“The fact is, guns do more for female empowerment than modern feminism which prefers government as their protector. But legal ownership gives you real power, equalizing the battle between you and evil. Ask any girl: The confidence from learning to shoot a pistol is far superior to any gender studies course, and a stalker is less likely to stalk if you can ventilate his groin. Which is why a whirring bullet is the ideal rape whistle and the real feminist icon should be Annie Oakley, not Sandra Fluke.” – Greg Gutfeld, Guns empower women more than feminism [via foxnews.com]
He is correct on every point. However because he is a man and not a feminist “icon” he will be berated by all feminists, and all left wing women.
Berated like all clear thinking conservative women will be as well.
And when he is mocked, he will persevere. So shall we. I gave up my desire for acceptance from the incompetent and impotent left some time ago. I shall endeavor at all times to return their ignorant and vengeful ranting with calm facts and reason. Should push come to shove, I have not ever credited the left with an abundance of courage or sound tactics.
Not entirely.
Ladies should fire at center mass, not the groin. Larger target.
Greg Gutfeld should have his own nightly show on Fox. I’d much rather see him instead of Greta or the other blond gal.
he does… its just on at 3AM…
DVR or TIVO it
HDContentdump03 on YouTube is pretty good about uploading all of the episodes.
He hosts Redeye on Fox, but it’s on at 3AM eastern time.
He also on the show called “The Five” which is 5pm M-F. If you have satellite radio you can listen in on the Fox News Channel while stuck in traffic.
Channel 114 on XM Radio
Or Bill “THE POLICE CAN DO NO WRONG!” O’Reilly. Seriously, that guy is the most non-conservative person I’ve seen on TV and somehow Fox pays him money to spew his BS.
He completely lost me when he started supported gun control / AWB / hi cap magazine bans. In retrospect, he should have lost me earlier. I was a recovering Republican. Now, I’m an independent Constitutuional conservative.
Recovering republican here also. I had a similar experience. When I went to Iraq it was a big wakeup call about how bad all forms of the cable and TV media are. Nobody reported anything halfway correct because it didn’t fit the narrative.
Yeah, he lost me when he was all for New York banning guns. I can’t stand to see him talk now. He’s just another populist like Geraldo, saying whatever he thinks is the popular opinion.
Guns are the best bringers of equality, not law, not rhetoric, not screeching about “not all women” because a mentally damaged man killed FOUR men and TWO women.
Guns equalize the playing field, a 12 year old girl can stand toe to toe with big burly robbers. An elderly man can protect himself against a punk thug, a female can protect herself against a sick rapist. A physically weak man can defend himself against some punk teens about to jump him. No law, no course in college, nothing can do this like firearms.
Yet ironically the left who supposedly are about equality hate guns. I think the left has no interest in equality but in gaining political support from minority groups. Nothing more.
For the left, it’s all about the power. They don’t care who gets killed on the way, as long as they end up ruling.
I had this very conversation with a ardent “feminist” over rape prevention. She was adamant that answer to a man with a gun was not a woman with a gun. My response was in the form of a question. Which is the true feminist, someone like you who supports abortion on demand and argues against self reliance or someone like my wife who is pro-life but can defend herself.
There are plenty of questions that can be asked to folks like that ..
“If you’re all about empowering women, then why do you insist that they be dependent on others for their own safety?”
“Is it better for a woman to kill her attacker with a firearm or to be raped and murdered by someone bigger and stronger than her?”
etc.
How about pro abortion and pro gun? Why does it have to be one of the combinations you gave?
I have had great success arguing a pro gun stance with female coworkers because they don’t have to swallow a jagged pill of one of my other views to agree with my firearms stance.
Just a thought.
As a mid-lefty I always feel a bit disappointed when words of wisdom like this come from a person representing Fox News, because to the general public and to liberals it might as well have come from the mouth of a comedian.
When you lefties begin to realize that Fox is no different than MSNBC or CNN, just for the right, it won’t be an issue.
But apparently only the right can have a biased news channel.
Indeed. There is strong bias everywhere.
I find it an exercise to watch / listen to / read the news, simply because there are numerous questions that have to continually be asked, e.g.
* What side of the story is being ignored?
* What side of the story is being given the dominant view?
