Tom Toles for February 27, 2013

I suspect the legislation will get a burst of laughter in the end, or just a three round burst.

Uncle Sam should have the target on his back. The rest of us sure do.

Careful, the starting gun (blanks) will draw armed response.

Right on Target (as always)

Let’s go back to “original intent” – flintlocks! One shot, a puff of smoke to show shooter location, and a half minute to reload.. Omnius: We haven’t had a “well regulated militia” for 150 years. It was abandoned for conscription during the Civil war. The real purpose of the second amendment was to “ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense” without recourse to the European evils of a large standing army, mercenaries, or conscription (what we have now). Although the draft is not currently enforced, it is still on the books – high unemployment-forced “volunteering” has replaced it since it mainly targets the poor – as assignments did when it was in force (see W).

Probably because, in spite of that, the NRA claims that even one will lead to the confiscation of guns.

I’m all for confiscating everyone’s guns. Just as long as I keep mine.

“fomenting”

Wow, what a big word for such a simplistic racist remark. You really need to do some Yoga or Tai Chi to calm down. I think you are fomenting high blood pressure and enormous anger over the myriad of hateful thoughts that reside in your little mind…

“Well ordered militias…”

The SOTUS defined that when they handed down the Heller ruling. The made a careful distinction between the right to personal ownership of firearms separate from the militia clause.

Ionizer needs to realize that gun laws do not equal guns. That’s the only way the comment makes sense.

Why does the NRA oppose any sensible action? I really don’t understand that.

Hey Tigger, are you in a militia? THAT is the way the 2nd SHOULD be interpreted. Our founders did NOT want a standing army, and figured that, when called upon, our citizenry would rise up and defend their country. The Preamble states “to provide for the COMMON defense”, NOT the NATIONAL defense. And yes I realize that times change, but why do “original intenters” not go with “original intent” on this issue?

As I said, I realize times change. And we started putting a standing army together then. Until recently we have always cut back our military between wars, at times to our regret. But again, original intenters would have said no, just the militia, As I said, why is original intent good for some issues but not for others?