Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for January 26, 2011

I just hope Heath Shuler is more accurate with his gun than he used to be with a football. If he’s not, he’ll kill 33 bystanders and miss the perp altogether.

Where does this stuff come from? CCW folks just want to be left alone. They’re the reason you don’t get carjacked at every intersection. Why is this so hard to understand?

They’re the reason you don’t get carjacked at every intersection. Why is this so hard to understand?

Its hard to understand from the POV of a country (UK) with hardly any guns (few police officers carry a gun even). No, we don’t all get carjacked all the time.

Supersurfer: cling to your fantasies, buddy.

Meanwhile, I invite Supersurfer to go duckshooting with Dick Cheney.

When I was young, detente worked so well we only had to hide under our desks once a week.

The guy who wrestled the gun away from Loughner almost got shot by an armed bystander, Joe Zamudio, who in an interview said he considered himself very lucky that he didn’t shoot. Then he helped jump on Loughner to subdue him (which is laudable).

However, what if Loughner had been able to grab the pistol that this man had stuff in his jacket pocket?

Fairportfan2 said, “Yup. That’s the sort of scenario that altogether too many of the gun-nut powder-sniffers like to imagine.”

Nothing at all…

GrimmaTheNome said,

“They’re the reason you don’t get carjacked at every intersection. Why is this so hard to understand?”

“Its hard to understand from the POV of a country (UK) with hardly any guns (few police officers carry a gun even). No, we don’t all get carjacked all the time.”

I’m sorry you don’t understand what “freedom” means and being from the land of the “Magna Carta” makes it, also, very sad.

“I’m sorry you don’t understand what ‘freedom’ means…”

Freedom = The “freedom” of gun lobbyists to use their financial leverage to influence legislators and brainwash feeble-minded citizens into thinking that having more guns in circulation is a good thing.

While there is crime in the UK, their more sensible gun policy has resulted in a far lower murder rate. I envy them in this regard.

Bill T: This just in - Freedom is not exclusive to the US!

Citizens of most European countries live in complete freedom. We have freedom to associate, freedom of movement, freedom of speech. We are free to do almost anything except to walk the streets armed to the teeth.

In Ireland, where I come from, the murder rate is less than a fifth of that in the US, and murder with a firearm is twelve times less likely than in the US. Statistics are broadly similar in all European countries that restrict gun ownership.

You can keep your freedom to bear arms! I like to be free from the worry that every nutcase I pass in the street may be carrying a lethal weapon.

For the record, I’ve never been carjacked, mugged or assaulted, but then I’m only forty-eight…

So who’s responsible for the kid with the face full of plastic splinters from his shattered Nerf rifle, and the little old lady who the light fixture landed on?

jondb said:

You can keep your freedom to bear arms!

My opinion (off topic): only when they are at the same time obligated to arm bears. That would make hunting season so much more interesting!

Satirizing gun proponents as 1950s cowboy movie star wannabes is just plain silly. I’m sure that crime is not much of a problem in the wealthy and privileged enclave where Trudeau lives, but it’s a different story here in the real world.

At present in the United States there is nearly one gun for each citizen. Literally hundreds of millions of guns in private hands. If more guns equals more safety, then why is our rate of violent death higher than any other developed country? All of whom have a less-well-armed citizenry? Why is it higher in states with more guns like New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, than it is in states with fewer guns like all of New England (including urban Boston and Providence). It;s higher in North Carolina than in New York.

How many more guns do we need before we are as safe in Tennessee as they are in Ireland?

And remember, most gun killings are not committed by people with criminal records, but by hitherto law-abiding folks who murder family, acquaintances, or themselves.

How do we account for the fact that those who own guns are far more likely to commit suicide than those who don’t? Would it not be logical to assume that those who want to kill themselves will find a means, and if not a gun they will find something else? Or perhaps guns just make killing so much easier.

Statistics show that people with weapons are MORE likely to be injured when involved in a crime than those who aren’t armed. Being armed makes many people cocky, and incautious.

Freedom, Bill? Is that really what this is about? Tell me, Bill, would you rather live well-equipped with all the weapons you like in a Mogadishu without any government or police, but completely free to do as you please — or live unarmed Copenhagen, with all those terrible laws to keep you safe and healthy?

