All Women Hate Guns
Guns are awesome. In fact, a gun is the manliest thing there is.
I take that back. The manliest thing there is would be a hot car or some kind of super motorcycle with guns attached to it. In that case, it’s a case of chicken and egg. Is the car manlier because of the guns or are the guns manlier because of the car? What about a tank? Where does it play into this manly game?
Wherever the fuck it wants. It’s a tank.
All men like guns and think they’re the greatest thing that has ever happened to man-humanity. Did you know that without guns 99% of people would be slaves? Guns ended slavery and that’s 100% true.
Before the invention of the gun, mankind lived in a feudal society. I have seen the film Braveheart many times and I become more and more certain each time I see it that feudal life was fucked. You can thank guns for the end of that dicketry.
As a man, it is only natural you thank things for what they’ve done for you. If you were a woman, you would have to figure out some way to have sex with the invention of the gun. That’s the only way women show their gratitude: lackluster sex.
Oh wait, I’m just kidding because all women hate guns and would never thank them.
Like most everything that’s good for them, women hate guns. It could be because they’re loud. Women hate loud things don’t they? Things like fun parties, and football games, and little yappy, worthless dogs that give them an excuse to refer to themselves as “mommy” about six years too soon. No, that can’t be it. Maybe women hate guns because they’re complicated — guns mind you. Not women. Women are as simple broken vending machines. No matter what you put into them, you don’t get anything you want.
Guns have moving parts and require care-taking. Recently, I heard a female comedian say vaginas are complicated though, so that’s probably not the reason. I could hear her saying it crystal clear too because no one was laughing.
The truth is that women enjoy being in danger. That’s why they hate guns. Guns are safe so women hate them. It’s logic. Without guns you, me, and everyone in the world would be on constant alert for the Hun Alarm that would jolt us out of bed in the middle of the night and let us eloquently know our whole town was about to get burned to the goddamn ground.
Thank guns and thank your man military that doesn’t happen.
That’s also why women love safety belts so much. Safety belts are dangerous just like guns aren’t. They make women drive like chimpanzees on speed with absolutely no regard for anyone’s personal safety. Have you ever seen a woman drive without a safety belt? No. And you’ve never seen a woman drive worth a shit.
I rest my case.
Related Articles:
October 7th, 2006 at 5:51 am - IP Man-Hash: eab4c21bb6be5
Perhaps that explains why they prefer to date men who beat them so much. Maybe the danger of dying from domestic violence is what attracts them and keeps them in such relationships.
I use the words perhaps and maybe because I do not know for sure. As i am not a woman, I can only guess why a human being would be so stupid.
October 7th, 2006 at 6:27 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Nope, actually trance music is the manliest thing that be. With the Topol truck a hair width second.
October 7th, 2006 at 7:58 am - IP Man-Hash: 80a6050cf69ac
Women hate guns for the same reasons they hate any liberating and equalizing technology and the achieving males that created them. Who knows what the fuck those reasons are, I’m not a female.
Just like how women marry achievers for their money then rape him in divorce court and move in some thug with tats to warp their children for life.
Or, they have an entire gaggle of kids by the thug first, live off welfare and shit jobs until they find some poor naive hardworking man to take care of them.
Either way when you deal with women for anything other than a fuck you end up raped and pillaged.
October 7th, 2006 at 11:21 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
I think you’ve wound up proving Dick’s point. What is a nuclear missile but the biggest gun going? And one mounted on a truck that a pair of chaps can drive around — what could be more manly?
Except maybe this vehicle. Nearly 50 year old design, and still used today. And helps launch one of the biggest projectiles there is. Not great gas mileage though. No airbags, and doesn’t meet California emission standards. I think it’d be safe in most collisions though.
Indeed. It’s as though guns, like phonics and calculators were made by kindly men to help out women… except of course women proved inadept and ungrateful.
