Colorado Democratic state Senator Evie] Hudak’s remarks to rape survivor and gun rights advocate Amanda Collins have been all over the internet today. Suffice it to say, anyone who discounts the experience of a rape victim—especially one prohibited from carrying a suitable means of self-defense—doesn’t deserve to hold public office. [NB: TTAG apologizes for a previous version of this post which mischaracterized State Senator Ted Harvey’s sympathetic remarks to Ms. Collins.]
This woman should be tarred and feathered.
These fools have never had to live in the real world. And yes, they need to be tarred an feathered and “run out town on a rail”. LET’S BRING IT BACK!!
I propose Ted Harvey’s comemnts were just as bad, deserving equal “reward”.
If you listen to Harvey’s complete statement, it is obvious that he is satirizing proponents of the ban. At the end he says something like, “and for that I apologize.”
His remarks were edited out of the video above, but see the video here (especially 1:00 to 2:05). If you don’t watch the whole video, it’s easy to miss the point and be outraged at what he says. I was as I was watching it, until he got to the end.
Farago really needs to correct this post on that point, rather than slander Sen. Harvey (who voted against the ban).
On it.
> On it.
Thanks.
Watched it again and indeed he was.
I certainly didn’t mean to leave him out.
She’s too fat. It would be an ecological disaster to use that much tar and feathers. What a repugnant, fat, toad.
It explains where she got that “statistic”that wasn’t on the poor girls side.. pulled it out of her fat ass
People this repugnant, that are so against firearms they would rather inflict the absolute horror of that type of personal invasion on someone than risk a firearm being somehow involved, are why evil is allowed to exist
We often hear how fat, old, and white are characteristics of evil gun owners. It’s interesting how variable prejudices can be, since here’s someone with all three of those who’s singing according to the control freak hymnal.
That sick F-en hag. Let’s duke it out with these anti-freedom dirt bags already. What they hell is wrong with her? I hope she rots in hell.
I’m ready. I don’t have time for the long work. Too old.
Check out this photo from Colorado’s “1776 Ladies For Liberty” F*c*book page (via billll with 4 Ls):
And check out this photo at the Denver Post:
That picture makes me sick to my stomach. “BOO HOO HOO! PLEASE make us SAFE and BAN GUNS ON CAMPUS. BOO HOO HOOOOO!”
Lambs too stupid they don’t know they’re more ripe for the slaughter without campus carry. I have no sympathy for these pathetic excuses for American womanhood. We’d be better off without them.
Are you dumb? Did you actually read the caption? Those two girls that you’re making fun of are in favor of campus carry.
hey, just give the criminals what they want, why fight back?
There is just no reaching some folks.
BOO HOOO HOOOOO!
Can you IMAGINE what pioneer women would think of these insipid JELLYFISH “all-grownup” little girlies? They’d probably make them skin a bison, then sell them to the Indians. I know *I* would.
There’s no doubt that Sen. Hudak is safe from rape — and with a face like that, consensual sex isn’t much of an issue either.
Hey-o!
wrong post.
lol +1 awesome.
Ted Harvey: “What we are trying to do here tonight is not to protect ourselves from violent crime. What we are trying to do here tonight is prevent students and teachers from feeling uncomfortable by you carrying a gun to protect yourself.”
Ted Harvey’s brain a moment later: “Wait … no … that sounds bad. Um … keep talking … try to make sense. Wait, no … “
Oh, it was apparently satire. Well, that makes sense; it was supposed to sound backwards.
The Democrat is a fascist pig with no shame.
Up with that!!! However, I recall Hubert Humphrey, a dyed-in-the-wool Minnesota Democrat if they ever was one, was pro-Second Amendment. And don’t forget JFK.
So maybe we should instead say “liberals”, instead. Because modern-day liberals are an inversion of the original meaning. The Founding Fathers were classical liberals.
lets not cater to two party dualism.
there is a machine out there that wants to deprive us of our liberty and f^ck all of us in the ass.
The new term you are looking for is “progressives”.
Progress is good. That woman is regressive.
