Liberal Gun Hating Group Everytown Prefers Young College Girls Drunk

Liberals have been on a tear over the past couple of years regarding sexual assault on campus, which is interesting in that college campuses tend to be very Left leaning. They are very concerned about rape on campus. One would think that Liberals would be concerned with making sure young women are able to defend themselves. Nope. Only with whistles and/or peeing or vomiting on themselves

(Breitbart) On March 19, Everytown for Gun Safety tweeted to proponents of campus carry, asking if giving guns to their “drunk, college-age daughters” is really a great idea.

This question follows campus carry bills making it out of committee in Florida and Nevada, and it also follows Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s reaffirmation that he will sign campus carry legislation once it reaches his desk.

Ironically, in late February, Everytown criticized Nevada GOP Leader Michele Fiore (R-Las Vegas) for describing college-age females as “young, hot little girls on campus.” Fiore said men bent on sexual assault would think twice if “young, hot little girls on campus have a firearm.”

But now, with Everytown’s drunk daughters tweet, we finally understand—it’s okay to paint with a broad brush and describe college females as irresponsible humans, but it’s not okay to mention how unarmed, attractive women are targeted for sexual assault and worse.

So, Everytown is an enabler for young college women to get themselves vastly liquored up, a situation which lowers inhibitions and can easily lead to these young women being taken advantage of in a sexual manner. Of course, they would not be eligible to actually carry a firearm while drinking. But, open and concealed carry would be a great way to protect women when they aren’t drinking. Liberals apparently hate guns more than they want women to protect themselves.

The link leads to hyper-feminist Jezebel, which essentially exposes that feminists are more against guns than for women defending themselves.

Anyone notice anything interesting in that photo?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

28 Responses to “Liberal Gun Hating Group Everytown Prefers Young College Girls Drunk”

  1. Steve says:

    “Killing Jesus” Trailer – premiers on March 29th

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2015/03/killing-jesus-trailer.html

  2. Jeffery says:

    Ammosexuals see a hot gun as the cure for all mankind’s (and womankind’s) ills.

    What could possibly go wrong with arming teenagers?

    Would you only arm women on campus or would the potential rapists also have guns?

    Liberal Gun Hating Group Everytown Prefers Young College Girls Drunk

    Your nonsensical title is not accurate. Can you point out where the group preferred “young college girls” drunk?

    Consuming alcohol is illegal for those under 21 years, so almost all college age students who drink are breaking the law. And you want them to carry guns!

  3. drowningpuppies says:

    Little Jeffy defends the right of women to be raped in gun-free environment: ‘rapists and rapees should work together to prevent gun violence for the common good’.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    Consuming alcohol is illegal for those under 21 years, so almost all college age students who drink are breaking the law.

    Yet as a class, people with CCL’s are much less likely to break the law or commit crimes.

    And you want them to carry guns!

    And you want to deny people the right to defend themselves from attackers. You want to strip them of a natural / God given right based on your hysteria but not facts.

  5. Jeffery says:

    Should there be a age limit below which a child no longer has his/her man given right to carry a weapon? (Neither nature or gods wrote the Bill of Rights).

  6. gitarcarver says:

    Should there be a age limit below which a child no longer has his/her man given right to carry a weapon?

    Should there be an age limit where people cannot defend themselves?

    (Neither nature or gods wrote the Bill of Rights).

    Wow. How profoundly stupid.

    Apparently you think that the government through the Bill of Rights or some other document bestows rights upon people when in fact the people own their rights to begin with.

  7. BillW says:

    Orange tip on the barrel? Is that supposed to be a real weapon? Are toy guns now scary too?

  8. Casey says:

    gitarcarver sez “Wow. How profoundly stupid.”

    Yep. That’s pretty much Jeffy all over. And -like Ron White says- you can’t fix stupid.

    BillW: well done! 🙂 Still can’t read what the banner says in the photo, though.

    Bonus points for losing IQ: hysterical predictions that rapists will use guns to attack women with guns, creating shootouts everywhere! Oh, the humanity!!!

    A clue for the morons: gun grabbers made the same mindlessly hysterical prediction over 20 years ago when states started liberalizing carry laws.

    This did not happen.

  9. jl says:

    Classic example, as said above, of J not understanding our constitution. He still doesn’t understand that our government was created to preserve our already God-given rights.

  10. Dana says:

    I can’t believe that Jeffrey actually wrote this:

    Would you only arm women on campus or would the potential rapists also have guns?

    The rapists are criminals, and they are already armed!

  11. Dana says:

    Women being armed will not prevent every rape, will not save every woman from being assaulted, but it will prevent some rapes, and save some women from being assaulted.

    The left would rather see more women be rape victims than some rapists become corpses.

  12. Jeffery says:

    The rapists are criminals, and they are already armed

    !

    You think Trevor in Algebra II who assaults Brenda at a party is packing?

    And you call me stupid.

  13. Jeffery says:

    So God and nature promises that children can carry guns to defend themselves???

    Is a law preventing open carry by a 12 yr old is unconstitutional?

    How about a 10 yr old?

    8? 6?

  14. gitarcarver says:

    You think Trevor in Algebra II who assaults Brenda at a party is packing?

    You think that only college students rape other college students?

    And you call me stupid.

    It’s not name calling – it’s a valid observation.

    So God and nature promises that children can carry guns to defend themselves???

    The right of self defense is a natural / God given right.

    Deal with it.

    Is a law preventing open carry by a 12 yr old is unconstitutional?

    How about a 10 yr old?

    8? 6?

    I didn’t realize that these kids were attending college. But clearly since you are losing this discussion badly (which is nothing new for you) you are trying to deflect away from the issue that you want to restrict the right of adults to defend themselves. Once again we see how you and people of your ilk hate women and think they are so weak and timid that they should not have the right to be able to defend themselves against a violent, sexual assault.

    Isn’t it ironic that you feel a woman can abort a life that has not harmed anyone but that same woman doesn’t have the right to protect herself against attacks and possible death by an attacker?

  15. John says:

    Teach you are beginning to sound like you really hate college kids
    When the NRA or any similar group advocates free cheap guns as graduation gifts for all urban black high school grads that can legally own then I may believe the guns are good

  16. Jeffery says:

    I’m not arguing that women should not be able to defend themselves. I do not oppose concealed carry permits. I think morons carrying rifles into Burger King are morons.

    I DO support schools’ limiting students carrying weapons on campus. Of course, the kids can do as they please off campus, within the limits of the law.

    you are trying to deflect away from the issue that you want to restrict the right of adults to defend themselves.

    Your hint that guns be limited to adults is comforting. By what law of nature, the gods or man are we allowed to snatch the right of self-defense from anyone, even children? Or is it just common sense or understood from natural law or the gods themselves?

    I didn’t know this was a debate to win or lose. Is that how you see things – always as a winner take all contest? As a threat to you personally? A threat to your “manliness”? That explains a lot.

    You support allowing (if not encouraging) females on college campuses to carry guns because it is their “natural” or “God given” right. On the other side are those (a majority) for not allowing college students to carry guns on campus because of the belief that teenagers do not have the self control to responsibly handle guns in this situation (alcohol and drug use, crazy parties, fights, suicides).

    Is the “natural” or “God-given” right to self-defense absolute? If so, how can we set age limits for purchasing firearms? How can we set limits on the type of weaponry?

    Anyway, I may be wrong (you guys are the experts) but isn’t it illegal for licensed firearms dealers to sell handguns to anyone under 21? I was 17 when I started college. So how will all these underage daughters get their Walther PPKs?

    I suspect most RWNJs care little for whether college women are assaulted in college (as your elites claim, they are pretty, attractive, irresistible, tarts who dress provocatively – how can a conservative man resist that?!?), but care deeply that people criticize their ammosexuality.

    Do you, or any of your ilk, have even the tiniest shred of evidence to even suggest that arming teen girls will even marginally reduce sexual assaults? Or are you driven by your bizarre religious ideology?

    Sexual assault is a real problem in the US military. Maybe we should encourage soldiers to carry guns.

    This has nothing to do with abortion.

  17. gitarcarver says:

    I’m not arguing that women should not be able to defend themselves. I do not oppose concealed carry permits.

    Then we agree.

    I DO support schools’ limiting students carrying weapons on campus.

    Whoops! So now you don’t support a woman’s right to defend herself. I guess your position is the illogical one of “women can defend themselves,. but only when we say they can.”

    Yeah….. THAT makes sense.

    I didn’t know this was a debate to win or lose.

    Debates often have a winner and a loser. In this case, you have lost but continue to fight because…. well…..because you are so wedded to a illogical set of thoughts that you are unwilling to make a change.

    Anyway, I may be wrong (you guys are the experts) but isn’t it illegal for licensed firearms dealers to sell handguns to anyone under 21? I was 17 when I started college. So how will all these underage daughters get their Walther PPKs?

    The laws haven’t always been that way Jeffery and you know it. When I was in high school we had shooting clubs on campus. Despite the fact that no one got hurt (ever) the clubs were banned because other people were using guns illegally. That’s the point that conservatives always make and liberals such as yourself dismiss. People using a weapon illegally are not suddenly going to say “guns are illegal, I shouldn’t use one to rape or rob people” because the law makes a weapon illegal in a certain area. All you do and what you advocate for is disarming people who want to protect themselves. You make villains and criminals out of law abiding citizens who are simply exercising their rights.

    I suspect most RWNJs care little for whether college women are assaulted in college (as your elites claim, they are pretty, attractive, irresistible, tarts who dress provocatively – how can a conservative man resist that?!?), but care deeply that people criticize their ammosexuality.

    Your “suspicion” is not grounded in reality Jeffery. Instead of looking at what is being said and advocated for, you try and make it as you are the victim. That is typical of leftwing buttwipes like you. You don’t care about women. You don’t care about people of different races. You don’t care that people want to protect themselves. You only want to impose your “feelings” on others.

    Do you, or any of your ilk, have even the tiniest shred of evidence to even suggest that arming teen girls will even marginally reduce sexual assaults? Or are you driven by your bizarre religious ideology?

    Actually, you have it backwards. The fact of the matter is that because self defense is a right, it is up to the government to demonstrate how restricting that right benefits people and society. There is NO indication that banning guns from campuses has had an effect on rapes. It is up to you and people of your ilk to prove the restriction, not for us to prove the restriction is wrong. You have failed miserably in that endeavor.

    Even so, every day we see, read and hear of people that use a weapon to protect themselves and their loved ones. Is there any reason to doubt the same results won’t occur on campuses? We also know that in areas that allow CCL’s the rate of crimes have gone down. Is there any reason to doubt the same results on campuses?

    The problem is that while you are screaming for “proof,” you are ignoring the fact that the data is on the side of allowing women to protect themselves. You are ignoring the fact that it is up to you to prove that restricting rights is a good thing.

    You haven’t proved your point.

    You haven’t because it is you who are wedded to the ideology that the rights belong to the government and not the governed. Anything that shows you are wrong in that area (like in other areas) you attack and make nonsensical arguments.

    Sexual assault is a real problem in the US military. Maybe we should encourage soldiers to carry guns.

    Maybe we should. One must wonder how the Fort Hood shooting(s) and the Naval Yard shootings would have gone down if the shooters realized the people around them were carrying a weapon. As it is, people like you seemed to like the idea of making people victims, watching them bleed on the floor while never questioning “why didn’t the shooters not follow the laws?”

    This has nothing to do with abortion.

    Oh but it does. You seem to have no problems with killing innocent children and victims, but don’t want people to defend themselves against those who would seek to kill, maim, or harm them.

    The issue is once again that you are inconsistent and a hypocrite.

  18. Jeffery says:

    Fluffer 1,

    Killing innocent children? What in the name of Allah are you talking about? Abortion doesn’t kill a child, it kills an embryo, sometimes a fetus. If you consider abortion killing a child than your so-called Christian god kills by far the most.

    And you keep refusing to answer the simple question about age restrictions on possessing firearms. Pick one:

    Doesn’t any limitation on who can or what arms they can possess violate one’s natural or god-given right to self defense?

    Why shouldn’t a bullied 11 year old be able to defend herself with a pistol?

  19. gitarcarver says:

    Abortion doesn’t kill a child, it kills an embryo, sometimes a fetus.

    Ah. So that embryo, fetus, or child can become a flower? A cow?

    And you keep refusing to answer the simple question about age restrictions on possessing firearms. Pick one:

    Really? I thought that I made the position clear that in the past we had kids in school that were firing guns on campus. Perhaps you missed that part. After all, reading comprehension is not your strong point.

    Is it really your point of contention that in a thread talking about rape on college campuses that you want to go and talk about the raping of 11 year olds? THAT’S your defense? THAT’S your main point as to why not allow adults carry on a college campus? Geez Jeffery, you are one sick puppy if you want to go down the path of child rape.

    But the question you never address is why should someone be able to legally carry a weapon off campus by not carry on campus?

    Do women give up their rights when they walk onto a college campus?

    A second question or position you don’t address is proving with data why people should be denied the right to protect themselves.

    It is clear that you hate the idea of strong independent women in this world.

    (Maybe you only like women you think are “delusional.”)

    Why shouldn’t a bullied 11 year old be able to defend herself with a pistol?

