The blowback from Everytown for Gun Safety’s public service announcement continues. And it’s not just The Truth About Guns who’ve pointed out that the ad sends a distinctly pro-gun message. The View episode above clearly indicates that many members of the mainstream media “get it.” And they’re selling it. The Everytown ad was timed to coincide with a civilian disarmament push in D.C. centered on protecting women by banning firearms from accused abusers. To say the ad took the wind from their sails would be an overstatement. To say that common sense is prevailing – that women are waking up to the realization that a gun in the hand is worth two restraining orders in the bush – would not. Sales of firearms to women, the increasing number of women with concealed carry permits and this type of TV all indicate a turning tide – amongst women – for guns. [h/t MM]
One of those hosts seemed to realize her compatriots weren’t sticking to the party line; tried to steer it to “I would never have guns in my house with my kids,” but got drowned out pretty quick.
Color me surprised. That was downright common sense-y.
This is what winning looks like.
Bloomberg might as well be burning the checks he gives to Shannon Watts.
For sure. Huge freakin’ step in the right direction. It’s a culture war that we’ve been on the “meek” side of for the past few years in that pro-gun folks have been afraid to speak up for fear of being seen as some sort of pariah. Gun ownership has been cast as such a negative thing in most pop culture and main stream media that people like the ladies on the show here have historically kept their mouths shut.
Posted this on the YT video but may as well add it here just ‘cuz:
Now this is the common sense I’ve been waiting for. No matter how great your local police are and how hard they try, the old adage of “when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away” holds true. They usually come to take reports and draw chalk outlines, not to save victims like the 9-1-1 caller in the video. Despite their best efforts, of course. They just can’t be everywhere at all times. I’ve yet to find the police officer who can fit in a holster on my waist.
“I’ve yet to find the police officer who can fit in a holster on my waist.”
And you damn-sure don’t want one.
It’s sad that they use that excuse to justify it.
Gun safes aren’t perfect, but if you keep the keys hidden (on person) or the combo secret, they aren’t going to be able to get in. And, you know, just teaching kids gun safety. That’s too much of a responsibility for these idiots though.
Not exactly an exercise in Common Sense … But, more like free to “speak their minds.”
The two VIEW proponents of using guns for self defense are leaving THE VIEW.
Sherri Shepherd and Jenny McCarthy did not have their contracts renewed.
I’m not Whoopi Goldberg is a lifetime NRA member. She wasn’t there she has expressed pro-Secondment views on the show before.
You just blew my mind. I had no idea! Why isn’t she on the board?
Whoopie is not very fond of those that lean right.
Probably because Whoopi supports a guy who sodomized a 13 year old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house.
TEOTWAWKI is upon us – the freakin’ VIEW is supporting self-defense with a GUN!!
Yo, folks, “God created men and women but Sam Colt made them equal.”
A little literary treat for you poetry fans, as engraved on a Colt .44 Army cap&ball revolver:
“Be not afraid of any man,
No matter what his size –
When danger threatens, call on me –
I will equalize.”
God created men/women.
Sam Colt made them equal!
So much win right there.
Armed Women Don’t Get Raped.
Great bumper sticker: “Nobody Ever Raped a .38”
Maybe the NY Times could start a class teaching women how to be “passively cooperative” with domestic abusers, rapist, and thugs in general?
That’s what they’ve already been teaching us. I’ve heard people telling women that rapists usually only use as much violence as they need to to get the rape accomplished so if you fight back you’re more likely to get more hurt. So even though they aren’t outright saying just spread your legs for any greasy creep who unzips his fly near you, they may as well be, which is the most repulsive thing I’ve ever heard. Somebody tries to rape me and one of us is probably going to die, and I honestly don’t care which one of us.
That kind of contradicts the theory that rapists usually target women who they perceive as easier targets, ie target woman they perceive as less confident, more timid. If this theory is true, what you are saying is that woman are being taught to make themselves more likely to be a rapists target.
Your logic holds up, but the liberal left doesn’t Logic. They have theories that work on paper in imaginary world. In reality women need to be armed and trained in how to defend themselves. That alone lowers their odds of being selected in the prey selection process.
Just curious, can you tell us what you carry?
” . . .I’ve heard people telling women that rapists usually only use as much violence as they need to to get the rape accomplished so if you fight back you’re more likely to get more hurt. . .”
The scary thing about this argument and others like it, is that victims are expected to cooperate with their attackers. The logical disconnect, that you’re expected to surrender your personal autonomy and safety to a person who wants to do violence to you, always seems completely lost on advocates of non-violent responses to threats. In talking to them on occasion, they never seem to be able to recognize the danger inherent in making yourself so vulnerable to a scum-bag criminal or rape-obsessed sociopath. And yet people continue to find comfort in these beliefs. I think they do this because, never having faced real danger, they can’t imagine what that kind of experience must be like.
The women in the video who understood the need to be armed, had all faced that kind of danger, knew what it meant, and obviously understood they they’d have to know how to defend themselves when the bad guys come.
The “benevolent sociopath” for some reason is a trope in a lot of women’s romance novels. I think this is part of the disconnect as well. Women have these fantasies (for whatever reason… my guess is some kind of mass stockholm syndrome) and then they can’t disconnect that fantasy and realize that in REAL LIFE sociopaths are not your friends, they have no empathy or normal human emotions and they aren’t going to be swayed by your begging or cooperation. Sadistic people get OFF on that, and predatory people feel an urge to hurt you more when you behave that much like a prey animal. I certainly wouldn’t want to give a sociopathic rapist more of a boner by “cooperating”.
I was in a knock-down drag-out once with some guy who must have been on PCP or something, because I had my thumbs so deep in his eye sockets that I could feel where his optic nerves went into his skull. I didn’t want to do actual permanent damage or anything (I could have pulled his eyeballs out), so we just kind of rolled around like that until some bystanders broke up the fight.
But if I were a female, and he were a rapist, I wouldn’t have had any such qualms.
Rape isn’t really a sexual act at all – it’s a violence/domination/power/revenge thing.
Has anyone ever reorded statistics on what percent of rapists are circumcised vs.
I’m almost afraid to ask… but why?
“…that women are waking up to the realization that a gun in the hand is worth two restraining orders in the bush…”
Dude…..I can’t comment.
Ah, but you DID comment, you smart little weasel. Get your mind out of the gutter and back down here in the sewer with the rest of us.
Just imagine all the possibilities. . .
Wow. I never would have expected any kind of pro-gun message from The View. It actually gives me some hope…
That whole colloquy was really astounding. Shannon was pretty taken aback I think, when she reported the whole thing on HuffPo she felt compelled to state that nothing in her proposals would keep “law-abiding women from defending themselves.” Law-abiding men, of course, would presumably be a different story.
Equal Rights = Equal Fights
Not equal to limit a law abiding person to a lesser means of ability to fight than a criminal is able to get. Get a gun, the criminals will…..
To be more clear, the criminals in most places have an unequal advantage over the law abiding when there is a fight (generally initiated by the criminal). The criminals carry without permits or heed for the law and get guns in places citizens are denied that right. Now when firearm ownership is treated like a privilege, as it is currently in most places, the law abiding citizens are at a disadvantage to the criminals. The fact is, if you allow people to fully exercise their right of firearm ownership and carry, unencumbered by permits or licensing or waiting times, the fight becomes more equal. In the case of the video above, the stresses of leaving an abusive relationship tend to limit the capacity for someone to comply with licensing requirements (fixed address, references, time, etc. getting out of the relationship is the priority) or waiting periods or whatever other roadblocks that the state puts up toward exercising the right to own and carry a firearm in many places. The crimes committed by the perpetrator in the video took how long? That is about the time it should take someone who has the means to purchase and carry a weapon for self defense to obtain said purchase. Did the criminal have to take a B&E class, and obtain a kidnapping permit and comply with legal shooting of former domestic partner requirements in order to obtain his outcome? No. Equal Rights = Equal Fights
Yep…and gun owner Whoopi wasn’t even there. Whoopee!
It kind of makes me wonder if Whoopi wasn’t conveniently off because they knew she’d have pro-gun sentiments, and I’m sure the producers didn’t want any of that happening. They were probably surprised it was still three against one on the pro-gun side.
Well, it’s good to see some common sense arguments presented in mainstream media. Lara Spencer tried to turn the conversation, but I think she was outnumbered so backed down. Her arguments is weak, anyway. No guns because you have kids in the house? Silly.
Yeah, but it always has been weak, usually still shouted from the rooftops, esp. by liberals, which group is uber represented by these ladies.
Weak? Let us paraphrase “I would rather die than protect my 2 kids with an evil gun”
The spousal unit did not object to my gun(s), but she was not interested in learning how to use them. However, once I pointed out that I travel frequently and someone breaking in would harm her and the crumb snatchers, well, she found religion, got trained, got her CCW, and now goes often with other stay at home moms. I just bought her a G42
A G42? Geeze, that was a step in the wrong direction…
If she likes her G42, and she practices with it, then I don’t understand what would be wrong with it. It will go bang when she pulls the switch.
It shouldn’t be any harder to teach a rugrat that THIS IS NOT A TOY than it is to teach it to not drink drain cleaner.
Her argument is weak, but valid…to a point. If someone owns a firearm and doesn’t take the proper precautions with children around, then yes, that is a dangerous situation. But, if the gun is kept unloaded when not needed, locked in a PROPER gun safe (to which the rugrat does not have access), and the ammo/mags are stored separately in another hard to reach/restricted area, then there should be very little danger.
With that, familiarizing the child with guns at an early age, and stressing the rules and danger inherent with them is also important. The age to which a child should learn to shoot is personal opinion and debatable, but letting a younger child handle an unloaded firearm during serious instruction and supervision is not a bad thing in order to quell inquisitive minds/hands. It’s a simple psychological fact: Tell the child not to do something and they’ll want to do it to find out why they were instructed as such.
The optimist in me is pretty happy to see common sense prevailing, and well known female voices setting an example on how to truly ensure the safety of women and their children.
However, I just cannot stifle the fear that another shooting sensationalized by the media will be put forth as a counter punch in an attempt to enact damage control on this video which effectively took the wind out of the disarmament sails.
I just cannot stifle the fear
Oh, for god’s sake. There’s no way you can live your life like that. Yes, there will be another shooting that the media, statists and gungrabbers will try to exploit. And we will fight back.
We’re winning. Let our enemies struggle to stifle the fear.
I could be wrong, but I’m thinking if the media keep sensationalizing and nationalizing every shooting incident they can find it is going to backfire on them as badly as this PSA did on Shannon Bloomberg. The sheeple they are aiming at will get jaded and start tuning them out altogether: Oh, look, another shooting somewhere–hey, look what Kim Khardashian posted on Twitter!
I think you’re right. We’re already desensitized to it. When Columbine happened people were in SHOCK. Now, the more it happens, the more people are like: “Oh, a shooting. Must be Tuesday.”
I think the more they sensationalize these shootings, the more people will WANT guns to defend themselves. I think one of the reasons that most people haven’t armed themselves before was because violent crime seemed to just happen in bad neighborhoods and gang territory, so anyone with any level of privilege wasn’t going to be affected by it directly.
But when you have random (even if rare) shootings in general places the upper middle class goes like schools and movie theaters and hospitals, you start having “regular people” getting more concerned for the randomized aspect of it and wanting to be able to protect themselves. Then the options become: arm yourself, live in fear, or stay locked up in your house all the time. The rational response is arm yourself.
There is a reason anti-gun nuts are losing. This violence hits too close to white upper middle class privilege.
I think you’re on to something there , cowgirl.
On the contrary; if this Gun-Sense video has succeeded in getting 3 out of 4 hostesses of The View thinking Outside-The-Progressive-Box then what we construe as an obvious solution is going to be construed to be an obvious solution wherever there are women and children (or other persons in need of protection) to be defended. If a mother can draw a gun concealed in her kilt it’s obvious that a school-teacher can just as well draw a gun concealed in his kilt.
– – – Could it one day be said that this video was the shot heard `round the coffee-klatch?
Fear isn’t supposed to be stifled. Fear is part of your sensory system, and as such, needs to be received, accepted, and its message understood by intellect to teach you more about the world and about yourself.
It’ll be interesting to see if Shannon tries to create some backlash against The View for this betrayal. One thing a totalitarian doesn’t stand for is people not following her line. I expect some future clarification from The View that they don’t endorse guns and think some gun laws need to be tweaked.
Shannon won’t be able to pull it off. But Bloomberg might.
It’s already started:
“TELL THE VIEW TO #VIEWTHEFACTS: Yesterday, hosts on The View discussed a new TV ad we released in advance of the first-ever U.S. Senate hearing on guns and violence against women. One of the hosts, Lara Spencer, called the ad “effective,” but the other three hosts concluded a woman might be better served by keeping guns in their homes:”
I’m banned from there. And they would delete anything I posted anyway. But it’s not surprising that they posted false “facts” in response to them getting beaten up by the liberal View.
Here’s my soon to be deleted comment on that post: “Three women have real common sense and you troglodytes can’t face the simple fact that if someone is trying to kill you or your kin, the only way to stop them is through use of force. Either the police or you have to use force and when the police get there, it may already be too late. If you don’t defend yourself, you’ll be just another statistic; guns are the most effective way to defend yourself. Learn to defend yourself. Do it for your children.”
One could also easily pull out the obvious social agenda propaganda in the PSA piece…White men bad, guns bad, white men with guns real, real bad. Until social agenda propaganda like this gets addressed, white men and the 2A don’t stand a chance in the public eye. You can grope for the positivity in this piece, but its wishful thinking. You could write a thesis on the elements of propaganda in this PSA piece.
True enough–but the end result depends on how the target audience sees it. And if the hopelessly liberal ladies of The View see “She needs to get a gun” that is positive.
Yes, true, but the onslaught of propaganda doesn’t end with this, and over the long haul, its difficult to win this battle. As TaylorTX noted, its also institutionalized, so were getting hit in multiple places, like universities where propaganda can pass for education. And most people watch hours of tv daily…..
You hit that nail on the head Paco… The amount of “opinion” that passes for truth in colleges these days is absurd. Universities indeed have been indoctrination centers for a leftist statist agenda. I know because I’m in one right now, and they all push the agenda. And I’m not in a liberal state either. Essentially college these days is where you go to get yelled at for being an American. Everything about America is stupid according to them, Capitalism is stupid and racist. Guns are stupid and racist. All the wars we’ve ever fought were because we’re stupid and racist. The bill of rights is stupid and racist. Only by looking to the vast superiority of Europe can we hope to save the US by turning it into a socialist democracy. It makes me want to puke just regurgitating that. And if you argue with the professor they literally do the typical liberal “dodge, deflect, ignore, insult,” and ultimately “we have to move on” because of time. However, I will say this, there is one department in colleges that I’ve always found that is staunchly on the right. That is the mathematics department. I just wonder why that is.
In the same way that the Libs/Progs and statists target us one incident at a time, we need to repay them in kind. The Bloomberg Enterprises yet again shot themselves in the foot. That’s another one for our side. We need to take them on one step at a time.
And as far as our wonderful ultra liberal University Guild goes, people are running out of money and will to fund them, so I think they will get a large dose of reality soon. Just as their pupils will upon graduation, when they discover that the auto mechanic with a high school diploma and a trade school certificate makes two or three times what they do. And that their liberal views will not land them a job at a conservative company.
@Jus Bill, yeah, there’s a web site called zerohedge which has run multiple articles on the cost benefit analysis of going to college. It seems when you cut through the phony statistics that our government loves to provide us, if you have to obtain a loan of any kind these days you lose financially going to college. The only set of college students that benefit long term anymore are the ones who can afford (or have someone else pay for it) to pay for it. These days the people who begin working right out of high school are better off medium-long term then those who took loans to go through college.
@Brotherhood: It’s because in Math you’re taught to “show your work”. You have to be able to show logically how you got from point A to point B. That type of thinking isn’t present in a lot of other classes. Though maybe you were being rhetorical. And LOL (in a sad way) @ college being where you get yelled at for being an American.
Your speech reminds me of a HORRIBLE angry angry woman who I had as an “American History” teacher at UT Arlington. It was the how much can I hate on men and white men throughout history, ironically that she was teaching the history of a bunch of old dead white dudes more often than not….
Truly a battle of “hearts and minds” ha
The Universities have become socially engineering indoctrination centers. Most will even state that diversity(whatever that actually is) ranks higher in importance than the quality of the education they provide.
If women did any force on force (padded) training, they would see how hard a man can punch, and how difficult it is to take someone out with a bat indoors. I guarantee any woman that has taken a real punch or choke would want a firearm for defense.
I am a man, but I have weak retinas. A single blow to the head could cause permanent blindness. I am not squaring off unless I am unarmed and unable to avoid it.
It doesn’t matter if you are a man, there are much bigger men out there.
I may be able to take a punch but why the hell would I want to.
Been there, done that, got old…lol.
My wife and I did martial arts training together when we just started dating. I remember one randori training session (Randori is where you basically free form fight, as opposed to kata, where you practice set moves) where she and I were paired against each other. Light padding, basic rules were “fight hard but try not to hurt each other”. She had been moving up the ladder well with her kata, as she had good form, good avoidance, fast mover basically. When the match started, I took 2 steps toward her and overhead tapped her on the crown of her head. She went down like a sack of bricks.
After that, she started focusing on armed self defense vs. the standard unarmed stuff. My teacher is opposed to firearms for some reason- But I was able to get them into his curriculum as a guest instructor.
Seems she learned something in that class that I didn’t learn until I was in the army- If the person has 6″ and 70lbs on you in a fist fight… You’re going to lose. So she carries now. Equals out the sexes.
This is what empowerment looks like. I wish more urbanites (as in DC, Baltimore) felt so empowered. That bat will do great against the drug lords in their neighborhood (not).
The question going through my head watching this is: “Where are these children’s Fathers?”
IVF. Single moms.
THAT WAS AWESOME.
The producers of The View From the Left know they have a problem maintaining the Democrat narrative. That’s why they’re bringing Rosie O’Donnell back. She can always be relied on to spout the same old bullsh1t.
“That’s why they’re bringing Rosie O’Donnell back. She can always be relied on to spout the same old bullsh1t.”
Oh, come now! Everybody knows that fire can’t melt steel!
Wow, that’s all I can say. This is amazingly encouraging. And The View targets the type of demographic we need to support us.
Just doesn’t get any better.
Color me impressed! Also, it is worth noting that Emily Miller is guest co-hosting the view TOMORROW, so look for more pro-gun stuff to come
Well, wow, um, there you have it. Appearently The View is written, directed, and produced by the NRA. And as we all know the NRA is “written, directed, and produced” by the BIG gun makers, regular citizens don’t donate any money.
But honestly if the pro gun groups do not recreate this but put a firearm in the woman’s hand then I don’t know if I can donate anymore. To have something served up on a silver platter like this and not take it and run would be spitting in the face of its members.
Upcoming Onion headline: “The View” picks up new sponsor: Remington.
I’d say he picked the right girl, picked the wrong approach.
And why is Richard Marcinco attacking women these days? Thought he was one of the good guys with a gun.
“the wrong approach.”
You mean, he might have had a better chance with dinner and a movie?
Well, Shannon and company will continue to get good press from the open carry crowd. I support their right, but if you are going to make a statement take care how you do it. The Arizona Dr being the latest:
This article actually shows the hypocrisy of the press these days though. This might be a new strategy for Shannon’s crowd, get them arrested claiming assault.
I still, still get people telling me, when I say “Well what about a home invasion? What do I do then?” — “pick up a phone, not a gun, and call for help”
(They tend to not say “police” anymore, just “help” – I wonder why.)
Ok yeah, how’s that one gonna go down? Some have said to yell “The police are on the way!” though. Apparently there’s your deterrent.
Also, “Even if they were a criminal – how would you feel after you killed someone?” … I don’t know, I never have and hopefully never will, but “not dead” is a good start.
I’ve never seen someone fully take on an anti who has this line of reasoning. This PSA just outright *presumes* that a woman couldn’t, wouldn’t, shouldn’t answer force with force. Why not? Because that’s too barbaric? (Note, police are seen as ‘useful barbarians’ by these folks)
The whole idea just doesn’t gel. If someone who’s that enraged can’t get a gun, what’s going to happen? If the targeted woman is that passive, what’s going to happen? A similar scene with another weapon.
But apparently according to antis that’s “not valid” because it would be “less likely to be fatal”? How many times have we heard the phrase “she was stabbed multiple times “?
This PSA is the kind of thing that triggers an emotional response. But on even a bit of further analysis, walks the idea straight into the notion of “wait a minute; it’s the person with the gun, not the gun.”
To no-think-um sorts who already have their minds made up this will just be more dog food so “so what”. But to women in this potential situation with more analytical capability than a shih-tzu, this will actually make them think, “hmm, maybe I should tool up.”
I like what 3/4 of the panel hinted at (but didn’t bring home): Gun control stops being “common-sense” when violence happens to you. It’s so nice for people like Watts and MDA to think of these things in the abstract, because they can ignore the realities of what it means to be attacked, threatened, or terrorized. It’s our job to pull the curtain back and expose the lunacy of their solution to imminent threats of violence.
When will the anti’s realize the police cannot help you in most cases. Police are for “after the fact”
If they can catch the perp, they will prosecute him or her. Then the prison officials will take care of them at your expense. This, on the assumption they don’t escape the system through some loophole.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the victim will probably face injury and maybe multiple hospital stays, and maybe even a casket, all because they “didn’t want a gun” in the house!
Bravo Michelle! You just described what the “national conversation about guns” is moving toward.
Was it women telling you to just “call for help?”
Hmmm. Wait a minute. I thought that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” At least that’s what I’ve been told (and told, and told, and told) over the last 30 years. Why should any woman call a man if they’re in trouble?
Or were your interlocutors recommending that you dial up the local chapter of NOW or something similar?
It was, generally, yes – and some men who fancy themselves “ultra pacifistic”. I don’t know what the punchline is, or what they mean. I just took notice that they no longer say “the police” in the conversation, they just say “help”.
It’s kind of why I actually want to take an anti to task on this logic, to “call for help” (or even the police.) Calling a man? Dunno. I don’t really go down that thought path very far because the idea of running to a *phone* when someone’s banging on your door in livid violent anger seems outside of logical method to me.
Honestly, I think they use it as an argument stopper. “Just call for help!” Maybe they’d say “a neighbor” or “A friend nearby” or maybe eventually “the police”. I think the reason they don’t specify “the police” (just a guess) is that people are starting to realize that police response time is getting DMV-like. Nevermind that I live in the mountains, probably 20 minutes from police response.
In any case, I’ve never made (and never will make) any declarations on ‘who needs who’ based on gender. People need other people for lots of different reasons, and, when the sh*t hits, it’s good to have friends – male or female.
So I do hope you’re not ascribing such a statement to something I’d make about women or men. I keep a lot of friends close to me, male and female alike, and I do think that I tend to need them both from time to time. However, in “that moment”, you can only depend on yourself, if not just because nobody, and I mean nobody – unless they’re in the same household, and even then – is within enough seconds summoning to help. Nothing to do with men or fish or bicycles, and all to do with preparedness and defensive advantage.
I love the way your mind works, Michelle!
OK, let’s cut to the chase, because I’m short of time and need to actually work on guns today.
When there is someone who is trying to break down your door, with a clear intention of doing you harm if they’re able to breach the door, you want that person stopped. Now. That’s true of both men and women.
Let’s assume that the person trapped in their dwelling is a woman. Kids or no kids, doesn’t matter. Let’s further stipulate that there is no man in the dwelling with her – or maybe there’s more than one woman, but there is no man.
Let us further stipulate that said residence is without any gun or other defensive weapons.
Who are these anti-gun interlocutors advising you to call to deal with the situation? Some mousy feminist agitator with a PhD in womyn’s studies… or a 6’4″ 270lb brute of a man who can pound most other humans into the floor with little effort?
I’m going to guess the latter, because the former is going to be of little actual use if the man at your door is even only large-ish (eg, over 6′ and 200lbs). The MDA ad is silly in part because most men over 5’10” of any reasonable physical condition can literally bounce many smaller women off of walls.
Unless… said mousy female PhD comes to your assistance carrying a gun. Oh – wait, people are telling you to not have a gun, so why said mousy female with a PhD be packing a gun?
So we’re down to logically assuming that your interlocutors are implying that you’re going to call a man, and a reasonably large one, because you want the attack stopped, not turned into fodder for a future splenetic lecture or blog screed.
Woman meet man, fish meet bicycle. By promulgating that women should never “need” guns, feminists have scored an “own goal” here.
I’ve been unpacking feminist anti-gun BS for 25+ years now, and this trope of “women need to be able to call someone” flies in the face of feminist dogma in a big way. There are really only two choices in this situation:
1. No guns means “call a big scary man” – hopefully bigger and scarier than the one banging on the door.
2. Put guns in the hands of women, so that they can stop the attack themselves; which would actually imply that the fish, in fact, doesn’t need a bicycle.
I’ve been hanging feminists on their anti-gun petard since the early 90’s. It never seems to get through to the “true believers” that there is an actual solution that “empowers” women here, and that the canonical anti-gun feminist position is self-contradictory. The real feminists are those who pack guns. The wanna-be’s… well, they’re the ones who actually want women to remain a victim class.
No. When people call 911 for emergency assistance and that assistance requires police officers, they send police officers. Sometimes those police officers are women (remember how guns equalize force? Given that, there is NO reason a woman cannot do that job.) Even when they’re men, most of the police officers I’ve seen are not 6’4″ and 270 pounds. It sounds like you’re having some kind of macho Rambo He Man fever dream.
The reality is usually that the dude is about 5′ 9″ and average weight or overweight.
People who dial 911 are not “calling men to help them.” For someone who doesn’t like the feminazis saying anti-men stuff, you sure do LOVE to make it sound like everything is some grand attack on “the menz” or that the women want you all away from them until they need to “call a man for help.”
Plenty of women are A-okay with a woman police officer responding to a scene. My conversational experience is that women who have other women (cops) responding to a scene like this often feel more comfortable because the woman understands what they are going through and isn’t dismissive of whatever rape or violence they may have just suffered in the same way male cops often are.
Likewise, I know plenty of women who, if the option is available, prefer women “handymen” to work on their homes and women mechanics when they can get them. Yeah, there aren’t a lot of women in all these jobs, but I like a good woman mechanic, I know I’m not going to get screwed over by the guy who thinks I know nothing about cars so he can overcharge me. (Like I can’t use the internet.)
So seriously, give this nonsense a rest. You’re making wildly bizarre assumptions. When someone calls 911 I’m pretty sure they don’t care if the first responders are male or female so long as they can do their jobs and help. This is not a romance novel. You make it sound like women are calling in breathless anticipation for these hero wonder cop who is 6’4″ and 270 pounds (probably pure glistening muscle… amirite?), and then after he rescues her he’s going to throw her down on the bear skin rug and have his manly way with her while she swoons and sighs. let’s try to keep this conversation in reality, shall we?
So the feminist DO like people with guns – because the only women who would show up when you dial 911 are packing guns. The feminists just want them to be government employees, subject to the legislation and litigated case law that the feminist groups want to impose.
Point, set, match. Thanks for playing.
In the video, Juliet Huddy is a guest host from Fox, so she might be expected to be pro-gun rights, but the other two gals pushing guns are lefties, I think, so that’s terrific. Plus if Whoopie were there, she’d be saying the same thing.
Watts is desperately trying to make up for her ad by pushing those lame stats on how guns hurt teh wimmenz, but I bet fewer people will listen now.
The strongest message in the video is that, when the bad guy’s Right There, calling 911 isn’t going to help. From that point on the narrative gets wonky.
People Of The Gun have been making this exact argument for a long time. It’s one of the more powerful pro-gun and pro-self-defense, arguments. How odd that Shannon and the Mom’s would produce this kind of video. Her preferred message, gun’s are dangerous and should be banned, is there but is completely overshadowed by the stronger self-defense narrative. Somebody in the Shannon/Bloomberg camp just got fired.
If the lady in the video was armed, the guy would be dead. Why not support women arming themselves?
Ok they realize where they stand. Now choose abortion rights or gun rights at the ballot. But at least it’s progress.
Funny you mention that, but it’s a good point.
Unfortunately a lot of the people that are pro-gun tend to be anti a lot of social issues that women also care about.
I’m both pro-choice and pro-gun, but if my choices are to support someone who supports my 2A rights or to support someone who is pro-choice, I’d pick 2A rights any day. If the political right would just shut the hell up about abortion and gay people, they’d win most of the women. Shut up about abortion and gay people and emphasize a woman’s right to personal self defense through something actually effective (i.e. firearms), and watch the liberal left never win another election unless they can import millions of illegals to compensate.
It would be SO easy for the republicans to never lose another election if they’d just say that social issues like abortion and gay marriage are not their business and not something the federal govt. should be concerning itself with. They can still believe whatever they want, just stop trying to make it a national issue. That’s not “small government.” That’s bedroom government.
I do like you, Cowgirl, but I have to point out–the position that “abortion is something the federal government has no business being involved in” is precisely the conservative/republican viewpoint. Up til Roe, it was purely a matter of state purview, where it ought to be. The Feds have no business taxing people to subsidize abortions, forcing people to participate in abortion-coverage insurance pools, or prosecuting people under the RICO Act for protesting outside abortion clinics. Democrats are for all of those things. I think either you might re-think your position vis-a-vis abortion or rethink your “pro-choice” party affiliation. I do agree with you on the marriage deal–certainly, the Feds have no business getting into that at all, either for or against anyone.
Pro-choice means I believe women have the right to control what the hell goes on in their own freaking bodies. It has NOTHING to do with govt. funding of abortions. But in the first place, the Hyde Act makes govt. funding of abortions illegal anyway. There is currently NO govt./taxpayer funding of abortions. I don’t believe the govt. should fund abortions. I don’t believe taxpayers should have to fund abortions. I believe SOME pro-life people are just assholes who want to control women and reproductively enslave them (I think it’s insanely cruel to FORCE a woman to keep a pregnancy taking on all the risks of that and childbirth for a child she doesn’t even WANT.) But, I think MOST people who are pro-life actually believe somehow it’s murder or whatever. I still think that’s an asinine position but I respect some people genuinely feel that way and I would never ask other people to fund abortions against their conscience. (This is the problem with taxpayer funded everything, it takes money from people and redistributes it to things they believe are wrong.)
I am not a progressive or a democrat. And being pro-choice has literally nothing to do with that. All it has to do with is MY body is MINE. Period. End of story.
So no, I won’t rethink my pro-choice perspective. I’ll instead ask that you rethink assuming you know what “pro-choice” actually entails and stop adding stuff on top of it that doesn’t represent the basic pro-choice view.
I also agree with what you say re: republicans and not wanting the federal govt. in abortion HOWEVER, now that we have Roe V. Wade, the republican party has made it their business to state how they are pro-life and would try to “stop” abortions etc. etc. So they no longer can make that claim. If they want to go back to their more libertarian keep the federal govt. out of abortion stance, then alrighty then.
Also, if I came across hostile/aggressive here, it’s not aimed at you personally. It’s just something I feel pretty strongly and passionately about. So it’s going to come across forceful. But it’s not personal against you.
“the position that “abortion is something the federal government has no business being involved in” is precisely the conservative/republican viewpoint. ”
Thats not even remotely true, as one would know looking at the history of the conservative/republican side fvcking with womens rights (and I DO consider abortion womens rights so whatever).
You can argue against paying taxes to subsidize abortions, but that, to me, is more acceptable and less costly in both short and long term, than allowing states to effectively ban or curb abortions and have society pay for the unwanted child that turns into a criminal anyways.
The same argument is the reason why I support universal healthcare.
Really great post Cowgirl, I share those beliefs 100%. The Government has no business in your bedroom or mine!
The govt. needs to get out of everybody’s bedrooms and holsters.
It’s about self-ownership. Throughout history, women have been considered chattel property – witness the marriage ritual, where the father “gives away” the bride, essentially transferring title to the groom.
The skin is the final property line, you are the owner of your body and ALL of its contents.
Most political ruling classes have considered the subjects to be the property of the king – the USA is the first time ever in history where the sovereignty of the individual has been recognized, and the government is YOUR property..
Cowgirl you make a perfect case for the false, manufactured left-right paradigm. The truth is the at the top level, both parties are owned and controlled by the same people, yet for the common people, they manufacture differences on abortion, gays, ect, typically hot button social issues, to give the public the illusion of difference between the parties.
THIS is why it’s so important to take the high-road. If you are honest, if you are truthful, if you are reasonable, eventually your opponent will deal themselves and their cause far more injury than you ever could. EGS overstepped badly, and they pulled the curtain back on themselves. It made people think not of the man who had the gun, but of the powerlessness of the woman to protect herself and her son WITHOUT one. You will never win over the minds of people who are determined to ignore facts and reality, but we can win over the people on the fence. And the best way to do this is to be open and honest, and let Bloomberg and his ilk collapse under the weight of their own half-truths and deceit.
At which time Bloomberg will toss Shannon aside like a used rag and concentrate on being the UN Grand High Commish for Cities or whatever title he bought last year. Bide your time, Dirk.
Joy Behar isn’t on anymore apparently. She’d be the most vocal anti-gun proponent. This was awesome and unexpected. “Get a gun, go to the range, learn how to use it.” So. Much. Win.
No, I expect Rosie O’donnell would be. I heard she is coming back.
The examiner.com in response ran a list of 911 calls from both armed women and unarmed women……
Women who called 911 and didn’t have firearms:
Woman is sexually assaulted while on the phone with 911
Stalking victim murdered while on the phone with 911
Elderly woman murdered while on the phone with 911
Women who called 911 and had firearms:
Georgia mother shoots intruder, doesn’t allow herself or her twins to become victims
Teen mother saves herself and her baby from attackers
Woman kills stalker while on the phone with 911
As far as the next horrific shooting, in a nation this size it probably happens weekly, so no great effort.
This was in the last few days.
I can almost guarantee that they would be the “I support your privilege to own a gun but…..” type of people. Background checks, registration, standard cap mags, and evil black rifles all seem like things that they would have different opinions about.
Agree, have to take this ‘victory’ with a grain of salt.
BS! Common folk trounced the anti on national TV. Bask in the glow of WIN!
OK, back to reality now.
Jus, there’s an expression that says ‘you can avoid reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.’ If you really believe this is some watershed moment for 2A supporters, we have lost already. This is a pyrrhic victory at best; the anti white, anti gun, anti family social engineering machine steam rolls on.
911 operator: Do you have a restraining order?
Mom: Yes, I have a restraining order.
911 operator: Alright, you should be good then. Goodbye.
911 operator: If he chooses to violate the restraining order, just come in first thing tomorrow morning and file a report, then we will see a judge about getting a bench warrant.
What I found encouraging was all the applause when they said they could protect themselves with a gun.
However, there was also a bunh of applause when the one lady said “I’d never have a gun in the house with two kids”. I thought it was good the others said stuff about a gun safe. No one asked her how she would protect her kids, though. At least not that I heard.
For the children. Learn to defend yourself and your home! Crazy doesn’t listen to a restraining order, a law, or reason. It responds to physics.
Not to be negative about what appears to be a positive sign, but being realistic…. gun rights supporters will not and cannot win the public perception war. All the mainstream media and pop culture is owned by people who want to disarm you. Over time their message/propaganda will only get louder and more sophisticated. They will have some minor losses along the way, but that’s all it is. Understand what you are up against.
We already are. Look at the number of states that have concealed carry permits now as opposed to 30 years ago. Look at Bloomies pathetic attempt at “grassroots” anti-gun organization. Look at our progress (slow, but that is how it works) in the courts. We are winning.
“Permits” for a right? I disagree.
As opposed to no right at all? I disagree. Move to NJ or NYC and see what rights you have.
In many states you have the privilege, on paper anyway to own a firearm, but there is a myriad of laws and regulations that can cost the average person this privilege and possibly even jail time for honest oversights, and these laws and regulations exist in some of the most gun friendly states. As soon as the public accepted to ask permission for a former right, it is only a matter of time for regulations and oversight becomes more and more restrictive. Laws don’t go in reverse. Once enacted, they grow, as restrictions on your privilege will. A permit to exercise a constitutional right will never be a victory, regardless which states reuse to let people have those privileges. If they remained rights, we wouldn’t see these growing problems in places like the NE and California.
Paco, I agree we shouldn’t be required to have permits for a constitutional right. But we have to take it one step at a time. We had been going backwards for decades. It isn’t going to be corrected overnight. I live in The Peoples Democratic Republic of Kaliforniastan. And I choose to stay here and fight. I’m not going to move to a constitutional carry state. I’m going to fight for my rights here.
But if we were losing, we wouldn’t be going in the direction we are. If we were losing we would be where Australia is now. Without our guns and without our rights.
I disagree. Even in the face of unprecedented gun-control propaganda, Americans continue to support gun-rights. Gun-controllers are enormously frustrated and dismayed by this but, for decades now, their best efforts have repeatedly failed. In fact, their efforts are largely counterproductive: the more gun-controllers demonstrate, the more average Americans begin supporting 2nd amendment rights and gun ownership. It’s a ill concealed fact that sharp increases in NRA membership are directly linked to gun-control activism. That ain’t winnin’.
Wow. I’m getting out the cold-weather gear. Someplace is freezing over.
The “zealots” will never be won over by a little common sense, factual discussion. Michael and Shannon aren’t zealots, not true believers, by the way – they see this topic as a means to make money. If they were true believers they wouldn’t live in gated secured communities with armed guards.
Mr and Mrs America, though, get it. This was a great commercial for gun rights. The police can’t help you when he’s busted in your door. You’re on your own folks, and as The View pointed out don’t count on a bat, pepper spray, or the butcher knife in the kitchen to protect your life or that of your child.
The Truth. Without it, people can live their lives in smug denial and pretend they are immune from reality. But once they are personally touched by reality, the Truth becomes immediately evident and the obvious solution.
I live in a well-to-do neighborhood in a big city. Many of my neighbors despise gun ownership and one of them used to mock people who carried. He made the usual snide remarks relating anatomy to gun carrying. Then came the Great Recession and crime began touching our neighborhood. The stupid criminals came to their senses, and apparently realized that they could steal a lot more goodies from the well-to-do neighborhood than from their own housing developments. The past few years, Phoenix Police have acknowledged that our North Central enclave has been targeted by both burglars and home invaders. At first the neighborhood wanted to believe it was just a phase, an anomaly.
