Skip to main content

click to enlarge

Follow @MattBors and @DailyKosComics on Twitter.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:00 AM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Comics.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh come on, totally unfair! (20+ / 0-)

    You can't even shoot the dog in duck hunt!

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:05:47 AM PST

  •  Clearly... (9+ / 0-)

    Angry birds is a gateway game.... to.... Cut the Rope? I'm not even too sure.

  •  Super 'toon!!! /nt (5+ / 0-)

    Be the change you want to see in the world. -Gandhi

    by DRo on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:14:33 AM PST

  •  Wayne LaPierre is on Mensa's "enemies list." (16+ / 0-)

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:15:54 AM PST

  •  no supply = gun control (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, lyvwyr101

    ... you can't get the rifles easily anymore. Every major manufacturer is out of stock. The most popular magazine manufacturer has a 1 Million unit backlog. Prices are up 50-75%. All gun sales records have been shattered by factors of 10. All the Feds have to do is apply some selective pressure to the manufacturing supply chain (steel, powder, etc) and the entire system would grind to a complete halt.

    Then all that is left is figure out how to confiscate 310 - 400 million guns.

    Good luck.

    •  It's an unsolvable problem (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy, lyvwyr101

      The guns are out there. The horse left the barn decades ago.

      It makes me curious that Obama would spend this much political capital on this problem...but, after Newtown, he probably has no choice. And it affects him on a personal level, like it has most Americans.

      I wish the public option had affected him on this personal a level.

      "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

      by DaddyO on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:32:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... too bad he is not serious ... (0+ / 0-)

        .. about finding a way to really effect gun violence by addressing the handgun problem, rather than the statistically aberrant  "assault weapon" problem.

        Unless someone can make the argument that getting rid of the "assault rifles" is a first step to a long term strategy of handgun disarmament, all I see is politics and bullshit.

        •  The hand gun problem was tackled by no less (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DSPS owl, QuiteDragon

          that Nixon, and he lost.

        •  Take a long view (6+ / 0-)

          With the number of firearms in American society and the current, illogical view held by some of firearms as a kind of necessary tool to protect oneself, it is going to take a long time -- generations -- to get this country into a much more sensible position with respect to firearms.

          Right now, steps such as expanded background checks appear politically feasible. In time, perhaps licensing and registration of gun owners. The ridiculous ready availability of large magazines for semi-automatic weapons may be possible to correct.

          If we can start the process of reducing the proliferation of firearms in society, perhaps in 50 or 100 years, we will have left our descendants a better nation. One where we join the rest of the civilized world in significantly restricting the availability of firearms.

          Just because one stroke can't solve the whole problem in your or my lifetime, doesn't mean we shouldn't start the process of working toward correcting one of the remaining original, glaring flaws in the Constitution.

          •  You are willing to wait 100yrs ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            drmah, lyvwyr101

            ... of violent handgun deaths? Why is it everyone gets up in arms about a horrible tragedy at a rich, suburban school, but no one cares about the hundreds dying in the minority and poor ghetto? Why doesn't the president round up the thousands and thousands of mothers, brothers, fathers, sisters of the victims of daily handgun violence to travel with him around the country, and sing at sporting events? The current hypocrisy of the progressive movement really astounds me here ... if it is about SAVING LIVES and effecting CHANGE ... and using MOMENTUM to achieve results ... where is the ballz of the progressive movement right now? Why the constant cowtowing to this idea of "we are not taking away you guns." Say "YES .. we ARE taking away your guns." Give voices to the thousands and thousands of victims family's and change the Second Amendment!

            •  I'm trying to be realistic (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lyvwyr101, nota bene

              If someone could snap their fingers and correct this problem, I would love it.

              I'm curious where you get the idea that "no one cares about the hundreds dying in the minority and poor ghetto." Of course I care. That's why I've been interested in gun control since I saw the news reports in 1968 about the murder of MLK and RFK.

              And your comment about momentum is exactly what I was referring to: build momentum toward an improved firearm policy by doing what is possible now.

              Please...humor me here and make it obvious: point out my hypocrisy once again?

              •  Selective 'Social Justice' .. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                .... depending on how hard the fight is. This one is winnable - the time is now. The gun nuts know that the assault weapon bullsh!t is just that - simply a way to get on the slippery slope to total disarmament. Instead of tiptoeing around the issue with poorly executed sleight-of-hand and 50-100 year gameplans, the progressive movement should be putting the name and face of every person killed by a handgun every single day. Keep the pressure on day after day after day. The president should take whatever executive action he can to slow the import and production of arms and ammunition, while simultaneously showing the People the faces of the killed and maimed from handgun violence.

                Why are progressives so scared of ending the handgun madness ???

            •  this is ridiculous and histrionic (0+ / 0-)
              Why is it everyone gets up in arms about a horrible tragedy at a rich, suburban school, but no one cares about the hundreds dying in the minority and poor ghetto?
              Yeah, nobody anywhere cares about everday violence in cities. Right.

              And for the've got an account that's less than a week old, yet you're banging on about some vague "hypocrisy of the progressive movement"? (Not to mention using "ballz" [sic] more than once in the same thread.)


              •  If you care, then do something ... (0+ / 0-)

                ... about all the handguns.

                Your statement is hereby added "for the record." Thanks.

                Sorry, I didn't realize that membership duration on DK was a credential for being allowed to discuss progressiveness.

                I do not think it is that vague. But since you seem to be missing the point, probably because you are too busy patting yourself on the back over intense feelings about banning rifles which do a statistically insignificant amount of harm, here is the point again: the progressive movement should be using the daily tragedy that plays out in every major city every day (handgun deaths) to ban handguns. The hypocrisy part comes in where progressives only seem to get fired up about these "mass shootings" of white folk, but are scared (i.e. lack of balls ... is that better for you ?) to talk about banning hundguns because it is politically difficult.

                ... or should I wait until my membership duration is a few years old to say that?

        •  yes, Virginia... (0+ / 0-)

          the "Assault Weapon" (wth IS that?) ban is the "gateway drug" to a handgun ban, leading to a total ban/confiscation.

  •  I always wanted one last bullet for that dog... (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, I know I missed the stupid duck. You don't need to laugh at me that much! :P

    "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

    by Hayate Yagami on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:18:27 AM PST

  •  Assault Weapons and Magazines (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, lyvwyr101, Cartoon Peril

    How would a shooter bent on mass killings stop others who are packing to supposedly save everyone from, why the same way the well trained and regulated law enforcement community do to shock and surprise a shooter:

    "Then they threw in the distraction devices, or what are commonly called by SWAT teams 'flash bangs.' They made a blindingly bright light, and a huge, big noise that is very disorienting."

    And take away the extremely weak argument of the gun lobby and those financed by the gun manufacturers and the gun owners related to assault weapons. That makes two arguments as any semi-auto is an assault weapon which can be changed, and are, into a fully automatic as used by the military and designed for. It showed how extremely weak All their arguments are right from the beginning and each time they use, including law enforcement officials and so called gun safety experts and orgs., shows their total lack of common sense and critical thinking, yet they carry weapons themselves. It takes much longer then a second to change a magazine. High round magazines, 20, 30 or more are extremely lethal and reason sought after and used as they kill and wound at a rapid rate without a change. It takes two hands to handle any weapon efficiently and when empty a magazine needs to be rejected from the weapon and another grabbed and inserted, they aren't in the hands already on the guns, over 'just a second!' there. A high round capacity means they need only a couple with them. A lower round magazine means they need to carry more magazines, if bent on killing as many as possible, which means even if practiced they have more objects on the ready, they're not in behind a bench on a firing range with the clips laid out on same, but not in their hands and slowing down as to which to grab, slowing down their reaction while in the blank, or certainly not clear, state of mind they're already in!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:20:06 AM PST

    •  no, no, no... (0+ / 0-)

      My friend, in an "assault" (or defensive) situation, anyone trained with a weapon with a detachable magazine can effectively cover one's target controlling the weapon with one hand while using the other to change magazines with the other for the FEW SECONDS which this requires.

      One's effectiveness at short range is marginally downgraded, but not substantially. Of course, this requires training and practice.

      •  WRONG!!!!! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drmah, lyvwyr101, Cartoon Peril

        Maybe in that fantasy world you live in but as an ex-gunnersmate in the navy and All small arms, was even wanted by gun manufacturers at the time to go to work for them, with my last year In Country Vietnam, you're barkin up the wrong tree with your spin!!!

        And a key above is your 'well trained', show me a citizen that not only is but gets regular training in an on and not just a wallet size card saying they attended a class, and they go to ranges standing behind a shelf at many with the clips laid out before them!!!!!

        Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

        by jimstaro on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:32:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Callin Out McConnel (14+ / 0-)

    And take it from a once Navy Gunners Mate, all shore all small arms last year In Country Vietnam, the brother speaks truth!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:20:33 AM PST

  •  Funny how the gun lobby (11+ / 0-)

    and the party of "personal responsibility" point the finger of blame at video games, at Hollywood, at medication, at mental health problems, all the while never acknowledging that other countries (eg Canada) have all the same vids, movies, meds & nuts (okay fewer nuts) and they don't have mass shootings every 5.9 days.  I'm trying to think ... what could be the difference?  Help me out, Wayne.

  •  I'm digging my Nintendo out from under the bed (5+ / 0-)

    How many have died so we can have our Nintendo freedoms?

    "I feel a lot safer already."--Emil Sitka

    by DaddyO on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:27:13 AM PST

  •  Tyranny Yargle Blargle (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    statsone, Over the Edge, lyvwyr101, rbird

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:30:05 AM PST

  •  Yeah, last night I (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    statsone, lyvwyr101, Southern Lib

    destroyed a dozen populated planets in a rampage of galactic conquest (during a game of Galactic Civilizations 2, the best Civilization game that nobody ever heard of).

    If only I'd taken up a nice normal hobby, like shooting paper terrorists with an assault rifle, trillions of imaginary lives could have been saved.

    Visit Lacking All Conviction, your patch of grey on those too-sunny days.

    by eataTREE on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:36:48 AM PST

  •  The Gumby/Reagan haircut, it's ALIVE!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PSzymeczek, lyvwyr101, irishwitch

    Thank you again, MB.

    God be with you, Occupiers. God IS with you.

    by Hohenzollern on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:57:45 AM PST

  •  so... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Corporations will spend MILLIONS on a 30 second advertising spot on the Superbowl thinking that it might change the behavior of the public to purchase their product...but untold HOURS of conducting the exact same training we spend billions on to train our warfighters wont influence behavior???

    No wonder the economy is in a mess...stupid corporations (/sarc).

  •  Excellent! nt (0+ / 0-)

    "The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

    by Lily O Lady on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:05:00 AM PST

  •  Oh, don't ruin that great, iconic film with that (0+ / 0-)

    smear of an association!

    Shaw. As if.

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:08:35 AM PST

  •  Schwing!! nt (0+ / 0-)
  •  All parties concerned want what's best.... (0+ / 0-)

    Mr. Michael Miller,

    I don't know if this message will reach you but I have come to what I consider a reasonable conclusion regarding gun control.  It's not a gun issue it's a mental problem.  Just like drugs is a user issue and making them illegal has only created a black market and cost all of society by treating the drugs as the problem when again it's a people problem.  We're making headway on this front.  Let's not repeat a bad lesson already learned with drugs and alcohol.  Let's put all of our joint effort in to finding common ground not villainizing people or organizations.  Recruit them in to the fold.  Everyone wants what's best.  You don't have to heavy-handedly force new gun policy on those who don't believe it's the solution.  Everyone will agree to something that treats the root cause of the problem, people.