I am NOT in favor of confiscating guns wholesale. But I don’t think it unreasonable that we take at least as much care in regulating who is wielding deadly weapons as we take in regulating who gets to operate a motor vehicle on our public streets.

US gun murders statistics are appalling and only equivalent to the number of guns in the country and the ridiculous gun laws. No other democracy in the world has a similar problem.

US fascination with guns looks from the outside like arrested development since the wild west era, and an outdated gun lobby with too much power.

To call this freedom is just plain stupid.

@jondb: right said

Yes, England and Europe have very few guns and much less violent crime than we have here. OTOH, Canada has more guns (per capita) than the US… and also much less violent crime. The problem, it seems, is not the guns… it is US. As a poster for “Bowling for Columbine” said, “Are we a nation of gun nuts, or are we just nuts?” The answer is pretty clear.

Then again, it’s not our fault. Read the plaque on the Statue of Liberty, which accurately describes who we are: “the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.” In this case, “your” refers to the great nations of Europe, who were happy to dump their “wretched refuse” into New York Harbor. We are a nation of criminals, malcontents, religious fanatics (never forget that the Puritans left Britain because the Church of England wasn’t fundamentalist enough for their tastes), failed revolutionaries (friend of mine is descended from a family of Germans who failed in a revolt and were given a year to depart Germany or be killed on sight), and other losers. Given the material we have to work with, it’s surprising we don’t have more crime than we do.

True, allowing a bunch of riffraff like us to have guns is like handing an alcoholic a bottle of Everclear, but there we are…

well debated, Doughfoot. As an RN who works in ICU I get to see the results of some of those scenarios…… if they make it that far….Not pretty.

I recall a story of a gun-nut that was arrested for shooting at some perps that weren’t hassling him. It seems that in some states, it is illegal to put innocent bystanders at risk.

I’m having trouble reading Mike’s reaction, here. Is that a gently amused look of, “Suuuure! You betcha!” Or is that a look of, “Right on!”

One thing to remember about Mike is that he did survive an incident that satirized the Bernie Goetz incident in 1984. I’d like to hear his take on the whole thing…

I sure would like to see some quotes from some good unbiased studies on here to substantiate all the rhetoric. A lot of “facts” are biased bs (in the comments above). In the United States, freedom to bear arms has been in conflict since before the constitution and bill of rights was written. It was written somewhat ambiguously because the founding fathers could not come to agreement. Some wanted it for defense from the federal government, some for personal protection. Some were very concerned that the citizens would have guns. Still the same today. Yet studies show no decrease in violence with gun control laws in any area of the world. What we have is declining morality throughout society.

@pbarnrob — LOL, good one. From perhaps my favorite comedy concert film.

@ puddleglum “The problem, it seems, is not the guns… it is US.”

“We are a nation of criminals, malcontents, religious fanatics, failed revolutionaries , and other losers”

And through our social/welfare/immigration/drug policies, we’ve done our part to grow our own native crop of losers, too. You nailed it, puddleglum. That’s the best post I’ve read here in months.

Facts? Want facts?

The 2009 murder rate per 100,000 in CCW-without-a-permit Arizona is 5.4. In gun loving Texas, 5.3. In Nevada, 5.9. In New Mexico, an eyepopping 8.7.

In wimpy, liberal Massachusetts, 2.6.

The violent crime rate in the same year per 100,000 in the same states was 490 (Texas), 508 (Arizona), 619 (New Mexico) and 702 (Nevada). In heavily urban, heavily GUN CONTROLLED Massachusetts? 457.

If an armed citizenry is supposed to make us safer, when will that actually happen, please?

“I recall a story of a gun-nut that was arrested for shooting at some perps that weren’t hassling him. It seems that in some states, it is illegal to put innocent bystanders at risk.”

Potrzebie, in most states the only reason that a licenced gun owner can pull his weapon is if he/she has reasonable cause to believe that his/her life or someone else’s life is in danger. In the permit class, the instructors make it clear that if you think you’re going to get punched in a bar fight or generally beat up, that doesn’t count and you Will Go To Jail if you introduce your gun into the scenario. However, if someone is going to brain you or someone else with a crowbar, that’s a reasonable cause to introduce them to your 2 friends, Smith and Wesson.

