Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Supreme Court rules gun ban unconstitutional

Related cartoon:

092904DCGunBanRepeal.gif

See more from the Telnaes print archives and buy reprints.

Copyright: Ann Telnaes | Original published date: 9/29/04

By Ann Telnaes  |  June 30, 2010; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  Second amendment  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: CIA director Leon Panetta on al-Qaeda
Next: Where's the holiday cheer?

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

flonzy1
Perhaps you don't understand. True justice and crime control does not come from a force of individual arms but in a government that protects its people and provides equal laws and justice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it has worked well so far in DC and Chicago to ban guns hasn’t it? It has worked well in South America too, where they have 15 times the murder we do. While in Europe the strictest country the UK at the top of the most violent in Europe and countries like Switzerland, who distributes automatic rifles to citizens because they have a required service in the military there, rank among the least violent. Iceland is the least violent country in the world and they allow rifles and handguns to be sold.

Heller lifted the DC ban two years ago and violence dropped at a record rate; tell me again the justification for that ban and how well it worked.

You know one of the major issues we and the UK have that make our violence bad? It is not guns it is thug dropout culture. We have people who celebrate ignorant thug culture. The places with the largest dropout rates also rank as our most violent cities. Bans don’t work education and options make the world better. Education is the key the most violent and poor countries also rank the most violent. Our poor areas have high dropout rates and murders.

And while I am a big supporter of the police and calling them in emergencies they take time to get to you and sometimes you have to defend yourself. Look at the Chicago case back in May. An 80 year old couple who had no ability to flee killed an armed robber as he kicked in their back door and took a shot at the husband. Despite the active ban on guns in Chicago the home owner and the thug both were armed. Mayor Daly who supports the ban could not even find fault in this self defense case and the city refused to prosecute the 80 year old man for having an illegal gun in his home.

Frankly a ban is just another way of saying prohibition; name one item we have prohibited that has gone away: alcohol didn’t go away, prostitution has not gone away, and neither have drugs. It is time to face facts that bans don’t help they make things worse. The stats and history prove this point over and over again.

Posted by: flonzy1 | July 2, 2010 3:30 PM | Report abuse

flonzy1
Perhaps you don't understand. True justice and crime control does not come from a force of individual arms but in a government that protects its people and provides equal laws and justice.

Posted by: MyVoice3 | July 2, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

bloommarko4

Too bad it is 2010 and your numbers are nowhere near right. Last year we (USA) had 5.4 murders per 100,000 not the 15 you report. Switzerland had .97 per 100,000 and the UK had 1.5 per 100,000 even with the strictest gun laws in Europe.

Iceland had the lowest in Europe, and lower than Japan, last year with .31 and they allow guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

If you are not a gang banger in the USA your chances of being murdered by a gun are super slim anyway this is why most people cannot get behind gun bans because it almost never affects the common citizen. If suburban neighbors were having shoot outs then there would be a great outcry for stricter gun laws.

Until we end gang culture and the drop out culture in America the violence is not going to end.

MyVoice3

If there was any truth in what you said then why is it that states that pass concealed carry laws see dramatic drops in the murder and crime rate and why then has DC's murder rate dropped 24%, a record drop, after the Heller case that allowed law abiding citizens guns in DC?

The hyperbole predictions of blood in the streets never come true. Not when the AWB ended and not after Heller.

Heck look at the murder rates in DC, VA, and MD, of the three VA is supposed to have the loosest gun buying laws yet it has a relatively low murder rate. DC had a Ban and not the strictest laws in the land and if it was a state it would be the highest murder rate. MD currently ranks 2nd highest murder rate. In VA Loudoun Co. has no waiting period and no murders for the first half of 2010 despite heavy gun ownership in the county; where is the wild west prediction from the anti gun folks?

Could it be that thug culture is the problem and not guns? The vast majority of murder victims are after all men ages 16-24 and in gangs. Violence and massive school dropout rates and drug abuse and dealing all go hand in hand. Should we not address that cultural sickness rather than creating a prohibition on guns?

After all what past prohibition has worked? Are people really so deluded they thing a prohibition on guns will successes where prohibition on prostitution, drugs, and alcohol have failed?

Posted by: flonzy1 | July 1, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

i see that many who write in do not think state and local gov are bound by the USA consitution - would they cheer local gov having the right to censoring the news?

