The legislation is most likely DOA in the Maryland House of Delegates -- where a similar bill was shot down in an 86-51 vote -- but the Washington Post is so frightened by a state Senate committee vote approving a measure to make it easier for domestic abuse victims to buy a gun that it thought it important to preach about how "Arming abuse victims is the wrong way to curb domestic violence."
According to a March 24 Post editorial, abused women are just too emotionally unstable to exercise their Second Amendment rights and probably "have seen one Jodie Foster film too many" if they think a gun can even the odds against a violent abuser:
THE PROBLEM: Guns accounted for more than half of the deaths resulting from domestic violence in Maryland from June 2007 to July 2008. The solution, according to some lawmakers: more guns. The Maryland Senate may vote as early as today on an amendment that would make it easier for victims of domestic violence to obtain guns. In theory, empowering victims could discourage potential abusers. In practice, adding guns to an already combustible situation is likely to lead to more violence. The Senate should reject the amendment.
[...]
Story Continues Below Ad ↓Maybe backers of the amendment have seen one Jodie Foster film too many, but, in the real world, victims don't usually resolve dangerous situations with gunfire. Strong legislation to keep guns away from abusers, not easy-to-obtain guns, is the best protection for victims.
Not content to stop there, the Post dreams up a cockamamie scenario that defies logic:
There's another wrinkle: An abuser could misleadingly claim to be a victim of domestic violence and file for a protective order. This would rush a gun into the hands of someone capable of violence.
Yeah, that's the first thing a wife beater is going to do: run to the courthouse, risking the authorities smelling a rat and investigating his claim to find out that it is he who is the abuser.
Maybe it's the Post that's been watching too many Lifetime movies.
The bottom line for the Washington Post is that it doesn't trust private citizens -- particularly women who are the lion's share of domestic violence victims -- to make their own informed decisions:
Victims' advocates and law enforcement officers have serious concerns about the amendment. They worry that an abuser could discover a firearm hidden by a victim or wrestle away a gun during a dispute. It takes considerable training, police officials note, to be able to effectively wield a gun in self-defense.
Yes, an abuser could discover the gun and could wrestle it away. But that's a risk many women who are abused are willing to take. Many women who are abused are not willing to take that risk. But don't abuse victims deserve the choice to exercise their right to self-defense? To the Post the answer is no, not if it involves the politically incorrect choice of a firearm.
Of course, it's not surprising that's the view of the editorial board, considering that Post reporting on gun rights issues is often biased.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
~Sigh
March 24, 2009 - 14:16 ET by choselife3xIn practice, adding guns to an already combustible situation is likely to lead to more violence.
Yeah, liberals think shooting a violent abuser counts as "more violence". Never mind that it puts a permanent end to the violence.
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
Well, I kinda agree with
March 24, 2009 - 14:42 ET by ThatDudeWell, I kinda agree with that statement. My only issue with it is that adding guns to the hands of stupid, or overly motivated people is what leads to more violence. Of course, I'm one of the ones who wishes we could just remove all guns while recognizing that following the second amendment shows better results here.
That Dude
March 25, 2009 - 00:32 ET by thebutlerdiditWhile I am sure you mean well, as someone who almost died, more than once, at the hands of a wife beater, I can assure you that guns don't make a bit of difference. I was never shot once, but suffer permanent health problems. I have always had a gun, access to several, as did the abuser. Most find it much, much more enriching to be able to do the dirty and often "wet work" up close and personal, with their own hands. Guns don't kill people,$%&&(# nutty people do. Tying someone up and torturing them with pillows over the face, or hot cigarette ashes in the eyes, strangling them until they are unconscious, then reviving them with ice water, so you can do it again? NO GUN NEEDED.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Empowering Women
March 25, 2009 - 08:55 ET by allanfI guess the Washington Post is against empowering women.
Statists (Not Liberals)...
March 25, 2009 - 14:30 ET by Wildcatter1980...do not believe in individual freedom. Because they don't, they do not want individuals to have guns because guns can help individuals protect their freedom.
Since WaPo sides with the Statists, it only makes sense they would put forth the silly notion that more guns would lead to more violence. By that thinking, we would not be here because the Soviet Union would have fired on the United States Navy ships blockading Cuba rather than backing down as they did.
The reality is that violence (or war) is more likely when there is a significant power/weapon imbalance than a balance. Human nature is for self-preservation. If you have a gun and the person confronting you does not you are more likely to fire your gun than you would if both of you have a gun. You realize that if you squeeze the trigger, your confronter may do likewise meaning you risk getting shot yourself. Also, you are less likely to be confronted if others suspect you may be armed.
--
We already have term limits. They are called elections. We can & should vote out those who do not represent & serve us! - Me
...if they think a gun
March 24, 2009 - 14:18 ET by dborschjr68...if they think a gun can even the odds against a violent abuser.
Are you kidding? Hell, I'll teach any woman who wants to learn to shoot if she really wants to "even the odds" against a bigger more violent potential abuser.