* What words are being used that may unfairly color the story? (e.g. “This person says XYZ” vs. “This person claims XYZ”)
* How are the questions being asked favorable to one side?
* What stories are simply being omitted entirely (e.g. DGU stories)?
* How accurate are the statistics being presented? What information are they leaving out?
It doesn’t matter who is putting out the story, even if it’s a source I tend to agree with. It’s difficult to try to get the “real” and/or “full” story.
Imagine what the world would be like if our children had media literacy courses in school. They would all be asking these questions. Imagine what our nation would be like then. It’s no wonder government-run schools don’t have media literacy classes.
The sad part is that most of their news coverage is neutral and well covered. But since the mainstream media is so far left, they seem right wing. And aside from a couple of the hard right hosts like Hannity and Huckabee, the night shows aren’t that far to the right. I’ve seen oreilly and Megyn Kelly hammer conservatives just as hard as liberals, and they always have the left represented to give their take on things. But since they don’t fall into line with the MSM, they are hard right.
Nobody is going to mistake Megyn Kelly for anything but a conservative, but she’s well respected by both sides for being a solid journalist who is willing to hold right-wingers’ feet to the same fire that she burns lefties with.
On the other hand, O’Reilly will bluster at anyone that will bring him ratings, and his stance on guns is about as firm as warm jello.
Steve,
The problem is that the left is largely populated by people who are much closer to pop culture, often more educated, and often times more creative.
The result is that smear campaigns created by the left tend to be, well, funny and much more effective than anything the Right tries to do.
The end result of this is that low information voters and 2 generations of Americans think that Fox news is an entertainment company that employs nothing but incarnations of Bill O’ Reilly.
The GOP and the NRA both have the same problem – they take themselves way too seriously in the media and don’t hand creative control over to younger people. The outcome of which is that most ads and media they create look like they were created by your grandpa, for your grandpa.
I’d remove “general public” from your comment based on the relative ratings of the major news channels.
Hate to say this, but your statement is truly frightening in regards to the apparent complete closed mindedness of a large amount of the left. The reflexive emotional rejection of common sense cannot end well for the individuals who practice, nor our civilization in general. Human nature doesn’t change with a law on a piece of paper, it take eons, if ever.
Yeah, a shame Gutfeld is not as credible as that slobbering monumental fool Chris Matthews. You lefties are amusing if nothing else.
Don’t forget those other mental giants of the left, Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton.
That’s Ok Bigred; because as a constitutional absolutist; I see most of what comes from the old media'( Fox and friends-CNN, CNBC etc.) as just being the lap dog propogandists of the society destroying, liberty destroying and personal enslaving agenda of the liberal/progressive/marxist of the left and the statists/ facists of the right.
In other words Bigred; if you are caught in the left/right paradigm just realize; the left and right is an illusion. There is no right and left; there is only those that want to control everyone on the left. Facists and Marxists are just two different flavors of tyranny. Then there are free individuals that associate by mutual agreement on the right.
Which type of individual are you; do want to control other people for their “own good”? Or do you just want to be left alone so you can live your life as you see fit as long as your choices don’t hurt, injure or kill the innocent?
Pew polls generally show Fox News viewers to better informed than those who watch the approved news channels. This may be correlation versus causation in that Pew polls typically show conservatives to be better informed on the issues than liberals/Progressives in general. The Pew Trust is part of the leftist consortium of foundations so as mid-lefty you should take their polls as credible.
They maybe “better informed”, but does that mean much if they support the “War on Drugs?” The first greatest attack upon our civil rights that laid the ground work and police state apparatus that became the abomination called the Patriot Act and the NDAA.
If that is being “better informed”, then being ignorant isn’t so bad; at least there would be an excuse for the end result of the loss of freedom that we have sustained as a country and a people.
This may come as a shock to you but drug rights are not guaranteed by the Constitution. Legalization may or may not be a wise thing but it is one of thoae things that is a community decision and not a right.
From top to bottom faux Libertarians are first order thinkers. Increased drug use after legalization is not cost free. It will increase support for the nanny state by increasing the percentage of the population that is unable to support itaelf and transfer a numbers of deaths from criminals fighting for market share to random individuals who are killed drugged drivers. If history is guide criminal gangs will dominate the legal trade for years to come and uae it to finance other criminal activities. In order to determine whether legalization you have to whether the cost of the drug war is greater than the cost of legalization.
Oh tdiinva; we already had the experiment of trying to outlaw a mind altering substance that people freely chose to put in their body; and it was an unmitigated disaster.
It was called Prohibition. We saw no significant change in the use of this substance by the general population after it was outlawed; but we did see the enrichment of the gangsters; a rise in deaths in the war over drug(alcohol) territory and corruption of the cops and courts. Sound familiar tdiinva?
So we ended this complete violation of the right to control ones body; and went back to making it a health issue; unless a person was driving intoxicated endangering others.
I thought conservatives used logic, fact and experience in making their decisions? No; conservatives that support the drug war are just a bunch of statists/tyrants that believe free citizens can’t make those kind of decisions for themselves. Those conservatives/statists want to use the force of government to enforce their will over the free decisions of other people, and if they do not obey; they will be charged, imprisoned or killed.
So no tdiinva; there is no significant difference between the democrats or the republicans; they both want to control peoples behavior that harms no one but themselves; just in different areas.
Tyrants all.
Thom,
I dont identify myself by simple labels, left,right,repub,dem….but I understand how for sake of brevity, those labels make it easier to get to the main point, debating on the facts, laid out in a logical fashion to support the position.
When you simply smear someone with a label, then resond to a question on fact with another smear, or personal insult, you demean yourself, and the group you represent.
I understand the enthusiasm for personal recreational drug use. I am much less convinced its harmless, and when I dont see a strong demand by libertarians, to be free to pay their own health care, rather than depend on taxpayer funded free riders on mom’s policy until age 26, to buy your doctor prescribed medicinal pot, I am further jaded on the true philosophical underpinnings of the hooker crew.
Unless yiu can provide more rational arguments, you are just gonna sound like old Cheech and Chong comedy bits….duuuude.
Pardon my saying so, but are there an policies of the left or the mid left that are worthy of support? Gay marriage and abortion will happen even if an extremely right wing individual (Rand Paul or Ted Cruz) takes the presidency in 2016.
I don’t see anything on the left or mid left worthy of support. On the right, I’m looking at border security, deportation, less taxes, gun freedom, and limited government. I guess I just don’t feel like my tax dollars need to pay for someone else’s abortion.
Which they cannot according to federal law. And I agree. The status quo is exactly correct. OH, wait. It was until Obamacare, I’m not really sure that will not eventually have federal taxpayers funding abortion. We had to pass the law in order to someday have a hope of finding out what is in it.
To anybody who really believes that federal dollars do not fund abortions, I have a three-word answer: “Dollars are fungible.” That, indeed was the case even before Obamacare and its mandates.
Why this isnt “duh!” I’ll never understand. Doing for yourself is always the more empowering option.
The issues is along with that comes personal responsibility which is anathema.
Gutfeld is a very smart guy. Aside from a terrific sense of humor, he’s often very eloquent, succinct and very good at dispelling common myths.
“Which is why a whirring bullet is the ideal rape whistle and the real feminist icon should be Annie Oakley, not Sandra Fluke.”
“WOW!; don’t you know that having a gun will just make it worse. Just pee on yourself, vomit, beg and plea, show the rapist a picture of your children, tell him you’re on your period; and maybe he won’t rape you; but if he does rape you, maybe he won’t kill you.”
“This is real feminine empowerment, not shooting that same person with a gun”.
Truly bizarre that a woman can talk about “feminine empowerment” and then in the next breath talk about degrading, debasing and humiliating yourself as a way to protect against an attacker.
At time it feels as if I’m a Twilight Zone episode; because there should no way in a normal universe someone can think like this and not be called insane by all right thinking people.
Yeah I know he’s on-the only Fox guy I watch consistently is O’REILLY. I can’t watch the 5 with Beckel on. And O’Reilly is annoying half the time. I got no Tivo or any plans to add a bill.
O’Reilly is as biased as anyone. Watch carefully. “No spin” my ass. He spins it his own way.
I agree with O’Reilly more often than not, but he’s completely clueless on firearms. But not knowing the difference between automatic and semiautomatic won’t stop him from ranting about them.
