I know I am going to get a ration of Sh*t for this comment and probably get all sorts of nasty comments about being a sexist but does anyone here think that all of our firearms right are getting cut down recently partly because of women being able to vote? it seems like most women are anti gun, and have the feeling like if you ban something it will just go away, think about prohibition Women were behind that big time we don't like lets ban it.
FLAME AWAY

Ask Tatjana when SHE gets back....


Scott

Not all women are against guns. My wife for instance. she does not particularly care for my hunting, but she enjoys shooting trap and target and she is a pretty fair shot with her S & W 9mm. she knows how to use them and clean them and has a healthy respect for fire arms safety. if I had to go into a situation, I could think of worse people to have as my back up. so as you can see, not all women are worthless, tree hugging, owel kissing, loud mouthed, ignorant, band wagon riding, wanna save the world by them selfs but needs a man to do the heavy lifting cause I dont want to break a nail and besides it's my time of the month and Opra's on B!TcHEs.
[:)>]


P.S. if they cant check a gun at the door, they dont get to vote!!

I live in California so you can amagine how bad it is here.

[pissed]

so are you saying that women aren't citizens?  what would that make us then?  property?  chattel?

i do believe that there are just as many people with dicks who think firearms and firearm ownship are bad things.  let me direct your attention to [url]www.democraticunderground.com[/url]

Grrrrr......
Let's take away the vote from Kalifornians and see if the country improves.
The "huddled masses" of the Golden State seem to keep messing it up for the rest of America anyway.
Better yet, let's just throw Kali out of the friggin United States completely.
Should solve quite a bit.

Then again, you might be roasted BEFORE Tatjana finishes her vacation...


Scott

Jeez guy... are you gonna say they shouldn't be allowed to wear shoes either ?

BTW, I stressed the "SHE" because I was putting emphasis on the fact that Tatjana is a female member, and contributes greatly to the forums....

Scott

The country would probably be better off without the votes of californians. Everyone here voted for gore and we are probably dumb enough to re-elect gray davis.

Are you kidding, the whole country is going to S$$$ because women can vote.  When you dilute rational, informed voters by around 50% what do you expect.  The next part of the problem is crooked politicians who know how to play the emotions of women and get their votes.  And the last part of the problem is limp wristed fags who are afraid women are going to kick their a$$es if we offend them.  

Thank you 1911Greg, you have just agreed with a voting, well armed female. Have a nice night.

i think it's the media and who politicians sell thier vote to.  a lot of them get their votes bassed just on abortion issues, which my gf says is more important...  anyway politicians use emotions to get votes and laws passed, and some women base their choices more on emotions than facts.  am i ignorant?  i don't know.

I think that the vote and the right to hold office should only belong to veterans who also have advanced schooling (skilled trades or at least a two year degree) and own property.
The poor and the stupid have figured out that they can vote in people who will give them everything and take from the productive.
A smart vet who has given something, knows something, and has something to loose should be the only voter and the only office holder.

Interesting point, Inferno.
The most emotional and hysterical opponents of abortion I have seen tend to be extremist Christian *men*.
I wonder how many of those types here base their vote on abortion rights rather than on gun rights?
What if the pro gun candidate is pro choice?
How do they vote then?

[b][size=5]WHOOPWHOOPWHOOP! GENERALIZATION ALERT!![/size=5][/b]

Women [b]generally[/b] get their values and outlook from their mothers. Mothers, up until the sixties, didn't have anything to do with guns unless they were country girls. We are seeing the results of decades of negative outlook passed down. Women are just as sensible as men when they're given the information and decent choices.

Getting my wife to see the value of preparing to defend house and home and each other was easy once she had the information needed to process the decision. I'm proud of her. She was once pointed out in a pistol class as an example of intensity. My heart swelled and, although it might just have been a reaction to the pollen in the air, I could have sworn I teared up a little.

that is the most un-American thing i have ever heard!  are you nuts?  what the hell happened to "created equal" (in the eyes of the law)?  we are a REPUBLIC, we are all citizens.  by definition, citizens, all of them, have a RIGHT, nay an obligation to partake in THEIR government.

what makes you think that those people are the only people qualified to be the servants of the public?  you'd be wrong if you called them leaders.  people who hold public office shouldn't be leading shit!  that should be following the dictates of their constituency (assuming it's for the overall good of the country, yadda, yadda, yadda) that elected them for the SOLE purpose of being their representative.  i see nothing in your requirements that suggests that your choices would make better office holders than any other American.

ooooooohhhh.  sometimes you people just piss me off.  and to think we're worried about the libs not knowing how our government should be run when our own ranks are sullied with this kind of bullshit.  [pissed]  damn, that's twice tonight i've had to use that icon.

The cure to this "problem," is to take a woman shooting. Haven't met a lady yet that didn't like firearms after burning off a couple of mags.

Since you asked Hannah, I dislike gun banners. I hate baby killers.
My faith has something to do with that, but my morality also does.
If you unjustly killed a man I would dislike you and ask for your punishment from the courts. If you killed someone old or very young unjustly I would hate you for your even more extreme evil and demand your punishment from the courts.
In 99.99% percent of the abortions the 'justification' is that the woman's belly would be fat for 2-3 months and her privates would be stretched, and she would have up to an hour or two worth of discomfort or pain. Oh, and people would know she is too stupid to take pills correctly or too weak to keep her legs shut. That is no justification for murder. And the courts won't act on these killings.
So yes, I dislike abortion more than I dislike banners.

Sounds pretty emotional Happyshooter.
You prove my point exactly.
Emotional voting has no gender limit.
I respect your views, thank you for stating them.

Emotion is what drives our society and our laws.
Without emotion we would have no base for our standards other than cold logic.
As an example, those with less would steal from those with, and would kill them if they resisted, and out law would allow it unless the old rich were more valuable in making overall society better than the new rich.
Emotion and its sense of fairness is what makes that action illegal, not cold logic.

proof that stupid peole shouldn't be allowed to vote either.

and hour or two?  try as much as 36, smartypants.  it's a lucky woman whose labor lasts a scant hour or two.

discomfort?  let me shove a bowling ball up your dick and see if you call that discomfort.

At Hutchins High sholl of law the women would often off to debate abortion, when they thought everyone agreed with it.
I would point out, over their cries of "Keep your laws off [out of] my body!" and "My Body my choice" that they really wanted babies killed so that the woman would not feel bad, get fat for a few months, and be spared some pain. (Let's be honest, too, its not a case of wanted children, the adoption waiting lists for babies are huge, so don't try abortion wail number thee)
Anyways, these same wailers were the ones that were shocked about the english lifeboat case, where three men killed and ate a boy to avoid starvation. They felt they deserved more time in jail...I would point out that the lifebaot mean had real justification for killing the boy, it was him or else all of them. Women who abort have no such justification in 99.9% of the cases.
There is a difference between being aware of emotion and its role in your moral judgments, and being a pre-programmed yell machin- who knows some slogans and repeats them at ever louder levels and ever higher pitches.
The first is well reasoned opinion, the second is a pro abortion woman law student

then what's wrong with women using emotion to vote people into office?  if it's okay to use emotion sometimes, why isn't it okay to use emotion at all times?  and where do we draw the line?  and who are you to draw it?  (not meant personally, just rhetorically.)

fwiw, our societal norms and mores aren't based on emotion.  they're based on a sense of right and wrong, fair and just and unfair and unjust.  

Emotion itself is neither 'good' nor 'bad' in the process of deciding how to vote, or of forming morals.
It is the way you examine the emotional response to discern what is the proper thing, or fail to do so, that makes emotions good or bad.
Your accusations of emotionalism in the abortion process, I submit, is better applied to pto abortionists that to tose opposed.

