Oh I agree

I love the symbolism and honesty on the left side :p

Have your considered releasing all these books as legal .cbr s?

The business model could be to put ads in them from Rabbit Valley, Antarctic Press etc for an agreeable price for an acceptable ad and just start torrenting them as a bundle?

You could still sell collections at cons.

I think The Foglios and Howard Taylor need studying. They both do well by giving it away.

Harsh, but true.

Kind of reminds me when I tell people here on FA that they're not allowed to uploads macros and stuff, "But other people do it MORE!"
Oh well then :|

Good imagery of loading your revolver with a pencil.
That picture, by itself, needs more exposure and use.

I see guns on both piles.

The real blame to my point of view is the news media.
Or has anyone else noticed that since they have recently made a mass circus blitz, broadcasting for days, weeks and months about each incident, those incidents have increased markedly?

All the nut cases out there looking for a way to become FAMOUS have just been handed the very way to do so. The media will make absolutely sure their name is remembered for all eternity.

Had the media simply reported the incident and moved on many lived would have been saved because the nut cases would not have been given the idea to use this.

Why not a media blitz about the up swing in people pushing others in front of the subway trains?
Why not a blitz about the recent attacks with razors and other blades?

Probably because those are not sensational and won't get the huge ratings. And as we all know to them ratings=money.

That idea for the cover is brilliant, Karno! I tough it was a bullet at first sight!

How big does a group have to be before it moves from civilian massacre to war dead?
Like, if someone from one gang shoots someone in another gang, is that war or civilian?

It's easy to tell the difference. War dead are killed by armies, paid and supplied by governments. In war. Street gangs are not the military. See the difference?

Allright, but that means that any homicides not endorsed by some official government (I'm going to assume you mean national govt) would count as civilian? would police shootings be military or civilian, since they're paid for by the govt but not part of a military program?

Why not just make the point you're trying to make? That all guns are inherently evil or something.

I love "police shootings" as if roving gangs of angry cops roam the streets picking off random passersby...

NYPD showed up at the Empire State building and murdered nine people before they could even be bothered to figure out which one of them was a single-target active shooter.

That's interesting as the ONLY people who died at the Empire State Building were the assailant and his original target.

I'm not saying that at all. I just wanted to know if tgw civilian assault pile was just serial rampages, or all civilian homicides, or all gun related deaths not caused by the military.

Everyone knows that guns aren't the problem, video games are. Video games affect people, guns do not.

Were you not watching the LAPD's bad handling of a so called 'rouge cop' this week?

He was an ex-cop, and being that he murdered several people, I'm interested in how you define "so called".

As for bad handling, that's a matter of opinion, depending on the limited facts released to and reported by the news.

LA cops doing random shootings of trucks that don't match the suspects is the main one, then there is the usual tactic of menacing the poorer neighborhoods, etc, etc,...

You should probably look up a little more information on how that went down. They didn't simply open fire on a truck for no good reason, now was anyone being "menaced".

Honestly, sometimes I wish it was legal for law enforcement to go on strike, just for a few days. Maybe show everyone exactly what it is we actually do/ how it would be if we didn't.

I know what went down on those occasions, kneejerk cop.

If that's what you think, then you have no idea what went down. Then again I'll admit I have sources of information that aren't generally available. I'd love to say I'll be able to share it soon but investigations into lethal force situations can take literally years. However if and when those investigations conclude, I'll be happy to share what I know.

It is NOT a matter of what I 'think' it is what I know, facts is facts don't like it tough.

Also it's spelled "rogue", a rouge cop would just be some kind of hilarious transvestite with a gun, at least that's what I envision.

I was tired and yet somehow fitting for an LA cop.

. . . more or less silly question: how long did it take to finish the image on the left?

Karno, for goodness sake come to some meets! It'd give me an opportunity to buy things from you and also you could eat some free cake.


Otherwise I'll paypal you shortly, this looks like a good read.

In defense of the guy sitting on the pile titled WAR DEAD, killing people *is* in his job description. We might choose to disagree with who or how he does his killing, but it's still part of what we're paying him to do.

And a pile of twenty dead school children is WAY HIGHER than that other pile.

As much as children dying is a tragedy, we lost 58 THOUSAND American servicemen in Viet Nam. Most of them were volunteers.
I am sorrowful for the kids, i am despondant for our military dead.

Dude, I'm with ya there. And it's worse than that -- ultimately, nothing was solved.

Too true...

but as the fourth branch of the government we the people have the right to bear arms a fail safe if you will should our government become tyrannical and unjust. take that away and we have no power to prevent a dictatorship from taking root also and i quote "the right to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed.

