Guns and women

One of the blessings of blogging is that I’ve met so many wonderful people.  I haven’t met most of them in the conventional sense — that is, I haven’t been in the same physical space with them — but I’ve corresponded with them over the years and feel I know them as I well as if I’d met them at a PTA meeting, Republican gathering, soccer game, or at the dojo.  One of those people is Mike McDaniel, who blogs at Stately McDaniel Manor.  Read Mike’s writing and you know you’re in the presence of a mensch.

This particular mensch happens to be a big Second Amendment advocate, and he recently published an article at the Gun Values Board about the rising number of women who have guns.  We women are raised to be afraid of guns, but more and more women are recognizing that a gun is a great equalizer.  Whether you’re facing a random crazy person or an insanely angry spouse, a gun provides women with the margin of strength that nature denied them.

I used to think that guns meant mayhem.  I’ve now come to understand that guns in the hands of amoral bullies mean mayhem.  A moral, armed citizenry is a safe citizenry.

America’s First Sergeant has a related post, not about guns per se, but about our obligation to defend ourselves.  As he makes clear, there is a difference between bullying and self-defense.  The Left has raised a generation of children who cannot make this distinction, meaning that the bullies rule.

(P.S.  America’s First Sergeant is also a mensch, although I’m not sure you’re supposed to say that about a Marine Sergeant.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. 11B40 says

    Greetings:

    so, you’re saying that that old bit of folk wisdom, “God created all men and Samuel Colt made them equal.” is going to have to be reworked ??? 

  2. Marica says

    John and I had a nice conversation with his mom about concealed carry. It was no big deal– she’s a Texan– but she was very interested in learning more about the particulars of states’ laws. Information is good.

    Your post is one more opportunity for me to say something I’ve said other places. If you are a 2A person, take a liberal shooting! Be instructive, give them the sermon on safety. Don’t push, just let them shoot as they’re ready. Practice safety. Be safe. Respect the rules… . I recommend taking them (only one or two at a time!) to an outdoor range. Pack a picnic lunch. Make a day of it. We recently counted up how many times we’d done this, and how many attitudes we’ve started to change. We’re batting about .75.

    When we put in our very own range here on the farm, we took great care to make sure we incorporated every safety feature we could think of. Lots of liberals have shot guns here– even some dang foreigners. Only one friend won’t come out if she knows we’re shooting. The rest have had a great time. The important thing is they go home with a completely different view of guns and their owners. 

    I NEED A GUN RIGHT NOW> THERE”S A DEER. 

    I’m not kidding. There were four of them. Stupid deer. I ran and got my .22 and scared ‘em off. We could use the venison, but this is a busy week. Anyway… . 

    Take a liberal shooting!  

  3. SADIE says

     
    A snip from Robert Avrech …
     
    “I don’t like guns.”
    This declaration from a friend, a Jewish liberal reacting with dismay when told that yours truly owns several firearms, goes regularly to the shooting range, and strongly advocates for private ownership of weapons by honest, law-abiding citizens.
    “I don’t like plastic bags.” I responded.
     
    My liberal friend was like: “Huh?”
    “The Khymer Rouge murdered over one million Cambodians by suffocating them with plastic garbage bags,” I said.
     
    Short but pointed article linked below.
     
    http://www.seraphicpress.com/gun-control-the-philistines-and-the-jews/

  4. Jose says

    “I used to think that guns meant mayhem.”
     
    Mayhem = wackos setting people on fire in elevators with a gallon of gasoline and a match.  Of course, it’s impossible to own a gun in NYC – too dangerous.

  5. jj says

    Not impossible, Jose – but time-consuming, annoying, and expensive.  Depends on the occupant of the governor’s mansion, too.  When George Pataki was governor he occasionally reminded the city that its laws really didn’t outweigh state laws.  New York City occasionally needs reminding, too.  Most judges in the city will go with state law, and if you have a carry permit from some other county in the state, they’ll tend to consider that okay for the city, too – though you can’t count on it.
     
    This is because (1) most NYC judges are aware that Timothy Sullivan – progenitor of the Sullivan Act – was a Tammany Hall crook and general free-lance son of a bitch who essentially didn’t want anyone other than himself and his cronies to be armed, and it’s goddamed humiliating for anyone to be upholding a “law” crafted by this guy, and (2) there’s hardly any constitutional (state constitution, that is) basis for the city to get away with even having separate – let alone tougher – laws than the state.  Sort of: “it’s been going on for a hundred years, okay, that’s the justification – but who told these city idiots they could do that in the first place?”
     
    So what it comes down to is: the city will turn you down.  So, you go hire one of the many people who maneuver around the Sullivan Act for a living, and they will simply do so for you.  Because – though they get away with it every day – the city really cannot deny you, if you could qualify for a license in any other county.  But, they can make it cost you $20,000, take a year, and drive you to the edge of reason.  99% of potential applicants will be sufficiently discouraged by this rigamarole that they won’t even bother to apply, and the city will consider that it has “won,” and kept another gun off the streets.  They know if you spend the time – and money – to take them to court and fight about it, they’ll lose.  But they also know that most people won’t be up for that cruise, won’t accept the hassle, and will give up and go away quietly.  That’s the goal.
     
    But if you want to spend the time and money, you can walk up 5th Avenue with a gun under your arm.

  6. says

    Bookworm, ideally those who choose the profession of arms are all a mensch (even if we have to look that word up). Not striving to be so would be unworthy of the special trust and confidence placed in us. As a side note though, in the Marine Corps we refer to our enlisted ranks by their full title, unlike the Army where they refer to everyone E-5 and above as Sgt. In my eyes I have not be a Sergeant in a long, long time (1999). Of course, we do refer to Gunnery Sergeants as Gunny and some Master Sergeants will consent to be called Top. Not all, but some. 

  7. says

    Got it, Am1stSgt.  For so long, my rank and title have been “Mommy,” I’ve lost track of nuances in the outside world — and, I have to admit, I’ve never known the nuances in the military world.

    So, how do I refer to you?

     

  8. jj says

    It’s interesting, because the Seattle City Council occasionally gets above itself, and decides that it’s going to impose some restrictions on guns inside the city limits.  Every time they try – so far – the state legislature says something along the lines of: “uh… excuse us, boys and girls, but… no.  Changing, limiting, restricting, imposing any sort of alteration on a state law happens not to be part of your writ.  Don’t even go there.  Seattle is part of Washington, subject to state law – and we make those laws, you don’t.  Period.”  Which is what New York State should have told New York City a hundred years ago – but unaccountably didn’t.

  9. says

    As a gentleman and a vigorous defender of individual rights my thought is you may refer to me as pleases you. My promotion warrant appoints me as a First Sergeant of Marines to rank as such the first day of July 2007. Hmmm…you may have just inspired my next post. Thanks!

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply