Matt Wuerker for January 07, 2013

flint-lock rifles and muskets were a bit different than what we have now.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm^That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service^In Williamsburg, Va., you can watch craftsmen making guns of the 1770’s using tools of the day. You can also see ‘militia’ loading and firing the weapons. As better guns were made, I’m certain there were many discussions on what the potential of guns would be.Better range, cartridges that increased firing times from 1 minute per shot to 2 or even three shots per minute might have been discussed. When Mr. Gatling introduced his gun after the civil war(?), people probably looked at it as we do mini-guns. I once read the inventor of the water cooled machine gun received a Nobel Peace Prize because no one would send soldiers against such weapons. I can’t find a citation for that so, it may be hearsay.A tv news team went to a recent gun show and among the guns being sold were 50cal machine guns.These are not hunting weapons.No doubt in my mind.Respectfully,C.

I very much like the spirit of this cartoon. Good job.

In Chicago more deaths were caused by hammers then guns?

Add “sarcasm” to the list of things Ima doesn’t understand. (Either when reading it or trying to use it… I can’t be sure which… or maybe both?).

Harley look it up, 87% of Chicago’s 2012 homicides were from gunshots. Per CPD.Your selective reading of your own sources demonstrates why you lack credibility.

Followed your links… 2011 FBI report says that of 12,664 murders, 8,583 involved firearms. Not helpful to your overall case, I think.

So you are dropping your death by hammer claim?

Sarcasm in posted comments is sometimes easy to misinterpret (though I don’t think I do that more often than most people) but Ima seems to have missed the sarcasm in the cartoon.

“And the 2nd is not vague. It is about personal freedom. Something the group mentality of loony libs do not understand.”_______________________

Agree in the sense that the Second Amendment empowers We, The People to rise up against the sort of tyranny that would take away the right to bear arms from law-abiding citizens, leaving criminals, terrorists and (ahem) ‘law enforcement agencies’ the only ones that DO have and bear arms. If the 2nd Amendment is overly compromised, ask yourself what is next?…?…I do not believe for a minute that the Founding Fathers envisioned our nation becoming one where automatic (or semi-automatic) “arms” were the self-defense weapon of choice. But they weren’t just referring to “muskets an’ flintlocks” – they were protecting personal freedom and the future of the new republic itself.What we DO know is that they heartily embraced personal freedoms and the liberties of the citizenry…they’d had a bellyful of King George the tyrant…and they vowed to avoid a repeat by establishing a more limited and accountable form of government – “small” government – not some bloated leviathan monstrosity that would waste many times over what it would spend, and shove itself into every aspect of Americans’ lives!-Also, I do not NOT endorse the idea that the solution is for MORE guns, any more than I endorse the notion that MORE spending holds the solution for our out-of-control national debt. Fundamentally, “When you find yourself in a hole, the first order of business is to stop digging!”*History is a powerful teacher, if we will but listen to what it has to say:In the early 1030’s when Adolf Hitler was establishing the ironfisted control of his Third Reich, one of his first ‘executive orders’ was that ALL guns of all types must be confiscated from the people – removing their primary means of fighting the brutal tyranny of the government. Mussolini did the same thing, an’ so did Stalin. These nations had no equivalent to our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment. When you look at how the fates of those (and other) nations have played out, you can see how important this American freedom to bear arms has been for our nation.The very preservation of our basic liberty as free citizens is at stake.President John F. Kennedy famously said,“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”These are very powerful words, and they resonate with meaning for all Americans in 2013 every bit as much as when he spoke them a half-century ago.May GOD grant us the wisdom an’ strength to keep America free.

The best way to stop alcoholism is to hand out booze at AA meetings.What, you say that doesn’t make sense?

What is the relevance of your link? JoeCool said, “In the early 1930’s when Adolf Hitler was establishing the ironfisted control of his Third Reich, one of his first ‘executive orders’ was that ALL guns of all types must be confiscated from the people – removing their primary means of fighting the brutal tyranny of the government.” He’s wrong. Your link — whatever else one might say about it — is about Austria from 1938 to 1943, and therefore it has nothing to do with Germany in 1933. Joe was wrong. If you think he was right, you are wrong. If you think that your link proves anything about Hitler and gun control in Germany in the early 1930s, you are wrong. Perhaps I’m not making myself clear enough. Wrong.

Harly: The Kent State shootings were done by idiot National Guardsmen who panicked and didn’t know what they were doing, and shouldn’t have been issued bullets. I TAUGHT riot control to our trooops, and would never have given them permission to load their weapons given the situaltion at Kent State. I wouldn’t trust “reservists” any further.

My semi-automatic Sig .45 holds eight rounds, and that is MORE than enough to handle a single, or even a couple of assailants. BTW,, and “auto loading” pistol, rifle, or shotgun IS an “automatic weapon”, by definition. A “fULLY automatic” weapon is a “machine, psitol, rifle, or shotgun” when a single trigger pull fires multiple rounds. Our M-16s in ’Nam had 15 round clips/magazines (same thing), and that was for COMBAT! My belt fed M-60 had hundreds of rounds. Our M-79 grenade launcher in the nose of that Chinook had several thousand rounds available.

More than 12 rounds (as in 9 mm pistols) or FIVE rounds (the legal hunting maximum) for rifles or shtoguns should be the maximum legally available to “civilians”, and the law should be retroactive, banning larger capacity magazines, period.

The “no guns within a certain distance of a school”, IS a totally idiotic proposal however, as in my town, when they talked of this, it would have been illegal for anyone living in the town to own a firearm. The distribution of our schools would have put every home within the “ban” zone.

Logical regulations on firearms ARE possilbe, but neither the “gun nut” NRA, NOR the “anti-gun nuts” should be writing those regulations. SANE and responsible gun owners should be looking at those potentila regulations.

Finally, we need a single payer, NATIONAL HEALTH PLAN, still using private doctors and hospitals, that includes viable MENTAL HEALTH evaluation and care, both outpatient and “in patient”. Removing the stigma from “non-violent” mental condtions would also help people get help, like with PTSD, schitzophria, or other “anxiety disorders” etc.

Not at all important but aren’t flintlock guns smooth-bore – not “rifles”? Mine has no rifling.

Well drawn but below the belt. To paraphrase Stormin’ Norman, " bovine scatology."

The amendment wasn’t vague to the “founding fathers”. They knew exactly what it meant. No arm of government was to be able to round up firearms or limit the citizens access to firearms. Period.

Anybody else need anything clarified?

First: hammers are used for other things than killing people. Banning hammers would be very bad. Guns are used exclusively for killing.Second: Breitbart.com (the source of the “hammer vs. gun” meme) was very selective in its numbers, comparing “blunt objects” to “rifles.” Add up ALL other forms of killing – fire, drowning, poison, strangling, hammers, etc.- you get 4,081 non-gun homicides. That’s fewer than half of the 8,583 gun homicides. Guns OVERALL killed more than 17 times more people than hammers and are responsible for nearly 70 percent of total murders.

Those claiming hammers cause more deaths than guns, should try using a gun for a hammer, and pull the “hammer” back on it before trying to drive the nail!

Harley: Since libs are the onestrying to get us to argue about more guns being the problem, I guess WLaP is a Loony Lib? HE brought it up! Also, saying the presence of a gun has stopped more crime, without any backup statistic, of which I doubt there are any, is asking us to try to prove a negative.

Idjits, that’s why the founders used “arms” instead of saying muskets or flintlocks, because they knew, as people know today, that arm’s would continue to evolve. Just like people do, and thus didn’t want to use any language THAT specific just because some power hungry Idiot would seize on the language to restrict weapon types (much as that power hungry bastard “President for Life” Roosevelt did).

So its NOT a joke. The word “Arms” was used intentionally to apply to ALL weapons used by the MILITARY of all nations.