No amount of machismo has ever won against a handgun. It would be completely awesome if MORE women carried.
======================
Brace yourself
For the backlash
Of your ignorance.
Guns ARE the problem.
March 24, 2009 - 14:24 ET by SpaceManSpiffGuns ARE the problem. Giving victims and potential victims access to firearms is a total circumvention of the judicial process. We have rules, and rules must be followed. If you are a victim of domestic violence, there's a procedure to follow. Sure, it's long and involved, but it's ironclad! Restraining orders do exactly what they say they do. They keep people from harming other people. If people had a way to handle matters on their own, they wouldn't use the system that is already in place, and that's just un-American. Remove the guns so the system is used and allowed to work.
Long live the System!
Okay -- I admit you got me.
March 24, 2009 - 14:30 ET by Jack BauerOkay -- I admit you got me. Thankfully I re-read your comment before I was about to post the reposnse below. Very good satire.
Jack
March 24, 2009 - 15:23 ET by RukusMe too! But I was gonna say:
"Who are you and what did you do with Spiff???"
Gary
"Things can only bother you if you let them bother you" -My Dad
Sorry, I was feeling
March 24, 2009 - 15:54 ET by SpaceManSpiffSorry, I was feeling especially snarky today.
Just ask any liberal thinker and they'll swear that laws are on the books to protect people. HA! Laws, restraining orders, UN resolutions, etc, only provide for possible prosecution, not protection.
It's funny how you never find anyone that is an actual victim of violence campaigning against using guns as a method of self-defense.
Don't disturb them.
March 24, 2009 - 16:25 ET by motherbeltDon't disturb them. They're still trying to explain why a professor or student with a gun would have caused more carnage at Virginia Tech!
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Spiff
March 25, 2009 - 00:38 ET by thebutlerdiditIf I was a better writer, (been trying to get the talented Jack Bauer to write for me!), I would write the cute little libs a true life horror story that would curl their toes. Did ya see Last House on the Left? I lived most of that, and more. For 14 years. I don't want a single d#mn person to feel sorry for me, I just resent the fact NO ONE wanted to help me when I needed it. Laws? Yeah, I filed charges 11 times. My abuser NEVER spent a single night in jail. Not even when I was spending time in ICU. He also never had to pay a penny for any medical bills, nor did he pay a single penny in child support in the 7 yrs we were divorced and the kids were underage. The system is a joke. BUY A GUN. IF PUSHED, USE IT.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
In support of that idea is
March 24, 2009 - 15:23 ET by Ruths husband BenIn support of that idea is this wonderful article which talks about the value of restraining orders.
Obama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
X
March 24, 2009 - 18:24 ET by serfer62Your comments a spoof, right?
The most polite, honest and friendly people I know are armed. Meet them on the gun range, hunting area, gun shops or shows and they are relaxed, friendly, confident.
Taking matter into their own hands...could they do worse then congress?
When help is needed in secounds, the police are just minutes away.
And yeah, I call my Ultra Compact "Baby"...
Yes, I was spoofin'. I'm
March 24, 2009 - 19:54 ET by SpaceManSpiffYes, I was spoofin'. I'm armed, and proud of it.
Convincing people that citizens shouldn't have guns is a left-wing ploy to get more people dependent on the government/authorities. When you aren't even allowed to defend yourself, you are at the mercy of someone else for help. It may not seem like much to some (which is why they agree with anti-gun rhetoric), but it's a black and white issue. Either you are independent and empowered, or you are dependent and at someone's mercy. I'll choose the former.
The System? ;)
March 25, 2009 - 02:20 ET by rexdraconimYou had me going there for a second...
Ahh, the good ol' "system..."
Are we discussing the same "system" in which elected officials routinely break the law?
Are we discussing the same "system" in which judges make up the law as they go, to fit their own agenda?
Are we discussing the same "system" in which the police are not equal in their enforcement of the laws?
Are we discussing the same "system" that allows recidivism on every level of crime?
Are we discussing the same "system" that teaches our children to do what the bully/terrorist/man with the gun/authority figure tells them to do, no matter what?
Are we discussing the same "system" which ignores our Constitution at every opportunity?
I just want to make sure we are discussing the same "system."
I believe violence is best settled with violence. "Play nice" doesn't work. How can you expect the civil behavior you exhibit to be returned in-kind by people who have already shown they have no regard as to how a civilized person behaves? Violence has settled more issues in history than any other means. A murderer put to death murders no more.
Ask the Jewish people about what happens when you do what the Nazi tells you. (All you get for an answer on that one is MILLIONS of silent voices. But good people can hear them...)
Ask three plane loads of people what happens if you don't fight back. (And ask a fourth load what happens when you fight back! You may die, but more lives will be saved. And you get the satisfaction of dying FREE! That may not matter to some people, but Americans know what I mean. As do ALL Free People!)
Ask the Polish people how they feel about Chamberlain's solution to German aggression. (Its okay, take their land...just please don't hurt US. That whole thing STILL makes me and many others want to puke!)
