Quote of the Day: You Guys! This is What Passes for Logic in the Ivy League

alexandra_brodsky_322x322_0_0_460

“We’re talking about why shouldn’t a woman be able to carry a gun to protect herself. But if you’re going to give her a gun, you’re also going to have to give rapists a gun, and I think we can all realize that’s a really bad idea.” – Alexandra Brodsky in “Campus-carry” bill raises safety concerns [at cbsnews.com]

comments

  1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    It was frightfully unsporting of the Gods to impose limits on human intelligence while not also limiting our potential for stupidity.

    1. avatar Sabrewolfe says:

      Oh, I am SO stealing that.

  2. avatar gunnut says:

    “you’re also going to have to give rapists a gun”

    Between 1993 and 2011 victims were confronted by offenders armed with guns in about 3-4% of all rapes/sexual assaults. Permissive concealed-carry laws (or the total amount of guns in circulation) have no negative consequences of increasing the proportion of criminals who carry guns to commit their crimes.

    1. avatar Ryan says:

      Interesting stat…do you have a citation for it for future use?

      1. avatar gunnut says:

        For starters check out DoJ reports: “Weapon Use and Violent Crime 1993-2001” and “Firearm Violence 1993-2011”. These numbers are all over the Internet, widely available.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      I submit that that figure proves the OP’s point; obviously, rapists are being denied access to the arms they ought to be using to exercise their proclivities. We need to recognize a new unenumerated right: that is, the right of any rapist to be supplied with a gun at public expense. As she says we “have” to do it.

    3. avatar BDub says:

      Its simpler even that that. An unarmed female victim up against and unarmed male rapist is a less equal position for the victim than if both were armed. Anyone who makes a case against campus carry has to justify their preference for placing any victim in a less favorable position.

  3. avatar James says:

    “you’re also going to have to give rapists a gun”

    Wow, talk about devaluing the Ivy Leagues and college degrees in general. What program is she referring to that would “have to give” someone a gun? Isn’t it a choice of letting the students carry a gun if they so choose?

    Obviously, to the rapist, the carry policy is irrelevant to forcefully dipping his wick in a coed (pardon my crudeness).

    Between this unthinking clown, the President, and all his Ivy League cabinet members (like Marie Harf), why do we have any esteem for these Ivy Leaguer at all?

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Book smarts and street smarts are not the same thing, and each have their own area of applicability.

      That said, better He Whom You Despise than someone who couldn’t string together a coherent sentence, bankrupted us, waged war illegally for fun and profit, continued to read “My Pet Goat” as 9/11 unfolded, whose AG referd to the Constitution as a “dated document” et fu¢king cetera.

      1. avatar AllAmerican says:

        Complete garbage statement dude, Bush was no saint but he was FAR better than Dear Leader, come on man….

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        Try to stay on message Russ, and stay on your meds.

      3. avatar Bob108 says:

        It is worse that that. I work around people with doctorates every day. They are smart when it comes to their area of expertise. They are as naive and dumb as rocks on most other subjects. Academia does not teach students about the world, they isolate students from the world, then students are taught by professors who have spent their adult lives hidden away from the world on a college campus.

        1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          take the Doc on a snipe hunting expedition, they will get a kick out of it I’m sure.

        2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          Wisdom and Knowledge is not a fine line.

      4. avatar Another Robert says:

        I know this is a rabbit trail, but it burns me no end when folks disparage Bush for the “My Pet Goat” thing. A couple of minutes would not make any difference in the situation at that point, I’m guessing he was just going to give those kids a few more minutes of serenity before things started caving in all over. I’ll guran-damn-tee you if Obama or Hillary! or Billy Jeff or any other Dem did the same thing, every media outlet in the whole country and the Russ Bixbys of the world would have been filled to overflowing with praise for their sensitivity and compassion for the kids and their coolness under stress. OK, rant over, carry on.

        1. avatar Bake says:

          It was always a cheap shot and used to deflect from Clinton’s failures to address Islamic terrorism. Most rational people dropped it a long time ago since Bush has collected enough legitimate blunders for criticism.

        2. avatar DrewN says:

          I’m no fan of Bush, but he wasn’t going anywhere until the Secret Service said so. He was in no danger where he was, better to stay put until they had a solid movement plan.

        3. avatar Another Robert says:

          @Drew–Yes–and that brings up another issue: When the SS did move Bush, he was obviously out of the public eye for awhile (given that it was not exactly unlikely that the attacks might include an assassination attempt). That didn’t keep that pompous ass Peter Jennings from using the occasion to take another low punch at Bush by starting to squawk “Where is the President? The American people want to know!”. People were probably stull screaming in the flames when that leftist jackass decided it was time to make some cheap political points.

      5. avatar jerry says:

        Poor Bixby. Angry because James insulted president boyfriend? You are so sad.

      6. avatar Juliesa says:

        That’s shallow. Obama makes just as many verbal gaffes as Bush (and Biden FAR more), but he’s a Democrat, so the media give him a pass. And “The Pet Goat”? Really? That’s Michael Moore silliness.

        1. avatar SpecialK says:

          As an aside, I am REALLY looking forward to Biden’s run for the Democratic nomination. That campaign will be God’s gift to late night talk show hosts everywhere.

      7. avatar Chuck in IL says:

        So, you’re like this girls sister, right?

      8. avatar juliesa says:

        And by the way, “The Pet Goat” is the actual title of the book, not “My Pet Goat”, so if that book constitutes a large proportion of the basis for your criticism of W, please at least get the title right.