-wolfe
October 7th, 2006 at 11:31 am - IP Man-Hash: a8cd80253d019
In a similar fashion men seem to, no they actually, repeatedly, date women who treat them like shit - let’s face it there are a ‘handful’ of ‘good’ men and women still in existence, so why does anyone have to settle for someone who is not a ‘worthy opponent’/'partner in crime’/'dynamic duo material’/etc.
My point being that men are guilty of making the same mistake(s) over and over, choosing the obviously ‘wrong’ mate - why else would you dinks flock to this site to whine and complain [like girls] about how horrible women are and how ‘hard done by’ you lot are.?.?.
So now you’re accusing women of being abusive in way that is equivalent to the male-originated abuse that you berate women for putting up with - I guess you guys are just as much suckers for punishment as the women that you claim get stuck in pathetic holding patterns…not without the ability to escape/take control, but the lack of desire to do so.
“Hello ‘pot’, ‘kettle’ here, you seem more ‘black’ all the time…but I guess monkey-see-monkey-do has always been your m.o. of choice and we women have no reason to expect/hope for you to ever be anything but finger pointing cock-a-doodle-do’s who have always been so intimidated/influenced/swayed by the same t&a you profess to detest yet will fuck nonetheless [not to mention nonethemore than you can muster those pathetic stand-to's you call erections].
October 7th, 2006 at 12:50 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Correction. In retrospective, I meant the Topol’s truck. The Maz.
I find the thought of usage of nuclear weapons abhorrent. I view as the morally correct course of action, nay - obligation, for any half decent human being to disavow any and all orders to launch, ever, if in the position to have received orders in the first place - being an operator of a given launch system (nuc. sub, mobile land based platform, silo, etc.) or having the actual capability of physically transposing the launch order.
In fact, if given the chance I would also attempt, to the best of my abilities, prevention of anyone else from assisting with / going ahead with the launch, that I have any power/control on. Up to and including the extent of capping my comrades in the back of the head. For the love of all that’s sacred and holy, that’ exactly what anyone in the position should do if ever, God forbid, push came to shove. For when the order comes, it is clear these engines of annihilation have failed in their primary purpose
Removing the warheads from the missiles in the first place is not a viable alternative as it would surely implicate knowledge of it transpiring through the elaborate spy networks thus defeating the deterrent purpose of the installations.
Neither is actually instructing people not to launch when ordered, for the very same reasons.
However, one faced with the choice, and half decent human being should refrained from carrying out the launch. This should be self evident to any half decent human being and I’ll not take the time to argue through reason why this is so.
Dispatching further warheads would be but an exacerbation of the crime against humanity that will have begun yet may still be preventable as far as the magnitude of its final consequences are concerned if enough half decent human beings stop for a moment to ponder what abomination they’re about to commence/continue to horrid fruition.
…melodrama complete.
Yes, that tracked behemoth takes the manliness cake.
October 7th, 2006 at 12:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
*primary purpose of reciprocally deterring their use.
October 7th, 2006 at 12:59 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
I view this moral dilemma as akin to the prisoner’s game conundrum.
October 7th, 2006 at 4:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: b79aed6d3efc2
smrtpants you write like you have down syndrome, but being a man (genius from birth) I managed to make out a fraction of what you said.
We men have these things called cocks, fueled by testosterone manufactured in the ballsack. These elements of our being make sex “fun”, something you wouldn’t understand. Which means sometimes we get caught up with fuckwits who don’t deserve our company just because they have a vagina.
And it’s funny how you try to act like we’re dating abusive women then you end your moronic rant by saying we have soft erections. Making your post worthless without anyone even having to shoot it apart.
October 7th, 2006 at 5:08 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0363c503d25ea
guns protect our country. i dont have a problem with them in that sense… but when it comes to killing innocent people. that is when i have a problem with them.
October 7th, 2006 at 7:03 pm - IP Man-Hash: eab4c21bb6be5
oil tankers provide energy for our country. i dont have a problem with them in that sense… but when it comes to oil spills. that is when i have a problem with them.
zomg! did i juss stait de obvee-us?
