No, no, the founders were only thinking of hunting and sporting! THAT’S the real true spirit of the 2nd Amendment!
*empties vomit bowl*
Anyone who doesn’t get the joke: I am sick to fuck of people trying to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment. When the colonies started to rebel, the conflict was not over sporting or hunting. The Brits tried to disarm the colonists. Alas, they were too late, and the colonists were able to fight back against ans oppressive government. The right of our nation to bear arms is not based on clay pigeon shooting, or hunting. It’s based on self defense. It’s based on our right to kill a motherfucker if they get out of line, be they criminal or governmental. Since just after the founding of this nation, the government has been trying to remove weaponry from the populace.
I am a moderate Liberal, but as I say often, I hold the 2nd Amendment sacred. I don’t think it should be a party line topic. My first and foremost responsibility is to protect my life, my loved ones, and my property. The argument of gun control is one that states that I shouldn’t need a fire extinguisher, because I already have 9-1-1 on my phone, and the fire dept. can deal with anything that happens in my home. That’s bullshit, and it’s bad for ya. Gun control is bullshit.
Lord, I’ve had a few beers tonight.
I haven’t read all the blog posts (but I have read all the comics!), so forgive me if you’ve already addressed this – how do you reconcile the 2nd Amendment with mass shootings? I’m liberal, but I appreciate the concept of an armed populace giving the government a reason to stay in line. But it seems like every time we turn around, there’s another story about someone shooting up a school, mall, what have you. I hate to think that it’s just an unavoidable consequence of availability of guns intersecting with the fraction of the population that falls through the cracks, but I don’t know what the acceptable alternatives are. What steps would you take?
Welcome to the comic, you might want to go back through the blog entries – this subject has been discussed at length.
I hate to think that it’s just an unavoidable consequence of availability of guns intersecting with the fraction of the population that falls through the cracks, but I don’t know what the acceptable alternatives are. What steps would you take?
Answer: None at all.
The violent crime rate, INCLUDING firearms crimes AND spree shootings, has been dropping consistently for the last 20 years. There are not MORE of these shootings today – there are FEWER. The only reason people feel alarmed is because the media is playing them like a fiddle, in order to sell more copy/get more viewers. We already have laws in place – enforce them better, but for the most part, just leave it alone. The system is working.
You know where it hasn’t been dropping? My home state of Massachusetts. Since we passed our hyperactive 1998 AWB, murders committed with firearms has doubled, and other violent crimes committed with firearms has gone up 20-30% (http://www.wbur.org/2013/02/04/mass-gun-crimes-rise)
In that time licensed gun ownership decreased from over a million owners to a few hundred thousand in Massachusetts. (*http://www.massgunlawreform.com/evidence.html)
There’s an interesting concept in this article: http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/ The guy’s a liberal, by the way.
He talks about the problem of Misleading Vividness. That’s the idea that occurrences that are actually statistical outliers, are thought to be more common and more of a risk, because they’re so emotionally shocking.
Thanks for your paragraph comparing guns to fire extinguishers. What a great way to put it. I agree with you on the second, and I am very much a Liberal, no “moderate” about it.
“It’s based on our right to kill a motherfucker if they get out of line” — Really?? Seriously?? I hope that was the beer talking. Does no one in your country understand basic grammar? Not my place as a Canadian to get in your business, I know, and really I just wish sometimes you’d all shoot each other and get it over with, but the wording of the Second Amendment seems to me to indicate that it was intended that in times of crisis a civilian militia could arm themselves (with the guns I’m guessing they would otherwise use for hunting). That doesn’t mean every day, and I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean you can “shoot a motherfucker.” But what do I know, I don’t spend my life thinking about guns and my “right” to shoot people. I protect myself and my stuff by locking my doors.
Love the comics, though 🙂
And what do you do if someone kicks in your door?
Scream, cower and die, I’m guessing. In that order.
