GoComics Liberal: Pulitzer Prize Finalist, Matt Bors Signed Political Cartoon Print Giveaway (Oct. 1 - 5)

 

GoComics Liberal followers, this signed print giveaway is for you! Pulitzer Prize finalist, Matt Bors depicts how the NRA does business in Washington -- by throwing money at lawmakers. 

 

To enter the contest to win this autographed print, leave a comment below answering the following question: "Should the United States have tougher gun control laws?"

 

All entries must be noted below by Friday, October 5 at 12:00PM CDT. Good news international fans: everyone's eligible for this contest! We will announce the winner on Friday afternoon (10/5) here and via social media. 

 

To view Bors' entire catalog of work click here.

 

Follow along with our left-winged political coverage this fall, join us on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest:

 

GoComics Liberal

@GoComicsLiberal

Pinterest Board

Comments

[Charles Brubaker]

Yes, US should have a tougher gun control law.

[Opals25]

Yes, I don't agree with out right bans but weapons should be more difficult to come by with tighter background and mental health checks.

[David Franks]

Why, yes. We should.

[Mickeypaterson]

Hell Yes

[Atlas]

We do, but we need to stop throwing ineffective legislation at the issue and enact smarter reforms with teeth and substance.

Politicians on both sides seem too eager to pay lip service to their constituents but have yet to produce anything meaningful.

[bee]

absolutely yes we do, there's no reason we should allow citizens access to automatic weapons or armor-piercing rounds. Your rights to defend yourself should end when they begin to infringe on other innocent people's right to safety. I believe that local law enforcement shouldn't be armed either, but you can't enforce an armed populous with pepper spray. The amount of innocent lives lost in my lifetime due to gun violence should have been enough to fuel major reforms, but as it is weapon manufacturing is a business like any other, and like most American businesses they are funneling cash through lobbyists to protect their profits and interests at the expense of the American people.

[Liamdonov]

I believe we do need tougher gun control laws, but I think we need to look at them as a peripheral issue. We wouldn't need to change the gun control laws if we became a functional society instead of the official prequel to Shadowrun.

The first step is to destroy the NRA.

[Matthew Hahn]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed-- if you're in the militia. Not the Montana Militia, but a government-sponsored one like the National Guard or Reserves. The intent of the founders is clear, if their syntax was bad. If you have any doubt, read The Articles of Confederation from which the Bill of Rights was cribbed (the Second Amendment poorly so.) Also keep in mind they were not talking about pistols with 22-bullet clips or assault rifles that have 1,000 round magazines. They were talking about muskets and flintlocks. I believe if you want to own those, knock yourself out.

[Comic_lover]

No, we should not have tougher gun laws. Look at the crime rates of places like Australia and England, which both have strict gun laws, and you'll see that it's not the gun which is evil- it's how that weapon is used (just like a baseball bat). If harsher gun laws are enforce, what would happen to those people with semi-auto or fully-auto weapons? Would the Fed forcibly confiscate their weapons? That doesn't sound like freedom to me. Also, for all of the socialist chanting of "tougher gun laws," the Federal gun-walking programs- not private ownership- have contributed tenfold more to crime. How's that for hypocrisy?
As Stephen Halbrook said, "In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
If you need me, I'll be out shooting my guns.

[Brad Buescher]

Thomas Jefferson's gun probably left a pretty nasty welt. In 2012 Johnny Dipshit can walk down the street with a highly efficient killing machine, and frankly that's pretty scary. That's not to say that I (I am often Johnny Dipshit) couldn't walk down the street with a chainsaw or nail gun - but I would argue that a semi/fully-auto weapon is a wee bit more murdery than 99.9% of the things I can get my hands on. What do we do with the people who already possess semi-auto or fully-auto weapons? Take them away. That's right. They'll scream and cry about it, but tough shit. I'd love to hear a compelling argument for why we'd want to allow these things to stick with their current owners. Because it "goes against freedom"? Freedom is having the ability to freely pursue happiness without the threat of Johnny Dipshit putting 10 rounds in your scrotum, effectively leaving you with a sieve in your pants. Having a sieve in your pants is NOT freedom.

[Emily]

As a European, I'm always surprised that this is even a question. If I want to have a gun here, I can get one, but I would have to go through some loops to show I have a valid reason and that I'm not a fruitcake. Yes, criminals will still have access to weapons, but they'll be much more expensive and much rarer, but being able to avoid having so many guns in circulation removes them from the majority of small-time criminals and stops the average character from going on a rampage.

How is that a problem? If you're a good citizen you can still have a gun if you have a good reason for having one; if you're a criminal or a nutcase, it's a lot harder.

Freedom's all well and good, but so is stopping countless murders, accidental deaths and gun-related injuries. I know which I'd prefer!

[Candace]

Yes. I believe that this country needs more comprehensive and strict gun control laws. I live in Philadelphia where the death toll of those killed by gun fire averages one person a day--many of the victims are young men and children. And while a lot of the shootings take place in the more economically depressed portions of the city, they are happening in the more affluent neighborhoods more often.

Many of the guns used in these crimes are tracked to a few gun shops surrounding Philadelphia and in the NE section of the city--areas often not plagued by the gun violence of the rest of the city. These guns are often the result of straw purchasers: Someone with a clean record goes into a gun shop and purchases multiple guns using cash. They then sell these guns to their gun trafficking partner. When the guns are later linked to a crime, they are reported as either lost or stolen. They are neither--they are sold on the street to criminals, underage youth and those without a license. The current gun laws do nothing to stop straw purchasers and illegal gun trafficking. Why should someone be permitted to purchase multiple guns in a single visit to a gun shop? Why not require gun owners and purchasers to register their guns like we register our cars?

Twice a month a coalition of churches, people who have lost loved ones to gun violence and citizens concerned about the unchecked gun deaths in our city march and gather at locations in the city where a someone was killed by gun violence. Sometimes the people killed are as young as 15--killed in a case of mistaken identify on their way to the corner store. This Sunday we are gathering to mark the death of a young 20 something man who moved from Minnesota to Philly to attend Temple. He was shot on his way to work. A few blocks away, another teenage boy was killed a few weeks later.

People often focus on the mass shootings that get coverage on the nightly news. Those are senseless tragedies. But so are the deaths that happen every day in neighborhoods all over Philadelphia. Over 260 people have been murdered in Philadelphia this year. We need sensible, comprehensive and effective gun laws to help put a stop to these senseless deaths.

[Vincent Pearase]

Absolutely, gun control laws should be tougher. The level of gun violence in the USA is crazy. If you compare the US to other countries with sensible gun control, it isn't hard to see that a saner set of laws would save lives.

[Phyllis]

No.

Criminals and crazy people will always find a way to get a gun. I think it should be mandatory for all citizens to have a gun. This mandate would be similiar to driving license, training and then carry a gun. In fact, evil people would wonder if you have your gun availabe to shoot them first.

[Liam]

Our freedoms in this country were wrestled from the British with the business end of a firearm. There may come a time in the future when our firearms will be needed to protect these freedoms from a threat, foreign or domestic. No Republic lasts forever, and we are not resiliant to the tyranny of evil men. I can defend myself from those that wish to do me harm, can you say the same? Gun control legislation hurts those that abide by the letter of the law, not the criminal who obtains his firearm by illegal means.

[DarthJ]

^ You hit it on the head, Liam! :D

[GoComics]

A BIG thanks to everyone for your participation. The winner of this signed Matt Bors political cartoon is Matthew Hahn! Congratulations! Please e-mail us your contact information, at socialmedia@amuniversal.com to collect your prize. You have one week to contact us before your prize is forfeited. Thank you again to everyone, we love hearing from you. Keep following for more giveaway opportunities!

[customized essay]

This mandate would be similiar to driving license, training and then carry a gun. In fact, evil people would wonder if you have your gun availabe to shoot them first.

[ucf undergraduate admissions]

Nothing is more absolutely frustrating to any person than needing to write one's thoughts clearly and concisely on paper, in the form of a personal letter to a friend or loved one, a statement of purpose required in a university application, a professional summation of job performance required by a manager, or an essay, research paper, or thesis required by a high school instructor or college professor for a course grade, and not having the fundamental skills to do so.