In Bizarro World, Gun Laws Work

In Bizarro World, Gun Laws Work

Click here to vote for this comic strip on digg.

The latest verdict on the second amendment by the Supreme Court encouraged me to pause the current storyline. In Bizarro World, everything is mixed up or even completely backwards. That’s the world that a lot of people seem to live in when they support stupid gun laws that disarm only law-abiding people.

I know a lot of people are happy about the ruling, but I find the court’s decision disturbing on a number of levels. I’m not surprised or particularly disturbed by the 5 to 4 vote. Most every government decision that’s based on a vote seems to teeter on the edge of a knife of going one way or the other, resulting in a mish-mash of tyrannical laws that leave us with a government no one really likes. That’s why I say so-called moderates are some of the most authoritarian people out there. They seem to want some degree of government interference in every aspect of our lives.

I won’t go into detail now about what I find disturbing because I want to do some research so I can give this subject the time and effort it deserves. It’s about more than the Second Amendment. It’s about the Bill of Rights and what it meant to the people who proposed it. In the meantime, I encourage people to go right to the horse’s mouth for their information rather than cherry-picked out-of-context bits in textbooks and biased articles and books. If you’re at all interested in original intent, and I realize some aren’t, read the Federalist Papers yourself. More importantly, read the Anti-Federalist Papers. Otherwise it’s like you’re reading only one side of the debate.

Understand that I’m no Constitutionalist. However, I do find the arguments meaningful because this debate is based in a common fear that the seed of corruption could cause our country to fall into the same trap as those abusive governments that people fled from.

└ Tags: ,

Discussion (19)¬

  1. Kevin Dean says:

    This reminds me of that Mt. Dew commercial about Yo-yos.

    Speaking of yo-yos… This is great timing in the wake of Heller! Keep up the great work!

  2. Dale says:

    My response to an email from a friend in response to today’s comic:

    “What’s your analysis of Canada’s gun laws and the lower rate of
    violent crime? I’m of two minds when it comes to gun control, so I’d
    like to hear your thoughts.”

    I think it’s just coincidence. Canada is a different culture and there are so many factors that are different from the U.S. that it would seem silly to tie it to any one thing. For instance, I suspect Canada’s drug war is not as intense as ours. I doubt they have as much of a police state as we do which is largely tied to the drug war and the drug war is a huge contributor to crime. That’s just one difference. To really show causation you really need to affect a change in existing laws and see the crime rate over time. There is a lot of data in the U.S. that shows a pretty consistent correlation to increases in crime corresponding to a increase in gun control and vice versa.

  3. sandm000 says:

    Maybe it’s because I’m a racist or because I was reading articles on Yellow Journalism (and how Global Warming is the new Yellow), but I read those bizarro lines like Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s

  4. Dale says:

    “Maybe it’s because I’m a racist or because I was reading articles on Yellow Journalism”

    Or maybe you didn’t watch Justice League cartoons with Bizarro Superman when you were a kid. 🙂

  5. Puke says:

    Bizzarroooo! Bizarrooo!
    Sorry, Sealab 2021 has ruined my brain.

    And where can I get some of those cancer curing cigarettes?

  6. Allan says:

    Excellent comic! Here are just a few links for your reading pleasure:

    A statement in the last article reminds me of a previous comic, the Authoritarian Beastie:

    “And legislating more restrictions on the right to keep and bear firearms is often viewed as an emotionally satisfying and politically convenient way to meet that psychological need to do something — anything — in the aftermath of a tragedy like this.”

  7. Taxinator says:

    What’s bizarre is how many people actually live in Bizarro World. They’re mostly in places like D.C., Sacramento, San Fran, Carson City, and Concord, but there are a lot of them out there! They speak double-speak and think in anti-logic.

  8. geoff says:

    So gun laws are bad? That’s it? End of story?

    I don’t think that does justice to the complexity of the topic. For example, every state has various gun laws. See for a rundown. Are you saying there’s no justification to *any* of those laws?

    To be more specific, just about every state, except for Alaska and Vermont, have a concealed carry law. Are Alaska and Vermont uber-enlightened? Or have they just not seen any significant gang violence? Why has every state felt it necessary to pass a concealed carry law, if gun laws are bad?

    A line needs to be drawn somewhere. What’s the anarchist’s view on handguns? Concealed carry? Is it OK to threaten people?

  9. geoff says:

    The comment system didn’t parse that link correctly – the link includes everything through the close parenthesis… and that should also read, “Why has every other state…”

  10. Santee says:

    Gun laws are inacted to punish people who seek to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Gun laws are restrictive, thus some people simply cannot conform to them because the cost is too high. Some do not conform to the laws because of the hassle involved and not because they are unable to pass the legal requirements.