Seriously, even ANIMALS understand the right to defend themselves against lethal intent with whatever weapon they can muster. How is this even a question, that a human being should not defend his/her life?
Funny… I know many Canadians who have refused to register their guns. They tell me this to my face here in Phoenix(we don’t really have a winter here, it gets a bit chilly, but almost never freezes). They are angry at their own government and are looking to move their businesses(and jobs) elsewhere. Canadians are joining the NRA even though it does not affect Canada. Which by the way has a bit over double the number of rape cases. Perhaps you guys could do a bit of killing motherfuckers that get out of line.
That’s per capita sorry… We have more people.
Regarding grammar, have you never heard of dropping into dialect to make, or underscore a point?
And, yes, it actually, it DOES mean you can “shoot a motherfucker”. Anyone who reads the writings of the framers of the Constitution can see quite plainly that the idea of self defense, against criminal behavior by either government OR individual, was at the CORE of the need for the 2nd amendment.
Protecting yourself and your stuff by locking your doors? Wonderfull, good for you! Works great, doesn’t it? Right up untill some 100 Kilogram goon KICKS your door in. OOOOOOoooohhh! Looks like locking things up didn’t work so well.
Considering the record of home invasion robberies and rapes the bad guy had committed, (a kitchen knife his only weapon,) It’s a damned good thing my partner and I had a gun. When he saw that, he ran away, instead of doing to us what he generally did to unarmed women. This is not about abstractions, this issue is about cold hard reality. Cold hard reality is, even in your country, the police have no obligation to protect you. In the end, you are the only one who can protect yourself. The second amendment helps us do that, by recognizing a right which exists regardless of whether it is recorded on a piece of vellum.
You’re lucky to live in a largely rural country with a big social safety net. Don’t get me wrong, I admire Canada. America has it’s problems, most self-inflicted, but if Canada had our population density, your welfare state would have a bitch of a time keeping up. That would mean more crime. I wonder if you would feel as strongly that an individual does not have the right to self-defense if Canada had the same problems to deal with that America has.
I simply can’t conceive of anyone who really believes (or ever believed) that the Second Amendment ever had ANYTHING to do with hunting or recreational shooting.
Seriously, who can possibly assume that the founding fathers, in the middle of designing the political structure of a continental government, took time out in order to set aside a special amendment all its own just to protect SPORTING GOODS?
The constitution is a POLITICAL document. If guns (actually, “arms”) are mentioned in it, it would be for a POLITICAL purpose. What is the political purpose of guns? Oh yeah — for political resistance.
How this is not immediately obvious to anyone who has graduated from high school absolutely flummoxes me.
The issue here is the human tendency to ignore logic that doesn’t support what you want to happen. That’s why you have fundamentalist Christians who insist on a literal interpretation of the bible, but ignore all the minute laws and regulations in some of the less-quoted passages.
Been to an Appleseed?
Not yet.
You should. I have a couple of 10/22s for loaners, if you need one. If I remember, you’re in Texas, so let me know if you sign up and I’ll try to make it.
And on this topic, can anyone explain to me why, in the wake of the Heller ruling that the Second Amendment is about protecting civilian ownership of arms for lawful purposes including self-defense, all the bullshit BATF/State Department import regulations about firearms needing a “sporting purpose” remain unvaporized?
NO TALKING.
PICK UP THAT CAN, CITIZEN.
Because saying “you are legally allowed to do this” doesn’t mean “you’re legally allowed to do whatever you want.”
Hence why the DC handgun ban being struck down did not lead to, say, minguns or assault rifles showing up in gun stores.
But that’s only because DC has NO gun stores. Otherwise, I bet they would have had AR-15s in them (well, before everybody ran out).
All this time I thought it was the “Right to Arm Bears”, I need to get those rifles back.
I thought it meant a right to the arms of bears… no wonder the park rangers yelled at me.
