Chan Lowe by Chan Lowe

Chan Lowe

Comments (19) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Okay, excuse me for being “sexist”, but I don’t think any of the naysayers would have wanted to come up against my wife in those old days of PMS, with her carrying a gun!

  2. oldrellek99

    oldrellek99 said, over 3 years ago

    The taliban and republicans have no respect for human life, and believe women are below human.

  3. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.
    Margaret Thatcher

    You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.
    Margaret Thatcher

    This multicultural approach, saying that we simply live side by side and live happily with each other has failed. Utterly failed.
    Angela Merkel

    Afghanistan must never again be a safe haven for terrorism.
    Julia Gillard

    There is a reason the world always looks to America.
    Julia Gillard

    http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_rest_female-leaders.php

    Women have played a large part of government for centuries. Why would the US putting them into harms way turn anything around?

  4. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    A nurse who has worked in Saudi Arabia told me she is safer in a Muslim country than anywhere in the world because the Muslim men have been cultured to protect their women-folk. Is it possible women POWs might also be safer?

  5. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Yup, those guys in Salem, Mass. knew how to handle them uppity women in a “Christian way”!!

  6. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    @Gypsy8

    I don’t know Gypsy8, How about you ask this woman.

    http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/02/lara_logan_raped_egypt_reporte.php

  7. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    That wasn’t so good. But is it not also true that men POWs are subject to sexual atrocities and would it be any worse or more unjust if it were a woman? Is this not the price women should be prepared to pay for equality, which is basically the same price men may have to pay to serve in the military? I don’t have the answer to this – what do you think?
    .
    Another thought comes to mind that may mean the Lara Logan case is not the norm. She is a sexy looking dish and apparently a bit of a rebel. Was she perhaps dressed provocatively and breaking a lot of cultural and taboo rules in the country she was visiting? I know – not an excuse – but common sense should also prevail, no matter where you are.

  8. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    @Gypsy8

    Yes, it is. But guys are supposed to be “tough” and if you would just look at the history of our species and understand that men are (or maybe it is were) hardwired to “protect” and therefore choose “fight” over flight in a stressful situation AND that women are hardwired to “nurture” and choose flight over fight. Now, OF COURSE, that is a generality and would not describe “unique” individual situational behavior. I think that maybe we should find ways NOT to go to war, but that’s just me.

    Now this concept is disturbing to me. Why would you even consider it? You said: " Was she perhaps dressed provocatively and breaking a lot of cultural and taboo rules in the country she was visiting?"

    I accept the idea that one culture can have radically different traditions. However, if we are to have a “world-wide village” (as in the Soros idea of his “open society”) then everyone MUST be tolerant of others. It is further complicated on this one issue by the fact that western women are NOT going to cover up and they WILL display themselves as they feel is appropriate.

    Remember the battle cry: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”. Our culture HAS evolved and women DO have rights and do NOT answer to a male dominated dogma. Was she dressed provocatively? I take a soon to be famous quote from Hillery “what,….,difference does it make?” IF we are all going to live together on this planet then people are going to have to learn how to NOT LOOK at something that offends them.

    But again, that’s just me.

  9. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    Eliminate all personal atrocities against men AND women by finding ways NOT to go to war. What a great idea!
    .
    And while we’re making society a better place, let’s ban all assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

  10. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    @Gypsy8

    Sure,let the Taliban go first. Then China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela and Mexico. Pile them all at the southern US border and set them on fire. Stoke the fire for a year until it is nothing but a metal mountain and then turn that in train track.

    I have no personal use for an AR-15. However, I do own semi automatic rifles and they will accept extended magazines though I have none. 10 rounds is sufficient for my needs since I mostly target shoot.

    However, one can not field a “well regulated” militia in adequate time if one must first go to the armory to be issued a weapon or magazines. It is much more efficient to have to individual own and maintain his own weapons and ammunition.

    We banned alcohol. Failed.

    We banned drugs. Failed.

    We banned abortion. BIG fail.

    Banning things does not work. It only restricts those that obey the law and I have no fear of those that obey the law.

    Plus, with the DHS buying up billions of rounds and thousands of the very guns the legislators wish to restrict the ordinary citizen from having, and there stated purpose for this is “domestic use” I find very little comfort in the idea that one’s government would not use abusive force on it’s citizens. yeah, that’s right. Tyranny. after all, did not Obama say that he wanted a “civilian” force as well armed and trained as the military (DHS)? What for?

    So no, we should NOT ban so called assault weapons and high capacity magazines, but rather, we should address the other problems such as but not limited to mental health and criminal prosecutions.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/26/if-assault-weapons-are-bad-why-does-the-dhs-want-to-buy-7000-of-them-for-personal-defense/

    http://www.naturalnews.com/036847_ammo_purchases_government_stockpiling_media_lies.html

    “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” _ Barack Obama 7/2/08

    http://askmarion.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/obama-gets-civilian-army-in-healthcare-bill/

    http://libertasfound.org/2012/11/20/well-armed-new-federal-security-force-in-your-town-obamas-latest-executive-order-to-partner-with-local-entities-2/

    Be prepared….LOL

  11. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    Darn, I was hoping we were making progress!

  12. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    @Gypsy8

    What? Are you saying I (and you) should ignore the obvious preparations by my government for armed conflict by a “civilian Army” planned by Obama, legislated by Obama, funded by Obama and trained by Obama JUST like he said he wanted to do in 2008?

    Armed with the very types of weapons and magazines he wants to “ban” the common citizen from being able to have?

    Who is he planning on having to fight?

    Canada? No can’t be, they are too “civilized” just ask the Doc.

    Mexico? NO, of course not. He wants to make them all citizens.

    Not too many choices left dude.

    If you are afraid of guns, don’t buy one. That would be the best thing for YOU.

    I don’t know where you live but if it’s a big city I bet you would be shocked big time to know just how many pistols are walking the street with you. Most of those people are doing so within the law and you will never ever even get a hint of it. Unless you live in a city that bans them. Now only those that are criminals will have them. And they DO have them. And you may get that notice eventually.

    Go ahead ban away. Bans only restrict the law abidin folk.

  13. rossevrymn

    rossevrymn said, over 3 years ago

    @dtroutma

    dumb

  14. rossevrymn

    rossevrymn said, over 3 years ago

    what a stupid strip

  15. Gypsy8

    Gypsy8 said, over 3 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    I find it strange these discussions on banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines always seems to slip from common sense regulations to the government wanting to take away your guns, and we can’t allow that because we may have to fight the government.
    .
    Okay, I live in a different culture that doesn’t see the need for guns for personal protection, and guns for protection from the government is just plain crazy.
    .
    I grew up rural and now live in a medium sized city. We had guns for hunting and for protecting livestock from predators. I know how to use guns and I’m not afraid of them. I don’t have any now because I don’t need them and, in fact, I would feel more at risk having one from accidental shootings. I’m not afraid of home invasions and I often go away without locking up – it’s just not necessary. People walking the streets carrying a pistol doesn’t happen – there is no need to. (I’m talking the major part of the city. All cities have their higher crime area where you either stay away or take precautions.)
    .
    When I travel GypsyWagon, I camp anywhere in Canada without fear. When travelling in the U,S., I stay to the safe public campgrounds. And I sometimes worry that my Canadian licence plate advertises, unarmed and vulnerable.
    .
    The reason the U.S. has the most gun deaths is because they have the most guns. Steps have to be taken to reduce gun ownership. I can accept that guns for hunting are okay, and hand guns for personal protection is an unfortunate necessity for many. There’s also that 2nd Amendment thing to cling to. But, assault rifles and high capacity magazines must be eliminated. They do not make you safer. They cause more deaths and injuries than they save. They increase fear and paranoia.
    .
    Assault weapons to protect you from the government is loony. The government is not out to get you, and any misguided attempt to fight the government with weapons and you end up as did the Branch Davidians of Waco, TX in 1993. (The wackos from Waco.)

  16. Load the rest of the comments (4).