It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberal Media - Stop Embarrassing Yourselves

page: 19
39
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: jacquesdarippa

originally posted by: JinMI

Yes. Your wife will need collateral, perhaps testicular in nature, that can be kept in the safe in the absence of your firearm. You'll need to get a copy of your man card and fill out the forms with the date you intend to shoot said firearm and turn it in to her promptly.

After the forms are filled out, there will be a waiting period while she consults with her friends to determine if the begging was ample.

Godspeed Carewemust.


Doesn't a man who feels the need to be armed at all times already have his testicles in a safe somewhere?..


I'm not active military nor a vet. Perhaps one could answer your question much better than I could.





Oh come now , that was a simple statement and not relative to military personnel, we know you don't carry a weapon everywhere as you were just sexually assaulted and clearly would not have been if you were carrying a weapon.




posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Damn! Triple threat.

I was assaulted when I was very young. However, on the topic, I wanted to highlight the absurdity of the statement with related hyperbole.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Sorry no offense meant....


Absurdity and hyperbole are not going anywhere anytime soon by the looks of things.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

None taken.


No, they are indeed not.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Well the difference between military and LEO's and the average man, they are in constant danger or in a war zone. The average man who feels the need to be armed at all times is just afraid of whatever boogeyman they can think of.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Airplanes (9/11) and bombs (Oklahoma City)
In 2016 in France, a man even killed 84 people by plowing through crowds with a truck.
Once someone’s mind is set on murder, there is no simple fix.
Gun control isn’t the fix for mass murders.
If you want gun control so badly, move to the South Side of Chicago where it already exists and leave all of us law-abiding gun owners alone.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacquesdarippa
a reply to: JinMI

Well the difference between military and LEO's and the average man, they are in constant danger or in a war zone. The average man who feels the need to be armed at all times is just afraid of whatever boogeyman they can think of.



A man who needs to rely on another man to protect and care for him is considered weak...in some circles.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: jacquesdarippa




Doesn't a man who feels the need to be armed at all times already have his testicles in a safe somewhere?..


Ask the women since they are the fastest growing segment of the gun owning population.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI


A man who needs to rely on another man to protect and care for him is considered weak...in some circles.


Well the fact I walk around unarmed and with no bodyguards/police by my side at all times must make me Superman. LOL



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: jacquesdarippa




Doesn't a man who feels the need to be armed at all times already have his testicles in a safe somewhere?..


Ask the women since they are the fastest growing segment of the gun owning population.


Well there are people out there who view women as a more vulnerable target than men, so it makes sense they would want to be armed.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: jacquesdarippa

Depends on your actions should you be faced with a threat I suppose.

I hope it never happens to you or yours.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: jacquesdarippa




Doesn't a man who feels the need to be armed at all times already have his testicles in a safe somewhere?..


Ask the women since they are the fastest growing segment of the gun owning population.





Also the fastest growing segment of the population that keep balls in a safe.



posted on Nov, 10 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Or purse, depending on the marriage contract and state.
edit on 10 11 17 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 03:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
What does it mean when the OP calls a group out for poor investigating but it turns out that the item in question actually exists and they didn't bother to investigate before posting?


Some of the replies are just driving the OP's point home. It wasn't that he didn't know that "chainsaw bayonets" were really "a thing". It's that no responsible gun owner would even take having one seriously.

A chainsaw bayonet is to an AR-15, what a fake cell phone antenna was to a 1990 Cadillac Sedan DeVille.

Who the f*** gives a s**t? Idiots do.

They are a gag item. They are so absurd as to be entertaining.

Good lord... even having to explain this is stupid.
edit on 11-11-2017 by dasman888 because: gerbils



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dasman888

Well, we know that it is a gag item, so you thinking that you have to explain that is just as stupid.

What we are trying to point out is that the image in that article isn't straight from Newsweek but from a pro-gun author that used it to make a joke about it on twitter.

The video from newsweek, from which that image was taken, made it clear that they included common and "rare" mods which is pretty straight forward and shouldn't need further explanation.
edit on 11-11-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Can you say the same for the OP?


Actually the op is right... From the whole "Trump/Russia collusion" which you and many others ate up even when there was no evidence. Not to mention that wikileaks and DNC leaks showed that the DNC was being controlled by Hillary, which many of you wanted to dismiss and now it has been proven to be true.

Not to mention the fact that wikileaks and DNC leaks also showed that Hillary, through the DNC, made agreements with reporters from various left-wing media, and these reporters and media outlets allowed Hillary to know and prepare for the questions she would be asked by reporters, meanwhile they set up other candidates to fail. That was one of the true "collusion between the DNC/Hillary and the media" that the media and many in the left denied yet today it is known to be true.

Meanwhile that same left-wing media, and many in the left, ate up the false claims about "President Trump colluding with Russia and the claim that he was a puppet of Russia"... But yet again the left-wing media and many people in the left ignored the real collusion that Hillary and Obama had with the Russians through, for example, the Uranium deal meanwhile the Russians gave money to the Clinton foundation.

Several of us were even pointing out how Comey, and the second in command of the FBI were goons of Hillary/Obama, and even with evidence supporting this argument a lot of you in the left in these same forums decided to ignore or even deny this.

Try after try the left-wing media kept making false claims trying to stick something on President Trump, and look at where we are now...

If Hillary had won, like many in here wanted, the facts would have been lost and more "fake news" would have been accepted without any supporting evidence.

edit on 11-11-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse




If Hillary had won, like many in here wanted, the facts would have been lost and more "fake news" would have been accepted without any supporting evidence.


If Sanders had won, like many here wanted, we still would have this discussion. Hillary has nothing to do with this. You're either in the wrong thread or just talking out of your arse again, kinda hard to figure which is which.



posted on Nov, 12 2017 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: jacquesdarippa

Really?

Tell that to those of us who've used a gun to stop either a crime in progress, or that was about to begin.

The world can be, and is, a dangerous place at times. It behooves a person to have tools at hand to deal with whatever comes along.

A chainsaw, if a tree comes down in your yard. A hammer, and various other tools, to fix whatever it might have fallen on.

A gun for a stranger on the porch, for not all strangers on the porch are of benign intent. Mine certainly wasn't. I have repeated thanked Providence that I didn't have to shoot him, had he continued with his intended plan which was to break into my house. Had he, I probably would have been forced to shoot him, as he was armed. Fortunately, he decided that confronting someone better armed than he was was not conducive to continued good health and left--leaving behind his sledge hammer. Win/win, for me. I didn't have to shoot anyone (which is fantastic, by the bye), and I got a big ol' sledge hammer for free.

As a result of that incident, and getting cut in a mugging (bastard) a few years later, I carry legally. Fear is a survival tool. Fear is that little voice in the back of your head that, if harnessed, can be as valuable as any weapon. I've learned to trust my little voice over my fifty plus years on this good earth.

As I said, the world can, and is, be a dangerous place. That you've had the good fortune not to have that pointed out to you by experience is a wonderful thing. I hope it continues for you.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join