Hip Hip Happy Concealed Carry day for me. - Page 4
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71

Thread: Hip Hip Happy Concealed Carry day for me.

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    Women murder men all the time, Dear Reba.

    You can laugh all you want.
    I laughed because I couldn't believe anyone could make such a post with serious intent, it was that ridiculous.

    More women are killed by men in domestic violence situations. The man is much more likely to shoot the woman.

    If a woman wants to kill a man she doesn't have to wait until he teaches her how to shoot. Give me a break.

    BTW, I was taught how to shoot before I even met my husband. We have plenty of guns available. We've been married over 40 years and I haven't had the urge to shoot my Hubby even once.

  2.   
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    I laughed because I couldn't believe anyone could make such a post with serious intent, it was that ridiculous.

    More women are killed by men in domestic violence situations. The man is much more likely to shoot the woman.

    If a woman wants to kill a man she doesn't have to wait until he teaches her how to shoot. Give me a break.

    BTW, I was taught how to shoot before I even met my husband. We have plenty of guns available. We've been married over 40 years and I haven't had the urge to shoot my Hubby even once.
    More women are killed by men than are men killed by women, that is indeed true.

    But it has nothing to do with training a woman particularly your spouse how to shoot.

    Unfortunately your statement is irrelevant.

    You are just a pretty little feminist that lets feminist issues cloud your logic.

    Women kill men. That is a fact.

    Women use guns and poison. That is also a fact.

    Now the hip hop happy O/P has 2 things to worry about not just one.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    More women are killed by men than are men killed by women, that is indeed true.

    But it has nothing to do with training a woman particularly your spouse how to shoot.
    Exactly. Just because a husband teaches a wife to shoot, she is no more likely to kill him.

    Unfortunately your statement is irrelevant.

    You are just a pretty little feminist that lets feminist issues cloud your logic.
    No need to call names. If you don't call me a feminist, I won't call you a misogynist.

    I'm not a pretty little feminist (unless you think I really look like my avatar). I'm a 65-year-old conservative Christian lady with Parkinson's Disease who has paid her dues. I'm a pro-life granny and political independent who didn't support the ERA and believes that God created everything in six days. One thing I've never been called is a "feminist," pretty and little or otherwise (although I am petite).

    Women kill men. That is a fact.

    Women use guns and poison. That is also a fact.
    So? That has nothing to do with husbands teaching their wives to shoot.

    Now the hip hop happy O/P has 2 things to worry about not just one.
    Pshaw! He doesn't have anything to worry about.

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    Exactly. Just because a husband teaches a wife to shoot, she is no more likely to kill him.


    No need to call names. If you don't call me a feminist, I won't call you a misogynist.

    I'm not a pretty little feminist (unless you think I really look like my avatar). I'm a 65-year-old conservative Christian lady with Parkinson's Disease who has paid her dues. I'm a pro-life granny and political independent who didn't support the ERA and believes that God created everything in six days. One thing I've never been called is a "feminist," pretty and little or otherwise (although I am petite).


    So? That has nothing to do with husbands teaching their wives to shoot.


    Pshaw! He doesn't have anything to worry about.
    Ok sorry, maybe you are not a feminist after all.

    I have mixed feelings about teaching a female to shoot.

    First question is whether there is any real need? Does she work or live in a dangerous neighborhood?

    The traditional historic role of the male is to guard and protect the female and the kids.

    If she has a need then sure, makes sense.

    If she has no need then this is simply another unnecessary risk.

    And any unnecessary risk is foolishness.

    My view.

  6. #35
    We are pretty sure that God(s) did not create the Earth in 6 days.

    We are pretty sure it took 4 billion years.

    I am not sure why Moses invented that whole story about the 6 days.

    If each day equals 1 billion years then it makes sense. Otherwise it does not.

    Remember the sun and moon were not created until the 3rd or 4th day. So what is a day anyway?

    While I do not doubt at all the Moses existed and led the Hebrews out of Egypt, I don't know why he did not just start his story with his own birth as related to him by his Hebrew parents? That would have been much more factual.

    Why did Moses have to come up with faerie tales about Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Abraham, etc.?? By so doing he has given the atheists a lot of ammo.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Are you for real?

    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    Ok sorry, maybe you are not a feminist after all.

    I have mixed feelings about teaching a female to shoot.

    First question is whether there is any real need? Does she work or live in a dangerous neighborhood?
    Ever hear of the Second Amendment? Would you ask a man if he had a real need or work/live in a dangerous neighborhood? No? Then why ask a woman? Is her life less valuable?

    The traditional historic role of the male is to guard and protect the female and the kids.
    And what male is present with the female and kids at all times?

    One aspect of a man's protecting his wife and children would be to give them the tools for safe living. That means not just giving them a safe place to live but could include teaching them self-defense techniques.

    We also have single women in this world who have no man to "protect" them. Would you leave them defenseless?

    If she has a need then sure, makes sense.
    She needs a gun as much as any man does. No one is exempt from violent attack.

    If she has no need then this is simply another unnecessary risk.
    What risk? To guys' egos?

    And any unnecessary risk is foolishness.
    The unnecessary risk that is foolish is that of leaving a woman defenseless.

    My view.
    OK.

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    Are you for real?


    Ever hear of the Second Amendment? Would you ask a man if he had a real need or work/live in a dangerous neighborhood? No? Then why ask a woman? Is her life less valuable?


    And what male is present with the female and kids at all times?