It is not necessarily the women thing, but it is an emotional thing, that gets all these asinine laws passed.

no, actually, that argument is extremely valid.  i think that the government has no right legislating anything that involves what a woman or a man does with her or his body.  i think the abortion issue is a moral issue and should be addressed as such.

if you disagree, ask yourself this:  would making it illegal solve the problem?  the answer is 'no'.  the causes/reasons for abortion have nothing to do with the law.  it has everything to do with loose morals, a complete lack of personal responsibility, parents not teaching their children self-respect or responsibility (heck, parents not being there at all!).  

i don't approve of abortion either.  i just dont think the government (federal, i believe a case can be made for states) has the authority to legislate this kind of a thing.  

[blue]and.....[/blue]



well, guys, which is it?  happyshooter says emotion isn't the driving force as it is neither good nor bad, which means it must be some other character inherent in women that makes them poor voters.

yet, ar10er, says that it isn't the women, but being motivated by emotion and basing voting choices on emotion that results in such assinine legislation.

let me take a stab at it.  it's neither.  it's stupidity, which runs rampant equally through both sexes.

Should prostitution be legal?

ARLady


Would you not agree that they use the emotional trigger to shoot the dumb dumb bullets?

actually, i can see two sides to this.  i say yes, if you're prohibiting on the sole basis of moral reasons.  you can't legislate morality.  and it's a higher crime to restrict the freedoms of one based on morality.

however, as with the drug issue, i can see some reasons to prohibit it, such as public health.

guys, the legislators pass laws.  and the only laws that should ever be passed are those that protect the LEGAL rights of the individual.  if a law is passed for the purpose of attempting to curb immoral behavior, there is no legal basis for it.  

metaphorically speaking, yes.  but it isn't limited to one particular sex.  and not all dumb dumb bullets are shot out of emotional stupidity.  some people are just not given all the facts and can't make a fully informed decision.  i guess i would say stupidity AND ignorance are the chief reasons for stupid legislation.

fwiw, i think emotion has very limited basis in choosing possible legislation.  i just thought i would point out the apparent controversy in the two posts.  wasn't trying to single out any particular viewpoint as superior over any other.

ARLady

Have you see the body parts of the aborted "fetus"?

When I seen my third son being born, I could not help but think, how people could belive that abortion was not murder.

beware of straying into the emotional trap!

yeah, i'm a bio major.  i've seen a lot of body parts.  which probably makes it easier for me to see it for what it is and not what it will be, to avoid the emotional attatchment.

let me qualify this with "i don't approve of abortion".  i believe there are circumstances which dictate that it's use should not be outlawed, but overall, i am opposed to the practice.

that being said, i still stand by the argument that A) you CANNOT legislate morality and B) it is not within the federal government's authority to pass legislation that prohibits abortion.  [i]IF[/i] you consider it murder, then i think one can very easily make a case for a state-by-state prohibition.

but keep this in mind, it would be taken to the supreme court (again!) and based on the laws and constitution of this country, rights to the individual are not conveyed [i]until birth[/i].  right or wrong, that is the law.  i don't think the supreme court can legally come to any other conclusion.

now, if you want to stop aboriton, i suggest you address its causes and quit flirting with this legal issue.  it's about as stupid as the people who think banning guns will stop crime and reduce deaths and injuries.  get your head outta the sand.

On the topic of banning guns, here is my $.02

Why don't we just ban murder?  Why don't we just ban bad guys?

Drugs are banned, but is there still a problem with drugs?

Murder is banned, but that doesn't stop it does it?

The problem is not with guns.  The problem is with bad people.  There are millions of good people who own guns.  Check the facts and I'm sure most crimes aren't committed with guns purchased from an FFL.

Well it was murder, until the infamous case.

So what made it not murder?

Not emotion, just fact.

This ruling is no different than the gun laws you allude to below.


As a matter of fact it was emotion I think that gave us the ruling.