Historical Revisionism for the liberal. BTW, read the writings of the original authors and there is no freaking way one could arrive at any point of validity for this strip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that “all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately.”2 Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years’ imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.On August 7, 1920, the German government enacted a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.In 1928, the German government enacted the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.Stephen Halbrook writes about the German gun restriction laws in the 1919-1928 period, “Within a decade, Germany had gone from a brutal firearms seizure policy which, in times of unrest, entailed selective yet immediate execution for mere possession of a firearm, to a modern, comprehensive gun control law.”3The 1938 German Weapons ActThe 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm. Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to “…persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit.” Under the new law:•Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition.”4•The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.5•The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.5•The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.5•Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or dealing of firearms and ammunition.6Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns’ serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.7

Yes, Bruce, I did look at your site. It’s better than most of such sites, because it keeps close enough to the historical record so that it’s possible to see how it refutes itself.

Here’s a passage from your site: “As a result of the 1928 Law, all firearms and firearms owners were registered. To take firearms from anyone they distrusted, the Nazis simply did not renew permits. Under the law, their privately created law, the Nazis could now easily confiscate all firearms and ammunition from any, or all, selected groups. The gun law of 1928 had served the Nazis well. It made almost all law abiding firearms owners known to the authorities. The 1928 law on firearms and ammunition helped the Nazis to destroy democracy in Germany, by disarming the law abiding majority, whom they feared."

Well, it’s good that your site admits that the law was passed in 1928 — five years before the Nazis came to power. But then it makes unsubstantiated claims — it says the Nazis “could easily confiscate all firearms” — but it gives no evidence at all that any such confiscations took place. And your site asserts that the gun law helped to destroy democracy, but it doesn’t say how.

The site is also very misleading when it says “Under the law, their private created law….” What does that mean?

I don’t want to go on and on, but just a little more. Your site says, “The Nazis came to power legally. They were voted into power. In elections held on March 5, 1933, the Nazis fell short of 50 percent of the vote. Hitler, afraid the public might oust him, didn’t plan to hold more elections. On March 23, 1933, parliament voted to give him emergency powers under the Constitution. There were no more elections in Germany until after World War II. The Nazis were far from being popular with the German people. The Nazis knew that many Germans opposed them. The Nazis used the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition to disarm their opponents and to prevent any armed resistance. The Nazis, at most, were a minority of the German population, not the majority. The Nazis operated within the Law. But in Germany, as here, a small private elite group wrote and defined the Law.”

Yes, the Nazis did come to power legally, but after a lot of unrest, as the site notes a little earlier, including a lot of street fighting between Nazis and Communists. (I recall that Trotsky writes about all this very well, by the way, but it’s been some years since I’ve read him.) But the site is misleading when it says, “The Nazis were far from being popular with the German people. The Nazis knew that many Germans opposed them.” Certainly there were anti-Nazi Germans, but overall, The Nazis were pretty popular, Hitler especially, and increasingly so. The site suggests, without quite saying so, that if the Germans had been armed they would have risen up against the Nazis — but without any evidence to back up this suggestion. The site says “The Nazis used the 1928 law … to disarm their opponents”, but again, no evidence. And as the wiki article notes, the 1938 law actually relaxed some of the restrictions on gun ownership.

It’s easy to make claims. But evidence makes a difference. If you have evidence that the Nazis actually did engage in widespread confiscation, I will happily accept it. But in the absence of such evidence, the rise of Hitler does not support the attacks on current efforts to control guns.

No, America 2013 is a nation of personality cultists and media protectors/propagandists like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It is still mostly a country governed by law despite the “Patriot Act” and “The War on Drugs”. I’m what you probably would call a “liberal”. I was educated in an American school system run by a local school board before G.W. Bush decided “no child will be left behind” but thought lots of tests would be better than well supported teachers. That education had some shortcomings, but I keep learning, and think my understanding of history is better than yours. Now tell us what you don’t like about the New Deal and why you think it was all unconstitutional. Oh and I’m dying to hear all about the medical history you had to fill out for the IRS.