Ask the four children one county over who despite frantic, recorded
phone calls to law enforcement from their mother, were taken by a
person, who had a restraining order against them, and murdered. She was
told that someone would be out the next day to take a complaint. She
went with the "ironclad" "system." The "system" gave her an empty
house. The same "system" gave the murderer pity because he was a
victim of his own mental illness and substance abuse. You can't really
ask the children...But I hear them. Lots of Americans, good people,
hear them and others like them.
It has taken a heck of a lot of violence to even reduce the damage "passive" has inflicted upon the world. Most problems can be quickly and effectively approached with a swift kick in the @ss!
Myself, I agree with my mother. She had several firearms. But she always figured she would rather knife the burglar/rapist/intruder. More personal that way...
My wife, daughters, and someday my granddaughters have all learned or will learn; if you are assaulted, CASTRATE the S.O.B!!!!
Guns, no guns, it doesn't matter. It is all a state of mind. The "system" will work when we all stop being victims and quit tolerating criminals. If the victim thinks themselves a victim (as the "system" desires) they will BE a victim. If the "system" continues to coddle offenders, continues to place criminal's rights ahead of good citizens then the "system" continues to be THE problem (and a joke!)
Criminals who would abuse and break the principles of the society in which they live do not deserve its protections. If a society is so rotten as to allow criminal behavior as normal, then the society has failed to create civilization and enhance freedom for its members.
The women in our society are getting hurt because the "system" taught them to get hurt. They are being hurt because the "system" does not protect them. It is time for all good people to stand up to the bully. It is time for all of us to remember that through our own desire to get along, be left alone, to not be bothered, that we have let the yammerheads run the show far to long. Our children, our ladies and Nation are at constant risk because we have given up the very standards that made our Nation great. We have compromised far too long. No longer can we listen to those who would tell us that the shark can be reasoned with, that only if we open a communication of "peace" that the avalanche won't bury us or that we will not fall if we leap from a cliff if we come to understand where gravity "was coming from."
If I talk nice to the flame, will the fire then not burn me? Do I have the "peacenik" philosophy right yet? The leftists always think that if enough mushheads and zeros want something, they can have it, even if it violates the Laws of Nature.
A person brings violence to you, you have not only the right to protect yourself, but the duty. You owe it to yourself for the things you believe in, you owe it to your ancestors for what they went through to give you the good life you have, you owe it to your children that they may know you and continue their own life with you, you owe it to your spouse because of your bond with them, you owe it to the bully's future victims, to help society to stop monsters when you can!!!
Our people have, throughout history, had to fight for our very existence. If we can live in peace we will. But it will be peace through strength and willingness to fight. it will never be on our knees begging for the slave-master's scraps!
I do believe that a proper application of the system, including the right to self defense, is possible. A system in which criminals are ciminals and not "victims," too.
I do not believe the system as it now exists is much of a system. I have seen many, many, mis-carriages of justice, protectionism and general nanny-ism to put much faith in what system is left.
You can take the "system" and fold it into sharp little corners and jam it where the sun don't shine..
In the meantime, I and many other Americans out there will continue to take care of ourselves, teach and protect our families and continue working to take back our country from the yammerheads. We can and WILL have a system that works, again!
Thanks for the satire, Spiff. And thanks for the soapbox opportunity. Nothing like a good piece of satire (one which sounded exactly like a leftist talking) to get you going after a week's vacation!
Besides, we all know that Spaceman Spiff never hesitates to use his
blaster! (Man, I LOVED Calvin and Hobbes! Where has all the "funny"
gone on the funny pages?)
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!"
Learned this in Kung FU class...
March 24, 2009 - 14:27 ET by sherylsimsBetter to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
sheryl... You know I
March 24, 2009 - 14:30 ET by bigtimersheryl...
You know I Second that motion!
Thank you bt
March 24, 2009 - 14:38 ET by sherylsimsYou know, I think that the "system" still works (now and then) even in the case of an abused woman defending herself with whatever means necessary. I would assume she has considered the possibility of spending the rest of her life in jail and has factored in that it would be better than living the rest of her life being abused. Of course sometimes they probably just go batsh!t crazy, but that probably would all get sorted out at the trial.
P.S. I didn't get that Spacemanspiff's post was satire. Duh!
Sheryl... Yeah...it was
March 24, 2009 - 14:48 ET by bigtimerSheryl...
Yeah...it was satire with Spaceman, he just doesn't post here as much as he used too anymore...or you would have known his great style. ;-)
I've had some personal experience with what goes on with abuse etc...that is all I'm going to say...but I have been there done that...over quite a few years.
Restraining orders are bull...simple as that.
Nicole Simpson is a perfect example.
Bt
March 24, 2009 - 14:52 ET by sherylsimsYeah, I was thinking of her too. And sad to say, she would have gotten just as fair a shake in the "system" as she got from OJ. They would have kissed his butt, gone through HER life with a fine tooth comb and in the end she would have been the victim anyway.
