Quiet Down There

The New York Times noted that in the four months the Supreme Court has debated overturning the Chicago gun ban, 10,000 Americans have died as a result of gun violence. In another bold foray into judicial activism, the Roberts Five has imposed its preferences on the Constitution, blithely ignoring ¬†half of the Second Amendment. The full amendment reads, “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 does an unaffiliated bunch of armed citizens, packing whatever weaponry they can get their hands on, constitute a well-regulated militia? Well, never mind, the originalists on the Court have decided to ignore the original text in this case and apply only the second half of the amendment, concocting an individual right where none clearly and plainly exists.

I’ll be the first to admit that localized gun control laws don’t work particularly well, mainly because it’s far to easy, say in Chicago, to leave the city and purchase an arsenal elsewhere. The NRA, along with its allies in Congress and in local governments, has been spectacularly effective in preventing a rational system of gun control to take root in this country, and the result is a nation awash in gun violence. Worse, as the available weaponry becomes more and more sophisticated and lethal, police are losing the arms race to criminals, who find it far too easy to acquire whatever they want.

None of this seems to matter to this court, which has an agenda and will find a way to bend the meaning of the Constitution to suit its liking. Let’s see, it’s taken me about four hours to draw this cartoon and write this blog. That means about fourteen people died from gunshot wounds while I was sitting at my desk. What a country!

41 thoughts on “Quiet Down There”

  1. I used to think that gun control was useless- but that was the 70′s and if we had started then maybe things would be better by now.

  2. Ed, you disappoint me. I have loved your humor since I first saw it. But this toon crosses the line.

    Your comment: “How does an unaffiliated bunch of armed citizens, packing whatever weaponry they can get their hands on, constitute a well-regulated militia?”

    “The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.” (Wikipedia)

    Well, Ed, the Militia that fought so well during the Revolutionary War did so by using their own weapons. For the most part, they were all ‘unaffiliated’ until they formed up in groups, at which point, and not before, they could be regulated. In short, they used the weapons they owned and held in their own homes, both for protection and hunting, to fight for the good ol’ USA.

    Perhaps you are confusing ‘armed citizens’ with the National Guard and the Reserves. I will guarantee that the majority of people in those groups also have personal weapons in their homes. I would also bet that you never served.

    1. lol. Well, you may still be fighting the Revolutionary War…the rest of us are trying to keep our kids safe in the TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.

      1. True, I feel the same way, it’s just a matter of HOW you keep your kids safe. My oldest son is a Lieutenant Commander in the Seabees. The younger son teaches in Boston. I taught them both to shoot both rifles and pistols at an early age. I was a boy Scout, and believe in the Motto, “Be Prepared”.

        1. Prepared for what, man? You can’t justify everything with a hollow motto. I look around and I don’t see a need for non-professionals to own guns. I have to totally twist logic (eg, “the terrorists”) to see the justification.

  3. To all the nut cases out there whose guns may be emotional representatives of their, …, lack of manhood, and to y’all faithful for Antonin Scalia, who claims the Constitution is a dead document and does not evolve, you may not have caught the news as yet, we are at peace with the Iroquois nation, and the other natives of these lands who beat us white folk by a very long time. That said, y’all want that militia all over again, just in case the Beckistan comes breaking down your door, then turn in your automatics, semi-automatics, repeaters, all gun clips with more than 1 bullet, all weaponry obtained by whatever means that date from anywhere in the 19th, 20th, and today centuries, and y’all can come and collect your muskets, ball, & shot. Well that was easy. Now you have the era for which you pine so dearly.
    Next, I suggest a primer on the English language, including dictionary & thesaurus, so y’all may learn to talk and listen with other people with whatever is in that upper part of your heads. Talk with your language, target practice at the range. And when the natives get restless, grab that musket from over the doorway, and have at it.
    Now, the Constitution and your rights, and mine, and all of ours. As this US Supreme Court of Republican wackos Activists judges legislating from the bench, the highest court of the land, they, Alito & Roberts in particular, perjured themselves at their hearings. They are turning over years, decades, and more of established law and jurisprudence of by and for the people in favour of greed and money and selfish pompous arrogance. Considering what they have done, fully I expect some crackpot republican, most likely, to scream FIRE in a theatre, cause and panic, hit the courts, and appeal to the Roberts/Alito activist legislating judges for his (not hers) Constitutional rights to free speech. Fully I expect those dangerous scary irrational illogical supreme court judges to rule in his favour.
    Y’all should know none of the Bill of Rights is absolute. Does free speech extend beyond words and money to a bomb in an abortion clinic? Seems like it might. Not scared? Fools!
    You have your rights. I want you to have your rights. But your rights may not impinge on anyone else’s rights. Common sense dictates the law, or used to, up until recently.
    I do not want guns in bars, at schools, in parks, in traffic.
    Your sense of the Wild Wild West is false. And for the shoot-outs of the old west, usually the guy down the street was not hit by the bullets. Many of building was shot up. Are our children really safer caught in a crossfire? Since you cannot answer, I will. NO.
    Have a nice day.

