ruinedchildhood

the-goddamazon:

lancrebitch:

crunchierkatie:

i love seeing girls close ranks when their fella is cheating, instead of defending him and attacking the other girls. like seriously. it warms my cold, cold heart so much. 

i need the rest of this story, where did you put the body

I’ve always wanted to do this. I hope they all went out for ice cream later too.

Wait, wait wait. QUESTION! Did these other two girls (definitely not mature enough to call women from what I can see) KNOW what was going on? Wanna bet they did?

firstdegreeliberty

armedandgayngerous:

45-70govt:

Red Dawn showing the use of a gun registry for confiscation during occupation. 

This just in: registration is a national security risk.

Fun historical fact - when the Nazis rolled over Europe, they would immediately go to the town hall of every community they seized; where the records of firearm owners were kept. From there; SS squads would be deployed to every registered owner; whom would have the choice - surrender all firearms or die then and there.

Funny, how the gun grabbers like to ignore that little tidbit of history.  Perhaps because they want to see it happen again?

roseofbattle
keithboykin:

When Utah residents saw 22-year-old Darrien Hunt carrying a toy sword, they called police who shot and killed him. But when 22-year-old Joseph Kelley carried an assault rifle to a JC Penney store in Utah, he walked out without a scratch on his body. They were both the same age. Both in the same state. But only one was considered “suspicious.” And you still believe America is color blind?

The pic is blurry, but if the ‘assault rifle’ on the right is what I think it is (im leaning towards an AR15 variant witha red dot sight), then the fact of the matter is that firearm is worth more then (presumably) everything the other individual is wearing.  In other words, the fellow has to actually fuckin work for a living to afford the licensing, training, the firearm itself, the accessories ON the firearm never mind the ammunition — NOT a cheap undertaking. That firearm as seen could easily be $2000 — or MORE. MUCH MORE. (To be strictly fair, given how blurry the pic is it could also be an imitation/toy; but we will assume it is real.) I also made a point of looking at both stories. The story about the shot man was rather contradictory (aside of it being pretty clear the fellow was fleeing from the law and got shot for it) - but the story of the white man made it clear that while he was rather well armed, he also did NOTHING AGGRESSIVE; with plenty of film evidence and eyewitnesses to corroborate. (I should also note the utter lack of education about firearms both from the whiner and from the news ‘reporter’. “Assault’ is an action, and even when applied to firearms it refers specifically to military-issue items of which this firearm is not; further other nomenclature such as ‘clips’ are incorrect’.)  Funnily enough, the last woman was very much correct - the act of simply carrying a firearm DOES make a person a potential target; both from criminals and from those whom would deny the right of self protection. BTW, Im not up on Utah law, but is it legal to be carrying a sword - real or not - in public? Yes, I get the original poster is trying to make this a race issue. I say, fuck that, calling out the other issue of the matter. Perhaps, instead of a fake sword, if the black fellow had been carrying a legal firearm he might not of had any trouble - especially if he hadnt been fleeing.

keithboykin:

When Utah residents saw 22-year-old Darrien Hunt carrying a toy sword, they called police who shot and killed him. But when 22-year-old Joseph Kelley carried an assault rifle to a JC Penney store in Utah, he walked out without a scratch on his body. They were both the same age. Both in the same state. But only one was considered “suspicious.” And you still believe America is color blind?

The pic is blurry, but if the ‘assault rifle’ on the right is what I think it is (im leaning towards an AR15 variant witha red dot sight), then the fact of the matter is that firearm is worth more then (presumably) everything the other individual is wearing.  In other words, the fellow has to actually fuckin work for a living to afford the licensing, training, the firearm itself, the accessories ON the firearm never mind the ammunition — NOT a cheap undertaking. That firearm as seen could easily be $2000 — or MORE. MUCH MORE. (To be strictly fair, given how blurry the pic is it could also be an imitation/toy; but we will assume it is real.)

I also made a point of looking at both stories. The story about the shot man was rather contradictory (aside of it being pretty clear the fellow was fleeing from the law and got shot for it) - but the story of the white man made it clear that while he was rather well armed, he also did NOTHING AGGRESSIVE; with plenty of film evidence and eyewitnesses to corroborate. (I should also note the utter lack of education about firearms both from the whiner and from the news ‘reporter’. “Assault’ is an action, and even when applied to firearms it refers specifically to military-issue items of which this firearm is not; further other nomenclature such as ‘clips’ are incorrect’.)  Funnily enough, the last woman was very much correct - the act of simply carrying a firearm DOES make a person a potential target; both from criminals and from those whom would deny the right of self protection.

BTW, Im not up on Utah law, but is it legal to be carrying a sword - real or not - in public?

Yes, I get the original poster is trying to make this a race issue. I say, fuck that, calling out the other issue of the matter. Perhaps, instead of a fake sword, if the black fellow had been carrying a legal firearm he might not of had any trouble - especially if he hadnt been fleeing.

siryouarebeingmocked

siryouarebeingmocked:

SYABM #comic 05: “Anita Sisyphean”

Anita: “Also, because it’s a woman.”
SYABM (distantly): “A-ha!”

For the sake of humor, this comic pretends that a) Anita actually knows about the first two examples, and b) would ever actually acknowledge them if she did, instead of waiting for one of her bootlickers to make a video with crappy logic explaining it away.

The first two games were on the PS2, which didn’t even have Trophies, and when they were released as part of the God of War Collection, they also got Trophies for the incidents in question.* And yet, people complained so hard that Sony vowed never to depict “violence against women” in a GOW game ever again only after a pretty human woman was killed. She isn’t even the first sentient female being he murder-raeged to death in the series. Oddly enough, Anita didn’t mention those little facts.**

Incidentally, God of War 3 also has a trophy for kicking enough Cerberus puppies. I suppose that means it also encourages animal cruelty.

—+—

* In the first game, you drag a dude in a cage to a platform, then pull a lever, which burns him alive. In the second, you find a guy who can read an ancient text written in stone, drag him to it, smash his face into it until he reads it, sacrifice him, and then do it again with the second guy. In the third game, the woman gets crushed in some mechanisms after Kratos forces her to “assist” him.

Which, assuming it’s meant to be an escalation, implies that killing one innocent women is supposed to be worse than murdering two innocent men.

[sarcasm]Because women are so disposable.[/sarcasm]
** Come to think, she doesn’t mention Athena, either, or the Fates, or Gaia, when she’s making her generalizations about the women in the series in the “Background Decoration” videos. Weird, huh?

No surprise from that delusional sexist psycho.