I really hate to break this to you, but if your government gets tyrannical, your puny-ass guns ain't going to save you. No, really. Because they're driving a tank through your house. Or carpet-bombing your neighborhood. And I'm only talking about automatic weapons, which make for lousy home defense.

I love to break this to you, but this exact point is addressed in the book. Government "invincibility" is an easily exploded myth.

ummm 68 law banned those and you'd be surprised at what homemade explosives can do and what gorilla warfare is capable of why do you think we have so many deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan? because the fuckers hit and run so much and to drop bombs on your own takes an insane amount of balls our government lacks using that much force would really make america look even more brutal and savage than we are all ready viewed and would also give third world shit holes the reason to finally do what they want. also you must be one of those call of duty tards tanks cant go every where and planes cant hit everything what they'd be fighting is a war on ideas you cant kill an idea. ask a Taliban insurgent tanks can be defeated planes can be shot down you think we all are just gunna meet the army in fair combat should they got to be unconstitutional? nope hate to break it to ya but you really need to research and read more than believe what your told. do some fact finding my friend then wake up.

Hey, I just noted that the revolver is a Webley. I love mine, I dont load mine with pencils though. Nice work.

Sent $5 hope that covers everything.

Dude... you guys wil neve learn it. But as long as you guy kill each other, I can sit on my "socialist, effeminate and whimsey" continent enjoying myself :-3

Of late, the call for arms restraint is coming from the populace, and it's considered a matter of public safety more than moral superiority.

Oh? People are ASKING to have their doors kicked in and their guns confiscated? I don't think so. Would you be referring to cowardly people who are demanding OTHER people be disarmed, because the media stories have frightened them into wetting their panties yet again?

/applause

Twenty. Dead. Children. Under the age of of ten
Your argument is invalid. All of them.

Heh. Shoving your fingers in your ears and chanting "Deadchildrendeadchildrendeadchildrendeadchildren" is not an argument at all, let alone a valid one.

Because, y'know, if anyone wants to practice arms restraint, all they have to do is not buy guns.

Don't buy guns. Swipe 'em from your mom instead, or some other law abiding citizen who left' em where you can get hold of them. All the cool kids are doing it!

pulled from the BJS (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43) and i qoute:

In 2009 —

An offender was armed with a gun, knife, or other object used as a weapon in an estimated 22% of all incidents of violent crime.
Offenders used firearms to commit 8% of violent crime incidents in 2009.
Robberies (47%) were the most likely crime to involve an armed offender.
Firearms (28%) were the most common weapons used in robberies.
Most rapes and assaults did not involve the use of a weapon.
From 1993-1997, of serious nonfatal violent victimizations, 28% were committed with a firearm, 4% were committed with a firearm and resulted in injury, and less than 1% resulted in gunshot wounds.

theses statics are a lil old but the amount of data to be processed is alot and as such is like the census for the us.

so i ask you explain protection for whom? how many of these could have been prevented also to let you know

Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]

so yeah protection from the feds or police really isnt an option here.

I'm confused, what exactly are you arguing?

Prearguaing against the old just call the police defense

Oh, yes absolutely. To quote "the naked gun", 'we would have been here sooner ma'am, but your husband wasn't dead yet.'

Indeed my father was sheriff and ws well respected cause he did his job right the community loved him the county sheriff not so much

It also took two 24hr news cycles for the AR15 to go from being found in the car trunk to being in the class room.

safety for whom? please explain this.

i bilive that(pardon my half ass spelling)the solution is not less, but more guns, given to the right people

And there lies the conundrum; Just whom is the 'right people' to be allowed to have guns?

While that's a tough one to nail down the simple answer is , persons that-are free (aka have not committed any felonious acts) and of sound mind and body. I am a gun rights advocate but I do agree some more should be Donets gun courses when buying fire arms that cost a reasonable amount or mental testing in addition to sop ( standard operation procedures ) such as back round checks and a waiting period.

As one of those 'nasty gun owners' I applaud your efforts on our behalf, Karno. The part that so many fail to understand is that the Second Amendment is primarily intended to provide the people with the means to defend themselves against the government should it become oppressive.. As another poster has noted.

I paraphrase one of my favorite authors :

If the people are armed, then they are citizens and can be free if they wish it. If they aren't, then they are free only on sufferance and they can be oppressed at will by the government.

Or, phrased more succinctly:

If the people are armed, they are citizens, if they are not, they are subjects.