The irony is that Justice Scalia claimed then the Constitution was a “Living Document”. Under Reagan and Bush Sr. called for “gun control” and said it was legal to ban “assault weapons” even if they were mislabeled by an overzealous jackass with thoughts of political control. Now, with Obama in charge and Scalia being on the take from private interests and money going to his wife like the majority of the “Feckless Five”. We hear Scalia claim the Constitution is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD and has no business regulating our ways of law and that we should act so. If this was Romney and he was for gun control I bet he’s sing a totally different tune.
Even now the so-called “assault weapons” ban that Feinstein is calling for is idiotic. In Chicago alone only 300+ out of the 7,400 guns used in violent crime were done by by “assault weapons” the rest were guns that were sold anywhere from 10 miles to 1,000 miles away in Alaska that had come into state. The local gun shops in the surrounding counties all have been traced to the gun owners sold as straw purchase. Yet, out of those the #1 seller has never been charged with criminal intent; nor has the shop been totally shut down. A minor note is that his non-white competition who owned gun stores all have been charged and sent to jail for 20 years regarding ammo purchase by known felons. Seems someone is got some heavy protection to keep themselves out of jail.
Well played sir, well played.
Great strip today!
Anyone who doesn’t understand what’s going on with the rash of shootings lately needs to pick up a book called “The Tipping Point” by Malcom Gladwell.
Here, it’s even on Kindle (Grant, you need to sign up for an Amazon affiliate program)
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tipping-Point-Difference-ebook/dp/B000OT8GD0/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1
What’s going on right now is a social epidemic, something similar to the suicide outbreak detailed in Tipping Point. The shootings are a symptom of something far more serious that’s going to require a social change, not a legal one. Personally, my only shock at what’s going on is I expected this to occur in 2008.
Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
What’s going on is the media has decided that shootings are the fake-assed news story of the day to shove down everyone’s throat.
Violent crime in the USA has been in decline for two decades, and continues to decline. This includes shootings.
Thank you for continuing to speak truth to ignorance on this.
Also ( I forgot to say this earlier) Thanks for today’s comic. This is the lesson everyone needs to learn and hear over and over and over…
…Tyranny fears an armed populace.
You just gave me a new sig-line, btw.
I’ve read all of your FTF comics. This one is, by far, my favorite. It’ll definitely stick with me. Well done.
Actually, there’s strong evidence that the second amendment was included as a compromise between Federalists like James Madison, and Southerners George Mason and Patrick Henry who wanted a Constitutional defense for the state militias that were necessary in the slave states to present uprisings. It’s not about hunting, it’s not about tyranny, it’s about slavery. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm
That was a very interesting read, if an incredibly skewed one that only promotes one person’s opinion. I especially how the battles of Lexington/Concord are barely glossed over, and sidelined as “not really that important.” This is utter crap. Gage’s decision to seize the armories at those two cities were the beginning of the war itself – and it was a bloody beginning, indeed, with days of house-to-house fighting.
I especially love the sentence: The fact that colonists were armed helped make the Revolution possible.
HELPED? Tell me, would they have revolted using rocks and sticks against the Regulars instead?
An interesting read, but still rings as bullshit a law student cooked up for a term paper.
Bogus is an anti-gun professor. He was the one who started the whole “its a collective right which means we can deny everyone but government employees to have that right” that anti’s have been using for the last couple of decades.
At least I think it’s the anti-gun peoples Professor Bogus, I really doubt its a common name. There probably isn’t that many anti-gun people named Bogus who actually attempt to use history to lie rather than just make stuff up and scream “for the children!” at the top of their lungs.
Yes, it’s the same Bogus (Perfect Fit Last Name, eh?).
As a former Archivist and Historian, with my opinion supported by first person sources is that the USA did not want a standing army and felt the people having access to defend their land was not as dangerous for tyranny. This person also ignores the concept of the people felt the need of a militia to protect American Citizens from responsive attacks of First Americans. Not justifying the causes of the of those conflicts but explaining the mindset of the colonists during the debate. Militia lived in the land and thereby more tied to it than other states, this was actually one of the first legal rules that did not require a person to be a land owner. Revisionist history at its finest, which is not history.