October 8th, 2006 at 10:47 am - IP Man-Hash: 2f2d948528fdf
so dont men and women overall feel the same about guns; they are good to a certain point?
October 8th, 2006 at 8:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7b7ac5fc27ee1
Sandra, shut the fuck up.
October 8th, 2006 at 8:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
@Sandra — “when it comes to killing innocent people… I have a problem with [guns]“. Yeah, that is honestly kind of asinine. But you seem to be trying to establish a dialog, so I’ll respond. Here is one time in life when cliches are mostly right. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
In one horrible area — school shootings — it appears guns leverage the horror. This imposes a genuine crisis of conscience. What if we had a lot more gun control laws?
Well, sadly, we have the answer: Canada. They have a buttload — a metric buttload to boot — of gun laws. And they’ve had school shooting after school shooting. (Go look on my blog at http://wolfe.mabtw.com for my coverage of the Montreal shootings if you want a complex in-depth analysis of this phenomenon). It turns out evil crazy gunmen manage to get guns by… evil crazy ways! They don’t just shop at Walmart and say “I’d like a gun good for killing lots of poor innocent girls because I’m a scumbag”.
Guns are a reality. Mostly, I think, a good one. Anyone who’s walked through western North America will appreciate that. Those from Europe or other parts; well, they’re entitled to their views. I particularly like the fact that the gun is a great equalizer — it makes it much tougher for a young girl to be raped. 100lb young woman with .357 chambered with .38? The 200lb rapist is going to think twice. Or thrice. And then not at all.
A woman jogging in the west? I’d recommend she consider a .45. Cougars probably won’t kill her.
I think men are better than women. But women are better than cougars. And evil school shooters are worse than pretty much everything.
-wolfe
October 8th, 2006 at 10:17 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Sandra, don’t listen to Wolfe. That very lined he paraphrased is classic NRA textbook drivel. Read this instead and be enlightened as to the truly gruesome nature of your insane gun culture and a society of prevalent and easily accessible firearms as well as other related matters such as the incredibly inane, were it not by design and purpose evil, legislation being pushed by NRA and cronies Inc. both state side and federal.
Oh, and don’t visit Florida unless you’ve got a very good reason, good enough to jeopardise your life for. And be quick about departing once having dealt with whatever matters you had to there.
Wolfe, sorry if I offended with this particular comment. But not really.
October 8th, 2006 at 10:25 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Yeah, you offended me, and you called my words ‘drivel’.
Given that my words are tautological, yeah, I’d say that’s offensive. I’ll let the rest of the men on this site judge your words and mine. I’ve got a reasonable degree of confidence in that judgment, so I shan’t bother attacking yours.
-wolfe
October 8th, 2006 at 10:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Shop at Walmart is EXACTLY what some of them did. Or used to procure them there. Until they found it economically inviable, or not preferable, to keep the shit up opting instead for goods sane to retail.
They also buy them at gun shows through newspaper ads, etc - all ANY background check free. Only when purchasing from federally licensed gun dealers do they need to pass a pathetically meagre .
Anyone can buy a gun in the US. From convicted rapists or pedophiles to mass murderers. Money ain’t got no colour nor smell. Ain’t that the truth for the gun lobby and their beloved industry?
Again, don’t listen to Wolfe. He means well. But is just sohohoho plain wrong and ain’t no way he’ll see the light. It’s what guns do to owners.
October 8th, 2006 at 10:30 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Well. Sorry you have to take offence. You know where I stand. I’m not going to deny it. Ever.
October 8th, 2006 at 10:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
How could I have reacted, you blatantly quoting NRA party line like that. Next you’ll tell me cars and guns are tantamount. Or won’t, because I’ve managed to, predictably, annoy you on the issue again.
Alas. If so it is to be.
October 10th, 2006 at 8:21 pm - IP Man-Hash: bd8fe0c80119e
Guns are tools nothing more and nothing less. Much like emotions, things which women have but cannot understand.
-Strength and Honor-