Monday, January 28, 2013

Women and guns

Women are prime targets for the criminal. The admonitions of equality with men in almost every category by the feminist movement without standing, rape statistics demonstrate that women are prey for certain types of men with serious mental issues. Yet, the majority of women between 18 and 26 voted for President Obama. They voted for a president who does not believe that one should even use a firearm in defense of one’s own life and family within one’s own house.

In 2004, as an Illinois State Senator, he voted in opposition to a bill that would have granted an exception to the handgun ban that would have allowed one to use a firearm in defense of one’s life in one’s own home. President Obama believes that none have the right to self-defense with a firearm, even in defense of one’s life and family in one’s own home.

Yet, this president alleges that he fully supports the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. His history says otherwise. In fact, it certainly appears from his legislative and ideological history that he is more than willing to allow the rape and murder of the victim so long as the victim does not resist the felon by any attempt at self-defense with a firearm.

The liberal left has always believed that one should never oppose a criminal, that one should always retreat, locking one’s self away if possible, or to just try to survive the assault if it was not possible to get away. That is your duty as a ‘good’ citizen. After all, the criminal is a product of their upbringing and society must suffer those it produces. ‘Collateral’ damage is acceptable to the liberal, so long as the ideal is the goal. In this case, an America without firearms.

Further, the liberal believes that somehow simply putting an admonition into law immediately results in that outlawed activity ending. As if the idea of an ‘assault’ weapons ‘ban’ would accomplish anything that would save one child’s life? Of course, these same liberals are hypocrites, as their imperative in killing the unborn has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 55 MILLION Americans as a result of abortions.

The idea of rape is abhorrent to any sane, rational individual. To the liberal, given their outlook with respect to the criminal having greater rights than the victim, rape is unfortunate, but, usually survivable. It is not unexpected that there must be casualties in the progressive struggle to spread the ideology of change.

Our children are conditioned to believe that violence is abhorrent, and that civilized people respect each other’s rights without violence. That one is not responsible for their actions or conduct. And, little boys should not be boys, but drugged into compliance. After all, little girls don’t act ‘that way’.

To that end, the National Education Association and the American Federal of Teachers have continually opposed any firearms in a school, including those of police and armed guards. Fortunately, saner minds have prevailed in those school districts with armed guards or police already in the schools. Belatedly, the Newtown school district has decided that armed police in the schools indefinitely may protect the children, where rhetoric and specious law and policy have failed.

In the 1960s, the city of Orlando Florida had a serious problem. 33 rapes had occurred within 9 months. A decision had to be made for the safety of the citizens. The police admitted that they were too few and far between to be of any impact. The Orlando Sun-Sentinel newspaper and the Orlando Police Department came up with a novel solution.

In 1966, self-defense firearms training was offered to the women of Orlando by the Orlando Police Department. 6,000 women took the offered training, which was well publicized by the Orlando Sun-Sentinel. Decals were given to those who completed the firearms course and placed on home windows. There was an 88% reduction in rape in the first year after the start of the firearms training program. Yet, the incidence of rape did not decrease in surrounding Florida cities. The only change was Orlando’s firearms training program for women.

Similar firearms training programs conducted in Highland Park, MI and New Orleans, LA resulted in drops in the rate of armed robbery. When Kennesaw, GA required its citizens to maintain a firearm in each household, burglaries dropped 89% during the seven months after the law passed, as compared with the same period the previous year.

The use of firearms for self-defense by the law abiding are, at the very least, an impediment to crime.

Without a doubt, one of the concerns of most Americans is having one’s door kicked in during the dark of night by thugs intending to rob and do harm to one’s self and family. Yet, the American rate of home invasion is lower than that of Great Britain or Australia, both countries with bans on the use of firearms for home defense.

The private ownership of firearms in the United States is estimated to reduce the violent crime rate by 9%.

Prior to its handgun ban, Chicago enjoyed a lower rate of burglary and aggravated assault than any other large city in the U.S. During the first year of Chicago’s handgun ban, Chicago’s crime rate increased considerably. Even with the handgun ban for law abiding citizens, Chicago suffers a 42% higher rate of police officer deaths in the line of duty.

With the threat of an armed homeowner in the minds of burglars, only 13% of attempted burglaries are made against homes that are occupied. The greatest deterrent is the possibility of encountering an armed homeowner.

In England, Australia, and the Netherlands, home invasion is a regular occurrence given their hand gun bans. The reason home invasion occurs when the occupants are home is that the doors are unlocked, the alarm systems are off, and the occupants are . . . unarmed.

What the President proposed with his executive proposals and his proposed firearms ban and magazine ban has been proposed before. There was nothing new offered. Had this President been interested in protecting the women and children of the United States from violent crime, he would not have worried about bans or proposals. He would have done as the Orlando Police and the Sun-Sentinel did way back in 1966 to reduce rape in Orlando.

Were he actually serious about the safety of our children and women, President Obama would have called for a comprehensive effort across the nation to train women to use firearms for self-defense. He would have called for an education program to teach our young firearms safety. Instead, he continued the tired progressive anti-gun mantra that is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to compromise the Second Amendment. His program has nothing to do with the safety of our children, but everything to do with undermining the Constitution of the United States.

Crime is random. Bad things happen to good people. The police come after the fact. The only response left to the citizen, is to be prepared. The Second Amendment provides for self-protection through the use of a firearm. This protection was recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller before the Supreme Court, and in Moore v. Madigan before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. In Moore v. Madigan, the appellate court recognized that the right to self-defense with a firearm extended beyond the home and wherever a person might be.

If firearms owned by law abiding citizens have a negative impact upon crime by reducing crime, why did the women of this country vote for someone who could care less about their safety and who is willing to sacrifice them and their children for his ideological goals?

A victim who is armed, is not a victim.

Ladies, you cannot rape a .38.



For more information:

World Net Daily

David Kupelian, How Obama’s gun order will backfire:

Wall Street Journal:

John Lott, The facts about assault weapons and crime:

Law and Contemporary Problems Symposium, Gun Control, vol. 49, no. 1, (1986): 35:

"Policy Lessons From Recent Gun Control Research", Gary Kleck,, p47 :

District of Columbia v. Heller:

Moore v. Madigan:

ILEETA Amicus Brief:

No comments:

Post a Comment