An example of people's stupidity?

Dreamer said:

You are correct. Women don't belong in combat. In fact, we shouldn't allow them to purchase, possess, own or carry firearms EVER. I mean, we wouldn't want some woman to be brainwashed by commie feminists into thinking she could effectively defend herself against a rapist with a Glock, Sig or KelTek in some dark parking lot, because she may find herself in a situation where she would be in combat with a criminal.

Better she just lays down and take it, like a "real woman", huh?


...and the horse you rode in on...

Click to expand...

Women having firearms to defend themselves is a totally different issue than the one of sending your women to fight wars for you.

Changing the subject is a typical, and very weak disinformation tactic. As is being incredulous, using a straw man argument, and just about everything else you've attempted.

Gil223 said:

Women have at least one advantage over men in a HTH combat situation... a knee to the groin won't incapacitiate them for several minutes! Pax...

Click to expand...

Actually it will, but this is a good indication of the level of ignorance and misinformation being spewed in this thread.

Here's the best question to fit this thread. WHAT KIND OF MAN would put his women on the front lines of a war? If women are busy fighting wars, who raises the children? This is a very clear feminist agenda to destroy the family unit, and take mothers away from their children. It's a Brave New World, and the state will do a wonderful job of raising them, I'm sure! Oh wait, what's brave about sending women to fight your wars? RIGHT.....

XD9mmFMJ said:

Women having firearms to defend themselves is a totally different issue than the one of sending your women to fight wars for you.

Changing the subject is a typical, and very weak disinformation tactic. As is being incredulous, using a straw man argument, and just about everything else you've attempted.

Click to expand...

Its about as bad as claiming women are incapable of military service or killing someone. Maybe you could show some evidence of where a military with women in it lost to every male only military.

Daylen said:

Its about as bad as claiming women are incapable of military service or killing someone. Maybe you could show some evidence of where a military with women in it lost to every male only military.

Click to expand...

Like in Vientman, where the VC (with women) were soundly trounced by the US military---NOT...

Or maybe he is referring to the Seige of Stalingrad, where the Nazis solidly defeated the Soviets (who used female snipers)---NOT...

Oh, I know, maybe he means the American Revolution, where the British absolutely demolished the Colonists (who had women in guerilla combat positions, and used them as spies)---NOT...

Or maybe he's thinking of the French Resistance (who made EXTENSIVE use of women as assassins, guerillas and spies) during WWII, that was absolutely eradicated by the Third Reich---NOT...

Don't get me wrong--I don't WANT women in combat--any more than I want men in combat in the "wars" we are fighting now--which are based on lies, motivated by the fever-dreams of sociopathic oligarchs, and are nothing more than State-sponsored blood sacrifices to Mammon.

But if a woman wants to defend her country, and is physically and mentally capable of doing so, then she has a fundamental human right to pursue that endeavor. To deny her that honor is nothing more than a sexist act of domination, reducing women once again to chattel...

1. While I would prefer to never "force" a woman into a combat role, if it is her choice and she can hack it, more power to her.

2. "Communal showers"? Let me clue you in on what one of my female soldiers told me, "Sarge, if we get hit with nerve agent and have to go through decon, I will damn sure wash your back and beg you to wash mine!" She, and many of her fellow soldiers of both genders, had enough common sense to realize that, under those conditions, sex would not be a consideration. As far as that goes, even when I was a lot younger, it would not have bothered me to share a shower and I assure you that I still have quite an appreciation for the females of our species. In Europe, it is quite common to share saunas and steam rooms with different genders and age groups.

3. A properly trained and conditioned soldier, or cop for that matter, should be able to function at a level very close to that of a properly trained and conditioned male. The biggest shortcoming that women have is in the area of upper body strength and, even then, many of them will surprise you.

4. Back during WWII, the deadliest snipers the Soviets had were mostly women. They lived and fought on the front lines just like the men, not as a "communist" thing, but as a strong desire to see their nation free of the Nazi menace.

5. As far as "allowing" or "forbidding" a woman anything or having a "proprietary interest" in a woman, I would suggest to any American man that such an attitude is more at home in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia than it is in the United States of America.

Daylen said:

Its about as bad as claiming women are incapable of military service or killing someone. Maybe you could show some evidence of where a military with women in it lost to every male only military.

Click to expand...

Again, it's got nothing to do with women losing to men. Just keep going around in circles. You have proved you have an agenda, and are not worthy of any responses.

I'll say it again. What kind of man will put their women on the front lines of a war? The answer is obvious. Cowards.

Back to the original post...

I don't care what the LEO's gender may be, this is what I want and expect for ANY Peace Officer, Police-PERSON, Deputy, or Sheriff....

I expect them to know the Constitution and the law they are enforcing (if a question exists--- learn about it) and recognize the limits it places upon them in the performance of their chosen occupation. I expect them to fairly enforce the law---- no matter the color, creed, race, gender, etc of the person the are interacting with. I expect them to remember that even though only 5% of the population may take up 95% of their time.... sometimes, or many times, they are not dealing with a criminal, but rather one who happened to MAYBE have committed an infraction or none at all-- that sometime will be taken up with the other 95%.
I want the Leo to remember that it is NOT an US vs Them scenario when they are dealing with a person who happens to be well versed in the Constitution of our Country and the State in which we reside. I fully recognize that our Constitutionally protected rights do make the Leo's job more difficult ( They were supposed to know this before they got the job and need to just deal with it!). I am not willing to Give up my rights just because....

If I am approached by an officer, I will be polite. I will attempt to protect my rights in a lawful manner and I expect them to be recognized!

I almost feel like this should have been in its own thread... but here it is. I hope it make sense in the manner in which I intended!

XD9mmFMJ said:

I'll say it again. What kind of man will put their women on the front lines of a war? The answer is obvious. Cowards.

Click to expand...

I would feel safer and more confident of victory having a woman like Lyudmila Mikhailivna Pavlichenko, Margaret Phelan Taylor, or Violette Szabo at my side in the trenches


COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: Personal attacks going both ways

Dreamer said:

I would feel safer and more confident of victory having a woman like Lyudmila Mikhailivna Pavlichenko, Margaret Phelan Taylor, or Violette Szabo at my side in the trenches than some chest-thumping, keyboard commando, misogynist like you, any day of the week...

Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!!

SFCRetired said:

"Feminist propaganda"? I served with a succession of female soldiers who were every bit as good, and in some cases better, as their male counterparts. I still remember one young woman who just barely met the minimum height standards and who barely weighed a hundred pounds soaking wet. She worked her male counterparts into the ground and was still going strong.

She could also put those male counterparts, all of whom were taller and heavier, on the ground and out cold. You did not want the girl to get ticked at you. If she had been faced with dragging someone from a burning car, I have no doubt that she would have done it.

Had we ever been faced with combat, I would have wanted her watching my back as I would have watched hers. She was a great soldier.

The other side of the coin is that, off-duty, she was one of the more feminine women I ever met.

Click to expand...

Back in the early 70s I knew three women who had proffessions that were considered MENS work. They were all intelligent and good looking. One was an electrician, one was a plumber and the third knew an awful lot about cars and such. All of them were confident, independent and sure of their abilities. The third (Cars) taught me a great deal about them. She could put on some coveralls, crawl around the engine and underneath the car (truck) get all greasy BUT: when evening came she would wash the grease off, paint her nails, put some perfume behind her ears and go out to dinner with me. I would hold doors open for her, hold her chair and even taste the wine when it was poured (AS IF I knew what the hell I was doing) and nod to the waiter. She would even smile when I did all of this. Point is that she was VERY CAPABLE. She didn't act as though her abilities were being question. She knew Danged well what her abilities were and if anyone did question them they would full well be put in their place. She could do (what was considered) the man stuff and still be a LADY. SHE was a FEMINEST in the truest sense of the word.

XD9mmFMJ said:

I would rather have a real man in the trenches with me than some light in the loafers fluoridated commie feminist coward like you any day. You're the type that would make the women run at the enemy, then shoot them if they tried to come back while you hide and quiver.

Click to expand...

Please read the forum rules, specifically:

• (6) NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: While you may disagree strongly with another poster based upon their opinion, we will NOT tolerate any personal attacks or general bashing of groups of people based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity or choice of occupation (e.g., being a law enforcement officer, in the military, etc). NOTE THAT THIS RULE APPLIES TO PMs AS WELL AS FORUM !

P

XD9mmFMJ said:

I'm not the one "putting" women anywhere. Women who are not propagandized by feminist communist propaganda did indeed make their own choices, and most of them chose to fulfill a woman's role. You obviously don't recognize any of your brainwashing, or you wouldn't bother arguing.

Who are we supposed to trust to "put" women somewhere? Why can't women make their own choices WITHOUT being programmed by the mass media, entertainment industry, etc? I don't need anyone else to determine which of us is more likely to be brainwashed. Being free of programming makes it easy for me to see that it is you. The fluoride has softened you up so much, you'll never recognize any truths.

Click to expand...

This is like trying to tell a North Korean that THEY'RE the one being bamboozled. No matter how you try to explain it, you will always be the imperialist American blindly following your filthy capitalist leader without a clue, therefore all the stories you tell about the oppression of North Koreans are all lies.

Xd9mmFMJ: I'll use small words so it will be easier to understand.....

PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN BRAINWASHED DON'T HAVE A CLUE THAT THEY'RE BRAINWASHED. HENCE: THIS IS THE ENTIRE DEFINITION OF BRAINWASHED.

However, here are some easy, EASY, clues that enable a person to tell:

1) Do you find yourself single handedly arguing against multiple adversaries?

2) Does the thought never occur to you that all these hundreds of people are too stupid to realize the simple truth?

3) Have you ever wondered WHY you are the only one who can see the truth?

4) Do you refuse to let third parties mediate in disagreements?

5) Have you ever wondered WHY you refuse to let third parties mediate?

Folks who have been brainwashed MUST maintain their own brainwashing at all costs. It requires unflinching devotion that THEY are unquestionably right. Any evidence to the contrary has to be explained away. The fact that everyone seems to disagree with you is easy: everyone who does is brainwashed. Strange that you're the only one who can see it, huh?

The reason why those who are brainwashed MUST maintain it themselves?

Several reasons:

1) EGO. Do you know how embarrassing it would be to discover that a core belief you've held for a majority of your life has been WRONG the entire time?

2) COMFORT. Do you know how hard it would be to adjust other beliefs based on the realization that you have been wrong?

3) IMPOSSIBILITY. The result of being wrong would entail results that are too catastrophic. WORLD SHATTERING.

You see? It's much easier to simply maintain a delusional world view. Everyone else is wrong contrary to any mounting piles of evidence such as YOU are the only one who is right and all the other hundreds of people are wrong. THEY'RE all against you. THEY'RE all brainwashed.

You see, I have examined the consequences of my being wrong. Is it possible? What would the results be? Honestly? Sure. It's possible that I could be wrong. The outcome wouldn't be too devastating. I'd have to start telling my girlfriend things she is and isn't allowed to do. I'd have to start entertaining the idea that it's my job to decide where they get put and how they conduct themselves. It's not too embarrassing for me to admit that I've been wrong and have been carelessly allowing women to decide their own fates without my guidance all this time.

...but the simple fact that I do examine my world beliefs, I do wonder what the consequencces would be is evidence enough (for me) that I am not the one brainwashed. The fact that I don't believe everyone else here is ignorant and the fact I'm willing to release my grasp of the argument for others to determine the outcome are all good signs that I am not brainwashed.

The fact that you are dismissing this entire post as the ranting of a brainwashed fool should stand out as a beacon to your brainwashing detector.

But, of course it doesn't. That realization would be entirely too world shattering.

