ViewsEurope by CartoonArts International

ViewsEuropeNo Zoom

Comments (21) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Gresch

    Gresch said, almost 2 years ago

    You mean we can have swords and cannons,,,

  2. Ellen Gwynne

    Ellen Gwynne said, almost 2 years ago

    Yes! And nunchucks, knives and szissors.

  3. Michyle Glen

    Michyle Glen said, almost 2 years ago

    I like the idea,, Its reported that an English Soldier of that time could reload his Flintlock 5-6 times in a minute if he was experienced. A 10 second reload time would give people time to run from these nutcases.

  4. Craig Linder

    Craig Linder said, almost 2 years ago

    @Gresch

    Sure. But you’ll have to move your cannon on a horse-drawn carriage.

  5. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 2 years ago

    You guys are crazy. Remember what it says. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Any well regulated militia today would by it definition include automatic weapons. Why? Because the weapons brought to bear by any threat would be automatic as well. Now if you can convince the rest of the world to do away with all weapons, I’m all for it.

    So instead of griping about the second part get busy and make the first part true.

  6. Harolynne

    Harolynne GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    What militia, other than the National Guard…

  7. omQ Release the Desaparecidos

    omQ Release the Desaparecidos said, almost 2 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    ‘You guys are crazy.’
    Oh, I dunno, your words that follow your accusation were pretty crazy.
    Your emphasis:‘shall not’; everyone else’s emphasis: well regulated.

    ‘Why? Because the weapons brought to bear by any threat would be automatic as well’
    Continuing with that fallacy, let’s go onto bazookas, SAMissiles, ICBMs…
    Well regulated does not mean “match the ultimate weapon”.
    From what I can see, most folks want the 1st part improved while not removing the 2nd part

  8. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 2 years ago

    @omQ Release the Desaparecidos

    You just don’t get it do you? What I said was let’s have a requirement to be trained and “regulated” as well as the “right” to have the weapons. As it stands we only insure the right to have them not the responsibility to be trained and standing ready to serve.

    mandatory service after secondary school

    mandatory continuing training in small arms use IF you decide to keep them

    a “position” in the local nation guard with the ability to be called out in times of emergency

    physical training

    tactical training in urban warfare

    or you can opt out of all that but then yuou also opt out of the “right” to bear arms since you don’t want to assume the responsibility as well

  9. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    I’m with you on all points, and I’m a left-wing peacenik.


    One thing I want to clarify, though… At what point does the “opt out” become available, and is it permanent? If a kid gets out of school at 17 and doesn not want to initiate training, he shouldn’t be compelled to, and if he changes his mind at 25 (or 45), there should be means to opt-back-in.


    I’d also add that no gun ownership should be permitted before age 17. You can take your kids hunting, but the gun must be registered in your name, and no minor is allowed to operate a gun unless directly supervised (and I mean in direct sight; no “You follow that trail, and I’ll follow this one”).

  10. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 2 years ago

    @fritzoid

    Well, ok. But how about the kid that doesn’t want to “opt in” for the military training has to “serve” in some other capacity? Logistics, medical, food preparation, construction. There are a lot of ways to be of service and a lot of people in the community that are in need.

    Right now we are not teaching our children the value of service to their fellow human beings.

  11. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    I “don’t disagree.” I’m not well-versed in in the Peace Corps, but my understanding is that, while it sill exists, they can’t effectively place all of the applicants. They get a lot of applicants who want to “do good” but have no skills. They’re over-applied for people who want to fill skilled (or otherwise "meaningful"") spots. The Peace Corps needs people who are willing to dig ditches, and nobody wants to do that.


    I’m not opposed to mandatory “National Service,” but there has to be an option for people who never want to hold (let alone fire) a gun.


    My personal experience is with people who go directly from AP High School courses to pre-law college to law school to associates in a high-profile law firm. They’ve never had to WORK for a living, they’ve never had to be anything other than privileged. I’d be happy if it were mandated that everybody has to wash dishes or wait tables for two years (and live off their wages) before they’re put in the position of being anybody’s boss.

  12. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, almost 2 years ago

    @fritzoid

    I agree.

    Happy holiday (or Merry Christmas if you prefer) hope the new year treats you well.

  13. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    I’m good with either. And back atchya.

  14. omQ Release the Desaparecidos

    omQ Release the Desaparecidos said, almost 2 years ago

    @Bruce4671

    ‘You just don’t get it do you?’
    Oh, I do get it, old chum. You see, I was military conscripted, twice.
    I don’t think you get it despite having been drafted once before.
    Your emphasis was “shall not be infringed”. Mine was well regulated. We’re in agreement except for degree and default position.
    To satisfy militarists types such as yourself who think being armed or wanting to be armed is or should be the default position, the rest of us shall have their rights infringed upon.

    In the ‘90s I once watched a documentary of a Swiss court martial of a conscientious objector. It wasn’t pretty. Folks keep pointing at the Swiss without comprehending what is a “well regulated” militia. There is much more than keeping a gun in the back of your cupboard. You allude to that, of course; you want things to be “well regulated”. But I baulk at your starting point. You will note that I have often pointed out that most gun control advocates want gun control, not total gun abolition, albeit abolition of certain arms. There you and I disagree, apparently.

    The idea of a draft/military conscription/national service is all very pretty until it’s in place. You cannot imagine how disruptive it is. Wait, of course you can! You know parts of Asia now. In that case, turn back to that episode in your life: when the default is national service, those who do not wish to participate, for whatever reason, have to jump through hoops to get out of it. Not only that, your character is besmirched: you’re a coward. Suddenly national “obligations” are thrust upon you in order that you have the protection of national “rights”, or so the argument goes. However, those “obligations” are quite often abused or misused. I bring up your draft service as a good example. No disservice to you personally, of course. You do often go on about how we should curtail government having a control over our affairs but in this case you’re happy to allow them to tell you what to do, control over your very life? I don’t understand this apparent contradiction.

    Regarding opting in /out: How about those who want to be armed “opt in” and must undergo military training. You want to be armed so much, it’s your prerogative and therefore be prepared to undergo proper training for it. Leave the rest of us out of it.


    @Fritz
    ‘I’m not opposed to mandatory “National Service,” but there has to be an option for people who never want to hold (let alone fire) a gun’
    I never had a chance of that offer in South Africa nor Portugal when both still had military conscription (both abolished it in the ‘90s).

    I’m currently in Austria. It is a neutral country, not in NATO and still has national service for males. They do have an opt out of military service and the chance to do civil service (it’s slightly longer). But guess what; next month there is a national vote on whether to continue this status-quo or go for an exclusive professional army. i.e. abolish military conscription for males.

    Belated Merry Xmas to the both of you. Happy Boxing Day/ St Stephen’s Day. At least I’m in time to wish you both a prosperous New Year. ;-)

  15. fritzoid

    fritzoid GoComics PRO Member said, almost 2 years ago

    @omQ Release the Desaparecidos

    “I never had a chance of that offer [compulsory, non-military national service] in South Africa nor Portugal when both still had military conscription (both abolished it in the ‘90s).”


    Yeah, I’m aware that it hasn’t been tried (to my knowledge), here or elsewhere. But that’s why I’m making sure it would be included in “my” system.


    I don’t want the “Swiss system” as it stands, but I’m curious about a modified “Swiss system”; namely, anyone who doesn’t want a gun needn’t own one; anyone who wants a gun must make themselves available for militia training and service. (If this were implemented, there’d no doubt be SOMEONE who’d claim “conscientious objector” status despite owning a private arsenal, but let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.)


    Compulsory national service (which would include non-military options) is a related idea, but not necessarily part of the above proposal.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (6).