Ken, simple solution. Get all of your friends together and amend the Constitution to overturn the 2nd Amendment.
You simply don’t get it. It is the law of the land and in our Bill of Rights. Just why is that so difficult for you to understand?
I don’t like paying taxes but it is the law of the land. Seriously, read the 2nd Amendment, read the Heller decision, read the dissents and lastly read the McDonald decision.
It is like liberals and climate change. Instead of conservatives ignoring “science”, liberals are ignoring our basic framework of laws to govern this country.
We just ought to pay attention to the entire second amendment. Notice how we ignore the first part: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
I’m looking for the “well regulated” part, which the NRA wants nothing to do with.
I know it is fun to write here and you post on a subject debated literally millions of times. But it is a subject whose meaning has been definitively decided. The debate is over.
When Heller was debated your viewpoint re militia was presented over and over again. The 9 Justices read the briefs, saw your POV well presented and made their decision.
Despite what Jade thinks all 9 justices agreed that the RKBA could be modified by both the states and the Federal government. It was not absolute. Some of the suggestions of allowable restrictions were convicted felons, mentally ill and place where carried. It was not decided how to view proposed restrictions.
Should they be subject to reasonable scrutiny or strict scrutiny? Undecided.
Based on that 4 Justices voted that the DC restrictions were reasonable and DC could ban all weapons. Five justices disagreed and voted that DC’s total ban and subsequently in McDonald, Chicago’s total ban were unconstitutional. That debate continues to this day and will go on, case by case, for many years. The individual’s RKBA was established and guaranteed.
However there was one thing all 9 Justices agreed upon. The RKBA was an individual right NOT just a collective right through a militia. That has been definitively decided. Your clause was a preface not limiting clause. So what you wrote is totally outdated. It has been decided. What you write is the equivalent of saying “I think the government may censor FOX”. You may wish that but it has been decided what the law is.
I’m sure when 6 millions Jews were led to the concentration camps, they all thought, “Thank goodness for Hitler’s outlawing guns! We might have hurt ourselves or others!”
I’m sure then you must depise the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto for smuggling and hoarding firearms, to fight against the Nazi’s. After all, they broke the gun control law!
Or the 1plus million unarmed Cambodians tortured and butchered in Pol Pot’s killing fields is your perfect idea of a gun regulated society.
Or perhaps you begrudge my 76 year-old grandmother for shooting a drifter breaking and entering her home in self-defense, because obviously the perp was just “misunderstood.”
Or is it you truly believe that only government is responsible enough to handle deadly force, and should have the only monopoly on it, and we should implicit trust them not to misuse it.
Every human being has the right to self-defense. And no one should expect government to take over that responsibly. I mean really, you criticize how wasteful and irresponsible government is all the time, You trust them to keep you safe? Good luck with that!!
In the Constitution, the word “regulated” had, at the time it was written, nothing contextually to do with regulations or imposed limits; it meant a well trained militia, as in practiced and ready to join a fight without years of military training. This is documented by analysis of the phrase “well regulated militia” in original correspondence from that period of history (do your own homework), when the methods of field battle using firearms against the British and other already-trained regular army units required many months or even years of training in formations, signals, and muzzle-loaded weapon usage. The point was, and still is, that citizens (back then only men) were expected to own and be proficient with firearms to oppose with no hesitation the seeds of tyranny from within, or invasion from without these United States.
Ironically, because the American population generally doesn’t know its own history, the NRA does not normally argue the militia clause, preferring to cite hunting, sporting, and defense of home and family as the reasons to keep and bear arms (all good and solid reasons); even though opposition to the sort of overbearing government we’re currently under is the only reason given in the words of the Second Amendment.
Yeah, this is a dead horse under a heavy beating. Decided, as Lib1 says. But it remains under constant attack nonetheless because it’s in the way of the enemies of Liberty, which is taken for granted even by the liberals who attack it daily.
These are truly great times for comics and political cartoons; we all just beg to be mocked from every angle, don’t we?
Lib1, as was also debated earlier, the recent changes in interpretation by this court may not be settled, done, and over. The Supreme Court just recently overturned over 100 years of precedent in interpretation; it may get reversed again.
In Bill Mahr’s film ‘Religulous’, he makes the point that the NRA makes up less than 2% of the population. To the point of the film, he estimates atheists make up 16% yet we have had a recent sitting president say he didn’t think atheists should be allowed the vote. So I guess having guns does give you more influence.
This cartoon seems to support the 2nd Amendment – perhaps we have had no tyrants to be overthrown BECAUSE of the RKBA, just as we have had no political prisoners like Iran’s or North Korea’s BECAUSE of the right to free speech, or no government-run newspapers (except perhaps Stars & Stripes) BECAUSE of the right to free press. The Founders saw this right as prophylactic, not corrective, and it has proven so. Also, some might say that there have been some tyrants removed, such as Huey Long, but I won’t go there.
The law of the land is whatever 5 members of the Supreme Court say it is. You are obviously correct. 5 Justices could reverse Heller, 5 Justices could overrule Roe, etc
“It is like liberals and climate change. Instead of conservatives ignoring “science”, liberals are ignoring our basic framework of laws to govern this country.”
You mean like how Conservatives want to remove the 14th Amendment to stop “anchor babies?”
@BeenThere - While you’re arguing anecdotes, especially about Jews and the Holocaust, and how if they “had guns” they wouldn’t have died (which is just silly), let’s look at this another way: So we have some psychos in a church who think that there should be a national “Shoot a f**” day. So do we LGBT people need to have guns now because gun nuts want to come hunt us like animals with the guns that they’re so ‘proudly’ allowed to display? After all, if we have guns, no one will shoot us, right?
“So the 2nd is untouchable and the 14th is disposable?”
Interesting how that is, huh? “Well the wording of the 14th is inconvenient, but the 2nd, yeah, they totally meant for people to wander around with Sniper rifles and automatic weapons, especially in our nation’s capital [read: near our leadership]. Tree of Liberty gets thirsty and what not.”
Next it’ll be: “Well we know what the 1st amendment says but we think what the founding fathers meant is freedom of the ‘One True Religion’…”
For starts, how about putting Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini on the left side of the scoreboard? Make note of how many people THEY killed before they were eliminated.
Of course he doesn’t say how many were killed by illegal guns that criminals would have with or without gun control. Or how many people were saved by having a gun.
Hey Tom, take a look at Australia where they banned guns and violent crimes went up over 30%.
a well regulated Militia can be had buy filing incorparation papers as a non profit – the ability to buy amno and stuff without paying sales tax covers cost of filing
I have rifles, shotguns, pistols and a revolver. The NRA rarely mentions long guns in any of their actions. It is HAND GUNS that typically end up killing large numbers of people, NOT long rifles or shotguns.
Regulation of concealable HAND GUNS, and large capacity clips and magazines makes perfect sense, like drivers licenses, and the requirement for a Class C license to drive large trucks or vehicles. PROVE you know what you’re doing with the weapon, and are “safe” mentally.
Ann Coulter may be a “lawyer” but she IS a total NUT JOB!
Hand guns are the point of most court cases and deaths.
Where do most criminals get their guns? — From legal gun owners through theft and from gun shows. How many gun owners are shot by their own guns? I heard on the news today of a thief being shot by his own gun. Usually it is the other way around.
If I were going to repel an armed invasion, I’d rather have a howitzer, not a pistol.
algurka, Stalin wasn’t eliminated. He died of natural causes. And Hitler wasn’t overthrown by arms-bearing civilians (most were with him, or at least not-against-him); he was overthrown by the duly-organized armed forces of other nations (including Stalin’s). Mussolini also had the support of most of his countrymen, until he didn’t anymore.
My modest proposal, a modified version of the Swiss model. Anybody who wants to own a firearm can do so, but they must (a) demonstrate that they can use one safely (we do the same thing with drivers), and (b) make themselves available for emergency service in the National Guard or Army Reserve. That includes reporting regularly for disciplined training. No gender restrictions, no age limits… You can even own combat weaponry (within reason), provided you are trained properly.
Conduct large-scale mobilization drills regularly (maybe quarterly on the state or regional level, annually on the national level), so the learning-curve wouldn’t be too steep if a call-up (or call-out) were required. Reduce the standing army to a fraction of what it is now. Instead of a bunch of full-time soldiers sitting around the base waiting to be sent somewhere, have a much larger number of part-time soldiers who understand that they may sometime be activated.
If you can’t show that you can keep and operate your weapon safely, you lose your right to own one. If you can’t show that you’re meeting your service requirements, you lose your right to own firearms.
PS: Not to appear that I’m soft on fascism, but Mussolini simply wasn’t in the same class as Hitler or Stalin, bloodthirsty-tyrant-wise. Yeah, he was a tin-pot autocrat, but by far the worst thing he ever did was simply to make common cause with Hitler.
As always lots of heat from the Far Right, but still no answer to my question: How did the NRA became so powerful, and did how guns became such an untouchable issue?
Much of the heat is about needing guns to keep us safe from our own govenment, yet, if the Government wanted to come after us they would use tanks, planes, copters, etc., which is what happened when Hitler & Stalin sent troops after their own people. So if you really think you need a gun to keep yourself safe from your own government maybe you should move to a different country.
“I’ve never understood just how the NRA became so powerful, and how guns became such an untouchable issue.”
The NRA is a front for the gun lobby. Because of the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms the gun makers needed to create boogie men in order to sell their wares. Kinda like how Fox News hides behind the first amendment (freedom of the press) in order to pander their infotainment.
If there was peace there would be no need for guns. That would be bad for business.
THE most “hysterical” claim of the NRA and “advocates” is that the Second Amendment was about protecting us from our own government. THAT they covered when they discussed elections and the power of Congress, the Administrative Branch, and the courts.
The purpose of the regulated militia was to defend the country when our ground “military” was restricted by funding them for only two years at a time.(Different rules for a Navy)
This cartoon, and many people, make the well-intentioned mistake of equating legal gun ownership with gun violence. The truth is that most gun violence is committed by people who couldn’t legally possess the guns used anyway - and with hundreds of millions of guns already privately owned in America, if legal sales stopped tomorrow it wouldn’t get rid of guns. Legal gun ownership is not the problem. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is, and you can’t change the behavior of people who ignore the law by changing the law.
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” - attributed to Herbert Spencer
Our local news has been focused for a week on a lady with a perfectly “legal” weapon who thought her husband was a home invader, and shot him SIX TIMES “by mistake”– they’re still investigating.
So just bend over and take the surveillance and warmongering and police-abuse and vote-rigging and fracking and corruption, etc like good little subjects.
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
Tole’s Thursday rant is here:
http://tinyurl.com/3xq26bq
kennethcwarren64 over 13 years ago
Great Toon.
I’ve never understood just how the NRA became so powerful, and how guns became such an untouchable issue.
If as many Americans were dying from a disease as are dying from guns we would be spending billions of dollars to eradicate it.
Yet another case of Conservative paranoia and fears hurting America and getting people killed.
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
Ken, simple solution. Get all of your friends together and amend the Constitution to overturn the 2nd Amendment.
You simply don’t get it. It is the law of the land and in our Bill of Rights. Just why is that so difficult for you to understand?
I don’t like paying taxes but it is the law of the land. Seriously, read the 2nd Amendment, read the Heller decision, read the dissents and lastly read the McDonald decision.
It is like liberals and climate change. Instead of conservatives ignoring “science”, liberals are ignoring our basic framework of laws to govern this country.
comYics over 13 years ago
That looks like a list of Obamas enemies.
cdward over 13 years ago
We just ought to pay attention to the entire second amendment. Notice how we ignore the first part: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
I’m looking for the “well regulated” part, which the NRA wants nothing to do with.
