For help on how to follow a comic title,
The point is that Serena acted like a petulant child when she got caught being coached by her … coach, during the game, to which he admitted. He even admitted that they do it all the time. She broke the rules, then got upset about it. That’s like speeding, getting caught by the cops, and then screaming at the cops that you got caught speeding.
She then smashed her racquet, which is also a punishable offense. So she got tagged for that. And then shortly after that, she verbally abused and slandered the ref. That, again, is against the rules. There is nothing sexist about what the ref did; he was applying the rules to her. Additionally, how is it sexist if she loses to … another woman? He didn’t treat a male opponent better than her; that would be sexist. But he enforced the rules equally between two female competitors.
She was being a spoiled child, and her sense of entitlement because she is who she is is ridiculous. Given that she is normally a very talented athlete, it’s very atypical for her.
As to Hillary? It’s a pretty obscure reference, but illustrates the sense of entitlement.
I wonder if liberals share this belief about firearm owners, and all the legislation that’s been attempted at making criminals out of law-abiding citizens.
Two elements at play here, folks. 1) Trump believes the old adage, “There is no such thing as bad press.” He is ALWAYS on the front page, tip of everyone’s tongue, and he is able to manipulate the direction of the media’s attention simply by firing off a tweet. I’m not passing judgement (good or bad) on it, but he is an expert at commanding the message. .2) His supporters don’t care about what he says or does, as long as the economy is getting better, people feel safer from foreign threats, and they have less government in their lives. His personality, and his … crude behavior is already baked into it. It would literally take him doing a 180 on his election platform (which he has stuck to) for him to sour his supporters. .There’s quite literally nothing the media can say or do that will change the baseline supporters. And given the way Democrats have been behaving, in concert with how the media has been acting, it’s only driving/supporting the WalkAway movement. And it’s proving his point to his supporters. .The only way to truly nullify Trump is to not talk about him. But it’s entirely too cathartic for liberals and the media to rail against anything he’s done, and thus the cycle never stops. Liberals talk about impeachment like it’s some sort of battle cry or rallying call. All that will do is encourage his supporters to show up at mid-terms to prevent Democrats (and Socialists) from taking power. Liberals are feeding right into his narrative.
What the root of the issue, and what people should be focusing on instead of chasing the rabbit, is culture. We glorify firearm violence. We encourage it through our music, through many protests, and even the media sensationalizes it. Ever hear of the phrase, “If it bleeds, it reads?” Look how much news coverage there is for any one mass shooting, and compare it to how much media attention is given to all the inner-city gang shootings. Or how about second-hand smoking deaths. Perhaps intentional poisonings?
All of these other types of deaths kill more people than the rifles you and your ilk are trying to ban.
Daeder, no, we don’t have to do that. The 2A was designed to protect us from the tyranny of an oppressive government. Heller confirmed that the people have the right to bear arms. The founding fathers had just fought against an oppressive government for their liberty, and they did so with firearms. It was firearm control that originally sparked the issue, not taxation on tea.
If you want to see violent crime go up, and death go up, then disarm the populace. If you want to see it go down, allow people to carry. Want proof? Look to Kennesaw, GA. They have had 1 murder in the last 6 years. That’s a pretty impressive history.
Suppressing the rights of people to legally own firearms will only push the ownership underground, just like during Prohibition. If you want an all-out civil war, repealing the 2A is a great way to start it. After all, the 2A is the only right that is employed to protect the other 9.
I would also like to point out how many firearm owners there are compared to how many firearm criminals there are. There are roughly 67 million firearm owners, owning a total of around 320 million firearms, and over 1 trillion rounds. Of those 67,000,000 people, at MOST 9,600 are using them to commit murder. That means .014% of all firearm owners will end up committing homicide with a firearm.
If you want to talk about disproportionate reaction to a problem, this is the very definition of it. You are looking to punish 1/3 of Americans because of the actions of .014% of all firearm owners. And yes, I call it punishing, because you are making it more onerous to own a firearm legally because of something that scares people like you. That’s like saying the neighbor 3 blocks over killed someone in a DUI accident, so you’re no longer allowed to drink alcohol or drive a car. Or taking dinner away from you because your cousin got into a food fight at school.
Let’s also look back to after WW2. You could buy an M1 Garand from Sears for $20. Look back to the 50’s. Kids would bring M1 Carbines, M14’s, etc with them to school and practice shooting. Loading an M1 Garand and an M14 is just as fast as a box magazine from any modern, conventional weapon. But we didn’t have mass shootings then, and our homicide rate by firearm was 2.9, just over half of all other kinds.
Additionally, there are many instances of homicide with a knife. https://ijr.com/2015/12/487774-13-mass-killings-where-no-guns-were-involved/
So saying that taking away firearms will end mass killings, or end homicide (or even make it more difficult), you are incredibly naive (Perfect case: Boston Marathon Bombing). People have been finding more effective means to kill each other throughout our entire species’ history.
Let’s take a look at some numbers. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2011-2015.xlsWe have 13,455 deaths by homicide (murder) in 2015.Of those 13,455, 9,616 were caused by firearm. Of those 9,616, 252 were caused by rifles (you know, the scary ones everyone is trying to ban) Rifles (of any kind) are not the source of the problem. Let’s look at another source of information. https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problemsGangs account for 2,000 homicides per year. most of which are located in large cities. Most of those homicides are committed with firearms (over 90% on average)https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6103a2.htmSo tell me how many of those gang shootings use firearms used through legal channels, and how many would be avoided by making stricter checks. I can assure you, it wouldn’t make any difference.Let’s take an article from a liberal darling: The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html“The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.”Handguns are used to commit more crimes and more murders than any other type, and typically they are used in single-victim crimes. A revolver will kill just as effectively as a semi-automatic pistol. All it takes is one bullet.(continued)
“3) Stupid people doing stupid things in videos are not representative of an entire generation.”
You mean like the mass shootings of a few crazy people are not representative of all firearm owners? Huh… that’s interesting.
Also, JGLARNER, be careful about Assault Weapons; Merriam-Webster just updated their definition. I’d go check it out, because once people find out, I’m sure that percentage of support will downwardly adjust.
Also, “sensible” to many liberals is considered "Infringement’ to Constitutionalists.
Wait wait wait… You’re saying you want the same type of people who screwed over the National Guard vets from their re-enlistment bonuses running our national health care? Yeah, because that doesn’t have “Bad idea” written all over it. Any run-in I’ve had with the government has involved, “You owe us this.” My response, “On what grounds, using what evidence. Y’know, a bill?” Their response: “We don’t owe you that. Pay us.”Sorry, but that system is not okay.
Pretty much exactly what happened. To encourage a behavior, you subsidize it. So what they did was subsidize single motherhood in the spirit of protecting the children; a noble endeavor to be sure. But when practical application came in, what it did was encourage mothers to be single, promiscuous, and fathers to ignore their duties to parents their offspring. Even if there are anecdotal cases of single mothers receiving thousands a month in benefits, that’s symptomatic of a larger problem.
Even if his plan is as nebulous as “they get jobs,” that’s more than our current POTUS has ever tried to do for that community. The current administration, and HRC’s continuation of that administration, believes in more people being placed on government support. That’s the primary crux of the problem. They are voting themselves into a bondage of another sort. And the problem with these shackles is they are invisible and cannot easily be broken.