Anyone who shoots into a crowd isn’t a gun nut. They’re a nut, period. They’re the same kind of people who create fertilizer bombs and other devices, as was found ready to detonate in the MLK parade earlier this month.

Is someone going to try to invent a causal relationship between the amount of fertilizer in a country and the number of bombs set off by terrorists? It’s true we have a lot in the US… even in this forum.

Ravenswing, you’re actually proving a point, just the opposite one you’re trying to make. In the violent states you’ve cited, good people NEED more guns to protect themselves from all those violent criminals coming over the border. By your causal logic, the solution to high crime is to give the legal citizens access to even MORE guns!

In wimpy, liberal Massachusetts, the greatest threat to public safety has been drunk Kennedys driving around. Accordingly, the state has installed rotaries at virtually every major intersection to make them dizzy and help slow them down (if you’ve driven in Mass, you know what I mean).

Well, America is becoming more like the Wild West every day. Some guy “jogging” at midnight in Florida, packing a pistol and $1000 cash, murdered a teen who assaulted him. Unloads a clip of hollow point bullets into a teenager, shooting him several times in the chest, back, and buttocks (as well as missing several shots). Gets an out of jail free card thanks to Florida’s “Stand your ground” law, which apparently allows you to continue shooting at anything you find threatening until they’re dead. Seriously? Shot in the back and he’s not facing manslaughter?

Exactly. If the Republicans are so frightened of being shot they should wear a bulletproof Kevlar vest under their suit–but that would be logical.

America still lives in the fantasy of the Wild West (which never existed. Even Tombstone had a gun-control law, stirictly enforced.)

Even though Canada has as many guns as we have I am sure that it would be helpful if we had fewer of them in the US. The math alone would say that your odds would be greater that you would be safe if there were fewer guns. We have plenty of them in the US even if Canada has more per capita. The Magna Carta originated in England which has no problem with guns at all. Gun owners and their zeal in the United States have pushed the rest of us around long enough. Most people don’t think it is reasonable to carry guns in the streets. They just aren’t as fanatical in their beliefs in regard to guns. So, the very small number of people who do hold this point of view hold the rest of us hostage. Speaking of the Kennedys, they gave more than their share in relationship to this topic since two members of the Kennedy family were murdered thanks to guns. It may also be true that Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald were mentally ill, but the most important point is that they had access to guns in the first place.

Most people who die by guns are Suicides. Crime in the US decreased as “right to carry” was implemented and is holding steady. Interesting fact, ALL the deaths in Ireland by Gun were suicides - perhaps they are too depressed.

Here are the factual CDC Statistics, which should frame this discussion. By comparison we kill over 50K people every year by automobile, usually accompanied by alcohol, texting, etc.

In the U.S. for 2006, there were 30,896 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,883; Homicide 12,791; Accident 642; Legal Intervention 360; Undetermined 220. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (CDC, 2006).

Spamgaard, some people say that having a gun is a bad idea becasue it won’t protect you, and the other half say it’s a bad idea because it will. Which is it?

Florida is a good example to use. Here’s a chart that breaks down the murder rate in Florida before and after they passed their right-to-carry law:

http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/florida.jpg

Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.

More food for thought: the chart shows that murder rates spiked in Florida between 1980 and 1984. At the time, Florida citizens couldn’t carry firearms legally, so let’s not blame carry permits for that. But does anyone remember what DID happen in Florida during that time?

Also from the CDC for 2007. Accidents are #5; Suicides #11 and Homicides (not necessarily by gun) #16.

The 15 leading causes of death in 2007 were:

Diseases of heart (heart disease) Malignant neoplasms (cancer) Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke) Chronic lower respiratory diseases Accidents (unintentional injuries) Alzheimer’s disease Diabetes mellitus (diabetes) Influenza and pneumonia Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease) Septicemia Intentional self-harm (suicide) Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension) Parkinson’s disease Assault (homicide)

From the DOJ, this website offers some interesting stats for those who have been “quoting” statistics and for those who have been asking for them.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kfa#419

Some of the interesting summaries: ● After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm. ● After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988. ● Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s. ● Nonfatal firearm crime rates have been declining since 1994. ● Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993. ● Teens and young adults experience the highest rates of violent crime. ● Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005. Why this declining crime rate? Perhaps this one might be a clue: ● The proportion of those convicted in federal court who are sentenced to prison has been increasing.

One of the first acts of the new Soviet government was to strip citizens of firearms. In Western Europe, (note: I am an American and lived and worked in the Netherlands for a Dutch company) there is very little freedom of movement. The police/local gov’t requires registration of all residents, you cannot setup a bank account if you live outside the community and the government confiscates 50% (or more) of your income and redistributes it across the population. There is less poverty to be sure, but the likelihood of starting a business and becoming moderately wealthy is close to nil. The population is satiated with generous benefits and consequently less inclined towards violent crime. On the streets of Amsterdam you are more likely to be pickpocketed than become the victim of a gun crime. Bottom line: the government has a tighter grip on the population than here in the U.S., perhaps that is the reason for a lower crime rate.

phdtogo, what you descibed will undoubtably seem like to utopia for some folks.

But for others, such as myself, it sounds like hell.

There’s 2 emerging factors that are happening in Europe:

1) Even with 50% confiscation, many of these countries are going broke and cannot sustain their level of benefits. What’s going to happen when the public loses benefits? I think we’ve seen a hint of that in Greece, France, and Britain.

2) Some countries, such as Greece and Holland, are experiencing huge influxes of immigrants, particularly Muslims, who are becoming much more active politically.

The world is changing, and those who change and adjust with it are those who will survive it.

Ravesnwing,..what is the ratio of drug cartels in Arizona, Texas, Nevada, and New Mexico, compared with Massachusetts? Think that might be relevant?

Scooterep1…I have read these post for several years, but rarley bother posting because you don’t normally find well structured arguments. This is more of place for ranting.

Of course disease kills more people than violent gun crime–this doesn’t make it OK that so many people die of violent gun crimes. Also, there are certain areas in the US in which you are far more prone to being a victim of a violent gun crime than others. The fact that so many who resort to suicide use guns isn’t really such a wonderful point for a gun enthusiast to cling to either I am afraid… If you are desperate enough to commit suicide via a gun or otherwise, I am not sure that you are acting upon your own free will. Yes, I guess you are depressed, which is a disease.

The more thoughtful postings today, by Nemesys and others, focus on the lack of scientific correlation between guns and violence. An alternative view is offered by phdtogo, who suggests that some countries have prevented violence by giving their government “a tighter grip on the population”–in other words, by the Hobbesian expedient of giving Leviathan a monopoly of force.

Any Hobbesian solution is repugnant to Americans. Why are most of us (not just the gun lobby) reluctant to put our safety in the hands of the Federal government?

Because we can’t trust the government to deliver justice, that’s why. Our aptly-named system of “criminal justice” protects the rights of murderers (yes, in this system even a convicted murderer has rights!) while ignoring the rights of the victim. Call it Christian forgiveness, social progress, or just plain forgetfulness (“out of sight, out of mind”); the result is the same. Justice deferred is justice denied.

Substituting life imprisonment for capital punishment is justice deferred. Until the state reasserts its executive authority and delivers justice by putting to death anyone who is proven guilty of deliberately taking the life of an innocent human being, Americans are not going to seriously heed the state’s request for a monopoly on force.

Ps. @WaitingMan (below)

I think Obama shares the conservatives’ belief that capital punishment is justice. I suspect GT is one of those Christian liberals who reject that belief and regard the execution of justice as “state-sponsored murder.”

To all the psycho gun-nuts who are worried about the government seizing their cherished weapons; how many times did President Obama mention gun control in his SOTU speech last night. Exactly zero. Just as conservative as GWB on this subject.

If I hadn’t seen the strips from Monday and Tuesday, I’d think that the interviewee were the Red Rascal.

WaitingMan,

Do you have any words from the non-psycho gun owners?

Do Presidents always limit their initiatives to stuff they announced at SOTU?

Obama is not in the NRA’s philosophical ballpark on gun issues.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barackobamagun_control.htm

Still, he may refrain from gun legislation just because he doesn’t have the votes for that sort of thing.

I like to ask this: You are a well-trained Marine rifleman. You have a well-functioning M-16 rifle with a fully loaded 18-round magazine of 5.56 ball. You have been in-country for seven months, with your squad for five months, in the bush the whole time. You are walking number three. An ambush pops. What happens?

I guess the blank stares serve as answers.

legacy, you follow your orders, your training, and your protocols.

Toss another softball, please.

These sad little men with their movie fantasies.

There were plenty of concealed weapons in the crowd in Tucson. They saved no one.

Concealing weapons should be illegal. If you want a gun, then you have volunteered for America’s “well regulated militia”, and you should carry your weapon openly, so that we know.

In addition, the facts about all your weapons and all your contact information must be public, so that America can call upon you.

Waitingman, I, too, would’ve liked to hear a rational statement on the Second Amendment in President Obama’s speech, but we have a Supreme Court that has misread the amendment, so, currently, there is little Obama can do.

Until a new court reads the amendment fully, all gun control will be marginal, and we can expect every mentally ill person to be armed. That is the nation the N.R.A. desires.

Drome, I feel very sorry for you. Please take a civics course. Convicted murderers have some rights. Victims have all their rights. The state, when it prosecutes the accused, behaves on the behalf of the victim and on the behalf of the rest of us.

So who is in the minority on this one? During the period our President ran for office, some $18 billion!! more! was spent on firearms than the previous year. Over 80 million “registered” firearms are in American’s hands. Most of those are handguns. One observation, Crime is down in ALL categories. Is that because felons worry that folks may be carrying, or is it because all the Pawn Shops have excess inventory and no one can afford to buy anything from them?

@Brian Crook

Instead of wringing your hands over our ignoring your civics lessons that make everything clear, why don’t you try to explain why someone convicted of first degree murder does not forfeit their right to life along with their liberty and their pursuit of happiness?

Having consented to deprive a murderer of two of Jefferson’s innate rights, what is it—Christianity? liberalism? squeamishness?—that makes us preserve the third? Jefferson would be astonished to know that we’ve extended his declaration of universal independence to convicted murderers.

That’s criminal, Fer Lefer, or it should be, as it is for Americans to walk into Mexico and freely buy all the drugs they want. However, do you think the ACLU would object if persons were required to show proof of US citizenship before purchase of a firearm?

The border policies and their enforcement are jokes, and worse, they are a significant reason why many Americans do not trust the federal government to protect them. That aside, it shouldn’t be “easy” for anyone to buy a gun, especially after all the bleeep I had to go through to get mine.

The gunman was said to be “at the mall” - nothing else. Making any threatening moves? or is that taken for granted? after all this discussion about whether it’s ok to carry a gun?

@ Puddleglum - you claim that we here in Canada have more guns per capita than in the US - FALSE. According to the most recent international survey of domestic arms ownership (http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/publications/by-type/yearbook/small-arms-survey-2007.html) the US gun ownership rate is almost 3 times that of Canada. In addition, the percentage of handguns among Canadian owners is tiny, and it’s extremely rare for private citizens to be licensed to carry. The illegal weapons in the hands of criminals are nearly all smuggled in from the US - so thanks for that.

Brian, that still doesnt negate the fact that in states with CC, and lax gun laws, the rate of violent crime is less than those without CC and strict gun laws. Criminals want strict gun laws, so that their victims cannot retaliate, and gun control doesn’t reduce crime. Case in point

Well played Doughfoot. You get the best post of the day.

I lived in the Netherlands (Harlan) for awhile and loved it. Nederland is my 2nd favorite place to live. The people are really friendly and Amsterdam is my kind of town. There’s very little government interference of the pot boats on the canal. New Orleans may have held up better if it had been more like the Netherlands. I can understand how a place full of tulips, windmills, “Pauli” girls on bicycles, and highly educated people may seem exotic and scary to someone who’s never been more than 40 miles outside of Philadelphia Miss their whole life.

Someone posted to Nemesys a couple days ago that US guns going to Mexico are more disruptive to them than their marijuana coming here is to us. I just wanted to remind Nemesys that he hasn’t responded to that yet, and I think I know why. I agree with Nemesys though, that puddleglum made some good points about the destructive effects of alcohol, both literal and metaphorical.

Palin, you can either deprive them of their liberty and happiness or you can kill them, but you can’t do both. I think you’re looking for overkill in justice.