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
^ cdward
I know it is fun to write here and you post on a subject debated literally millions of times. But it is a subject whose meaning has been definitively decided. The debate is over.
When Heller was debated your viewpoint re militia was presented over and over again. The 9 Justices read the briefs, saw your POV well presented and made their decision.
Despite what Jade thinks all 9 justices agreed that the RKBA could be modified by both the states and the Federal government. It was not absolute. Some of the suggestions of allowable restrictions were convicted felons, mentally ill and place where carried. It was not decided how to view proposed restrictions.
Should they be subject to reasonable scrutiny or strict scrutiny? Undecided.
Based on that 4 Justices voted that the DC restrictions were reasonable and DC could ban all weapons. Five justices disagreed and voted that DC’s total ban and subsequently in McDonald, Chicago’s total ban were unconstitutional. That debate continues to this day and will go on, case by case, for many years. The individual’s RKBA was established and guaranteed.
However there was one thing all 9 Justices agreed upon. The RKBA was an individual right NOT just a collective right through a militia. That has been definitively decided. Your clause was a preface not limiting clause. So what you wrote is totally outdated. It has been decided. What you write is the equivalent of saying “I think the government may censor FOX”. You may wish that but it has been decided what the law is.
Beenthere over 13 years ago
Mr. Toles
I’m sure when 6 millions Jews were led to the concentration camps, they all thought, “Thank goodness for Hitler’s outlawing guns! We might have hurt ourselves or others!”
I’m sure then you must depise the Jews of the Warsaw ghetto for smuggling and hoarding firearms, to fight against the Nazi’s. After all, they broke the gun control law!
Or the 1plus million unarmed Cambodians tortured and butchered in Pol Pot’s killing fields is your perfect idea of a gun regulated society.
Or perhaps you begrudge my 76 year-old grandmother for shooting a drifter breaking and entering her home in self-defense, because obviously the perp was just “misunderstood.”
Or is it you truly believe that only government is responsible enough to handle deadly force, and should have the only monopoly on it, and we should implicit trust them not to misuse it.
Every human being has the right to self-defense. And no one should expect government to take over that responsibly. I mean really, you criticize how wasteful and irresponsible government is all the time, You trust them to keep you safe? Good luck with that!!
stuckfly Premium Member over 13 years ago
In the Constitution, the word “regulated” had, at the time it was written, nothing contextually to do with regulations or imposed limits; it meant a well trained militia, as in practiced and ready to join a fight without years of military training. This is documented by analysis of the phrase “well regulated militia” in original correspondence from that period of history (do your own homework), when the methods of field battle using firearms against the British and other already-trained regular army units required many months or even years of training in formations, signals, and muzzle-loaded weapon usage. The point was, and still is, that citizens (back then only men) were expected to own and be proficient with firearms to oppose with no hesitation the seeds of tyranny from within, or invasion from without these United States.
Ironically, because the American population generally doesn’t know its own history, the NRA does not normally argue the militia clause, preferring to cite hunting, sporting, and defense of home and family as the reasons to keep and bear arms (all good and solid reasons); even though opposition to the sort of overbearing government we’re currently under is the only reason given in the words of the Second Amendment.
Yeah, this is a dead horse under a heavy beating. Decided, as Lib1 says. But it remains under constant attack nonetheless because it’s in the way of the enemies of Liberty, which is taken for granted even by the liberals who attack it daily.
These are truly great times for comics and political cartoons; we all just beg to be mocked from every angle, don’t we?
meetinthemiddle over 13 years ago
Lib1, as was also debated earlier, the recent changes in interpretation by this court may not be settled, done, and over. The Supreme Court just recently overturned over 100 years of precedent in interpretation; it may get reversed again.
In Bill Mahr’s film ‘Religulous’, he makes the point that the NRA makes up less than 2% of the population. To the point of the film, he estimates atheists make up 16% yet we have had a recent sitting president say he didn’t think atheists should be allowed the vote. So I guess having guns does give you more influence.
beenthere41 over 13 years ago
This cartoon seems to support the 2nd Amendment – perhaps we have had no tyrants to be overthrown BECAUSE of the RKBA, just as we have had no political prisoners like Iran’s or North Korea’s BECAUSE of the right to free speech, or no government-run newspapers (except perhaps Stars & Stripes) BECAUSE of the right to free press. The Founders saw this right as prophylactic, not corrective, and it has proven so. Also, some might say that there have been some tyrants removed, such as Huey Long, but I won’t go there.
Libertarian1 over 13 years ago
meetinthemiddle
The law of the land is whatever 5 members of the Supreme Court say it is. You are obviously correct. 5 Justices could reverse Heller, 5 Justices could overrule Roe, etc
But until and unless that happens Heller stands.
Simon_Jester over 13 years ago
Does this mean all the righties here are NOT supportive of the Republican Party’s efforts to roll back the 14th Amendment?
Kosher71 over 13 years ago
That should read as traffic fatalities .
Odon Premium Member over 13 years ago
So the 2nd is untouchable and the 14th is disposable?
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“It is like liberals and climate change. Instead of conservatives ignoring “science”, liberals are ignoring our basic framework of laws to govern this country.”
You mean like how Conservatives want to remove the 14th Amendment to stop “anchor babies?”@BeenThere - While you’re arguing anecdotes, especially about Jews and the Holocaust, and how if they “had guns” they wouldn’t have died (which is just silly), let’s look at this another way: So we have some psychos in a church who think that there should be a national “Shoot a f**” day. So do we LGBT people need to have guns now because gun nuts want to come hunt us like animals with the guns that they’re so ‘proudly’ allowed to display? After all, if we have guns, no one will shoot us, right?
“So the 2nd is untouchable and the 14th is disposable?”
Interesting how that is, huh? “Well the wording of the 14th is inconvenient, but the 2nd, yeah, they totally meant for people to wander around with Sniper rifles and automatic weapons, especially in our nation’s capital [read: near our leadership]. Tree of Liberty gets thirsty and what not.” Next it’ll be: “Well we know what the 1st amendment says but we think what the founding fathers meant is freedom of the ‘One True Religion’…”Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
“Tole’s Thursday rant is here: http://tinyurl.com/3xq26bq”
Those buses will be amazing! What an interesting idea, too!alan.gurka over 13 years ago
For starts, how about putting Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini on the left side of the scoreboard? Make note of how many people THEY killed before they were eliminated.
zsrogers over 13 years ago
Of course he doesn’t say how many were killed by illegal guns that criminals would have with or without gun control. Or how many people were saved by having a gun.
Hey Tom, take a look at Australia where they banned guns and violent crimes went up over 30%.
oneoldhat over 13 years ago
a well regulated Militia can be had buy filing incorparation papers as a non profit – the ability to buy amno and stuff without paying sales tax covers cost of filing
Nighthawks Premium Member over 13 years ago
Your notions, though many, Are not worth a penny,
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
I have rifles, shotguns, pistols and a revolver. The NRA rarely mentions long guns in any of their actions. It is HAND GUNS that typically end up killing large numbers of people, NOT long rifles or shotguns.
Regulation of concealable HAND GUNS, and large capacity clips and magazines makes perfect sense, like drivers licenses, and the requirement for a Class C license to drive large trucks or vehicles. PROVE you know what you’re doing with the weapon, and are “safe” mentally.
Ann Coulter may be a “lawyer” but she IS a total NUT JOB!
Justice22 over 13 years ago
Hand guns are the point of most court cases and deaths. Where do most criminals get their guns? — From legal gun owners through theft and from gun shows. How many gun owners are shot by their own guns? I heard on the news today of a thief being shot by his own gun. Usually it is the other way around.
If I were going to repel an armed invasion, I’d rather have a howitzer, not a pistol.
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
algurka, Stalin wasn’t eliminated. He died of natural causes. And Hitler wasn’t overthrown by arms-bearing civilians (most were with him, or at least not-against-him); he was overthrown by the duly-organized armed forces of other nations (including Stalin’s). Mussolini also had the support of most of his countrymen, until he didn’t anymore.
My modest proposal, a modified version of the Swiss model. Anybody who wants to own a firearm can do so, but they must (a) demonstrate that they can use one safely (we do the same thing with drivers), and (b) make themselves available for emergency service in the National Guard or Army Reserve. That includes reporting regularly for disciplined training. No gender restrictions, no age limits… You can even own combat weaponry (within reason), provided you are trained properly.
Conduct large-scale mobilization drills regularly (maybe quarterly on the state or regional level, annually on the national level), so the learning-curve wouldn’t be too steep if a call-up (or call-out) were required. Reduce the standing army to a fraction of what it is now. Instead of a bunch of full-time soldiers sitting around the base waiting to be sent somewhere, have a much larger number of part-time soldiers who understand that they may sometime be activated.
If you can’t show that you can keep and operate your weapon safely, you lose your right to own one. If you can’t show that you’re meeting your service requirements, you lose your right to own firearms.
fritzoid Premium Member over 13 years ago
PS: Not to appear that I’m soft on fascism, but Mussolini simply wasn’t in the same class as Hitler or Stalin, bloodthirsty-tyrant-wise. Yeah, he was a tin-pot autocrat, but by far the worst thing he ever did was simply to make common cause with Hitler.
kennethcwarren64 over 13 years ago
As always lots of heat from the Far Right, but still no answer to my question: How did the NRA became so powerful, and did how guns became such an untouchable issue?
Much of the heat is about needing guns to keep us safe from our own govenment, yet, if the Government wanted to come after us they would use tanks, planes, copters, etc., which is what happened when Hitler & Stalin sent troops after their own people. So if you really think you need a gun to keep yourself safe from your own government maybe you should move to a different country.
Odon Premium Member over 13 years ago
Ken may overstate a lot of points but this one about safety from our own government is dead on.
WarBush over 13 years ago
“I’ve never understood just how the NRA became so powerful, and how guns became such an untouchable issue.”
The NRA is a front for the gun lobby. Because of the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms the gun makers needed to create boogie men in order to sell their wares. Kinda like how Fox News hides behind the first amendment (freedom of the press) in order to pander their infotainment.
If there was peace there would be no need for guns. That would be bad for business.
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
THE most “hysterical” claim of the NRA and “advocates” is that the Second Amendment was about protecting us from our own government. THAT they covered when they discussed elections and the power of Congress, the Administrative Branch, and the courts.
The purpose of the regulated militia was to defend the country when our ground “military” was restricted by funding them for only two years at a time.(Different rules for a Navy)
LiberalJarhead over 13 years ago
This cartoon, and many people, make the well-intentioned mistake of equating legal gun ownership with gun violence. The truth is that most gun violence is committed by people who couldn’t legally possess the guns used anyway - and with hundreds of millions of guns already privately owned in America, if legal sales stopped tomorrow it wouldn’t get rid of guns. Legal gun ownership is not the problem. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is, and you can’t change the behavior of people who ignore the law by changing the law.
“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” - attributed to Herbert Spencer
SuperGriz over 13 years ago
The Republicans want to kill America:
http://tinyurl.com/356xky7
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Our local news has been focused for a week on a lady with a perfectly “legal” weapon who thought her husband was a home invader, and shot him SIX TIMES “by mistake”– they’re still investigating.
oneoldhat over 13 years ago
d fish The purpose of the regulated militia was to defend the country - jefferson and paine said otherwise
Odon Premium Member over 13 years ago
Anyway you cut it people in the U.S. have handguns for one thing… the “other” guy.
cromagnum over 7 years ago
So just bend over and take the surveillance and warmongering and police-abuse and vote-rigging and fracking and corruption, etc like good little subjects.
FreyjaRN Premium Member almost 3 years ago
Ouch. Still relevant.