Why do the Anti-Gun crowd hate women?

[3rd&48ers]

Why do the Anti-Gun crowd hate women?
Why would you want to make it harder or impossible for a woman to defend herself against rape or sexual assault?

Remember, just because you are the wormy squirly girly man type and most women can kick your ass anyway does not mean there are not others out there she can't and may need a little help to equalize..

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Well I am not safe if every ****ing criminal knows the odds of my being able to defend myself with a firearm are pretty ****ing slim, now am I?

Thank God the police don't have that problem:

...Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss, who fired a combined total of 41 shots, 19 of which struck Diallo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_...ting_victim%29

Their motto is to protect and serve.

[Radar Chief]

Originally Posted by Comrade Crapski

Thank God the police don't have that problem:

...Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss, who fired a combined total of 41 shots, 19 of which struck Diallo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_...ting_victim%29

Their motto is to protect and serve.

Interesting. I hadn’t heard of that shooting before but why would it lead to investigating the use of Full Metal Jacket bullets? Because it sounds scary and there’s a movie that shares the same name that has lots of gratuitous killing in it?

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

The right people are armed, they are called the police and military maybe you have heard of them...or not

The so-called "Cannibal Cop" was licking his chops after a lunch date with one of his intended victims, a prosecutor said Tuesday in a successful bid to keep the officer behind bars.

"My mouth was watering the whole time," Gilberto Valle allegedly told one of his buddies on a twisted fantasy forum after he had lunch in Baltimore with a former female college friend.

Valle later fantasized about about slow-cooking and eating her, prosecutor Hadassa Waxman said in court.

His plans to kidnap, rape and eat women were "depraved, disgusting, troubling and gruesome," Waxman added.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...#ixzz2I9ZuRYjL

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1240400

The October 11 hearing at the Army Court of Criminal Appeals was called to address his continued refusal to shave before court appearances, the Army said.

The military psychiatrist is accused of opening fire three years ago at the Texas Army post's processing center, where soldiers were preparing to deploy to Afghanistan and Iraq. The attack left 13 dead and 32 people wounded. Hasan was paralyzed from the waist down after police exchanged fire with him.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/justic...san/index.html

[Cave Johnson]

How will women defend themselves with only a 10 round magazine?

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I was in those threads. Exactly which ones were we on the same side?

Nice try but it doesn't work that way. You've made an ignorant assumption and I've informed you that you're full of shit. If you wish to prove something, then do it. Go waste your own time digging through the search feature. I'm not going to.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

Nice try but it doesn't work that way. You've made an ignorant assumption and I've informed you that you're full of shit. If you wish to prove something, then do it. Go waste your own time digging through the search feature. I'm not going to.

Can you name the civil liberties issue you stood up for on this forum? Can you name it?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Can you name the civil liberties issue you stood up for on this forum? Can you name it?

listopencil has stood up for gay marriage. Many times.

Idiot.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Brock

listopencil has stood up for gay marriage. Many times.

Idiot.

That's a civil rights issue, actually, Idiot.

I'm talking about civil liberties -- issues where the government is encroaching on our ability to defend ourselves against its power.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's a civil rights issue, actually, Idiot.

I'm talking about civil liberties -- issues where the government is encroaching on our ability to defend ourselves against its power.

It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:

• Freedom of speech
• The right to privacy
• The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
• The right to a fair court trial
• The right to marry
• The right to vote

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil...liberties.html

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's a civil rights issue, actually, Idiot.

I'm talking about civil liberties -- issues where the government is encroaching on our ability to defend ourselves against its power.

What a freaking dumbbell. I mean, just incredibly retarded.

Civil liberties include:

* Freedom of speech
* The right to privacy
* The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
* The right to a fair court trial
* The right to marry
* The right to vote

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:

• Freedom of speech
• The right to privacy
• The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
• The right to a fair court trial
• The right to marry
• The right to vote

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil...liberties.html

That's not the issue of gay marriage. Gay people already have the right to marry just like straight people can, as patteeu would no doubt tell you. They just aren't allowed to marry someone of their gender, at least by federal law and the laws of most states. That's where unequal treatment comes in.

The issue of gay marriage is that gay people should be protected, federally or otherwise, to marry people of their gender.

That's no different than interracial marriage, which is not a civil liberties argument (since black people could marry other black people, back when this was an issue), but a civil rights argument.

[listopencil]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's not the issue of gay marriage. Gay people already have the right to marry just like straight people can, as patteeu would no doubt tell you. They just aren't allowed to marry someone of their gender, at least by federal law. That's where unequal treatment comes in.

The issue of gay marriage is that gay people should be protected, federally or otherwise, to marry people of their gender.

That's no different than interracial marriage, which is not a civil liberties argument (since black people could marry other black people), but a civil rights argument.

As I said, you made an ignorant assumption and I informed you that you were full of it. If you wish to prove something then, by all means, get to work. Start searching.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's not the issue of gay marriage. Gay people already have the right to marry just like straight people can, as patteeu would no doubt tell you. They just aren't allowed to marry someone of their gender, at least by federal law and the laws of most states. That's where unequal treatment comes in.

The issue of gay marriage is that gay people should be protected, federally or otherwise, to marry people of their gender.

That's no different than interracial marriage, which is not a civil liberties argument (since black people could marry other black people, back when this was an issue), but a civil rights argument.

Wrong again, dumbbell.


Why This is a Civil Liberties Issue?

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Laws against same-sex marriage blatantly violate the spirit of this amendment. What's more, these laws are most often explicitly written to "protect the sanctity of marriage." If the government is in the business of protecting sanctity with this kind of legislation, then in what way is it not "[making] law respecting an establishment of religion," an activity expressly prohibited under the First Amendment?

[Comrade Crapski]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

That's not the issue of gay marriage. Gay people already have

Do you always talk about yourself in the 3rd person?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by listopencil

As I said, you made an ignorant assumption and I informed you that you were full of it. If you wish to prove something then, by all means, get to work. Start searching.

You can't name one civil liberty, can you.

It's alright, it's just what I'm saying though. The "I gotta defend myself from a potential Hitler" argument is just high-minded bullshit by neoconservative enablers who allowed and supported Bush and Obama to take on numerous actions that ground our civil liberties down, and do far more to sabotage our ability to protect ourselves from the government than owning firearms.