A female perspective on carry, encounters and the surge in hatred of female gunowners

Status
Not open for further replies.
JustinJ said:
Forcing you to accept? It's really none of your business who people marry so how is that being force to accept them? Not being able to force your views on other people is not a denial of your religious freedom. There isn't even federal law to prohibit employers from discriminating against people based on their sexuality, so save it.
Click to expand...
Exactly, but at what point does 'equality at the point of the gun' and "tolerance" become an intrusion? the left has a history of using the courts to FORCE people to act contrary to their personal beliefs, which means, that their rights DON'T stop at your nose, rather their rights are more important than yours. Equality means everybody is the same, You have Your right to do something, and I have my right to HATE it, that makes us equal. Equality is no longer a goal, SPECIAL, with 'Protected Class' now is...


What does that have to do with anything? The bill of rights is specifically there to protect the minority from the majority to begin with. And at what point in the revolution are you referring to because the level of support changed over time.
Click to expand...
Illustration of the danger of ignoring a vocal minority.

What is your definition of "Anti gunner"? Yeah, it's a very small minority of americans who believe in an outright ban on guns but tons support additional restrictions. The link below demonstrates this clearly:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
It shows the results of many different polls at many different times and there is no question that more than a small minority of americans have supported some form of further gun control in recent time.

Writing them off "as don't care" is awfully convenient but the fact is many americans have openly supported gun control.
Click to expand...
Where did I say I write off the fudds and non gunners, rather I illustrate the problem of communicating our message vs. the anti gunners to the 'non involved' majority. How can you explain the importance of something to a person who frankly doesn't care and says 'whatever'
 
Exactly, but at what point does 'equality at the point of the gun' and "tolerance" become an intrusion? the left has a history of using the courts to FORCE people to act contrary to their personal beliefs, which means, that their rights DON'T stop at your nose, rather their rights are more important than yours.
Click to expand...
1. That is not a problem confined to the left.
2. Forcing racists to stop enacting racist laws is a bad thing now?
 
Pretty funny. They want a female to be president (just wait, {Hillary}) with the power to smite/erase the whole world but don't want a citizen/human/woman to have the wherewithal to repel a pedestrian attacker. right
not logical
 
Let me point out that the Democrats were the ones who enacted the racist laws -- they were almost all in the South, which was called the "Solid South" because all southern states were Democratic. Washington, D. C. was segregated by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat president.
 
Let me point out that the Democrats were the ones who enacted the racist laws -- they were almost all in the South, which was called the "Solid South" because all southern states were Democratic. Washington, D. C. was segregated by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat president.
Click to expand...
Didn't those Democrats switch political allegiance at some point to different parties?
 
Didn't those Democrats switch political allegiance at some point to different parties?
Click to expand...
Those Democrats are all dead.

Eisenhower, a Republican President, was the first to enforce civil rights -- and he left office on January 20th, 1961, more than 52 years ago.
 
Exactly, but at what point does 'equality at the point of the gun' and "tolerance" become an intrusion? the left has a history of using the courts to FORCE people to act contrary to their personal beliefs, which means, that their rights DON'T stop at your nose, rather their rights are more important than yours. Equality means everybody is the same, You have Your right to do something, and I have my right to HATE it, that makes us equal. Equality is no longer a goal, SPECIAL, with 'Protected Class' now is...
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I said there is NOT a fed law that prevents employer discrimination based on sexual orientation. Nobody is infringing on your right to hate it or be as bigoted as you wish. Letting people marry who they wish does not "violate your nose". Regarding history, it was the left who rallied for to change laws that prevented blacks from attending the same public schools as whites, interracial marriage, fair voting rights, etc, etc. So if you want to talk about who infringes on civil liberties I suggest you try a little more objectivity.

Illustration of the danger of ignoring a vocal minority.
Click to expand...

What? Which vocal minority? Gun control advocates? Who is saying to ignore them?

Where did I say I write off the fudds and non gunners, rather I illustrate the problem of communicating our message vs. the anti gunners to the 'non involved' majority. How can you explain the importance of something to a person who frankly doesn't care and says 'whatever'
Click to expand...

My point is that the gun control movement is more than just a "vocal minority". Not caring about rights that don't affect one directly is not unique to anti-gunners. Very few actually support liberty for its own sake.

Let me point out that the Democrats were the ones who enacted the racist laws -- they were almost all in the South, which was called the "Solid South" because all southern states were Democratic. Washington, D. C. was segregated by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat president.
Click to expand...

Really? They enacted "the" racists laws? All of them, huh?

Politically speaking, things actually changed a bit after reconstruction, for some anyways. You might want to fast forward a bit in the history book to the 60's and beyond.
 
I have seen nothing of any sort of directed campaigns against women for carrying guns. What a load of hooey. If that is the case, then I would like to proclaim that as a man, I am being targeted for carrying a gun as well. This recent surge of hatred of male gun owners has to stop!

Recent surge? Gimme a break. Stop airing your laundry of you don't want people to look at it and comment on it.
 
Regarding history, it was the left who rallied for to change laws that prevented blacks from attending the same public schools as whites, interracial marriage, fair voting rights, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
No, as I have pointed out it was the Republican Party, beginning with Eisenhower. And although the Republicans were in the minority in Congress in the '60s and 70s, the desegregation and civil rights bills would never have passed without strong Republican support.
 
