published Thursday, January 13th, 2011

Guns & Ammo

Follow Clay Bennett on Facebook

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

187
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Salsa said...

But Obama told us all to bring a gun to a knife fight.

January 13, 2011 at 12:06 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Clay, LMAO!

January 13, 2011 at 12:22 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Thank you for your latest contribution to the civility of discourse; thank you for showing such respect for people more conservative than yourself.

To the extent the point of the cartoon includes that JLL had given enough warning signs that maybe he should've been on a not-allowed-to-buy-guns list, and that proceedures along that line can use improvement (share the data, use it, and make it correctable since mistakes will be made), I agree.

January 13, 2011 at 12:51 a.m.
steve_smith_tn said...

"But if bigots (meaning: one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ) don't buy this paper, it'll go out of business." How's that hateful rhetoric working out for you guys. "Nuts, cross burners, tin foil hat wearers, clingers to guns and bibles" - keep it up. This kind of stuff is running the democratic party into the ground. Really it is a shame. We need a credible democratic party to keep the republicans in check.

If you guys want constructive democratic opinions, read what Sen. Leahy said today. Read what Alan Dershowitz said today. Study Governor Bredeson's approach to politics. Or . . . if you really want . . . defend this broad-brush, demeaning dreck.

January 13, 2011 at 1:05 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Salsa, you do know that Obama was speaking metaphorically, right? Here's something I looked up on the internets in about ten seconds.

It's from a story filed on June 14, 2008 during the presidential race. Amy Chozick, assigned to the Washington bureau of the Wall Street Journal, was reporting from Philadelphia. Obama supporters were warning the campaign against swift boat style smears and other republican dirty tricks:

"Mobster wisdom tells us never to bring a knife to a gun fight. But what does political wisdom say about bringing a gun to a knife fight?

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks 'If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,' Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night. 'Because from what I understand folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.'"

Get it? He was talking about countering Republican campaign attacks. He wasn't talking about turning to second amendment remedies in he lost the race.

Some people think John Kerry lost to Bush in 2004 because he waited two weeks to respond the 'Swift Boat Captains For Truth,' bull crap.

And by the way, Obama was referencing a movie about his hometown of Chicago. The phrase is from the scene in "The Untouchables," where Sean Connery's character is explaining to outsider Elliot Ness how to go after Capone. He says, if they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of them in the morgue. They pull a knife, you pull a gun. That's the Chicago way.

So why don't you hold back for another day or two on the bombast. Really.

Roger Ailes said it was okay.

January 13, 2011 at 1:07 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Salsa, you do know that Obama was speaking metaphorically, right?"

/sarc/ Yeah, because when a "progressive" uses that kind of imagery, it's just metaphoric.

Don't you understand how double standards work?

Democrat using violent imagery = metaphor Republican using violent imagery = hate speech /sarc/


bw48,

Have a hard time judging folks by the same set of rules for everyone, eh?

Not to worry, it's quite common to those on the far left.


WRT the 'toon,

Too bad that even with all the language about civility being thrown around, it's still perfectly fine to consider folks who exercise a fundamental human right as different, or broken in someway and therefore fair to target as an "other" who needs to be controlled.

January 13, 2011 at 1:40 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Owning guns is not a "human" right.

Just so you know, I am a gun owner and support the second amendment.

January 13, 2011 at 4:44 a.m.
fairmon said...

How many people had concerns about the Arizona nut case but did nothing about it? It has been reported there were several. It is not the government's job to keep us from all harm. It is a government role to not get in peoples way of protecting themselves which includes people being willing to report potential nut case threats to the appropriate authorities and allow that authority to deal with those that are or appear to be unstable in a way that eliminates or minimizes any potential threat.

Banning guns will not deter or control criminals or nuts but could disarm law abiding citizens. The process of ownership has a lot of room for improvement. It will take federal action since state laws vary so much.

Why not challenge the NRA to develop a viable solution for addressing problems such as the Arizona tragedy? It may be a good idea to look at Switzerland which has one of the lowest crime rate per capita in the world. They require every law abiding citizen of age to own and be trained in the use of a government issued weapon. And, allows ownership of additional guns once that process is complete.

The politicizing of this tragedy and attempts to advance personal agendas is disgusting.

January 13, 2011 at 4:51 a.m.
Reardon said...

Yup, pretty stupid cartoon. But typical and expected.

Look how well alcohol and drug prohibition has worked out preventing alcohol and drugs from distribution and usage.

Unintended consequences -- the real criminal element gets stronger (cartels and mafia).

Just like harp says, we should all take a look at the Swiss and consider the consequences of an armed society. Less crime, and probably more polite, too.

January 13, 2011 at 6:21 a.m.
woody said...

Scotty, I can't say we've always seen 'eye to eye', but your words are certainly the most prolific I have read this morning.

I don't own a gun, but that's just me. I believe every one of our constitutional amendments have at least some merit (although I am still trying to figure out how prohibition ever happened), but, again, that's just me.

Just the fact you and I can find some common ground every so often tells me there is hope for everyone else.

Hopefully, Woody

January 13, 2011 at 6:44 a.m.
jimbob said...

God,guns and guts made this country free. Lets try and keep all three.

January 13, 2011 at 7:28 a.m.
pmcauley said...

Funny cartoon. Should lead to an interesting debate. I am pro gun control but even I'd allow that not all people who buy guns are nuts. In fact they'd (guns not people) be fun to play with (at a range) but the costs out weigh the benefits.

Let the fireworks begin.

Shovelled out yet?

PM

January 13, 2011 at 7:48 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Yeah when Chicago violence is mentioned from movies, it's cute and okay...if uttered by someone on the left. If anyone on the right even hints at violence in joking fashion, it's hate speech. What a joke, what a bunch of baloney. All the hate spewed out against conservatives across this land is laughed at or metaphorized. That is hypocrisy to the nth degree but no word on that from the press. The most telling part about the Arizona tragedy was how the friend got on television saying the gunman did not watch tv or listen to talk radio. Yet it is supposedly all Limbaugh, Palin, Levin,Hannity and the right who caused this hideous event. What a joke our media has become.

January 13, 2011 at 7:54 a.m.
EaTn said...

With an estimated 300 million guns and counting in private hands in this country, the snakes are out of the bag. We will just have to live (or die) with it. Like illegal immigration, the time for rational lawful control is long gone.

January 13, 2011 at 8 a.m.
Francis said...

another clunker by bennett......

scottym is correct...a democrat can say and pretty do whatever they want...

"if they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun"..is THE perfect example of the rhetoric democrats are accusing republicans of........that's why is a hypocritcal jackass.....

obama and democrats have no standing and business commnenting on any provactive rhetoric since they pretty much have the copyright on it.

obama, the media and the democrat party have politicized and taking advantage of this massacre to score points...rotten to the core.

obama is no better than an ambulance chaser.....the same as the rest of the liberal media..

January 13, 2011 at 8:31 a.m.
hambone said...

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written a 30 round clip was a powder flask and a pouch full of ball and flint.

If you think you need a 30 round clip, maybe you should spend more time on the firing range!

January 13, 2011 at 8:52 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

I think Clay sat down after Scotty M's comments yesterday and drew this gem just to call him a name. Imagine that?? And Scotty goes 3 for 3 in the "USEFUL" column this morning. Even woody proped him up today. I am starting to question if Clay is really blackwater and just keeps jerking the chain to stay somewhat relevant??? After last nights whatever that was I woke up singing Kumbaya. It was a real Rodney King moment.

January 13, 2011 at 8:58 a.m.

Did Bennett just throw gasoline on a smoldering fire?

January 13, 2011 at 9:07 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

For those of you who equate what Obama said two years ago with what republicans, conservatives, and tea baggers have been saying recently, let's recap.

Michele Bachman: "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."

Sharon Angle: "I hope that's not where we're going, but you know if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Texas GOP congressional candidate Stephen Broden:

''Our nation was founded on violence. The option is on the table. I don't think that we should ever remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms."

Glenn Beck: ''I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out.''

I know you conservatives believe you own the moral high ground. You think you are obeying God's will, that you are absolutely right and everyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. That's why you can never admit to making mistakes.

It goes to the premise that conservatives lack reason and accountability.

You're trying to say Democrats are equally responsible for violent political rhetoric but your only example is two years old and concerns campaign strategy.

I'm sure you should have no trouble coming up with many examples of violent Democratic rhetoric that sinks to the Republican level we saw demonstrated in the last election.

January 13, 2011 at 9:11 a.m.
alprova said...

Guns are not the problem here. If no such thing existed, the man may have made a homemade flame-thrower and have burned those people to death. Back during the stone age, I'm sure that there were assaults carried out by men who assembled a large collection of rocks before he began throwing them at a crowd he decided to attack.

It's unfortunate that every time there is a gun used in a heinous manner, that some immediately call for more gun legislation. There is no practical way to remove all guns from the hands of those who would use them to harm innocent lives, so banning them would be impossible.

No one yet knows why Jared Loughner chose to do what he did. The man did not seem to be politically oriented, one way or the other. There are no shortage of opinions as to why he did it.

Blaming Sarah Palin in any manner for what happened before any of the facts were in, seemed to be more than a stretch, but then her total over-reaction to those accusations only fed more flame to the fire. Her choice of wording in that video response managed to put her foot in her mouth, once again.

I've been very ill for the past few days, so I'm a bit behind on the news, but from what I can gather, the media is going nuts on this one, and the reports are coming off amateurish, to say the least.

From what I can gather, no one at the event other than Loughner was armed. Had that not been the case, I don't think 19 people would have been shot before Loughner had been stopped.

He probably intended on killing himself but was tackled before he could carry out that part of his plan. The word is that he has refused to say anything at all since he has been arrested.

Guns kill people, both innocent and those not so innocent. Ideally, Jared Loughner should not have had a gun on him that fateful day, for he took several innocent lives.

Also ideally, someone should have been armed in order to have potentially saved lives on that day, and to have put Jared Loughner out of his own misery, for the only thing that has been firmly established at this point, is that Jared Loughner was a very self-destructive individual.

The question as to why Loughner targeted the Congresswoman and that event needs to be answered. In time, it will likely be answered. There is no question that Loughner specifically asked to speak with Mrs. Giffords minutes before he opened fire on her and 18 others.

We all need to take a deep breath and to not rush to judgment on this one, one way or the other.

Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason as to why someone does what they do.

January 13, 2011 at 9:21 a.m.
Dumbledore403 said...

Most that knows me can tell you that I do not always agree with Clay... I would be considered a Moderate. I have been saying for months that the words that were being spread were going to cause trouble...both to my friends and sites like here. And it pains me greatly to be right. Should have Mr Loughner been allowed to be able to purchased a gun? Probably not. Should have some medical officials should been told about Mr Loughner? Probably yes. But hind sight is always 20/20. I think people have the right to have guns...but should some have them? No. Should there be rules and regulations involving gun ownership? Yes.

January 13, 2011 at 9:33 a.m.
jimbob said...

Francis, how do you keep getting loose from the mental ward?

January 13, 2011 at 9:36 a.m.
Francis said...

jimbob..explain to me what in my post prompts you to say that..other than you feel as being part of the liberal horde on here you need to find some way to say it....

explain what in my post warrents that.....go ahead..

my point is valid...

January 13, 2011 at 10:16 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

My six year old saw Jared Loughner's picture on the TV this morning. His comment was his smile is scary. I wonder what everyone else saw?

January 13, 2011 at 10:30 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

I was offended when I first saw today's cartoon. I thought Clay was saying that all gun owners were nuts. Some of my best friends own guns, however, and they seem like reasonable people.

Maybe Clay is saying that if you kill someone with a gun you must be crazy and each year around 10,000 Americans are shot to death.

Most gun murders do not involve multiple victims like we saw in Tucson, Connecticut, Virginia Tech, Norther Illinois University, Fort Hood, San Francisco, Atlanta, Columbine, and so forth.

That means there are a lot of crazy, gun owners walking around today who will shoot more Americans tomorrow.

Politicians who suggest limiting the sale of guns and/or ammunition feel the wrath of the NRA, one of the most effective lobbying groups in Washington. The NRA will not tolerate any legislative action that affects their bottom line.

And so "We The People" do nothing to stop it and it's never going to change.

January 13, 2011 at 10:36 a.m.
nucanuck said...

There is a bigger question than the 2nd Amendment or gun control measures and that would be the purpose of guns in a civil society. Do we believe society is made better/stronger by universal gun ownership,or even any gun ownership? What positive quality does gun ownership bring to the civilization table?

Does widespread gun ownership mean that we can't imagine a society different from the present? Does change not start with one or a few working for a better world for their children?

Maybe I'm a dreamer,but dreams are a good beginning.

January 13, 2011 at 10:59 a.m.
rolando said...

lkeith sez, "Owning guns is not a "human" right."

You are again wrong, lkeith...it is not only a "human right", it is a CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed right. And, as with all of the Bill of Rights, one of the few things keeping us relatively free [no thanks to Clay and other "Progressives" attempts to muzzle and emasculate us].

I say this after viewing something you undoubtedly agree with, although you would probably skew or spin the meaning of the simple sentences. It comes from "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948 at Palais de Chaillot, Paris). Two Articles apply here, One and Three. Even Canada has accepted them...

quote

Article 1 All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 3 Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.

unquote

Take special note of the last two words of Article 3...that means security against all the illegal acts committed against a person. No mention is made of the method used to secure that safety nor is any method prohibited.

Our laws are based on something rather unique in the world; the concept of "If any action isn't specifically prohibited, it is LEGAL". Most of the rest of the world has it backwards...which is why we, and not they, are free.

I presume I needn't quote our 2nd Amendment other than to simply cite it.

January 13, 2011 at 11:05 a.m.
hambone said...

I have always owned guns. I have a shotgun for bird hunting and a medium caliber revolver for the home. But my favorite is a 50 caliber black powder rifle (front stuffer). I Love the challenge of one shot.

Years ago I joined the NRA, but quickly learned that it exists to protect gun manufacturers more than to protect the 2nd Amendment.

I have never felt that I needed to carry a gun for protection everywhere I go. If I did I just wouldn't go there.

January 13, 2011 at 11:06 a.m.
MIchaelsebox said...

Brilliant Clay AFTER TAKING THE GUNS , WE CAN THEN GET ALL THE KNIVES THEN THE BOW AND ARROWS . THEN THE ROCKS !

YOUR A REAL FRIGGIN GENIUS

January 13, 2011 at 11:16 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando, You're actually quoting Articles from charters of the United Nations? OMG. Aren't they the institution trying to disarm America? At least the common folk anyway...

What is the name of the Militia that you are an active and proud member of, and is it recognized, endorsed, and approved by the United Nations, since you seem to be of the opinion that their definitions are so relevant today?

Also, are you aware of the name of the Militia that Jared Loughner belonged to? How did he get a gun if he is not a militia member?

If we're going to be so Constitutionally relevant and exact today, gun ownership does seem to be tied to being a member of a Militia, according to the Constitution that is.

January 13, 2011 at 11:34 a.m.
acerigger said...

MIchaelsebox,,, you don't have to shout!

January 13, 2011 at 11:40 a.m.
acerigger said...

Food for thought,,Mark DeMoss, director of the Civility Project, a two-year-old effort launched at the beginning of the Obama presidency to prompt legislators across the nation to cool political rhetoric, decided to shut the campaign down earlier this month,DeMoss, an evangelical conservative with ties to some big-name Republicans, cited a general lack of interest, as well as pervading signs that the nature of political discourse appeared only to be deteriorating during Obama's first two years as president, as justifications for halting his program.

In a recent interview with The New York Times, DeMoss provided a little insight about how his project was received by some on the right.

"The worst e-mails I received about the civility project were from conservatives with just unbelievable language about communists, and some words I wouldn't use in this phone call," DeMoss told The Times. "This political divide has become so sharp that everything is black and white, and too many conservatives can see no redeeming value in any liberal or Democrat. That would probably be true about some liberals going the other direction, but I didn't hear from them."Yet two years after the launching of the initiative, he had only three signatures: Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Reps. Frank Wolfe (R-Va.) and Sue Myrick (R-N.C.).

January 13, 2011 at 11:48 a.m.
MIchaelsebox said...

acerigger; I take it your hearing voices too ? try more aluminum over your skull .

January 13, 2011 at 11:56 a.m.
mtngrl said...

"But Obama told us all to bring a gun to a knife fight."

Doesn't anyone realize the difference in his statement and all of the others mentioned as violent rhetoric?

If some nutjob took Obama's statement literally, it would still be self-defense. He would have to find the knife fight. This does not compare to the ones blackwater mentions above.

I think folks on all sides really need to pay attention to the words they use - not as anything against the 1st amendment but for the reason Jon Stewart mentioned in his response: so we can tell the difference between political rhetoric and the real nutjobs. There are posts on these pages where it is hard to tell the difference...

Many folks the last few days have been saying words don't matter, but are using JLL's words to define him as schizophrenic. There has been no official prognosis of that. Hitler was also able to convince his masses to follow along with his plans for a master race using his charisma in speeches and propaganda, but that was just words too.

January 13, 2011 at 12:12 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: hambone | On: January 13, 2011 at 8:52 a.m. "At the time the 2nd Amendment was written a 30 round clip was a powder flask and a pouch full of ball and flint. If you think you need a 30 round clip, maybe you should spend more time on the firing range!"

At the time the 2nd Amendment was written people were allowed to own the most advanced military hardware of the day. The extension of that logic is that I should be able to own the M4 I would love to put in my gun collection.

The Swiss have it right.

January 13, 2011 at 12:12 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: lkeithlu | On: January 13, 2011 at 4:44 a.m. "Owning guns is not a "human" right. Just so you know, I am a gun owner and support the second amendment."

But you do have a basic human right to defend yourself. I think even this crowd can agree on that. Considering what the criminals will bring to the party (even in countries with draconian gun control) you could argue that a gun with a high capacity magazine is a basic tool of self defense.

The police cannot defend you. They only pick up the pieces. It is up to you and you alone to defend yourself and your family. Tell the homeowner who wakes up to find 3 intruders in a dark house that a six shot revolver is the right tool for the job.

January 13, 2011 at 12:19 p.m.
nucanuck said...

Is there a tipping point in our future where gun absorbtion might turn toward gun revulsion?...a point where the number of gun incidents,accidental and pre-meditated,overwhelm any sense of daily well being?

We are certainly on a path toward a fully armed populace which would make minor anger from any quarter a potential threat to those nearby.

Can high fashion body armour be far behind?

Is part of the American Dream to be well armed?

January 13, 2011 at 12:33 p.m.
Clara said...

Acerigger,

It took 2 days and endless tries on my very slow computer, but I finally got through!

Some blogs contain mostly killums! Some are mostly protective. Thanks again!

January 13, 2011 at 12:39 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Mr. Ridge, why stop at an M4? Why not nuclear weapons?

Fact is, you can't bring an anti-aircraft gun to the airport.

You can't buy "cop killer" bullets designed to penetrate police body armor.

You can't buy guns made of plastics that slip past metal detectors.

When Dick Cheney was in Congress he voted in favor of the last two, by the way, and there were Police Unions around the Country that still supported him. Wow.

Dick loves his guns. Not so surprising then that he'd shoot his friend in the face.

Anyway, since the Second Amendment is not absolute, where do we draw the line?

In order to form a more perfect union, how many guns are enough? How many are too much?

And do you really think the Unites States of America can pass any measure that interferes with the sale and manufacture of fire arms that is not fully endorsed by the NRA?

That would be like the oil companies writing America's energy policy.

Oh wait. They did that. And what a coincidence. That was Dick Cheney, too.

January 13, 2011 at 12:45 p.m.
pmcauley said...

Rolando you state that guns "...keep us free..." assuming therefore the opposite is also true. The great majority of other democratic countries do not allow guns. Your correlation does not hold.

You're not implying that Americans are more untrustworthy than other world citizens are you?

The great majority of Americans are good and decent people and do not need guns to ensure that. We have police officers. We have the military. I think the likelihood of an Orwellian government developing that requires us to rebel with force is pretty remote.

January 13, 2011 at 12:46 p.m.
jcs said...

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has posted a timeline of political violence in the U.S. beginning in June 2008 and concluding with the shootings in Arizona. The link to the site is below. I would enourage everyone to check it out, though it is extensive and will take you some time to get through (which is a rather sad commentary about the political climate over the past two and half years). -jcs

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

January 13, 2011 at 1:16 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: blackwater48 | On: January 13, 2011 at 12:45 p.m.

Trolling again bw? Do you have any valid points you would like to try to make today or are you just planning to throw around collections of stupid and mostly inaccurate comments?

January 13, 2011 at 1:48 p.m.
acerigger said...

Does anyone suppose there might be some correlation between the up-tick in the rhetoric concerning guns,calls for violent responses to political positions, fear-mongering in general from media,and the 2008 election of a Kenyan,marxist-muslim usurper? jes asking.

January 13, 2011 at 1:53 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: pmcauley | On: January 13, 2011 at 12:46 p.m.

That police department and military worked out just great for the victims in AZ didn't it pm.

The only thing that stopped that twisted piece of crap was three citizens stepping forward and taking matters into their own hands.

January 13, 2011 at 2:18 p.m.
AndrewLohr said...

alprova, I've read (probably www.humanevents.com or www.nationalreview.com, conservative sites) that someone with a concealed-carry was there, but rather than risk innocent lives by shooting he tackled JLL, or let the tacklers do it; he also didn't want to be taken for the assailant. Good decision in the situation, said the report.

b48, the same sites have plenty of examples of liberals using vicious language; I think last year our President exhorted Hispanic voters to punish their enemies, and that he's said "people should be angry. I'm angry" --among other such wording. A Democratic congressman from Pa (now ex) said of Rick Scott, GOP candidate for governor of Fl, that they should put him up against a wall and shoot him. The liberal "Daily Kos" (if I recall aright) put crosshairs on Rep. Giffords' district because she was too conservative--and later blasted Gov. Palin for using crosshairs! Paul Krugman, whose vitriol oozes through the Times from time to time, had had an election-night party featuring a bonfire for guests to toss effigies into.

Our President gave a good speech last night (judging by reading it, not watching), and y'all know I'm no fan of most of his policies. But he could have strengthened it by confessing that he himself had sometimes used rougher language than his ideals, and by agreeing with Sarah Palin by name (as she had invited him to) that vigorous discourse kept nonviolent by elections is a strength of America.

I admit the line between "rough" and "vigorous" is not all that clear. Actual incitement to actual violence, of course not. Metaphors--campaign, target, etc--OK, I think we can all (even JLL) understand them. Name-calling, make sure it's justified: define "socialist" BEFORE you either claim that our President is one, OR (you liberals) say the statement that he is one proves the stater to be insane. Writing off opponents as unworthy to take part in the national discourse is a very common incivility, perhaps more common on the left than on the right, because liberalism is the doctrine that politicians and bureaucrats are fit to run our lives for us. Which is not to say that liberals haven't noticed problems or don't wish to solve them.

January 13, 2011 at 2:20 p.m.
pmcauley said...

BRP wrote: "Trolling again bw? Do you have any valid points you would like to try to make today or are you just planning to throw around collections of stupid and mostly inaccurate comments?"

The mere fact that you disagree does not make them stupid or inaccurate. If they are inaccurate please enlighten us. Give us the evidence then we all will jump on BW in support of you.

pm

January 13, 2011 at 2:23 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

BRP pounced on my last comments. I guess I should have used shorter words. Earlier Mr. Ridge wrote, "you could argue that a gun with a high capacity magazine is a basic tool of self defense."

And I said that the Second Amendment is NOT absolute and gave three examples to support my argument. I guess that threw you.

You should try it sometime. Don't you have a room full of books? Couldn't you, ya know, quote something or provide a fact to support your bombast?

I'd hate to see you drop in relevance to the level of Francis, but maybe that's your goal.

I've already demonstrated that I know the conservative talking points. You guys are SO predictable. You don't know the liberal side of the argument because you think you own the moral high ground. You think you're absolutely right and those who disagree are absolutely wrong.

You keep proving my premise that right-wingers lack reason and accountability.

January 13, 2011 at 2:48 p.m.
canarysong said...

Rolando; Also on your point that "guns keep us free":

When I can't attend a political event without fear that I may be murdered, I do not feel very free.

When I can't take a child to witness democracy in action without fear that they will die, I do not feel free.

When I can't go into a classroom, grocery store, or public transportation without the risk that some unstable person there may be carrying a "legal" concealed weapon, I do not feel free.

Lax gun regulations seem to go far beyond the rights to hunt game or protect one's family from an intruder. Tightening gun regulations would not keep them out of the hands of hardened criminals, but it would likely deter the casual nut jobs that seem so often to perpetrate tragedies like that in Tucson. I think that this is a much more substantive danger than any we face from a democratically elected government. We have means to resolve political issues without the need to own semi-automatic weapons.

The greatest freedom is the freedom to live without fear. As a society, maybe we can work together to see how to most effectively reach that goal.

January 13, 2011 at 2:53 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Good cartoon this time Clay. Give fats kids candy and they'll eat themselves to death. Give human beings guns and they'll shoot each other to death. Neither has the mental ability to refrain from such excess. The amendment that gun-backers hide behind ALL THE TIME giving everyone the right to own a gun was passed when any country with a pea shooter and a sailboat could come up the Mississippi River and take over the country. We don't have that threat anymore. We ourselves are the threat because everyone from pre-teen gangbangers to elderly dementia suffers has access to guns. It's a sorry state we're in.

January 13, 2011 at 3:03 p.m.
canarysong said...

BRP; "the thing that stopped... (Tucson)....was three citizens stepping forward"

And imagine, they did it without guns. Go figure!

January 13, 2011 at 3:06 p.m.
jimbob said...

They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

January 13, 2011 at 3:11 p.m.
jpo3136 said...

I disagreed with today's cartoon. It's factually incorrect. Arms dealers don't stay in business because of criminal customers. In practice, they're the worst customers an arms dealer could have.

As a marksman, I know that it costs hundreds of dollars per year in order to periodically operate and maintain each weapon. Here in Chattanooga, we have the good fortune of having reasonable access to firing ranges and educational classes. These are essential logistic components to responsible and reasonable weapons ownership.

Criminals don't practice. All of the activities that responsible weapons owners participate in: the insane don't go to the range regularly. They don't provide or plan for reasonable and safe weapons use.

I take it that the cartoonist doesn't have any experience with that, either.

January 13, 2011 at 3:12 p.m.
jimbob said...

francis, I lived in Apison for 12 years. I now live in North Al. Less taxes and better gun laws. we have coceled gun permits. I carry a gun my wife carries one and so does my daughter. All 3 of us belong to the NRAand have taken wepons courses. There is also a law in this state called Castle Doctron wich means if you are caught any where on my property and I don't know you. Then your butt belongs to me.Y don't you come vivit me some time:)

January 13, 2011 at 3:22 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

Casual nut job, piece of crap are just a few adjectives that have been used here for the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner. The focus of what caused this tragedy has shifted from what should be a proper mental health diagnosis and treatment, or in this case a lack of it, to an endless argument once again of political posturing and who should have the right to own and carry a gun. Perhaps people don't realize that mental illness can affect each and every one of us at any time and turning back the clock to normal mental health is impossible. Once you have witnessed this transformation you will never again see this issue in the same light. It affects people from all walks of life and cannot be ignored. This young man has been ill for at least 1 year according to the police reports that have been released. Our jails are filled with the same people and if they serve their sentence we release them knowing they are going to be returned to jail in the very near future. It's sad that we as a society are not proactive in identifying and providing treatment to those in need of help. Celebrities that suffer from a disease have the ability to establish foundations to search for a cure and speak to Congress about their ordeal in search of more funding. The mentally ill do not have the same opportunity.

January 13, 2011 at 3:51 p.m.
whatsthefuss said...

jimbob, The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force. Francis might have a case if you attack him. Also I believe you can only defend your home, car or place of business against an attack. Oh yeah, trucks count to.

January 13, 2011 at 4:09 p.m.
Sailorman said...

canarysong said:

"When I can't attend a political event without fear that I may be murdered, I do not feel very free.

When I can't take a child to witness democracy in action without fear that they will die, I do not feel free.

When I can't go into a classroom, grocery store, or public transportation without the risk that some unstable person there may be carrying a "legal" concealed weapon, I do not feel free."

How sad for you - walking around with all that irrational fear in your head.

January 13, 2011 at 4:11 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

I always get a kick out of discussions about the pros and cons of gun ownership.

The gun lobby led by the NRA are masters of fear mongering and continue to lead fearful arch conservatives around by the nose. This book gives a good overview of how the NRA works. "RICOCHET: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" by Richard Feldman. You can get an overview at Amazon but this site gives a better primer of the book, http://www.mlscommunication.com/

Among far right conservatives fear has always been an emotion that can be counted on to be exploited. It is as true today as it has always been throughout history.

Since Obama was elected the whole philosophy of the Republican and Tea party has been a steady drum beat of fear mongering that caters to the insecurity of already fearful conservatives. Whether it is the subtle insinuations of armed rebellion or "second amendment solutions" the right wing continues to stoke the insecurities of fearful conservatives.

Does anyone seriously believe that the right wing's fear mongering and hateful rhetoric is not effective and does not influence people? Fear and distrust are two of the most influential emotions in all people and are hard wired in all humans. Fear and distrust have ALWAYS been the best propaganda methods to influence peoples decisions.

There are countless instances throughout history of how effective this works.

January 13, 2011 at 4:13 p.m.
hambone said...

It is very good news that Congresswoman Giffords has opened her eyes.

To bad others can't!

January 13, 2011 at 4:17 p.m.
canarysong said...

Sailorman;

That is actually quite funny. The last word anyone who knows me even casually would use to describe me is "fearful". I was using a bit of literary license with the word " I " to add emotional weight to my point.

It, however, remains that instances like this can cause people to fear participating in activities that truly are constitutional rights. The right to peaceful assembly is essential to our democracy, the right to own a weapon made for the sole purpose of killing a large number of people rapidly is not.

January 13, 2011 at 4:37 p.m.
Francis said...

if a republican would have said, "if they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun"you libs know damn well you'd be all over it. hypocrites.

you can keep trying to defend the remark and call it whatever you want but by your standards it is hate speech.....but that doesn't apply to libs, does it..

jimbob..sounds like you're threatening me.......i guess you feel you can say anything you want, huh? ...you didn't answer the question as to why my first post required the response you wrote after.........the truth is it didn't ..you just thought you're being clever by piling on. really bold of you..

the fact is that obama and the libs, with the help of the media, have polticized the death of a girl, the death of a judge, the shooting of a congresswoman and injuring of many others.

the polling data coming out does not look good for obama and libs on this issue...nobody in their right mind would blame anyone but the shooter...

just like you libs would demand that not all muslims be condemed for the actions of islamic extremists...as it should be...

double standard....

January 13, 2011 at 4:37 p.m.
Sailorman said...

hambone

"I always get a kick out of discussions about the pros and cons of gun ownership."

So do I but perhaps not for the same reason.

Let me rephrase one of your comments:

Among the far left fear has always been an emotion that can be counted on to be exploited.

I wouldn't give the NRA a dime. They are no better, and no worse, than lobbying organizations of any stripe. They scream "they're going to take your guns" while the Brady Bunch screams "we have to get guns off the street". People on both sides of the issue react with predictable kneejerk reactions.

99% of these groups are nothing more than money machines.

Google "Causes of death in the US" and see where firearms stack up. Break down the numbers and you find that nearly half are deaths in a particular age range that include gang warfare, self defense, and shot by police. In that same age range there's a racial component as well.

If we want to reduce the body count, there are far more productive ways to do it. Unfortunately, it's not as easy to get people frothing at the mouth about saving particular groups from themselves. As evidenced here, it's far far easier to stir up emotional arguments.

January 13, 2011 at 4:44 p.m.
rolando said...

blackwater seez, "Maybe Clay is saying that if you kill someone with a gun you must be crazy and each year around 10,000 Americans are shot to death."

Every year over 40,000 Americans are killed in automobile crashes.

270 Million guns in the US; 285 million cars. Hm-m-m.

Let's see -- 10,000 deaths; 40,000 deaths. Hm-m-m.

Seems to me that just over 4 TIMES the number of people are killed in automobiles than are shot.

It further occurs to me that you and Clay are trying to outlaw/ridicule/prosecute the wrong tool...by a factor of more than 4 to 1.

January 13, 2011 at 4:58 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Alprova said: "From what I can gather, no one at the event other than Loughner was armed."

Actually, one of the heroes, Joe Zamudio, did have a weapon, and it kind of interesting story. According to SLATE, Zamudio was in a store buying cigarettes when he heard the shots. He says:

"I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," . . . "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire.

As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter.

"Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

“I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.”

. . . The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/pagenum/all/

January 13, 2011 at 4:59 p.m.
delmar said...

Umm,, Sailorman, I believe you have missed canarysong's point. I don't mean to speak for canarysong, but I doubt they meant it literally.

Just for giggles, how many people hear lock their doors at night?

January 13, 2011 at 5:01 p.m.
rolando said...

alprova sez, "Rolando, You're actually quoting Articles from charters of the United Nations?"

Well, alprova, the atheist Progressives quote the Bible without believing in it to make their point. I returned the favor.

The UN is totally irrelevant in today's world...but some continue to think it actually means something. It doesn't.

January 13, 2011 at 5:04 p.m.
delmar said...

rolando, are you comparing guns to cars on some sort of equal basis? Because if you are I don't see the similarity.

Oh, and in my last post I meant here not hear.

January 13, 2011 at 5:07 p.m.
whatsnottaken said...

Jimbob. Just what the rest of America thinks about Southerners. Thanks for giving them something to believe in. Oh, and that little gangbanger with an AK-47 will go on anybody's property he wants, regardless of how tough you and your pea shooter might be.

January 13, 2011 at 5:09 p.m.
Sailorman said...

canarysong

Glad you enjoyed it :)

I would still maintain that people who actually let such fears dictate their lives are irrational.

His weapon was not "made for the sole purpose of killing a large number of people rapidly". He used it that way. I have the same firearm - it hasn't killed anybody.

January 13, 2011 at 5:10 p.m.

@canarysong "Lax gun regulations seem to go far beyond the rights to hunt game or protect one's family from an intruder. Tightening gun regulations would not keep them out of the hands of hardened criminals, but it would likely deter the casual nut jobs that seem so often to perpetrate tragedies like that in Tucson."

You consider this nut to be a casual one? No matter what amount of regulation is present, nuts and criminals will find a way to get the weapons they want to use in their work. It's irrational and deluded to expect someone like this to play by any rules. Gun control laws will NEVER prevent something like this from happening while still allowing legal private ownership.

I would even hazard to say that if everyone in that crowd had a shouldered M4, this nut would have thought more than twice about his plan.

Feeling safe because there are laws against owning guns is a false sense of security. Nuts and criminals don't follow rules. Period. Having a way to eliminate threats before they can eliminate me, makes me feel safer than any "rule".

January 13, 2011 at 5:18 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: blackwater48 | On: January 13, 2011 at 2:48 p.m. I never said the 2nd Amendment applied to anything other than firearms. You are just throwing bombs trying to have an argument I am not interested in having.

hambone suggested that the founders only knew muzzle loading rifles and I guess implied that they would not have trusted a citizen with the type of firearms that are available today. I pointed out that the founders gave citizens the right to keep and bear the most advanced arms of the day and specifically mentioned a current assault rifle I would love to own.

Then you jump in with stupid comparisons to nuclear weapons and anti-aircraft guns and I am supposed to take you seriously?

I guess I could have chosen my words more carefully and said, "own the most advanced military firearms of the day", rather than, "own the most advanced military hardware of the day". If you were not so busy trying to distort the argument you might have guessed that my example of the M4, a firearm, implied that I was talking about firearms.

Christ I get tired of spelling things out for you. When I stop answering your stupid posts maybe you will be able to figure out that I have written you off. I doubt it. It is you who are in danger of becoming irrelevant.

January 13, 2011 at 5:30 p.m.
canarysong said...

FlyingPurple....

Would you REALLY want to live in a society where everyone "shouldered an M4"? That IS a scary image.

There are places with no government, no laws and restrictions on personal behavior; perhaps you would be happier in Somalia.

January 13, 2011 at 5:33 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

blackwater, just so you do not get confused, I did not mean that you were literally throwing explosive devices. I meant that you were making provocative comments.

January 13, 2011 at 5:36 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

canarysong, Don't go visit that very scary country..... Switzerland! Everyone goes home with something like a Sig Sauer 552, I believe. At least as lethal as an M4 and more reliable.

Imagine trying to be a crook in such a country!

January 13, 2011 at 5:41 p.m.
rolando said...

alprova also sez, [1] "What is the name of the Militia that you are an active and proud member of, and [2] is it recognized, endorsed, and approved by the United Nations, since you seem to be of the opinion that their definitions are so relevant today?

"Also, [3] are you aware of the name of the Militia that Jared Loughner belonged to? [4] How did he get a gun if he is not a militia member?

"If we're going to be so Constitutionally relevant and exact today, gun ownership does seem to be tied to being a member of a Militia, according to the Constitution that is."

[All entries in brackets are mine.]

1 - It is called the militia of the United States, alprova, as defined and designated during those years before and after the Constitution was written. Every adult male citizen, sound in mind and body, over 16 years is a member. Automatically.

2 - Of course not. The UN does not believe in individual responsibility nor the concept of the individual being more important that the state. Quite the opposite.

3 - Since Loughner is an adult male citizen over 16 years, he belongs to the same militia as thee and me [assuming your ARE an adult male over 16]. Although his being of sound mind is questionable, in which case he belongs to some crackpot outfit, if anything.

4 - Nothing on record denied him his RIGHT to keep and bear a firearm.

Finally, the US Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion as to who has a right to own a gun. See Heller vs DC.

January 13, 2011 at 5:41 p.m.
miraweb said...

I think one thing we can all (red, blue, purple, or orange) agree on is that mentally disturbed people really should not have firearms.

Just like we believe that broke people should not have mortgages, shoe manufactures should not hire seven year olds, and sick people should have doctors to help them.

Where we get into trouble are when otherwise reasonable people can believe they do no harm when they disengage their common sense to add dollar or two to their bottom line.

Why does that happen so often?

January 13, 2011 at 5:44 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Rolando points out that, "Every year over 40,000 Americans are killed in automobile crashes. 270 Million guns in the US; 285 million cars. Hm-m-m. Let's see -- 10,000 deaths; 40,000 deaths. Hm-m-m. Seems to me that just over 4 TIMES the number of people are killed in automobiles than are shot."

Spot on Rolando old chum. Except automobiles are a means of transportation. They are made to get you from one place to another. Accidents do happen, however, and sometimes no one is at fault. But they are accidents. Vehicular homicide is different and we are starting to crack down harder on drunk drivers.

But there are so many cars on the road these days it's a wonder any of us survive at all. Still, we have to get to work. We have to get to school. We have to go to the mall and hockey games and football games and sometimes we just need to take a drive.

A gun, on the other hand, has only one purpose. It's made to kill.

As a society we recognize the inherent dangers of motor vehicles and require each car owner to register his vehicle, get a license, and provide proof of insurance. Police know which car is yours. If you run a red light and kill a pedestrian they know it was you.

I never thought about it that way before but maybe you're right: Why shouldn't we demand the same of gun owners?

It's not like you can drive your gun to the supermarket. You can't take your date out to dinner in your gun.

I'm glad to see you are in favor of every gun owner registering his weapon with the state. I guess you'd be in favor of marking ammunition with a laser signature, too, so when police find somebody shot to death they'll know who bought the bullets.

I would never suggest such strict gun laws, but I've garnered a new appreciation of you, Rolando.

Well done, Sir!

January 13, 2011 at 5:47 p.m.
rolando said...

delmar sez, "rolando, are you comparing guns to cars on some sort of equal basis?"

No, delmar, I was comparing deaths caused by the [mis]use of firearms and automobiles and their comparative importance to the Progressive mindset.

January 13, 2011 at 6:01 p.m.
tifosi said...

Clay Bennett is the BEST!!!

January 13, 2011 at 6:06 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: blackwater48 | On: January 13, 2011 at 5:47 p.m.

Can you make a post without distorting the intent of a perfectly reasonable well thought out contribution?

Tiring, boorish, unconstructive...

January 13, 2011 at 6:06 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

BRP reminded me that, "I never said the 2nd Amendment applied to anything other than firearms. You are just throwing bombs trying to have an argument I am not interested in having."

You may think the Second Amendment applies only to firearms, but here's the full version. I know how you pointy headed conservatives like to skip the first part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How did you miss that? A well regulated militia. It was not restrictive to firearms. Every well regulated militia would have had a handsome contingent of artillery and every other modern convenience.

If you think the Second Amendment applies only to individual citizens you're not reading it correctly.

My original question, which you have still failed to answer, is this: DO YOU THINK THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ABSOLUTE?

That's it. Yes or no. Tick tock. What's your answer?

January 13, 2011 at 6:25 p.m.
canarysong said...

BRP; All day you guys have been throwing around the example of Switzerland. While I know next to nothing about their gun laws, I did research the statistics on gun deaths by country. Perhaps you should also do some research before posting your comments.

It seems that Switzerland, while having fewer gun deaths per capita than the US, still has a rate much higher than almost every European country that has strict gun laws. It is triple that of Germany and 4x+ the rate of most Eastern European countries.

Nice try, but a very shaky foundation for your argument.

January 13, 2011 at 6:25 p.m.
canarysong said...

blackwater48;re: 5:47 post

As usual, very well said!

January 13, 2011 at 6:36 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Bless those tea baggers who just want to "take back their country".

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/tea-party-fights-abolish-school-integration/

Oh, and you gotta love those Tennessee tea baggers too.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/13/tennessee-tea-party-education/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/tennessee-tea-party-demands_n_808508.html

Move along people, no racism or revisionism going on here. Just people wanting to "take back their country".

Hey, maybe we can emulate the new Texas education curriculum.

January 13, 2011 at 6:37 p.m.
tifosi said...

I've got my country. No problems.

January 13, 2011 at 6:52 p.m.
tifosi said...

I am tired of the extreme right and left wingers. You have hijacked this great country and the middle is going to take it back.

January 13, 2011 at 6:53 p.m.
miraweb said...

Sailorman,

Turns out it is pretty easy to get the gun mortality statistics. The CDC even has a tool:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Based on their tracking, about 30% of gun deaths are males between the ages of 10 and 29.

In that age group, 9,547 gun deaths (out of 31,224) were reported for boys and young men (vs 1,088 for girls and young women).

A reasonable policy choice might be restrict ammunition sales to anyone under 30, but the professional lobbyists who get their giggles riling up gun owners would have a field day with that.

January 13, 2011 at 7:24 p.m.
Clara said...

JCS, Thanks for the insurrection timeline!

I read the whole thing!

No Comment! Read it for yourselves.

January 13, 2011 at 7:36 p.m.
Sailorman said...

mira

I know it's easy. That's why I wonder why more people don't take the time to look past the "oh my god x number of people are shot every year!!"

My point was there is a rather large group of at risk youth in the numbers. Trying to rid the world of guns isn't going to work. Ain't gonna happen. Criminals will always find a way. Wouldn't it be better to spend the resources addressing the source of the problem and help them find a more constructive path? The war on drugs hasn't helped. The war on guns won't help. Certainly not easy but it would seem there's some big numbers that would make the effort worthwhile.

What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same again and again and expecting different results?

How's things in Boston?

January 13, 2011 at 7:43 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

tifosi said, "I am tired of the extreme right and left wingers. You have hijacked this great country and the middle is going to take it back."

I agree with you to a point, but there really aren't that many dyed in the wool liberals anymore. Outside of Dennis Kucinich in the House and Bernie Sanders in the Senate I'd be hard pressed to name another. I mean hard core liberal.

Every politician swung to the right at some point but I don't know when. Democrats often crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans when Bush was President. Nobody thought too much about it. When Joe Leiberman, the guy who was going to be Vice President, had his picture taken getting a big wet kiss on the cheek from President Bush, well, some democrats frowned on that.

I think you're right about the middle - the Independents - taking this Country back. I've been a registered Independent for years and I've voted for at least one Republican in every election. (Don't tell anyone. ) I vote for the candidate. Sometimes it's just a gut feeling but I try to learn all I can about whoever is running.

But I've noticed more and more voters are registering as Independents. If we can syphon off enough thoughtful voters from both parties maybe big money guys who bankroll both national parties will back off.

It doesn't mean we'll have better candidates immediately. But maybe if there isn't so much money pouring into campaigns there won't be that many favors flowing out of Congress.

January 13, 2011 at 7:48 p.m.
Sailorman said...

The argument about Switzerland is, in my opinion, a red herring. How effective are the European guns laws at reducing crime? If guns are gone, does crime go down? Do certain types go up? Down? Maybe certain type of crime? Beats me. From what I can tell, the various countries all collect data differently but none the less there was this:

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1Axy8jQlK

January 13, 2011 at 7:52 p.m.
miraweb said...

Sailorman

A bit snowy :-) Fortunately, I have good neighbors and a reliable plow guy who dug us out. My driveway is lined with five-foot piles of snow. The dogs are a bit mystified, though. They can't figure out where the yard went.

January 13, 2011 at 8:08 p.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "1 - It is called the militia of the United States, alprova, as defined and designated during those years before and after the Constitution was written. Every adult male citizen, sound in mind and body, over 16 years is a member. Automatically."


Really? The Militia of the United States? Sorry, Sir, but that one is a figment of your own imagination...oh and a book written in 1865 by Henry Lee.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as near as I can tell, militias as they were known and defined constitutionally or otherwise, disappeared following the Civil War.

Look it up. I sure did.


"2 - Of course not. The UN does not believe in individual responsibility nor the concept of the individual being more important that the state. Quite the opposite."


And yet, you quoted two U.N. charters. You contradict your own sources.


"3 - Since Loughner is an adult male citizen over 16 years, he belongs to the same militia as thee and me [assuming your ARE an adult male over 16]. Although his being of sound mind is questionable, in which case he belongs to some crackpot outfit, if anything."


My God Rolando, there is no limit whatsoever to the crap you will make up.

I've never been a member of a militia. Neither have you.


"4 - Nothing on record denied him his RIGHT to keep and bear a firearm."


Nothing denied him his right, I suppose in your mind that is, to use his rightfully purchased firearm to kill six people and attempt to kill 13 more.

Rolando, you really are not sure what you are defending, are you?


"Finally, the US Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion as to who has a right to own a gun. See Heller vs DC."


I haven't expressed any opinion on the issue as to who has the right to own a gun. As is usually the case, you fail to comprehend what you read, then go on to make up whatever floats your little tug-boat zipping around in your bathtub, trying to dodge the weenie patrol.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Now Rolando, my little troll, you are the last person that I have any desire to enter into a thoughtful discussion on the second amendment, because you are incapable of any thought whatsoever.

You tried, and you came up with the "Militia of the United States of America." It doesn't exist. Not now, not ever.

January 13, 2011 at 8:19 p.m.
steve_smith_tn said...

No need to resort to Switzerland. What about a review of gun crime and gun laws in Vermont?

Face it. People with no ties of cohesion living on top of one another in cities are going to have conflict. Switzerland has no such problem. Vermont has no such problem. The question is, does our gun violence problem outweigh the death of our soldiers to protect our freedom to protect ourselves from one another? Does it outweigh our freedom to protect ourselves from a possible future tyrannical government?

Nikita Kruschev was asked at the height of the Soviet military machine why he didn't just invade the U.S. and get it all over with. This was at the height of the Soviet military superiority over the U.S. To paraphrase, he answered, "Squirrel Hunters." Does anyone on the left see the significance in that?

Political sovereignty doesn't come from police forces, nuclear warheads, a U.N. Charter or anything other than an individual's right to protect himself from tyranny, either foreign or domestic. Sovereignty initially resides with the individual and when the social contract of one individual to another is broken, that individual must be able to protect himself or potentially become enslaved. The feeble attempt by our Founders to safeguard each individual's right to keep and bear arms is why tyranny hasn't taken hold here like it has in so many other Western democracies. Germany, Spain, Italy, Argentina, Russia, the list is expansive.

January 13, 2011 at 8:37 p.m.
miraweb said...

Harvard University's Charter (dated 1650) provides a bit of a window into the expectations the early colonies really had. It specifically exempts the "president, fellows, scholars, and servants" from "all personal civil offices, military exercises, or services, watchings, and wardings," as well as giving them all tax exemptions (up to 500 pounds).

http://hul.harvard.edu/huarc/charter.html

If you really believe you are part of the militia, then you better have a good explanation for all those midnight "watching and warding" shifts you've missed lately and start practicing up on announcing to the villagers "10 o'clock and all is well."

I like that American's are romantics about history. It is a big part of our country's charm.

January 13, 2011 at 8:39 p.m.
steve_smith_tn said...

So go ahead and talk about hunting and target shooting and collecting guns. But call them what they are and what our Founders knew even more intimately than us after a long war with King George. Guns are made to kill people. They are tools. Those tools can be used for good or for ill. Our Founders made it a fundamental individual civil liberty because of the importance they felt it deserved. So when you begin to debate how many deaths the second amendment is worth, ask yourself, "how many deaths is the first amendment worth?" How many deaths is the Bill of Rights worth?" How many deaths is a constitutional form of government where Power resides first in the People, then in these abstract, sometimes useful - some times not - things called Federal and State governments.

In short, the justness of our government is derived from our consent to be governed. That consent is made manifest in the Constitution. That Constitution sets out your inability to abridge my keeping and bearing arms. The only way you can do it is by force. When you no longer trust me to keep the tools to protect myself and our posterity, then you no longer trust me to be your neighbor.

If you consider me a nut, move to Cuba or Venezuela. You will find solidarity there. If you choose to reconsider this kind of rhetoric and join me and people like me to pull our country up out of the quagmire of debt, functional illiteracy, bastardy, irreverence, laziness, materialism, greed and pride, this second amendment non-issue will disappear. That decision is a tie of cohesion. It is the only force capable of preventing the slaughter we witness daily in our cities.

January 13, 2011 at 8:39 p.m.
steve_smith_tn said...

miraweb - you presuppose the expectations of the colonists were homogenous. You also discount the political upheaval and change in expectations from 1650 to the revolution. As a practical matter, the issue as to whether the right is collective (resides in a government controlled militia) or individual, is over. It is individual.

Nothing about the settled individual understanding of our right to bear arms would keep the militia (everyone with a gun) from being called into duty by the States. The romantic idea you omit is the romantic one that preservation of liberty is best left to centralized governments.

January 13, 2011 at 8:46 p.m.
alprova said...

Sarah Palin's most breathtaking speech to date on the issue;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kfcE...!

(Sigh)...

January 13, 2011 at 8:46 p.m.
miraweb said...

Steve - you raise a valid point. The Harvard Charter was granted about 120 years before the Revolution. But if you buy that the country changed a lot between 1650 and the Revolution, you might also have to consider that the country could have changed some in the 234 years since.

January 13, 2011 at 8:55 p.m.
steve_smith_tn said...

Yes miraweb. And our constitution has a mechanism for change. Its called amendment. Its been done many, many times. Until then, we are bound by the Constitution - one that I think is still valuable.

January 13, 2011 at 8:58 p.m.
Echo said...

Why get so worked up about such a cartoon. Old Doodle is an idiot. Just the same old blah blah blah liberal blah. The reality is that America is too well armed to be disarmed. There is at least one gun for every person in the country. The confiscation fiasco during in Katrina demonstrated that "it can happen here" and the reaction was swift, both legally and on a personal level. Four million NRA members can make or break a politician, look at Harry Reid. The only reason he did not get wiped of the face of the political landscape was his support of the NRA and the NRA's support for Reid. So make your little doodles. We'll handle the state legislatures, U.S. congress and the Supreme Court. Prisons are overflowing, police are persecuted for doing their jobs, and politicians don't care about your safety, just their wallets. Get a carry permit, always carry, never tell and if the sheeple among us want to be slaughtered, let them be.

January 13, 2011 at 9:09 p.m.
canarysong said...

Steve, re your 8:39 post;

If you want to curb functional illiteracy, please go find a dictionary and look up the word "omit". A refresher course in English 101 won't do you any harm.

January 13, 2011 at 9:09 p.m.
steve_smith_tn said...

Canary -

Well I'm glad we can work together as a society on the other issues we face. I'm sorry my grammar or english is subpar. I'm the first in my family to graduate from college. I have deficiencies.

As an aside, I think the nutcase Loughner had a fixation on grammar. I'm sure you are just trying to be helpful though. Thanks again. lol.

January 13, 2011 at 9:19 p.m.
canarysong said...

Steve;

I would not have criticized your writing had you not claimed that you and "your kind" were pulling the country up out of functional illiteracy. BTW, I was criticizing your vocabulary, not your grammar. Oops, I did it again!

January 13, 2011 at 9:37 p.m.
miraweb said...

And yet the founders realized that reasonable people (including themselves) could disagree about the interpretation of their document. They even created a separate branch of government to deal with it.

Congress specifically gave the courts jurisdiction in 1875 to hear cases that need to determine whether the Constitution has been violated. Part of determining whether there is a violation is trying to figure out what the document really means.

If you were a judge and I were a judge on the same appeals panel in a Circuit, we (as happens often) might disagree on how to interpret the Constitution. Our third colleague on that panel would be the deciding vote and, under our system, we three would vote and the majority opinion would be the law (at least in our Circuit) until a higher court ruled.

In some ways, I wonder our system could have derived some of its character from the questions England was facing in the Reformation period. The non-conformist position was that a reasonable man could read the Bible for himself and form an opinion on important questions, like the nature of God.

The Church of England at that time strongly disagreed and only allowed one official interpretation of the Bible - the one transmited by the church leadership.

If your leanings were Separatist, or Puritan, or Quaker, Baptist, Catholic, or Jewish you were in a lot of trouble in those days.

Our system of law allows for a lot of discussion and disputation on the meaning of things. We do have a process for a final opinion, but I think it is telling we call them "opinions."

January 13, 2011 at 9:37 p.m.
Echo said...

steve_smith_tn - Your clear vision about what makes America great gives me hope. I do trust you to stand up for what is right. I trust your judgement. Men of timeless wisdom faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles and rejected England's taxes and rule. It was almost an accident that this country was able to solidify.

canarysong - It's true. You are surrounded by gun nuts. We are at the grocery store. We stand next to you pumping gas. We are driving behind you. We live next door. We have hundreds of bullets for each gun in storage and equipment to make more ammo. We can cast the bullets from wheel weights and can make hundreds of shotgun shells in just a few hours. We have books with bullet making data for all types of weapons from the last 100 years. We have a real love of military rifles and buy them cheaply and in great quantities. We have rifles with optics that can easily drop a deer at 1200 feet. We have a nation of hunters, sporting clay shooters, bullseye pistol shooters, cowboy action shooters, and guys that can shoot a .45 caliber handgun with machine precision. There are organizations hell bent on training the next generation of responsible gun owners and friends converting friends into new shooting sportsmen and sportswomen.

You are only safe under a rock and then only maybe - find a big one one and crawl back under it.

January 13, 2011 at 10:11 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The argument about whose rights the 2nd amendment refers to is now settled law per SCOTUS.

It is everyone of us.


bw48,

"You can't buy guns made of plastics that slip past metal detectors."

Sure you can, I bought one for my 10 year old for Christmas. Of course it doesn't launch anything with enough force to do any damage to anything but an eye, maybe. Nerf makes em, so does Air-soft.

Have you been watching too many Bruce Willis movies?


nn,

"Can high fashion body armour be far behind?"

http://www.miguelcaballerousa.com/index.php/vmchk/MC-Black-Collection/View-all-products.html

Not really high fashion. About as fancy as I'd care to wear.

"Is part of the American Dream to be well armed?"

It's a part of mine, I'm close to being there. Just need a few other items. http://www.impactguns.com/store/M82A1-KIT.html http://www.autoweapons.com/photos10/apr/3200m16.html http://www.autoweapons.com/photosv/supershorty.html http://www.autoweapons.com/photos09/aug/2818m14.html http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/apr/998vick.html And Sailorman, our twins are still available. http://www.autoweapons.com/photos06/nov/1419m60e3.html

I obviously need to be working harder.

January 13, 2011 at 10:12 p.m.
steve_smith_tn said...

alprova -

The comments to the video are even more enlightening than the video itself. So uplifting. So simplistic. The video is pretty funny though.

January 13, 2011 at 10:22 p.m.
rolando said...

blackwater sez, "A gun, on the other hand, has only one purpose. It's made to kill."

No, blackwater, a gun is made for another purpose altogether: to establish control...the killing, if it happens, is incidental to the issue...and is hardly mandatory. It is an Olympic Sport, after all.

No, it is the human and not the gun that decides HOW, and to what degree, control is established. The same thing could be said of a knife...or a car.

One huge difference between a gun and a car completely blows away your opinion and argument that guns should be regulated, registered, insured, etc just as a car is [and do not imagine it is anyone's opinion but yours...you own it].

The difference? The ownership of a gun is constitutionally -- and by US Supreme Court ruling -- an individual RIGHT and is not to be infringed. The car is not and has not be so determined. Big difference.

NEXT!

January 13, 2011 at 10:41 p.m.
rolando said...

"And yet, you quoted two U.N. charters. You contradict your own sources."

No contradiction at all, alpro. Atheistic Progressives do it all the time in quoting the Bible...in which they do not agree.

"Nothing denied him his right, I suppose in your mind that is, to use his rightfully purchased firearm to kill six people and attempt to kill 13 more."\

And with that you would grant a person the RIGHT to kill someone. Sorta twisted. Care to clarify it? It isn't me that said it...wishful thinking on your part, perhaps?

"..."Militia of the United States of America." It doesn't exist. Not now, not ever."

So far as I know [or care], it never has existed. Never said something by that name did. I did not capitalize the word "militia". Progressives, delight in challenging the 2nd by using that word...the US Supreme Court disagrees with that view.

So you are either a part of the SCOTUS definition or of your own. Let's see -- hm-m-m. Alpro...SCOTUS. No contest. Unless you are NOT an adult American male of sound mine and body...in which case you are NOT part of a militia [under the original definition].

If I had know YOU would answer my post, I would most assuredly have included the entire text of the Bill of Rights -- since I mentioned those, too. You DO so LOVE your long-winded posts...get paid by the word, do you?

January 13, 2011 at 11:01 p.m.
Clara said...

This has been quite a blog...and Cartoon.

I'm mentally exausted even though I couldn't contribute anything, really. Why did the breather clench her lips so much? Very unattractive.

January 13, 2011 at 11:13 p.m.
rolando said...

Speaking of trolls, alprova, YOU are the troll here. You have posted four comments, only one of which could be described as anything but flaming.

Do you have anything solid that is NOT an overt attack on someone's post in a futile attempt to belittle?

January 13, 2011 at 11:15 p.m.
mountainlaurel said...

Canarysong said: “All day you guys have been throwing around the example of Switzerland.”

When it comes to guns, NYT’s Nicholas Kristof says America is more like Yemen, which sounds like the kind of country the NRA membership would love:

“. . . There are about 85 guns per 100 people in the United States . . .