    •  Sounds as if written by someone who has never had (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101, Southern Lib

      his child killed by a gun of mass destruction. Lacks sensitivity.

      •  I have lost a nephew to drunk driver... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        On April 22, 2009 my nephew, a new dad, a newly wed, a fresh from boot camp Marine, was murdered by a man convicted 3 time of DUI.  This man walks free having never paid a cent or a minute of incarceration for his act.  It wasn't the F-250 that he was driving that killed my Anthony and stole a precious first born son from my sister, first grandchild from his Nanna, and father from his still yet to be born son.  I know what loss is.  I also know what reason is and reason speaks clearly to the fact that nothing material by itself does the deed, it requires a person to perpetrate the act.  Let's invest all our might, effort and resources where they will produce the most return.  Let's treat the people and learn the psychology that causes people to go rogue.  How could this not be the best investment of our limited resources?  Taking the gun first approach is a politically exciting solution it's the easy way to do the least we can do as a society.

        •  Bet'cha driver and car were registered. That's not (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rbird, nota bene, Southern Lib, irishwitch

          a valid arguement Registration makes it possible to catch and punish the irresponsible auto owers.  That's all we are asking for responsible gun owners to do.

          •  Registration the Nazi's required it.... (0+ / 0-)

            But even with the vehicle's registration, which by the way was in his wife's name, the perpetrator responsible was dismissed from the scene and told by "friendly" officials to go home.  

            Criminals will use someone else's guns as is generally the case as you've probably recognized.  Now you're suggesting that a burglar's act can lead to additional complications for the lawfully registered "former" gun owner.   This is just another unnecessary legal entanglement.  

            "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942

            You are also advocating a repeat of a historical practice that led to the beginning of the disarming of a nation prior to the Nazi take over of that nation which led on to global conflict.  I'm sure your intentions are sound but they are misguided and simply fail to address to the root cause of the problem.  The BEST solution is what we should get from all this not something less.  You must certainly realize that Connecticut already has on it's books some of the most stringent gun control measures.  Gun laws do not protect society from crazy.  However, they do embolden governments.

            •  For the record... (0+ / 0-)

              I am not nor have I ever been an NRA member or supporter.  I don't even own a gun.  But I know numerous good people who do and they have always handled them responsibly.

              •  My father-in-law would have been considered (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                a good, decent man, church-goer, professional man, a hunter who owned a number of guns.  What no one knew was that he beat his wife and children (carefully, where the bruises wouldn't show) for eyars behind closed doors.  When she left him, he showed up at the house with several guns. My husband, all of age 22, had to take them away from him  and ended up throwing him over the wall of the carport, during which pause in the altercation he also took away the other guns in his father's car.

                A lot of "good, decent men" aren't. And a gun in the house makes it a lot more likely that a woman will die in an incident of DV.

                In 2000, in homicides where the weapon was known, 50 percent (1,342 of 2,701) of female homicide victims were killed with a firearm. Of those female firearm homicides, 1,009 women (75 percent) were killed with a handgun.

                More than five times as many women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance (605) than by a stranger (113) in the year 2000. Additionally, while firearm homicides involving male victims were mostly intra-gender, 95 percent of female firearm homicide victims were murdered by a male.

                Domestic violence against women is a disturbingly common occurrence in the United States. Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) indicate that from 1993 to 1998, women were victims of violent crimes by their intimate partners an average of more than 935,000 times a year. During this period, intimate-partner violence comprised 22 percent of all violent crimes against women. Although firearms are used in a relatively small percentage of domestic violence incidents, when a firearm is present, domestic violence can and all too often does turn into domestic homicide. Congress, recognizing the unique and deadly role firearms play in domestic violence passed the Protective Order Gun Ban in 1994. The law prohibits gun possession by a person against whom there is a restraining or protective order for domestic violence. In 1996, Congress passed the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban, which prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or child abuse from purchasing or possessing a gun.