If a woman wants a man dead, there are ways other than guns to make it happen. Just sayin'
"If a woman wants a man
March 24, 2009 - 15:36 ET by Ruths husband Ben"If a woman wants a man dead, there are ways other than guns to make it happen."
Maybe true, sheryl, but few of them are as efficient and available to the average woman. Not every woman can physically take a man down without extensive training and even then they are still at a disadvantage. But you can be properly trained in the use of a pistol in a weekend and with regular practice will be on an even playing field with any man.
In fact, considering the equal rights aspects of the gun rights issue, it amazes me that more liberals aren't ardent pro-gun in their thinking. It is just another example of the insanity of their position, to me (no offense to any trolls reading this!).
Obama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
RhB... Yep. Simple as
March 24, 2009 - 16:11 ET by bigtimerRhB...
Yep.
Simple as that.
RhB... You probably know
March 24, 2009 - 16:28 ET by bigtimerRhB...
You probably know about this...anyway, here is some more chipping away by this admisitration with the 2nd Amendment.
This is the latest from the NRA and a ruling from a D.C. court.
I may be wrong, but the Judge was appt. by Clinton if memory serves me.
BT, this ruling is a
March 24, 2009 - 17:34 ET by ThisnThatBT, this ruling is a travesty of justice. Here it is, explained, in a nutshell:
The right to carry loaded firearms is disallowed because an environmental impact study had not been performed.
There is an almost universal view among interested parties that persons who possess concealed, loaded, and operable firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges will use them for any number of reasons, including self-defense against persons and animals (all of which suggests that there will be some impact on the environment)
The law, therefore, reverts back to allow firearms as long as they are unloaded and packed, cased, or stored in a manner that prevented their ready use, because it's necessary to safeguard against certain risks to the environment
And that none of this has anything to do with the controversy over the right to bear arms.
Isn't this the most twisted logic you have ever heard of? Using radical enviornmental laws to claim victory over the 2nd Amendment? And wait -- it will get a lot worse with today's EPA ruling that man-made Carbon Dioxide is the major cause of global warming. That ruling will essentially shut down this country, once and for all. Enviornmental wackos will use that to justify everything.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
TnT...Bulls-Eye!I
March 24, 2009 - 17:41 ET by bigtimerTnT...
Bulls-Eye!
I heard about this ruling early this morning somewhere...about three a.m. and Holder support of this...NO KIDDING Dick Tracey, of course he supports it, did anyone listen to the confirmation hearings and how he avoided the 2nd amendment issues with Leahy interfering for him...
I have been more than furious about this back-door way to seize our fire-arms once again...people had better wake up and smell the coffee...and fast!
Just chipping away at us...we are the fools if we don't wake the hell up out here.
Btw...I said Holder and Co were going to be the most dangerous people with power that are put into place hand in hand with the environs...with Soros and O-Machine/Team Gung-ho for all of this!
Obama has its judges in
March 24, 2009 - 18:12 ET by ThisnThatObama has its judges in place (Clinton appointees); agitators who will do his bidding (ACORN, Union bosses, enviornmentalists); money sources (Soros); and uber-leftists within the Administration who are very active and looking for opportunities. The planning began after he was elected, and the attacks started the day he took office. Obama is out to destroy the United States. His main role is to act as the smokescreen, and to divert attention.
This is very, very scary.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
TnT... Amen
March 24, 2009 - 18:20 ET by bigtimerTnT...
Amen brother...Amen.
You summed it up perfectly...that is exactly as I see it too.
This was posted on the blog,
March 24, 2009 - 20:21 ET by UpNorth"From My Position" today. Interesting food for thought about the left's attempt to regulate a Right guaranteed by the Constitution. Click the link and read.
http://feedproxy.goo...
GET A GRIP!!!!
March 24, 2009 - 22:53 ET by bigtimerUN....
Another keeper for a link to add to the list, thank you...
You know, you combine the link I put above, plus the HR .45 Bill (that will go no where at the moment) plus what they just quietly have done with the airplane pilots capabilty to carry...and people stay asleep...because this is being done quietly...INTENTIONALLY!
Wake up America!
It makes no sense to take
March 25, 2009 - 21:48 ET by ThisnThatIt makes no sense to take guns away from the pilots. What do people think -- that having a gun makes a pilot dangerous? Don't they know that a pilot doesn't need a gun to hijack or crash a plane? He's in the locked cockpit -- he can ground the damn plane any time he wants; he certainly doesn't need a gun to do this.
Pilots need the guns to prevent hijackings from terrorists! I'll never figure out why the low-IQ minds of typical liberals can't grasp this simple logic.
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Sorry Sheryl, and Thanks
March 24, 2009 - 19:59 ET by SpaceManSpiffSorry Sheryl, and Thanks Bigtimer.
No piece of paper or law ever stopped a criminal act. Only action can prevent tragedy. The system is in place to prosecute criminals. Crime & Punishment. Criminals commit the crime, and the system punishes them. Self defense is part of our system, and as soon as it's not, were all just back to being subjects and serfs.
It Takes More Than Guns
March 24, 2009 - 14:47 ET by JustAlThe only problem with armed victims arises when they are not mentally prepared for the confontation. Hunting and killing something in their life before faced with a life or death situation would be a really good thing.
I once knew a lady (who was ex military) who said she wished she'd had a gun to "put on the dash and show them" when she drove into the wrong part of town and was surrounded by young hoodlums. In other words, she thought the mere site of a gun would be enough and was not prepared to use it. I was aghast and at a loss for words.
As much as I enjoy shooting some folks really are better off with a large dog.
Agreed, it takes more than
March 24, 2009 - 15:38 ET by Ken ShepherdAgreed, it takes more than just guns, but the issue is the Post's paternalistic attitude and its universal application of this view to everyone.
I'd wager that most gun shops strongly encourage new gun owners to visit the range frequently for practice and to take some classes to increase proficiency.
Besides, such advice is great for business, particularly if your gun shop also has a range.
Here is some twisted logic...
March 24, 2009 - 14:52 ET by c5thenBut apparently any "street kid" 10 and older can pick up a gun and use it to kill in a matter of seconds. So are "street kids" smarter than domestic violence victims?
Oh, wait...I figured it out. If more and more of the victims were encouraged to actually protect themselves (and their kids) and got guns, then they would be called survivors and not victims and all the "victim's rights" advocates wouldn't have anything to do.
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
www.loyaltoliberty.com
You had me, Spiff...
March 24, 2009 - 15:07 ET by RightsBelieverDidn't take that as sarcasm 'til reading it a second time. As a cop I know that we can't be there all the time and in the Army we learned that nobody takes care of you like YOU take care of you.
Prior planning prevents piss poor performance.
Obama lied; the economy died.
Tony Blankley
Thanks RightsBeliever. I
March 24, 2009 - 19:46 ET by SpaceManSpiffThanks RightsBeliever.
I believe in the system, and I believe that the right to self defense is part of that system. I live just a 1/4 mile from my police station, and I still doubt they could get to my house in time to save me or my family, even if I could call for help. I wouldn't blame the PD. It's just the way the world is.
Here's a blog with quite a
March 24, 2009 - 15:28 ET by Ruths husband BenHere's a blog with quite a listing of (living) folks who would argue the thesis statment of this moronic article.
Obama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
Hi RhB... Thank you for
March 24, 2009 - 15:34 ET by bigtimerHi RhB...
Thank you for that link...I am going to be using that elsewhere too!
Hi Bigtimer, you are
March 24, 2009 - 15:39 ET by Ruths husband BenHi Bigtimer, you are welcome. Check out the Cornered Cat link that I made on another entry on this page.
Obama: "The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers." -Ed Mahmoud
RhB.... I will do so.
March 24, 2009 - 16:07 ET by bigtimerRhB....
I will do so.
WaPo says water balloons OK,
March 24, 2009 - 15:32 ET by SickofLibsWaPo says water balloons OK, however.
Just the small ones, and NOT filled up completely.
BREAKING NEWS...THIS JUST
March 24, 2009 - 16:00 ET by ConservativeRexBREAKING NEWS...THIS JUST IN!!!
Fox approves of henhouse security plan...more at eleven!!
Is it wrong for me to point
March 24, 2009 - 16:07 ET by Sabre16Is it wrong for me to point out that a woman with a sidearm is just freakin' HOT!!!!
Not trying to take anything away, this is a thread about DV though.
I just think armed women are the best.
~Yes we are
March 24, 2009 - 16:39 ET by choselife3xThanks for noticing. *blushing*
That high-pitched scream you hear is the troll under my heel.
can i get in on this, too?
March 24, 2009 - 18:43 ET by clinging to my guns and my religionit's only a walther 22, but it goes everywhere with me, and i'm a dead-on shot. can i be hot, too? pretty please?
"i believe he will not stop until we are all jobless, homeless, hungry, and cold!"
well...
March 24, 2009 - 20:18 ET by jdlybrandFor what it's worth, I'm gettin' all worked up. There's just something about a smoking hot woman with a smoking hot gun!
Issuing a restraining order for a serial abuser is like trying to stop a speeding car using a fly swatter.
Ok.. you can be hot too...
March 25, 2009 - 00:59 ET by Sabre16Ok.. you can be hot too... My wife carries a Colt 1991 .45. So competition with a 22 is sketchy.
But what the hell, a woman knowing how to handle a gun is my turn on.. what can I say?
Added your article
March 24, 2009 - 16:14 ET by AtTheWaterCoolerI've quoted your article on a series of articles of Jeremiah Films'
Exposing Bias and Deception at Washington Post
There is also a series on
Guns and Bibles united we stand
Which shows that Guns indeed work for protection:
Note the word after - in case after case, private citizens with guns are able to stop crime. In case after case the police would of arrived after the crime.
