Michael Ramirez for June 27, 2022

  1. Sammy on gocomics
    Say What Now‽ Premium Member 3 months ago

    If King George was for it then the con-serves are against it. Simple minded thinking for simple minded cartoonists.

     •  Reply
  2. Cessna cartoonist logo
    cessna172  3 months ago

    Lotsa guns here in Albuquerque – wonder if it is safer than London?

     •  Reply
  3. Tf 117
    RAGs  3 months ago

    It is simply amazing how many on the far right don’t believe that “rights” entail “responsibilities”. They believe it is “either/or”. They also don’t believe that maturity should be considered.

     •  Reply
  4. Albert einstein brain i6
    braindead Premium Member 3 months ago

    Ramirez is another gun violence advocate.

    And proud of it.

     •  Reply
  5. Question 63916 960 720
    knutdl  3 months ago

    “When I was just å baby My Mama told me, son Always be a good boy Don’t ever play with guns But I shot a man in Reno Just to watch him die” (Johnny Cash)

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    Judge Magney  3 months ago

    Of coyrse, as Alito pointed out the next day, King George and the British common law were opposed to abortion rights, too.

     •  Reply
  7. Pat new 150
    Patjade Premium Member 3 months ago

    Interesting. It was Conservatives that fought on the side of England against the Colonists in the war for Independence. But I don’t expect Ramirez to know history when he’s cranking out half-baked RW tropes.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    suzalee  3 months ago

    Well Regulated militia is a long way from “everybody can have a military rifle which is never regulated”

     •  Reply
  9. 7bf81e16 8ef8 4134 8774 9ce680cc41b6
    The Nodding Head  3 months ago

    The British marched to seize militia arms caches in Lexington & Concord. Hence…

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    buer  3 months ago

    Starbucks. Another thing that should be banned, alongside guns.

     •  Reply
  11. Photo
    MartinPerry1  3 months ago

    I wonder if these right wing cartoonists realize that these conservatives would have fought for King George rather than those hippie revolutionaries. Conservatives, by definition, hate change.

     •  Reply
  12. Yin yang
    Havel  3 months ago

    Up until the mid-1970s no one had a problem with this. The NRA changed, going from an organization which supported sensible gun laws to its current incarnation. In fact just prior, California governor Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act in 1967, which had bipartisan support. They were afraid of the Black Panthers showing up with guns. Dis the NRA condemn this?

    “Both Republicans and Democrats in California supported increased gun control, as did the National Rifle Association of America.10 Governor Ronald Reagan, who was coincidentally present on the capitol lawn when the protesters arrived, later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and that guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” In a later press conference, Reagan added that the Mulford Act “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.”3 "(Wiki)

    So, for those so enamored with this decision, what has changed? It seems that the “sense of security” that you envision is the result of just another scare tactic brought to us by the NRA. Maybe try to recognize that people are just sowing fear to separate you from your money?

     •  Reply
  13. Missing large
    gkepchar  3 months ago

    I support everyone’s right to own a muzzle loading musket.

     •  Reply
  14. Picture
    ChristopherBurns  3 months ago

    King George would not have been against gun rights. Having a militia to protect the colonies meant he didn’t have to pay for Soldiers to protect the colonies. A major source of conflict between the colonists and the crown was paying for soldiers to protect the colonies from the French in the French and Indian War.

     •  Reply
  15. Odin
    Holden Awn  3 months ago

    Springtime in New England. Just after mid-April. Discontentment with the government had been simmering for many years. Tensions were high, and the governor in Massachusetts, Thomas Gage, was deeply distrustful of private citizens owning and carrying guns, and even more distrustful of their intentions and motivations, so he ordered that under cover of darkness on April 18th Army regulars under Lt. Colonel Francis Smith were to march out to seize weapons and ammunition caches said to be at Concord. Citizens got wind of the march, and chose to gather and confront the Army troops rather than surrender their guns and disperse. Shots were fired. The rest is history.

    The date was April 19, 1775. It went down in history as the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The American Revolution had begun.

     •  Reply
  16. Belushi
    Jack7528  3 months ago

    Under General Gates, King George did try to confiscate weapons.

     •  Reply
  17. Frank
    Frankfreak  3 months ago

    Who’s let the guy who thinks he’s George the 3rd out of the mental ward. Or is this a Cosplayer?

     •  Reply
  18. Missing large
    PaulGoes  3 months ago

    Since Alito went back to the 13th century to justify overturning Roe v Wade, he should be amenable to going back to the 18th to overturn gun rights.

     •  Reply
  19. Eagle c 001 duo
    Kentucky Ken Premium Member 3 months ago

    I hate to admit it, but Mikey may have a point here. My thinking is along the same lines, to wit: “When F4 Phantoms are banned, only criminals will have F4 Phantoms.” The dang gov’ment don’t have no right to take away my fully fueled and armed F4E (the one with the big gun in the nose). Talk about affirming my manhood (60,000 pounds fully fueled and armed and a manly boost from those twin J79 jet engines — wow!!!). Why, I can handle the problems with them commies who want to have safe gun laws by dropping some napalm on them. What — napalm is banned? Cripes — what’s the dang world coming to? I got a friend who’s an amateur forward air controller who’s willing to help me Make America Grate Again. He just shows up at one of them demonstrations, marks it with smoke, and I’ll handle the rest, King George be dammed. But them unfair laws… Help me out here, Mikey…

     •  Reply
  20. Img 1754  2
    GiantShetlandPony  3 months ago

    It’s about time to put ‘Well Regulated’ back into the right to bear arms.

    Somehow, I think bears are happy the gun nuts didn’t take that to mean they should all have the arms of dead bears.

     •  Reply
  21. Fbab547a f046 46c4 98b5 08cf0dc801d6
    Kracklin Rosie  3 months ago

    I have a picture of the Concord Battle hanging on my living room wall. The bloody Brits lost hundreds in their retreat back to Boston from the local WELL ARMED PEOPLE scrimmaging in the woods.

     •  Reply
  22. Missing large
    Rich Douglas  3 months ago

    Deadly fetish.

     •  Reply
  23. 2019063095133708
    rs0204 Premium Member 3 months ago

    If Britain tries to reacquire the colonies, I probably will fight on the side of the British. They are clearly more advanced in their thinking and sensibilities. They outlawed slavery much sooner than the United States, they allow a woman to make their own reproduction decisions and Britain has the NHS (National Healthcare System).

    Then again…why on Earth would the British want these colonies back? Other than a few outliers, these United States are, quite frankly, what you would find at the bottom of a Warwickshire out-house.

     •  Reply
  24. Missing large
    apfelzra Premium Member 3 months ago

    Another senseless drawing from Mr. Martinez. He can do better, but often doesn’t.

     •  Reply
  25. Missing large
    apfelzra Premium Member 3 months ago

    My mistake— Mr. Ramirez, not Martinez. Apologies offered.

     •  Reply
  26. Aoh14gihmiai6zptchf2goyoj0ustxhzrae8mjgwolxr
    ElwoodP  3 months ago

    I favor neighborhood-nuclear-superiority.

     •  Reply
  27. Missing large
    bluegrassfan  3 months ago


    : a body of persons constituting a special class in a society : ESTATE sense 3b states plural : the members or representatives of the governing classes assembled in a legislative bodyc obsolete : a person of high rank (as a noble)5a : a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territoryespecially : one that is sovereignb : the political organization of such a body of peoplec : a government or politically organized society having a particular charactera police statethe welfare state6 : the operations or concerns of the government of a country7a : one of the constituent units of a nation having a federal governmentthe fifty statesb States plural : The United States of America8 : the territory of a state


    : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergencyThe militia was called to quell the riot.b : a body of citizens organized for military service2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service3 : a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideologyspecifically : such a group that aims to defend individual rights against government authority that is perceived as oppressive

     •  Reply
  28. Missing large
    bluegrassfan  3 months ago

    The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

    An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

    I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

     •  Reply
  29. Missing large
    bluegrassfan  3 months ago

    And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Michael Ramirez