Posted By: D. Ciaciuch  on Wednesday, July 02, 2008

It appears that your cartoon tends to foster the incorrect image that the local police or the national guard are the only ones the second amendment was refering to. Any other interpretation would have started to spread into the other amendments such as free speech or freedom of the press or religion.

Posted By: Robert Ryan  on Wednesday, July 02, 2008

The term "nuts(z)" is not always predicated by the word "gun." It is obvious that you are comfortable in your ignorance by your characterization of the "typical" gun owner. I have owned and shot guns all my life and the vast majority of "typical" gun owners are conscientious, courteous, and very safety minded. The all share a love of the land and many work diligently at it's preservation. As are my guns, theirs are nothing more than a tool to be used where and when appropriate. I think it's safe to say that all lawful gun owners and shooting enthusiasts share a horror at the thought of having to use any of their weapons for anything other that sport and relaxation. Please do not charaterize dedicated gun owners as beer-swilling, knuckle-dragging neanderthals.

By the way, my guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

Posted By: R. Shirtz  on Wednesday, July 02, 2008

My 76-year old Grandmother lived in Detroit with a woman renter back in 1972. She lived in a tough neighborhood, because being on a fixed income, could not afford better. One night a drifter started to break in her house. She and her room mate screamed and yelled, but he kept coming through the door. She pulled out a S&W .38, and fired once, killing him.



Tell me, should she have tried to make friends with him? Wait for the police to come and draw a chalk outline around her dead body? She and her room mate could not compete with the young drifter physically--The gun equalized things for her. It's really easy for you or anyone else, including police, to be an armchair quarterback and say what someone like my grandmother should do in a situation like that.



Police carry guns not to protect us, the citizens, but themselves! Are we not as good as the police whom we pay for their guns and bullets with our tax dollars to protect themselves? Or are state servants more equal than the citizens they protect in having such tools to protect themselves?



Your cartoon infers that only the government can act responsible with guns, while any citizen who owns a firearm, is irresponsible and apt to shoot someone. Yet governments, with guns, having strict gun controls for their citizens, have murdered more of their own people that those tragically lost in gun-related crimes. Armenians, Jews, Laotians, and others that obediantly turned in their guns were murdered by their own goverment. Do you think, that when the Jews were rounded up by storm troopers to go to the death camps, they said; "Thank God my government does not allow me to own gun?" You don't think it can't happen in America? Think of the 125,000 Japanese Americans interned after Pearl harbor. Think of the millions of Iraqi civilians killed, maimed, and displaced by our armed intervention in Iraq. Look how our freedoms are being eroded by our government leaders, the secret renditions, the legalization of torture. Do you not see the irony of being concerned about a citizen having the right to own a handgun, when our government has at it's disposal machine guns, artillery, guided bombs, biological weapons, and nukes, all for the purpose of killing large numbers of people in one fell swoop?

Posted By: Roy Cobb  on Thursday, July 03, 2008

Sandy, I don't want to sound overly critical, but the real issue here is the artwork in this cartoon. It looks a little like an eighth-grader's doodle in history class.



Sandy,try a little harder. You must have been in a hurry.



Have a nice 4th of July.

Posted By: Mike L  on Friday, July 04, 2008

I own guns and support the 2nd Amendment, and I don't even remotely resemble your Gun Nutz.  You're insulting as well as an idiot.

Posted By: Mark  on Friday, July 04, 2008

I have a lot of respect for the troops... but there was Abu Ghraib.



I have a lot of respect for police... but how often do we see them beating the senses out of a minority.



Then I look at your portrayal of myself... a gun owner, and I'm really left to wonder.

Posted By: Bruce  on Saturday, July 05, 2008

This display of ignorance wouldn't even be funny to a liberal. The GUN NUTZ you refer to are most likely (TROOPS + COPS) while off duty, or retired.

Posted By: Ed Cornell  on Saturday, July 05, 2008

Yep--they're out there and they vote!

Posted By: Norman Kewley  on Sunday, July 06, 2008

YES only the degenerates,(the police and the army arms of the state) are allowed to defend themselves.

The law abiding are left to be victoms of all of the above.

Just like all thrid world countries with dictators.

We in lesser countries are looking to see if America would allow this great error to contaminate freedom of the right to protect one's life.

Posted By: Tom Mason  on Sunday, July 06, 2008

Yup without the 2nd Amendment what is going to protect the American people from the cops and troops?

Posted By: JLS  on Monday, July 07, 2008

First, I’m just a dumb old country boy but if I'm correct there is nothing listed on one's driver's license indicating "left", "right", or "center" as one’s political persuasion, nor is there is a blank for one's religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or position on gun control/ownership.  So it would seem to behoove each of to just “get over” ourselves” and do our best to be good citizens and treat each other with as much respect (in person as well as in print) as our fellow citizens will allow.



