jafar
jafar

jafar

Too Powerful
Too Powerful

Too Powerful

hillary
hillary

hillary

Star Wars
Star Wars

Star Wars

shaggy
shaggy

shaggy

DC Comics
DC Comics

DC Comics

Trump
Trump

Trump

Most Powerful
Most Powerful

Most Powerful

Changing Memes
Changing Memes

Changing Memes

Become
Become

Become

🔥 | Latest

Beijing, Definitely, and Guns: BANG BANG WE CAN END GUN VIOLENCE. xphilosoraptorx: unlimited-shitpost-works: siryouarebeingmocked: 8lastrat8: american–support: kasaron: allriot-political-tshirts: American citizens own 40% of all guns in the world. Out of more than one billion firearms in the world, American citizens hold 393 million, for a population of roughly 326 million. That’s a lot of guns! The last time the US federal government managed to pass laws that limit the spread and use of guns was 25 years ago. It was 1994. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was temporary. It expired in 2004, resulting in a massive increase in mass shootings across the country. Republicans are running out of excuses, blaming the latest incidents in Drayton and El Paso on video games. We can end gun violence. Let’s start with gun control. What sort of gun control legislation would you like to see be put into place? OP, that claim of shootings increased is false. The violence and shootings didn’t change in that decade from the previous decade, and in fact, violence has been on the decline. WHAT HAS CHANGED is how much media is shoved down your throat. Thats it. The nonstop spam from legacy media of a single event for a month, if not months on end is what changed. It used to be a 5, maybe 10 minute story has now turned into a 4 week “constant coverage” of spewing the same info daily, with nothing added. After the early 90s, we saw a sharp decline and its been declining ever since. Meanwhile, ownership is at an alltime high, increasing, as if a plethora of armed citizens reduces the audacity of a potential killer to attempt knowing they’ll get capped. What has also changed is the increase in the absolutely terrible idea of “gun free zones” seeing as approximately 85-95% of these shootings are occuring in these zones. Seems like that’s your problem. Hmm, this graph seems to showcase that despite the US owning vastly more guns… homicide rate is lower than a hefty chunk of even the non gun owners… I’d just like to know how they propose to take our guns. If I got one logical explanation from one of these half wits that didn’t include magic or ridiculous gestapo tactics we could have a conversation but, every F’ing time it devolves into name calling, insults, and slander. They simply can’t explain how to take the guns away. Not a single one of them has ever responded to me without crass vulgarities and irrational screeching. myamberreason said:  Anyway, guys, why you need THAT many guns? I understand owned a few for protection or legal hunting, but why do you have around 40% of firearms in the world?? I’m sorry, are you implying the Yanks should meet international proportional quotas on guns? We do own a few for self-defense and hunting. It’s just that the rest of the world doesn’t own very many guns. The reason we all have so many guns is very simple: logistics. The point of the second amendment is for us, the citizens of the USA, to be “shit your pants, wake up in a cold sweat” terrifying to the people running this country, so much so that they involuntarily have second, third, even fourth thoughts about ever violating our rights. The 2nd amendment is the most important and most powerful of all the amendments. Every single right and amendment could taken away, and we could regain them all with that one. And I’m not the only one who recognizes the importance of the 2nd.And it definitely terrifies Beijing. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t have to justify an amount of guns to you any more than I have to justify how many video games or coffee cups I have.
Beijing, Definitely, and Guns: BANG
 BANG
 WE CAN END GUN VIOLENCE.
xphilosoraptorx:

unlimited-shitpost-works:
siryouarebeingmocked:


8lastrat8:

american–support:

kasaron:


allriot-political-tshirts:


American citizens own 40% of all guns in the world. 

Out of more than one billion firearms in the world, American citizens hold 393 million, for a population of roughly 326 million. That’s a lot of guns!

The last time the US federal government managed to pass laws that limit the spread and use of guns was 25 years ago. It was 1994. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was temporary. It expired in 2004, resulting in a massive increase in mass shootings across the country. Republicans are running out of excuses, blaming the latest incidents in Drayton and El Paso on video games.

We can end gun violence. Let’s start with gun control.


What sort of gun control legislation would you like to see be put into place?


OP, that claim of shootings increased is false. The violence and shootings didn’t change in that decade from the previous decade, and in fact, violence has been on the decline. 
WHAT HAS CHANGED is how much media is shoved down your throat. Thats it. The nonstop spam from legacy media of a single event for a month, if not months on end is what changed. It used to be a 5, maybe 10 minute story has now turned into a 4 week “constant coverage” of spewing the same info daily, with nothing added. 
After the early 90s, we saw a sharp decline and its been declining ever since. 
Meanwhile, ownership is at an alltime high, increasing, as if a plethora of armed citizens reduces the audacity of a potential killer to attempt knowing they’ll get capped.
What has also changed is the increase in the absolutely terrible idea of “gun free zones” seeing as approximately 85-95% of these shootings are occuring in these zones. Seems like that’s your problem. 
Hmm, this graph seems to showcase that despite the US owning vastly more guns… homicide rate is lower than a hefty chunk of even the non gun owners…


I’d just like to know how they propose to take our guns. If I got one logical explanation from one of these half wits that didn’t include magic or ridiculous gestapo tactics we could have a conversation but, every F’ing time it devolves into name calling, insults, and slander. They simply can’t explain how to take the guns away. Not a single one of them has ever responded to me without crass vulgarities and irrational screeching. 



myamberreason said: 
Anyway, guys, why you need THAT many guns? I understand owned a few for protection or legal hunting, but why do you have around 40% of firearms in the world??


I’m sorry, are you implying the Yanks should meet international proportional quotas on guns?


We do own a few for self-defense and hunting.  It’s just that the rest of the world doesn’t own very many guns.


The reason we all have so many guns is very simple: logistics. The point of the second amendment is for us, the citizens of the USA, to be “shit your pants, wake up in a cold sweat” terrifying to the people running this country, so much so that they involuntarily have second, third, even fourth thoughts about ever violating our rights. The 2nd amendment is the most important and most powerful of all the amendments. Every single right and amendment could taken away, and we could regain them all with that one. And I’m not the only one who recognizes the importance of the 2nd.And it definitely terrifies Beijing.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t have to justify an amount of guns to you any more than I have to justify how many video games or coffee cups I have.

xphilosoraptorx: unlimited-shitpost-works: siryouarebeingmocked: 8lastrat8: american–support: kasaron: allriot-political-tshirts: A...

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:
This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not ...