Guns prevent rape
March 24, 2009 - 16:27 ET by MarcusBrodyRape is reason enough for every woman to be trained with and carry a gun 95%+. The rate of success that guns give to resist scenarios has been proven over the years.
The logic from the left seems to be: Woman buys a pawn shop revolver, never trains with it, might freeze up and get killed if she dares to use it before being raped. Conclusion, don't buy a gun, guns should be banned.
A gun gives you options, and the law is especially generous to women in self-defense scenarios because of the mere size/strength matchup against a male body.
Ignore the theorycrafted you-will-fail scenarios, read books, get training, have a layered defense in and out of the home (running shoes, whistle, keychain kubaton, LED torch, gun, etc) and you have options. When you are walking through the forest preserve and the perv jumps out of some bushes... you have OPTIONS.
MarcusB... I couldn't
March 24, 2009 - 16:35 ET by bigtimerMarcusB...
I couldn't agree more with your sentiments....and speaking of walking through the woods, have you seen the latest with what is going on with this administration and the National Parks?
From the NRA and the latest ruling against conceal and carry from a DC Judge....Clinton Appt. too I think.
We know the chip, chip, chipping away is and has already begun.
Yeah I heard about that one
March 24, 2009 - 17:02 ET by MarcusBrodyYeah I heard about that one I think. The arbitrary bans they are trying to sneak through as "common sense" regulation grow by the day. A national park ban is sort of baffling. So one can carry inside a large department store near thousands of people, but not in a national park? If said citizen is in legal ownership of the weapon and is concealing it as usual, what's the difference? Little Timmy just wants to see the flowers while knowing there is a full ban in place? Advertising gun-free zones is always a bad idea in my opinion.
The reason I mentioned a wilderness area is because many people love the outdoors. I do however frequently see news reports of abductions, rapes and murders going down in just such out of the way places, and really you can't blame the criminal. Name a better spot to hunt human prey.
Should people become terrorized and avoid their favorite spots? Should they jog alone through wooded areas with iPod headphones on? No to both. The solution is to both deny criminals an easy opportunity and carry a gun, should someone with a sick enough motive try to ruin your day.
A national park ban is sort
March 24, 2009 - 17:49 ET by ThisnThatA national park ban is sort of baffling
It's because of the potential impact to the enviornment. See details above in my prior response to BT. The judge in this case needs to be fired (or, perhaps, fired upon????).
___________________________________
The challenge is to follow a consistent plan despite inconsistent prices - Sarah Palin, State of the State of Alaska speech
Yay Marcus!
March 24, 2009 - 16:36 ET by sherylsimsI think you are my new favorite poster here. There is no reason to go anywhere unprepared. And when you think that there are so many options for self-defense available and most women do not avail themselves of ANY of them. (until after they have already been a victim). I taught all my kids how to be prepared, how to keep their eyes open and be aware of people around them. Of course it doesn't always work exactly as planned, but that old saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is especially appropriate here. Another thing women can do is try to avoid dangerous situations (like running alone in a forest preserve.)
Hey thanks Sheryl! I like
March 24, 2009 - 17:09 ET by MarcusBrodyHey thanks Sheryl! I like your prevention philosophy and those children are being aptly prepared no doubt. The simple fundamentals you mentioned like being aware of surroundings and trusting your "uh-oh" feeling are critical. Criminals admit to watching body language and focusing on visibly weak targets, much like a big cat stalks its prey in the wild.
With evil like that roaming the streets, you can never truly let your guard down. Sad but true.
okay, but...
March 24, 2009 - 16:58 ET by FranksamIf you buy a gun, get out and practice with it. Know how it works and be comfortable with it. Anybody can buy a set of mechanic's tools from Sears, but that doesn't qualify you to fix a car.
Most important, IMO, is that if you have a gun for defense, be prepared to pull the trigger. You have to make that committment beforehand. This is not a light decision. Get training and don't think that just pulling a gun out of your purse (or pocket) will necessarily provide a good resolution.
Fifty years ago or so, my dad told me that there are two times to point a gun at someone. One is when you are ready to shoot them, and the other is when you are ready to get shot.
I agree Frank. Proper
March 24, 2009 - 17:27 ET by MarcusBrodyI agree Frank. Proper training and maintaining the skill cannot be emphasized enough. I still think though I'd rather have someone go for it a bit early than shy away, because no doubt someone along the way will help them out and impress upon them further the seriousness of the responsibility they take on with gun ownership and where applicable, CCW.
Whether this is a gun shop clerk, person at the range, even a friend who doesn't advertise his own expertise much but will open up when discovering that person's new hobby. The self-doubt and 911 reliance that anti-gun stories teach can cause people to withdraw and become scared of the entire process. For some, this is probably the best option. En masse however it's easy to become swayed by an invented math game of "less total guns mean less crime", which is false. I will always be in favor of more people taking up arms.
One thing that can help people is to make a simple personal rule about conditions for drawing a weapon. Not to dissuade a gangbanger or mugger. Not to impact some scene they encounter, ever. Basically as a last-ditch self-preservation weapon. That's why I carry and when I would use it and God forbid I ever need to use it, my chances in court will likely be looking good.
Franksam,
March 24, 2009 - 20:30 ET by UpNorthmy firearms instructor and range sergeants at the PD always told me, that in the case of a civilian, if it's worth pulling the gun out, it's worth pulling the trigger. If someone is going to own a gun for self-defense, then they better get in the mindset that they'll have to use it, and when that time comes, shoot, and keep shooting until there is no reason to shoot any longer.
Duty to die
March 24, 2009 - 16:35 ET by nadadhimmiSeems as if the liberal media believe that women have a duty to die in order to perpetuate the liberal myth that women are fit only to be victims. They think women should be gratified to receive victim status bestowed upon them by the media. After all: isn't victimhood the highest moral position available to American women? I call bullshit!!. Firearms will make a 90 lb women more than a match for a drunken 300 lb abuser. A .45 in the chest will tend to sober you up quickly, and end your "fun" of beating the hell out of the little woman, before it puts your light out for keeps. Come on ladies, time to "man up", get trained to use Col. Colts equalizer, and defend yourselves because Hillary and Barack aint gonna do it. They only want to use your deaths for political control.
nad... Yep...you said it
March 24, 2009 - 16:40 ET by bigtimernad...
Yep...you said it all...you really did.
I am waiting for my Anniversary present...which my husband doesn't know he is getting me yet, a snub-nosed 44 S&W.
The way things are going with the O Crew I may be getting this earlier than I thought.
BT..check out the "Judge"
March 24, 2009 - 16:54 ET by ConservativeRexBT..check out the "Judge" by Taurus...it's a five shot revolver (I believe a woman should only shoot revolvers..you know, point and shoot) anyway, the "Judge" shoots .45 AND .410 shotgun shells from the same gun, in the same cylinder! Alternate a .410 with a .45. I was looking at one today and have read quite a bit about them. I have seen the shot pattern..and it is impressive at 20 to 30'. Just shoot #2 .410 shells, about 8 pellets, and it really kicks butt. And like most Tauruses it is reasonably priced.
I also don't think anyone should own a pistol unless it starts with a .4. But that is just my opinion.
Howdy CR... I've heard
March 24, 2009 - 17:08 ET by bigtimerHowdy CR...
I've heard about this...my husband was talking to his brother about it awhile back now....my love is a .44 though, I used to have one, (not a snub-nose though of course) in my late teens early twenties...was stolen, long story...which made me ill...I was raised with 357's...if memory serves me I loved the Python the best...I just love the recoil, my brothers nor my step-father could beat me in target practice...heheheee...I loved it.
I loved the recoil with the .44...that's just me.
I will be looking at what you are talking about though, maybe for my partner for Xmas...I know he's like it...no matter how you look at it, it will be used.
Where I live, you have to have a gun...well, let's put it this way...you are stupid if you don't.
.44 snubby
March 24, 2009 - 17:04 ET by nadadhimmiA S&W .44 snubby will be fine, just be sure to use a low power load to reduce recoil and practice, practice, practice. That big hole in the end of that Smith .44 will get your attention, believe me.
nad... LOL...Look above...I
March 24, 2009 - 17:10 ET by bigtimernad...
LOL...Look above...I like the recoil....I always have. ;-)
BT
March 25, 2009 - 00:51 ET by thebutlerdiditI love my Bulldog .44! I have no intention of giving up any guns to anyone. I will bury them on a nice large piece of acreage, an they'd better bring a metal detector. My problem with the ex wasn't that the cops wouldn't arrest him, they would, but because of the judges, they wouldn't keep him, and unless you want to really pi$$ off a psycho, then don't have them arrested, and let them find you after they have been taken to jail. They tend to get worked up. I agree with you about Holder & Co., most people are letting the news folks dictate what they pay attention to, by following what they are reporting. (Example AIG bonuses), instead of what they are trying to slip by us. It pays to find out the whole story. I posted this a day or so ago, the whole deal is just a sleight of hand. "Look here, we will make you furious!" While you miss your rights going down the toliet.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
Liberal Insanity
March 24, 2009 - 16:42 ET by slickwillie2001So apparently the liberal line is that women should rely on restraining orders rather than defending themselves. Then when they are on the floor getting the crap beat out of them, they can take satisfaction in the fact that the perpetrator has broken four laws instead of only three. That should provide comfort while they heal, if they live.
So...
March 24, 2009 - 16:52 ET by ontheright...we should "remove" all baseball bats, knives, rocks, cars, etc. etc. because all these inanimate objects can cause death...in the wrong hands, of course.
