Matt Davies for May 10, 2010

  1. Snowleopard
    GJ_Jehosaphat  almost 14 years ago

    The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended to include only weapons available when it was written. Since muskets were the primary weapon - that should suffice present day gun owners. Oh & make your own bullets too.

     •  Reply
  2. Missing large
    comYics  almost 14 years ago

    Corruption is the enemy.

     •  Reply
  3. Cylonb
    Mephistopheles  almost 14 years ago

    I think this is less about guns and more about the attorney.

    Actually I find it terribly unsettling that the government was concerned that this doofus might get to talk to a lawyer. He is a citizen, and by law, has the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you want to strip him of his citizenship, find a way and be done with it.

    But really, does anybody think the state’s case is sooo shakey that it can prosecute this guy. If the case is that weak then he should be let go.

     •  Reply
  4. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago

    “Where is a right to an attorney guaranteed a citizen?”

    Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

    United States Bill of Rights
     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    Withan  almost 14 years ago

    Oh, and the 1st amendment only applies to Christian denominations accepted by the founding fathers and 18th century printing methods.

    Second is implied to have fewer or no limits as compared to the sixth by its stronger wording, but we accept that both need reasonable limits.

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    Withan  almost 14 years ago

    A totally false argument. I don’t believe anyone except Al Queda would say that an accused terrorist should be given a semi automatic rifle with a scope.

     •  Reply
  7. Missing large
    Gladius  almost 14 years ago

    The Obama administration seems to be considering Miranda rights as too dangerous for terrorists. Apparently, the public saftey ruling isn’t extreme enough for them.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    SherriannPederson  almost 14 years ago

    The concept of ‘groups of thugs’, ‘members of gangs’ or ‘bullies’ attacking the helpless was originally created by “Fernando and his wife Marian”. This is one of their many methods they used to destroy the humans they created in their humanities; other methods are: described in Queens song ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’; the concept of defacing humans so that they appear bizarre and cannot function as normal; and the concept of taking humans and placing them on planets which do not sustain life .

     •  Reply
  9. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member almost 14 years ago

    “This cartoon is silly and ignorant. We do not remove inalienable rights from people based upon suspicions.”

    That’s what the Right and Joe Liebermann are clamoring for, though. Joe Liebermann with the Bill and the Right with jumping at every chance to criticize the administration for Mirandizing them – just like Bush did.
     •  Reply
  10. Warcriminal
    WarBush  almost 14 years ago

    <=====^I kinda was hoping you’d forgotten about that.

     •  Reply
  11. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  almost 14 years ago

    Hey, we still have the Patriot Act.

     •  Reply
  12. Img 1055 1
    halfabug  almost 14 years ago

    laws or not, very bad people will get guns anyway. laws are for honest people.

     •  Reply
  13. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago

    If we didn’t HAVE any laws, how would we decide who to throw in jail? I guess we could do “One Potato, Two Potato”…

     •  Reply
  14. Warcriminal
    WarBush  almost 14 years ago

    ^How bout the wild wild west. The term “Let’s take it outside” wasn’t said for nothing.

     •  Reply
  15. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  almost 14 years ago

    To live outside the law you must be honest.

     •  Reply
  16. Missing large
    disgustedtaxpayer  almost 14 years ago

    First, Americans need to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution’s “rights” as being intended for American citizens only.

    Where (article, section, or amendment) does it say that foreigners enjoy citizen’s rights? Where does it say that terrorists, foreign or domestic, trying to destroy our government….deserve rights or defense at taxpayer expense? Foreign terror organizations have plenty of cash to fund terrorism, let them fund defense of terrorists caught.

     •  Reply
  17. Missing large
    jqmcd  almost 14 years ago

    What happened to the phrase in the Declaration of Independence declaring that “all men are created equal”? All. Not just Americans.

    The Sixth amendment protects citizens, terrorist or not. It’s one of those troubling but valuable truths about our Constitution.

    Corporations that manufacture guns have plenty of cash from gun sales, let them fund the defense of criminals who use the guns.

     •  Reply
  18. 1107121618000
    CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 14 years ago

    Give that guy a trial…

    He planned an attack against US citizens and was allied with people The US is at war with…that’s treason he should be tried for.

     •  Reply
  19. Thrill
    fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago

    “First, Americans need to correctly interpret the U.S. Constitution’s “rights” as being intended for American citizens only.”

    In Saudi Arabia, if a foreigner is involved in a traffic accident, the foreigner is always presumed to be at fault, because if he hadn’t been in the country in the first place the accident would never have happened.

    Due process of law is not a “government benefit” that can be withheld from noncitizens living (or visiting) within our borders. It is enshrined in our Constitution because the framers believed that is a fundamental right that the law makers must provide to all who are subject to its authority. Or would you similarly argue that noncitizens in the United States don’t have to obey our laws while they’re here?

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Matt Davies