I'm female and I do "men's work" LOL. But even I know my limitations vs a typical man. I can't lift an 80 pound bag of salt, but most men can. I once showed myself even in stength to one man, but does he really count? He was a bit of a pansy metrosexual who didn't do much in the way of lifting, carrying heavy things, working out, etc. I CAN lift and carry 50 pounds, and can drag the 80 pound bag or the dead 55 pound beaver and 18 pound river otter on a snow sled. However I think most men could have their way with me by use of brute force. This is why I like handgun carry. It doesn't matter if I am "butch-ish", outdoorsy, fat enough to slam myself down on you and squish your face, carry heavy dead animals around ( slap you in the face with a skunk carcass?), whatever, most men could overpower me. I'd have to be well trained in unarmed defense techniques-aka certain martial arts, which I am not ( and even the woman murdered on the Appalachian Trail who knew martial arts was still overpowered by her killer- the man even said she fought really hard). Female cops do get training in this area, however, what if she is alone and some 300 pound 6"6" muscle hulk man decided to take her on? She can't resort to deadly force until he is already on her and she realizes her predicament. It could be too late by then.

I see it over and over regarding women carrying guns. It's touted as an equalizer against even the strongest biggest man ( you would have to have a .44 mag with hot loads or shoot him through the brain stem if he is truly a raging behemoth full of meth, crazy, adrenaline...). Why is this? Is it due to most women not being near as strong as men? I mean many women can't even pull the slide back on a semi auto, opt for revolvers, or they do hand/ wrist exersizes to strenghthen that area so they can use the semi auto. Women aren't exactly encouraged by society to be bodybuilder muscle babes. Women can be cruel, esp girls, regarding this. If you are large boned and farmgirl-ish ( such as being strong and muscled) you get called a dyke and made fun of in high school.

XD9mmFMJ said:

WHAT KIND OF MAN would put his women on the front lines of a war?

Click to expand...

First off, women are not possessions.
People who force anyone to do something they wouldn't are cowards.
People who accept that there are things that don't require a penis are realists.

The most competent person should do the job, & if a person is competent s/he should have an equal chance at being chosen/hired, no matter the job, plumbing, color, attraction, etc.

Plenty of things currently considered front lines for the US military don't involve hand-to-hand combat, which is admittedly something that most men can do better than most women, due to brute strength.
(The one place women generally excel is in leg strength, 'cause we have more pelvic bone to anchor the muscles. When I was in grade school & my brother was in high school, I won leg-wrestling contests against several of his friends & almost beat him. They were surprised to go rolling away. )

Shooting skills don't require much strength, unless you're talking about packing a large heavy rifle into someplace to set up for sniping.

If women are busy fighting wars, who raises the children?

Click to expand...

Fathers? Grandparents? Other relatives?
You're saying that dads can't care for kids just 'cause they have external genitalia?
How sexist.
Besides, not every woman (in the military or out) has kids.
And there are plenty of dual-soldier households in the USA where the kids are in care of another relative.

XD40coyote said:

I know my limitations vs a typical man... most men could overpower me.

Click to expand...

+1, but they're likely to be injured in the process, even if I'm not armed.
As long as I can get out from under the body I'll be OK...

Women aren't exactly encouraged by society to be bodybuilder muscle babes.

Click to expand...

It's really hard for a woman to bulk up, but getting strong & toned won't make a woman look mannish.
I chuckle at some of the 20-ish guys trying to show off at the gym. Most of the lower body weight machines (& a couple of the upper body ones) I move to a heavier weight if I'm following them around the circuit.
(The guys who are serious body builders I can't come close to what they can do & I know it.)

XD9mmFMJ said:

I'll say it again. What kind of man will put their women on the front lines of a war? The answer is obvious. Cowards.

Click to expand...

This argument isn't about putting women in combat, it's about giving them the choice. Not "putting" them anywhere or forcing them to do anything as you seem to be the expert on where they should be, let's get rid of their other rights while we're at it.