                A 1997 study that examined the risk factors for violent death for women in the home found that when there were one or more guns in the home, the risk of suicide among women increased nearly five times and the risk of homicide increased more than three times. The increased risk of homicide associated with firearms was attributable to homicides at the hands of a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative.

                An analysis of female domestic homicides (a woman murdered by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative) showed that prior domestic violence in the household made a woman 14.6 times more likely, and having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely, to be the victim of such a homicide.

                The circumstances of firearms violence differ significantly between men and women. Compared to a man, a woman is far more likely to be killed by her spouse, an intimate acquaintance, or a family member than murdered by a stranger or an unidentified intruder. A 1976 to 1987 analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation data revealed that more than twice as many women were shot and killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances than were murdered by strangers using firearms, knives, or any other means.

                Between 1976 and 1996, 65 percent of the male and female victims of intimate partner homicides were killed with a firearm. And while rates of intimate partner homicide have been declining, the ratio of female-to-male victims has risen. In other words, when an intimate-partner homicide occurs, it is increasingly likely that a woman is the victim rather than a man.

                Having a gun in the home makes it three times more likely that you or someone you care about will be murdered by a family member or intimate partner.

                A firearm in the home may be a key factor in the escalation of nonfatal spousal abuse to homicide. In a study of family and intimate assaults for the city of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1984, firearm-associated family and intimate assaults were 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm associated assaults between family and intimates.


                The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                by irishwitch on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:30:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  yup (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Southern Lib, irishwitch

              because Hitler said that in 1942, 9 years after he came to power, over 3 years into the biggest war in history, that means that any attempt by America to deal with disorganized gun violence = fascism!


              Also, I could be wrong, but Hitler clamped down on free speech (in Germany) long before he was in a position to start disarming Eastern Europe. Pen > sword.

              Interesting that there are three (count em, three) users in this very thread who all signed up on Feb 1st. What a coinkydink!

            •  Goering the Hunting Master of the Reich (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              irishwitch, nota bene, drmah

              was strongly pro-gun and pushed liberalization of very tough Weimar Era gun laws.
              Cherry picking quotes is basically meaningless.
              I do not think gun control in the UK, Australia has enslaved
              the citizens.

              Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat.--Herman Goering

  •  Just saw this on CNN- (0+ / 0-)

    3 schools in Arizona on lockdown---student with gun reported.

    Mayan Word For 'Apocalypse' Actually Translates More Accurately As "Time Of Pale Obese Gun Monsters."......the Onion

    by lyvwyr101 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:55:32 AM PST

  •  Beware, I'm armed and dangerous! (0+ / 0-)

    I have the right to vote. Tyranny has no chance against such odds.
    The founding fathers had no such voice with England. To believe today that armed insurrection, rather than democratic principals, is a viable solution to governance, is an insult to all those that sacrificed their lives to give us the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
    The voting booth is not a vending machine that produces what we always wished for after pressing the button, and the reaction to your disappointment should not be a call to arms.

    ego sum ergo ego eram

    by glb3 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 12:37:29 PM PST

    •  Noble words.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...but tyranny abounds in our nation's history.  Our governors have on numerous occasion used American citizens as canon fodder only for us in time to discover that the motives were not as we were led to believe.  

      At this point in the debate there has been little represented that reflects a convincing argument for ignoring the people part of the equation prior to implementing any new constraints on guns.  

  •  35 pound and 5 foot minimum (0+ / 0-)

    They want assault weapons? Fine. Make them weigh at least 35 pounds and no less than 5 feet long. Good luck carrying them for extended periods or concealing them.

    While I admit it does nothing to address the existing guns, I doubt that any piece of legislation could in a meaningful way, except to possibly keep them out of the hands of the mentally disturbed by instituting background checks.


Click here for the mobile view of the site