CDZ Women should embrace both owning and carrying guns as acts of personal empowerment.

[OnePercenter]

The gender pay gap exists because women have children, and the nature of motherhood means that a woman who is popping out babies every other year probably isn't going to be jumping ahead with her career...because she's going to be taking time off, she's going to have child care emergencies and issues related to children. And her democratic bosses, who HATE children and HATE women who have children, are going to dock her pay accordingly.

That's Republican bosses.

No. It's not.

"The gender pay gap in Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D., Mass.) office is nearly 10 percent wider than the national average, meaning women in the Massachusetts Democrat's office will have to wait longer than most women across the country to recognize Equal Pay Day."

"....women working for Warren were paid just 71 cents for every dollar paid to men during the 2016 fiscal year, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

"The median annual earnings for women staffers, $52,750, was more than $20,000 less than the median annual earnings for men, $73,750, according to the analysis of publicly available Senate data.

"When calculated using average salaries rather than median, the pay gap expands to just over $26,051, or about 31 percent."

"...failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who paid women less than men first as a senator, then as secretary of state, and as a presidential candidate. Her campaign viewed her tendency to pay women less than men as a campaign vulnerability.

"Former President Barack Obama regularly spoke out about the gender pay gap, but women working at the White House were paid less than men.

"Also paying women less than men were Democratic Govs. Jon Bel Edwards (La.), who last month held an "equal pay summit," and Andrew Cuomo (N.Y.), who has signed two executive orders this year to eliminate the wage gap."

Elizabeth Warren's Female Staffers Made 71% Less Than Male Staffers in 2016

Watching too much faux news again?

On Equal Pay Day on Tuesday, the Washington Free Beacon misleadingly accused Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) of paying women 30 percent less than men in her own office in 2016. That certainly would be hypocritical of her, as she regularly decries the gender pay gap in America. But a look at the full salary data for Warren’s office reveals that she has actually paid women slightly more than men during her three years in the Senate.

No, Elizabeth Warren Doesn't Pay Women Less Than Men | HuffPost

 

[koshergrl]

The gender pay gap exists because women have children, and the nature of motherhood means that a woman who is popping out babies every other year probably isn't going to be jumping ahead with her career...because she's going to be taking time off, she's going to have child care emergencies and issues related to children. And her democratic bosses, who HATE children and HATE women who have children, are going to dock her pay accordingly.

That's Republican bosses.

No. It's not.

"The gender pay gap in Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D., Mass.) office is nearly 10 percent wider than the national average, meaning women in the Massachusetts Democrat's office will have to wait longer than most women across the country to recognize Equal Pay Day."

"....women working for Warren were paid just 71 cents for every dollar paid to men during the 2016 fiscal year, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

"The median annual earnings for women staffers, $52,750, was more than $20,000 less than the median annual earnings for men, $73,750, according to the analysis of publicly available Senate data.

"When calculated using average salaries rather than median, the pay gap expands to just over $26,051, or about 31 percent."

"...failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who paid women less than men first as a senator, then as secretary of state, and as a presidential candidate. Her campaign viewed her tendency to pay women less than men as a campaign vulnerability.

"Former President Barack Obama regularly spoke out about the gender pay gap, but women working at the White House were paid less than men.

"Also paying women less than men were Democratic Govs. Jon Bel Edwards (La.), who last month held an "equal pay summit," and Andrew Cuomo (N.Y.), who has signed two executive orders this year to eliminate the wage gap."

Elizabeth Warren's Female Staffers Made 71% Less Than Male Staffers in 2016

Watching too much faux news again?

On Equal Pay Day on Tuesday, the Washington Free Beacon misleadingly accused Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) of paying women 30 percent less than men in her own office in 2016. That certainly would be hypocritical of her, as she regularly decries the gender pay gap in America. But a look at the full salary data for Warren’s office reveals that she has actually paid women slightly more than men during her three years in the Senate.

No, Elizabeth Warren Doesn't Pay Women Less Than Men | HuffPost

Cuz we all know that we can trust the Huff HAHAHAHA

BTW snopes says it's true.

Which means they couldn't get away with lying about it themselves, which means it is EGREGIOUS and impossible to deny.

Dems historically treat women like crap. Even you...your whole attitude on here is that women are second class citizens who are too stupid to understand that they're being used, lol.

Dems fought against women's rights, they fought against black rights, and they continue to do so. They didn't want black people to have access to weaponry in the first place...and fought long and hard to prevent it. Ultimately the NRA came into being to help protect blacks from the KKK and to establish their right to bear arms.