"it's about as stupid as the people who think banning guns will stop crime and reduce deaths and injuries. get your head outta the sand."

that's exactly my point.  in order for the law (calling it murder) to stand up in court, the SC had to decide if it did in fact violate any of the mother's rights while weighing that against any violations against the unborn's.

the bottom line is that it did violate the mothers' rights, and (and this is a biggie, so pay attention), the unborn have no constitutional rights, legally.  hence my comment, right are not conveyed until birth.  you have to be born to have any rights.  an unfortunate fact of our country, but that's where we stand.  if you feel differently, you're basing it on emotion.  legally, there is no other route as our current system of laws and our constitution stands now.



correct and incorrect.  they both should have the same outcome.  no federal restrictions on either.  unfortunately for the shooters and patriots, the SC doesn't see fit to follow the correct path on this.


do you honestly think that prohibiting abortion will result in complete cessation of it?  it ISN'T about the laws.  it's about the people who make the decisions to do "bad" things.  murder is still illegal, but people still do it?  so is rape, assault, burglary.  and yet it still happens.

do you honestly think that prohibiting abortion will result in complete cessation of it? it ISN'T about the laws. it's about the people who make the decisions to do "bad" things.

No, but we would not be killing millions of our citizens legally.

murder is still illegal, but people still do it? so is rape, assault, burglary. and yet it still happens.

So eliminate these laws? Then you will have more millions dead.

We will have to agree to dissagree on this one.

But by using your argument, that something was illegal for 198 years, some how becomes legal now because we are now wiser than our forefathers, is the same argument that the antis are now using, and I guess they will win for the same reason.

Live free or die.

my so called wife in name only is crazy enough to shoot me if she got pissed off enough. I do not allow her to even handle my weapons. Her nickname is Lorena.

Here is what I think/believe.  Women for the most part like to be taken care of/for.  If its not the government doing it it is their boyfriend or husband taking care of them.  Therefore they see no reason in taking for themselves, in other words being independent (protect themselves).

The so called femenist movement never really went far enough (possibly it never really wanted to--complaining is big business, kind of like the NAACP is to blacks).  From observation women like the idea of being equal to men when its convenient.  Same jobs, same money, same everything but when it comes to paying the tab on a meal or whatnot forget it.  Or expecting to still have a job after going off a few months to have a baby, stuff like that.

I also believe too many women think by emotion rather than fact.  Contrary to some peoples belief, they are not the same (emotions and fact, not just gender).  The idea of socialized medicine, social security, welfare, getting rid of guns so society will be safer all sound well and good but when you look at the big picture or statistics/facts they do nothing but harm in the long run or aren't helpful at all.

I don't know, once upon a time I used to be a Democrat just because I was told Republicans are evil (paraphrasing of course).  I blindly voted for the Dem guy/girl because of that.  Then one day I was listening to the radio and he was saying stuff that kind of went against what I thought was right.  Did a little searching here and there on what he talked about and realized he was mostly right.  Shoot, I used to subscribe to the NRA email list almost 5 or so years ago.  Was always into guns but felt the stuff about confiscation and what they felt about the gun issue was alarmist.  Realized they were mostly right as well.


Heres the thing though (back to the gun thing), all men and women are ignorant about stuff.  I'm ignorant about a slew of things.  But I believe the reasoning why most women hate guns is because of the no need to protect themselves.  Why buy a gun to protect yourself when your husband or boyfriend will protect you?  Short of that the cops or the government will protect you somehow.  Plus it has a lot to do how their raised and/or what they learn in school.  After September 11 many people realized that the government can't or will not be able to protect you all the time if at all.  So gun sales rose...although it may have been a symbolic gesture since the odds of buying a gun to protect yourself from terrorists (at least now) really isn't possible.  Lot a good a gun will do to an airplane or a missle but the point is there, they bought it to protect themselves...

[:D][:D][:D]

I agree with you, but in my experience most chickz are fairly anti-gun. Not all women are as cool as you.

lib

Abortion rates would be lower if the only instrument allowed for use was a gun.......

Now where did i put my meds?????