“As a woman and a gun owner, I’ve never understood why there wasn’t more overlap between the gun rights groups and feminists. On abortion, the feminists are clear: No man is going to tell a woman what to do with her body, or even that of her unborn child. ‘No uterus? No opinion,’ as the saying goes. But when it comes to rape (on college campuses or anywhere else for that matter) feminists are perfectly comfortable allowing men — in particular Democrats in Washington — to tell them how they can and cannot defend themselves.” – S.E. Cupp in Guns for women on campus make sense [at cnn.com]
Good observation, and excellent question.
Building on that, why should anyone want someone else to tell them how to defend themselves, or for that matter, dress, eat, etc.
I say, provide me the information and let me choose for myself. But then, I’m an adult, not a child. I stopped being a child gradually, between the ages of 15-25 or so. Some people get there more quickly; others never do.
God giveth with two hands to SE Cupp
Hallelujah!
DE Cupp would be more accurate
“Hallelujah!”
Yes!
A ray of logical, rational sunlight from a female realist shining through the murky darkness of the emotion driven anti-gun mantra designed just for women.
On CNN no less.
Will wonders never cease!
As Rush noted S.E.’s Cupps runneth over.
Fact of the matter is women do what they’re told. Abortion, because it’s life within, leave the decision to them. The life of another be it rapist or robber do as your told. Seems the observation of the author is correct. Comply cause that’s what women do.
Which leads to why. Why sacrifice ones self to appease legislators, college councils, or local law enforcement. Only when unrestricted lawful self defense is the law of the land, do women and men have opportunity to preserve life.
Agreed. Women usually comply because they’ve been bred or trained to do it for eons. “My body my choice” means “my boyfriend pressured me to” more often than we’d like to think. Some women take offense at armed self-defense because on a pre-rational level, they expect their mate (either a boyfriend/husband or Big daddy Fed Gov) to that.
“As a woman and a gun owner, I’ve never understood why there wasn’t more overlap between the gun rights groups and feminists. On abortion, the feminists are clear: No man is going to tell a woman what to do with her body, or even that of her unborn child. “No uterus? No opinion,” as the saying goes.”
I’ve always wondered this too.. I am pro-choice myself. Pro-choice on abortion, pro-choice on weapon preference.
How about caliber?
Pro-choice is an Orwellian term. The only thing most pro-choicers are pro choice on is abortion. In general pro-choicers are against school choice, healthcare choice, housing choice, food choicec. and of course self-defense choice.
Pro-murder would be a more appropriate term IMHO.
Don’t forget pro intellectual choice…
If you don’t think like them, you’re wrong.
Well said. The “freedom” of abortion is about the only choice supported by the left. Everything else is gleefully submitted to the government.
You pretty well nailed that one.
Generalities suck, and are generally used to imply a lack of sense. I am pro-choice on every one of those items and more. If you don’t bother me I don’t GAS what you do. Many on this forum cannot say the same, and generally they seem to be anti-choice, NOT pro-choice.
Considering that, scientifically speaking, there is no reason to consider a fetus to be part of the mother’s body over a new human being, Orwellian is a good term for it.
That cuts both ways.
“Pro-Life” means you let a unwanted child grow up in impoverished/dismal conditions, where he/she becomes a next generation murderer, rapist, robber etc.
Its interesting how most “pro-life” people support wars and capital punishment too
A choice is better than none. One of these days youll learn this.
Really? Do you even think before you speak or write? “Aborting a child does not hurt anyone”? I will not make a judgment call on abortion itself but I would suggest that you talk to many women who have had an abortion and to those affected by that decision to see if anyone (family, friends, partners, self) was hurt. Keep in mind that “hurt” is not only physical but emotional & mental.
If you are mature enough to take on this task sincerely, hopefully you will be more thoughtful and pause before making such bold, uninformed statements regarding truly decisive topics.
Update: looks like the poster (actionphysicalman) deleted the comment I replied to
🙂
Aborting a child is illegal, it’s called “murder”. A fetus becomes a child at the time of a live birth.
A fetus, regardless of being a child or not. Is still a human being, not just part of the mother’s body. Call her just “woman” and not mother and the fact remains that a fetus fits every definition of living and is distinctly different from any “part of a woman’s body.”
Killing any human being, even if not a child, is murder, barring extenuating circumstances like a threat to your own life, etc…
If we’re going to discuss abortion then let’s drop the lie that being anti abortion is about controlling women in what they do with their own body and at least acknowledge that it is based on the belief, heavily backed by science, that a fetus is an individual human being and therefore has rights of it’s own.
Well said
If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one.
If you don’t like cigarettes, then don’t smoke.
If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get one.
If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one.
If you don’t like your rights being taken away, then don’t try to take away someone elses.
Agreed and this also isn’t religious. I am an atheist but I do not see abortion as simply a woman’s choice. First off you have the human inside them who by biological instinct wants to survive, then you have the male, who if the baby came to exist because of a consensual encounter, has the right to have some power in whether his child lives. Feminism is not about woman’s choice but giving woman power over others. In the end, the choice was “yes I will have sexual intercourse to get off”. We all know there are plenty of other ways to get off with a partner without intercourse or even finishing the deed inside the vagina.
Still, most cases of abortion can be avoided by practicing safe sex and early sex education and openness about sex and sexuality.
Re: Some guy..
“If you don’t like your rights being taken away, then don’t try to take away someone elses.”
You are correct.. but not all the “rights” that we discuss are “rights.” For example the “right” to “feel safe”, to “social equality”, et al, which are not truly “rights” but “wants” that our society feels entitled to.
It is well established that “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.” (~Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes) Applying this prudent and reasonable rule..
(1) If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one.
Agreed. Gun owners should also not flaunt or use their weapons where not appropriate. No brandishing, no ND’s. Chipotle Ninjas keep your pistols holstered and your rifles appropriately slung over a shoulder, not at the low ready.
(2) If you don’t like cigarettes, then don’t smoke.
Again, correct, but while smokers can pollute their own lungs, they don’t have the right to pollute mine. So they can smoke outside, or in designated smoking areas. They can seek out venues friendly to smokers. I can seek out venues that don’t smell like an ash tray.
(3) If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t get one.
This is about definitions and semantics of what a “marriage” is. A socio-political issue. Marriage is not denied anyone, but just as a square circle is not feasible, so a gay “marriage” is only possible if we change what the word “marriage” means.
(4) If you don’t like abortion, then don’t have one.
Again, this is about definitions. Both sides of the political divide say they value life. Pro-abortion advocates say life does not begin until the child is out of the womb (Scarier, some say it can be terminated without penalty until the child reaches a higher level of development. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html )
whereas pro-life advocates say life begins at conception, and as such, the “right” to terminate an abortion violates the right the fetus has to life. Therefore there can be no “right” to abortion, anymore than there would be a “right” to murder.
I am glad that our second amendment rights are something we agree on, and that the right to self defense is something we both recognize. I’m just proffering the conservative counterpoints and reasoning.
@someguy:
If you don’t like murder, don’t commit one.
Why are you trying to drag the discussion down to ignorant catch phrases? my point was that an abortion itself is a violation of rights. By opposing abortion I am standing up for human rights and opposing the violation of the right to life. Why do you refuse to engage in intellectual discourse on the topic?
I will never trust one who cannot rise above his slogans when trying to participate in a discussion.
If you cannot directly address my assertion that a fetus is a human being and to kill on is murder by telling my WHY a fetus is not and is only part of a woman’s body instead of emptily repeating that premise over and over again, then you need to sit quietly and watch the exchanges between others until you are ready to participate.
And the anti’s will argue that a “well regulated fetus” is the only legal way to own a child.
Studies have shown the majority of women who have abortions do not regret the decision.
Those “studies” are all over the map.
I concur. I know a few gals who’ve gone this route or considered it.
And all of them regret it, but most of them would do it again for the exact same reasons (unable to support child, etc.). A girl I know told me about having another kid, “I’d abort that thing as fast as possible, before I could get attached to it.” She just can’t support another child.
The day a fetus can be stuck in another uterus or a “birthing machine” is maybe the day I’ll change my turn about abortion. But as long as the fetus acts as a symbiote to it’s host and requires said host to live, I’ll support a woman’s right to choose.
Super easy to explain.
Progressivism grants total immunity to cognitive dissonance.
