3 Shameful Examples of Blatant Anti-Gun Sexism

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

In decades past, sexist arguments and policies prevented women from voting, driving cars, and owning their own property.

Today, sexist commentators and politicians seek to prevent women from carrying their own handguns and defending their own lives. The political left, comprised of the same people who are often applauded for championing the rights of women and minorities, has recently exploded with thoughtless comments regarding women and their particular right to bear arms.

At the core of these arguments are two key assumptions: (1) that women are, in various ways, not rational enough to defend themselves with lethal weapons and (2) that the authorities should be depended upon to step in and protect them. By looking at three recent news stories, we see these assumptions in action.

Representative Salazar: College-Aged Women Cannot be Trusted With Guns

Politicians like Colorado Representative Joe Salazar continue to make inflammatory and sexist statements that suggest that women should not be able to bear arms. Salazar’s recent comments were specifically targeted to college campuses where he feared that young women would be unable to tell whether they were truly being threatened or whether they were imagining or exaggerating situations in their minds. In essence, Salazar assumes that women are not rational enough to distinguish an active rapist from an awkward bystander.

Furthermore, he offered that whistles, call-boxes, and designated safe zones are actually the only defense that a young woman needs from potential attackers. He, and many of his colleagues, still believes that young women, particularly of a college age, cannot be trusted to carry lethal weapons. So, it is better that they rely on campus security and local police forces than take matters into their own hands.

Salazar’s comments refer back to the same arguments that found most cases against females carrying guns. The first is that women are somehow too irrational to handle the responsibility of carrying a weapon. By suggesting that college-aged females are unable to determine true threats or to safely handle firearms, Salazar is appealing to a sexist and false stereotype.

Additionally, Salazar’s comments reveal an ironic contradiction in the left’s approach to the relationship between the right to bear arms and the sensitive realities of rape and violent crimes against women. The left claims to protect and advocate for women, yet their strict anti-gun stance prevents them from supporting a primary means that women can use to prevent themselves from ever becoming victims. It would seem that those who truly wish to empower women and to guarantee their wellbeing would logically have to support women’s access to responsible gun ownership. To take any other stance is to tell women that their life and dignity are not valuable enough to truly fight for.

Piers Morgan Is “Uncomfortable” With Women Carrying Guns

Piers Morgan recently did a segment about female gun ownership. In it, he expressed his discomfort with increased female gun purchases and with marketing schemes which play to female fashion stereotypes by offering bra-holsters and pink guns.

Reducing a significant issue to an aesthetic critique is Morgan’s clever way of evading the point that his guest, Paxton Quigley, made several times. Quigley argues that society has progressed, women are independent, and they deserve the right to defend themselves with legal and responsible gun ownership.

Politician Tells a Rape Victim That A Gun Would Not Have Saved Her

Tragic stories like Amanda Collins’ clearly demonstrate the consequences of sexist anti-gun policies which prevent women from protecting themselves. Authorities are not always present to flash a badge or their own lethal weapons. Collins, a young woman trained in martial arts and walking with a group for as long as possible, was raped on the way to her vehicle on her college campus and within sight of an empty campus police station. Because the college had a weapons ban in place, directly demonstrating the legal scenario that Representative Salazar promotes, the rapist had a weapon and Collins did not.

Now an advocate for women’s rights to bear arms, Collins willingly tells her story to illustrate the necessity of permitting women to make their own choices about self-defense. Her story proves that anti-gun comments and policies are not just theoretically flawed, they are also practically harmful.

On March 4, Collins told her story to the Colorado State Senate’s Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. After Collins’ testimony, specifically targeted against the same legislation that Salazar was defending, Democratic Senator Evie Hudak responded with the same sexist arguments that we have heard so many times before. Hudak essentially told Collins that, even if Collins would have had her gun, the rapist would have just overpowered her and used it against her. Senator Hudak, a woman herself, expresses the hopeless and sexist belief that women with guns will only stack the statistics against themselves and become victims of worse violence. Shamefully, to Hudak, passivity is preferable to bravery because it is impossible to believe that a women would actually be able to defend herself.

Dependence Hurts Everyone – Not Just Women

The leftist assumption, evident throughout these examples, is that people don’t need to protect themselves because the authorities will take care of them. Whistles, safe zones, and call boxes are all suggestions that ordinary people should just wait for someone with authority to come and save them. But while potential victims wait and blow into their whistles, evil people do not cease to act simply because they have.

We have seen this argument before. The left frequently promises help in times of trouble and expects private groups and individuals to wait around for the government to act. This sort of dependence is the reason that the economy takes so long to recover and people are so hesitant to return to work when they know that the government will pay the bills. So, especially in this instance of life or death importance, we cannot be content with dependency. It’s time that we blow the whistle on being satisfied with just blowing the whistle. It’s time that we stand by women’s right to bear arms.

link

Edited March 10, 2013 by charles!

[BaBamSam 239]

Still am against guns in general, but this article shows that sexism does exist in all political parties. If a man has the right to have a gun, so must a woman - I would just prefer neither had one, personally.

So bummed someone with the wicked name "Salazar" had this stance. Attributing this to Slytherin blood.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Charles...

People that want to take away your RIGHTS are not interested only in guns. They are racist and sexist also, they will step on the 4th and 5th amendments (they will have to in order to confiscate guns)1st amendment and any others. They want to take away the rights of women AND men to defend their families, they want to complicate matters for African Americans to own guns. If the same kind of restrictions were proposed on speech or voting...OMG!

Prior to "shall issue" carry laws, it was blatantly obvious that in many places ONLY whites were being issued concealed carry permits. Indiana's "shall issue" law was a direct result of a successful lawsuit by a black man against the Lake County, IN (Gary, IN) Sheriff for racism. Even though Alabama has the current policy of issuing concealed permits to ANY qualified citizen, the fact remains that the state law is a "may issue" not a "shall issue" law and had a long history of discriminating against blacks. A State's Attorney's opinion is the only thing making the practice of issuance a "shall issue" matter.

ANYONE willing to compromise our rights is a danger to freedom.