  4. We have the right to buy guns and have had this right since the founding of this country. That is the fact of life. The question should be what kind of weapons can be sold. But then we have the fact that the black market in this country has guns of all kinds for sale if you have the money and desire. Enough of the people believe that it is a right of the people to own weapons and that will not change , so chill out Mr. Duck. This country has survied having guns. The Real problem is that the criminals have the superior fire power in certian areas of the country. Which brings us to illegal imgrants and drug lords, They are the people that are killing people not John Doe with his hunting rifle. The real problems are by bad people shooting bad people, it is like the wild west in some areas of the country. The innercity, the border towns, poor areas all are the heavy crime areas , some how they get guns and shoot each other or stab each other. Look at the Stats.

  5. Now, that cartoon was funny. Not in the way intended, to be sure. It is rare to see a cartoon that can be appreciated by both sides in a controversy. But the cartoon truly shows just how effective gun bans are in Washington, and particularly Chicago.

    But the progressives want to impose Srebrenica on all of us.

    1. Not all editorial cartoons are intended to be funny. While I know that Ed can speak for himself, my take on this one was one of sadness and tragedy.

  6. Locke, The people killing people with guns by in large are bad people If they did not have a gun they would use a knife or some other form of weapon. The vast majority of the crime that includes death by gun fire is commited by people that are set out to do people harm one way or the other. Read a newspaper , watch the News , it is the same all over the country. Young men , gangs, drugs , etc. result Death.

    1. Total bullshit.

      Yeah, violence happens. Yeah, “people kill people.” Yeah, some death would happen anyway. But why is it that countries without guns have fewer gang violence deaths? Because guns make it a hell of a lot easier, we’re talking orders of magnitude, to kill than knives or “other forms of weapons” that you can’t seem to identify (what, rocks? chainsaws?).

      I mean, I can kill someone with my hands, but isn’t it the whole point of a gun that it makes the job 100,000 times easier?

  7. Locke, Shame on you.
    1. You have not really checked your facts before flapping your fingers. Westen Europe has within a Point almost as much percentage wise violent crime as we do.
    2. England has Gangs running amoke., France same.
    You have a choice in this country to own a gun or not. I do not own one, My choice. My neighbor has six. I do not care what he has. I do care about the 14 year old gangbanger that is in the inner city that is shooting someone so he can get into the gang. Or Because he is robbing the local cornor market and gets ratteled and pulls the trigger and kills a clerk because he did not give hime the money fast enough.
    3. TV and Movies make these guys heroes. Change That?
    The world is a Violent place. The Guns in the hand of an idiot is a bad thang. So is a Knife.

    1. I beg to differ. Sure, it’s “within a point,” but we’re dealing with small numbers here. You have to think about scale, and when you do, you see that the U.S. has more than twice as much violent crime as France (.04 to .017 murders per capita) and England (.04 to .014). When you compare the populations of the countries, you see that the “within a point” difference is actually tens of thousands of more people.

      The gap in murders may be larger than the violent crime gap, but I think that proves my point. Yes, knives are bad. Guns make it a lot easier to kill people. When banned, people don’t have as much access to them, and kill fewer people. Is any gun ban perfect? No. But do the stats back up my argument? You’d better believe it.

      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

  8. In these United States of America today and for the future (as long as we last) we will have the right to own guns. Certain States might ban guns or try to and certain cities will try to ban them. Enforceing that ban is another problem that will lead to a much bigger problem if it is expanded to the general population. The law enforcement agencies cannot control the criminals and guns ( which is where the problem is), if you pass a law to go door to door and search for weapons then you have a much bigger problem. People will want to know why did the search not start where the crimes are know to be commited, not in the crime free areas. I think you then are in an area of reasonable cause. This used to be called a FOO FOO world.
    Enforce the laws we have, keep up the borders, Deport the criminals from other countries to prisons in countries like Turkey ( they need the money) so that word will get out that we no longer spank criminals hands and send them home so that they can slep back in again the next day. That is like catch and release with a mouse trap in your house. We have to be tougher, smarter, and more realistic about the real world.

  9. I did get carried away just a bit. What is missing is the point of who is doing the shooting. It is not Mr. Average John Doe. The vast majoriy of crime and shooting is being done by people that are the underbelly of this nation by in large. Most volient crime is commited in inner cities , ie big and medium cities and along our borders. This is not a problem of the general population it is a problem affecting the general population if they come into contact with people from or they go into areas populated by the non productive part of our population. If you have the right to protect your property and family , which you do then by what means is your choice as long as it is on your property.

