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.
I find Marcotte to be about the most obnoxious writer anywhere. Thanks for making me twitch by reminding me about her.
Yes, because incorrectly and arbitrarily expanding the definition of something makes it easier to defend against… just stamp every criminal as TERRORIST and be done with it huh?!? Stupid.
Everyone else: All Salon articles are garbage.
Exactly. Let’s all not forget that Salon is the rag that no only denies the horrors and mass deaths of Marxist governments they wrote articles in support of pedophilia. Articles that were only deleted after the Milo Yiannopoulos CPAC controversy earlier this year.
Yeah, fine, everything’s terrorism. If someone cuts in line in front of you at McDonalds, terrorism. The NSA will love it.
Everything is terrorism so that means nothing is terrorism – that’s the plan.
Except for the laws to throw someone’s behind in the slammer.
Oh look… the childless feminazi is running her mouth again. I’m sure she’ll be happy once her decrepit ass is found 40 years later in her house surrounded by her 20 cats.
(Let’s try it again. I was referring to a 2014 TTAG article titled “Amanda Marcotte: Guns Are Like a Dildo in a Drawer” http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/robert-farago/amanda-marcotte-guns-like-dildo-drawer/}
Serge wrote: ” I’m sure she’ll be happy once her decrepit ass is found 40 years later in her house surrounded by her 20 cats.”
And I respond: And a drawer full of ‘toys’. (Her reference, not mine.)
Marcotte is a very special sort of Leftist misandrist.
She’s a lot like the administrative end of the FAA. She’s not happy unless *you’re* unhappy…
The lady has a point: domestic violence has millions of victims whereas terrorists kill only a few hundreds per year. Domestic violence is like rape in the sense that the victim might as well be dead due to the severe psychological damage.
Even if we limit the domestic violence to murders, there are probably many more than the terrorists kill.
Expect GVROs/ERPOs to become a nation-wide ban on men owning firearms that will take a court order to overturn much like any Lautenberg arrest. BTW, Lautenberg DV arrests (not convictions) have stood court challenges based on high risk of offender hurting someone
This lady does not have a point. Words have meaning, and we use that to communicate. When we arbitrarily change words’ meanings to suit our crusade of the moment, we confuse the issue and both devalue the words’ original meanings, and distort our ability to accurately describe that which we are crusading against.
Is domestic violence a problem? Then raise awareness. Using an inappropriate word and justifying it with tortured logic, however, doesn’t help the situation.
Do this too often, and what you’re left with is basic Newspeak and a babble that can be interpreted however the listener wishes.
The “awareness” that must be raised is that both men and women are responsible for their own safety. Understanding that “domestic violence” is shared almost equally between men and women will help too, since the myth that only women are victims is a serious lie. And that is even beside the indisputable fact that women can so easily victimize their male “partners” in the courts, regardless of what actually happens.
Learning how to handle a gun and defend oneself is much more useful than any mere words in any case.
Except gun ownership by non criminals makes home about 30% safer from violent crime.
The risk factor for domestic violence is prior criminality.
We ought to classify violent acts with any prior criminality as terrorism and throw away the key
“All Firearms-Related Domestic Violence Is Terrorism”, says the vomitous-mass who couldn’t *pay* anyone to live with…….xer/it.
I read some of the comments from the article. My brain now hurts.
“Salon: All Firearms-Related Domestic Violence Is Terrorism”
Fake news from Salon is terrorism.
And the rate of domestic violence is even higher among lesbian couples, so clearly the problem is with women. #BanAllWomen
A-MAN-duh Marcotte is just jealous, her masculine appearance guarantees she or is it “he” (you never can tell these days) won’t be a victim of “domestic violence” (or is it “terrorism”?) unless he/she/it is beaten about the face and head by a person of dubious gender wielding the most common weapon of their “community”, a humongous black latex phallus.
Women like Marcotte are much more vicious than any man whenever they get really angry, especially when they are post-menopausal..
Newflash for Salon.
Not all domestic abusers are male. There are female donestic abusers as well. When we separated my now ex-wife admitted she was trying to goad me into physically assaulting her so she would have a reason to leave.
But what frustrated her was that I wouldn’t take the bait as I am not that type of person and a domestic violence order would have resulted in a loss of my firearms license and my firearms.
Divorce proceedings initiated with mutual agreement.
Domestic violence might be close to 50-50 because verbal abuse and similar things qualify for DV. However, DV charges are overwhelmingly against males because it is usually the male who hits and leaves a mark whereas females often verbally berate (nag) their spouses. BTW, incessantly nagging is considered abuse by courts.
A lot of DV charges are from when the man (sometimes finally) hit back and the woman immediately calls the police. I tell guys in relationships with abusive women all the time that they need to establish a record of abuse. The best way to do that often is to call the police. Men generally don’t call the police because they can physically handle the woman and know that she is mentally ill (that’s usually the problem), and that calling the police will result in someone being charged.
Salon should just interview some devout Muslim men. They could help her understand the sick ideology some men have of dominance over and ownership of the women in their life.
Well, and everyone used to wonder how out of early 19th century history…Why the Czars used to line up their political adversaries against a cold hard wall….
I’m always a little confused by the feminist position. On one hand women are totally as capable as men and should be soldiers, firefighters and cops. On the other, they believe women require an array of laws and policies to protect them from men. It would be nice if they discovered logical consistency.
My thoughts exactly.
By widening the definition of a terrorist to anyone who adheres to “the ideology of male dominance,”
Actually, what the discredited, former John Edwards staffer (i.e.: supporter of a wife abuser) is doing is trying to broaden the definition of a criminal who performs an act to a person who has “an ideology.” She is going from someone who commits violence or who engages in threats to commit violence as a form of political intimidation to someone “who adheres… to an ideology.”
This is a common technique in modern leftism. Define anyone outside of one’s group as an enemy of the state or a criminal, in jeopardy of state prosecution. The left wants the state to enforce their ideological mores.
All Salon articles are terrorism.
I am willing to engage most hoplophobes in gun debates. Usually, hoplophobes lack knowledge about the weapons they want to ban. Increasing their knowledge doesn’t always change their minds about gun control, but valid arguments presented to a willing listener often improves their view on people who are pro gun.
This lady is so anti gun that she lumps gun owners in with terrorists. This article says that “Racism was the primary engine driving Trump to power, but sexism was a close second.” There will never be reason or sense to get through to someone who sees all pro gun people in that context. All of your arguments, no matter how valid and logical, will be rendered useless simply because you’re racist, sexist, and a half step at most away from being a terrorist.
I wonder what such an insanely warped world view as hers would think about domestic violence in the LGBT community? Is a lesbian partner who resorts to violence also a terrorist?
Your question is hate speech.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Fun fact: The guy who shot those people in the San Bernadino school was a black muslim man. You know what that means, right? Liberals hushing up and pretending it never happened at all in record time.
I’m not surprised Salon employs another dumb Leftist twat.
You just know she secretly loves being dominated in the sack – and she hates herself for it