. . . The only country I’ve seen that is more armed than America is Yemen. Near the town of Sadah, I dropped by a gun market where I was offered grenade launchers, machine guns, antitank mines, and even an anti-aircraft weapon. Yep, an N.R.A. dream! No pesky regulators. Just terrorism and a minor civil war.

Just since the killings in Tucson, another 320 or so Americans have been killed by guns — anonymously, with barely a whisker of attention. By tomorrow it’ll be 400 deaths. Every day, about 80 people die from guns, and several times as many are injured."

[Why Not Regulate Guns as Seriously as Toys – Nicholas D. Kristof’ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/13/opinion/13kristof.html

January 13, 2011 at 11:37 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

Clay, just seen this tune posted on the Truthout site. Another great toon and I have seen your toons over time on other sites. Chattanooga is blessed to have your services. http://www.truth-out.org/

January 13, 2011 at 11:51 p.m.
canarysong said...

Echo, re 10:11pm post;

If you are indeed a responsible gun owner and sportsman I would have no problem living next door to you because of your guns. However, your wish for me to go crawl under a rock (simply because we disagree) does make me wonder how nice a neighbor you would be.

Steve, Congrats on being the first in your family to go to college, sincerely, no sarcasm. I appreciate reading your viewpoint even if I don't agree.

Night, all.

January 14, 2011 at 12:24 a.m.
nucanuck said...

This has been an amazing display of passion and concern over gun ownership,probably reflecting similar attitudes around the country. Why more passion about guns than any other topic,and at a time when the nation is beset with big problems?

Maybe there is a fear,not a fear of what now is,but a fear of what might happen to the social fabric if economic conditions...unemployment,inflation...results in social unrest...if our cities become unmanageable. What else would explain such a move to arms other than an undefineable social fear?

If fear is the cause,could the Glock become a symbol for America in decline?

Could a move somewhere in the future, away from gun violence,be a sign that America,a new America,is taking shape?

Let us all hope and those that wish,pray.

January 14, 2011 at 1:24 a.m.
acerigger said...

I believe Second Amendment Rights are pretty much secure,all the fuss is,(imho)just another "shiny object".Wanna see somethin' REALLY SCARY?,,our 4th Amendment Rights are being shredded. To wit, “Technologies and techniques honed for use on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan have migrated into the hands of law enforcement agencies in America7” writes the Washington Post in its continuing series, “Top Secret America.”

The Post reports:

“Nine years after the terrorist attacks of 2001, the United States is assembling a vast domestic intelligence apparatus to collect information about Americans, using the FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators.

“The system, by far the largest and most technologically sophisticated in the nation’s history, collects, stores and analyzes information about thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

Sad to say, this article has gotten little attention. Is it a matter of so little importance? Governments at all levels are united in a campaign to spy on Americans, gathering, analyzing, and storing data without probable cause and hardly anyone seems to care.

Have Americans become so docile that they roll over for anything rationalized as necessary in the “war on terror”? If so, they have abandoned one of greatest virtues of early generations: suspicion of power. They might as well stop talking about liberty and individualism because it just a lot of empty words now.

Don’t think this has anything to do with “terrorism.” The high volume of information flowing into the government’s computers will actually render law-enforcement agencies less able to detect real threats. Indiscriminate gathering of data makes us less, not more, safe.

We shouldn’t be so naive as to think these new data-gathering powers won’t be used even when the authorities know there is no threat. The Post says that “state reports have sometimes inappropriately reported on lawful meetings.” That should surprise no one.

Of course, government officials say only real threats are the target of surveillance. Notice that the war party was wrong when it said that “fighting them over there” would mean we won’t have to “fight them over here.” In fact, fighting over there is what brought the threat here. But now we’re told that home-grown “terrorism” is the new big danger. There is much reason for skepticism: The alleged plots exposed by the FBI seem to have been hatched by the FBI’s own informants. If the FBI has to furnish a “suspect” with phony explosives before arresting him, what threat was really involved? Such cases should sicken every American. Government agents should not be giving security tests to individuals and arresting them if they fail.

But apparently in this age of the “war on terror” anything goes. Does anybody care? @www,fff.org

January 14, 2011 at 2:32 a.m.
rolando said...

Good post, ace.

To answer final final question; yes, some of us still care. We are the ones with guns.

Admittedly, they are not a very good answer to what is posited above; we are literally out-gunned...our local police are now military in everything but name. But it is a start.

The American people have been well trained [read "brain-washed", maybe even "mind controlled"]. [That last should perk up the spy-system's eavesdrop/wiretap computers. LOL.]

We now have tens of millions of inhabitants who know no other life than what you have described...to them, the mere thought of opposing or "Question[ing] Authority" does not even occur.

The country is not only ripe for the sheering, it is happening now. Sad but true.

One might take a page from Al-Qaeda's notebook and stop using the Internet, phones of any type, etc and use personal contacts for important business, I suppose.

In closing, the Fifth Amendment is shredded too. The right to private property no longer exists. [Chrysler's bond-holders comes to mind. As do numerous cases of eminent domain being used to take private land for personal use of another private citizen.]

January 14, 2011 at 6 a.m.
delmar said...

Saddest element of the Tucson tragedy (for me anyway) is that there is yet another baby, 9 year old Christina Green, who will never get to grow up and experience life. Just knocks the wind right out of ya.

Try and make it a great day everyone.

January 14, 2011 at 7:04 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

Great toon Clay!

Althought I just cracked the screen on my iPhone and need a new phone, I'm headed down to Gander Mtn to buy me a Glock. I'm a nut.

Have a great day all.

January 14, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.
Sailorman said...

Scotty

"And Sailorman, our twins are still available. http://www.autoweapons.com/photos06/nov/..."

Wow gave me a thrill up my leg, all over me!

ace

I'm shocked and awed - your post at 2:32 is brilliant.

What a way to start the day!! Y'all have a great one

January 14, 2011 at 8:01 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Acerigger: Thanks for being vigilant.

Too many Americans are just too happy to give up old freedoms for new found "security."

Another reason archeologist will one day look back at us at wonder, "What the hell were they thinking?"

January 14, 2011 at 9:05 a.m.
cannonball said...

The "nut" is the man that did this cartoon.

January 14, 2011 at 9:10 a.m.
Clara said...

Alprova,

Isn't the "National Guard" supposed to be that "well regulated militia"?

January 14, 2011 at 9:43 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "No contradiction at all, alpro. Atheistic Progressives do it all the time in quoting the Bible...in which they do not agree."


I see, and any evidence whatsoever that someone is progressive in their thinking or atheistic in the slightest, changes the core meaning of the words contained in a Bible, I suppose?

Are you seriously proposing that only people of faith are the only people allowed/capable/knowledgeable enough to quote words contained in a Bible?


I wrote -- "Nothing denied him his right, I suppose in your mind that is, to use his rightfully purchased firearm to kill six people and attempt to kill 13 more."\

You responded with -- "And with that you would grant a person the RIGHT to kill someone. Sorta twisted. Care to clarify it? It isn't me that said it...wishful thinking on your part, perhaps?"


You Sir are the person who amazingly wrote -- "Nothing on record denied him his RIGHT to keep and bear a firearm."

Please don't attempt to turn your own words around on me, as if I were the one defending his right to own that gun he used to kill and maim 19 people.


"..."Militia of the United States of America." It doesn't exist. Not now, not ever."

So far as I know [or care], it never has existed. Never said something by that name did. I did not capitalize the word "militia". Progressives, delight in challenging the 2nd by using that word...the US Supreme Court disagrees with that view.


That's it? Your failure to capitalize a word changes what you posted completely and puts a whole new light on it? Rolando, you are a completely off your rocker.

You're a lost cause and this is the cherry on the cake of all the crap you have ever posted.

Not only have I never, once stated that you nor anyone else is not entitled to own a gun, I own many myself.

You quote crap all day long about how the Constitution of the land is all that matters, and when you are faced with the exact wording of the Constitution, what do you do? You fell apart like a Jello mold turned over before it was set and chilled.


"So you are either a part of the SCOTUS definition or of your own. Let's see -- hm-m-m. Alpro...SCOTUS. No contest. Unless you are NOT an adult American male of sound mine and body...in which case you are NOT part of a militia [under the original definition]."


What the heck are you talking about Rolando?


"If I had know YOU would answer my post, I would most assuredly have included the entire text of the Bill of Rights -- since I mentioned those, too. You DO so LOVE your long-winded posts...get paid by the word, do you?"


Just because I declared you to be a troll, it does not mean that you will be able to have free reign to post complete tripe.

Rolando, no one alive today has been automatically considered to be a member of any militia.

You might want to double your daily doses of Metamucil.

You're so full of crap.

January 14, 2011 at 9:49 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "Speaking of trolls, alprova, YOU are the troll here. You have posted four comments, only one of which could be described as anything but flaming."


I told you a long time ago Rolando, if you are going to post nothing but fiction and lies, expect you to be called on them.

I have posted no flames. I did throw out some bait, in the form of a couple of questions, and you bit, hook, line, and sinker.

You even surprised me, for I had no idea how warped your understanding of the Constitution was. Your militia commentary totally threw me for a loop. I have no idea where you derived all that from. You've lost all sense of reason.


"Do you have anything solid that is NOT an overt attack on someone's post in a futile attempt to belittle?"


Try sticking to the facts and offering some truth for once.

No one then finds it necessary to "belittle" you, as you call it.

January 14, 2011 at 10:11 a.m.
alprova said...

Clara wrote: "Alprova,

Isn't the "National Guard" supposed to be that "well regulated militia"?"


Wikipedia considers it to be the modern day version of a militia, but there is one problem with that.

The creation of militias were considered to be a Constitutional right extended to each, individual State. The U.S. Military is not considered a militia.

The National Guard is now a consolidation of what once was 50 states worth of militias and they have been folded into our U.S. Military, are funded by it, and are controlled by it.

Several States still retain a certain amount of authority over these men and women according to their State Constitutions, but when push comes to shove, the states have basically defunded their own militias.

The U.S. military is pulling all the strings on them these days.

And one more thing;

Many years ago, state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies.

No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation.

January 14, 2011 at 10:35 a.m.

Kum-ba-ya my Lord, kum-ba-ya.

It's me again. (I am what's wrong with the world.)

There is more historical perspective in this thread. Good job. Especially helpful is that which extends beyond the past two years (Democrats/mainstream media) or ten years (Republicans/alternative media).

Twentieth Century statements on international human rights are instructive, as are the documents related to the founding of our republic. Good job on introducing those to the conversation. I commend to your reading the work of a little-known 17th century writer who had profound influence on the achievements of both movements: Hugo Grotius. His writing affirms many of your assertions that individual rights do not exist in a cultural vacuum and that modifications to civil law in the name of rights do not guarantee civility.

Below is a link to a recent paper on how his ideas could help us achieve greater consensus on the ordering of human rights. They may help us reverse the failures we have inherited from legal traditions and cultural movements of the twentieth century.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/9/6/5/2/p396523_index.html

January 14, 2011 at 11:34 a.m.
acerigger said...

Rolando, Congress is about to "quietly extend" the laws enabling warrantless wire-tapping,unauthorized interception of communications,"no-knock",(warrantless) raids,extrordinary renditions(kidnapping),indefinite detention(whether charged with a crime or not),"enhanced interrogation"(torture),targeted assassinations (w/out a trial),and much,much more. And to add insult to injury, they call it the "Patriot Act" I don't believe a gun will be much defense against these types of tyranny.

January 14, 2011 at 12:17 p.m.
Sailorman said...

ace

You're just full of good news, thanks! One gun might not be effective - thousands might, but that's only in the movies.

"Patriot Act" indeed. Scary stuff.

January 14, 2011 at 12:52 p.m.
Francis said...

guns do keep us free...so does our military...to deny that is not to have a grip on reality. the world is a hostile place. peace is never awarded, only fought for and won. criminals will do anything to do what they need to do....to disarm citizens makes no sense.

guns had nothing..nothing to do with this tucson incident...the 2nd ammendment had nothing to do with it...nothing.....

the papers in the uk..and europe..have story after story about the cost of gas and food prices...but not here...the liberals rags in this country are trying to find new and exotic ways to destroy sarah palin and tie her to that nut job in tucson.......because obama wants it that way....

lets distract the american voter.....

how scared must obama and the democrat party be of palin......very... why are you libs on here so obsessed with her?

how can you be proud of liberal leadership when their first response to every crisis is to punish the citizenry by taking thier guns away, limiting their freedoms and shutting down talk radio.

January 14, 2011 at 2:39 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

ace,

""no-knock",(warrantless) raids"

BAD, BAD idea. It gets us dead criminal government employees, and dead innocent and/or not-so innocent civilians.

Dumb as a box of rocks, and unquestionably tyrannical.


"targeted assassinations (w/out a trial)"

Once the WJC Whitehouse opened that particular can during the Bosnian conflict, they gave the go ahead for the same tactics to be used against employees of the U.S. government.

Good for the goose, and all that.


These, and all the others you listed, are symptoms, not the disease itself.

The disease is governmental overreach.

They've forgotten that all of their authority is on loan from the citizens of this nation via the U.S. Constitution which specifically disallows these things.

If they can do these things, it is by the authority we've invested in them.

If we can invest in government the power to do these things, it is only because we hold that power ourselves.

One can't transfer powers that one does not possess to start with.

That they are too stupid to realize this punctuates the mental constipation involved in modern governance.


In the case of no-knock warrants, I can only say that if someone kicks my door in without knocking and presenting a valid warrant, folks ARE going to die. I'll likely be one of them, but I guaran-damn-tee I'll take a couple of JBTs with me.

In the case of targeted assassination. Do they REALLY want to lend legitimacy to this tactic ? (It can then be used against them, w/o any sort of moralist dilemma.)

They've all lost their minds.

January 14, 2011 at 2:58 p.m.
Nyclaguy said...

Love the cartoon. It speaks the truth. We have more regulation over our cars, licenses', & healthcare than we do guns. The govrment needs to wake up & tighten up on the ability to buy a gun...for everyone.

January 14, 2011 at 3:08 p.m.
canarysong said...

SCTTYM, re 2:58 post;

OMG, I actually agree with you on something! At least I agree with your first two points. It's very hard to see the logic of such measures. Also, ethically a very slippery slope.

January 14, 2011 at 3:26 p.m.
Clara said...

Thanks Al! I didn't know they had been absorbed mainly by the Army.

January 14, 2011 at 4:17 p.m.
miraweb said...

Arizona (where my mother was born) has long been a state where gun laws are fairly relaxed but a weapon is recognized to have both rights and responsibilities.

Why did no one in a gun-friendly state have a firearm at the grocery store?

The majority of folks there would only really think bring their gun along for the day if there was a decent chance of getting a deer. It just isn't needed for a gallon of milk and a snickers bar.

I hope we continue to think that way. Carrying a gun as an act of fear is not the America I would want.

January 14, 2011 at 4:21 p.m.
mymy said...

While our country is going to hell in a hand basket, you waste all this time debating guns . If you paid attention to what is more important you would be shaking in your shoes as you dang well may need that gun one of these days to defend yourself and this country as our government certainly is not! Wake up people! Better yet start taking language classes in Russian, Chinese, Spanish, etc.

January 14, 2011 at 4:46 p.m.
acerigger said...

They've all lost their minds. Username: SCOTTYM | On: January 14, 2011 at 2:58 p.m The scary part is, these are not "ideas", this IS what is right now. (wotcha gonna do 'bout it sukka?, call yer congressman?)

January 14, 2011 at 6:03 p.m.
hotdiggity said...

SCOTTYM | On: January 14, 2011 at 2:58 p.m.

Wow Scotty, some of your post concerning "governmental overreach" sounds like complaints made by the ACLU concerning the Patriot Act and "no knock warrants". Nice to see you trumpeting their cause, namely civil rights.

Of course in typical fashion you make the insinuation that if a law enforcement officer acting under a court ordered no knock warrant forcibly enters your house then you will shoot them. Tsk tsk.

January 15, 2011 at 1:42 a.m.
whatsthefuss said...

There was a gentleman close by with a gun and he says he came running to the area the shooter was being held by a few very brave citizens. He stated he did not show his gun because he was afraid people would identify him as the gunman and he would be shot. It does make sense. So much for carrying a gun.

January 15, 2011 at 8:46 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Of course in typical fashion you make the insinuation that if a law enforcement officer acting under a court ordered no knock warrant forcibly enters your house then you will shoot them."

I made no such insinuation.

I stated it as an outright fact.

Kick in my door = get shot.

Again I'll say this so that folks do not mistake what I'm saying:

Knock on the door, present a valid warrant, and I will be 100% cooperative with the search of my property.

Kick in my door, and you're entry will be resisted with all the force I can muster. It doesn't matter to me if you are a meth-zombie looking to violate my property rights, or a JBT "just following orders" and violating my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, you'll encounter exactly the same scenario and you'll be lucky to escape with your head intact.


If more of us adopted this same attitude, the no-knock entries would stop, as those guys want to go home after every shift just like the rest of us.

The 2nd Amendment exists to counter governmental tyranny. Kicking in doors on private dwellings under color of law IS tyranny, and it will only continue if we allow it.

When they start picking up 2 or 3 casualties every time they "serve" no-knock "warrants", it will stop.


I bear no ill will toward most of our law enforcement agencies or actors. They are an asset to our communities and a vital part of civilized society. When one paints a line with lawful, civilized society on one side, and criminal anarchy on the other, I'll be standing with the officers on the civilized society side.

When they step across that line and start wantonly violating rights, all bets are off. My position will not have changed, theirs did.

January 15, 2011 at 3:16 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Username: Nyclaguy | On: January 14, 2011 at 3:08 p.m. "Love the cartoon. It speaks the truth. We have more regulation over our cars, licenses', & healthcare than we do guns. The govrment needs to wake up & tighten up on the ability to buy a gun...for everyone"

What an uninformed statement!

Nyclaguy, why don't you go and try to buy a new car and see if you can get by the background check. Oh wait, you don't need a background check to buy a new car!

Why don't you get a license to keep a car or truck on your own property? Oh yeah, because you don't need a license to OWN a car.

You need a license to drive a car on PUBLIC roads!

Guess what you already need to carry a concealed firearm in public... you got it, a Concealed Carry Permit.

A Concealed Carry Permit holder:

Has passed both State and Federal fingerprint and background checks Has NO felony convictions - Lifetime Has no Class A or B misdemeanors within the last 5 years Is not delinguent in Child Support, Student Loans State and Local taxes...

How much can you say about someone holding a driver's license?

January 16, 2011 at 9:56 a.m.
SavartiTN said...

Scotty, there have been casualties with the no knock policy. Usually the homeowner still gets the death penalty if they shoot a police officer...that is, if the homeowner lives through the event while holding a gun. There is no defense to shooting of a police officer even in your own home. The Castle Defense does not stand. Be self righteous but learn the law.

Also, the Patriot Act pretty much assured that you no longer have the right to unreasonable search and seizures. They can even come into your home while you are away and look through and photograph your possessions, and then leave without you even knowing that they were there. Unless they removed the "sneak and peak" provisions and I just wasn't aware of it.

January 16, 2011 at 7:29 p.m.
acerigger said...

Yeah savarti, that's still in there,along with electronic "snooping",GPS surveillence, and who knows what else.(we're so screwed)

January 16, 2011 at 8:58 p.m.
mymy said...

Like I have said before more important things going on in the world:

Ahead of his visit to Washington this week, China's president calls the present U.S. dollar-dominated currency system a 'product of the past' and highlights moves to turn the yuan into a global currency.

January 17, 2011 at 5:24 a.m.
acerigger said...

"More important things"????? As my dear Grandma used to shake her head and say,"MY,MY". Are you suggesting that our basic rights take a back seat to monetary issues? My advice to you is to recognize the "shiny-object" tactics of governments.

January 17, 2011 at 6:40 a.m.

A socialist government here in America will free us from this hopeless mindless maddness we call life!

January 25, 2011 at 5:34 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.