    As it is, liberal policies like the ones you believe in have eliminated the chance for the child to defend themselves at all.

    A bullied child cannot stand and fight, say anything back to the bully or even draw a picture of their tormentor being smashed by a giant foot without them getting into trouble.

    Liberals love to create victims and hate it when people want to exercise their rights.

  20. Jeffery says:

    So you’re out of arguments?

    No, an embryo is not a child. If so, why does the so-called Christian god kill millions of embryo’s each year?

    Now, you’ve changed the subject again to the rape of 11 yr olds?

    All I’m asking, and you refuse to answer, is what is the minimum age at which an American can possess a firearm?

    I understand why you refuse to answer – any number you give is arbitrary and you’ll be trapped. And to say there is no lower limit is stupid.

    That’s why you keep changing the subject to abortion, child rape, kids drawing pictures – anything but whether college kids should be toting pistols – to distract and deflect. It’s OK, it’s what you do.

    Why should a person be able to carry a gun off campus but not on campus? Because of the college’s rules. Just as businesses are able to limit employees and others from bringing firearms into their buildings (for now) so should colleges.

    How would handle the liability issues that go with having thousands of handguns in circulation at a college? If Janet’s S&W goes off accidently in Bio101 and kills her lab partner, Brian, can Brian’s family sue the school for $20 million?

  21. gitarcarver says:

    No, an embryo is not a child.

    Then what is it? What can it become?

    If so, why does the so-called Christian god kill millions of embryo’s each year?

    And the foundation for that question is what, Jeffery? Since you don’t believe in God, why would you claim something that you think doesn’t exist has done something? Sounds like you are the delusional one, Jeffery.

    Now, you’ve changed the subject again to the rape of 11 yr olds?

    I was wondering why you did that.

    Because of the college’s rules. Just as businesses are able to limit employees and others from bringing firearms into their buildings (for now) so should colleges.

    I know you cannot be that stupid. The right to defend oneself is codified within the Constitution. State funded colleges should not be able to restrict the right of self defense any more than they can restrict the right of free speech (within limits).

    As for private colleges, we have already seen how private colleges are losing battles on free speech. Why a private enterprise should be able to restrict a person from protecting themselves is beyond me.

    How would handle the liability issues that go with having thousands of handguns in circulation at a college? If Janet’s S&W goes off accidently in Bio101 and kills her lab partner, Brian, can Brian’s family sue the school for $20 million?

    Liability is premised on foreseeability. Even then, the liability of the school would most likely be limited at worst. However, turn your scenario around. Should a person who wanted to carry a weapon and was attacked be able to sue the college for $20 million? After all, it is the college that restricted the person from defending themselves.

    Oh, did you forget to give a logical reason or data on why a right should be restricted by the government? If you did, I must have missed it.

    I guess you are going to pull out your tired ol’ excuse of “I don’t have to answer your questions” like you always do.

  22. Jeffery says:

    did you forget to give a logical reason or data on why a right should be restricted by the government?

    Did you forget to give a minimum age for possessing a firearm? Or why we limit the type of firearm or methods of defense. Can I protect my property with land mines? If not, why not? Is it my gods-given right to defend myself by any method I deign appropriate? I’m trying to ascertain how bizarre your ideology is.

    Why indeed do we have defamation laws which clearly limit free speech? Because defamation can cause actual damages. Is that logical enough?

    Allowing 10 year olds to carry firearms to school is stupid and dangerous. Is that logical enough?

    Christian Scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses will let children die from illness rather than allow medical treatment. That is stupid and cruel. Is that logical enough?

    The theme is that the absolute expression of some “rights” can be more burdensome/dangerous than restrictions.

    It’s a constant battle in a civilized society.

    It was my mistake on abortion. I thought, obviously in error, that you believed in the Christian God, but clearly if you deny His existence in print, who am I to argue. Personally, I don’t deny the existence of God, I just find the likelihood of His existence to be very, very improbable. Since you don’t believe in God, we can assume that the killing of millions of innocent babies (embryos) each year before implantation, or just after implantation, is just “nature”, not God. I guess if there was a God, He would protect those millions rather than have them flushed down toilets or lost on tampons, unnoticed and undetected.

  23. gitarcarver says:

    I’m trying to ascertain how bizarre your ideology is.

    No you’re not.

    You are trying to shift the argument away from your hatred of women and you wanting to deny them the ability to protect themselves.

    I am still waiting for an answer as to why the government should restrict a right of law abiding adult citizens.