XD40coyote said:

I'm female and I do "men's work" LOL. But even I know my limitations vs a typical man. I can't lift an 80 pound bag of salt, but most men can. I once showed myself even in stength to one man, but does he really count? He was a bit of a pansy metrosexual who didn't do much in the way of lifting, carrying heavy things, working out, etc. I CAN lift and carry 50 pounds, and can drag the 80 pound bag or the dead 55 pound beaver and 18 pound river otter on a snow sled. However I think most men could have their way with me by use of brute force. This is why I like handgun carry. It doesn't matter if I am "butch-ish", outdoorsy, fat enough to slam myself down on you and squish your face, carry heavy dead animals around ( slap you in the face with a skunk carcass?), whatever, most men could overpower me. I'd have to be well trained in unarmed defense techniques-aka certain martial arts, which I am not ( and even the woman murdered on the Appalachian Trail who knew martial arts was still overpowered by her killer- the man even said she fought really hard). Female cops do get training in this area, however, what if she is alone and some 300 pound 6"6" muscle hulk man decided to take her on? She can't resort to deadly force until he is already on her and she realizes her predicament. It could be too late by then.

I see it over and over regarding women carrying guns. It's touted as an equalizer against even the strongest biggest man ( you would have to have a .44 mag with hot loads or shoot him through the brain stem if he is truly a raging behemoth full of meth, crazy, adrenaline...). Why is this? Is it due to most women not being near as strong as men? I mean many women can't even pull the slide back on a semi auto, opt for revolvers, or they do hand/ wrist exersizes to strenghthen that area so they can use the semi auto. Women aren't exactly encouraged by society to be bodybuilder muscle babes. Women can be cruel, esp girls, regarding this. If you are large boned and farmgirl-ish ( such as being strong and muscled) you get called a dyke and made fun of in high school.

Click to expand...

To illustrate your point...

When I was a 16, attending a college that had a high rape count, I enrolled in a Haganah fight class. Loved it, loved it, loved it! It was more adaptable than traditional martial arts, and we trained in removing weapons from assailants. I quickly rose to become the second best in the class.

At the time I was 5"4, 120 lbs soaking wet with rocks in my pocket. One night we had a new student show up; he was at 6" something and by my guesstimate, well into the 200+lbs. Massive, muscly man!

That night we were practicing tackle rolls. Someone charges you, you fall back and roll them with you so you end up straddling their chest and give a quick strike to the throat.
The guy was new, so our instructor chose me to work with him. I had just stepped into line when this man charged me like a steam train. He crossed the floor so fast that the next thing I knew I was making a hole in the wall, and only came to after they carried me off the training floor.

Even if I had been 100% ready for this guy, it's highly unlikely I would have been able to roll him, or effectively use any of my other training. It was very eye opening, and I realized I needed other means of defense in case hand to hand would not be enough.

We women are the weaker sex; I'm not ashamed of it, that's just how it is. We don't need to be stronger; just need to be smarter

PistolPackingMomma said:

To illustrate your point...

When I was a 16, attending a college that had a high rape count, I enrolled in a Haganah fight class. Loved it, loved it, loved it! It was more adaptable than traditional martial arts, and we trained in removing weapons from assailants. I quickly rose to become the second best in the class.

At the time I was 5"4, 120 lbs soaking wet with rocks in my pocket. One night we had a new student show up; he was at 6" something and by my guesstimate, well into the 200+lbs. Massive, muscly man!

That night we were practicing tackle rolls. Someone charges you, you fall back and roll them with you so you end up straddling their chest and give a quick strike to the throat.
The guy was new, so our instructor chose me to work with him. I had just stepped into line when this man charged me like a steam train. He crossed the floor so fast that the next thing I knew I was making a hole in the wall, and only came to after they carried me off the training floor.

Even if I had been 100% ready for this guy, it's highly unlikely I would have been able to roll him, or effectively use any of my other training. It was very eye opening, and I realized I needed other means of defense in case hand to hand would not be enough.

We women are the weaker sex; I'm not ashamed of it, that's just how it is. We don't need to be stronger; just need to be smarter

Click to expand...

There are plenty of guys with only small soft muscles that have the same thing happen in such situations; at least you have a darn good biological excuse.

Daylen said:

There are plenty of guys with only small soft muscles that have the same thing happen in such situations; at least you have a darn good biological excuse.

Click to expand...

I hope you said that with an Arnold voice.

marshaul said:

I hope you said that with an Arnold voice.

Click to expand...

No, I only say "girly-men" in an Arnold voice.