The Democrat War On Women continues. Politico’s Roger Simon pens an opinion piece which tells women “hey, you’re safer just calling 911 than having a gun. Who cares if the criminal breaking in might rape, hurt, and/or kill you.”
I learned a lot about biology this week by watching a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that was titled: “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?â€
I am not sure biology was supposed to be the point, but an odd witness, who is not an expert on gun violence, let it rear its ugly head.
Gayle Trotter is a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, a self-described conservative group that believes in “limited government, personal liberty and free markets.â€
Trotter also believes in guns and ammo. Lots of ammo.
Roger goes on to sneer at Trotter and her testimony. It’s always interesting when Liberals, who say they support women’s rights and empowering them will immediately attack their opinions
“You are not a woman stuck in her house, not able to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to go seek safety on the phone with 911.â€
This might be understandable if Trotter lived in Syria and needed to defend her family on a daily basis. But she lives in the United States. There is certainly violent crime in the United States, but little of it comes from criminals who kick down the doors of homes and come after women and children with guns blazing.
If that does happen, the safest thing to do is to call 911. The most dangerous thing to do is to keep loaded weapons around the house where children can find them and accidentally kill themselves or others. (And the Newtown shooter killed his mother in her sleep with one of the many guns she kept around the house for self-defense.)
There you go: hyper-liberal Simon says you’re better off being assaulted, ladies, because you can’t be trusted with a gun. You can surely be trusted with aborting a child willy nilly…perhaps this is why liberals are so insistent on mentioning abortion rights for rape victims, because Democrats prefer women to be raped rather than have the means to protect themselves from men with criminal intentions.
Personally, I believe a 100-round gun magazine is far more likely to be used by a criminal to kill innocent civilians and police than by a homeowner protecting herself.
Personally, I believe liberals who make up this meme about 100 round magazines are idiots. So, pretty much most of them. And they would prefer to disarm women and leave them open to criminals. That’s just how they roll.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Teach do you believe that the 2nd Amendment should have no restrictions on it ?
Teach, it’s none of my business, but it’s so exasperating that I want to ask you, do you think that John posts here for any other reasons than to gett attention, to be annoying and to get you to spin your wheels without any traction?
John, do you think women should be disarmed and left at the mercy of rapists and killers just so you can feel good about opposing guns?
I suppose I’m just used to liberals like john. I’ve dealt with much, much worse on a few forums.
I asked a cops once how to secure your home. He said a gun, security system and a dog. He said in using the gun to kill the guy, not hold him or wound. Then I have the personal experience of having to ward off people with the gun, 911 would not respond.
Then I have a neighbor, who has a strange occupation. I live in a high end area and this guy makes his money by doing home invasions in another state. He runs a gang from his house and does fairly well. He is not impressed with cops.
The fact of the matter is the 2nd Amendment already is restricted so john’s question illustrates his ignorance.
The question that really needs to be answered by john and other liberals is “what right does the goverment have to restrict the rights of citizens when those rights do not infringe on the rights of others?”
In other words, gun ownership does not harm or infringe on anyone elses rights. Therefore, under what theory does john and his ilk propose limiting the rights of citizens?
Clearly what we see in john is someone who is anti-science, anti-religion, anti-women, anti-rights, and anti-freedom.
He is an anti-social misfit and a classic case of Arrested Development, an adult with the mind of a bratty, little child, who is gleeful to have the two of you, who takes his bait (hook, line and sinker) every single time.
Have you noticed that he doesn’t answer you? He just harrasses and heckles you and plays with you, and then runs away, no doubt giggling that you will surely take his bait again.
Brian,
I don’t care who or what john is. I often respond to him not because I expect an answer or a debate with him but because people like him should not have their lunacy unanswered.
It’s a variation of “the only way evil flourishes is for good men to stand by and do nothing.”
Good point, Sir Knight.
I deter to your better judgment.
May the Force be with you.
You must have the patience of a Saint.
> I
deterdefer to your better judgment. < Argh!Liberals like John on a few forums? Oh, really? Where?
Other Liberals will contradict you and argue with you and show you the fallacy of your argument and try to sway you to their point of you.
John is so dense, shallow, ditzy, clueless and pig-headed, and you and Gums make him feel so insecure, inferior, inadequate and stupid that he can’t do that. So he spitefully, vindictively and childishly harrasses you, hitting and running without looking back, which makes your replies futile. The buzz word there is, “spitefully”. Making him loonier and more childlike than most Liberals, around the bend and crazier than any ordinary crackpot.
But hey, if you want to think of him as just a misunderstood, wild and crazy, mixed-up kid, that’s you’re prerogative, and I admire your benevolence. If he had a shred of decency, he would cut you some slack. Just say’n.