Each issue is dealt with in a vacuum with no connection to any other issue. Additionally, if common sense seems to suggest a particular conclusion, this is considered an opportunity for creative thinking in order to avoid (or in their terms, improve or correct) common sense. At no point should any result be measured for fear that facts could dissuade from theory.
See? Easy.
“Progressivism grants immunity to cognitive dissonance”–that is just golden. I’ve been saying the same thing for years, but never in those terms, and never so succinctly.
That notion of mental compartmentalization as a coping mechanism for those in tyrannical situations was referred to as the “eight fold fence” in the novel Shogun, IIRC. Creepy and sub human in Feudal Japan as now.
I don’t see any difference with hard-right conservatives. “I’m for small government, except when it comes to gays and non-Christians.”
I dunno what counts as “hard right” but all the conservatives I know of don’t give a tinker’s damn if you are homosexual or not. They just don’t want the government telling you who you have to bake cakes or arrange flowers or take photos for. And they don’t care what religion you are (including atheist), they just don’t want the government interfering with your right to practice it–or playing favorites for or against one or the other. And the really “hard right’ folks don’t think government has any role to play in marriage at all.
Trying to explain logic to a liberal is like trying to explain trigonometry to a cat. Talk all you want, they just don’t get it.
This cat understands trig…….still hate it… .just sayin’
I think the cat would eventually get it. 😉
Cats, like liberals are capable of great things if they only had the patience. But every time I’ve ever tried to teach trigonometry to a cat, within the first few seconds they give you an F you look and jump down and eat a piece of lint off the floor.
Interestingly enough, my wife spoke with her feminist friend (who is a very nice and reasonable person) recently about self defense…
When the feminist friend touted having a bat for self defense, my wife quickly put her in check…
She said, “I know you’re a feminist, but be honest, do you actually think you can physically overpower a grown man, bat or no bat? Seriously, think about every man you know and ask yourself, could I overpower him…”
The friend, after a brief pause, said, “I don’t know…I don’t think so…”
We are working on converting her to the pro gun side, slowly, but surely.
Equality of rights is one thing, but lying to yourself and denying the natural order of things (ie, men are usually bigger, strong, faster and more aggressive) solely based an ideology is pure foolishness.
I’d explain it this way.
If you try to use that bat on an attacker who can overpower you, he will take it and beat you with it.
If you try to use a gun on an attacker who can overpower you, he will have to beat you with it because it will be empty. He will also likely be distracted by several new freely-bleeding orifices.
Some folks think there is a moral disconnect between bludgeoning someone with a bat in self defense or shooting them to death in self defense.
The way I see it, if you think you can mentally, physically, and morally beat someone to protect yourself, if need be. Why not just use a gun…
Self defense is self defense, dead is dead.
RockOnHellChild,
I applaud the effort that you and your wife are putting forth. And I encourage you to continue to progress somewhat slowly … it is next to impossible for someone to throw away a deeply ingrained belief overnight.
When the time is right, invite your friend to a shooting range. I guarantee that after she shoots, she will feel much more confident about a firearm over a bat for stopping an attacker.
Note: while a baseball bat is a decent choice of defensive weapon for a strong and fit man, they are a rather poor choice of defensive weapon for anyone else. The main problem: bats are fairly heavy and it takes a fair amount of time to get a bat moving. A nimble attacker would have no trouble successfully lunging at you before you could actually strike the attacker. And why let an attacker get that close in the first place?
Oddly, self defense has come up naturally in conversation several times with her over the course of the last yr or so. And every time my wife used logic and reason, her friend conceded to common sense aspects of gun ownership.
She was aghast when she learned my wife had her CHL and carried a gun. But, once my wife said, point blank *pun*, “Look, I’m not tough, strong, nor a fighter, but I will do what I have to to protect myself and kids. I will not be a victim.”
The friend was cool with it after that comment. I have a feeling, because of how easily she is coming to our side, that she has never heard the flip side of the coin. Just all anti gun fear mongering and propaganda
Hearts and minds, ladies and gentlemen.
I have the answer. It’s called laziness.
Choosing to arm yourself, protect yourself, and be your own first responder requires taking on an enormous responsibility, not to mention training time and a re-examination of their wardrobe choices. Feminists are too busy insulting men, butchering the English language and blaming the “glass ceiling” for thier own shortcomings. No time to be bothered with all this self-defense nonsense. So if we even suggest that women take steps to protect themselves, we’re “blaming the victim.” It’s someone else’s job to keep them safe.