After at least 100 break-ins, a few violent home invasions, dozens of car thefts from garages, etc, my neighborhood has made a couple of significant changes. One is obvious and rather ugly: People are enclosing their properties with masonry walls and automatic gates. The other is that a lot of people have bought firearms.
In fact this past winter, one of the loudest and most obnoxious anti-gun types around, who is a former executive of a large pet supply company, shot an intruder with his new 12-gauge.
Funny how exposure to the Truth makes converts.
Excellent post. Very true.
Nothing like a street mugging, a car jacking, or a early morning, multi-person home invasion where you, or someone close to you is raped, critically injured or killed to convert a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal-us Progress-EVIL-us into a full-blown conservative firearms owner who, along with his/her whole family, hit the gun range weekly!
It is one of the few cures for the disease.
I would just like to give a quick shout-out to all the new gun-owning sisters this campaign just created! Welcome to the fold, Ladies!
I still keep harping on Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005).
Read the whole tragic tale here:
Restraining orders aren’t worth the paper on which they’re printed when it comes to self defense. The SCOTUS has ruled that a RO/TRO has “no enforceable property right,” which means that you cannot go to the police and say “I have a RO, DO SOMETHING NOW” with any expectation that the police must do anything.
A RO gives the police and the courts a means to take legal action against the person(s) so named in the RO after they have violated the RO. If in that violation they chose to kill you, well, so much for that.
Excellent point and it further reinforces the inconvenient little fact that the supreme court has also ruled that police aren’t legally obligated to protect you.
Well, gee, maybe I would consider listening to a sliver of anti-gun arguments (okay maybe not LOL) if they put the burden on law enforcement to be punished if they dont protect me. But that STILL doesn’t solve the problem: i would still be a victim or dead/egregiously injured. I suppose common sense highlights that me being able to legally defend myself (i.e. add orfices to the bad guy with my shotgun) would be the most sensible solution for my own self interest and perhaps the interest of the justice system who has one less POS to process, lock up, and pay for their public defender for them to cut a deal and be out again committing the same crimes.
And that’s why the SCOTUS ruled as it did in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. There’s no practical way to enforce a “property right” in a TRO or protection order.
The courts have consistently ruled that the only time that law enforcement has an actual “duty to protect” is when you’re in law enforcement custody, ie, under arrest or detention, and you’re unable to act for yourself in your own best interest(s).
The hilarious thing that happened coming out of the Castle Rock decision was seeing feminist groups petition the United Nations for some sort of ruling or policy on which they could pre-empt the SCOTUS and force LEO’s to “protect women.” If these groups had been paying attention to the actual acts and practices of the UN, they’d know that the UN is one of the worst abusers of women, with UN “peacekeeping” troops being responsible for rapes and thefts all over the world.
The hard truth is this: People are responsible for their own protection. Period, end of discussion. Cops are there to write up the paperwork and possibly arrest those who need arresting after the facts and evidence are seen. Before and during the attack? It’s all you.
What a disgusting ad. These MDA bloomberg toadies are horrible people.
Ladies and gents this is mda and bloombergs ardennes offensive they have put almost all their resources into one key moment and failed miserably, the view one of the most feminist and liberal talk shows on tv have just said they rather a firearm in the home than not having one. gents after this we must go the offensive swiftly and finally place a nail in the coffin of this lunacy !!
When these 4 get called out by the old gal crew..Behar, Ling, Vieria and Baa-Baa they will get sorted out, no more even going close to pro-gun again, comrade!
Antis are antis until they get attacked, or someone breaks into their home, or they realize that “ WHEN SECONDS COUNT THE POLICE ARE MINUTES AWAY” and paper won’t stop a bad person from doing bad things.
The best thing a woman can do to protect herself is get away from her attacker. The best way to make sure you can escape your attacker is shoot the assclown with as large a caliber gun as you can, as many times as it takes. The extra lead will slow them down considerably (sometimes to the point of them stopping altogether), allowing you to flee.
The View is a daytime talk show aimed at women featuring movie and television stars. Many of the viewers are moms elbow deep in diapers and laundry. Why aren’t these viewers at work? Perhaps many of them are stay at home moms? How do they afford to be stay at home moms? Speaking personally, I’d say budgeting and that their husbands must make enough money to support a family on one income. Statistics would say that these men probably work hard and complain about taxes to their wives, thereby putting them right of center. Therefore, is The View actually effective at pushing the leftist agenda, or are they ‘viewed’ by the true women, stay at home moms, as just a bunch of clucking hens sitting around a table?
I know my wife has never watched or cared about these shows.
bloomberg thinks people are stupid. Unfortunately for him, he was basing his judgement on the people closest to him.
It’s kind of disheartening to realize that half of the people in the country have an IQ less than 100.
Well I think him and his anti-gun side are a bunch of fvcking morons, so i guess we’re at a fulda gap standoff.
Yes, Bloomberg does think that people are stupid.
But, let’s not hold that against Bloomberg. After all, he’s spent most of his life in NYC. And from the time I’ve spent in NYC, starting in the 70’s, he’s right. Many people, even those with supposedly above-average IQ’s, who live in NYC, are in fact quite stupid. I saw this from the time when NYC went broke and was ready to deploy cops to stop riots in the case that they hit rock-bottom like Detroit.
I’m so turned on now after that video!
That… was weird, but in the most delightful way.
When that woman pumped her air-shotgun and you hear clapping from the audience… is there hope?
I say yes.
I over heard that segment while I was taking a crap. I was actually very surprised at what I heard, for a second I wasnt sure what show was on. I wonder if its because Whoope was not there? Isnt she very anti-gun?
Ask that one lady, Is it better to:
o have a gun and not need to use it
o not have a gun and need to use it
Does anyone else feel the feminist propaganda behind this ad?