That is a case of reading into it what is not there, it is more about not maintaining a 'standing army' and thus a freer citizenry than it is about defending against one's own government.

So, every single founding father was reading into it? Because A:they'd just used guns against their own government a few years prior due to tyranny and B almost all of them wrote in their personal papers that the citizenry need be able, if necessary, to stand up to a tyrannical government.

Yes exactly, otherwise they would have written into the second what they really wanted.
But then in the present we have a standing army that is being abused in its uses as a tool of subjugation of foreign peoples, and you and I have the responsibility as citizens of this once great country (If it ever was truly 'great') to put a stop to this abuse of our fellow man.

I dunno, I know a lot of military men and women and I don't know any who's ever subjugated anyone. You ever serve or are you just that stunningly full of cliches?

Have served USN (SSBN), third gen having served, and I do know of several former military that fully understood the what and why of the occupations that they participated in. And still I'm 'stunningly full of clichés and witticisms'.

And what pray tell is their understanding? I'm assuming at third generation you must have been an officer? Because, and while I know this was one of the worst mistakes I ever made, while I made the mistake of NOT following the family tradition of being a military officer, I did do other things which involved the intelligence chain. I know, and know it sucks, but there's a lot which doesn't trickle down to the people actually laying down their lives on the line, that is how things always are in war. The world is a complex place, and the Islamic world, and how everyone else on the planet is forced to deal with it due to the resource situation, is double, if not treble that complexity.

One thing I'll freely admit, the policies are dictated in a large part by the fact that petroleum is at this time believed to be a finite resource. Barring any disruption of that fact, the middle east is of great present importance because it is to the strategic benefit of the various world powers to consume their oil, and that of everyone else prior to consuming our own petroleum, natural gas, and coal resources. There is a lot which goes into maintaining a first world nation, many variables which are taken into account so that you, your family, and everyone else can sleep comfortably and in relative safety at night.

It would be much easier if the United States were a colonial power, but we never have been, and have never desired to be one. We are at best, in very rare situations, a colonial power reluctantly. I expect that this attitude has roots in our own birth as a colony of the British empire, and our struggle for freedom and self definition as a people. We see ourselves in every nation, this is a beautiful but dangerous sentiment as we fail utterly to realize at almost every level that many people are not even remotely like us at the very core of their self identity, and it is in that failure to accept differences that the root failures we experience in modern conflicts ultimately lie.

I can go on and on about this for a long time. But rest assured, the United States has little to no interest in the subjugation of the populace of any other nation, perhaps excepting our own, and the latter only by certain political elements of the most unsavory and dangerous nature. The last time we were of a differing opinion was the Second World war, when it became necessary to obliterate the national belief systems of Germany and Japan, excepting perhaps the Cold War, though the actions there were based around a policy that the Soviet Union and its allied political systems would, and correctly did, exhaust themselves. In the case of WW2, our open and general recognition that the systems of facism/Japanese militarism could not coexist with any other system of belief in the world permitted politically the undertaking of a military policy of total capitulation or total annihilation. It allowed for the kind of military tactics which today we would find abhorrent, including the use of saturation bombing of population centers, the fire bombing of the same, the use of terms such as "enemy civilians" and the eventual deployment of the atomic bomb. Possibly we have evolved, but more likely we simply in the modern world delude ourselves into the belief that we can simply show the enemy a better way. The latter did work in the case of the Soviet states, but it took 60 years to show its effectiveness and was predicated on the fact that no war between them and us was possible as they, much like ourselves, place life as their highest value. MAD made war unacceptable and entropy won out against an enemy who's only option was to consume itself or change. The same system fails utterly when taking into account an enemy who's value system places death before dishonor, and martyrdom before surrender. This was a course the Soviets considered and rejected under the last years of Josef Stalin.

If you would like to note me, I can continue this particular debate with you, it will likely be a very enjoyable one.

I could go on n on with you on this topic as well but there is too much koolaide induced fiction here that I would have to fight.
Thank you for the hilarious read.

Actually, if you study the Federalist Papers, that is the purpose. They had just fought a war against an oppressive government, and they wanted to be sure that, if it became necessary, it could be done again.

One of the actions of the British government that caused this sentiment was the forcible disarmament of all colonists in the regions that the British still controlled.

And the parallels with the current situation in this country today are thought-provoking.

Been there, read that. Now look into 'Dictatorship in ten easy steps'; these are the methods the USA has used for sometime and with great success around the world and is in the final stages of implementing here in the US.

I fully believe your statement, although I don't have time right now to research it.