Liberals believe they own women and minorities. If you don't toe the liberal line, you can be drummed out of your sex or race.
Click to expand...
If you're Black and WANT to be subjected to a barrage of racial slurs, refuse to endorse repressive gun controls when a White anti-gunner ORDERS you to.
 
I think the statement that women gun owners specifically are being subjects of hate is kinda silly. Those who hate guns and the 2nd amendment hate anyone who has a gun regardless of gender. But, like I always say...

inception-HATERS-GONNA-HATE.jpg
 
Justin, why don't you stop before you get WAY behind, and you need to go back and read the history, btw, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
Click to expand...

Really? You believe two examples proves this?

"Within each house of Congress Northern Democrats gave the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more support than did Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats more support than Southern Republicans. Amongst members of the U.S. House of Representatives who represented congressional districts in the South, more Democrats (seven out of 94 or roughly seven percent) than Republicans (none out of 10) voted for the Act. Of Northern Democrats in the House, 145 (out of 154 or 94 percent) voted for the Act compared with 138 (out of 162 or 85 percent) Northern Republicans. All (100 percent) of the 10 Southern Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted against the Act as did most (20 or 95 percent of 21) Southern Democrats. This pattern of greater support for civil rights coming from Democrats than from Republicans also shows among Northerners: 98 percent (45 out of 46) of Northern Democrats but only 84 percent (27 out of 32) of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

And that is only part of the picture. The most influential leaders and advocates of change were largely from the democratic side. The changing of sides only continued from there.
 
If you're Black and WANT to be subjected to a barrage of racial slurs, refuse to endorse repressive gun controls when a White anti-gunner ORDERS you to.
Click to expand...
I still remember the hearings on Justice Thomas' confirmation when a wealthy White Senator lectured Thomas, the grandson of a Black share cropper, on what it's like to be a poor Black.:barf:
 
"Within each house of Congress Northern Democrats gave the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more support than did Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats more support than Southern Republicans. Amongst members of the U.S. House of Representatives who represented congressional districts in the South, more Democrats (seven out of 94 or roughly seven percent) than Republicans (none out of 10) voted for the Act. Of Northern Democrats in the House, 145 (out of 154 or 94 percent) voted for the Act compared with 138 (out of 162 or 85 percent) Northern Republicans. All (100 percent) of the 10 Southern Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted against the Act as did most (20 or 95 percent of 21) Southern Democrats.
Click to expand...
Okay, let's see how this works out:

For Civil Rights -- 7 Southern Democrats and 145 Northern Democrats.

That makes 152 votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now there are 435 members of the house. So that makes 35% of the House -- which means the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have failed miserably without strong Republican support. It took those 138 Republican votes to get the total to 290 -- or 66.666%, a 2/3s majority.

By your figures, there were 10 House Republicans from the South and 162 from the North, for a total of 172, with 138 voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That's 80.2% of all Republicans in the House.

Again using your figures, 152 out of 248 Democrats in the house voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That's 61.3%.

Clearly, the Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 far more than the Democrats.
 
Clearly, the Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 far more than the Democrats.
Click to expand...

If support for Civil rights were the reason repubs couldn't get elected in the South at the time this would be true. Unfortunately that isn't the reason. The Northern and Southern Democrats were hardly the same party at this time as the Southern Dems were largely kept in power up to this tame thanks to White Democratic Primaries.

The fact is it was Northern Dems who drove the civil rights movement, but yes, northern Repubs deserve some of the credit for going along. The split for civil rights, im ashamed to say as a Texan, was actually a split over regional lines rather than political. However, there is no question that southerners who opposed civil right began moving to the repubs in droves or that Barry Goldwater won five southern states in the Republican party running on an anti-civil rights platform.
 
If support for Civil rights were the reason repubs couldn't get elected in the South at the time this would be true. Unfortunately that isn't the reason.
Click to expand...
The reason the Republicans couldn't get elected in the South at that time was because the Democrats were pro-segregation and anti-Black. It was called the Solid South for a reason -- the Democrats had come back into power after Reconstruction and passed vicious, racially targeted laws.

I can remember Louisiana in the '40s, when the schools, bus stations, public restrooms, water fountains and so on were labeled "For Whites Only." And that was under a 100% Democrat government.
 
The reason the Republicans couldn't get elected in the South at that time was because the Democrats were pro-segregation and anti-Black. It was called the Solid South for a reason -- the Democrats had come back into power after Reconstruction and passed vicious, racially targeted laws.
Click to expand...

Bull. Virtue is not what kept Republicans out of office in the South.

Regardless, we can go around on this all day. But there is no question where the anti-black southerners of that time went and where they are today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Veteran FW officer named top U.S. female shooter - again
Replies
4
Views
1K
roo_ster
roo_ster
fireman 9731
  • Locked
News Article-local lady oldest female in Ky. with concealed carry license
Replies
6
Views
548
Officers'Wife
Officers'Wife
C
  • Locked
New female CCW shooter
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
strambo
S
R
  • Locked
CCw and physical encounters
Replies
10
Views
616
cassandrasdaddy
C
M
  • Locked
Good Concealed Carry Article In "The Detroit News".
Replies
9
Views
1K
Winchester 73
W
Back
Top