      9. avatar James says:

        “referd”?

        Did you mean referred or reefer? Spell check would have even caught that one; and what was that about a coherent sentence?

        Lastly, where did I say GWB, a Yale Alum, was a superior president? We got a load of Ivy League alums in positions of authority and have none of those street smarts you are referring to, but they generally hide behind the sheepskin and the institution name and our equally lame media allows it.

        Check your rage first, then type.

      10. avatar tal says:

        I wonder how much longer we are gonna talk about President Bush?

        Another two years?

        Another 10?

        1. avatar Wood says:

          Depends. How do you like Jeb?

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          As long as Dems keep screwing things up. Hell, when all the disasters lurking in Obamacare finally manifest themselves, the Dems will be squealing “It’s Bush’s fault”. It’ll keep up until they have another Repub prez to blame . Which, BTW, I’m not particularly hoping will be Jeb.

        3. avatar Col. ,Angus says:

          …until the libtards find somebody new to blame.

      11. avatar Anonymous says:

        I’m always surprised by the republican boot lickers here. The last three republicans elected sh!t all over the American people’s rights.

        Reagan
        Reagans firearms protection act banning full autos not registered prior to 1986. Reagan publically announced his support for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban.

        Bush Sr.
        Government jack booted thugs = relinquish NRA life membership. Respects gun owners rights – so let’s ban imports and implement the most ridiculous set of rules imaginable (922R)

        Bush Jr.
        Supported the assault weapons ban. Supported instant background checks at gun shows. Then the single worst piece of legislation he signed in office. The “Patriot Act.” Yes. Nazi’s would have been envious. Thank you roving wiretaps. Yes – watch and record our every movement. Label us a terrorist and then you don’t need warrants or due process. You hear that – that’s your rights spinning down the toilet.

        Neither republicans nor democrats are on the side of rights.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Bush Jr.
          Supported the assault weapons ban”

          Wrong.

          Bush refused to extend the Clinton Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), allowing it to sunset.

      12. avatar Col. ,Angus says:

        You’re just a common street idiot, Russ….,,

      13. avatar Ben says:

        What illegal war are you referring to? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were approved by Congress, so they’re legal by American law.

    2. avatar 2AMexican says:

      “The world is full of people that have been educated well above the level of their intelligence.” – Dragoon44

      One of the most truthful and spot on comments I have come across on the internet.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Most highly educated people are an inch wide and a mile deep, which in their field of study is great. But, being a person who is a mile wide an inch deep is a much better measure of intelligence, in my opinion.

        1. avatar Publius says:

          Generalists can’t really compare to specialists, by and large. Unless you’re some kind of super genius, it’s very, very difficult to have a respectable degree of competence all across the board.

        2. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

          I think both can be quite annoying, I think it’s more about being humble and recognizing your limitations. Academics don’t generally do either, but I also know some people who, have read at least 1 article about just about everything and they think they know more than they really do.

    3. avatar Connor says:

      14th Amendment. She’s right, but her choice of words is very poor. I take her statement as being opposed to campus carry for anybody. Yes, I understand that criminals don’t follow laws, etc, etc. But not all rapes are conducted by hardened criminals. They are more often than not done by somebody the woman knows, which could mean the rapist is also a law abiding student attending school at the same campus, up to the point they made a wrong decision. In cases like this a rapist wouldn’t use a firearm in committing the act as they have already been placed in a position of trust by the victim.

      1. avatar Cody says:

        And even if they both end up armed, and in a Mexican standoff type of situation, it’s not likely the rapist is willing to become a murderer, because as you say, the rapist is not a hardened criminal and up to this point, believed there was little chance of getting caught.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          This is nonsensical. Who wants to screw dead girls?

        2. avatar Ben says:

          It has nothing to do with “screwing dead girls” and everything to do with shooting first because your intended victim is now a threat to your life.

      2. avatar B says:

        You just described “an otherwise law abiding rapist.” I want you to think long and hard about what you just said.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          I know, right? I can maybe go along with an otherwise law abiding speeder, red light runner, shady tax deduction taker, or possibly even ooccasional expense account padder.

          But otherwise law abiding rapist? Seriously? What about otherwise law abiding necrophiliacs, arsonists, kidnappers, and baby seal clubbers?

        2. avatar Timmy! says:

          “…long and hard…”

          Seriously, are we NOT doing phrasing anymore?

        3. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

          It’s more likely that the potential rapist may want to avoid the chance of being shot.

        4. avatar B says:

          I do not appreciate you taking my long hard words, taking them deep inside you, and twisting them around for your own pleasure.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Many men accused of rape claim they were certain that the woman consented. If he pulled a gun and pointed it at her, that story just sank. More to the point, alcohol and hormones rushing around, or whatever, a boyfriend-girlfriend potential rape will stop, instantly and absolutely, at the presentation of a gun, it would only need to be fired one time in a hundred. It would not be a good thing for girls under 21, though, they would receive far more attention from the wrong kind of guy.

      4. avatar Pieslapper says:

        Then they would be dissuaded when Susie sophomore pulls out her gat and says “No means no !”

        1. avatar Steve says:

          Um…Susie sophomore is likely under 21 and thus would probably be prohibited from carrying in the first place.

    4. avatar doesky2 says:

      If you have a liberal arts degree from the typical leftist university you are dumber than the day you started school….

      ….and if you continued on for a graduate degree now you’re dumb and dangerous.

      Dennis Prager.

    5. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      I’ve never been more proud to be a college dropout.

  4. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    I didn’t realiz “we” were giving out guns… I thought we were just allowing people to obtain and carry guns legally.

    So, where does this “gun giving” line start?

    I’ll take Plum stock, Bulgarian 7.62 AK, if you have one… Is there separate line for ammo and 30 round clipazines?

    1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      Clipazines?

      I am so stealing that.

    2. avatar Gatha58 says:

      You have to sign off on being a “rapist” to get your free gun….;-) !

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Would that make me subject to a 3 month suspension from school?

    3. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

      It’s a strange progressive logic that if it’s not banned, it must be subsidized. Or if it’s not subsidized we should ban it. There always has to be a public policy for every action and inaction is not one of them.

      I won’t speak for the whole “coexist” movement, but when I was in college I got into a discussion with some group preaching “tolerance.” But there definition of tolerance was “everyone should love and actively embrace each other for our differences.” I told them that tolerance meant live and let live, which had nothing to do with active embrace. My definition was “inadequate” according to them. In this case if it’s not hate for the other it must be love. I don’t hate any group, but I just don’t care about petty differences. Key words, “do not care.” But me not caring is deemed insufficient. I have a friend who’s gay. I am not allowed to just like him because he’s a good guy, I must also love and actively acknowledge his sexual orientation.

      1. avatar Guywithagun says:

        Good point. Apathy is a valuable tool. Use it wisely.

  5. avatar Mike says:

    Last I knew, rape was a more serious offense than illegally carrying, to be naive enough to believe a rapist who wants to carry won’t because of another law, just proves that book smarts and street smarts can be worlds apart for some people.

    1. avatar Komrad says:

      Actually, most rapists don’t carry because of the law.
      I remember this from HS sex-ed, so I don’t have a good source, but, apparently, they interviewed rapists in prison. Most of them didn’t bother to carry a weapon because they were already big enough to overpower their targets without one and using a weapon added a lot of time to the sentence.

      So, we got rapists already don’t carry guns or even knives, because they overpower women easily without them.
      Now, what could possibly balance that equation?

  6. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    Oh me… and just think, these oh so tender and deluded children are soon to become the next generation of teachers, lawyers, and – god help us – PARENTS.

    The stupid, it burns.

    1. avatar Juliesa says:

      So true, and what’s even worse is that DC is run by Ivy League kids.

      1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

        “Whenever there is a great disaster there always seems to be a Harvard man in the middle of it” — Thomas Sowell

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Not to mention……Supreme Court Justices.

  7. avatar New Chris says:

    Let us say this is true, then at least a rape has been stopped and a shoot out has been created. Thus a potential victim has been turned into an equalized combatant.

    How is this not better?

    1. avatar Chris. says:

      I’m gonna guess it goes something along the lines of:

      Blood running in the streets… wild west shootouts… etc etc etc…

      You know, all the same tired old garbage predictions that haven’t happened any time gun rights have been restored.

  8. avatar (Formerly) MN Matt says:

    She sadly, and clearly, does not understand the criminal mindset. -_-

    1. avatar pyratemime says:

      How judgmental of you to label rapists as criminals. They are just relationship disadvantaged with a coitus difficency and an abnormally strong desire to provide free copulation services to society. Arming others would prevent these Public Servants from making their appointed rounds*.

      *Void where the children and spouses of elitists live, work, learn, and play as they will be guarded by armed individuals to prevent such affordable care.

      1. avatar Guywithagun says:

        Bravo!

  9. avatar Gatha58 says:

    How did she get into college ? Clearly she is not a student of logic. Must be an Arts major.

    1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      She said the code phrase.

      1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

        What’s that? “Here is an obscene amount of my parent’s money for your massively for-profit enterprise”?

    2. avatar Col. Angus says:

      With a minor in Wymyns’ Studies. She’ll probably get a job with DoJ or as an aide to Representative Chelsea Clinton.

  10. avatar surlycmd says:

    What in the hell is this young woman saying? Is she saying more rapists will be carrying guns legally? Or is she saying more rapists will have guns because young women are incapable of defending themselves with a firearm and it will be taken from them?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yes.

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      I honestly believe she thinks it’s not fair for an unarmed rapist to face an armed woman.

      The quote in no way indicates a belief that armed rapists are a natural, if unintended consequence of arming women. “You’re going to have to…” clearly indicates a requirement to achieve some effect in the same phrasing used for her imaginary central power “giving” guns to women.

      As a male feminist I recognize that women are capable of selecting and purchasing their own firearms.

  11. avatar Kerry says:

    Ivy League and Blonde!

  12. avatar SteveInCO says:

    I hate like hell seeing such excellent evidence of beauty being inversely proportional to brains.

  13. avatar GS650G says:

    A rapist with a gun can be dispatched with quickly without the media taking his side and calling it a hate crime. Armed criminals are quickly forgotten rather than dignified.
    As for this lady there are other things she could do with her time but this is a family oriented web site.

  14. avatar DGM says:

    Maybe she’s thinking that what is done for one group of people has to be done for the others in the name of her collectivist dogma? Or perhaps she’s thinking that the legislation that would allow students to campus carry would also protect said predators by allowing them to carry on a campus as well? The thing about the English language is that it complicates semantics. I’m turning her comment over this way and that way and I see no shred of logic or rationality holding it together.

  15. avatar pun&gun says:

    I think she’s so deep into the liberal mindset that she believes gun rights advocates are arguing for a right TO a firearm rather than a right to own one, and that we want some kind of second amendment welfare program. O.o

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Yeah, like where the hell is my ObamaSako anyway?

      http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608005582467762528&pid=15.1&H=106&W=160

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        If I am going to demand my ObamaGun to go along with others’ ObamaPhones I could at least format the request properly.

        http://2.bp.blogspot.com/–jhNl6AhGi8/UfZIMYymloI/AAAAAAAAFtY/J6qtGPMBg2w/s1600/Sako.jpg

        1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Sweet! It’s got the thingie that goes up and one that goes down! I’ll take two.

    2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

      Anything involving subsidies or governmental providence is arrest beyond a “right.”

      Your two statements of a right TO a gun and a right to own a gun are the same thing.

      Don’t let them trick you into phrasing things such that a right to something includes that thing being provided to one at the expense of another.

  16. avatar DickDanger says:

    Stuff like this used to razz me, but now I’m numb to it. All I can say is she must deal with the consequences of her actions. I wish no ill will upon her, but if it befalls her and she is unable to prevent it because she rallied against something that could have prevented it, I will feel no sympathy.

  17. avatar Cornholio says:

    Well Alexandra, by your logic, you might as well just lay back and enjoy it, right?

  18. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    This twit apparently believes that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms on campus will lead to more criminals carrying firearms on campus – and by extension, she apparently believes that current legal prohibitions to carrying firearms on campus restrain criminals from carrying firearms on campus.

    In both cases, the exact opposite is true: so-called “Gun Free Zones” embolden criminals not only to carry, but to seek out victims they know will be defenseless; and in places where the law-abiding are known to be armed, criminals are discouraged from seeking out victims.

    Why do progressives keep naively believing that laws constrain criminals?

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Why do non-progressives persist in such horrific labels as “criminal” for misunderstood and neglected youth damaged by our raaaacist, privilege driven society?

      (er… just in case it ain’t obvious… /sarc)

  19. avatar Oxygenthief says:

    Is it just me or does she look like Jewel Staite from Firefly/Stargate Atlantis?

    Really hope Jewel isn’t this stupid…

    1. avatar Rambeast says:

      Close, but no. Jewel is a bit older now.

  20. avatar Frank says:

    What these clowns don’t get is if I walk into a “gun free zone” with a gun, I am the most powerful person in the room. All I have to do is pull it out and say I have a gun and panic erupts.

    If I were to try that in an area not designated “gun free zone” , there is a good chance that I would be ventilated.

    Because there are more guns around and people usually want to keep their body temperature above room temperature, it a deterrent.

  21. avatar Accur81 says:

    If they’re giving away guns, I’ll take one!

    Oops, I forgot. They don’t give guns to Americans. You have to belong to a Mexican drug cartel, be a Syrian rebel, or perhaps an unmotivated Iraqi soldier. Americans have to buy firearms, and typically have to jump through considerable obstacles to do so. Conversely, we ship them away and hand them out for free around the world.

  22. avatar Don in PA says:

    Spock carried a sidearm. It’s only logical. LLAP

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      Just as a backup to the Vulcan Nerve Pinch.

  23. avatar bo says:

    Ms. Brodsky’s comments so dumb…Had now hurting….

  24. avatar Another Robert says:

    A law student, for cryin’ out loud. Oh well, lotsa stupid lawyers already out there. But seriously, does she really believe that rapists are waiting for government permission to arm themselves?

    1. avatar gemalo says:

      Brings to mind the famous quote about “99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name”

  25. avatar Cesare says:

    While it is tempting to dismiss this as an archetypal blonde moment, and a particularly excruciating one at that. Upon reflection she is living proof that college credentials have been reduced to expensive badges of compliance; you say the required thing uncritically and without reserve, pass GO get your ticket punched. Just the same this is a genuinely frightening level of indoctrination, even the rhesus monkeys they fed mountains of cocaine retained some intellect, they just had a thing for cocaine. This woman on the other hand gives imbecility a bad name.

  26. avatar S.dogood says:

    my faith in humanity has reached 5 percent

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Did that figure rise or sink to five percent after reading her statement?

  27. avatar Carry.45 says:

    She’s assuming the rapist wouldn’t mind adding one or two more charges to the rape charge. Which is silly, naive and just all around simple-minded. I hope she never finds herself in a situation that would force her to change her perspective. Though I do hope she comes to the conclusion that only she is responsible for her safety by thinking long and hard about the subject, not just regurgitating the liberal bile.

  28. avatar freezercharlie says:

    in order to become a second amendment supporter, hack will have to become. . . . . . A RAPIST

    http://youtu.be/bMKGwASz-5k?t=41s

    1. avatar Jon says:

      You think she maybe watched too much Hack? 😉

  29. avatar Anonymous says:

    Rapists can already get a gun. One can easily be purchased out of the backs of vehicle trunks in the right locations.

    Just like in France, the debo shooters had no problem acquiring firearms. Gun control just makes it difficult for the law abiding to own and acquire firearms legally. It is always easy to get guns illegally. It just takes money.

    Brodsky is under the idea that criminals will follow gun laws while committing rape – which is nonsensical.

  30. avatar Michael says:

    “Better make sure I’m in compliance with the state’s gun laws before I go out rapin” – things liberals think rapists say

    1. avatar Col. ,Angus says:

      Was that with a Boston or an Arkansas accent?