Before someone responds history is not written by the winner anymore, there is their version of history, but first person accounts by witness, at or near the time, are considered first sources by professional historians. All else is subject to greater distortion and applying modern motivations and sensibilities are the most suspect.
Personally, I liked how he dodged the point that three of the four state constitutions which had already expressed a right to bear arms were northern ones. Apparently, the main reason for the Second Amendment was to appease the slave states, and the fact that arguably the two most important northern states had this right expressed in their constitutions is a mere coincidence.
Just as an aside, when the Pennsylvania Constitution was rewritten in 1790, the expressed right to bear arms was changed to stronger language–language that stands to this day. “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
Preach it, man!
And have a beer for me! Can’t have any till I kick my cold…
Another excellent strip today. Thank you for the posting the video; a very moving testimony. Would that we had more citizens with that man’s courage and clear mindedness.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling here, or just so seriously twisted that you’ve become completely lost to all logic. I can tell you right now that the man who stabbed my neighbor, then followed him to my house when he came to me for help did not care in the slightest about the locks on my doors. He paid attention when I produced my .357, though.
Is your argument that if he had not stopped coming at me with that knife (which he did, thank goodness) that I would have been in the wrong to shoot him? If so, I guess we’d better just stop talking about this because you are absolutely lost to even the slightest shred of logic. If not, why the sarcasm and dismissal of the idea that we have the right to shoot someone (or in the words of Mr. Grant “shoot a motherfucker”) that is threatening us?
Is your argument truly that the only right we have to defend ourselves from evil men is to cover behind a locked door and pray that the deadbolt holds up? Do you need a demonstration of how easily a door can be kicked in? I’m sure I could find a video on YouTube of 120 pound teenage girls doing an effective job of it. What about the times that an evil man comes to call when you aren’t behind a locked door? Just cooperate? Let him rape your wife, and hope that will satisfy him? How about the guy who runs from the cops, crashes his car in your front yard, then comes into your house and takes your family hostage?
Or do you just simply think that these sorts of things just don’t happen and I’m being paranoid? Because every single one of the things that I’ve mentioned happened here, where I live, in Spokane, WA (not exactly crime central, here) just in the last two weeks. Two days ago, five houses down from mine at 6:30 at night a man broke into a woman’s house, beat the hell out of her, and was preparing to rape her when her neighbor ran him off – with a gun. I do not live in a bad neighborhood, either. You can live your life trusting to luck that you’ll never meet evil, friend. I’ll live mine prepared to meet with evil and walk away the winner.
Last comment was directed at Cass. Hit the wrong button to reply
While none of us can tell what the Founding Fathers (which is it self nonsense, the signers of the Constitution were hardly a uniform voice) would think about the current 2ed amendment, they being dead a long time, there is one thing we can be 100% sure of:
They were not talking about modern firearms.
So please go out and get as many 18th century muskets as you want. Go for it.
It’s not the 18th century anymore.
“It’s not the 18th century anymore” Dana says, on a computer, a collection of plastics and bits of metal and electricity sending tiny impulses of light through cords and wireless signals across the globe 24/7 all year long that cause super tiny switches to turn on or off to tell a display made of liquid crystal or tiny light emitting bulbs to make symbols, pictures, and video. Of course it’s not.
That is a slippery slope. Would you like your first amendment rights to be “its not in written form with a quill or printing press”? Would you like your fourth amendment rights to not cover your computer or your car? How about the eighth amendment with it’s “excessive bail” being limited to 1780s value of American Currency? Want that mass murderer to be let out of jail for 5 thousand dollars instead of 5 million?
Either all the amendments apply to the 18th century technology, or all amendments apply to 21st century technology.