However, in my wallet I do have a valid Concealed Carry permit that does list the serial number of a duly registered revolver, AKA the local sheriff/law enforcement agency KNOWS I own said weapon and carry said weapon (concealed on my person and/or vehicle) for defensive purposes (gasp!).  Said permit, which costs “X” number of dollars per year is dependent on: 1) the decisions (could also be political whims) of the local sheriff (duly elected by the people of my home county); 2) my not being a “nut” (I believe that is probably an insensitive slam on and/or politically incorrect stereotype of anyone with a mental disorder or disease); and 3) my maintaining a “clean” record (no arrests, pay one’s taxes, and just in general being a law-abiding citizen of my country, state, county, and town).  



I for one applaud the recent Supreme Court decision on 2nd Amendment rights – at least there is language in the Constitution (ambiguous as it might be) that specifically states, “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.”  No where in the Constitution (that I could find) is there any reference to a “right to privacy” ergo legal abortions and/or homosexual rights.  Based on both those “rights” as afforded American citizens by pervious Supreme Court decisions, a reasonable person could make the logical leap that even if the 2nd Amendment did not specifically guarantee a federal/constitution right to legally own or possess a handgun in the privacy of one’s own home (domicile), the “undefined” right to privacy statues generated by the Court should also allow some sort of handgun ownership across this great nation, with restrictions (minors, criminals, nuts, et al).  Think about it, prior to the Court’s recent decision on the 2nd Amendment two consenting males within the confines of Washington D.C. could legally sodomize each other and any female could legally obtain an abortion on demand, but neither could legally purchase, own, or possess a handgun (for any purpose).



Now, having said that, based on the published yearly murder rate in Washington, D.C., pre and post DC’s handgun ban (yes, an outright ban of ownership and/or possession of ANY handgun, even in one’s home – regardless of how good or bad a citizen one might be [long guns were permissible in the home, but only if disassembled]), the stated statistics would tend lead a reasonable person (i.e., not a “nut”) to believe the ban was ineffective in reducing the murder rate, if not causative.  



In conclusion, each State or District in these United States should be free to make their own laws and regulations, to include homosexual marriage, abortion, and gun control based on the will of the people within said State or District (who elected their legislatures, governors, etc.), unless for whatever reason, said law or regulation violates or exceeds federal or Constitutional laws or rights.



Supreme Court judges are nominated by an elected President and confirmed by an elected Senate.  If one has a problem with a specific Supreme Court Judge, do the research to determine what administration nominated said Justice and what Senate make up confirmed.



As a very wise and dear friend used to say before he passed, “If you don’t vote, you can’t bitch.”  So if one is dissatisfied with the current electorate, then go to the poles and vote, at very level (national, stare, county, city) every time the opportunity avails itself.  This makes one’s voice heard and where it counts.  An informed and involved populace scares the @#$% out of politicians and rightly so…

Posted By: Marnie  on Monday, July 07, 2008

Many none mailitary and paramilitary Americans own guns and are not "Gun Nutz", so your comment is missing a very important fact.  That is that most civilian gun owners never fire a shot an any human being, never kill, or wound either the guilty of the innocent.  They do not mow down "colateral" civilians and blame their deaths on the enemy.



In fact it is the police and military who, because they are not answerable for the crime of killing, and wounding innocent citizens, who are the greatest armed danger in the world.

Posted By: Captain Barry Alsobrook  on Thursday, July 10, 2008

I was inspired to comment on your "cartoon", however after reading most of the previous comments, there is not much more to say. However, I do agree that if I was as poor a cartoonist as you, I wouldn't quit my day job. Also, it is people just like you who would have a major fit if somebody stereotyped a liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, pot-smoking, anti-police, anti-military left-wing "NUT" in a similarly offensive, inaccurate, idiotic, and pathetically stupid manner. We honestly believe that our Founding Fathers knew what they meant, and meant what they said, and that no amount of microscopic, fanatical, re-interpretation by all the lawyers and cunning linguists in the country could change the basic fact that the Colonists armed themselves in defense from a tyrannical government, knew the inherent value and importance of the right of self-defense, and guaranteed that right to all Americans, except felons and the insane, and a few others who have been deemed unworthy of the right to keep and bear arms. Shame on you all who would desecrate the memory of our forefathers by twisting their words and unscrupulously modifying their intent.

Posted By: Matt  on Saturday, July 12, 2008

I know many people in the military and I know a few policemen too. Many are very competant and professional. But I also know too many that I don't trust with firearms unless they're well in front of me. A uniform does not an expert make.