Women, gun control, and the GOP

I'm talking about soft, cuddly, feminine, innocent, beautiful females... not the Annie Oakley dykes you guys picture/fantasize about when cleaning/lubricating your gun barrels.

You mean like RuPaul

That's a soft feminine beautiful female? I guess Dennis Rodman would be too then. :lol:

As long as you aren't armed you're soft and cuddly...even if you have a dick. That's the vision of women to the left. First of all actually being a woman isn't required, being submissive is. They can't have women being strong while they are making the men weak. They can't have strong women replacing the men they need to weaken. They need both to submit to the program or they fail.
 
If the women had a gun the perp would probably wait and ambush her somewhere along the way.

If the women had a gun there would probably be a shoot-out in which the women and the kid would end up dead.

If the women had a gun she'd have to keep it nearby, ready in a moments notice and that's a big risk (accidental shooting) to put her kid in harms way like that.

If the women had a gun she'd have to have the nerve... most women wouldn't.

In my opinion those are the facts Jack. Consider them all.

Yours is always a perfect scenario, (women shoots, kills perp, end of story). In the real world all of the above actually come into play.






So, using your logic (is that what this sort of thinking is called???) ALL cops should immediately be disarmed based on the fact that a high percentage are shot by their own weapons.

Is that what you're saying?

It seems like he is saying that women are too weak and stupid to use a firearm to defend themselves.
yahoo_rolling_eyes.png

It seems like he is saying that women are too weak and stupid to use a firearm to defend themselves.

many on the left believe that

another example of the lefts war on women
 
The NRA isn't some single entity, but rather about 2 million members. Also, there are about 260 million guns in the hands of approximately 52 million private gun owners. We gun owners won't be toppled. Most won't give up their guns without a physical struggle, so give up that notion.
 
Someday the NRA will be toppled.







Domestic violence: The next front in gun-control fight - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- The scene is intense: A man is ferociously knocking on a door while a woman inside the house calls 911, saying that her ex is trying to break in. A child sits on the couch.

The man bursts in and grabs the child, and the woman yells not to take the toddler. The man pulls out a gun. A shot rings out, and the screen goes black. A child cries out.

The violent domestic scenario is only a television ad from a gun control group, but it attempts to portray what some women face. It also depicts the next front in the gun control debate.

Is the problem guns or DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and how society reacts to such?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf


Too many times I see the victim ignored, or blamed 'because she stayed in the relationship". I've heard it far too much, I still hear it from those who do not understand the cycle of domestic violence.

Men ( and women) will abuse, kill, etc without a gun. They set their victims on fire, douse them in acid, stab them, strangle them, beat them to death, etc. Guns do not cause domestic violence, policy and ignorance of facts contribute, while the over all problem is education about why women stay , be they cultural or otherwise add to the violence.
 
Last edited:
CaféAuLait;9541865 said:
Someday the NRA will be toppled.







Domestic violence: The next front in gun-control fight - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- The scene is intense: A man is ferociously knocking on a door while a woman inside the house calls 911, saying that her ex is trying to break in. A child sits on the couch.

The man bursts in and grabs the child, and the woman yells not to take the toddler. The man pulls out a gun. A shot rings out, and the screen goes black. A child cries out.

The violent domestic scenario is only a television ad from a gun control group, but it attempts to portray what some women face. It also depicts the next front in the gun control debate.

Is the problem guns or DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and how society reacts to such?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf


Too many times I see the victim ignored, or blamed 'because she stayed in the relationship". I've heard it far too much, I still hear it from those who do not understand the cycle of domestic violence.

Men ( and women) will abuse, kill, etc without a gun. They set their victims on fire, douse them in acid, stab them, strangle them, beat them to death, etc. Guns do not cause domestic violence, policy and ignorance of facts contribute, while the over all problem is education about why women stay , be they cultural or otherwise add to the violence.

Hahaha you noob . liberals have very high resistance to logic and reason.
 
Cnn pumping out the propaganda

so if they had pulled out a bat they would be calling for, bat control because it happened during a domestic violence.. and another thing, what the hell does the Gop have to with this over dramatic story from Cnn?

good grief...you people stay the hell out of lives and leave us ALONE
 
Last edited:
CaféAuLait;9541865 said:
Someday the NRA will be toppled.







Domestic violence: The next front in gun-control fight - CNN.com

Washington (CNN) -- The scene is intense: A man is ferociously knocking on a door while a woman inside the house calls 911, saying that her ex is trying to break in. A child sits on the couch.

The man bursts in and grabs the child, and the woman yells not to take the toddler. The man pulls out a gun. A shot rings out, and the screen goes black. A child cries out.

The violent domestic scenario is only a television ad from a gun control group, but it attempts to portray what some women face. It also depicts the next front in the gun control debate.

Is the problem guns or DOMESTIC VIOLENCE and how society reacts to such?

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf


Too many times I see the victim ignored, or blamed 'because she stayed in the relationship". I've heard it far too much, I still hear it from those who do not understand the cycle of domestic violence.

Men ( and women) will abuse, kill, etc without a gun. They set their victims on fire, douse them in acid, stab them, strangle them, beat them to death, etc. Guns do not cause domestic violence, policy and ignorance of facts contribute, while the over all problem is education about why women stay , be they cultural or otherwise add to the violence.

Of course, blaming the gun for domestic violence is just silly. Also, a LOT of times the women do leave, only to be stalked and later murdered by their ex.
 

This is going to backfire on them. What they forget is in most situations the man doesn't need the gun, he's bigger, meaner, and crazier. What WOULD stop the situation is a woman with a gun. Firearms are the great equalizer between the sexes.






LOL... You'd make a great Hollywood director because it's only in the movies in which your simple little scenario would play out. Not in the real world.

In the real world, it's the bigger, meaner, crazier man who needs and owns that gun that he WILL use to kill. Much easier with a gun and oh so convenient. Firearms are the great destroyer of lives between the sexes in most violent situations.

You don't have a real response, so you resort to the mess of type above you call a "thought"

Thanks for playing, drive on through.
 
That is exactly what he is saying.




I'm talking about soft, cuddly, feminine, innocent, beautiful females... not the Annie Oakley dykes you guys picture/fantasize about when cleaning/lubricating your gun barrels.

You think only dykes can shoot a gun? Women (even little ones like myself) are NOT helpless and are quite capable of aiming and pulling a trigger. We only need you guys around to kill spiders. :D

And water bugs. My Fiance HATES water bugs.
 


This "violent domestic scenario" is exactly why a person should own a gun. I've seen the video. If the woman had a gun, the guy would be dead before he got past the door's threshold. He was a clear and present danger and it would've been a clear case of self-defense if the woman fragged him.

But Liberals would rather this woman be murdered and the kid abducted then have the bad guy dead.

The ad is a MAJOR FAIL!!





If the women had a gun the perp would probably wait and ambush her somewhere along the way.

If the women had a gun there would probably be a shoot-out in which the women and the kid would end up dead.

If the women had a gun she'd have to keep it nearby, ready in a moments notice and that's a big risk (accidental shooting) to put her kid in harms way like that.

If the women had a gun she'd have to have the nerve... most women wouldn't.

In my opinion those are the facts Jack. Consider them all.

Yours is always a perfect scenario, (women shoots, kills perp, end of story). In the real world all of the above actually come into play.

What a load of hyperbole.
 
I'm talking about soft, cuddly, feminine, innocent, beautiful females... not the Annie Oakley dykes you guys picture/fantasize about when cleaning/lubricating your gun barrels.

You think only dykes can shoot a gun? Women (even little ones like myself) are NOT helpless and are quite capable of aiming and pulling a trigger. We only need you guys around to kill spiders. :D

And water bugs. My Fiance HATES water bugs.

I hate most bugs. :lol:
 

Forum List

Back
Top