Posted by: oldhat | July 1, 2010 11:30 AM | Report abuse

i see that many who write in do not think state and local gov are bound by the USA consitution - would they cheer local gov having the right to censoring the news?

Posted by: oldhat | July 1, 2010 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Ann for perceiving and stating the obvious. What part of the relationship between America's cowboy mentality and the Court's misinterpretation of Second Amendment Rights do these verified statistics fail to illuminate? Here are the current data on gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

Posted by: bloommarko4 | July 1, 2010 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Very good cartoon! The unfortunate consequences of their decision is that the Gun Manufacturers will make a killing and people will die (especially police officers). Do we have such a distrust of our courts and police that we feel compelled to arm ourselves? Why are we citizens spending so much time, energy and money in personal armor instead of electing competent legislators, superior schools, fair courts, and viable laws, police departments and prisons that will in the end, protect us from those who will do us harm? Does this make any sense?

Posted by: MyVoice3 | July 1, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Justice Stephen Breyer who wrote in his dissent: “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ in so far as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."
~ richard allbritton, Miami, http://rallbritton.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good thing the justice is not a historian then.

Look militias were not like our national guard; there was not list of people part of the militia the state said we need troops and people volunteered. The state did not provide the militia weapons they provided weapons for the state.

Without armed citizens there would have been no militia, and militias were commonly used until the 20th century.

That is the point of the 2nd amendment, in order to be able to raise troops to protect the states interests there needs to be armed civilians so the state could create militias.

You want historical proof; here are a few quotes:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers

"The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.

"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).

"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.

Also for those who actually study history know there were records of who joined a militia and what arms they provided when they joined. There are even laws about how to compensate a militia member who brings extra weapons to distribute to others who have lost a weapon in the fighting.

How much more proof do we need that the militia is every citizen not in a federal government job? Why do so many people refuse to except these historical facts?

Posted by: flonzy1 | June 30, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Ann, This is one of your best cartoons.

I agree with Justice Stephen Breyer who wrote in his dissent: “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ in so far as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes."
~ richard allbritton, Miami, http://rallbritton.com

Posted by: rigel1 | June 30, 2010 11:24 AM | Report abuse

The Crazy Crazy Crazy Evil Court.
What madness !

Posted by: hamelinfish | June 30, 2010 10:49 AM | Report abuse

The short little cartoon was very good. I like that. I think I will go join them.
The 2nd amendment is only one of our rights in the Constitution that the Supreme Court, thankfully, follows. The Democrats, Liberals, Progressives all want to ignore the Constitution that they took an oath to preserve & protect. A good example of the Democrats not only wanted but did ignore it is when last year a journalist asked Nancy Pelosi if the health care bill was Constitutional. She started laughing & turning to those standing with her, Rangel, Clyburn, I not sure of the other 2 or 3 started laughing at the question & never did answer. They knew it was illegal but did not care because it is like that Alcee Hastings from Florida said, "we don't have no rules around here we just do what we want". If this doesn't make you sick to your stomach then something is wrong with you.

Posted by: egw7777 | June 30, 2010 10:41 AM | Report abuse

The short little cartoon was very good. I like that. I think I will go join them.
The 2nd amendment is only one of our rights in the Constitution that the Supreme Court, thankfully, follows. The Democrats, Liberals, Progressives all want to ignore the Constitution that they took an oath to preserve & protect. A good example of the Democrats not only wanted but did ignore it is when last year a journalist asked Nancy Pelosi if the health care bill was Constitutional. She started laughing & turning to those standing with her, Rangel, Clyburn, I not sure of the other 2 or 3 started laughing at the question & never did answer. They knew it was illegal but did not care because it is like that Alcee Hastings from Florida said, "we don't have no rules around here we just do what we want". If this doesn't make you sick to your stomach then something is wrong with you.

Posted by: egw7777 | June 30, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

"For example, it is illegal to own a tank, a grenade launcher and other military and automatic weapons."

No, it is not illegal. Grossly expensive but not illegal and therefore impracticle for 99% of the population.

Gun control is about...control; when the State (e.g., Communist China aka the WaPo wonderland) has the ability to control the populace without any hint of restraint or possibility of armed insurrection it may do as it pleases 'in the interests of the common good'. We need to make sure that an armed, aware, and willing populace continues in this country against Statists who want to impose some sort of tiered society where the so called Liberal Elite rule in safety, comfort, and security and the rest of us work the fields, factories and farms without a means to resist our opressors.

Taking away our guns is the way to remove our ability to resist your boot on our necks. No thanks, Ann, I'll pass.

Posted by: docwatson223 | June 30, 2010 10:02 AM | Report abuse

ANN---A person who holds a valid concealed weapon permit is not allowed to be in possession of that weapon while under the influence of alcohol. Those Supreme Court justices had better not been drinking.

Posted by: JONAHandtheFISH | June 30, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

A good friend sent me the following after I questioned the Court's ruling on this subject. As usual he is wise and right:

"The constitution vests a right to bear arms in the people — not the government. It also protects free speech. The Court has long ruled that one cannot cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater... so, freedoms have limits. No doubt the right to possess guns also has limits. For example, it is illegal to own a tank, a grenade launcher and other military and automatic weapons. The Court - even this one — won't overrule those restrictions. This decision provides room for some gun laws. But, restrictive gun laws are unconstitutional. I support this ruling. But I agree with you and I also see the need to amend the constitution to allow the sort of restrictive laws that are not allowed now.

We should not expect the Supreme Court to be the final judge of social goodness. I agree with you — the vision of America as The Old West is pretty scary. But we are supposed to be a nation of laws. We have a constitution. If it's provisions are inadequate to meet today's social needs, we should amend it. We've done it before. We can do it again. Until then, we must live according to its standards or risk putting our values in the capricious hands of nine people."

Posted by: OteroBarreiro | June 30, 2010 8:45 AM | Report abuse

.
.
I'm a liberal. So liberal I think people should be allowed to do what they want (as long as they aren't injuring somebody without consent).

Unfortunately, the 2nd amendment isn't clear. Just read Wikipedia's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution -- even the WORDING has more than one OFFICIAL version.

So it's hard to understand the framers' intent.

Nevertheless, my liberalism requires me to allow people to own guns if they want. As long as they aren't hurting anybody without consent.

Anybody from the NRA willing to agree with that?
.
.
.

Posted by: egc52556 | June 30, 2010 8:29 AM | Report abuse

I think all the anti gun folks panic truly shows the massive disconnect they have with reality.

Since Heller, the case making the DC gun ban illegal, the murder rate dropped 24%. The anti gun folks predictions of blood in the street have never once come true, it has never amount to more than hysterics and hyperbole.

Posted by: flonzy1 | June 30, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

The 2nd amendment is now incorporated to all 50 states. As it and all the rest of the BOR should have been from the beginning.

It's a good day!

Posted by: mdsinc | June 30, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

It's a sad day to see this insanity spread to the supreme court.

Posted by: fumango1 | June 30, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!

Posted by: meldupree | June 29, 2010 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Unconventional Directed Energy weapons that can be undetectable and fairly easy to construct are not even regulated by our government at all. The subliminal messages that can be sent directly to an individuals brain via ELF technologies who has a firearm in his possession is a very dangerous combination. These mind control technologies are much more widespread than many could ever believe. They have also been used in court room situations.

Posted by: JONAHandtheFISH | June 29, 2010 8:52 PM | Report abuse

Many years ago, with my small arsenal and feeling threatened... with obsolescence... I sold my guns and bought a computer with the money. I haven't felt threatened since then.

Posted by: jgisler | June 29, 2010 8:50 PM | Report abuse

You nailed it again.
As a very old weapons collector, I left the NRA when in Houston I saw David Koresh selling, saw a woman hawking Xeroxed pamphlets on how to extract information (drawing of hanging a man by his thumbs), red flags scattered all over the Astrohall with a yellow "Clinton" and Hammer & Sickle imprinted, AND a grown man in camouflage showing a video on how to convert a 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun into a belt-fed bipod supported weapon. As I bought an old, ordinary Steven's over & under .22-.410 for hunting, that particular seller (another old timer) bemoaned, as I did, the TAKEOVER of the NRA by Far Right Survivalists type gun nuts. We both quit . . . Just as President Bush Sr. did LATER after many NRA types approved the Oklahoma Bombing and supported the WACO SELF-PROCLAIMED Jesus child-burning monster!

Posted by: lufrank1 | June 29, 2010 8:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company