Yes yes... nutters sending their daughters to war because god told them too. How beautiful.
Amazingcase for increasing gun ownership in America
- Thread starter Ricky Fandango
- Start date
Yes yes... nutters sending their daughters to war because god told them too. How beautiful.
Hüsker Dü
DA
"KILL! KILL! KILL! . . . cuz God said so!" on both sides.
Sheriff Joe
DA
It's more protect protect protect, and I'm we are the crazy ones, you ok? Maybe you just love the terrorists.
Sheriff Joe
DA
BREAKING: Armed Citizen Kills Mass Shooter At Oklahoma Restaurant
10 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...LDAB&usg=AOvVaw17OrfQRhdWB9RiZbIuE-eX&cf=1
10 hours ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...LDAB&usg=AOvVaw17OrfQRhdWB9RiZbIuE-eX&cf=1
Hüsker Dü
DA
"Mass shooter"? That's some sketchy ass reporting.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Hot Air
Oh my: “Coward of Broward” protected sheriff’s son after beating of student?
1 hour ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...KDAA&usg=AOvVaw3Rh-20VuKhAK97GQbBuwvx&cf=1
Oh my: “Coward of Broward” protected sheriff’s son after beating of student?
1 hour ago
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...KDAA&usg=AOvVaw3Rh-20VuKhAK97GQbBuwvx&cf=1
You know those women are Israelis?
They are members of the IDF.
These are strong young ladies who fight along side their male counterparts.
You see "weird lustful weapons and women gender-binding"....?
No one is asking, nor are they interested in you dating anyone.
How warped is your thinking? These daughters fight for Israel and their existence. God has nothing to do with it.
Sheriff Joe
DA
It is quite amazing to me how sick the left really is.
You don't think Israels differences with it's neighbor's don't stem from religion? Really?
lol yea I'm so sick for pointing out that it sucks even the women have to join their military.
I mean in my defense, I could be talked into sending girls to war for religious reasons under the right circumstances. For instance I'd help pay the airfare if you ever decided you wanted to head on over to the middle east Joe. I'm all in for putting you in harms way.
Last edited:
Hüsker Dü
DA
Joe's a pitiful little man, longing to lash out at others due to his perceived notion that, "others" are the reason for his personal woes (I wonder who feed him that idea?). He hasn't the wherewithal to do so in any other form nor forum than this (one hopes) so this is his outlet for his foul and ignorant rants and ideas. He, like many other Trump aficionados, simply wants to disrupt, argue and be anti . . . anti whatever you got. aka he's an idiot.
Sheriff Joe
DA
You know we have women in our military, right?
I will take that ticket, Israel please. I am a non gender killing machine of one.
Sheriff Joe
DA
It has been some time since we have had to read your babble, I do kind of miss it.
This might put a crimp in our holiday weekend plans we made.
Lol... he's Ice T. Of course he's pro guns... have you listened to any of his music?
In other news, looks like another company is going to stop supporting a political candidate because of his ties to the NRA. Man that David Hogg is proving to be quite the political activist. With public sentiment swinging toward pro gun control, and folks like Hogg costing NRA supporting politician's hundreds of thousands in donations with nothing more then tweets... it sorta feels like this issue is taking on a life of it's own. Same way we saw with Gay Rights, Marijuana and even the election of Donald Trump.
Publix Suspends Contributions To NRA-Backed Politician Amid Protests
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ian-amid-protests_us_5b086551e4b0fdb2aa5387d7
Protests prompted supermarket chain Publix to suspend all political contributions after it was revealed to have given more than half a million dollars to a Florida Republican who called himself a “proud NRA sellout.”
Publix was found to have given $670,000 in donations over the past three years to Adam Putnam, Florida’s current agriculture commissioner, who is now running for governor. But in Florida, where a school shooter in Parkland killed 17 people earlier this year, many locals aren’t about to let a National Rifle Association “sellout” run their state.
On Wednesday, Parkland shooting survivor and gun-control activist David Hogg issued a call on Twitter for people to stage a “die in” at the grocery store, which has locations throughout the Southeast.
.@Publix is a #NRASellOut
In Parkland we will have a die in the Friday (the 25th) before memorial day weekend. Starting at 4pm for 12 min inside our 2 Publix stores. Just go an lie down starting at 4. Feel free to die in with us at as many other @Publix as possible.
— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) May 23, 2018
Prior to the demonstration, Publix issued a statement expressing “regret” that its political contributions had led to an “unintentional customer divide.” On Friday, it released a new statement saying it would be suspending political contributions.
“We would never knowingly disappoint our customers or the communities we serve,” the company said in a statement provided to HuffPost. “As a result, we decided earlier this week to suspend corporate-funded political contributions as we reevaluate our giving processes.”
The same day, Hogg attended a protest at a Coral Springs Publix, where he and supporters lay on the floor for 12 minutes.
Die-in @Publix by @davidhogg111 and other protesting the grocery chains political contribution to @adamputnam who is backed by @NRA @WPLGLocal10 pic.twitter.com/b8YmaL23Dj
— Todd Tongen (@toddtongen) May 25, 2018
“USA over NRA!” the activists chanted at one point.
‘Where shooting is a pleasure:’ Parkland school shooting survivor and activist David Hogg organized a ‘die-in’ protest at a Publix supermarket in Coral Springs today. Inside, they were met with shouts from National Rifle Association supporters >> https://t.co/nhFfywze9i pic.twitter.com/IoDM4BwjyG
— WTXL ABC 27 (@abc27) May 25, 2018
“Suspended means nothing,” Ryan Deitsch, a March for Our Lives activist at the Coral Springs store, told the Sun Sentinel. “Publix knows we’re not going away.”
Sebastian Murdock
Sheriff Joe
DA
Why are white 'bigots' stockpiling guns?
MAY 26, 2018
I propose that Scientific American magazine (SA) be renamed Pseudo-Science Magazine.
My inbox, every so often, receives articles from SA's online platform, and as I have previously reported here, they contain decreasing amounts of science and increasing amounts of leftist drivel.
The latest is titled "Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?" My expectation would normally be that the commentary provides yet another excuse to demonize Caucasian men. Normality strikes again. While the piece moderates its bias, the portrait is clear. Quoting the subtitle:
Research suggests it's largely because they're anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears.
But being "beset by racial fears" is not enough for SA. Association with white racism must be emphasized, and the article struggles to make that connection. For example:
A 2013 paper by a team of United Kingdom researchers found that a one-point jump in the scale they used to measure racism increased the odds of owning a gun by 50 percent.
More inHome
Of course, in the UK, with its rigid policy of gun confiscation, one would expect to find anti-gun bias. Moreover, "the scale they used to measure racism" is unlikely to be unbiased. Finally,
"... these men tend to see themselves as devoted patriots, but make a distinction between the federal government and the 'nation,'" says Froese. "On that point, I expect that many in this group see the 'nation' as being white."
Oh, horror of horrors. Do some people actually perceive a difference between a nation itself, and a governing body saturated with leftists and imitation conservatives? And of course, Froese's "expectation" that you are a bigot is an important expectation, which SA could not omit.
Now there is one important statistic that SA is probably accurate on, but which actually works against the point it is trying to make.
Three percent of the population now owns half of the country's firearms[.]
This undermines the entire argument that white men own guns because they are racists. The very small percentage of people who hoard anything, be it guns, twinkies, or miscellaneous household items, are outliers. They are not average people, and their hoarding is more likely to indicate the very disorders mentioned in the article other than racism.
What SA seems utterly disinterested in reporting on is, who owns guns illegally? Who uses them to commit crimes? Who are the people who carry them on the street in search of victims?
Maybe they are disproportionately Caucasian, but my "expectation" is that, if that were the case, SA would have featured it in the article. If instead, it is nonwhites who disproportionately use guns illegally, then, is deliberate avoidance of those statistics indicative of anti-white racism?
My "expectation" says yes.
Scientific American gets even more woke.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/why_are_white_bigots_stockpiling_guns.html
MAY 26, 2018
I propose that Scientific American magazine (SA) be renamed Pseudo-Science Magazine.
My inbox, every so often, receives articles from SA's online platform, and as I have previously reported here, they contain decreasing amounts of science and increasing amounts of leftist drivel.
The latest is titled "Why Are White Men Stockpiling Guns?" My expectation would normally be that the commentary provides yet another excuse to demonize Caucasian men. Normality strikes again. While the piece moderates its bias, the portrait is clear. Quoting the subtitle:
Research suggests it's largely because they're anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market and beset by racial fears.
A 2013 paper by a team of United Kingdom researchers found that a one-point jump in the scale they used to measure racism increased the odds of owning a gun by 50 percent.
More inHome
Of course, in the UK, with its rigid policy of gun confiscation, one would expect to find anti-gun bias. Moreover, "the scale they used to measure racism" is unlikely to be unbiased. Finally,
"... these men tend to see themselves as devoted patriots, but make a distinction between the federal government and the 'nation,'" says Froese. "On that point, I expect that many in this group see the 'nation' as being white."
Oh, horror of horrors. Do some people actually perceive a difference between a nation itself, and a governing body saturated with leftists and imitation conservatives? And of course, Froese's "expectation" that you are a bigot is an important expectation, which SA could not omit.
Now there is one important statistic that SA is probably accurate on, but which actually works against the point it is trying to make.
Three percent of the population now owns half of the country's firearms[.]
This undermines the entire argument that white men own guns because they are racists. The very small percentage of people who hoard anything, be it guns, twinkies, or miscellaneous household items, are outliers. They are not average people, and their hoarding is more likely to indicate the very disorders mentioned in the article other than racism.
What SA seems utterly disinterested in reporting on is, who owns guns illegally? Who uses them to commit crimes? Who are the people who carry them on the street in search of victims?
Maybe they are disproportionately Caucasian, but my "expectation" is that, if that were the case, SA would have featured it in the article. If instead, it is nonwhites who disproportionately use guns illegally, then, is deliberate avoidance of those statistics indicative of anti-white racism?
My "expectation" says yes.
Scientific American gets even more woke.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/why_are_white_bigots_stockpiling_guns.html
Let me cut and paste in the first paragraph of original SA "blog" Article down below, as in a scientific journal they aren't allow to screw around and are expected to lay out the thesis of the article (or in this case blog) there. And after reading the actual thesis statement, I don't detect any racism in the blog. Just seems like they say the article/blog is a study into why one particular demographic happens to own more guns then any of then all the rest of the America combined. Do you think that's racist? Guess I don't see it. Maybe you can point me to some passages in the actual Scientific American article so I can better understand the parts you feel are racist?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...t=link&utm_term=2018-05-23_featured-this-week
"Since the 2008 election of President Obama, the number of firearms manufactured in the U.S. has tripled, while imports have doubled. This doesn’t mean more households have guns than ever before—that percentage has stayed fairly steady for decades. Rather, more guns are being stockpiled by a small number of individuals. Three percent of the population now owns half of the country’s firearms, says a recent, definitive study from the Injury Control Research Center at Harvard University."
Last edited: