I really thought the opponents of the pre-existing Right to Keep and Bear Arms would be spilling out the seams by now, however the response has been muted. I have found a few.
This first person proves to me that Moscow, Idaho is not an exclusive oasis of bright and level-headed people (although I only had a few data points to begin with).
First off, you need to read this story, from which I’ll excerpt the following quote:
He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to “purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself.”
Then you need to consider the mental gymnastics that needed to happen for this person to come up with this blog headline on the news story:
Tenessee Judge: Heller decision means it’s your fault if someone attacks you
Wow, what a leap. Besides the fact that the Judge never said anything like that, Sara here is obviously laboring under the impression that the police are able to and have a duty to protect everyone. First off Sara, I would suggest that the Judge was just offering some free advice. Second, consider researching the Warren v. D.C. case (links here, here, here and Google is your friend too.) Finally, if you do nothing else, click on this link (previously linked to by Uncle and Insty, but the URL has changed and it’s not redirecting properly).
Meanwhile, Jill over at Feministe - while not at all invoking the D.C. v. Heller decision - posts a timely opinion titled “Guns are a feminist issue?“.
Now, I was an active commenter on Feministe for well over a year. My intent was to understand this subculture and see what makes them tick and then blog about the experience. One thing I never understood was why these people pretend Feminism is a big tent philosophy that is wide open to everyone under the sun that believes in equal rights and equal protection under the law. In reality, to become one of the cabal you seem to need to have the correct liberal-left leanings and a firm conviction that the goverment is the solution to everything (crime, discrimination, wage differences, child support, the protection of the domestic supply of domestic partners from inexpensive overseas imports, the price that drug companies charge for birth control, everything). In the real world, every single weekend these people are revoking each others’ feminist membership cards.
I still don’t understand what an “anti-feminist” is, but it seems to cover a large swath of people from holy rollers who think that their religious book makes women chattel, all the way to people who support equal rights and believe that a firearm is an effective self-defense tool that can level the field between smaller, lighter and physically weaker people and their aggressors. I suppose that once you mentally sweep Laurel, Leah , Roberta, Tam, Kit, Breda, Mauser*Girl, Squeaky, Zendo Deb, and the rest of us equal rights supporters out of your pup tent, the echoes that you hear will surely agree that guns are icky-poo.
Anyway, she does the typical lying with a link to the Violence Policy Center statistics. There the VPC jumps to the horrible skewed presumption that the only self defensive records that should be deemed worthy of note are when a woman with a handgun (not a shotgun, nor a rifle) shoots and kills an attacker. Not counted are incidents where the attacker is wounded and lives. Nor is the incidents where the mere display of a firearm prevents an attack altogether, nor any incidents where a potential aggressor does not even decide to engage because the non-victim is not in a victim-disarmed-zone and might be carrying or be near someone who is discreetly carrying (see the map of this trend, Jill, and weep).
Update: added the “right to carry” image to the post instead of linking to it. It’s covered under the creative commons license and owned by Radical Gun Nuttery!