Domestic Violence
March 24, 2009 - 16:52 ET by sargex1Listen up people. It is your duty as a citizen and yours only to PROTECT YOURSELF. It is your responsibility. Fathers teach your daughters to handle guns, knives, clubs,ect.. Teach the females in your lives to protect themselves by whatever means necessary. Teach your children that Police are usually there after the fact and they are not neccessarly duty bound to protect you.(supreme court decision). I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. Think like a warrior, fear no evil, overcome all advisaries, and if evil presents itself, Kill it.(period)
Domestic Violence
March 24, 2009 - 16:52 ET by sargex1Listen up people. It is your duty as a citizen and yours only to PROTECT YOURSELF. It is your responsibility. Fathers teach your daughters to handle guns, knives, clubs,ect.. Teach the females in your lives to protect themselves by whatever means necessary. Teach your children that Police are usually there after the fact and they are not neccessarly duty bound to protect you.(supreme court decision). I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six. Think like a warrior, fear no evil, overcome all advisaries, and if evil presents itself, Kill it.(period)
Hear, Hear!
March 25, 2009 - 02:22 ET by rexdraconimD*mn Right!!!
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!"
you have to understand who rules maryland...
March 24, 2009 - 17:38 ET by tonemeistertrial lawyers and other bottom feeders. who, because of of our proximity to the s.o.g. (seat of government) washington. own us. these people are nothing but whores. while our govenor probably the worst joke on the eastern seaboard, promised that our skyrocketing utility rates were the fault of our previous repub. govenor bob erhlich. promised to fix the situation...got into office and said legally, he can't do anything...
Not only do I think women
March 24, 2009 - 19:15 ET by pitter43Not only do I think women who have been abused have guns, they should have had them before the abuse. The abuse would likely never have happened. I'm in a wheelchair and parilized on my left side from a stroke but I shoot with my right hand. Anyone who wants to come here and abuse me will be facing the business end of one of my pistols.
A thought
March 24, 2009 - 19:19 ET by nolotrippen“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Robert Heinlein
Sing It!!!
March 25, 2009 - 02:24 ET by rexdraconimLouder, so they hear you in D.C!!!
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...everytime!"
A crisis is a terrible thing to waste
March 24, 2009 - 19:40 ET by TheHistorianAt least, so say Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton in similar words. The real problem is that gun ownership in the US is about 25% with the death rate being in the range of 1500. This is such a small statistic, it is only worth mentioning by those who wish to take your guns away so that they can promote their own agenda.
"What experience and history teach is
this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it."
G. W. F. Hegel
Pray for this guy
March 24, 2009 - 20:35 ET by Cool ArrowA Burger King customer shot and killed an armed robber in Miami, and is wounded in the exchange.
Details still sketchy, but he might be a hero.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Dear criminal/rapist/thug
March 24, 2009 - 22:32 ET by Joe CamelCome into my home, and you will see what a firey little blond with a Sig P239 in 40 S&W will do to ruin your day. My wife will not miss you..assured.
I personally have taught over 100 women to handle, maintain, strip and safe use of a handgun, shotgun, rifle..all the things in life one should know about. Once the mystic is taken out of the subject, they become very proficient in the discipline. The first thing that typically must be overcome is the idiocy that one must only point the gun and make it go bang to hit your target. Always funny looks at 7' when they completely miss the target, and reality sets in..that they have been duped all those years by Hollywood.
JC... Thanks for that.
March 24, 2009 - 22:36 ET by Clear thinkerJC...
Thanks for that. Reading the first sentence of the second paragraph was like reading mild porn. ;-)
Teleprompters Unite!
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Clear Thinker
March 25, 2009 - 00:56 ET by thebutlerdiditLOL. That was too funny! You guys crack me up, getting excited about us chicks with guns! Remember now, we also have bad tempers, at times. Hahahaaha.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
thanks for all your testimony, tbdi
March 25, 2009 - 11:05 ET by clinging to my guns and my religioni only had to lock myself in my walk-in closet four nights before i was able to escape a violent situation. cannot imagine what hell your life must have been all that time. whichever idiot at wapo wrote that editorial is waaaaay off base with this one; had i been armed at the time, i would not have had to suffer what (little bit) i did. the entire editoral department should have to walk even a foot in your shoes before they put any more words to paper about what abuse victims should and should not do!
"i believe he will not stop until we are all jobless, homeless, hungry, and cold!"
WaPo
March 25, 2009 - 00:15 ET by NorthCoasterWhat part of "The perps will be worried" don't you understand. The Victims can protect themselves if they are trained in handgun use.
Anti gun...
March 25, 2009 - 05:57 ET by pagg30Anti Gun is Anti Logic.
Liberal - A conservative that hasn't been mugged yet.
guns and abuse victims
March 25, 2009 - 09:56 ET by rowdygirlSo let me get this straight.... the abuser can kill his victim with a gun, but she doesn't have the right to defend herself with the same weapon? that seems about right...
Obviously, this is all part of the grand plan to outlaw guns eventually, but it's also another way to downplay the seriousness of victim's rights. Especially victims of "dosmetic abuse" Personally I hate that term because it immediately changes the nature of the crime. If she's sleeping \ living with the abuser she's not a real victim. Arggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!1
I better stop while I'm ahead....
Tam
An Old Texas Saying
March 25, 2009 - 09:57 ET by allanf"God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal"