Remember the crusade to prohibit anyone on Uncle Sam’s secret, unaccountable “terrorist watch list” from purchasing firearms? Remember how we said gun control advocates would extend the definition of terrorism to disarm Americans? Here’s proof that just because we’re paranoid doesn’t mean the government isn’t out to get us:
Domestic violence-related murder isn’t a sexy story, like terrorism. It’s treated as mundane. It’s seen as sad, but not of any national interest. An issue to be covered on women’s websites, instead of front page news (outside of coincidentally geographical connection to a recent terrorist attack, of course).
But domestic violence is, in a sense, a form of terrorism. In most cases, it’s a blunt assertion of male dominance over women, and should be understood as a kind of political violence . . .
With [the San Bernardino school] shooting, the coverage . . . frames domestic violence as an unfortunate part of life, instead of the direct result of a widespread political ideology that holds that women are inferior to and exist to serve men . . .
Salon’s sub-head writer sums-up scribe Amanda Marcotte’s treatise neatly: “Terrorists kill in the name of ideology, and that’s how the public needs to think of it when men kill women.” Like this . . .
Murder-suicides like Monday’s crime are relatively rare, but most of them are committed by abusive men who make asserting dominance over a woman their final act in life.
When a terrorist commits a similar act, we collectively wonder how an ideology could grip someone so deeply that he would do such a thing. We need to be asking the same questions about men who commit murder-suicide because they’ve become so deeply immersed in the ideology of male dominance.
By widening the definition of a terrorist to anyone who adheres to “the ideology of male dominance,” Ms. Marcotte seeks to facilitate her well-established desire to demonize, disarm and tyrannize the gun-owning populace.
How big a leap is it from Ms. Marcotte’s domestic violence = terrorism rant to support for due-process-defying, firearms confiscatory Extreme Risk Protection Orders for accused domestic abusers? No leap at all. It’s a walk in the park.
How great a leap from there to the belief that all men are potential abusers and, therefore, prohibited persons? A hop-skip-and-a-jump. And from there to being sent to FEMA re-education camp? A bit of a chasm, really, but not insurmountable. At least not for idealogues.
Bottom line: the gun control movement is financed, promoted and promulgated by statists; people who consider individual liberty an impediment to social progress . If anyone’s guilty of trying to inflict an ideology that leads to murder, it’s them, not us.