    Why indeed do we have defamation laws which clearly limit free speech? Because defamation can cause actual damages. Is that logical enough?

    Wrong, Jeffery. Defamation does not restrict free speech. It may be a consequence of what is said, but it does not restrict the ability to say it.

    The theme is that the absolute expression of some “rights” can be more burdensome/dangerous than restrictions.

    I agree with that sentiment.

    Now, prove that allowing women to protect themselves is more dangerous / burdensome in society.

    You cannot, so you tried shifting the goalposts all over the place to the point where you have made some truly bizarre and illogical statements.

    But I have come to expect that from you.

    PS – I am always amused at those who claim not to believe in God trying to say what God can do or must do. No wonder you don’t believe in God because it would mean that you aren’t Him.

  24. Jeffery says:

    Asked and answered.

    You conflate teenagers having unfettered access to handguns with self-defense.

    I can’t prove the negative. It’s my opinion that allowing college students access to handguns will make the campus less safe, not more safe.

    I can’t prove that allowing inmates access to handguns will make prison less safe, either. Why shouldn’t inmates have handguns for self-defense against prison assaults?

    If you think everyone has the right to unfettered access to whatever weaponry they consider appropriate to defend themselves, please just say so. If you have limits on who should have access and what weapons that be restricted, tell us why.

    As I said, I’m trying to understand your position.

  25. gitarcarver says:

    Asked and answered.

    Bull. You didn’t answer the question and you know it. But that is okay.

    We know why you can’t answer the question as it will show once and for all that you hate the idea of women protecting themselves and not having to rely on the government to do so AFTER the assault.

    I can’t prove the negative. It’s my opinion that allowing college students access to handguns will make the campus less safe, not more safe.

    And as I stated, it is up to you and others to prove that restricting a right is beneficial to society as a whole.

    “I believe it” is not a valid excuse. So we are back to the point that without any evidence, you want to restrict the rights of law abiding adults.

    Oh, and once again, you are postulating that not allowing women to protect themselves will make campuses MORE safe – not less. You are actually trying to prove the positive in this discussion but as we both know,you can’t.

    I can’t prove that allowing inmates access to handguns will make prison less safe, either. Why shouldn’t inmates have handguns for self-defense against prison assaults?

    Of course, we both know that upon conviction a person loses the right to possess a weapon because they have shown they cannot abide by the laws that make us a society.

    You, on the other hand, want to ban people from protecting themselves who have not committed a crime of violence.

    Your arguments are drowning in your lack of critical thinking. (Either that or you are so stupid and ignorant that you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.)

  26. Jeffery says:

    we both know that upon conviction a person loses the right to possess a weapon because they have shown they cannot abide by the laws that make us a society

    So, now you rely on the state to keep firearms out of the hands of some Americans. Is it a natural law or gods law that tells you to strip these people of their right to defend themselves? Or is this a law passed by humans?

    Your arguments are drowning in your lack of critical thinking. (Either that or you are so stupid and ignorant that you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.)

    You now agree that the state can keep firearms away from a particular group of citizens. Why not another group? How about children under 8 yrs?

    Do you agree that the state has an interest in keeping firearms from children under 8?

    You’re boring me. If you answer the above we can continue. If not, you can go back to whatever it is that you do.

  27. gitarcarver says:

    So, now you rely on the state to keep firearms out of the hands of some Americans.

    Not at all. I am saying that rights can be restricted in some cases.

    Apparently you cannot understand the difference between a criminal with restrictions and a law abiding citizen who should have no restrictions on their freedoms and rights.

    Why not another group?

    What part of “law abiding” do you not understand?

    Do you agree that the state has an interest in keeping firearms from children under 8?

    Should a father and 8 year old child be able to go hunting? Go to a range together?

    Is it your contention that the state can restrict the rights of people “just because?” Is it your contention that the state can take the rights of a law abiding adult and throw them into the trash “just because?”

    I suspect that this is not a case where I am boring you, but rather a case where your idiocy and lack of critical thinking skills is being exposed. After all, anyone who brings 8 year olds into a discussion about women being raped has already shown the type of person they are.

  28. Jeffery says:

    So, you fully support the state choosing on whom to bestow what you call natural, God-given rights. You withdraw natural God-given rights from a group whom, in your opinion, would not handle firearms responsibly.

    and move the goalposts:

    the rights of a law abiding adult

    LOL

    To the nearest integer, what is the minimum age of an adult, in your opinion?

Bad Behavior has blocked 10012 access attempts in the last 7 days.