In the hands of the militias, the ones that weren’t regulated, they used rifles, not muskets. Guns that could fire accurately 5 or 6 times the distance a musket could fire accurately. If we hold to 1770’s-1780’s precedent then the American Citizen should own better weapons than all foreign and domestic armies.
And 30 round rifles existed in the 17th century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle
Minor nitpick — you got 17th and 18th Centuries mixed up, 1700s = 18th C.
On the other hand, for SEVENTEENTH Century, there’s the nine-shot (oh, horrors, illegal in New York) Cookson rifle: http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O77720/flint-lock-magazine-cookson-john/
Note that to reload this sucker you flip open the hatch, fill the powder magazine, drop in a fistful of balls, close the hatch, and you’re ready to go. If I were using one of these, I’d go with a 16th century style bandoleer with oversized powder bottles, or possibly a cartridge-box with oversize paper cartridges.
That is one of the coolest, craziest firearms I’ve heard of.
Then change it by passing another amendment, that’s all you have to do. Those “ignorant of modern times” Founders left you a mechanism to repeal the Second Amendment, you just don’t want to do so, because you cannot at this time prevail.
I always wondered why these gun control advocates never proposed amending the Constitution if they were *really* serious. My guess is it might force them to reveal their hand as to their ultimate goals — and they don’t want to do that.
No one here has spoken about the framers of the constitution as if they were one voice. Therefore, that is a straw man argument.
We CAN in point of FACT, tell what they as individuals felt about the subject of arms in general. Force knows they wrote enough about the subject. Therefore the idea that we cannot know what was intended is itself false and misleading.
Many of the framers of the constitution DID in fact believe that the individual citizen should be able to own full out military weapons. Want examples? Google it, starting with the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
This belief and the amendment it spawned were both about the SPECIFIC purpouse and idea of overthrowing a tyrannical government if one ever arose again. Jefferson was only one of the more notable figures espousing this philosophy.
ok, using that logic, the 1st only applies to forms of communication, and religions, that existed in the 18th century. say something the government doesn’t like and use a computer, photocopier, mimeograph machine, telephone, telegraph, anything but a hand cranked press or shouting it in the town square…no protections. off to gitmo you go! trial? what trial? hahaha!!!! not only don’t you get a trial. but we won’t tell anyone what happened to you!
shall we go on?
You’re missing the point. Do you really think the founding fathers didn’t believe that technology would progress? They had seen changes in their own time that, while they might not seem earth-shattering to us, were certainly game changers for the 18th century. The document was written vaguely enough to take into account unforeseen developments. It says “arms”, not muskets, not tomahawks, not cannons. Arms are what it takes to be armed. Military-grade weapons. I think the founding fathers would be distraught to know that the US military has access to far superior weapons than the civilians. Then, from all accounts the framers of the constitution would have been appalled by the existence of a standing army at all, much less the massive globe-spanning military complex we have currently.
The fire extinguisher argument doesn’t work since it is designed to protect your home by putting out fires. Guns on the other hand are great at killing people regardless if you are trying to protect your home, or invade someone’s home.
Not many people break into homes or 7-11s looking for fires to put out
A fire extinguisher is dangerous. You can spray it in your face, or the faces of unwitting bystanders. They can blind, or even kill, people. I frankly see a parallel.
If you insist on arguing from a deadly weapon standpoint: Chainsaws are VERY dangerous. I grew up using one, and there are so many ways you can wreak havok on innocents with a chainsaw. Charge into a daycare and just start mincing toddlers with a Stihl. I can use mine to cut down dead branches, which is what I use it for, or I could fire that fucker up and chop my neighbors to kibble.
There are no regulations on owning a chainsaw. None. Because, much like a firearm, if you have no idea what you’re doing with a chainsaw, the first person you will injure or kill is YOU.
Firearms are primarily, and overwhelmingly, used to protect life and property. Sure, they can be used for criminal purposes. So can a chainsaw, a baseball bat, or a golf club. A fire extinguisher’s proper use is to put out fires, not to blind innocents. A firearm’s purpose, in the hands of a law abiding citizen, is to stop a threat. Having 9-1-1 on speed dial only goes so far.