Eliminating options and weakening a woman never makes her stronger or more independent.
Simple truth, no more than a paragraph. One caution, guns don’t you equal, it just gives a criminal pause, more often than not, it may be all you need.
Careful quoting him, if you watch him and the 5 long enough you realize that they are closet statists (except Bob who is an overt one). The fact is, a NY conservative or libertarian is just a right leaning Democrat Liberal.
I listen to them everyday as I am stuck in traffic. They are not closet statists, but they may have a different view depending on the subject/issue of the day. Depending on which host you are speaking about, they can be all over the place. At least they have different views and do follow a specific dogma. Being rational sometime does not mean your a statists. Also, while I do not agree with everything they say, they often give food for thought and it is at least entertaining.
Amazingly, some women on the left occasionally tell the truth about their real view of guns….
I’ve been waiting for TTAG to pick this story up, but somehow they missed it.
(Not a lot of View watchers here, I’m guessing.)
Three out of four of these Leftard women on The View will surprise you
when it come to their real view of guns.
Check out this segment of The View:
(The good stuff starts at 57 seconds.)
Blowback. That ad backfired spectacularly.
Need, TTAG ran the story when it occurred. Somehow, you must have missed it.
Yup.
Yes, it was just as MDA was patting itself on the back for its slumber party “boot camp” which seems to be the next fad for bored ex-pta mommies, now that the tupperware and adult toy themed stages of those FakeBook ego obsessed activists are Move.org’ing on.
The View made the one privileged white faux concern mommy look stoopid, and of course, the howls of outrage over at Everytown that a few misogynist men could point out their hypocrisy, was only ecxeeded by the vast silence from the rest of the real women out there, the generation of young women who see thru thru
the flackery and sock puppetry of Bloombergs pet Monsanto GMO PR pro who runs his faux mommy brigade. Actually, brigade implies bigger headcount…bridge club, no…that would imply intelligence… hmmm.
Posse? crewe? harem?
TTAG covered it July 30:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/robert-farago/view-goes-pro-gun/
They did mess up. The “money shot”, IMO, was the part right after he kicked in the door and walked in. She’s on the phone pleading, “He’s here, you’ve got to come NOW!” Right then, with the big angry hulk and the terrified smaller woman in the frame, no evidence of a gun or a knife or anything else, just the big angry man and the little , scared-crazy woman, helplessly waiting for someone who cannot possibly “come now”–right then, they lost the narrative. Everybody with more than two brain cells to rub together could see that without some kind of effective “equalizer” she was done for–right then and there, without any reference to any kind of weapon at all on his part. More truth in that moment than anything Shannon and her sugar daddy have ever, or will ever, put out, barring another such stupendous mistake.
How could they possibly screw that up so bad?
Anti’s want to control society by eliminating self reliance. To initiate this process guns must be eliminated first. Guns provide both the physical means to equalize citizens and consequently promote feelings of independence, self reliance and confidence. Women, the infirm and the elderly are always more vulnerable to predators and a gun would be a logical means of self defense but that is not the goal of the anti’s.
I know I sound like a nut sometimes but if anybody has some screenshots of Pelosi’s website before she became “Madam Speaker” it would be very revealing.
Greg Gutfeld is brilliant and would refresh the Fox primetime venue.
The most operative word in Gutfeld’s quote for the left is “evil.” The problem is that the left doesn’t believe evil actually exists. They’ll say with a completely straight face that we shouldn’t teach women to defend themselves, but instead teach men not to rape.
Yep.
Ever seen those billboards that say “Human Trafficking: It’s NOT Okay!”? How many actual traffickers do you think see that and pull over to let everyone out of the van? Likewise, teaching a rapist or murderer not to commit such heinous acts is a total waste of time; evil people do these things for the power rush or the sheer sport of it, not out of simple ignorance, but certain minds on the left can’t entertain that someone can know an act like rape or murder is wrong, and just not give a shit because they’re evil. So far, the only permanent cure we have for that is a bullet in the head.
This is critical; if every one can be blamed for something, everyone can be punished for it. Blaming us for mass murder didn’t work, but maybe, just maybe blaming us for domestic violence might. And if it doesn’t (it won’t) then move on to something else like gang violence. I am starting to think the actual goal is to simply be SEEN wagging their fingers at us.
Feminism was a Construct to attack families and to promote population control.
…huh?
Misandry might be, but there’s nothing wrong with the original feminism – IE equality IE voting rights, equal pay, etc.
The problem is that now we are pretty damn close to true equality. The pay gap doesn’t really exist anymore, women can do pretty much everything a man can do that isn’t stupid like being being a Navy Seal… so the “feminists” who make money by being self righteous misandrists are having to go to greater and greater extremes to drum up controversy.
I consider myself a feminist. The problem is that in my mind, feminism = quality. In the minds of others, feminism = misandry.
Sure thing. Turn off your TV.
Many of us spent the past two weeks to explaining that the modern implementation of Feminism has zero resemblance to its Dictionary Definition.
Defending modern Feminism is dumb.
Feminism is a puppet with the hand of Leftism up its butt working the controls. The goal of Feminism is destruction of the family and their method is male emasculation.
Just to be clear, I was not defending modern, IE progressive feminism. Everyone is on the same page with this, right?
I think progressive feminism is the opposite of true feminism. Requiring all women to be “self actualized” in the same way, and be considered weak if they are not adhering to the accepted narrative of what a “modern woman” is thought to be effectively eliminates female choice and only serves to control women a different way than they were in the past.
I agree. I was there when Feminism went off the tracks on the way to ratification of the ERA …and IMHO it was when NOW lost focus, and started promoting lesbian rights. Not that that is a bad thing per se, just a proof statement as to how the original idea was hijacked by radicals, and the trend has continued since, to push a narrow agenda, while falsely claiming to speak for one-half of the worlds population.
Feminism 2.0 is increasingly angry, anti-male by default, and ultimately, will consume itself in the evolutionary dead end of all “progressive” movements that become totalitarian top down models for oppression of others for the benefit of the elite few. For to be anti-male, is anti-female. Camile Paglia sez it much better, if you are interested in a view from the gay woman perspective, with a long history in the feminist movement.
@bear, there is no other feminism. Really, lay off the TV.
@paco: Precisely.
Do you all think you could explain your position a bit better than one sentence zingers? I think it would help.
@bear, there has always only been 1 feminism, not a feminism 2.0 or whatever. Maybe now you are just seeing the results and/orthe agenda behind it and it doesn’t coincide with what you were tricked into believing it’s purpose was?
@thebear, @paco: Frankly after spending two weeks talking to people who variously proclaimed:
1. women against feminism just don’t understand it’s only about equality
2. women against feminism need to look in the dictionary for the definition of feminism (i.e. “get educated”)
and then have feminists follow up with:
1. women against feminism are f@cking stupid b1tches/tw@ts/*unts/etc (pick any or all – gen’l misogyny)
2. women against feminism should thank feminists for everything they have (w/out regard to whether feminism had exactly zero to do with anything they had accomplished)
3. men have no right to say anything bad about feminism because their opinions/views don’t matter because they are not women (misandry)
I’m pretty bored with explaining it. You want to learn about Feminism? here you go:
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WomenAgainstFeminism&src=tyah
Want to see my personal position on Feminism?
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23WomenAgainstFeminism%20%40minasmith64&src=typd
Good luck & enjoy. “Get educated”
@mina, I think we are on same page with “feminism”. There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance with people, making them unable and unwilling to understand what is looking them right in the face. BTW, Henry Makows site at http://www.henrymakow.com also does a nice job explaining feminism.
My x wife was a hardcore anti feminist.
She said she would take feminists a lot more seriously when they started advocating for women signing up for the draft at 18. I think she had a point.
I prefer Jesse Abbott to Annie Oakley. But other than that Greg is right on the money.
*Abbate
Ummm… just no. Jesse Abbate may be a fine shooter but I think she’s dead inside as a person (just my opinion).
On the other hand, Annie Oakley was pretty much a great role model all around.
This reduces feminism to avoiding rape. That is simply a human right, not feminism. Now if you could get equal pay or the correct health care for your gender by carrying a gun, I could get behind that.
Get educated about “real feminism” Peggy. It has NOTHING to do with equality. That’s just the sales pitch.