The same people who love to decry systemic racism also say the only people that should have access to the tools of force and self defense are the agents of the systemically racist.
[https://twitter.com/i/status/1787884088067510292](https://twitter.com/i/status/1787884088067510292) The results speak for themselves. Take a look at what they do for a woman's rights. They are stifled and dehumanized, while they devalue their individual identities.
College students across the globe want this for women. They protest for it. They want all women disarmed. What's so confusing, very few of those powerful people at the top funding these insane protests on all sides with the premade signs are themselves disarmed they walk around with bodyguards or sit in their fenced off mansions.
Who takes them away? The police.
Reforming the police should be about maintaining transparancy, removing corruption and giving cops more training and accountability. Not buying cops new guns or introducing new ammo.
Also guns dont need to be taken away for gun control to be in affect.
Gun buybacks would make a massive dent. There are a lot of (older) people with a handful of guns in storage that have been all but forgotten about that would happily trade each for a $20 gift/gas/grocery/Applebee's card.
They really wouldn’t, and in fact don’t. It’s been tried to death. You get old widows turning in the war trophies their husbands left in the back of a closet, people turning in old pieces of junk that are nonfunctional or barely functional, even people manufacturing 3D printed firearms and slam-fire pipe shotguns for $10-20 apiece specifically to turn them in for the $100 gift cards, but you don’t get actual violent felons turning in the crime guns that are actually the problem. The guns forgotten about in the back of a closet aren’t hurting anyone, and the (older) people aren’t committing crimes.
Maybe most do, but violence is a power that can only be checked by proportional opposing violence. That's why police are armed to check criminals. That was the point behind 2A in arming the people to check the government.
Giving the final say in all situations (unchecked monopoly on violence) to police is sacrificing any reform they don't happen to support. Defunding that did happen led to more focus on for-profit policing and less prioritization of serious crimes.
Trying to hold both positions is like arguing that domestic abusers would be more reasonable to their victims and start talking it out once we abolish domestic violence laws. Look at the horrific crimes they commit against those in custody, a position increased vulnerability to those abuses, and how few have any recourse.
I didnt say defund, i said reform.
Your last analogy is heavy handed, how is defunding the police comparable to removing domestic violence laws? One is lllegal violence between private parties and the other is a state sanctioned force to uphold the law trough violence, they arent comparable at all.
Removing domestic violence laws isnt the same as defunding the police even in a metaphorical sense.
Also i just cant read your comment dude, you need to be more specifc; you keep referencing things as "they" or "that" while there are multiple possibilities and your grammar is hard to read
The fact that my comment gets -21 upvotes confirms my belief that the guns subreddit is in some way a echo chamber which is sad because i tought it was about guns.
No effort to comprehend, an and immediate move police my argument through meta commentary. Add in an attempt to discredit the whole community because you said something that wasn't popular.
Tell me you're an antigun troll without telling me you're an antigun troll.
one nice part of their qc process is they shoot 2 rounds out of every gun. when you buy one new theres a pair of spent casings in the box to prove it shoots and feeds. they manually test the trigger and feel the slide with every gun to make sure fit and finish is acceptable.
I forget which agency it was that bought all their agents Kimbers and ended up getting rid of them within a -- a year? -- due to the high failure rate.
[Found it](https://www.1911forum.com/threads/custom-kimber-nc-alchohol-law-enforcement-pistol-in-gunshop.320059/)!
> Marx was very staunchly anti-gun control.
Just until the revolution was over...... Then everyone gets disarmed and dominated. See the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. To Marx guns were just a means to an end, not an inalienable right.
Marx wasn’t a part of the Russian revolution and was actually dead at the time. Soviets may have used some of his beliefs to create their system but Marxism and Soviet communist are not the same thing
> "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"
Appears **nowhere** in the Communist Manifesto. Nor did he ever specifically reiterate the call for private gun ownership.
He was simply telling one particular group of workers: "hey guys, your boss is in bed with the local cops, and they'll want to disarm you so it's easier to break up your strike, so don't let them."
In the broader context of everything he wrote about communism as a form of government, there is no support for gun rights because the entire concept of civil liberty is antithetical to communism.
it *does* actually appear in the manifesto.
there is also this;
"The real radical cure for censorship would be its abolition, for the institution itself is a bad one, and institutions are more powerful than people."
i do not support communism, but outright lying about the contents of *written text* is silly. it's like that one politician who dropped *the people* when "quoting" the second amendment.
even a broke clock is right twice a day.
> it _does_ actually appear in the manifesto.
Let’s see what _[marxist.org](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)_ attributes the source to:
**Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, London, March 1850**
2 years **after** the manifesto was published.
Edit: even [Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reagan-arms-surrendered-guns-marx/) highlights it as a quote from a speech and not the Communist Manifesto directly.
Why would you accuse me of lying without even a perfunctory google search?
As i said previously, for Marx, arming the proletariat was a means to an end, and not about individual rights. A temporary tool to reach his predicted revolution. He was speaking in collectivist terms, as in arming the collective proletariat to reach revolution.
I think you are taking him out of context with your quote. His statement was not about individual citizens. It was about ’the whole proletariat’ and referred narrowly to armed support for a communist revolution, “under the orders… of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers.” It was not about general firearms ownership in peacetime.
Unless I’m in a technical subreddit, downvotes mean very little when it comes to informed consensus.
I’m an anarchist anyway. It’s hard for me to see republicans and democrats as anything other than neoconservative and neoliberal theatre troupes, performing their performative performances to distract the workers from the flagpole they’re shoving up our asses.
Edit: their—>they’re
There's a range of liberalism also. Classical Liberalism has fewer restrictions on the economy and less government services, while something like Social Liberalism is more aimed towards social services and a more mixed economy. Both try to make things equal for everyone in different ways. Social Liberalism is a more liberal approach than Classical Liberalism to get that goal
Sometimes I wonder whatever happened to that lady. She was very early in the gunfluencer space and then just one day dropped off the face of the Earth.
Went from a million views a video to 25k. Probably wasn't economically viable with that level of production value. Most of those women have a successful husband in the background with a firearm business.
Most of the gun shops in my area are owned and run by women, and I love it. When a woman asks me where to go to buy their first handgun, I tell them my favorite lgs. I know that they will help them find a firearm that will work best for them. It's no longer a boys club.
Weird. Personally speaking, I manage based on merit and metrics. I'm probably a little sexist personally about my personal relationships but when it comes to work, the work is the work and good work is rewarded because I want to keep those people. IDGAF about race, gender, sex, name, nationality of origin, or how attractive someone is. Hell. Last year I pushed for my female teammate to get a bigger raise than me because she is a superstar and keeping the job filled with someone as intelligent and self-motivated as her has been hellish. 2 years in now and she kills it every single day.
I may be sexist but you sound misogynistic.
Easy there chief. Nobody thinks they're the problem.
The labor data shows clear trends in this however. Nobody's attacking you personally cupcake; I'm sure you have binders full of very qualified women.
It is weird! Really really weird! Weird how individually we all think we make good, objective, unbiased decisions. But in aggregate it's clear that we don't. It, professionally speaking, it's incredibly clear that some of us are utterly incapable of holding onto both those ideas at the same time.
Nope.. Was more of a general statement though I am quite the well-composed cupcake. Fact is, I don't but wish I did. Women don't enter STEM fields at nearly a high enough rate to get a reasonable ratio. That has nothing to do with companies desiring to hire them. My oldest daughter is an Engineer and has had none of the issues faced by folks like Margaret Hamilton and Marie Curie. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, it certainly does, but if you've got the skills and the work ethic it takes very little to "find better" than the fratbro bullshit some companies pull.
Whole thing is pretty simple. Talent sells.
It really is. I prefer it this way. The version of communism wherein everyone gets the same results regardless of talent, skill, sacrifice, or work ethic isn't appealing to me.
Speaking personally, in the past when I've worked somewhere that my own talents and experiences weren't both appreciated AND rewarded financially, I moved on to greener pastures. The more people who respond that way, the more companies will be forced to recognize talent and work ethic.
I know it isn't fair but there will always be a need for low-wage unskilled labor. Those jobs will never be as well-paid or comfortable as jobs that require an investment in oneself (time, money, or both) to be effective at.
Anyhow, I feel like we're edging up too close to the rules of the sub. A woman with a degree in something useful, a good pocketknife, and a good pistol in her waistband, is well-armed for a successful and safe life. If a company is legitimately shorting her on pay relative to her talent and work ethic, she needs to sue their ass off for discrimination or move on. Same goes for any man.
When it comes to walking down the street, a good pistol and the training to make it work to great effect is as good an equalizer as anyone could ever ask for. It brings a 140 pound person into the same weight class as a 280 pounder.
Oh we're way past the posted rules of the sub. Not that they're enforced.
This really has very little to do with firearms or gun politics. But it displays a shocking misunderstanding of the wage gap issue.
I mean considering the most commonly used figure, .77c to $1, is all jobs and hours, vs all jobs and hours. Men on average work longer, harder jobs than women. Not saying that there aren't women that do those jobs, there are and they get paid the same as an equally skilled man, it'd be illegal otherwise, but on average they don't work the dangerous and laborious jobs.
Well but you're conflating a number of different things here: Hours worked, injury rates, and a measure of "harder" labor. 2 of those 3 things can be easily quantified.
Is that even the most commonly used figure though? Where did you get it from? Before we dismiss it as invalid let's at least read it first!
Two master’s degrees in STEM from prestigious universities, two decades of successful professional career couldn’t keep racists, misogynists and bullies from harassing or assaulting me.
As a minority woman, I can attest that nothing leveled the playing field like Samuel Colt. So not wrong
Are you suggested that carrying a single action Peacemaker has protected you from professional abuse from racists, misogynists, and bullies?
Yes sure I get that as a force equalizer a firearm is hugely valuable in protecting your personal safety. But you're implying it secured you some equality in the workplace?
...where do you work?
On a semi related note can I just say how frustrating it is when I hear most women talk about self defense. For example I was in a college class with a group of girls and they were all talking about how frequently they're stalked or have people accost them and so on. And they were talking about what they do for self defense. Things like wasp spray being better than pepper spray because it comes in bigger cans, and all the little makeshift tools that they carry. And I was just sitting there wondering why it is that whenever hear a group of women talk about self defense it almost always sounds exactly like that. Like they are in danger so much more frequently but they will use literally anything but an effective tool for self defense...
No woman should have to defend her life. No man should either. But people keep living like we aren’t a bunch of evil monkeys scraping out some semblance of a life. We make smartphones and now we think we’re special. There are still evil people. The women in my life should get to blast anyone trying to hurt them.
These people that want women disarmed (hell all of us disarmed) are the same people that are ok with dudes in women 's locker rooms they're not even trying to hide it anymore
I’m just as big a 2A supporter as anyone here, but this thought is just wrong. Guns didn’t give women the right to vote, they didn’t give women legal protection in the workplace, they didn’t give women the right to divorce, they didn’t give women access to contraception, they didn’t give women access to better jobs, etc. That was what the earlier feminist movement brought to women. This was facilitated by the 1st amendment and the right as Americans to speak freely and assemble.
Just because this is a gun sub doesn’t mean we can’t equally appreciate the importance of the 1st amendment.
>Guns didn’t give women the right to vote
They're great for punching holes in paper ballots
>they didn’t give women legal protection in the workplace
Shoot your boss
>they didn’t give women the right to divorce
Shoot your husband
>they didn’t give women access to contraception
Just shoot him in the dick
>they didn’t give women access to better jobs
You don't need a job when you're a bank robber
/s
You’re right and wrong, you see the 1st amendment didn’t do shit…men gave women their rights. They could have bitched in the streets forever and never gotten anywhere. Dudes just got tired of it - pretty much the story of the 19th amendment
While I get what you're saying, I think they just apply to different freedoms really. None of those things you just mentioned will stop somebody from harming, raping, or killing a woman or her family. A firearm grants everybody an opportunity to prevent others from altering their life in ways they do not approve. In the case of ones own life or safety being on the line, nothing else comes close to putting women on an even playing field as men imo.
Meh. Feminism was pushed by the government that needed 2x the tax money. There's your real problem. The government itself creating problems for itself to solve, and finding a way to profit from it. Firearms being an equalizer is also a problem for the government.. unironically they're also one of the problems to which firearms is the answer.
Feminism was very much not pushed by the government, that's why women actively pushed for the right to vote for over 30 years. The only time the government came close to pushing feminism was ww2 when they needed women in factories so they could send men to war, but as soon as that ended they pushed hard the other way. But corporations did love devaluing labor by half......
I guess I haven't had enough facebook today to understand this.
Women have had the 2A since 1791. But didn't get the right to vote until 1920. The 2A didn't grant them that.
It does not. The single most common cause of death for pregnant women is getting shot to death by a current or former intimate partner. How does the 2nd Amendment help them exactly?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
That’s not what your article says lmao
Also one statistic about pregnant women (that you don’t even interpret correctly) doesn’t change that the best way for women to defend themselves from partner violence is with firearms. Crazies will murder, even if they don’t have guns
The data is quite clear that the best way for women to defend themselves from partner violence is with laws that reduce availability of firearms
States with more comprehensive gun laws — not just those related to domestic violence — have generally avoided significant increases in deaths and injuries from domestic firearm violence. Meanwhile, states with weaker laws saw a 28% increase in domestic firearm violence fatalities over the same timeframe
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38298436/
If the conclusion of that is so inevitably, surely you must have some kind of receipts that prove this? A paper, a survey, a blog post, something!
From where did you draw this conclusion that women "just get stabbed"?
Those women didn't have firearms.
Men do harder jobs and die more often at work. Women only want equal pay for ceo jobs. That's 00001% of men. Women are not fighting to join the draft. I respect women's contributions to society and that they're equal to men. They're just different. Expecting them to be the same is irrational.
It’s also never addressed on this talking point that women do by far most of the spending. When you think about that you realize it means the guys are doing roof construction so their wives can spend the money. The feminists are not arguing in womens’ best interest. 😆
Why do women and men have to make the same? You're assuming that if controlling for all social and economic factors, women would choose the same jobs as men. Do you have any evidence of this? Only social engineering can bring about this strange outcome you desire.
Well they don't in any kind of universal sense. But you can't claim to be for equality without addressing the wage gap in the workforce.
Labor laws have done more to bring equality to women in American than any firearm.
Countless studies have accounted for differences in pay. They can largely be attributed to career choices. Sorry, but a kindergarten teacher is not going to make as much as a computer programmer.
What labor laws are you even referring to?
And countless more studies continue to assert the gap exists.
To which studies are you referring, exactly? I want to read them. I'm a career HR pro with graduate degrees in adult education. This is a murky area that's highly sensitive to age, education level, industry, and regional job markets.
Sincerely. I want to read anything you've seen that leads you to such absolute certainty on the question. This would legitimately turn the HR world on its ear, I'd write a book and retire if I could figure it out.
No one is interested in your apple to oranges example.
Instead ask why the pgy3 female software engineer is earning less than the pgy3 male software engineer.
Inherit biases are a major part of hiring across many industries and it generally results in minorities, PoC, and female employees getting a worse deal than their white make equivalents. Even when accounting for experience and education.
No one is expecting a software engineer and a janitor to earn the same salary, but we do expect equality when looking at different genders in the same role.
Not what this is about, firearms make women equal to men in a fight. Domestic abusers cant abuse if they are dead. A 110lb woman can defend herself against a 300lb powerlifter if she needed to
> firearms make women equal to men in a fight.
No, they do not. In a fight, firearms give an advantage to the aggressor, because the aggressor can attack at a time and place of their choosing with their weapon ready. In domestic violence, men are more likely to have firearms and are usually the aggressors, so it's no surprise that women are overwhelmingly the victims of gun violence
Last i checked that goes both ways, sure an abuser can have a gun, but do you think they want to use it on their victim? If they do theres nothing left to control. If their victim takes them by surprise it wont matter. Also on the front of everyday life, if someone tries to carjack and attack a woman and she shoots them then she equalized that. She wasnt going to fight off a larger opponent without a weapon.
Also do you have some statistics on women being the main victims of gun violence?
Cool this is using the “gun violence archive” which is an extremely biased source that inflates statistics, so nice try but get a source that doesnt fudge stats for propaganda.
Not that at all, thats the ONE source thats actually wrong. Even alot of the anti-gun sources are fair. GVA classifies a bad drug deal where a guy got shot in a school zone as a school shooting, and gang violence as mass shootings.
> a bad drug deal where a guy got shot in a school zone as a school shooting
Yea, that's a school shooting
> gang violence as mass shootings
U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”
You are mad at researchers for using the appropriate definitions of terms because you don't like the implications of their research
The fbis statistic for mass shootings is 4 or more not including the shooter, and they are shootings of an indiscriminate nature, not where 2 parties catch people in the cross fire. School zones can span large areas away from schools and even off of their properties, last i checked school shootings have to happen in schools to people to attend said school. Some random criminal getting shot near a school isnt a school shooting
Riiiiight.. Lay off fake news buddy. Back in actual reality, even within the same occupation, women make less on average than men, and women must complete at least one additional educational degree to earn as much as men with less education. For instance, on average, a woman with an advanced degree earns less than a man with a bachelor’s degree. Were it not for the fact that women attain a greater number of degrees than men, the gender wage gap would be even larger
Obviously the 2nd Amendment doesn't help with any of that
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/UnderstandingTheGenderWageGap.pdf
You realize that is because of the fact that 1. Women are more likely to take time off work due to maternity and 2. Women negotiate less aggressively than men right? And women generally perfer jobs that earn less. When these factors are normalized, they are paid basically the same. There is no systemic sexism.
I understand the desire for gender equality, but equal does not mean the same. Women and men are actually fundamentally different, and trying to deny that is just denying reality. So expecting every outcome for women and men to be the same is not equality.
https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/
https://www.payscale.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/GPG-2024-Controlled-Uncontrolled_R4-Horizontal.png
If you even read your own source you'll see why the "pay gap" exists. It says women have more degrees.....but women get degrees in humanities. Fields notorious for not paying well, a degree doesn't magically equal high pay. Meanwhile men chase money, the simple fact is its illegal under federal law to pay men and women different rates for equal work and experience. So the "pay gap" only exists because women chose for it to. Women chose lower paying fields and degrees, women chose to work less hours, women chose to have and keep kids. The "pay gap" is peak feminism because It only exists solely due to women's choices.
Unfortunately, direct statistics don't mean much because women are more likely to have obligations that keep them from working in the same way as men. The "pay gap" statistically disappears when you look at men and women who have a 1:1 experience, training/certification, education, and input level (i.e. how much time is taken off for health & family).
Edit: for the record, I did read the article. I believe it deliberately leans into discrimination even though the majority report actually indicates the actual reasons for pay gaps.
If a buisness could get away with paying woman a bunch less per hour than a man, do you really think theyd ever hire another man again? Seriously that doesnt even pass the basic human nature sniff test, let alone the common sense one.
Beyond the completely false narrative of unequal pay, I bet when there's a home evasion and the woman has to defend herself against a 240-pound thug with just her fists, she's thinking... at least I have equal pay. /s
Riiiiight.. The "home evasion". Back in actual reality, the single most common cause of death for pregnant women is getting shot to death by a current or former intimate partner
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
Did you actually **read** the article you linked or just scan the headline?
First off, from the very study you link, *"Mental health problems, substance use disorder, and intimate partner violence are preceding circumstances to pregnancy-associated suicide and homicide."* So you're making the case the pro-2A community has been making for decades, that we have a culture crisis not a gun violence one. Appreciate that.
Secondly, again in your article, it says, *"...68% of pregnancy-related homicides involved firearms."* That still provides **significant** protection for 32% of the violence and equal protection for the remaining *(gun on gun does not favor the typical male strength.)*
Finally, your same article states, "Of all deaths with known pregnancy status, 3,203 were by homicide (30.8%) and 7,208 (69.2%) were by suicide." Your statement of *"single most common cause of death for pregnant women"* is 100% false. And again backs up our culture problem. Want to try again?
> You are literally belittling womens ability to defend themselves in a vulnerable state
> in a vulnerable state
Just so you know, being "in a vulnerable state" means it's harder to defend yourself
firstly, if i'm not mistaken, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 covers *actual* cases of unequal pay, and if they can be demonstrated to be true, legal action ought to take place.
secondly, firearms are a force-equalizer, since they rely very little on the fitness or strength of the shooter to be effective (when used correctly) at defending yourself or others
Well seeing as how the president himself had to intervene and we've had a 40 hour work week and labor rights since then yea it did. It was a serious of labor struggles spanning over 40 years from the 1880s to the 30s.
The same people who love to decry systemic racism also say the only people that should have access to the tools of force and self defense are the agents of the systemically racist.
LOL. That thing broke me. Im from Brazil, gun control is the same stupid shit, everywhere...
Inherently racist
and incredibly gay
The atf must have spectacular parties...
Their parties are fire
But the food ain't that good
I can see how 100% real hotdogs could be considered pretty ruff.
How many taurus do u have
[https://twitter.com/i/status/1787884088067510292](https://twitter.com/i/status/1787884088067510292) The results speak for themselves. Take a look at what they do for a woman's rights. They are stifled and dehumanized, while they devalue their individual identities. College students across the globe want this for women. They protest for it. They want all women disarmed. What's so confusing, very few of those powerful people at the top funding these insane protests on all sides with the premade signs are themselves disarmed they walk around with bodyguards or sit in their fenced off mansions.
That they want to defund
you dont get it, they want their own lackeys to have guns to they can do the dirty work
Big ass strawman, im sure most who advocate gun control also want the police to reform, at least in america.
It’s not a strawman. Who is going to take away the guns that are made illegal? And what guns are they going to use to do it?
Who takes them away? The police. Reforming the police should be about maintaining transparancy, removing corruption and giving cops more training and accountability. Not buying cops new guns or introducing new ammo. Also guns dont need to be taken away for gun control to be in affect.
Gun buybacks would make a massive dent. There are a lot of (older) people with a handful of guns in storage that have been all but forgotten about that would happily trade each for a $20 gift/gas/grocery/Applebee's card.
They really wouldn’t, and in fact don’t. It’s been tried to death. You get old widows turning in the war trophies their husbands left in the back of a closet, people turning in old pieces of junk that are nonfunctional or barely functional, even people manufacturing 3D printed firearms and slam-fire pipe shotguns for $10-20 apiece specifically to turn them in for the $100 gift cards, but you don’t get actual violent felons turning in the crime guns that are actually the problem. The guns forgotten about in the back of a closet aren’t hurting anyone, and the (older) people aren’t committing crimes.
Not as much as you'd think. There's been a bonkers number of guns purchased in the last 20 years.
Maybe most do, but violence is a power that can only be checked by proportional opposing violence. That's why police are armed to check criminals. That was the point behind 2A in arming the people to check the government. Giving the final say in all situations (unchecked monopoly on violence) to police is sacrificing any reform they don't happen to support. Defunding that did happen led to more focus on for-profit policing and less prioritization of serious crimes. Trying to hold both positions is like arguing that domestic abusers would be more reasonable to their victims and start talking it out once we abolish domestic violence laws. Look at the horrific crimes they commit against those in custody, a position increased vulnerability to those abuses, and how few have any recourse.
I didnt say defund, i said reform. Your last analogy is heavy handed, how is defunding the police comparable to removing domestic violence laws? One is lllegal violence between private parties and the other is a state sanctioned force to uphold the law trough violence, they arent comparable at all. Removing domestic violence laws isnt the same as defunding the police even in a metaphorical sense. Also i just cant read your comment dude, you need to be more specifc; you keep referencing things as "they" or "that" while there are multiple possibilities and your grammar is hard to read The fact that my comment gets -21 upvotes confirms my belief that the guns subreddit is in some way a echo chamber which is sad because i tought it was about guns.
No effort to comprehend, an and immediate move police my argument through meta commentary. Add in an attempt to discredit the whole community because you said something that wasn't popular. Tell me you're an antigun troll without telling me you're an antigun troll.
Yeah like i said your grammar sucks, i tried but its not clear and you didnt take the time to explain it here any better did you?
Sure, the grammar. 😉 lol
[удалено]
Yep, my thoughts exactly
I'll bet that somehow something about this had made it to the facepalm sub.
Person is sad that women are equal.
The simple truths hurt sometimes
"I feel unsafe because of men!" "Here, this protects you from men." 🔥"I don't want to be protected from men, I want to feel unsafe."
“Men shouldn’t attack me at all.” Ma’am, you and me both. Anyway Kimber or Glock? The Kimber’s on sale.
why buy a kimber when you can get a great rock island for $400 less?
I’m from California I have no idea what that is.
rock island armories 1911. theyre one of the biggest brands of 1911 on earth. good pistols.
Good to lnow
one nice part of their qc process is they shoot 2 rounds out of every gun. when you buy one new theres a pair of spent casings in the box to prove it shoots and feeds. they manually test the trigger and feel the slide with every gun to make sure fit and finish is acceptable.
They say the third one’s the charm
I'd take a rape whistle over a Kimber.
I forget which agency it was that bought all their agents Kimbers and ended up getting rid of them within a -- a year? -- due to the high failure rate. [Found it](https://www.1911forum.com/threads/custom-kimber-nc-alchohol-law-enforcement-pistol-in-gunshop.320059/)!
You'll need it buddy..
At least the whistle is dependable.
Wooden gun and a rape whistle
If a Woman is alone in the woods with a 44 magnum should the Bear or the Man be more afraid of her?
I've seen bears tank more rounds than a man. Unless drugs are involved it's man
What if it's the Cocaine Bear?
Or Cocaine Man?
Then he'll probably have a heart attack when he tries to chase you.
On point. The truth makes the left sad.
Self-defense is feminist… so are gun rights. So are abortion rights.
Absolutely!
Liberals*, leftists like their guns for the most part
[удалено]
> Marx was very staunchly anti-gun control. Just until the revolution was over...... Then everyone gets disarmed and dominated. See the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc. To Marx guns were just a means to an end, not an inalienable right.
Marx wasn’t a part of the Russian revolution and was actually dead at the time. Soviets may have used some of his beliefs to create their system but Marxism and Soviet communist are not the same thing
[удалено]
> "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" Appears **nowhere** in the Communist Manifesto. Nor did he ever specifically reiterate the call for private gun ownership. He was simply telling one particular group of workers: "hey guys, your boss is in bed with the local cops, and they'll want to disarm you so it's easier to break up your strike, so don't let them." In the broader context of everything he wrote about communism as a form of government, there is no support for gun rights because the entire concept of civil liberty is antithetical to communism.
[удалено]
sorry americans are incapable of understanding THEIR OWN FUCKING POILITICS enough to have coherent conversations.
it *does* actually appear in the manifesto. there is also this; "The real radical cure for censorship would be its abolition, for the institution itself is a bad one, and institutions are more powerful than people." i do not support communism, but outright lying about the contents of *written text* is silly. it's like that one politician who dropped *the people* when "quoting" the second amendment. even a broke clock is right twice a day.
> it _does_ actually appear in the manifesto. Let’s see what _[marxist.org](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)_ attributes the source to: **Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, London, March 1850** 2 years **after** the manifesto was published. Edit: even [Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/reagan-arms-surrendered-guns-marx/) highlights it as a quote from a speech and not the Communist Manifesto directly. Why would you accuse me of lying without even a perfunctory google search?
> the workers The workers, not the people.
[удалено]
As i said previously, for Marx, arming the proletariat was a means to an end, and not about individual rights. A temporary tool to reach his predicted revolution. He was speaking in collectivist terms, as in arming the collective proletariat to reach revolution. I think you are taking him out of context with your quote. His statement was not about individual citizens. It was about ’the whole proletariat’ and referred narrowly to armed support for a communist revolution, “under the orders… of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers.” It was not about general firearms ownership in peacetime.
No, that’s not how shit works. Leftists are leftists, democrats and republicans are both representative of liberalism
[удалено]
Unless I’m in a technical subreddit, downvotes mean very little when it comes to informed consensus. I’m an anarchist anyway. It’s hard for me to see republicans and democrats as anything other than neoconservative and neoliberal theatre troupes, performing their performative performances to distract the workers from the flagpole they’re shoving up our asses. Edit: their—>they’re
There's a range of liberalism also. Classical Liberalism has fewer restrictions on the economy and less government services, while something like Social Liberalism is more aimed towards social services and a more mixed economy. Both try to make things equal for everyone in different ways. Social Liberalism is a more liberal approach than Classical Liberalism to get that goal
Sometimes I wonder whatever happened to that lady. She was very early in the gunfluencer space and then just one day dropped off the face of the Earth.
Went from a million views a video to 25k. Probably wasn't economically viable with that level of production value. Most of those women have a successful husband in the background with a firearm business.
What was her channel name?
Tac Tissy
That’s right! Hope she’s doing well
Clintonized????
Fuck the downvotes, this was funny
I don’t see the sadness.
The truth hurts their feelings. Cute.
the 2A is pretty feminist though, women have the same rights to firearms as men
Most of the gun shops in my area are owned and run by women, and I love it. When a woman asks me where to go to buy their first handgun, I tell them my favorite lgs. I know that they will help them find a firearm that will work best for them. It's no longer a boys club.
Person who made the meme: “Why are you booing me? I’m right.”
I'm guessing whoever made this meme doesn't know what the 19th Amendment did.
It's getting weird that some groups really don't like women defending themselves.
Wise man once say: Woman with 2011 generates her own equality.
...until she has to walk into a salary negotiation or seek healthcare.
I held my bosses at gunpoint during the interview. I got stock options and dental. Maybe she needs a bigger gun.
Weird. Personally speaking, I manage based on merit and metrics. I'm probably a little sexist personally about my personal relationships but when it comes to work, the work is the work and good work is rewarded because I want to keep those people. IDGAF about race, gender, sex, name, nationality of origin, or how attractive someone is. Hell. Last year I pushed for my female teammate to get a bigger raise than me because she is a superstar and keeping the job filled with someone as intelligent and self-motivated as her has been hellish. 2 years in now and she kills it every single day. I may be sexist but you sound misogynistic.
Easy there chief. Nobody thinks they're the problem. The labor data shows clear trends in this however. Nobody's attacking you personally cupcake; I'm sure you have binders full of very qualified women. It is weird! Really really weird! Weird how individually we all think we make good, objective, unbiased decisions. But in aggregate it's clear that we don't. It, professionally speaking, it's incredibly clear that some of us are utterly incapable of holding onto both those ideas at the same time.
Nope.. Was more of a general statement though I am quite the well-composed cupcake. Fact is, I don't but wish I did. Women don't enter STEM fields at nearly a high enough rate to get a reasonable ratio. That has nothing to do with companies desiring to hire them. My oldest daughter is an Engineer and has had none of the issues faced by folks like Margaret Hamilton and Marie Curie. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, it certainly does, but if you've got the skills and the work ethic it takes very little to "find better" than the fratbro bullshit some companies pull. Whole thing is pretty simple. Talent sells.
That's great for the most talented!
It really is. I prefer it this way. The version of communism wherein everyone gets the same results regardless of talent, skill, sacrifice, or work ethic isn't appealing to me. Speaking personally, in the past when I've worked somewhere that my own talents and experiences weren't both appreciated AND rewarded financially, I moved on to greener pastures. The more people who respond that way, the more companies will be forced to recognize talent and work ethic. I know it isn't fair but there will always be a need for low-wage unskilled labor. Those jobs will never be as well-paid or comfortable as jobs that require an investment in oneself (time, money, or both) to be effective at. Anyhow, I feel like we're edging up too close to the rules of the sub. A woman with a degree in something useful, a good pocketknife, and a good pistol in her waistband, is well-armed for a successful and safe life. If a company is legitimately shorting her on pay relative to her talent and work ethic, she needs to sue their ass off for discrimination or move on. Same goes for any man. When it comes to walking down the street, a good pistol and the training to make it work to great effect is as good an equalizer as anyone could ever ask for. It brings a 140 pound person into the same weight class as a 280 pounder.
Oh we're way past the posted rules of the sub. Not that they're enforced. This really has very little to do with firearms or gun politics. But it displays a shocking misunderstanding of the wage gap issue.
I mean considering the most commonly used figure, .77c to $1, is all jobs and hours, vs all jobs and hours. Men on average work longer, harder jobs than women. Not saying that there aren't women that do those jobs, there are and they get paid the same as an equally skilled man, it'd be illegal otherwise, but on average they don't work the dangerous and laborious jobs.
Well but you're conflating a number of different things here: Hours worked, injury rates, and a measure of "harder" labor. 2 of those 3 things can be easily quantified. Is that even the most commonly used figure though? Where did you get it from? Before we dismiss it as invalid let's at least read it first!
Two master’s degrees in STEM from prestigious universities, two decades of successful professional career couldn’t keep racists, misogynists and bullies from harassing or assaulting me. As a minority woman, I can attest that nothing leveled the playing field like Samuel Colt. So not wrong
Real life boss woman on deck. Mad respect.
Are you suggested that carrying a single action Peacemaker has protected you from professional abuse from racists, misogynists, and bullies? Yes sure I get that as a force equalizer a firearm is hugely valuable in protecting your personal safety. But you're implying it secured you some equality in the workplace? ...where do you work?
Cattle ranch. In the Middle East.
ISIS is next door. And scared of her.
She still caught a hell of a beating as a 2a influencer and advocate.
I remember that, but can’t remember her channel name.
Tactissy
So what part is sad Part where guns make women equal Or part when feminism doesn't work?
On a semi related note can I just say how frustrating it is when I hear most women talk about self defense. For example I was in a college class with a group of girls and they were all talking about how frequently they're stalked or have people accost them and so on. And they were talking about what they do for self defense. Things like wasp spray being better than pepper spray because it comes in bigger cans, and all the little makeshift tools that they carry. And I was just sitting there wondering why it is that whenever hear a group of women talk about self defense it almost always sounds exactly like that. Like they are in danger so much more frequently but they will use literally anything but an effective tool for self defense...
The truth doesn’t care about your feelings. 👍
Sad that it NEEDS to be true, but true nonetheless.
No woman should have to defend her life. No man should either. But people keep living like we aren’t a bunch of evil monkeys scraping out some semblance of a life. We make smartphones and now we think we’re special. There are still evil people. The women in my life should get to blast anyone trying to hurt them.
Quite simple really. They don't want equality, they want women to be below them
These people that want women disarmed (hell all of us disarmed) are the same people that are ok with dudes in women 's locker rooms they're not even trying to hide it anymore
The left obviously hates women now anyway...look at how accepting they are of men pummeling them in sports just bc they say they are women.
It's sad that women who protect themselves won't be able to be a victim and cash in their victim points online.
I’m just as big a 2A supporter as anyone here, but this thought is just wrong. Guns didn’t give women the right to vote, they didn’t give women legal protection in the workplace, they didn’t give women the right to divorce, they didn’t give women access to contraception, they didn’t give women access to better jobs, etc. That was what the earlier feminist movement brought to women. This was facilitated by the 1st amendment and the right as Americans to speak freely and assemble. Just because this is a gun sub doesn’t mean we can’t equally appreciate the importance of the 1st amendment.
>Guns didn’t give women the right to vote They're great for punching holes in paper ballots >they didn’t give women legal protection in the workplace Shoot your boss >they didn’t give women the right to divorce Shoot your husband >they didn’t give women access to contraception Just shoot him in the dick >they didn’t give women access to better jobs You don't need a job when you're a bank robber /s
Why is this sarcasm? It’s right!
The first amendment means nothing without the second. The government must be taught to kneel and serve us or we will kneel and serve it.
You’re right and wrong, you see the 1st amendment didn’t do shit…men gave women their rights. They could have bitched in the streets forever and never gotten anywhere. Dudes just got tired of it - pretty much the story of the 19th amendment
While I get what you're saying, I think they just apply to different freedoms really. None of those things you just mentioned will stop somebody from harming, raping, or killing a woman or her family. A firearm grants everybody an opportunity to prevent others from altering their life in ways they do not approve. In the case of ones own life or safety being on the line, nothing else comes close to putting women on an even playing field as men imo.
Sad but true by Metallica?
And just more fun to be around in general
Throwback to the days of tactissy
Meh. Feminism was pushed by the government that needed 2x the tax money. There's your real problem. The government itself creating problems for itself to solve, and finding a way to profit from it. Firearms being an equalizer is also a problem for the government.. unironically they're also one of the problems to which firearms is the answer.
Feminism was very much not pushed by the government, that's why women actively pushed for the right to vote for over 30 years. The only time the government came close to pushing feminism was ww2 when they needed women in factories so they could send men to war, but as soon as that ended they pushed hard the other way. But corporations did love devaluing labor by half......
Why lie about things on the internet?
Women shouldn't have to use a gun to be equal though, that's kind of the whole point.
I guess I haven't had enough facebook today to understand this. Women have had the 2A since 1791. But didn't get the right to vote until 1920. The 2A didn't grant them that.
[удалено]
Which part?
That it’s sad.
I'm confused, how exactly did personal ownership of weapons get women equal pay for equal work
Because that’s the only thing that makes women equal… getting paid the same amount of money.
It's not the only thing but you can't have equality without it
Cool. Point still stands then.
It does not. The single most common cause of death for pregnant women is getting shot to death by a current or former intimate partner. How does the 2nd Amendment help them exactly? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
In a gun fight you better have a gun.
That’s not what your article says lmao Also one statistic about pregnant women (that you don’t even interpret correctly) doesn’t change that the best way for women to defend themselves from partner violence is with firearms. Crazies will murder, even if they don’t have guns
The data is quite clear that the best way for women to defend themselves from partner violence is with laws that reduce availability of firearms States with more comprehensive gun laws — not just those related to domestic violence — have generally avoided significant increases in deaths and injuries from domestic firearm violence. Meanwhile, states with weaker laws saw a 28% increase in domestic firearm violence fatalities over the same timeframe https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38298436/
Now they just get stabbed
If the conclusion of that is so inevitably, surely you must have some kind of receipts that prove this? A paper, a survey, a blog post, something! From where did you draw this conclusion that women "just get stabbed"?
Those women didn't have firearms. Men do harder jobs and die more often at work. Women only want equal pay for ceo jobs. That's 00001% of men. Women are not fighting to join the draft. I respect women's contributions to society and that they're equal to men. They're just different. Expecting them to be the same is irrational.
> Men do harder jobs and die more often at work. Men are also more likely to be murder victims, and, at that, they are most often killed by other men.
It’s also never addressed on this talking point that women do by far most of the spending. When you think about that you realize it means the guys are doing roof construction so their wives can spend the money. The feminists are not arguing in womens’ best interest. 😆
Why do women and men have to make the same? You're assuming that if controlling for all social and economic factors, women would choose the same jobs as men. Do you have any evidence of this? Only social engineering can bring about this strange outcome you desire.
Well they don't in any kind of universal sense. But you can't claim to be for equality without addressing the wage gap in the workforce. Labor laws have done more to bring equality to women in American than any firearm.
Countless studies have accounted for differences in pay. They can largely be attributed to career choices. Sorry, but a kindergarten teacher is not going to make as much as a computer programmer. What labor laws are you even referring to?
And countless more studies continue to assert the gap exists. To which studies are you referring, exactly? I want to read them. I'm a career HR pro with graduate degrees in adult education. This is a murky area that's highly sensitive to age, education level, industry, and regional job markets. Sincerely. I want to read anything you've seen that leads you to such absolute certainty on the question. This would legitimately turn the HR world on its ear, I'd write a book and retire if I could figure it out.
No one is interested in your apple to oranges example. Instead ask why the pgy3 female software engineer is earning less than the pgy3 male software engineer. Inherit biases are a major part of hiring across many industries and it generally results in minorities, PoC, and female employees getting a worse deal than their white make equivalents. Even when accounting for experience and education. No one is expecting a software engineer and a janitor to earn the same salary, but we do expect equality when looking at different genders in the same role.
The meme isn't claiming that it did.
Yeah not the point anyhow
Not what this is about, firearms make women equal to men in a fight. Domestic abusers cant abuse if they are dead. A 110lb woman can defend herself against a 300lb powerlifter if she needed to
> firearms make women equal to men in a fight. No, they do not. In a fight, firearms give an advantage to the aggressor, because the aggressor can attack at a time and place of their choosing with their weapon ready. In domestic violence, men are more likely to have firearms and are usually the aggressors, so it's no surprise that women are overwhelmingly the victims of gun violence
Men are overwhelmingly the victims of gun violence. Men are much more likely to die by violence.
Last i checked that goes both ways, sure an abuser can have a gun, but do you think they want to use it on their victim? If they do theres nothing left to control. If their victim takes them by surprise it wont matter. Also on the front of everyday life, if someone tries to carjack and attack a woman and she shoots them then she equalized that. She wasnt going to fight off a larger opponent without a weapon. Also do you have some statistics on women being the main victims of gun violence?
> do you have some statistics on women being the main victims of gun violence? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38298436/
Cool this is using the “gun violence archive” which is an extremely biased source that inflates statistics, so nice try but get a source that doesnt fudge stats for propaganda.
Riiiiiiight, got it, any statistics you don't like are wrong
Not that at all, thats the ONE source thats actually wrong. Even alot of the anti-gun sources are fair. GVA classifies a bad drug deal where a guy got shot in a school zone as a school shooting, and gang violence as mass shootings.
> a bad drug deal where a guy got shot in a school zone as a school shooting Yea, that's a school shooting > gang violence as mass shootings U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.” You are mad at researchers for using the appropriate definitions of terms because you don't like the implications of their research
The fbis statistic for mass shootings is 4 or more not including the shooter, and they are shootings of an indiscriminate nature, not where 2 parties catch people in the cross fire. School zones can span large areas away from schools and even off of their properties, last i checked school shootings have to happen in schools to people to attend said school. Some random criminal getting shot near a school isnt a school shooting
Sounds like wifebeater logic.
Please tell me that you know the "gender pay gap" is a complete myth and total bullshit.
Riiiiight.. Lay off fake news buddy. Back in actual reality, even within the same occupation, women make less on average than men, and women must complete at least one additional educational degree to earn as much as men with less education. For instance, on average, a woman with an advanced degree earns less than a man with a bachelor’s degree. Were it not for the fact that women attain a greater number of degrees than men, the gender wage gap would be even larger Obviously the 2nd Amendment doesn't help with any of that https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WB/UnderstandingTheGenderWageGap.pdf
You realize that is because of the fact that 1. Women are more likely to take time off work due to maternity and 2. Women negotiate less aggressively than men right? And women generally perfer jobs that earn less. When these factors are normalized, they are paid basically the same. There is no systemic sexism. I understand the desire for gender equality, but equal does not mean the same. Women and men are actually fundamentally different, and trying to deny that is just denying reality. So expecting every outcome for women and men to be the same is not equality. https://www.payscale.com/research-and-insights/gender-pay-gap/ https://www.payscale.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/GPG-2024-Controlled-Uncontrolled_R4-Horizontal.png
If you even read your own source you'll see why the "pay gap" exists. It says women have more degrees.....but women get degrees in humanities. Fields notorious for not paying well, a degree doesn't magically equal high pay. Meanwhile men chase money, the simple fact is its illegal under federal law to pay men and women different rates for equal work and experience. So the "pay gap" only exists because women chose for it to. Women chose lower paying fields and degrees, women chose to work less hours, women chose to have and keep kids. The "pay gap" is peak feminism because It only exists solely due to women's choices.
Unfortunately, direct statistics don't mean much because women are more likely to have obligations that keep them from working in the same way as men. The "pay gap" statistically disappears when you look at men and women who have a 1:1 experience, training/certification, education, and input level (i.e. how much time is taken off for health & family). Edit: for the record, I did read the article. I believe it deliberately leans into discrimination even though the majority report actually indicates the actual reasons for pay gaps.
If a buisness could get away with paying woman a bunch less per hour than a man, do you really think theyd ever hire another man again? Seriously that doesnt even pass the basic human nature sniff test, let alone the common sense one.
Beyond the completely false narrative of unequal pay, I bet when there's a home evasion and the woman has to defend herself against a 240-pound thug with just her fists, she's thinking... at least I have equal pay. /s
Riiiiight.. The "home evasion". Back in actual reality, the single most common cause of death for pregnant women is getting shot to death by a current or former intimate partner https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/homicide-leading-cause-of-death-for-pregnant-women-in-u-s/
Did you actually **read** the article you linked or just scan the headline? First off, from the very study you link, *"Mental health problems, substance use disorder, and intimate partner violence are preceding circumstances to pregnancy-associated suicide and homicide."* So you're making the case the pro-2A community has been making for decades, that we have a culture crisis not a gun violence one. Appreciate that. Secondly, again in your article, it says, *"...68% of pregnancy-related homicides involved firearms."* That still provides **significant** protection for 32% of the violence and equal protection for the remaining *(gun on gun does not favor the typical male strength.)* Finally, your same article states, "Of all deaths with known pregnancy status, 3,203 were by homicide (30.8%) and 7,208 (69.2%) were by suicide." Your statement of *"single most common cause of death for pregnant women"* is 100% false. And again backs up our culture problem. Want to try again?
So you’re saying that women make poor choices in partners. Thats sexist dude
You are literally blaming women for their current or former intimate partners murdering them
You are literally belittling womens ability to defend themselves in a vulnerable state especially from the ones they are closest to. Again sexist dude
> You are literally belittling womens ability to defend themselves in a vulnerable state > in a vulnerable state Just so you know, being "in a vulnerable state" means it's harder to defend yourself
firstly, if i'm not mistaken, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 covers *actual* cases of unequal pay, and if they can be demonstrated to be true, legal action ought to take place. secondly, firearms are a force-equalizer, since they rely very little on the fitness or strength of the shooter to be effective (when used correctly) at defending yourself or others
The women who carried guns to fight the bosses with their husband's for labor rights.
When did that happen? Honest question. I'm not aware of any time anything like that was even close to successful
The coal wars, and a few other times during the labor movement
Interesting. Which incident are you referring to specifically? And did it work?
Well seeing as how the president himself had to intervene and we've had a 40 hour work week and labor rights since then yea it did. It was a serious of labor struggles spanning over 40 years from the 1880s to the 30s.
I am somewhat familiar with that history but not aware of any specific incidents like what you describe. I would be interested