@MrRoberts - as you change the subject when the facts don’t fit your therory, I’ll remind you that, according to Ravenswing, “The 2009 murder rate per 100,000 in CCW-without-a-permit Arizona is 5.4. In gun loving Texas, 5.3. In Nevada, 5.9. In New Mexico, an eyepopping 8.7.

In wimpy, liberal Massachusetts, 2.6.

The violent crime rate in the same year per 100,000 in the same states was 490 (Texas), 508 (Arizona), 619 (New Mexico) and 702 (Nevada). In heavily urban, heavily GUN CONTROLLED Massachusetts? 457.

If an armed citizenry is supposed to make us safer, when will that actually happen, please?” I’m not vouching for his stats, but I don’t necessarily accept yours, either. His argue the opposite of your point. Where are your numbers, and where do they come from? And as to your earlier response that the southern border states need to protect themselves from all the illegals - that’s an interesting assumption, but like the rest of your post, contains no data.

Lou, I’d be happy to end the day by responding to an actual question from you, in the hope that you won’t be stalking me again with one more repost of that odd “San Francisco Movies” link .

The only problem is that I’ve answered it several times already, including today, that selling guns to Mexico should be a crime and does Arizona much more harm than good. I’ve even stated and restated that Arizona needs to tighten their gun laws because of it, which I imagine doesn’t fit into the “gun nut” stereotype that you’ve probably already formed of me.

However, if you mean that I haven’t responded to the marijuana aspect of the question, I will now. Since sales of marijuana provide money to Mexicans to buy guns (from wherever) that are then used to shoot US citizens so they can sell MORE marijuana, I don’t think even you would think that was a good thing.

But, if you’re saying that marijuana should be legal, I’m on the fence about it. While I think that anyone who smokes mj is a moron, there’s no laws against being a moron, so help yourself. However, even then, I’d say don’t buy if from these Mexican thugs. From what I understand, California grows more than enough to supply the whole country, so, as I always say, Buy American.

I don’t know about Canada, but I have read that the country with the highest rate of guns/capita is…. peaceful little Switzerland.

An interesting BBC article is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

One of the main reasons is that the Swiss require every single man to join their “well regulated militia” and then stay on standby with their weapons for the rest of their lives. But they love their guns, and buy lots, lots more, too. Switzerland is The Land of Gun Nuts.

Why don’t they have any crime? According to the BBC, it’s because “it has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.”

Which, if true, means puddleglum’s assessment was essentially correct, Canada/Switzerland substitution not withstanding.

Would it be worth it to have a crime-free country if compulsory military service was the trade off? How about if your country FORCED you to have a gun and use it to keep the peace?

Hmmmmm.

Yup – another delusional nutjob in the crowd. Sure makes me feel safe.

Last I heard (actually from relatives going to Canada), you can’t take a gun across the border. How could an American possibly expect to feel safe in Canada and gee, where are all the carjackings in Canada?

Thank God Mexico doesn’t attack the border arms depots here like what happened to Cambodia in the ’70s and in Pakistan for the last 10 years (by the time it’s all over), just because the host country allows it to flourish to the point it becomes a national security threat to them. As long as we arm the cartels we are at risk to the blowback. I wonder if they would be inspired by our constitution to form a “well regulated” militia to deal with that threat.

One way to get around that cartel stuff is through legalization/regulation. Nemesys is right there is a ganja glut in Ca, and it don’t need no stinking bunk, so the dreggs goes into the unregulated free market in places like Nemesys’ state. I noticed that Nemesys is consistently ignoring or downplaying the greater negative effects of alcohol abuse (look at Poe et al), while hysterically over-hyping the more benign effects of marijuana. Glad William F Buckley is dead, because I doubt Nemesys has the brass to call him a moron to his face.

Is this someone you want with his finger on the trigger?

Anyone posting more than a 10-line response to anything on a comics website needs to get a life.

Thanks for all the statistics and the invitation to go hunting with VP Cheney. It all comes down to this……if you feel more comfortable arming yourself, the Constitution has guaranteed your right to do so. If you feel it’s not right for you, don’t.

Someone’s been watching too much television.

Supersurfer, that’s a good way to look at it.