    1. In the face of prose you turn to statistics. In the case of statistics you turn to prose. Sigh. You have been caught in the wrong, and now you’re just making yourself look silly by trying to dodge it by getting all sentimental.

  10. Where would the arms and ammo industry be without the NRA? Business is business, whether the TBTF financials, health care, farm owners or arms and ammo. What good would be a free market if you couldn’t organize and corrupt it?

  11. Locke, Just trying to get my point across one way or the other. Either way they both end up at the same place.
    We have laws in place and the majority of people want them to stay in place. So for the time being they will and act as a check against the rabbel in our major cities.
    When you can send me pictures of you going out at night in the high crime areas of your town unarmed or better yet moving your family into that area then I will believe that you are a person of true conviction and not just the mouth piece for gun control, that believes that this is a country full of rose gardens, peace loving, wonderful educated, careing people that will just want to help you. And if you do not live in a major town let me know I can give you one to come to and several streets to drive on after Dark to test your convictions.

  12. Locke has a lock on illogic. You want prose? Put this simple phrase in your pipe and smoke it: “As guns are made more illegal, then more illegals will have guns.”
    You want statistics? Go to the http://mpdc.dc.gov/ Metropolitan Police Department, District of Columbia and drill down on the “Crime Statistics” link and check out how violent crimes have decreased recently since the DC Vs. Heller decision in 2008 which allowed citizens to arm themselves for defense.

    P.S. the 10,000 number bandied about by others isn’t a real statistic, it is just a number isolated out of context. Preferably, statistics should have multiple numbers for comparison, and preferably more to extrapolate a trend.

    1. So the national murders per capita number (which by the way is pretty consistent year to year) isn’t enough for you, but you’re willing to base your entire gun laws argument on the crime numbers for one year (all that’s available post-Heller is 2009, crime was actually up in 2008) in one city in the U.S.? Talk about illogical. Meanwhile, if you read any lit about Heller, you’ll see that it actually hasn’t really changed law enforcement practices at all. There’s absolutely no proof of any sort of correlation. Again, please don’t spew the B.S. you get at NRA meetings. It really is designed to make you look idiotic.

      1. After trying to stay out of this issue, I see that Locke did a better job than I ever could. What nonsense to debunk Ed’s (NY times) 10,000 number on a statistical basis (blah, blah, blah) while at the same time taking D.C’s numbers for one year and magically attributing the numbers to “violent crimes have decreased recently since the DC Vs. Heller decision in 2008 which allowed citizens to arm themselves for defense”.

        You make OldBT look like a genius and he’s clueless. Do you work for Ruger or what?

  13. That was the most vile article are read in my life,

    No wonder that the Rocky Mountain News went out of business, employing low life hacks like Stein is the surest way to go bankrupt. What part of a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT do you not understand you despicable tyrant? Do you also think that women should not be allowed to vote? Do you support slavery? Or do you pick and chose which rights you want to take away from the citizens?

    Sick, fascist, totalitarian propaganda.

    Thank God technological progress deprived you of a pulpit from which to poison American minds.

    1. Leo, Leo, Leo, get a grip. There is, believe it or not, a genuine disagreement over gun rights, and the meaning of the Second Amendment. Aside from that, you’ve broken my cardinal rule about comments. Name calling is not an argument. If you wish to continue commenting on this site, you will confine yourself to rational disputation, not to foaming at the mouth. If you are unable to do so, I will block you to make room for more sensible people. Got it?

      1. My civil rights, ones held by the citizens of this country since its founding, are not up to debate, discussion, editorializing, or judicial demagoguery. Show me a group of citizens that were historically denied access to guns, and I will show you second class citizens. Show me a city with draconian anti-gun laws and I will show you cesspit of murder and violence (Chicago, DC, NYC).

        Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens prevent violence. But that is irrelevant. What matters is that gun ownership is a fundamental right that cannot be infringed upon for any reason including crime reduction.

        1. Leo,

          I do find it amusing that you mention women’s right to vote and the abolishment of slavery as fundemental rights, neither of which was given in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They came with the 13th and 19th amendments. That implies to me that we could, as a society, decide by an amendment to eliminate your right to bear arms? Correct?

          1. The 13th and 19th amendments extended freedoms and civil rights, they did not abridge or take them away, and hence are poor examples. Prohibition would be a better example but drinking alcohol was never an enumerated civil right. Probably the best modern example would be Proposition 8 in California where a group of people were given a set of rights and later saw them taken away. I don’t think the gay folks in California are particularly happy about that one, now imagine a third of the country was gay and they had the right to marry since the founding of the nation only to have it taken away.

            But yes you are right, the 2nd amendment can be repealed. But gun grabbers know they can never pass this, so they instead try to circumvent the Constitution with a myriad of obnoxious and plainly unconstitutional laws designed to harass gun owners and rob them of their time and money.