I may be a cynical pessimist, but in many ways I'm glad I'm an old man. I won't have to live in this world that much longer. I feel immense sympathy for the younger folks, though, the coming years are going to be incredibly rough. Look at what's happened in Russia since the collapse of communism, and consider that what's going to happen here will be orders of magnitude worse. And I use 'orders of magnitude' knowing exactly what that means, and I definitely mean the plural.

I hope and pray that I'm wrong, but all of my experience and intuition say otherwise. I expect the collapse in the next 5-15 years. If not sooner.

Our current president would love to be dictator for life, I believe. Of course, the problem with that is life is only as long as it takes some unsuspected confidante to stand behind him and blow his brains out so that the confidante can assume the office. Like I said, I'm a cynical pessimist.

You are right to be somewhat pessimistic as I too am feeling the same, I have a son who has reached the age of majority and is looking at no real future, most all of his friends are also aware of their limited futures. They also know it ain't the president that did this to them, as they are not Faux news watchers or rightwing radio listeners, they know the score quite well as to the who and why of the mess we're in.
And people like you with your un-informed (as the last part of your comment would indicate) dislike of a man who talks of uniting American citizens, all the while we have the GOP and corporate media doing their damnedest to misdirect you and keep you scared so that they can continue their agenda of destroying this once great nation. So until we do stop listening to the corporate/rightwing propaganda and once again unite as a people we will not overthrow the oligarchs that are pulling the strings of this nations governments both national and local.
To save you some time and I strongly recommend you take the time to further inform yourself.
Start with;
http://fair.org/ The news behind the news.
http://www.factcheck.org/ Old school conservative owned.
http://alicelaw.org/ this is a response to ALEC which owns almost all state level GOP and decides what legislation your state will turn into laws, my states GOP is solid ALEC owned and 90+% of our laws are ALEC boilerplate, word for word, that includes 'stand-your-ground' which by the way is meant only for white males thank-you-very-much. But that is a whole 'nuther story.
http://billmoyers.com/ THE MOST trusted American journalist out there. He has an in depth look into ALEC and its practices, shows Grover Norquist for the criminal that he is, and much much more!
http://www.democracynow.org/ for seeing the news that corporate won't acknowledge happened.
and https://duckduckgo.com; for:
Naomi Wolf ten steps to fascism
Naomi Kline shock doctrine American style

P.S. Eisenhower's 'Guns vs. Butter' speech is a must read. http://www.edchange.org/multicultur.....for_peace.html

Thank you for the references, I will read them. Bill Moyers may be widely trusted, but he is very highly biased in his reporting, like all major news mongers. I base that on personal experience, as I have been on the scene of a couple of his stories, and his reporting completely ignores aspects and events, some of which were major, that do not support his personal bias. Walter Cronkite was slightly better, but only slightly.

BTW, there is no unbiased media in this country. That goes for both the liberal and conservative sides (so-called, anyway). The only major news source I'm aware of that doesn't show obvious bias is the BBC, although that only applies to news from outside the British empire.

My disdain for our elected leader is based on his actions, as reported by various media from both sides of the political spectrum. He has been repeatedly shown to be a liar and completely amoral in a political sense. He has NO respect for the Constitution or this country, and he is not alone in that attitude inside the Beltway. Or outside it, for that matter. He is not alone in gaining my disrespect, all of Congress and the vast majority of the power players in that area are with him. None of them have shown any concern for the country or the people, but only for their own goals, both politically and otherwise. There are no statesmen in the power structure of this country and have not been for many years. To our sorrow.

In my opinion, the last good president we had was Eisenhower, though even he inherited a badly wounded system.

I notice you did not name any story you feel he misreported. 'Ignored' or is it more along the line of sticking with the actual facts.

Report on what is actually going down is having a bias, a bias toward truth.

This last one is interesting as you object to 'his actions', that he has 'NO respect for the Constitution or this country,...' If you would take a small amount of time and truly and openly look in to this little statement you will find this lack of respect really came into play with R. M. Nixon and his treasonous activities in Vietnam an onwards. But on who's shoulders does the responsibility for this mess actually rest? your's and mine and if you expect to overcome the power of the Oligarchs you will need to re-examine what you think you know and then educate yourself accordingly because right now you sound like you are eating right out of their hands as they walk you into that cage they have prepared for you.

sent ya $4 via paypal.

I have run out of words to comment the epicness of this.

the right people are peaple who have had extencive psyce evaluwation( i know i cant spell), and have one every month to make shure they havent gone over the deep end......................and furrys(joke-ish) i say that, in order to diswade assholes and psycos, we should re-instate tourtur.

You rock, sir.