to hear this information from a comedy show when its importance on the debate raging in Congress is so immediate.
    I have always tried to use objective sources when making my points and ask that you be patient with me this one time. I would not waste your time if I didn’t find this info so compelling.
    I will copy and paste this msg where the cartoon is appropriate. I’m going to play with my grand baby tomorrow and have to pack.
    Respectfully,
    C.

  6. alcors3

    alcors3 said, almost 2 years ago

    Obama protects children? He doesn’t mind aborting them if they are inconvenient. Nut case shooters are just late term abortionists. Libs should support them.

  7. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    @masterskrain

    You mean like Nixon’s No Knock policy where they kicked in doors to take peoples drugs?

  8. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    alcors says:
    Nut case shooters are just late term abortionists. Libs should support them.

    .
    They right wingers have obviously gone round the bend to crazy town.

  9. Doughfoot

    Doughfoot said, almost 2 years ago

    Hardly anything that Obama has proposed is not already law in one state or another. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has the power to place limits and controls on weapon ownership. It does not have the power to deny people the right to keep and bear arms. There is nothing in his proposals to prevent anyone who is mentally stable and has no criminal record from buying a hand gun and a trunk full of ten-round clips, or a shotgun and a thousand shells.

    Though statistics show that a gun in the house is more likely to harm a family member than an intruder, and households without guns are much less likely than households with to suffer domestic murder and suicide, I have no doubt that many a “bad guy” has been scared off, or otherwise thwarted by good people with guns. But I have never yet heard any story about a citizen who was harmed or suffered because his pistol or his shotgun had not enough firepower to protect him.

    In the US, more murders are committed with bare hands that with rifles of all kinds. More murder are committed with knives than with rifles. Some rifle are designed to look military, and they were labeled “assault rifles” by gunmakers who knew that name would attract customers. Defining the term is almost impossible because a gun is a collection of features no one of which defines the type, and many of which can be added or taken off by the owner. In that respect defining “assault rifle” is like defining “pornography” and just about as difficult, subjective, and arbitrary. Though not impossible. “I know it when I see it.” The vast majority of people can absolutely be trusted with an AR-15, and I am sure they are fun to own and shoot. The only people I worry about are those who think they NEED an AR-15, or who think it more than an unnecessary inconvenience if they were not able to buy one.

    The old assault weapons ban of a few years ago did not take away any gun from anyone. It did restrict the sale of certain types. Such a ban requires decades to have much effect other than drive up prices.

    The NRA is beneath contempt in not dealing with this issue honestly. The president said he is skeptical that armed guards at schools are enough, not that he is against the practice of having security in schools. To suggest the only way to reduce violence in this country is for more people to have guns (the current hundreds of thousands of weapons not being enough) is absurd. Most murders and suicides are impulse actions, and having more and more people with access to instant lethal power will not reduce the level of violence. Having a deadly weapon in your house is not only a right, but it is a grave responsibility, not to be treated lightly. They don’t have to be shills for the arms industry in order to protect the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms in not in dispute. That limits can be placed on what weapons people possess is not in dispute. Nobody wants land mines, hand grenades, and nerve gas for sale at Walmart. What regulations of arms are most conducive to public safety, that is the question. Keeping weapons out of the hands of irresponsible people, and seeing that people are sufficiently but not excessively armed, are matters of public safety.

  10. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 2 years ago

    @rightisright

    Wipe your mouth. Your rabid froth is showing.

  11. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 2 years ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Getting bored with kids dying?

  12. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, almost 2 years ago

    @alcors3

    YES, HE GOES IN PERSONALLY AND CUTS THEM OUT WITHOUT GIVING THE WOMAN A CHOICE… ok are we done being idiots now? He is for giving the woman a choice – not something that seems to be on the republican mind a whole lot, or for that matter about children once they are born. But some entity they can´t see (and not just the fetus…) is so much more important.

  13. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, almost 2 years ago

    @Ms. Ima

    Was about to agree with last part, but then saw I misread from “I´m getting boring”.

  14. Paul Harvey

    Paul Harvey said, almost 2 years ago

    @masterskrain

    If we have less guns then we are less safe. Plus less guns means the Gubmint can take us over easier.

  15. Paul Harvey

    Paul Harvey said, almost 2 years ago

    PresBo is using the kids as human shields, just like Saddam did.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (5).