  31. avatar Fug says:

    Wait, who is giving guns away? Nobody told me!?

    Really, if you think about it, who is more likely to be able to afford a firearm? A young co-ed with wealthy parents or a skeevy rapist? How many rapists even use firearms? It seems like a liability, you should have a blade when conditions are that intimate and risks of discarding the weapon are that high.

    Even if we want to run with her logic and suggest they both have guns because of “society” then the co-ed should be better armed 9/10 times, less intoxicated and have more to live for. Someone remind these kids that preparedness make them powerful and butter makes them fat – the macroeconomic model of guns vs butter, this is (or used to be) high school level economics.

    There are so many creepy, thirsty young men nowadays that any marginally pretty woman should consider packing heat. That goes for anyone with anything valuable they carry with them or keep in their homes.

    The whole idea of confusion during a mass shooting is ridiculous, anti-2A LEO want to suggest it will be like the OK corral but most people would just want to shoot their way out as needed, not hide in the air vents like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. Even if it is allowed it doesn’t mean everyone will do it. Carrying a pistol can be pretty inconvenient and for all the bravado some guys on the internet have about never being without their pistol, we all leave it home or at least in the car sometimes.

  32. avatar Stompy says:

    “We’re talking about why shouldn’t a woman be able to own a car, carry money or wear jewelry. But if you’re going to give her these items, you’re also going to have to give carjackers a car and thieves more valuables and I think we can all realize that’s a really bad idea.” Just replace guns with other inanimate objects and that logic sounds even better.

  33. avatar David N says:

    The next time miss brain-o has a thought, she should keep it to herself. I seem to recall another law student who demanded that the government supply her with free birth control pills. If her brain is anything like this winner, I am all in for that! I sure don’t want this sort of thing populating the world.

    1. avatar Jay-El says:

      If you’re referring to Sandra Fluke, she was urging Georgetown University — a private institution — to cover hormonal birth control pills through its non-government-funded health plan. She did not make the case on her own behalf, but on behalf of another student. Her request was not that the medication be free, but merely covered by the University’s health plan. And the reason was not for prevention of pregnancy, but for hormonal treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome.

      Not that others did not politicize the issue, but those are the facts.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Maybe you can enlighten me then–if her deal was completely private, why did she wind up testifying in front of Congress? I thought her schtick was arguing that one way or the other , the government should force all health insurance policies to cover contraceptives.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          How about just every one which covers Viagra?

        2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          How about coverage be a private contract which the government keeps its long, snotty nose out of? Whether that means ED coverage or not, or contraceptive coverage or not, is nobody’s business but the consumer and insurer who mutually agree upon the scale and scope of coverage provided?

        3. avatar Another Robert says:

          Exactly, Jonathan. If indeed that was the total extent of Sandra Fluke’s advocacy, then I stand corrected and bully for her. But somehow I don’t think such is the case.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Let’s roll the tape, shall we? From Ms. Fluke’s own testimony, emphasis added to highlight Ms. Fluke’s own focus on this coverage as being for contraceptive purposes:

        “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of CONTRACEPTIVE coverage. And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically, because of this lack of coverage. And so I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them — them, not me — to be heard. Without insurance coverage, CONTRACEPTION, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

        So clearly Ms. Fluke is arguing in favor of this coverage for contraceptive purposes, and primarily so, because she leads off with this angle to her argument and only in passing refers to polycystic ovary syndrome much later in her testimony. Ms. Fluke also isn’t merely arguing on behalf of one friend, but rather women in general, including herself. Roll the tape; again, emphasis added:

        “For a lot of students who, LIKE ME, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they’ve struggled financially as a result of this policy.”

        Ms. Fluke goes on in her testimony to relate how embarrassed one student was at the pharmacy counter upon learning that contraceptives were not covered by the plan. She droned on about how a particular married couple couldn’t fit contraceptives into their budget, and how other women go without, too. Her only reference to polycystic ovary syndrome is to characterize it, in her own words, as being “in the worst cases”, and not at all routine and customary usage of contraceptives. After all, the product is known by its primary purpose, which is not treatment of ovarian cysts.

        Speaking of which, what is POS, anyway? It’s harmless cysts on the ovaries, non-cancerous, which can affect hormonal balances. Long term effects of hormonal imbalances are medically debatable, but short term impact includes acne and perhaps some unwanted hair.

        There are non-contraceptive medications available that treat POS, including metformin or clomiphene. So contraceptives need not be covered in order to treat this condition, despite Ms. Fluke’s distracting rhetoric. In fact, the major treatments for POS are regular exercise, a healthy diet, weight control, and not smoking. Neither will a $1.99 box of condoms, split between Ms. Fluke and her partner(s), break anyone’s bank, especially when condoms are available at no charge in numerous clinics. None of which requires medication or a Jesuit institution violating its faith at government gunpoint.

        Soooo………..counterpoint? Make it good, too, and don’t play the B.S. card. Oh, never mind. Q.E.D.

        1. avatar Jay-El says:

          I’m not going to be baited, sorry.

          I said it was politicized. You’ve provided ample expansion on that,many I’m neither agreeing nor agreeing with your points.

          The original post asserted that another law student asked the government to pay for her birth control. That’s four errors of fact, and the extent of my post was to note the actual facts.

          Sorry, J-H — you often present well-articulated arguments and I think you’d be a worthy dance partner, but I’m not dancing.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Soooo………..counterpoint? ”

          I’ll bite.

          Fluke demands the Government to keep its nose out of the activities in her bedroom and then paradoxically demands that it pay for the consequences of those activities.

          What am I missing?

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          “When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of PERSONAL DEFENSE coverage. . . . ” So, what could we do about that:
          – provide armed escorts to co-eds, paid for by tuition hikes?
          – provide armed escorts to co-eds, paid for by tax hikes?
          – constrain classes (and any other campus activities) to daylight hours where campus police can provide adequate coverage?
          – allow co-eds (the elderly and impaired) their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights?
          – other ideas?

        4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Another time, another topic, then, Jay-El. We can part on this one as men in mutual respect. No worries, my friend.

  34. avatar gregory says:

    Why does this surprise anyone? She is part of the ObamaNation.

  35. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    “you’re also going to have to give rapists a gun”

    This statement shows a complete lack of understanding of how people can legally obtain firearms in the US… not surprising.

    Last time I checked, rape was a felony, which varies from state to state on what Class (A, B) it is. And felons, correct me if I’m wrong, can’t obtain firearms (legally).

    So no, you can’t “give” rapists guns, and why would you when you have already identified them as a rapist…. I think what you were trying to infer is you don’t want anyone to have guns in the event they decide to obtain a gun legally and then throw their morals to the wind and decide to rape someone, thus becoming a rapist. Which is altogether a plot line for Minority Report and the thought police. Either way, it’s nonsense logic.

    Going back to the real issue, you know, talking about ways to prevent rape incidents, well that has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with a person’s value system (or lack thereof). I believe that falls into the mental health category.

    My message to the typical antis: stop mixing up the categories.

    1. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      And again, this isn’t about trying to find new ways to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms (or any wide variety of non-gun weapons they can use to injure or kill people to get what they want).

      This is about legally arming good people so they can defend themselves from the evil in the world. Our reality is we accept the fact that evil is out there and carrying a firearm gives us a fighting chance against evil.

      The anti’s reality is simply that evil has never affected them in their bubble lives, so in their minds, why would anyone need a firearm for protection?

      Well, because that’s not the reality we all live in, bubble or no bubble. And that’s the message we should push. Antis are like all of those people that are stuck in the Matrix, the reality they see is not the reality that is. This is why there is no reasoning with these people until they experience evil firsthand.

      1. avatar Jay-El says:

        Excellent analysis there.

        In the Matrix (movies), weren’t there people who preferred the Matrix to reality? I think many people want to live inside a delusion of safety and kumbaya.

        I’ve seen the other side — I.e., reality and evil and tragedy — up close and personal. Sometimes I wish I could just hide behind blissful ignorance. But once you’re aware of the Matrix, you make a choice and you live with it. You either accept reality and your responsibility to protect your family, or you (selfishly) crawl back inside the warm, uterine world that is denial.

        1. avatar Jake Tallman says:

          Exactly. For the most part, they are (in my experience at least, so I am generalizing a bit) middle class and upper middle class people who live in the suburbs. Their awareness of the kind of evil that lurks in the soul of every human is pretty much nonexistent, and they would rather remain that way. So, when they hear about something awful, they try to find some way to rationalize it, some external factor that preserves their notion that evil is artificial and introduced externally.

          But the truth is that, as I said above, people are capable of doing terrible things to each other, and there are people out there (in far greater numbers than most realize) who are barely even human. Monsters who pray on others out of an innate desire to harm them. Frankly, I think that the refusal to recognize the innate human potential for evil is dangerous. Not just from a standpoint of someone’s outlook, but for their own morality and behavior as well. It’s necessary to find your dark side, look it in the eye and shake its hand, so that you can always tell where it is and know when to step back.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          Agreed. What would shake these middle-/upper-class women out of the complacency engendered by their gated communities?
          How about reminding them of their minority sisters who – for lack of any alternative – are compelled to live in the inner-city surrounded by thugs lacking the ambition to attack women in gated communities?
          What do we know about the rate of assaults on minority women? My guess is that this rate falls somewhere between the rate of assaults on minority men and that on majority men or women. Would the data bear this out? Perhaps not. A majority victim will be more likely to report an assault to the police so it can be tabulated. Minorities might not report as often.
          In any case, if a white woman can empathize with a black woman (perhaps with children to defend and support) she might develop a more nuanced understanding of the crime problem.

  36. avatar rip says:

    That female is nuts. Bet she’d feel differently if she was the one getting raped raped.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Agreed. Just as there are no atheists in a foxhole, there are no gun grabbers in a rapist’s clutches.

  37. avatar SpecialK says:

    Even if we accept Ms. Brodsky’s premise that allowing a female to have a gun will also result in allowing the rapist to have a firearm (it’s misguided, but just for the sake of argument), where is the greater disparity if force? Between an unarmed 120 pound woman and an unarmed 200 pound man? Or between an armed 120 pound woman and an armed 200 pound man? Furthermore, if I as an armed would-be rapist know that my potential prey is likely to be armed, do I really want to chance taking a bullet?

  38. avatar Macdo says:

    You guys don’t get that these ladies are using the new feminazi definition of rape. Had drunken sex you were raped, regretted one night stand you were also raped, gazed at for too long you were raped, and if a man makes you feel in anyway uncomfortable you were… you guessed it raped. So by there own logic all and any man is a rapist, to allow legal carry to them is arming rapist. Telling women to defend themselves is victim blaming you should spend your time telling all men to not be rapist.
    I wish I could say sarc but I can not. I myself don’t hold these views just understand that is were these ladies are coming from. Its very dangerous to allow the enemies of freedom control the language.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I’m afraid you have something of a point there.

  39. avatar Mark says:

    Um… gee. The young lady who made the comment. Does she realize she already has a constitutional right to carry a gun? As does the would-be rapist, assuming he has not been previously convicted of a felony crime? Who’s talking about “giving” rapists guns?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Exactly, the question was “on campus or not?”, the discussion should center on the reasons why campuses should be different than anywhere else. She is showing her ignorance and her sense of superiority, but then that is obvious anyway.

  40. avatar WillieLee says:

    Rape on a college campus means going for a goodnight kiss, stealing second, staring at a chick’s can too long or even simply looking like some guy that raped her years ago thousands of miles away. And sometimes, rarely but sometimes, actual forced intercourse.

  41. avatar Ryan says:

    Cso to this woman, being on equal footing is not preferable to being at a disadvantage?

    Also basic economics refutes this problem. What are the costs of attempting to sexually assault someone who might be carrying a gun? What were the costs of the same against someone who definitely isn’t carrying a gun? And she thinks allowing concealed carry on campus won’t discourage sexual assault?

  42. avatar Scorpion says:

    Deterring sexual assaults on college students is just one reason for campus carry. The other, and I think more important, is that it will allow the thousands of campus employees — from professors to cafeteria workers — who may have to cross darkened parking lots or wait at lonely bus stops at night on their commute to carry a gun for protection. No guns on campus means those people have to leave their guns at home. Won’t someone PLEASE think of the working adults?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Right, the whole idea seems to regularly come down to rape. I’ve been carrying for decades, and even tho I used to be a desirable young man (according to my wife!), I have never carried because I was concerned about being raped.

  43. avatar Jay-El says:

    Even if the would-be rapist was able to qualify for a CCW, committing a felony while armed is pretty much guaranteed to result in a more serious sentence. It’s already a crime to rape, and it’s already a far more serious crime to use a firearm in the commission of a rape.

    Un-banning CCW holders from carrying on campus wouldn’t mean a thing for the rapist. But it would almost surely mean something for the would-be victim.

    Don’t they teach rhetoric, logic or, you know, law to these law students anymore?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      It would rarely mean anything to the would-be victim. First, she would have to be over 21, not that common on campus. Then, she would have to own a gun, not that common for women in college. Then she would have to have elected to seek a CCL. NOW, she is finally interested in her university’s carry policy, not before. What’s your guess? One female student out of 100? 1000? Not real common.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        All legitimate points. Nevertheless, we can examine the positive side as well. How confident can a rapist be that his candidate victim is 18, 19, 20, or 21+? Assuming the limit is – and remains at – 21, he still has to make an accurate determination as to whether his prospect is ‘of legal age’ to terminate his attack. A couple of States, I recall, issue CCPs to 19 year olds. This number could rise; particularly in campus-carry States. (Admittedly, this will take a long time).
        The most important factor – I think – may be opening the door to thinking about CC. As long as a woman is 21, have permits, and DO carry. Now, she can foresee that in a year or two she will be of-age to apply for her own permit. Will she do so? Or, will she continue to think about how defenseless she is when crossing her campus after dark? The decision is up to her; but opening campuses to carry will make the question Should I carry? relevant to the <21 crowd.
        Every incremental advance wares away the opposition to guns in civilian hands

  44. avatar NYC2AZ says:

    “you’re also going to have to give rapists a gun”

    My response to any SJW Feminist on this issue: “Why don’t we just teach men not to rape rapists not to carry guns?”

    /progderp

  45. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Wait whut? Ain’t Barry Soetoro an Ivy boy? This gal should stick with a rape whistle. Passing exams does not confer superior intelligence( or sense)…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Look at her! It is plain that any hint that she might resist rape is purely racist, and should not be allowed. Just ask our legal expert, Eric Holder! She must be DISCIPLINED!”

  46. avatar George says:

    Every time I think I’ve heard the stupidest argument against Civil Rights and self protection they go and prove me wrong.

  47. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    My favorite part of the original article was where the campus top cop declares colleges to be bastions of drugs and underage drinking, then declares (presumably with a straight face) that we mustn’t allow people to defend themselves because that will make things worse.

  48. avatar White says:

    Rapist with a gun vs a citizen with a gun?

    2 words: Bring it!!

    As a patriotic American, I will LIVE, KILL, & DIE to protect my fellow Americans from sociopaths such as rapists should they be stupid enough to harm myself or another in my presence.

    I wonder how many rapists are willing to die for the “right” to rape women (or men for that matter)? Somehow, I doubt it. No sociopath desires a fair fight, even if they DO manage to get a weapon identical to their potential victim. They are cowards who prefer to prey on the defenseless, disarmed, intoxicated, or elderly people.

  49. avatar Yadama says:

    Sigh, I knew eventually TTAG would board this train. I thought Ad Hominem attacks were a no-no for commenters, so why would you attack the girl’s intelligence in the headline because her logic plays out different then yours? Why not headline the article, “The Mind of an Ivy Leaguer” with a sub header asking ‘How do we fight this EMBEDDED logic?’ Why not explain how legislation and lack of gun exposure leads to this kind of logic. Now, you have rile up your readerships, and a nice chunk of them attacking her intelligence & character instead of providing ways to combat this sort of logic embedded into people like her are not knowledgeable or exposed to firearms. Here I thought TTAG could be the blog to break the norm, but nope. I thought TTAG could be that guy that doesn’t mock or ridicule the opposition, and give them the respect every human deserve regardless of your opinion on the issue. You can’t convince people on the fence by mocking others, you stick to the facts and TRUTH, not opinions. This is why gun control will never go away. Both sides on the issue are too immature to raise the standard of the discussion to a mature level..

    P.S. – One person thoughts on the matter doesn’t pass for what the entire student body logic may be. So, it was a blanket attack, ridiculing every Ivy Leaguer out there. Nice job, Dan.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Are you saying there are different “logics” out there, all of which are equally valid? The statement that the rapists out there are waiting for government permission to arm themselves, that someone who by definition is willing to commit a major felony will be deterred from committing a lesser offense (in Texas, for example, a misdemeanor) because the lesser offense is “illegal”-well, please explain to me how that is “logical” in the usual sense of the word.

  50. avatar michael3ov says:

    No, that’s one moron in the Ivy League. You love your broad brush strokes, don’t you? There have also been some serious failures of logic on our side as well. Putting this one idiot up so everyone can point and laugh isn’t exactly intelligent. Its entertainment for simple minded fools.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      If you think she is the only one like that at Harvard Law, you are mistaken. And TTAG didn’t “put her up” so much as CBS News did by quoting her as some sort of authority on the subject who needs to be heard. Calling her out on her nonsensical statements is entirely appropriate. Especially as that particular nonsensical statement is apparently developing into a go-to talking point for the antis.

  51. avatar BlueBronco says:

    A rapists is going to already have a gun, knife etc. if they want one because they aren’t concerned about the law.

  52. avatar Grindstone says:

    Does she really, truly believe that if a rapist sees a sign that say “no guns allowed” hes going to go “aw shucks” and leave it behind before he goes and rapes?

  53. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    But if you’re going to give her a gun, you’re also going to have to give rapists a gun, Even if you believe this statement, it would at least put the young 130lb woman the equal of 300lb Bubba.
    Quite frankly, I do not see my daughter at college getting raped by another student as much as some of the aspiring rappers who surround the campus. I am sure the aspiring rappers will obey the gun free signs about the campus scrupulously.

  54. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Oh yeah, my Daughter at IUPUI is pro-gun and pro-weapon. She has a third degree black belt in Tae Kwan Do. She knows how to use a gun.

  55. avatar JohnF says:

    Oh now I get it, “give the rapists guns!” I was speed reading. I thought it said “give therapists guns.” Now that would be truly terrifying!

    1. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      Oh, I’ll pay your game you rogue… I’ll take “the rapist” for 20.

      1. avatar JohnF says:

        That’s what your mother said, Trebek! Haw, haw, haw…

  56. avatar Jon says:

    Okaaaayy, then.

  57. avatar Sketch says:

    So having (a lot of) women be at a disadvantage is better than having them on equal footing with the rapists?
    SEEMS LEGIT.

  58. avatar Jake Tallman says:

    God, I really hate academia. I dropped out of college after one year because I was so sick of the ivory tower intellectual elitism coupled with balling stupidity. I’m a really smart person, and I go out of my way to seek knowledge on my own (God, I love that I’ve grown up with the internet). The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know. That is how it should be. And yet, with your academic types, the more they learn, the more certain they are that they know everything. It’s an interesting phenomenon, though I don’t have the faintest idea of what causes it (and I very much doubt that the arrogance of college professors is the sole culprit).

  59. avatar Jon says:

    When I read that comment, I think:

    http://youtu.be/v4jSdXkVJg0

  60. avatar Peter says:

    Lots of derp in the comments,. A rapist assaulting a woman in the middle of a crowd could spark a wild shootout?
    What percent of rapes occur in a non participating group of more than one? Or do you suppose multiple members of a gang rape will decide to protect the victim instead of joining in.
    The assumption always seems to be that adults who carry responsibly off campus suddenly become a sort of “Animal House” caricature once they enter a campus.
    As for the multiple persons shot in NYC, it is worth pointing out that it was the POLICE firing wildly on a crowded street.

  61. avatar Will P. says:

    So this is what some of the most expensive colleges in the world warp your brain to? Well it has been proven time and time again an aggressor will be MUCH less likely to attack/rape/rob if they know or worry about the victim being armed. Because even on the simplest thought process(right around where many criminals brains equate) no one wants to take the chance of being harmed.

  62. avatar MarkPA says:

    http://i.imgur.com/2Av06oX.jpg

    This is the face of a girl whose government can’t protect her; one whom America’s government won’t protect. If this photo disturbs academia they are free to imagine the fate of her sisters who were denied the means to self-defense. Coming to a campus near you?
    – No, of course not. It could never happen in America!

    1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

      That is the face of a woman that American Feminists are terrified of.

  63. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    It becomes more clear every day, the world will be far better off being run by C students from community colleges than it is currently being run by “ivy league” A students.

  64. avatar racer88 says:

    You know the look (with a head tilt) that your dog gives you when you fart loudly?

    I just did the same thing when I read that quote.

  65. avatar neiowa says:

    Great that the drug addled babyboomers gave the vote to silly little children.

  66. avatar dlj95118 says:

    …oh honey…oh sweetie – you need a refund as you ain’t gettin no learnin from that skool.
    SPYSD!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email