“The alternative argument is that the guns are there anyway. Well, they may be, they probably are, I don’t doubt it, but this somehow makes it — I don’t know. It’s a complicated subject. It’s a complicated set of feelings. I know that my son has taken steps to learn how to safely handle firearms, and I’m comfortable with that. I think that’s an important life skill, so I don’t worry about him . . .
“But it’s that kid that can’t handle the pressure that’s using drugs or alcohol to mask whatever problems, or whatever situation erupts because of the pressure they’re under. Yeah, I worry about that.” – Republican Kansas State Rep. Melissa Rooker in Kansas opponents of guns on campus plan fresh fight against law ahead of 2017 implementation [via cjonline.com]
Don’t kid yourself, Missy, your kid is probably the one who’s self medicating to cover up problems.
Children of cops, judges, and politicians were always the one who showed up at the party with the best quality recreational chemicals. Because they stole it from their parents’ stash.
Catholic school girls.
In high school we had a young lady (I use the term loosely) who transferred from from an all girls catholic school and she was a total freak show.
Nothing was off the table with that one and she was passed around like bottle of Crown.
Back in the good old early ’80s, the Catholic school girls were definitely the girls to be with. Girls from any school were good to go, but the Catholic school girls had been screwing their moms tennis instructor since they were 14, and spent their summers in France. By 16 or 17, they were really enthusiastic, and quite good at it.
Now there’s ubiquitous porn, so anyone can be appear pretty talented if you just do what you watch. Which I guess is a good thing.
“Nothing was off the table with that one and she was passed around like bottle of Crown.”
She wasn’t a slut, she was… Popular. 🙂
And last I heard, she turned into an MDA, anti-gun zealot… Fitting she is still demanding action.
This article highlights two problems we face in this country. First, women’s suffrage which has produced elected officials such as Ms. Rooker (and a whole host of progressive politicians who promote a welfare state that acts as a surrogate husband to these emancipated voters).. And, second, politicians and policy makers who base their decisions on feelings rather than logic and factual evidence.
You’re the biggest idiot on the planet if you think all the problems you mention are a result of allowing women to vote.
Not all, perhaps, but it is well documented that our politics took a decided Progressive turn not long after women got the vote.
Considering Theodore Roosevelt, one of the manliest men in American history, was very progressive I’m going to say coorelation. Besides, if allowing women to vote created progressivism, then who was progressive enough to allow women to vote in the first place? Women’s suffrage is a result of progressivism, not the cause.
If we step back a bit farther it actually stems from people using emotions to trump facts in their decision process. It just so happens women are statistically more likely to be emotionally based. Gather from that what you will.
Actually, he’s right chief.
You guys may just be of age to start getting into politics, but it’s true. Women elected Bill Clinton, (male vote was for Bush Sr.) because they thought he was “cute”, and “charming”. His first act as president was to try and get a sexual harassment case from his days as Gov. or AR thrown out because it’d “interfere with his presidential duties”. The supreme court said no, and he settled out of court; not the last time he would be in hot water and settle.
Women voted in record numbers in 2012, and the gender gap between the two candidates could not have been more profound. Unmarried women backed the president (Obama obviously) by an incredible 38 percentage-point margin over Romney, a statistic which was one of the most striking.
A good paper to read on the subject would be: “Why Have Women Become Left-Wing: The Political Gender Gap and the Decline in Marriage,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 917-961.
In it, Edlund and Pande (2002) state that:
“Until the mid-1960s, women were consistently more conservative than men [Duverger 1955; Harvey 1998]. In the 1980s a significant number of men, so called “Reagan Democrats”, switched party allegiance to the Republicans, leading to a political hegemony of the right. The 1990s saw previously conservative voting women, so called “Soccer Moms”, moving to the left, resulting in the Clinton years [Stark 1996].”
According to this paper, the reason (middle-class) women shifted their views to the Left over the last few decades has been at least partially because of decreased marital stability. Edlund and Pande propose the (very reasonable) hypothesis that an average individual’s income will affect their political views, especially “preferences with respect to redistribution.” They go on to suggest the (also reasonable and backed-up-by-evidence) assumption that marital decline has made women poorer.
Does this mean that most women are predetermined to be bleeding-heart nannying lefties? Absolutely not. Speaking in general terms, however, as long as we have declining family stability and dysgenic welfare practices that encourage single motherhood, along with hyperbolic political and philosophical rhetoric thrust upon them from the moment they enter the public school system, until the day they die; the answer seems to be “yes”.
Exactly. Even my wife, honors graduate, B.A. and M.B.A. holder, and corporate career woman, believes it all went to Hell when women were granted the right to vote. Way too many emotion-driven, low information voters of that gender, plus those who see big government as omnipotent protector and provider.
Nice going, paleos. Which scientific study do you get that from? I mean, since you all are 100% rational men, eschewing all personal experience and bias, your views on women’s suffrage must come from data, as opposed to this single quotation here.
Give me a break. Women do not have a monopoly on feelings and emotion-based decision making. I see a lot of nodding heads and approval when a female public figure says something you all approve of. But now you say women shouldn’t vote or hold elected office? Way to defend liberty and human rights, gentlemen.
Dude, give it a rest. Can the obsequiousness. There are no women here whose favor you need to curry to get into their pants by playing the oh so sensitive Alan Alda card.
NOBODY, but you, ever suggested women had a monopoly on overwrought emotions. So don’t pin that crap on us. Take the post supporting that strawman and shove it up your rear. We’re talking preponderance here, not entirety, and not exclusivity. Geez.
You do illustrate the point, though. Plenty of girly men also refuse to acknowledge reality, preferring instead to strut about in a huff and high dudgeon, and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a polling booth (or a firearm, for that matter.)
I’m not saying women’s suffrage was a total mistake, but they should have to register for the draft and be held to the same standards as men.
How did I know this kind of defensive response was coming? (Could have been the tone I took. Oh well.) So you assume I’m trying to curry favor with feminists or am a sissy-man because I posit women have brains? As to who suggested women have, if not a monopoly than a competitive edge on the feels, it was you: “…it all went to Hell when women were granted the right to vote. Way too many emotion-driven, low information voters of that gender.” Okay, fine, you didn’t claim “monopoly,” but you are claiming, or at least suggesting, that only or mostly men should run things because there are fewer “emotion driven” males. You set up the straw man, not I.
If indeed men are impelled by reason as opposed to emotion, then show me data or anything concrete that says men are less emotional than women. That’s what I call bullshit on. We are just as wracked by emotion as women — perhaps different ones, and we show it differently, but it’s there nonetheless. If women are on whole more nurturing and conciliatory, men as a group are more protective and justice-oriented. That’s not a scientific conclusion, just an example of typically masculine drives that are just as emotional.
I have nothing to prove to you or any notional woman out there. I will be keeping my guns and ballot, thank you. This is 2016. Anyone who thinks dissipation and weak government didn’t exist before 1920 in the US hasn’t studied history.
“But it’s that kid that can’t handle the pressure that’s using drugs or alcohol to mask whatever problems, or whatever situation erupts because of the pressure they’re under. Yeah, I worry about that.” – Republican Kansas State Rep. Melissa Rooker
Watch out, you just made a good arguement for campus carry, Mrs Rooker.
Why yes, because a ban on campus carry worked so well when a young man named Eliot Rodger couldn’t handle life’s pressures and UC-Santa Barbara was spar………………………………..
Drugs? Don’t be silly, those are illegal, and therefore could not possibly be present, right? You couldn’t possibly think someone would break the law, right? I mean, it would be pretty stupid to enact another law specifically to restrict somebody who’s already breaking another law.
It’s funny when antis offer the ubiquity and rampant use of alcohol and drugs on campus, both of which are crimes, as justification for banning firearms, and never quite catching the hole in their strategy.
Is it too much to ask for a coherent sentence?
Let’s not miss a key point here:
Republican Kansas State Rep. Melissa Rooker
R E P U B L I C A N
Suggested Reading: “Cuckservative” by Vox Day and John Red Eagle. Worth every penny.
The “R” party is converged. All this talk of “feelings” is just….I just can’t even right now.
The letters next to people’s name hardly meaning anything, I don’t know if they ever did.
Interestingly on that point:
We recently went to a museum that had a healthy little exhibit for the era before, during and after the War Between the States. One display listed all the political parties of that time and what they stood for.
My wife experienced a big dose of cognitive dissonance. The contrast between the D and R parties then and now was huge. She searched the display for something that represented us and settled on a marriage of two of the lesser parties. She sure was NOT going with “R.”
Wild. This is Representative Government. Ya gotta pick your poison, but you never really ARE ‘represented.’
“Pick your poison.” Now there is an evocative phrase! If you think about it nearly every election going back for decades has been a choice between the lesser of two evils for almost every office. Is it any wonder that evil has won so many elections?
Regarding this woman, how something feels? Really? That is how she chooses to support or or oppose a critical part of the constitution?!!
Point well made. Keep in mind, sir, that history is written by the victors. It doesn’t always reflect the truth.
Properly addressed it’s called the UniParty.
According to the text, she pretty clearly stated that she couldn’t quite decide whether she had any idea what she was talking about, but she would feel her way through the legislature. She needs to be returned to the housewife corps.
Ha! The set of feelings is SO complicated it’s confusing her. She’s worried about the dangerous guy even though he’s dangerous anyway. Which she acknowledges.
It’s that same old human weakness. Any argument looks like an argument FOR your cause. Even if it shouldn’t.
Finally, an anti-gunner without the crazy amphetamine eyes. Oh, she’s a republican.
Does she know that California Zimmerman may be illegally carrying or Illinois Zimmerman may be semi-legally carrying on Kansas’ college campuses?
Has anyone ever been injured, accidentally, negligently, or criminally, as a result of campus carry in the 9 or so states that recognize the right, in the past ten years?
Then your confused feelings don’t amount to much, do they?
I reference the exact same point in my comment below. To my knowledge, there is not a single incident where a legal concealed carrier improperly/illegally harmed, assaulted, or murdered someone in something like a decade of legalized concealed carry on college campuses in at least a half-dozen states.
Single women are more likely to vote democrat; which means bigger and more powerful government. It makes sense; after all, the attraction that many if not most women have for the biggest alpha male with the most power and money is well documented; and government with all of it’s laws, backed by the courts and the guns, is the biggest alpha in the room.
Single women are also more likely to be anti-gun and anti-self defense.
The women I have as friends are all pro gun and very self-reliant. But they are very rare, unfortunately.
A quick aside . . .
During World War I, England lost a large percentage of its male population. The country shifted towards a more matriarchal society. The U.K. Nanny State arose in the subsequent decades. (How the “Iron Lady” fits into that, I’m not entirely sure.)
Coincidence? Perhaps. But having watched ten years of Eastenders, a daily soap opera where all the men are gutless simpletons or amoral criminals, and the women wear the pants in every single family, I reckon the impact was long-lasting.
The country’s anti-gun stance may or may not be a reflection of this cultural bias. Just sayin’ . . .
I think there is a LOT of merit to that idea. Masculine, assertive, self-confident, strong, and noble men respond to national crises at a much higher percentage than effeminate, submissive, self-doubting, weak, and dishonorable men. Unfortunately, a huge loss of those men translates to a huge loss to society.
As we all know, nature abhors a vacuum. When good, confident, righteous, strong, and noble men are absent, conniving, sniveling, self-loathing, weak, corrupt people will fill that void.
That has been the basis of the only argument I’ve been forced to accept in favor of the draft. Even out the losses. Otherwise, all the bold and courageous men are killed and the wieners are left to reproduce. Similar to the losses Japan suffered in WWII due to the insistence of commanders that all the best pilots must be sent on the most challenging/dangerous assignments. Very quickly, they were all dead, and there were not even enough remaining to train some more!
Don’t know how you managed to sit through 10 years of Eastenders, you must have the patience of a saint……..
True and to add, it was the male dominate politic that created two world wars and the senseless slaughter of males mention. So one could argue pussification saves lives from wars, however the endless encroachment on liberties in the quest of communal harmony is nauseating at best. The best thing men can do with women is ignore them. That will tighten up their nonsense in short order.
The point that in our age of de-masculinization, divorce, single motherhood, and other trends which leave women unpaired and unprotected (by men, at least), women turn to the state is so noted and probably holds some merit. However, I see a lot of assumptions made. Some here see Rooker and read her waffling and assume she’s a single mom begging for the succor of the almighty State (I guess because she’s not a die hard for campus carry) — she is not a single mom, and I’m not sure it makes a difference were she one. Not everyone is as decisive on gun rights as most of us are, and it’s our mission to make the case for, say, campus carry, not denigrate those who have mixed feelings about it. I note Rooker has trained her children on guns and left California (she worked for Clint Eastwood) for Kansas, so maybe we should cut her some slack.
Serious points for her on making sure her kid gets actual, tangible ‘gun safety’, not the ‘feelz’ variety…
It’s always that “other” kid.
I love these slaves who are all too eager to slap chains onto themselves just to get them onto that “other” kid who they don’t trust.
And we’re the ones who fear our neighbors?
Meanwhile in Utah – How many dead students so far?
“But it’s that kid that can’t handle the pressure that’s using drugs or alcohol to mask whatever problems, or whatever situation erupts because of the pressure they’re under.” – Republican Kansas State Rep. Melissa Rooker
Dear Mrs. Rooker,
Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that people “under pressure” who lash out, lash out in premeditated rampages using any tools that they deem appropriate. Reference Elliot Rodger who used a knife, firearm, and automobile to maim/kill his victims in 2014.
Overwhelming evidence also demonstrates that people with concealed carry licenses are the most law-abiding and least dangerous demographic in existence. Concealed carriers commit crimes and unintentionally harm bystanders at a lower rate than even law enforcement officers.
Finally, overwhelming evidence demonstrates that people with concealed carry licenses have improperly/illegally harmed precisely NO ONE (as in ZERO people) at colleges and universities in a half-dozen or so states where concealed carry has been legal for something like a decade.
Anyone who claims that concealed carry on college and university campuses is dangerous is barking at the moon.
And another thing Mrs. Rooker: your assertion that so many “kids” are under pressure is a fallacy in today’s “safe space, everyone is a winner” academic culture.
Thats funny; my mom used to say the same thing about people and cars. “Its not you I worry about, its everyone else on the road.”
“The alternative argument is that the guns are there anyway. Well, they may be, they probably are, I don’t doubt it, but this somehow makes it — I don’t know.”
Its amazing to watch/read the mental swerve needed to miss hitting the reality of a situation.
“But it’s that kid that can’t handle the pressure that’s using drugs or alcohol to mask whatever problems, or whatever situation erupts because of the pressure they’re under.”
Does she worry about cops with the same issues carrying guns?
I didn’t think so.
So, Ms. Rooker, it is better to send your son (and everyone else’s child) to college unarmed because you cannot know whom else’s kid carrying a gun might crack and shoot other students, faculty, or staff, if anyone/everyone can carry.
I hope this doesn’t hurt your brain, like reading your “dislogic” hurt mine, but, since you cannot trust anyone else not to crack under the strain of college life and shoot other persons on campus, neither can you be sure the person about to go on a drug/alcohol abuse and stress-induced shooting rampage would not bring a firearm onto campus and shoot other people in defiance of any rule that forbids campus carry.
Why would you favor making it easier for such an individual to hurt your son (or anyone else’s son or daughter)? If you love your son, why would you favor denying him the means to defend himself (and possibly others) when the next Santa Barbara Killer goes on a rampage? How will you “feel” when you are at the coroner’s office identifying the bullet ravaged body of your “baby boy” knowing that the pistol he owned that might have saved his life is locked-up in his room at home because you denied him the right to carry it to his college campus?
You, Madame, do not love your son, nor anyone else’s child. You only want to keep your miserable little place in Congress by using emotional obfuscation to get votes.
“….but this somehow makes it — I don’t know.”
How unscientific, anti-intellectual of her. Something is suddenly real only because she’s aware of it, but doesn’t exist outside of her awareness? That’s superstitious piffle, bordeline voodoo thinking. I thought Western civilization took the scientific tine of the fork in the road back in the 17th century?
At the very least, you’d think she would have developed a little less skittishness about guns during the six years she served as Clint Eastwood’s assistant at his production company, huh? Then again, she was there during the wussy “Bridges of Madison County” years, not the badass “Dirty Harry” years, so that might explain it.
“How unscientific, anti-intellectual of her. “
But it IS perfectly common SJW-speak. Check out Tumblr for many examples.
Yes, indeed…a tumblrite (or at least someone of that level mindset) is in political office with legislative power over a State’s population.
Let that sink in.
Interesting. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the “those damn dirty hippies” argument deployed to advocate for gun control before.
I’m not sure which is more confused, her feelz or the stoner trying to decide between Doritos or Cheetos.
Well, I worry about that, too. But I don’t think that’s a reason to punish all the people who won’t ever go over the edge into mass violence. In fact, I think that’s a strong argument for jealously protecting the civil rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
The tiny number of people who go off that way are obsessed; they’re going to find a way to do violence no matter what the campus rules say. If your kid happens to be right there when one of these unstable humans goes bonkers, do you want him to have a chance to stop the psycho — to save his own life and those around him — or would you rather he just got killed?
A note to women:
If you really suppose yourselves to be “equal” to men, then you need to communicate what you think about an issue, rather than what you feel about an issue. Contrary to conventional wisdom, many of us males care much more about what’s in between your ears than what’s on your chest.
The brutal truth for women is that many (most, perhaps) of us men really don’t care about your feelings. Really don’t care. Really, really don’t care. We get to hear about your feelings endlessly. Good grief, we cannot seem to even purchase relief from hearing about your feelings. I could buy a woman a Ferrari and her choice of matching Italian shoes in the morning upon the condition that she spare me her emotions, and still be hearing her emote (at length) that very afternoon.
Want to know how much other men care about my feelings? Not a whit. If I were to start a sentence with the words “I feel,” before I would have gotten the fourth word of the sentence out of my mouth, my fellow males have written me off as completely useless and irrelevant – which they should. In other words: It isn’t me. It’s you.
I guess I must be conventional then. Yes, you can emote all you want, but only if I can stare at your chest puppies, preferably with as little interfering with my view as possible. By the time I’ve done with staring you should be done with talking, and I won’t have heard a single word you uttered. We have both got what we wanted out of the transaction, and everybody’s happy.
But if you want to convince me about some factual information, not some imaginary fear that has blossomed in your pretty little head, you’d better be able to provide me with chapter and verse, a comparative analysis, and alternative solutions. If you want my help, ask me for it. Don’t witter on about the butterflies in your head. If you need a chat with a friend, talk to a girl. Men need logic before we can even start getting to work on a problem. If you are serious, get serious. But hey, chest puppies…
This is what happens when a hen gets all broody. Let’s face it, most girls aren’t MamaLiberty when it comes to experience, logic and maturity.
“It’s a complicated subject. It’s a complicated set of feelings.”
Think with your brain, lady, not with your glands. Or vacate your seat for someone who can.
Yep, I’ve run out of fucks I can give for anybody’s feelings. You and you alone, are solely responsible for your feelings. If you can’t get them under control, see a therapist. But don’t assume any governmental duties until you do.