Which of course the dems opposed vehemently..and still oppose.

So it's poetic justice that your slaves in the cities are shooting the fuck out of you.

 

[OnePercenter]

How many of the guys that beat up women voted for "Grab them by the pussy" Trump who promotes violence against women.

No one that I'm aware of has EVER accused Trump of being violent with women. A sexist, boorish pig, sure. Violent? No.

Grabbing a woman by the pussy IS A VIOLENT ACT, Trump supported it on video.

Here's a question for you; Can a woman that is being grabbed by the pussy shot her assailant?

No, it isn't a "violent" act. My God, could you butch up a little? Equating "unwanted" with "violent" does nothing except devalue the reality of ACTUAL violent sexual attacks. My husband sidles up and grabs me there at least once a week, and slapping his hand away probably causes more pain than the grabbing does. Geez.

Furthermore, one can't categorically say the contact WAS unwanted, since what Trump was boasting about was precisely the fact that his fame and wealth made it acceptable to the women.

So again, crass and boorish and chauvinistic? Sure. Violent? Not so much.

So you wouldn't have a problem if a stranger (male) came up to you and grabbed your crotch? Would you shoot that guy?

You wrote: "since what Trump was boasting about was precisely the fact that his fame and wealth made it acceptable to the women."

So acceptability makes it right?

Thank you for assuming facts not in evidence. OF COURSE, "unwanted doesn't mean violent" OBVIOUSLY means "I wouldn't have a problem with it." You're so clever to discern that meaning hidden in words that said nothing of the sort.

Equally obviously, I wouldn't shoot him. Know why? BECAUSE HE DIDN'T OFFER ME VIOLENCE. Which you know, or you wouldn't have asked in the first place. I would most definitely make my displeasure clear to him, in a way which would definitely make the lesson stick with him for a long time.

As for "acceptability makes it right", are you saying that you don't respect a woman's right to consent?

Battery is not a violent act? Battery is a criminal offense involving the unlawful physical acting upon a threat,

You brought up Battery, how is battery consensual.

 

[koshergrl]

No one that I'm aware of has EVER accused Trump of being violent with women. A sexist, boorish pig, sure. Violent? No.

Grabbing a woman by the pussy IS A VIOLENT ACT, Trump supported it on video.

Here's a question for you; Can a woman that is being grabbed by the pussy shot her assailant?

No, it isn't a "violent" act. My God, could you butch up a little? Equating "unwanted" with "violent" does nothing except devalue the reality of ACTUAL violent sexual attacks. My husband sidles up and grabs me there at least once a week, and slapping his hand away probably causes more pain than the grabbing does. Geez.

Furthermore, one can't categorically say the contact WAS unwanted, since what Trump was boasting about was precisely the fact that his fame and wealth made it acceptable to the women.

So again, crass and boorish and chauvinistic? Sure. Violent? Not so much.

So you wouldn't have a problem if a stranger (male) came up to you and grabbed your crotch? Would you shoot that guy?

You wrote: "since what Trump was boasting about was precisely the fact that his fame and wealth made it acceptable to the women."

So acceptability makes it right?

Thank you for assuming facts not in evidence. OF COURSE, "unwanted doesn't mean violent" OBVIOUSLY means "I wouldn't have a problem with it." You're so clever to discern that meaning hidden in words that said nothing of the sort.

Equally obviously, I wouldn't shoot him. Know why? BECAUSE HE DIDN'T OFFER ME VIOLENCE. Which you know, or you wouldn't have asked in the first place. I would most definitely make my displeasure clear to him, in a way which would definitely make the lesson stick with him for a long time.

As for "acceptability makes it right", are you saying that you don't respect a woman's right to consent?

Battery is not a violent act? Battery is a criminal offense involving the unlawful physical acting upon a threat,

Who was battered?

Outside of your sick masturbatory fantasies, that is.

Oh, that's right. Nobody.

 

[kaz]

No, thanks.

And deciding to be a victim is your right. But what gives you the right to force other women to be victims just because that's your choice?

 

[anotherlife]

Okay but you did raise the question of "which end of the weapon to point". You know we guys are permanently glued to one end of a weapon that always points to famales. Do you know what level of dilemmas this can cause? A considerable point.

I always assumed the weight of the penis pulls on the brain stem, and that's why men act dumb.

I love this physical model. Yes, the entire situation is pretty hard on us and our entire lives. Hard and heavy. And you women just make it even harder on us. Now what shall we do?

I don't know what to tell you about that. I consider my job, vis a vis my menfolk, to be making their lives better. Sometimes, that requires jerking a knot in their tails. But I try not to expect anything from them that's unreasonable. No mind reading acts required.

I wonder what American women think of visual arts? From what I can see, most of us men appreciate the curvy looks even more than sex. Some of my friends appreciate the woodwork of their rifles in all its shapes and carvings too, as if it was a woman. I know a few friends who married because of the shapes of their wives and not sex. Do American women love their shapes? Do they make their men love their shapes? A little bit like loving your rifle that is all hand made and in perfect shape?

As far as I can tell, American women seem allergic to the idea of liking ANYTHING about themselves, and certainly to admitting that they like anything about themselves.

What a huge difference between American women and French women. I think American women may do well counting their curves if any and begin with that. Curves are important. Maybe they think curves are for men.

 

[candycorn]

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.

The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?

 

[candycorn]

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

No interpretation required.

Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.

And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”

Sorry dude, learn our language.

Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.

I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.

The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?

Yes, easily gathered with the arms they possess.

Learn to read

 

[Pop23]

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

No interpretation required.

Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.

And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”

Sorry dude, learn our language.

Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.

I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.

Nope, it’s the opinion of countless scholars and justices.

And if you understood the language.....

You too

 

[candycorn]

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

No interpretation required.

Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.

And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”

Sorry dude, learn our language.

Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.

I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.

Nope, it’s the opinion of countless scholars and justices.

And if you understood the language.....

You too

You’ve stumbled onto the truth!

Precisely! That is their OPINION. Mine is different. Mine means nothing and yours means nothing. Theirs have the force of law. This is clear evidence that the Constitution is a living document; open to interpretation and opinion.

In 200 years from now, those whose opinions have the force of law may have a different OPINION on the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Just like those who had an opinion when presented with Plessy v. Ferguson ruled differently on “separate but equal” in Brown v.s Board of education later on down the line. I hope not but some court may overturn Brown in the future.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Women should ignore all sanctimonious advice from men and vice versa.

 

[BlackSand]

As an employer that has owned/Angel Invested 29 businesses, I have always made it a point to not to discriminate due to gender and I have personally fired subordinates that have. My point is that the OP and his supporters who have been known in the past to bash women are using gender as a means of promoting gun sales, which is nothing more than Republican hypocrisy.

My point is that you don't have the wherewithal to identify empty virtue signaling from actual productive reasoning ...
Carry your fumbling misogynistic ass off somewhere else ... We don't need your narrow minded, less than competitive and ambitious, kind of help.

.

 

[Pop23]

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

No interpretation required.

Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.

And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”

Sorry dude, learn our language.

Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.

I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.

Nope, it’s the opinion of countless scholars and justices.

And if you understood the language.....

You too

You’ve stumbled onto the truth!

Precisely! That is their OPINION. Mine is different. Mine means nothing and yours means nothing. Theirs have the force of law. This is clear evidence that the Constitution is a living document; open to interpretation and opinion.

In 200 years from now, those whose opinions have the force of law may have a different OPINION on the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Just like those who had an opinion when presented with Plessy v. Ferguson ruled differently on “separate but equal” in Brown v.s Board of education later on down the line. I hope not but some court may overturn Brown in the future.

Cuz your kinda slow, let me point to the first three words of the constitution, ya know, those that the Founders thought so highly of, they wrote them in script MUCH LARGER than the rest. "WE THE PEOPLE"

I'll even supply a link to it for ya:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia

They obviously highlighted those because they didn't want any confusion. It did not say, we the Congress, we the courts or we the progressives, it was WE THE PEOPLE. All inclusive isn't it? No interpretation needed, it means all citizens.

Now scroll down to the second amendment and the words the founders used were "the peoples". See the similarity? All inclusive again. The rights of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed.

There really is no doubt that, to insure a free state, the Founders were establishing the method in which "the people" were capable to fight a government hellbent on removing rights from "the people"

 

[Skull Pilot]

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

So what? It is not a condition placed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

If your position is that the words have no meaning; we can apply that stance to any word in the document. I’ll apply it to “infringed”….

I never said it had no meaning I said it is not a condition placed on the right that belongs to the people.

The founders though the people should be able to not only defend themselves but the people were also expected to take up arms to defend the republic

The militia was (at the time) considered to be the entire male population. And since we still all have to sign up for the draft it can be said to still be true

Women don’t have to sign up. So they are excluded from ownership. Thanks.

