Thanks ladies. 65% of women favor stricter gun laws; only 44% of men do

[jtstellar]

i don't get what some women are doing here defending against the fact that women who support the liberty movement are an minority even among the Y gen age group. the exit polls in 2012 primaries for ron paul showed this, where women favored overwhelmingly the better looking mitt romney, as had polls consistently shown in the past, as well as the poll at reason magazine they wrote an article about, in which the trust for mass media showed something between 10 to 20% for males i forget the exact number, and females around 33%. is it true not all females are anti-liberty? is anyone claiming otherwise? no. so the handful of female supporters we have on this board are trying to prove what? that some women support liberty and not all men support liberty? it's like they're scared we would feel all women are traitors against liberty. calm down ladies, nobody is claiming 100% of you are like that. why the commotion? and as long as there are some women in this movement, all hope is not lost on humanity, at least not from a genetic point of view, therefore it's all O.K. so again, why are some women arguing when everything is fact and there is nothing to argue against? you females despise that much being in the top 90% intellectual percentile of your own gender for the fact that you are already here? strange. because if up to me, i would like that.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Funny how you (and others) have implied that I find no difference between men and women, when you clearly (and others) quoted me where I started off with: "men and women are different". Are you implying that when it comes to logic and "smarts" that men are superior? Are you saying that women are superior? What exactly is the difference that you see (aside from the obvious)?

I'm saying everyone's getting their panties in a bunch over PC garbage about reinforcing gender roles. Who cares?

 

[MelissaWV]

i don't get what some women are doing here defending against the fact that women who support the liberty movement are an minority even among the Y gen age group. the exit polls in 2012 primaries for ron paul showed this, where women favored overwhelmingly the better looking mitt romney, as had polls consistently shown in the past, as well as the poll at reason magazine they wrote an article about, in which the trust for mass media showed something between 10 to 20% for males i forget the exact number, and females around 33%. it is true not all females are anti-liberty? is anyone claiming otherwise? no. so the handful of female supporters we have on this board are trying to prove what? that some women support liberty and not all men support liberty? it's like they're scared we would feel all women are traitors against liberty. calm down ladies, nobody is claiming 100% of you are like that. why the commotion? and as long as there are some women in this movement, all hope is not lost on humanity, at least not from a genetic point of view, therefore it's all O.K. so again, why are some women arguing when everything is fact and there is nothing to argue against?

It's merely natural that women are dumb and anti-liberty. That isn't a conclusion drawn purely from this thread. It is what's said anytime a poll comes out that has a result with a gender skew towards women being "anti-liberty."

Incidentally, women much more common when I go to events in person. Hell, women are not some kind of sad minority in chat, even. The "commotion" that you hear is some of us rolling our eyes at yet another thread that says it would solve so much if women just didn't vote, or maybe just kept to "traditional gender roles" because they are obviously natural and good, or went for Romney because he was better-looking (by your standard? whose?). Guess what! Given that Ron lost, and Romney was the nominee, it would appear that the majority of GOP guys went for Romney, too! Is it because they're gay for him? lol Nahhhh it must be for a logical reason.

 

[MelissaWV]

And if there was nothing wrong with what was being said, I wonder why PCWV went back and edited his post to imply I have something against women who have children lol

I have made peace with it to a large extent. It's just that so many of you are the Continental.

 

[Dianne]

Yeah, if the same fools believe the little kid in North Korea getting ready to nuke America... brilliant to take all the arms away from their kids ... Problem with America, is 75% eating too much processed Monsanto food... one too many POP TARTS ...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

And if there was nothing wrong with what was being said, I wonder why PCWV went back and edited his post to imply I have something against women who have children lol

I have made peace with it to a large extent. It's just that so many of you are the Continental.

You did sort of hint at it by saying baby maker as if it was a bad thing, so I just pointed out how I didn't see it as a bad thing.

But you're right, my mom "pretends" to be proud of me for acknowledging that women have children (what?)

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It's merely natural that women are dumb and anti-liberty. That isn't a conclusion drawn purely from this thread. It is what's said anytime a poll comes out that has a result with a gender skew towards women being "anti-liberty."

Incidentally, women much more common when I go to events in person. Hell, women are not some kind of sad minority in chat, even. The "commotion" that you hear is some of us rolling our eyes at yet another thread that says it would solve so much if women just didn't vote, or maybe just kept to "traditional gender roles" because they are obviously natural and good, or went for Romney because he was better-looking (by your standard? whose?). Guess what! Given that Ron lost, and Romney was the nominee, it would appear that the majority of GOP guys went for Romney, too! Is it because they're gay for him? lol Nahhhh it must be for a logical reason.

In all seriousness, I'm sure everyone here acknowledges that women can be convinced to support liberty. There's no biological difference between the sexes that makes women unable to appreciate freedom. Everyone making sexist jokes does so in jest.

The only thing I have a problem with is the suggestion that traditional gender roles are a bad thing. They've only been around for thousands of years and developed because of natural differences between the sexes. There's no social tyranny. This idea is the spawn of those who want the government to jump in and fix it. If you don't want to be a "traditional" woman, there's nobody forcing you.

 

[MelissaWV]

You did sort of hint at it by saying baby maker as if it was a bad thing, so I just pointed out how I didn't see it as a bad thing.

But you're right, my mom "pretends" to be proud of me for acknowledging that women have children (what?)

Yeah, except that isn't what I said, which is why your changing it changes the entire exchange. I did not say "babymaker" was a bad thing. I said that this being the only assigned role, that a woman be an unthinking babymaker, was a bad thing.

As for every sexist joke being made in jest, I think you are giving your fellows far more credit than they deserve, or else they are joking 100% of the time...

 

[Anti Federalist]

Oh and all the bitching about snarky comments about not allowing women to vote.

Cry me a fucking river.

I suffer daily under a mountain of regulations, that non compliance with will cause my arrest, that I have no vote over and no representation in the crafting or implementation of such regulation.

 

[TheGrinch]

I once had hipster male friends who at some points were more effeminate than women.

and the point here is, it's people! people are bad. it's not women.

We used to have a game about the servers next door to my work, hipster or gay?

Turns our they were all gay and actually a lot cooler than most hipsters.

 

[MelissaWV]

Oh and all the bitching about snarky comments about not allowing women to vote.

Cry me a fucking river.

I suffer daily under a mountain of regulations, that non compliance with will cause my arrest, that I have no vote over and no representation in the crafting or implementation of such regulation.

You really are on a "everyone is talking about me" track, in this and other threads. Honestly, I even pointed out that my comments did not solely originate in this thread, and still this reappears. You took something else to heart in another post.

I get the feeling that, tonight, I could say "You take the good you take the bad..." and you would say "I don't fucking have to take your facts of life, woman!"

***

But yes, women can't take a joke, and everyone's just joking, yes PC?

 

[Petar]

Say what you want about women, but they definitely kick men's asses as far as facetious arguing skills are concerned.

EDIT: actually either sex can do that equally well.

I just know that I sometimes like to tease women about shit like this solely to get a rise out of them.

 

[James Madison]

Adam weighs in...

 

[moostraks]

But it does help.

Only with a certain segment. Which is why I bothered to respond. I don't have to love guns or see them as a need for my personal protection to respect the rights of others to own them. I have to understand the principal of why others owning them is beneficial to liberty for all of us. If you focus on the one method you will snag a few fish, broaden the scope you will catch more. Imo it is better to make the case for how secure the criminals will be in targeting people because criminals will have guns. The fact that by making things harder for reasonable people to have guns, you will end up with only the unreasonable having them because unreasonable people have the drive to carry out atrocities and will do it despite whatever efforts are taken to preempt the situation.

I don't even get how Sandy Hook become the rally call for this issue. The guy stole the guns from his mother didn't he? I am not really plugged into the msm argument on this but it seems that if that is the case how are they going to insure that those who get guns are going to keep them secured? Furthermore I have never understood the concept of a weapon for protection that is kept inaccessible and yet can be reached in a moment of panic for protection.

I am not overly keen on the idea of pushing ownership to people who think of guns as cool because they shoot at a range and it makes them feel cool and trendy. I would rather it be what those who rationally realize the responsibility and resulting situation are from using a gun as a response to a threat. I think when it is seen as cool and trendy rather than approached more seriously, you end up with idiots owning guns that just give them ammunition to call for more government controls.

 

[moostraks]

I think it's largely because of the rhetoric being used to promote the stricter gun laws post Sandy hook tragedy. There's so many emotion-based arguments that (generally speaking) easily persuade people that are easily persuaded by these emotional arguments like many liberals, some women, young children (I bet most kids would support stricter gun laws, as well.)

Personally, I hate emotion-based arguments and get annoyed when people focus on stricter gun laws. Look at Chicago -- they have some of the strictest laws, yet many gun-related crimes.

What we need is more focus on mental well-being, improved access to mental health services, and research on mental illness.

I think that the mental health aspect is the gravy to their emotion based argument. The last thing we need to do is the government more control to push a pseudo-science of care. They will place more people on lists based on subjective testing according to who responds within some "norm". Then they can cram even more drugs into the general populace that causes Sandy Hook type incidents. I do not want the government getting more involved in the mental health field by any stretch of the imagination...

 

[KingNothing]

If Sandy Hook could sway a voter's opinion, if one isolated incident of obscene horror is enough for a voter to justify strict laws on the 99-percent of people who will not act out that horrific scene, the person should not be a voter. Man, woman, white, black, Muslim, Jew, christian, Atheist. They should not vote if extremely rare events and the ensuing propaganda is enough to sway their stance on freedom.

 

[otherone]

They should not vote if extremely rare events and the ensuing propaganda is enough to sway their stance on freedom.

911 etal is why we have a republic instead of a democracy. Sadly, the reps who are supposed to be protecting our Rights are terrified of the mob.

 

[green73]

https://www.google.com/search?q=democracy+the+god+that+failed

 

[MelissaWV]

I think that the mental health aspect is the gravy to their emotion based argument. The last thing we need to do is the government more control to push a pseudo-science of care. They will place more people on lists based on subjective testing according to who responds within some "norm". Then they can cram even more drugs into the general populace that causes Sandy Hook type incidents. I do not want the government getting more involved in the mental health field by any stretch of the imagination...

Not only that, but one has only to view the list of "mental illnesses" on any website that compiles such things to realize it really is just about everyone. It isn't because everyone's crazy. It's because almost everything is classified thusly. All you have to do is go to the "wrong" doctor and you are diagnosed in a way that will now put you on loads of lists for the sake of the children.

Me? I'm an insomniac. Yes, that's on the list.

 

[Origanalist]

Me? I'm an insomniac. Yes, that's on the list

Me too, plus a few other iacs I'm sure.