Q: "Will you stop this?"
A: #YesArmAllWomen
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Q: "Will you stop this?"
A: #YesArmAllWomen
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
you're missing the point, if we disarmed the bad guy here, she wouldn't need to call 911!!!Originally Posted by Lucille
Q: "Will you stop this?"
A: #YesArmAllWomen
"We" have figured out a way to successfully disarm bad guys? Please, I would like to see the video showing me this secret
The ad would be more effective to me if the intruder had been the woman with a gun not a man with a gun. I mean, if you take the gun away from the man, nothing bad will happen, right? On the reverse, if some crazy woman without a gun busts into my house; I'm not too worried that I couldn't protect my family with my hands or whatever I have laying around, but a woman with a gun?
1st question popped into my my mind is why is she keeping him from his kid.....
Oh really, you know he could stab her (ban knives), hit her with a baseball bat(ban those too) or just beat her to death with his bare hands ($#@! it, lets ban those while we're at it) or we could encourage women to learn to defend themselves.
Oh I see what your saying...so she wouldn't need to call the other bad guys with guns.
“The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner
So much wrong with this ad... where to begin.
The husband, of course, is the crazy ex who (seemingly rightfully) lost a custody battle and is now using force. Next, the utter stupidity of the argument against guns being presented here. I would like to think that most people would see this as pro-gun, but no, most people would see the gun and automatically say, "gosh dern, this never would have happened to that lady if guns were illegal." It's the stupidest thing I've ever seen, but hey, the American public never ceases to surprise me.
Never mind that the ex-husband in the ad is presumed to be wrong in everything he does or says because, according to the ad, it's really NOT his house, and he really has no right to the kid. The not-so-underlying message in the ad is that, if you don't support gun control, helpless women will be shot and kids will be taken by violent, desperate ex-husbands and guns will be the only thing that allows them to do that.
It's for the women AND the kids! What more noble cause could there be? And guess what, people will eat that $#@! up.
Last edited by PaulConventionWV; 08-01-2014 at 08:18 AM.
I'm an adventurer, writer and bitcoin market analyst.
Buy my book for $11.49 (reduced):
Website: http://www.grandtstories.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LeviGrandt
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/grandtstori...homepage_panel
BTC: 1NiSc21Yrv6CRANhg1DTb1EUBVax1ZtqvG
I was amazed when I saw this ad. I think it demonstrates just what kind of bubble these people live in. But let's look at it logically.
There are exactly four possible gun possession scenarios here:
1. Both people have guns
2. Only man has gun
3. Only woman has gun
4. Neither have gun
In two of these scenarios the woman is at a disadvantage (2 and 4). In 4 she is at disadvantage because on average men are significantly stronger and more aggressive than women.
In one scenario the woman is on equal footing (1).
And in only one scenario does the woman have the advantage (3).
Thus, the woman can only be in an equal or better position relative to the man in this scenario if she has a gun. Otherwise, she is at a disadvantage.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
--Albert J. Nock
Holy Crap! They got it right! Hahahahahaha! Everytime Bloomberg steps on his dick I just about wet myself laughing.
The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.
"Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron
"Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton
if all those weapons were as effective and deadly, you wouldn't mind guns banned, except that's exactly why you're so paranoid about losing guns, because you know you can't kill a person so quickly and easily as using a knife or bat.Oh really, you know he could stab her (ban knives), hit her with a baseball bat(ban those too) or just beat her to death with his bare hands ($#@! it, lets ban those while we're at it) or we could encourage women to learn to defend themselves.
Liberals only dream of this scenario.
That's why victims never have responsibility.
the best way to stop crime is to educate people about why crime is wrong.
because he's a violent criminal and she's a feminist, DUH.
well yeah, you don't need to call people with guns unless somebody has a gun.
If she had a shotgun she could have stepped out on the balcony and shot a couple of times in the air...
Someone should redo this video with a knife, bat, tire iron, hammer, screw driver, clothes iron, iron skillet, golf club, etc
Insanity should be defined as trusting the government to solve a problem they caused in the first place. Please do not go insane!
When you have the truth on your side, as well as most of the guns, that is hard to beat.
Out of every one hundred men they send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty will do nothing but serve as targets for the enemy. Nine are real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, upon them depends our success in battle. But one, ah the one, he is a real warrior, and he will bring the others back from battle alive.
Duty is the most sublime word in the English language. Do your duty in all things. You can not do more than your duty. You should never wish to do less than your duty.
And probably arrested for violating city ordnances WRT firing weapons
- Kim KardashianIt's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!
My pronouns are he/him/his
This fails to address whether or not he exhibited "violence" until he was separated from his child...
Sane men don't tolerate such behavior well.
and if he did? what in your mind is a good reason to?
and would being separated from your child justify shooting her (assuming she hasn't put the child in danger)?
On that note... I'd suggest that the fact that the man had a gun kept the situation from getting even more physically violent! As with a gun the victim is more likely to not fight back or resist.
yep, guns save lives putting a few at risk, and keeping others safe.
A good reason to what?
There is no reason to shoot a childs other parent in front of the child regardless of the parents gender.
separate a man from his child. Since you asked if he exhibited violence.
Are you asking if separating children from a truly violent parent is wise?
If that's the question then the answer is yes, regardless of gender.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, are you implying that the only reason I give a $#@! about gun rights is because I'm afraid of men or think all men are abusive animals? If so, you could not be further from the truth.
I'm not sure I understand your comment.
Absolutely, unfortunately the courts don't see it this way. I've been there with my brother, it's disgusting.
thank you.
so my other question is : what other good reasons are there to separate a child from a parent?
no, I am implying the main reason you care about gun rights is because you know alternative weapons don't do the trick.I'm not sure what you're getting at here
I'm not sure I understand your comment.
There are literally dozens.
And............You can bet your ass every one of them is alleged in divorce court.
Children are not chattel to be bickered over.
The US court system has made child rearing a lucrative endeavor for many folks and violence will of course follow money, whether that violence is perpetrated by a parent or the state is irrelevant.
One of the most heinous crime a parent can inflict on their offspring is parental alienation, research it.
Take the money out of child custody, take state involvement out of child custody and all of a sudden domestic violence allegations would drop tremendously!
Repeal current gun restrictions and they'd drop even further.
Government has caused these problems and more government isn't going to fix them....
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us