Open mouth, insert foot.

The draft is different than the militia and the (entire male population) since there is an age stipulation on the draft as well.

Well if you're a backwards thinking Neanderthal you would be right that women can't own firearms. But you would also have to redefine the word people as it is used in the Constitution if you want to think like a cave man.

The colonial militia took all men from 16 to 50
Not much difference than 18 tears old as it is today

And no one under the age of 18 can buy any firearm

 

[Skull Pilot]

The right to keep and bear belongs to the people as it says in the Second Amendment

If they are in a militia. You do know it says that right…?

The word "if" does not appear anywhere in the second amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one that I'm aware of has EVER accused Trump of being violent with women. A sexist, boorish pig, sure. Violent? No.

Grabbing a woman by the pussy IS A VIOLENT ACT, Trump supported it on video.

Here's a question for you; Can a woman that is being grabbed by the pussy shot her assailant?

You people are mentally ill. Saying "I just grab them by the pussy" is not the same as grabbing people by the pussy.

And if it was a chick saying "I grabbed her by the pussy" you'd think that was a great display of female empowerment and sexual freedom.

What is it the fags are always carping on as if it means something?

Oh yeah. CONSENTING ADULTS. What happens between consenting adults is none of your business. And so far EVERY SINGLE ONE of the women who have come forward to pretend that Trump is some sort of predator have admitted they consented..and in some cases, they have admitted that they didn't even have sex.

It's promoting an action.

The 1997 Miss Teen USA contestants "consented" when the predator Trump walked into the dressing room?

Did they do anything about it? Did they even yell, "Get the hell out of here, you perv!"?

No, they didn't, because it's perfectly normal for people to be in and out of the dressing rooms back stage. The doors are pretty much always open, and people come in and out as needed.

Exactly. At some point, it's only right to say, "If you accept something without comment, then you don't get to complain."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, THEREFORE the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

No interpretation required.

Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.

And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”

Sorry dude, learn our language.

God forbid people look at the context and glean some understanding from it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You never wanted to earn the same for the same job? You're a fool.

My point is the hypocrisy of the OP and his/her supporters.

I never wanted to earn the same as anyone for the same job.

I always wanted to earn more than my counterparts ...
Wanted to get promoted faster than they did too ...
Wanted to earn more money than the people who already had the job I got promoted to as well ...

And never really had a problem doing that.
Of course I never made my gender an issue ... That's certainly not what I got paid for.

You're the fool ... Especially if you think we are equal ... We're not, I and don't give shit what his sorry ass is paid.
I am going to do whatever I can to get paid more than he does.

​

As an employer that has owned/Angel Invested 29 businesses, I have always made it a point to not to discriminate due to gender and I have personally fired subordinates that have. My point is that the OP and his supporters who have been known in the past to bash women are using gender as a means of promoting gun sales, which is nothing more than Republican hypocrisy.

So what you are saying is that women are too stupid to get it, and therefore shouldn't be trusted with weapons?

That's funny, every one of the pistol packing women I know would laugh, loudly, in your face.

Frankly, as long as it has the end result of making women safer, I really don't give a fat rat's ass what the motivations are.

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind. How many times have we heard them excoriate the free market because of "filthy, sinister profit motives" instead of "noble altruistic betterment of mankind", never mind the fact that the profit motives are far superior at ACTUALLY bettering mankind?

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, they aren't. That's just another Big Lie sold by the left.

When you factor in all the circumstances which make it, in fact, NOT the same job, the so-called "wage gap" disappears.

Here is some hard evidence for you. It's also more prominent in red States, I wonder why?

The Simple Truth about the Gender Pay Gap

The AAUW? Oh, please.

If you have opposing numbers than PLEASE POST THEM.

This Is the Biggest Myth About the Gender Wage Gap

Factoring differences in education, experience, age, location, job title, industry and even company, our latest research reveals that the “adjusted” gender pay gap in the U.S. amounts to women earning about 94.6 cents per dollar compared to men.

Is that in line with what I said? Why yes, I believe it is. And look! I found a source that isn't grinding a partisan axe.

Why aren't they making the same? Equal is equal not 5.4 cents less.

My employees male and female equal with the company make the same, but my companies are the minority.

Would it shock you to know that human interactions have a lot more to do with the individual humans than they do with broad-brush, identity politics explanations?

There's an excellent chance that your splendiferous, "all my employees are the same" policies are ACTUALLY being quite unfair to individual employees.