    One aspect of a man's protecting his wife and children would be to give them the tools for safe living. That means not just giving them a safe place to live but could include teaching them self-defense techniques.

    We also have single women in this world who have no man to "protect" them. Would you leave them defenseless?


    She needs a gun as much as any man does. No one is exempt from violent attack.


    What risk? To guys' egos?


    The unnecessary risk that is foolish is that of leaving a woman defenseless.


    OK.
    What you are forgetting Reba my dear Sailor friend is when the Constitution and the Amendments were written the Founding Freemasons were not thinking about women, blacks, nor Indians. See -- you need to think clearly.

    Now in 1920 when women were given the right to vote, that may have changed everything from that point on. But you still have a big anachronism in your thinking even so.

    And practically speaking, there are really very few women who have the constitution to kill. There were a few Russians and VC sure who were women. But for the most part this instinct is male only. Sure there are a few women murderers -- you yourself pointed out above how very few there are. These females are psycho animals however and the exception not the rule. They did not play with dolls and high heels as girls -- they got raped by their fathers and brothers.

    Like I said, if a woman needs a gun, she should learn to shoot and develop the mind set to do so. But just having a gun is not going to do anything for anybody, and especially not for a woman, brought up playing with dolls, dressing in high heels, etc.

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    SC Lowcountry
    Posts
    1,550
    Quote Originally Posted by HKS View Post
    What you are forgetting Reba my dear Sailor friend is when the Constitution and the Amendments were written the Founding Freemasons were not thinking about women, blacks, nor Indians. See -- you need to think clearly.
    Chief Petty Officer Reba.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter what you believe that they were "thinking." It matters what they wrote down. You need to read more clearly. It says "people" not women or men.

    Now in 1920 when women were given the right to vote, that may have changed everything from that point on. But you still have a big anachronism in your thinking even so.
    Nope.

    And practically speaking, there are really very few women who have the constitution to kill. There were a few Russians and VC sure who were women. But for the most part this instinct is male only.
    Depends on the circumstances. What is your point? That people need to prove a propensity to kill before they're allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights?

    Besides, aren't the same poster who claimed it was dangerous to teach women to shoot because they'll kill their husbands? If it's only "very few women" who have the constitution to kill, what's there to worry about?

    Like I said, if a woman needs a gun, she should learn to shoot and develop the mind set to do so. But just having a gun is not going to do anything for anybody, and especially not for a woman, brought up playing with dolls, dressing in high heels, etc.
    You are so funny!

    Sure, I played with dolls. I never could get the hang of high heels.

    I also rode bikes, go carts, roller skated, ice skated, snow sledded, and skate-boarded. I wore my cowboy hat and a pair of Maverick six-shooters, with a cap derringer belt buckle, and carried an air rifle. I played marbles, jump rope and mumblety-peg. We built forts and went exploring and rock climbing. I borrowed my brother's GI Joes. My first two-wheel bike was a boy's bike. We played pirates with wooden swords. I loved building structures with plastic bricks (pre-Lego), Lincoln Logs, and Erector sets. I enjoyed going to Radio Shack and buying parts and gadgets. I had a paper route when I was a kid.

    I never really worried about whether or not it was a girl or boy toy or activity. I just did what interested me. Just because a girl plays with dolls doesn't mean she can't also play with toy guns. It's no big deal.

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Reba View Post
    Chief Petty Officer Reba.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter what you believe that they were "thinking." It matters what they wrote down. You need to read more clearly. It says "people" not women or men.


    Nope.


    Depends on the circumstances. What is your point? That people need to prove a propensity to kill before they're allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights?

    Besides, aren't the same poster who claimed it was dangerous to teach women to shoot because they'll kill their husbands? If it's only "very few women" who have the constitution to kill, what's there to worry about?


    You are so funny!

    Sure, I played with dolls. I never could get the hang of high heels.

    I also rode bikes, go carts, roller skated, ice skated, snow sledded, and skate-boarded. I wore my cowboy hat and a pair of Maverick six-shooters, with a cap derringer belt buckle, and carried an air rifle. I played marbles, jump rope and mumblety-peg. We built forts and went exploring and rock climbing. I borrowed my brother's GI Joes. My first two-wheel bike was a boy's bike. We played pirates with wooden swords. I loved building structures with plastic bricks (pre-Lego), Lincoln Logs, and Erector sets. I enjoyed going to Radio Shack and buying parts and gadgets. I had a paper route when I was a kid.

    I never really worried about whether or not it was a girl or boy toy or activity. I just did what interested me. Just because a girl plays with dolls doesn't mean she can't also play with toy guns. It's no big deal.
    "People" meant precisely "the men" in 1789. You may not like that, but it is history.

    It was extended to include black former slaves in 1868 by the 14th Amendment as long as they had been born in the US.

    It was extended to include women in 1920 by the 19th Amendment as long as they had been born in the US or naturalized.

    But it would be a circular argument (begging the question) to say the 2nd Amendment gave women the right to keep and bear arms. It did not. The 19th Amendment did that.

    And none of that changes the nature of women. They are not born aggressive. They must be trained to be aggressive, as are men.

    A license for a gun does not change anything.

  11. #40
    So you became a tomboy. That still does not teach you how to kill. It teaches you to run with the boyz. But even the boyz need to be taught how to kill, although they tend to pick up that teaching much more readily and naturally than a woman would. More testosterone. Hunters, not gatherers. Not all men -- just most.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast