Do women have the right to guns in the US?

Propaganda tries to present the Goths as a warrior people, but everyone knows that they were merchants ruled by women and priests, they didn’t even have kings. They are the ancestors of the infamous Prussian herd army.
 
Their own historian, Jordan, admitted that the Huns defeated them and threw their miserable remnants on the outskirts of Europe, and the leader committed suicide. Previously, they lived on the site of the Avar Khaganate, but remained only in Prussia
 
All these events were masked by the left-wing swindlers with the concept of "dark ages", about which they supposedly know nothing. They threw out the entire pre-Romanesque and Romanesque periods, several centuries long, from history, and "returned" only after the plague, when bloody Gothic began.
Romania and Austrasia were out of business, they invented that the Merovingians were Germans
 
I'm sorry, I wouldn't be so rude if I knew you were a woman. This is another cost of emancipation, I can't distinguish you on the Internet.

Chuckles, you can't afford to take it any easier on me, because you're already getting your ass kicked. And I OBVIOUSLY don't need it.

It's not "emancipation" that makes you unable to distinguish, fool; it's brain rot.
 
The truth is, regardless of the society or whatever traditional gender roles people adhered to, women have NEVER been the helpless, fluffy little pets Dipshit imagines they were. Life simply doesn't allow for it.

Let's take a look at "traditional female roles" in a pre-industrial society (which would be every society prior to the early 20th century). Cooking, cleaning, birthing and caring for children, right?

So . . . cooking involves cleaning the ash from the fireplace and stove and getting a new fire going. Having food to cook means tending to a kitchen garden every single day for the produce, and feeding and caring for the animals, not to mention having to kill, clean, and dress the animals for cooking. If they're larger animals, you and your husband probably kill and butcher them together, but poultry are a one-person job. Guess who that one person is? Once you've got the larger animal killed and cut into pieces, you have to prep some and hang them in the smokehouse, and brine others for storage for the winter. Then you have to render the fat for use in candles and soap, by boiling it all day long in a pot over a fire. In addition to cooking three meals a day, you ALSO have to can and preserve produce for the winter; that involves boiling all the jars to sanitize them, while also chopping, prepping, and cooking huge amounts of food to put in them.

Dairy? Well, maybe your husband has time to milk the cow/goats in the morning, maybe he doesn't. Depends on what his job is. Either way, you still get to separate off the cream, churn the butter, make the cheese . . .

And then you get to clean the house. You don't have a vacuum cleaner and 409 spray. You get to sweep with a broom, and then scrub the floors and surfaces down by hand with a scrub brush and lye soap, which you made yourself back in the "slaughtering animals" phase. Laundry involves a pot of water heated over a fire, lye soap again, and scrubbing by hands on a washboard. Then you have to hang every piece of laundry on a line out in the sunshine to dry.

Kids? Well, you get to give birth with no hospital, no doctor, and no drugs. Maybe you have a midwife; otherwise, you have whatever family and friends are handy. If you're extremely lucky, you have a female family member who can come stay for the birth and a week or so after the birth to take care of the house and baby while you recover. Then you get to go back to all the above-listed work with a baby in tow.

And that's not even a comprehensive list.
 
The truth is, regardless of the society or whatever traditional gender roles people adhered to, women have NEVER been the helpless, fluffy little pets Dipshit imagines they were. Life simply doesn't allow for it.

Let's take a look at "traditional female roles" in a pre-industrial society (which would be every society prior to the early 20th century). Cooking, cleaning, birthing and caring for children, right?
Actually, this is all nonsense. Semites and Germans have always been matriarchal, to one degree or another, it does not depend on the "industry"
 
So . . . cooking involves cleaning the ash from the fireplace and stove and getting a new fire going. Having food to cook means tending to a kitchen garden every single day for the produce, and feeding and caring for the animals, not to mention having to kill, clean, and dress the animals for cooking. If they're larger animals, you and your husband probably kill and butcher them together, but poultry are a one-person job. Guess who that one person is? Once you've got the larger animal killed and cut into pieces, you have to prep some and hang them in the smokehouse, and brine others for storage for the winter. Then you have to render the fat for use in candles and soap, by boiling it all day long in a pot over a fire. In addition to cooking three meals a day, you ALSO have to can and preserve produce for the winter; that involves boiling all the jars to sanitize them, while also chopping, prepping, and cooking huge amounts of food to put in them.

Many words about nothing. Nobody said that work or slavery is a property of patriarchy. This is war, not slavery. A woman is just better adapted to long-term work, she is hardy. A strong man can show a hundredfold strength in a moment, but he quickly gets tired of the monotonous work.

Although the patriarchal women were also stronger and faster, this can be seen from their dances, there women also show quite complex acrobatics.



But not as complex as men, of course.
 
Last edited:
There are still no women in rodeo. In American football, I also did not see them, although now it has become softer.

In martial arts they are, but most often in "ballet" varieties, in real forms, such as Thai boxing, they are also almost absent and they do not show anything there. They can't hit hard.

In shot throwing, women throw projectiles 2 times less for the same distance. This suggests that they have little of the explosive power inherent in the ancient warriors of non-slave troops.
 
There are still no women in rodeo. In American football, I also did not see them, although now it has become softer.

In martial arts they are, but most often in "ballet" varieties, in real forms, such as Thai boxing, they are also almost absent and they do not show anything there. They can't hit hard.

In shot throwing, women throw projectiles 2 times less for the same distance. This suggests that they have little of the explosive power inherent in the ancient warriors of non-slave troops.

There are women in rodeo. They just have the good sense not to participate in bull riding.

Yes, women have slightly less upper body strength than men. But a woman with a gun is far more dangerous than those "ancient warriors" you seem to worship.
 
There are women in rodeo. They just have the good sense not to participate in bull riding.

Yes, women have slightly less upper body strength than men. But a woman with a gun is far more dangerous than those "ancient warriors" you seem to worship.
I'm not talking about the upper part, but the explosive power, cretin. Tyson's bottom is also not weak.

There is a connection with military thinking in general. The temperament is not the same. She cannot blow up the muscles, she cannot blow up the brain, there is no nerve power.

The art of the warrior isn't just about shooting, cretin, that's what a baby can do.
 
In classical Olympic athletics, all disciplines came from military skills, there was nothing that was available to a commoner or even a strong slave. There was nothing like powerlifting. All disciplines are designed for military explosive power.
The marathon appeared there much later. Initially, there were also races of war chariots.
 
And in any sport of this kind, a woman always shows modest results, even despite the narrow specialization in training and favorable anthropometry, they never come close to men.
Especially feminists, who for the most part are just loud and fat and weak.
 
I'm not talking about the upper part, but the explosive power, cretin. Tyson's bottom is also not weak.

There is a connection with military thinking in general. The temperament is not the same. She cannot blow up the muscles, she cannot blow up the brain, there is no nerve power.

The art of the warrior isn't just about shooting, cretin, that's what a baby can do.

Other than the upper body strength, there is no difference in the genders. The mental aspects are the same. The difference is in the way they are raised.
 
Other than the upper body strength, there is no difference in the genders. The mental aspects are the same. The difference is in the way they are raised.
Why are you saying anything if you are a complete layman in matters of sports? An Olympian weightlifter works from the bottom, not from the top. The strength of the arms and shoulders generally plays a significant role in few places, this is only gymnastics. You are as dumb as a feminist
 

Forum List

Back
Top