    The reason for gun laws is not to reduce crime, it is simply a way to reduce the number of individuals who have or carry firearms. Criminals do not obey the law to begin with, so these laws are not for them. These infringements simply keep people from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

  11. Lysnder says:

    Geoff, somehow we are being governed by a system turned completely topsy-turvy from the standpoint of our founding documents. Our Declaration of Independence, Constitution and accompanying Bill of Rights are not designed to limit the people (as today’s government leaders in all three branches of government, the mainstream media, most states, and most educational institutions would have us believe). They were focused upon limiting the power government had over the people. Therefore, since “the people” mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments are the same “the people” in the 2nd Amendment (i.e. the sovereign individual) the phrase which limits governmental power in the 2nd Amendment is “shall not be infringed”. Furthermore, since the definition of infringed is the same today as it was in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified, one must wonder exactly what part of “shall not be infringed” remains unclear, even for SCOTUS? Furthermore, one also must ask why would both sides of the Heller decision pointedly avoid bringing the only operative phrase into the foreground? “No matter how cynical I get, I just can’t keep up.” – Lily Tomlin

  12. geoff says:

    Sounds like you’re making it very black and white. All I’m saying is there’s complexity and gray area, and that you have to draw lines not only to protect the citizenry from its government, but also from each other. Is it ok to have a handgun? Is it ok to walk around with it in my belt? Loaded? What about with a silencer? What about an Uzi? What about a tank, can I have a tank? What about even bigger weapons that are not even available to the public? Can I keep those in my back yard?

  13. susan28 says:

    Geoff, until the Constitution is amended, as written you may legally keep and bear any weapon you like, even a nuke if you can afford one, and anyone who tries to stop you is guilty of treason, including the 9 Kings. perhaps a nice purse-sized one incase someone rolls up on you in *their* tank with hostile intent? i’m thinking a fissionable fountain pen should do the trick, but for the sake of good environmental stewardship you should probably use a standard RPG with a shaped charge. that’s the problem with tanks is their girth makes them sitting ducks in urban situations, but i’m not here to question your tactics.

    of course even if the Constitution is amended, i won’t stop you from owning whatever you like, be it a tank or a meth lab (which you could keep in your tank for security purposes) or a Picasso print or anything else but another human (what *did* you do with the last one?).. unless you point your tank muzzle at me, then i’m squirting you with my pen..

    sound black and white? as things currently stand, it is. if you want to bring the law into line with whatever your definition of common sense is, then get your congressman to propose an amendment to the 2A and another giving the fed the authority to persecute drug users and sellers (but be warned: this enriches the street gangs and helps them buy weapons) and see if 2/3 of the population agrees with you, but please don’t ask the courts to do the job for you. i think it’s the latter tactic that most here are so upset about. we just don’t like being ruled by fiat, and like hypocrisy and doublethink even less.

    and i can’t speak for my colleagues but speaking for myself, i’d say no, threatening people isn’t cool. but people do it quite often, sadly, which is what handguns are for. want social equality? the Great Equaliser will get you there faster than Congress will, and without robbing anyone.

    and by all means suppress your weapon; firing an unsuppressed weapon in public is like driving a car without a muffler (very rude), and firing one indoors can damage your ears. remember: freedom carries responsibility.

  14. Dale says:

    “What’s the anarchist’s view on handguns?”

    There’s not really an anarchist view on handguns. Anarchy is a philosophy that rejects hierarchies. It has nothing to do with guns, per se. Gun laws are not anti-gun. They inevitably apply only to certain people, i.e. “citizens” but not law enforcement or military or perhaps people who have jumped through some hoops and subjected themselves to additional scrutiny by certain people in position of power. Those supporting gun laws inevitably want to make an exception for government. If they really wanted to ban guns consistently, that would be one thing. However, they aren’t so much anti-gun as they are pro-elitism.

    I don’t trust the people that the mob has put in power to use guns more responsibly or to not use them against innocent people, and I don’t trust criminals to obey gun laws. So yes, it really is very black and white to me that gun laws don’t work.

  15. The intent of the Second Amendment was for ordinary citizens to own military weapons. The 1939 Miller decision clarified that this means military weapons “in common use at the time.” Today that means silencers, automatic rifles, missile launchers, mortars, etc., whatever you would see on a typical battlefield. Don’t like it, go amend the Constitution or stack the Supreme Court.

  16. ThorsMitersaw says:

    Does anyone else think it is no coincidence that the Anti-Federalist papers seem so hard to come buy in stores where as the Federalist papers seem to be readily available?

  17. Dale says:

    I’ve added a couple of books with the anti-federalist papers to the AIYH bookstore.

  18. Scott Severin says:


    Could you be any more clueless??