            So yes you can theoretically pass an amendment to take away the citizens guns, or to re-enslave black people. The thing is, you are going to have a hard time convincing either group to comply, in fact you just might find out what the second amendment is really for.

        2. Oh, Leo, really! That you believe things fervently doesn’t make them any more true. Your civil rights are always open to debate, discussion, editorializing and judicial oversight. That’s the nature of this country. Civil rights have evolved and changed since the beginning of the Republic, and will continue to do so. Women now have the vote. Blacks can now sit undisturbed at lunch counters. You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Gays, I believe, will soon be allowed to marry. As for the second absurd statement, I don’t believe the citizens of England, France and Japan, all of whom are subject to rigid gun restrictions, think of themselves as second-class citizens. Many people from those countries wonder why we Americans prefer to cower in fear of being shot. There are numerous democracies with strict gun controls, and surprise, they are safer from gun violence than we Americans, and don’t seem to suffer from a lack of personal freedom. Before you make strident, idiotic pronouncements, you might want to think (if possible) just a little bit first.

          1. You miss the point Ed.

            Gun ownership is a Constitutional right. You cannot take it away just because a segment of the population feels scared or wants to impose its will on others. I never lived in England or France, but England seems to be an increasingly tyrannical state with severe limitations on freedom of speech and religious expression for the sake of political correctness. They also threaten Israeli government officials with arrest on bogus charges if they enter the country. France is another poor example, a country whose capital was burned and looted every night for a month with the police helpless to stop the rioters. How about Israel Ed? Disarm them too?

            At any rate, we have a good system of government here in the states. Just because France disarmed its population, or Iran stones its gays, doesn’t mean we have to do the same.

            Civil right evolve Ed, but towards more freedom, not towards slavery. When citizens see their freedoms taken away from them by the government (usually “for their own good”) they may just chose to put these rights to good use. Tell you a small secret Ed, citizens in this country have a right to own guns not so they can shoot deer, or even protect themselves from criminals. Its a little insurance policy against judges, politicians, and bureaucrats that forget who they work for.

  14. Leo,

    You are either one sick puppy or your are a paid blogger for the gun lobby. Twice today you have thrown up a threat that the gun toters of America are going to start using those guns against “judges, politicians, and bureaucrats who forget who they work for”. You are one scary guy.

    If 3/4 of the States ratify a constitutional amendment that there should be some limits on your “right to bear arms”, then the gun folks will come out and do whatever to protect that right. That sounds a lot like the South and Slavery a hundred and fifty years ago. You try to take away our slaves and we will fight…..

    I don’t know if you are just blowing smoke but the last time that kind of dare was thrown down, about 600,000 Americans needlessly died in a pretty pointless exercise.

  15. 95% of the guns in this country are out in the rural areas, while 90% of the gun violence is in the inner cities. The small town I grew up in, everyone had guns, and when I was in collage, the first murder in the area in 20 years happened, it was a stabbing.

    The point I’m trying to make is that it isn’t the guns that are leading to so much violence, if so, the country side would be littered with corpses. There is something going severely wrong in our society. And it doesn’t even need to be guns, as in last years beating death of a student in Chicago, caught on someones phone video, with lots of people standing there watching in the video, but no one will admit to seeing anything.

    Or the gang rape of a girl in CA, which reportedly many people witnessed, but no one called the cops.

    There is something wrong with this society, and I don’t think guns even enter into it.

    1. Thre are so many “gun facts” out there it makes your head spin. I couldn’t find the two you mention, though: “95% of the guns in this country are out in the rural areas, while 90% of the gun violence is in the inner cities.” Where did those come from?

      I did find that 1/2 of all households have guns and that only 30% of all housholds are rural versus urban. So, I’m trying to figure out how 95% of the guns could be in the country.

      I especially liked the site which interspersed quotes from Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer with those of Stalin, Hitler and Mao. I’m sure there is no bias there.

  16. The GOP icon is Reagan. Does anyone remember this?

    The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law.

    In brief the act:[1]

    required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status, and granted amnesty to certain illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously
    made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants (immigrants who do not possess lawful work authorization)
    granted a path towards legalization to certain agricultural seasonal workers and immigrants who had been continuously and illegally present in the United States since January 1, 1982
    Who was out picking your veggies yesterday in the wind, rain and 59 degree temps? Who was cutting your poulty? Cleaning your house? Cutting your lawn? Cleaning your pool? The Dream Act is for good people who want to better themselves and become good citizens. These people are better than they people who voted against this bill. The GOP will cease as they are they alienating the fastest growing sector of voters

    I would love to see what Bohner, McConnell and Cantor will eat when we have no laborers.

  17. New contest for 2011. When will our mute Sup Court Justice Clarence Thomas speak? The last time he asked a question in public was Feb 22, 2006.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>