Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for June 18, 2015

“Most of them didn’t like it that I had better fashion sense than they did.”

Was this once considered to be funny?

The debut of Andy Lippincott?

You never know until you try.They triedThey know

She is honest, earnest, and clueless.

These days, gays react with anger to questions like that.

Remember when?

There have always been people attracted to their own sex, but some are on the fence and can go either way – so for those, it is a choice. Not that I care one bit.

“Son, did you know your grandfather thinks all men with long hair are gay?”.“That’s ridiculous! I’m not….”.“Whoa, son, it doesn’t matter. That’s what he thinks. And despite that belief, even when you grew long hair, he continued to love you. THAT’S the important thing. What’s more, when you cut it, he thinks you became straight again, especially when he heard you cut it because your girlfriend told you to.”.(Those who are offended by ignorance forget how ignorant they once were, how ignorant they still are about so many things and how misinformed we can all be.That said, I STILL think girls got cooties — it just happens that I like cooties.)

@Leftwingpatriot@LameRandomName“In that case, you conservatives have to accept the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. It’s purpose was not so the people could rise up against a tyrannical government. It was exactly opposite — the government could have a reserve pool to call forth forces to fight insurgency and foreign invasions (please read the Militia Act of 1792).”.

.“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.”.Let’s see, is 1789 before or after 1792?If before, subsequent acts wouldn’t be original intent, would they?This means other than able-bodied white guys of a certain age can be in the militia nowadays..The president can command the militias in time of invasion or insurrection and to enforce federal laws..Regardless, no federal law is lawful if it infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms and under the Fourteenth amendment local and state laws infringing would also be unlawful.(All this subject to reversal of current Supreme Court rulings, of course.)

(Contemplate phrase “free state” versus “free federal government”.)

I remember this original strip. Now she would be addressing Bruce Jenner and saying, *“But have you tried, really tried, living like a man?”

“You seem to be logically impaired …”.

Duhhhhh, is uhhhhh, that supposed to be an insult?." of course a subsequent act would be a perfect example of “original intent” ".How is this logical?I do something now.Three years later someone else does something tangentially related.How does their action prove my intent?Logically speaking, that is..“… the Military Act of 1792 was THE ACT that the 2nd Amendment was designed to allow”.You are saying the federal government could not have formed a militia absent the Second Amendment?How does that logically follow, especially considering militias already existed in states prior to the ratification of the Constitution?..“you seem to have a tendency to think 100% CONTRARY to logical”.Saying it over and over won’t make it true or false, just repetitive..What is my logical fallacy that I fail to see how one proves the other?

But if y’all insist..The Militia Act of 1792 as I understand it, established a universal (semi-universal?) draft.It required people to arm themselves with a certain minimum amount of killing power.It insisted the people under it practice regularly so they could effectively kill if needed.It insisted the people under it drill.It had no exemptions for pacifists or others with religious objections to killing others.It ignored women.It ignored minorities.It was actually intended in part to suppress minority uprisings, or to be able to do so in case the regular armed forces couldn’t kill them all..I simply do not believe the intent of the people who voted to accept the Bill of Rights included the power to enslave citizens.It seems illogical..I could be wrong..

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen , as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. "

many, some, original, later, theoretical, practical. I fail to see why any would believe nothing could differ in three or more years or that it makes a difference in viewpoint being on the outside or inside. Consider the Alien and Sedition Acts versus freedom of speech guarantee. Consider differences in attitude in giving power to presidents depending on the president, say Nixon or Obama. Some would trust one or the other, seldom both.

oh to remeet Andy – he was in a few earlier stories – GT used this character in the AIDS epidemic – and he survied an earthquake too – i think i fell for Andy when i was young too

Just give Michelle Bachman’s hubby a call, he’ll show you how to “go straight.”

A rebellion and a defeat by indian forces could have changed minds. Regardless, the preference was toward more weaponry in the hands of the people, not less. If you insist on claiming the pe6ple approved the bill of rights in hopes it would result in more power over their lives to force them to have weaponry, it sounds as if you think they were insane. This also seems illogical.

Lefty, using my dumbphone, note at the time you reference they meant state as in Kentucky RATHER than USA. Yes, they feared an excessively powerful gvt. Also remember Kentucky resolution laid foundation for seccession if fed gvt became what they considered oppressive. no marbury vs madison at the time.

(The idea touched on there is that “well regulated” at the time meant “well supplied” which I must agree ties the 1792 requirement that all have at least a certain amount of firepower to the 1789 requirement that keeping and bearing arms not be infringed so the militia could be well regulated.A way to be well regulated without infringing.)