I am absolutely exhausted with all of the folks that are trying to argue that guns are different than other deadly things because their primary purpose is to be deadly, whereas the other things are only incidentally deadly.
There is a gap in the logic there that most of them can’t see and I’m having a hard time pointing out to them because I can’t find the words, but let me try:
What’s worse? A product that is supposed to kill that very occasionally is used to kill, or a product that is not supposed to kill that kills at far higher rates than the product that was designed to kill? (Automobiles come to mind…)
Also, why does it matter? As long as I’m not using my guns to kill, why the fuck do you think you have a say in whether I own them or not? Why do I need one? Because FUCK YOU, that’s why.
As for the “founding fathers couldn’t have predicted the state of military arms today” argument, you either get to make it or you don’t. Does your first amendment right extend to radio, TV and the internet, or not? If it does, then your argument is invalid. If it doesn’t, then we can start to talk, but only via letter and quill pen. I’ll send you my address and we can begin our dialog.
The founding fathers intent was for the public to be as well armed as the military. Period. There is no arguing that point, it is written down clearly for all to read in their various writings – to those who argue that we don’t know the intent of the founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd amendment – get an education you ninnies. The federalist papers would be a good place to start. You want to talk about making concessions for 21st material military equipment, then I give you the 1934, 1967, and 1986 bans on various “dangerous weapons”, including explosives and all automatic arms -CONCESSIONS THAT WE’VE ALREADY MADE. We’ve simply decided that this has gone far enough – we’re drawing a line in the sand. You want to take away hand grenades and machine guns, fine – you’ve done it already. You win. You want to take away semi-automatic rifles, and you’re treading awfully close to effectively disarming us against a modern military force, and you can go fuck yourself. You’ve gone as far as you’re gonna go, scooter. Thus far and no further.
Unable to access the strip for 2/7; 404 and 403 errors.
What browser/OS? I see it fine, and the hit logs show plenty of viewers.
I can access the comic, but trying to comment gets me a 403. FF14.x under Ubuntu.
Fixed it. Silly issue.
A. The fire extinguisher works as a parallel for another reason: Every see how long it takes 9-1-1 to respond to a fire? I use to be a reporter, so I have. In a small city, like say Wichita Falls, TX, or Lawton, OK, the response time is about 6 minutes. In a big city or rural outlaying area near a small city, the response time ranges upwards of 15-20 minutes. An extinguisher can buy the fire department time to save your home or family from being completely destroyed. So can a gun in the event of a robbery or worse.
B. You have more to fear from the things under your sink than one of the more than 85 million responsible American gun owners. Mixing ammonia and bleach releases fumes that can kill in minutes. Tin foil and oven cleaner produce heat sufficient to start a fire. There’s two. With a little creativity and chemistry, you get the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Building or the lovely IEDs that are popular with Islamist extremist groups.
C. A person determined to kill can turn anything into a weapon. The aforementioned chainsaw, a hammer, a rock, a homemade pipe bomb, or my personal favorites kitchen cutlery, pens and cars. Don’t see anyone throwing a fit about those potential killing tools.
D. I spend everyday walking around with a pistol on my hip. So do the approximately 2,000 others on this FOB from, I believe, three other nations. I feel perfectly safe because everyone here has gone through firearms training, and if something should happen on this FOB, I’d want the other soldiers around to “kill a motherfucker.” Because it’s either take him out or cower and die, HQ my 9-1-1 couldn’t respond fast enough if they tried (ironically neither can 9-1-1). For that matter, I think the ANA next door would like the same thing.
I’d be interested in hearing what you see as the responsibilities of a gun owner.
– Keep your weapons secure.
– Keep your weapons clean.
– Obey the rules of gun safety.
So pretty much the same responsibilities of owning a hedge trimmer.
Nice analogy, the fire extinguisher thing. I like it.