Generalize much? We know those attitudes exist, but there are also women who have commanded warships and fighter wings, there are also MEN who demand that someone else take care of them.
He is talking about feminists in general, not so much women in general.
…and also not a few women who got those jobs by being women…
Yes Larry, I was generalizing about feminists, not the entire female half of the human race. I know and respect quite a few women who have earned their way into positions of leadership, and who I would gladly work for. They’re the kind of women most feminists detest, because they take personal responsibility for their own lives.
Finally some woman has said what I have been saying to my family for years. The question is will the godless socialist agree with her? I don’t think so. A “well trained” potential rape victim will have faith she can empty her firearm magazine into the chest of her attacker. Instead of having the faith when seconds count the policemen are only minutes away from coming to her rescue. And yes I know S E Cupp is not a believer.
Read that article a few days ago… It was refreshing as SE Cupp has come down very left of center on other opinions she has written.
Predictably though the comments became a cesspool, what is it with “Progressives” burning their own at the stake the second they talk outside the party lines?
I was under the impression that SE Cupp was/is a fairly solid conservative–hardly one of the progressives’ “own”.
S.E. Cupp is definitely conservative.
Check her out. Google is your friend.
This is typical… the mob mind is always accepting unless you deviate from the script and think for themselves.
Like Five Million Years to Earth…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5xPvFjPhkQ
When this site starts quoting feminists it’s time to take a break. Good luck fellas.
Not all feminists are created equal, just like all gun rights advocates aren’t. Maybe try not to brush in such broad strokes
Well, bye…
+1 Curly Bill !!!
I refuse to reject logic based on the conclusion or source. If a feminist has something worth while to say, and is reasonable and truthful about guns, then this is the perfect place for it. Not all feminists have the same understanding of feminism, some are actually not crazy.
Good. Aren’t you one of those dudes that’s always crying about how Bush himself flew the planes into the towers 9/11 anyway? Don need that trash n H’ure.
So long.
Fare well.
Auf wiedersehen.
Goodbye.
There *is* overlap between feminists and gun rights (in individuals at least). I’m a proud feminist and gun owner. I’d love to see all of the women in my life be armed and at the ready. Their armed self defense is their responsibility and it’d be awesome to see more overlap between feminists and gun rights groups, too. Unfortunately, I think it’s fair to say that most fem-groups are left-leaning and have mostly left-thinking leaders. If anyone wants to start an official feminist gun rights group, I’d be happy to head it up.
Most feminist groups started out in the 1960’s on the most liberal and more importantly urban campuses. So it is not surprising that they follow the urban myth that “all guns are bad when in the hands of private citizens.” Nice to see that S. E. Cupp has a different opinion, one with which I agree. When I went to college in the 1970’s I don’t know if “weapons” were allowed on campus. We nice suburban guys definitely had baseball bats and knives in our rooms and pockets because at that time racial violence was expected to break out at any time, and the university didn’t exactly help things by aggressively recruiting people from the ‘hood to become students, in the first of many attempts at mandated diversity. I had a friend from high school who was put in a dorm room with one of the ‘hood guys, who brought a full size .38 special with him to college. Guarantee you it was not legal, not registered, and probably had no serial numbers, either. But back to S. E. Cupp’s point — if a potential rapist, mugger, or drunk and stupid boyfriend even thought that a young lady (or young man) walking back from the library or answering the door might be armed, I believe the criminal would look elsewhere. Campus carry might not stop every drunk boyfriend, but then contrary to the fanciful wishes of the anti- set, society simply cannot prevent every single solitary bad thing from happening.
I don’t have difficulty understanding the lack of “overlap” at all. Gun ownership is about independence and taking responsibility for yourself. “Feminism” is about government dependence (the government needs to make everyone pay for my contraceptives; the government needs to tell companies to hire me because I’m a woman and needs to tell them what to pay me) and avoiding personal responsibility (oops, I’ve gone and created a new human life. I can’t handle the responsibility that that entails, the government needs to let me dismember it before it sees the light of day). On this point, the liberal mindset is consistent.
All feminists preach about equality, but most only give it lip service while they speak and act from a hidden premise of female supremacy.
Of course, any one who believes not just that they should be supreme, but that the supremacy should be given to them, has made themselves dependent.
Your profound ignorance is telling
You whine about “people paying for their contraceptives”, but fail to come to the realization that society ALREADY PAYS FOR UNWANTED CHILDREN. How you ask? through crime rates, through violence, through social services, etc.
I would rather pay for their contraceptives than pay for unwanted children adn the unintended results of such things.
And what is the cost compared to corporate welfare? *strange silence*
This is not even getting into the situation of rape and incest.
Its amazing that pro-gun people can bash abortion supporters, while using the same arguments that anti-gunners use. Astonishing.
because feminists aren’t truly interested advancing the rights of women. They are only interesting in destroying their ties to traditional family roles. Hence the hate-filled bigotry they hurl at ANY woman who excersizes her RIGHT to stay home and raise children. By and large, feminism is just another form of statism.
Drop dead gorgeous, Redhead, AND intelligent!!! Why are all the good ones taken!?!?!
A thought just occurred to me, the “feminist” response to the somewhat apochryphal “campus rape epidemic” itself illustrates the point I made above, that “feminism” is about avoiding responsibility, not taking it on. If anyone, particularly a woman, even mentions the idea that women would benefit from any kind of self-defense training, he/she is torched by the “feminists” for “promoting rape culture”. The whole idea is that women have no responsibility to do anything to protect themselves, or to avoid being attacked, and in fact it is counterproductive to do so. Rather, they should wait for that glorious day when all men everywhere turn into good feminists and, among other things, stop attacking women. So again, there is no contradiction at all between “feminism” and gun-grabbing.
As stated by an article below this one in the feed (6 good reasons for a society without guns), the anti-gunners believe that a society with no guns would, therefore, be a society of equally-powered people. But women (and infirmed, and elderly, and disabled) know for a fact that they are NOT equal in powered to a determined man. The lack of a gun will, by definition, render most women subservient to men.
It is the languge use that is so clever. They use group think in everything instead of individual think. It is called projection when you use your own wishes and put them on others.
Let me translate the CNN comentary below.
“Those who want guns on campus cite our country’s problem of campus sexual assault as a reason to arm young students.”
This statement projects control as though some outside force beyond the students, wants to put guns on campus and put guns in the hands (holsters) of student conscripts.
.
They did not write:
“Those that would give students the freedom to choose a means of self defense, cite our country’s problem of campus sexual assault as a sufficient reason to allow young students to make that choice.”
Words and how you string them together make a difference.
I saw a TV newsmagazine segment recently about college rape. One of the issues is that a lot of colleges, and I mean a lot, treat rape as if it isn’t even a crime, but only a violation of college rules, resulting at most in a short suspension for the offender and no report to law enforcement. So to the college administrator’s mind, allowing women to carry a gun would be allowing them to have a deadly response to an issue the colleges don’t want to even admit exists.
Caveat for my following statement: Rape is never justified. If a woman says no, it means no, period. I raised two daughters and I believe that 100%. But the practical issues with college rape is complicated. Many of these rapes occur in conjunction with parties where everyone is drinking, the woman goes willingly to a room with a guy, things go too far, she says no, but he doesn’t take no for an answer. He is still totally in the wrong, but what is an armed woman going to do at that point? Will she even have her gun where she needs it? What if she tries to draw at that point? Can she get it into play, or get it taken away? What if she shoots him at that point? I think she may be in real legal trouble and could do time. Also, some of these rapes are committed with date-rape drugs, making the gun useless.
I am all for arming women on campus! The woman should be able to choose if she wants to carry. All I’m saying is that arming women is at best a band-aid to the campus rape issue, not a solution.
Sigh. Let women submit to rapists and kill their own babies if that’s what they want to do. I’m at that point where I no longer give a rat’s hat what they do with their bodies or their minds.
Good for her getting it. So what? I see a lot of surprising articles on crap like Huffpuff. And just because you get one thing right doesn’t mean you aren’t wrong about everything else…
Just one nit to pick, seeing as I was born and at one time I was in a uterus I do believe I have a say in the abortion issue.
Yes. Yes you do. Kinda’ like I can’t comment on the military because I didn’t serve(during Vietnam!).
Comments are closed.