Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for January 27, 2011

All we need now is Clint “Dirty Harry” Eastwood in Congress. Sheesh!

Nobody who matters will be shot…

Fondling his Glock? That’s disgusting.

Fondling his Colt would be much better. Buy American. :)

Everybody run! The Congressman’s got a gun!

“I did it… for Ronny…”

Fondling a Glock is only safe if you put a condom on it first.

Concerning high capacity clips for handguns, I recently read a newspaper article which made a convincing case that there were absolutely no legitimate reason – either civilian or military – for the use of those clips. For the military, handguns in active combat are close to being completely useless. Outside of simple guard duty, only in very rare military situations are handguns used. Flushing out enemy tunnels, like in Vietnam, may be one instance in which a handgun may be preferable to a rifle, but even then an extended clip would likely get in the way in close quarters.

Another article I read a few years ago illustrated the questionable desirability of everyone being armed. In medieval Europe almost everyone, both men and women regardless of their social station, carried around a knife or sword of some type. The knives were carried not just as a weapon, but also as a useful tool. However, as a result hardly any men, and many women, didn’t have at least one or two stab wounds on their bodies because of some past heated disagreement. Available documents suggest that European townsmen were almost as likely to die from knife wounds as from disease or other causes. When the chief entertainment of the times was boozing it up at the local tavern, a high homicide rate should probably be expected. The point is, everyone packing didn’t enhance personal protection, it simply increased the likelihood of being attacked.

As our Bolshevik brothers overseas teach, there is no personal problem that cannot be solved with the proper application of high explosives. This European solution has been used successfully for centuries to enact change.

No matter where you stand in this debate, Roland’s description of the crowd as “a well regulated militia” is pretty funny.

Alabama_Al - Just one disease [plague] killed 25 million Europeans from 1347 to 1352, which was about one third of the entire population of Europe. I doubt that the number of homicides approached that number.

sandfan, as I am sure you already know, the phrase “a well regulated militia” is straight from the 2nd amendment.

@ Alabama Al: Considering that 75% of all gun deaths in this country are at the hands of family, friends or acquaintances of the victims - and this according to the police, who tout the stat often - it’s not as if things change much.

However much the gun nuts want to push the notion of Darkie Hordes Coming To Defile Your Property Before Shooting You, you’re far more likely to get popped by a drunk spouse or by the next door neighbor who’s peeved that your dog made a mess in his yard.

There have been AD’s from fondling or cleaning guns. NEvER EVER chamber a round if you do not intend to shoot.

Well put, Doc Toon!

I agree too Doc

well said

every one keeps talking about how 75% of firearm deaths are caused by friends or family. I don’t know about your family but I can think of about 90% of my family that wouldn’t be missed. Take that both ways.

“Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun in your hand…”

Good points, Richard Russell.

The men who assembled at Lexington and Concord to stand up to the British was the classic example of what was thought of as a “militia” at the time. However, I posted a few days ago the many different versions of the Second Amendment and it seemed fairly clear that Madison was referring to armed groups under state or regional juristiction, primarily formed for the purpose of resisting Federal “tyrants”. The Right To Bear Arms is in the Bill of Rights seemingly as a states’ rights issue against an overbearing central government. The founding fathers had seen too many despotic monarchs and dictators installed in Europe as a result of the citizenry being helpless to stop their armed forces.

don’t take your guns to town, son leave your guns at home, Bill—— don’t take your guns to town

-Johnny Cash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aKj9qATgGU&feature=fvst

“sandfan,” do you really think you’ve made a point? I was discussing the violence in the normal lives of medieval Europeans, not what happened in an extraordinary pandemic. I suspect not as many people have died by domestic handguns in the 20th century than died during the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic, but to bring that up in a gun control discussion is simply a non sequitur.

As callous as it may sound, the 2nd amendment was put in place to prevent the action of the government to disarm the populace under the guise of preventing misuse of firearms. There will be murders and accidents and suicides, but that is no reason to disarm the public.

“It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” —- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

If we put aside theorizing about what the Founding Fathers intended, and what the definitions of militia and well regulated are, etc. I think it doesn’t hurt to do a background investigation of someone who wants to buy a gun to make sure that he/she doesn’t have a violent past or connection to terrorist groups (foreign or domestic) before they get the gun. Also, there needs to be an honest assessment of how much fire power people might actually need.

@Tom, how dare you! Taking a rational and moderate position in a political discussion? What is your problem?!?

The comment that you are more likely to be killed by some one you know is true…….if you realize that more than 50% of all gun deaths are self inflicted - suicide.

There’s a series of sci-fi books by Marion Zimmer Bradley, I think the “Darkover” series (It’s been a coon’s age since I’ve read any.), in which no weapons are allowed except those that require the, um, combatants to face each other. This was in response to the people of the home planet, presumably Earth, using long-range weapons to kill each other. You know, like those drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Kind of comes back to my difficulty with buying a pistol because I made myself consider that I was buying it not for the abstract self-defense, but for the concrete killing of another human being; and that I needed to confront what effect that would have on my soul (and I am not religious).

Tom, be careful. You’re starting to make too much sense.

My state does multiple background checks, fingerprinting, reference checking, etc. all on a local, state, and federal level. I was in the state DPS getting my permit renewed and there was a 70 year old fellow who was trying to get a permit but had on his record an assault charge from the 50’s. Sorry, sir.

However, if there were not a safe and sane permit process, we’d be shoved back to the dark ages where people would make guns out of coat hangers in back alleys. People would still have guns, but owners would die from botched gunsmithing.

Today, thank heavens for a wise Supreme Court decison that recognized that a concealed gun is constitutional and part of MY body, and having it or aborting my right to carry is MY CHOICE, not for anyone else to decide for me.

prfesser, how was that? :-)

DaNoot, D.C. had a higher rate than either of the states with concealed carry that you mentioned. Don’t forget that Chicago, which had very strict gun laws, also had a high murder rate with firearms. here is a chart backing me up. Some of the states that it says didnt, now do, but it serves as backup regardless.

This is a list of the leading causes of death.

Must Share… Several years back I ran into a good ol’ boy who began berating President Clinton. He informed me that Clinton was allowing Russian soldiers to patrol the streets in Georgia and that when Clinton had enough Russian troops, he was going to expand from Georgia into the adjoining states, etc after taking away all of the guns. He said he and his buddies were ready for them though as they were stockpiling and hiding guns and ammo and training in their militia. I was completely confused until I remembered news stories about Russian troops being used in the Russian state of Georgia due to unrest of the civilians.

^and many NRA types were mounting a defense to send to Atlanta upon word of this situation.

That’s the problem with them Georgians, having the nerve to name their country after a State! That, and naming their capital city თბილისი !

Years ago I knew a guy in his twenties, living in his dad’s basement, who would, on occasion, put his daddy’s pistol in a shoulder holster, mostly hidden in a jacket and wander around town just to see people’s reaction when they got a peek.

The day he told me this, was the day I started believing in gun control.

^Is that what the police say?

As to the whole issue. I don’t believe self-protection is the reason for the desire to carry a gun. It’s self-importance.

If it were only a matter of self-protection (and assuming the gun owner were a Christian), I would cite this: “But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.” —Luke 6:27-31

A person following Christ would be more loathe to harm another or lose the chance to show love than to merely protect one’s own belongings or security.

For once, I agree with cdeward about the self-importance thing, but so what? He still has the guaranteed right to carry, just as he has the right to free speech, even when he says something stupid. He assumes a responsibility when he carries, and his background check is supposed to eliminate the unstable among us. That’s why the NRA supports background checks, but opposes arbitrary and capricious rules that do nothing but inconvenience the law-abiding.

Nemesys, you are correct to begin with the “original” thoughts of the founders in regards to the Constitution. After the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, both Madison and Jefferson agreed that the best recourse against acts by an intrusive federal government was through the powers delegated to the states. The legacy of their effort can be found in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. During the legislative battle in the House over the election of 1800, the Anti-Federalist governors of both Virginia and Pennslyvania issued mobilization orders to the state militias for a march on Washington. Their goal: to seize control of the government if the Federalists tried the same.

In late 18th Century America, the militias were populated by townsmen ranging in age from about 18 to 50. For the most part they used their own weapons and kept them at home. Local and state milities bore no resemblance to the National Guard of today. For all intents and purposes, especially in the last 10 years, the National Guard is not much different than the regular Army. Training, weapons, materials are all supplied by the government.

Madison and Jefferson both were minimalists when it came to the size and scope of the federal government. In their opinion, and much like Montesquieu, they believed that the republican form of government was best exercised over the smallest geographic area. Thus, to these Virginians, the federal government reserved the power to defend the nation, represent it’s interest overseas and to regulate trade and coinage. Most anything else was a matter of local concern. In the late 18th Century, due to the slowness of transportation, the militia was the first line defense against an invading army. In other words, every citizen had the right to self defense, both individually and corporately in the militia. There was no time to wait for a federal army (no standing army at this time) to be mustered, trained and dispatched 500 miles distant to a trouble spot.

Who does Heath Shuler think he is, thinking he can walk in and take Nancy Pelosi’s job. From the looks of Roland’s battle rattle, Shuler’s district must be near Baquba.

Lewreader you forgot to mention Oklahoma City and half the Planned Parenthood clinics.

I rubbed my eyes and reread it, but Nemesys, did you just make a compelling metaphorical pro-choice argument? If you did, you just shot your “abortion survivor” cred all to hell. What kind of survivor are you? Put the safety back on. BTW, since it’s so integral to you, how’s yer hammer hangin’?

You know cdward, I always thought it was something like that, Big Shots.

cdward, I agree with your “self-importance” theory, and let me take it a step forward.

There are many folks (most, perhaps) that are not comfortable with the idea of having the power to take a life, even in self-defense. They’ve advocated that decison (and that action) to the government, who as society’s representative in their eyes must know best. Moreover, they’re even more usure about someone else outside of societal leadership being able to make that level of decision. These folks are strongly in favor of gun control.

On the other side of the equasion are those who feel self-important, not societally important. These folks are willing to own the decisions and the actions required to keep themselves safe, instead of waiting - or hoping - for society to step in for them and solve their problem for them. These folks tend to be gun owners, in areas where that is allowed. Otherwise, they may carry a knife, or pepper spray, or have learned martial arts.

There are folks who don’t care either way. There are hypocrites, such as Rosie O’Donnell, who calls gun owners vicious names yet hires armed bodyguards to protect herself. There are also armed thugs, who are girly-men who want power over others without being willing to earn it. And, of course, there are crazy people, one of whose actions we witnessed earlier this month.

Possessing a gun means possessing the physical power to make a very important decision that may affect many lives. Some people hate the idea of any individual holding that much power, and trust in the government instead. Others - the self-important ones - trust in themselves to decide, and demand the freedom of self-determination to protect themselves should the situation present itself.

It’s a matter of principle. Imnsho, no American need ever apoligize for being self-important, provided he acts honorably and fullfills his responsibilities.

Besides, shooting is fun. Do some skeet shooting and take out a little frustration. It’s more relaxing than a massage.

Prolly not many “loose lipped liberals” around either!!!

Lou, I’m thrilled you picked that up, but must I explain satire to you?

cdward, using that same example, then every Christian should be avidly against war, but we know that’s not the case.

Using a firearm in self defense doesn’t mean having to harm them.

^ Maybe those are not true Christians?

Since Christians have been fighting among each other for 2000 years over the “who is a true Christian” question, I doubt that we’ll solve that one here.

will the gun oil be enough to replace the much needed testosterone required to feel like a real man?

i think Nemesys said it best

If anyone would care to read my post i made a good case for the right to bear arms. What would I know, I only have a Ph.D in Early American History from a top 25 university.

Togo, your case failed when you made an unwarranted leap from militia to individual. The writers of the Constitution wrote the Second Amendment in order to secure gun rights of the people who will be our “well regulated militia”.

No one denies, in that case, the people’s right to bear arms. The question is what right did Jared Loughner, whom the Army had already rejected, have to bear arms?

In spite of what you read in the funny papers, you really don’t see many, if any, scenes like this. Most gun owners are a bit more discrete.

@BrianCook, if the legal system had done its job, Jared Loughner would have already been red flagged because of the threats he’d made. He’d already been kicked out of the community college because they felt he was mentally unstable and dangerous. I agree with you that he never should have been allowed to have access to firearms. Now we have the anti-gun crowd trying to come up with new laws when they didn’t even follow the existing ones.