Toxic masculinity, like assault rifle, are nonsense buzzwords manufactured by the left to vaguely represent things they don’t like but which have no substantive meaning. Not having a meaning allows them to be applied whenever it is convenient, or there isn’t a substantive meaningful word that would do the job.
I like most of the guns in this picture, but grandpa has the wrong idea. That Ma Deuce is way too heavy and unreliable, and full auto is a waste of money. Unless he was trained on it in the service, it’s a really bad idea. With training it’s still a bad idea. That isn’t to say he can’t do what he wants with his money, but there are better choices. Like the submachine gun (or AR pistol, can’t see the receiver very well in this picture) the woman in the center has. Grandma with the Thompson submachine gun though, love it! I’m guessing this picture is from Florida.
I agree those terms get tossed around libtard circles like a blender. But i would consider a rifle with a high capacity magazine an “assault” weapon. Its not used for shooting deer.
No, there are no exceptions to the 2nd amendment, The federal Government cannot decide who is and is not armed.
That said Incorporation doctrine having no written justification in the Federal Constitution, the Federal Constitution is for the Federal government alone not the States. So your state can make a law restricting gun ownership provide the State does not have a similar prohibition, and most all States do have their own equivalent to the 2nd amendment.
@oddbeme Its possible to modify the Constitution including all 27 amendments with the exception: No amendment can modify the State's equal representation in the Senate.
Thus far no Amendment has modified the 2nd amendment. Nor is there a reason to, you just have to get rid of the lawless Federal employee's incorporation doctrine and return the enforcement of the Federal Constitution to the way it written and followed was up until the 1920's.
Then you can amend your state Constitution, as required in nearly all states to outlaw any and all guns. While leaving the rest of us who don't trust lying politicians with a monopoly on force alone.
Shuld someone crazy be allowed to have a gun no Shuld a term that mean nothing real effect that.. no Toxic person shuld not have a gun, been masculin has nothing to do with it
Its just placing exstra words to make it a group issue not a personal issue, and there is no group that can't have a option to do something its a personal person that shuld be block from doing something if they can't handle it
Don't think it will help much, but as I type I'll get better I hope But also need to improve outer languages that none are my native one... but I do try
Just test for mental illness, retest every year, and have in depth criminal and psychiatric background tests every few years.
The gun owner must pay for the tests to own a gun license.
And mandate gun safety and training hours every year to continue to hold the gun.
Have fees from people with more money and more guns be higher, and use the excess to subsidize ongoing training and safety courses for those with a single handgun and less resources.
Kinda with Smoke on this. The govt taxes things that should be duscouraged…like tobacco and alcohol. If you can't afford the licenses or tests, no gun.
@Juxtapose Your healthcare system is globally recognized as the worst in the "developed" world.
American healthcare is literally inferior to some "third world" countries.
But hey, I always love seeing entitled white American men projecting American Exceptionalism.
It always puts a smile on my face to see white men like you fucking up basic facts. Really makes my day brighter - everyone I see is smarter than this, so it makes me grateful. Thanks, bub!
@Juxtapose It is legal to own a gun. It was always allowed. What is controlled is whether or not someone is safe to own such a deadly weapon.
If the government is stopping YOU from owning a firearm, it is not because they are getting involved in a decision. It is because they have identified you as a risk and, for the safety and liberty of other citizens, must act to protect that greater liberty.
You are entitled to freedom. However, that freedom is subject to limitation if it begins to infringe on the freedom of others.
So if the gov't is involving itself in your case, and barring you from owning a gun, it is because you do not meet their standards for ensuring public safety and freedom.
That isn't a government problem. That's a YOU problem.
You would have to be insane to trust the government with regulating lethal force. For fuck sakes they experimented on blacks using syphilis and gave zero fucks and you want to trust these people to hand down edicts to you? If anarchy wasn't worse than government I would be 100% for anarchy.
Our government is openly antagonistic towards us and would enslave us all if it could. Always remember that the government is not your friend, it is a necessary evil and its power should be tightly controlled.
I agree with you in regards to the US government. But getting rid of gun controls is not the same thing at all as the White House signing off racist public health policies.
Having stricter controls on guns is not the same as redlining. Mandating mental health checks for gun owners is not the same as making racially charged drug laws that explicitly target minorities.
I do not trust racist regimes. But gun controls are not those.
You need to learn to differentiate between what you read on Facebook and Parler and what actually happens in your political institutions.
That doesn't change my point at all, you are still trusting openly antagonistic people who want to literally enslave you and mind control you (yes, the CIA has declassified documents where they fully admit to experimenting with mind control using LSD).
Guns are the only thing that stands between us and absolute tyranny. I do not want to give an inch to these tyrants, the Second Amendment is very clear. No infringement!
And back in the colonial days the founding fathers wanted their militia to be able to match a standing army and all the citizens the United States would be part of that militia.
We were never supposed to have a standing army, America is so far off from what the Constitution intended it is shameful.
Gun control has been racist in the US since the Dred Scott decision. It is even more racist now with the taxes levies fines fees surcharges licensing training and lack of contact with the courts or mental health system requirements. These forms are written in the most technical language possible to bar the less privileged or educated from accessing them, and urban schools are generally terrible. Large blue cities have effectively driven gun businesses out, and suburban or rural businesses are not often on urban bus routes. It generally requires the privilege of vehicle ownership, thousands of dollars in training, and a navigator to get the people who need guns the most because of their living situation, which is an unrealistic expectation for urban, typically minority, poor people. The way the background check system works, it flags a person with a similar sounding name as someone who has been incarcerated, which can cost up to 10,000$ to fix, and an attorney is NOT provided in this matter. The sheer number of incarcerated minorities significantly increases the likelihood that a similar sounding name will pop up on a background check. The number of pistol permit clerks for city residents in my area is 1/4 of the number provided for the significantly less populated surrounding areas, almost like they know that poor urban minorities won’t be getting the guns they need to have a greater chance of survival. Thank you for attending my inherent racism of gun laws TED talk
@Juxtapose most people don’t realize it or even think to question whether we were supposed to have a standing army. The constitution worked great as written, the problems started when all the tweaks and adjustments that human nature sought for its own advantage had consequences to other parts.
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
What Girls & Guys Said
4
Opinion
38
Opinion
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
In that photo I bet you not one of those idiots knows how to safely operate, clean or shoot those weapons. What when there's no reason for half of them to have their fingers over the trigger guard in such a way that if they were pushed, shoved or tripped they are going to change their grip and pull the trigger; you can hold the weapon by having your hand behind or ahead of the guard. Besides most responsible gun owners don't poise like dickwads.
As for toxic masculinity - I've never understood the concept. And if masculinity is toxic why isn't femininity or specifically poison-minded feminists toxic?
Not in the picture you have presented. That’s a responsible gun owner and family.
one of the reason for the “toxic masculinity” you are trying to describe here is lack of fathers in the house hood father absence is a cause for gun violence and mental illness. It’s. Not the soul factor but it is part of it
How are they responsible when several of the weapons are pointed at other people. Loaded or not it's rule number one, don't point at anything you don't want to kill
I think all guns laws is violation of the Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
But all gun laws are infringement on our right to bear arms.
But the government still steals that right from us. One way is though registration. Background checks, if you have a felony and countless other ways to keep people from owning weapons.
No because first of all because toxic masculinity is an open term, you can declare anything you don't like as toxic masculinity and therefore what's toxic to some isn't toxic to others. How do you wanna test that?
The problem is though that sounds good even that is kind of subjective because there are no general parameters on how self-confident is allowed to be so that he isn´t called a macho. That´s biggest problem I have all those new up coming terms because mental health on the other side can be also diagnosed by medical procedure.
Then your problem really is with society. It determines subjectively what’s macho or whats cool. And beleive me, I’ve been bitching about BTS for years. What is it? And why?
So we dan disagree on whether something is toxic or not. But masculine or feminine is pretty clearly defined.
I don't like guns at all, and I see no necessity for them whatsoever if your job doesn't actually require you to carry one (ex. security guard, police officer), but a test for something so poorly-defined and controversial wouldn't be a good idea.
Toxic masculinity does not exist. It is just a liberal buzzword. And no, having a penis should not determine if you can own a gun or not. Look at all the psycho women out there who are too crazy to own a gun.
Since the majority of our law enforcement and military would probably fall under the extremely loose and politically left exclusive term of “toxic masculinity” that would be an absolutely catastrophic law, if somehow passed.
You are right about this and I don't really agree with either or. People choose to be toxic. But some people just hate the other sex even people they never even met before
The trouble with weapons is not the ones bought. It is the illegal ones obtained. People are not grasping this extremely important fact. Chicago guns are illegal to posses. yet gun deaths are far higher there. How?
Buying weapons en masse is a product of American Protestant culture, as are modern pupulist sects such as feminists. It has nothing to do with being male or having toxic masculinity, which doesn't even exist except in feminist conspiracy theories.
Since not even the wokiest of the woke wokes can classify "toxic masculinity" in any tangible form, no. That's asinine. Everyone has their own opinion on what "toxic masculinity" represents and it's impossible to quantify.
Toxic Masculinity? The idea that society encourages men to act in self harming ways should be a variable in gun ownership? How exactly would that work?
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
How does that work, I'll take a stab
You are a toxic male if you won't let the Biden boy take your children into their basement with a consent waiver to actions that happen within
Toxic masculinity is not something that can be diagnosed on a person. It’s not exactly a well established mental disorder. This proposal is severely lacking any rational or logical thought.
Yes I know what masculinity is, and I have seen Toxic masculinity being used a lot, but I'm not quite sure why it's used so often or precisely what its applied to. I never hear Toxic femininity referenced, so It made me wonder why masculinity is referenced so often.
Well you know what masculinity is. And you know what toxicity is.
Id say masculinity gets toxic when men feel the need to beat their wives because they never learned to control theor emotions, pr respect women. Ovvi thats the extreme end…
It is a scientific term because the term is commonly used in mainstream psychology.
It's amazing how the same people who promote the hypothesis that is toxic masculinity flip their shit when things are gendered like pink and blue but are a-ok with ascribing every negative trait that exists as uniquely male behavior. As if no woman has a single corrupt bone in her body.
They say it's not meant to be a condemnation of masculinity, do exactly the opposite right in front of us, expect is to take them seriously and unfortunately many people do.
Well let's put it under the fairness test I like to use. If you put the negative connotation in front of something that signifies blackness instead of something that signifies being male, is that okay?
It puts the focus on the person being male and being bad for being male rather than just general shitty behavior which is not exclusive to masculinity.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
Anonymous(36-45)+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(36-45)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