Wrong. There’s no way to equate forcing someone to flee or submit with progressivism without bending the definition of the word “progress” all out of shape.
Honestly we should stop referring to the enemy as “Progressives”. Because really, if you like any amount of personal liberty, that makes you progressive. What really ought to be happening is more groups like the Pink Pistols which join the progressive goals of gay equality and gun rights into one happy loving group.
It’s also interesting that the statistic Hudak used was
using the old tactic of leading the listener to believe that “killing someone in self defense” is the only measure of defensive gun use effectiveness, when it is not.
Ok, this is totally based on my memory, but I think (reference Gun Facts):
There are annually
2-3 million defensive handgun uses
10-20 thousand assailants shot
300-500 assailants dead from gun wounds
12-15 thousand murders using guns
most of which would still occur if guns were harder to get, even according to disarmament supporters. Given that guns are not that hard to make, they won’t ever be that much harder to get.
It seems like defensive gun use saves almost as many lives as offensive gun use takes. Given that homicides will not decrease as a result of attempted weapons control, the frequency of homicides prevented should be encouraging.
On the 1:83 ratio, if that’s at all true, it could be that more men have guns for defense (true?), even though women are more frequently (I’m guessing) the target.
As for that 1:83 comment,
“Senator, you’re using a meaningless statistic to cynically rationalize your position. I like apples and you prefer oranges. I’d rather have 1 apple than 83 oranges. And if more women switched to apples, there would be far fewer oranges to lament.”
But of course that would go right over her head.
This statistic is not germane to the self-defense aspect of the RKBA. The citizen-disarmament argument (as disingenuous as it is) stands upon the wretched idea that 83 murderers have anything to do with 1 rape victim defending herself.
It could be 10,000:1; Ms. Collins’ self-defense would still have no connection with murder. The disarmament movement is truly sick. The NRA should use this awful display of ice-cold indifference in a PSA, post-haste.
War on women, indeed.
Oh, you mean that wasn’t him being a wiseass? LOL! I totally misread that when I first saw it.
It’s a good thing that the disarmament crowd doesn’t need facts, because my God…
In response to Sen. Ted Harvey’s remark, he was in favor of a person to carry to defend themselves. If you listen to his remarks more closely, his tongue in cheek remarks was more towards the assemble than to Amanda and he apologize to her that this feel good measure has nothing to do w/ her constitutional right to carry and defend herself. Like he stated in his remark, it was a feel good measure not for her but for the people who don’t feel comfortable with her carrying a firearm. I believe Sen. Ted Harvey did a great job of poking fun of the people who support the new bill without actually calling them out. Subtle. Effective.
Hudak on the other hand…wow. All women in the state of CO should petition her out of office. To tell a young woman that statistics is against you and to down play rape like that is an injustice to all the women in this great nation. Call boxes, whistles, so call “safe zones” in colleges, means nothing. You’ll be dead and raped or raped and dead. Seems to me CO wants more victims.
Campus Police, Ma’am. It’s come to our attention you carry pepper spray at night on campus. That might hurt somebody. Here, have a whistle and a call-box map. Half of ’em have been vandalized, we don’t know by whom. Probably not rapists and murderers, though… good luck, ma’am! Just remember, you have a 96% chance of being alive for your graduation.
MYMC: My first impulse was OMG WHAT A (*!@)(*#, but after watching the video a couple of times, I agree with you that he was being facetious. However, he probably should have thought it out a little more since not everyone got that out of what he actually said.
Yeah, I think he was probably saving that one for the right moment, unfortunately he picked the wrong one. Kinda hard to be facetious correctly after hearing something that terrible, I don’t know if I could even keep it together after hearing that. That girl is extremely courageous for speaking out.
According to KWGN (Denver),
This occurred in 2007 at the University of Nevada-Reno.
I choose to be disgusted by some (few) people. That hag is one of those people.
Where are the war on women comments from the media? The silence is deafening. CO has gone full bore against women protecting themselves and it’s disgusting.
> Where are the war on women comments from the media?
here
It’s ok when women are waging war on women don’t you know… (sarc off now, resume your normal viewing habits…)
Colorado will soon be like Chicago.
No. But Denver and Boulder will be. The southern half of the state, including the large, but little-know San Luis Valley, are solid folks. I’m not sure about Pueblo; I am looking into moving there.
Or rather, I was.
First of all, I love it when you guys compare a state to a city. Secondly, with all the positive changes in Colorado lately, it should only be a year or so before the major cities degenerate into Chicago-like gun violence – if you guys are right that is.
That’s neither here nor there. What do you think about Sen. Hudak’s comments?
She was right. Statistically, having a gun will not do more good than harm. This applies to woman trying to avoid rape and any other reason for wanting a gun. Gun ownership does more harm than good.
There are exceptions, especially in hindsight. The girl who testified may have been one.
Fool.
Due to population densities, you can in fact treat some states like cities. I have friends from Nebraska, who describe their state as essentially half of the population being in the countryside and half of it being in urban Omaha, and the politics split accordingly. You can, in fact, treat Omaha as being for all intents and purposes as Nebraska if you are moving to the state and do not intend on living in a rural region.
Second, way to assume malice on gun owners? No one wants anywhere to descend into Chicago style violence. We are merely observing a cause-effect relationship. And what positive changes do you speak of? Not a single pro-control person I have spoken to or met have been able to state how their measures will prevent bad guys from acquiring arms or prevent good guys from being harmed in that interim between when crime happens and when the cops arrive. Judging by other comments from you on other articles on this site, I doubt you will be the first.
Ted Harvey is a gun absolutist. He is a constitution carry believer. He is an RMGO supporter. I have got to talk to the man and he is 100% committed to our right to keep and bear arms. He was mocking the gun grabbers saying ensuring the hoplophobia’s feelings is more important than your right to protect yourself. Simply showing the hypocrisy of the democrats on the committee.
Actually Ted Harvey was essentially paraphrasing the left’s argument, and then apologized for the left’s message of “administration/ student body feeling uncomfortable in the classroom trumps your right to self defense.” Rewatch the hearing, at 9hrs, 15min to 9 hrs, 17 min is his full response to Amanda Collins’ testimony.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22721762/colorado-senators-comments-rape-victim-drawing-criticism
video feed at bottom of article.
Women shoud carry anyway. Being expelled from the Insanity State beats being raped, hands down.
Police chief Gates of L.A, while not precisely advocating illegal concealed carry, admitted that he’d much rather that the cops caught you carrying than that a bad guy caught you without.
It’s even more true now than it was in the ’80s.
statistically speaking lady, you may be out of job come the end of your term.
It kills me, the dogma is so strong that she is willing to put down a rape victom. If this is not proof that politicians don’t give a crap about the people they serve, I have no idea what is. I hope she gets the boot and the women of the state vote overwhelming against her.
yes i agree it is remarkable that hudak, from the very start immediately discounts the horrible experience to prove a point, what a jerk she is.
I’d like to verify her source of information. I’m reasonably certain it wont stand up to scrutiny, but it’s worth considering her numbers.
That said it’s irrelevant to the point.
Yes, there is always a chance that a gun can be taken from you in a violent attack–or you might fumble under stress or in myriad other ways fail to successfully defend yourself. But “relax and try to enjoy it” is not an acceptable alternative.
Same BS as in the mass shooting arguments: “you might miss and hit an innocent or just screw up or something something babble babble, “and that’s worse than giving the attacker free reign…how?”
In response to the 1:83 statistic, Amanda should have said “I’m here tonight to try to improve that ratio”.
It’s crazy, they disarm the victims and them complain that they don’t need guns because their killing isn’t on parity with criminals.
X1000
Good point, well said…
She should have also quoted Obama “‘If there is even one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try”
Whenever confronted with the insignificant impact gun control has on crime, the answer is, “The numbers don’t matter, if it saves just one life, it’s worth it.” But as soon as a gun could have saved that one life statistics suddenly matter, and that “One life” crap goes out the window, or maybe the “One life,” they care about in this situation is the rapists.
I don’t believe the 1 to 83 figure. Is that 83 women were shot in any and all circumstances for every 1 woman who successfully defended herself, which would be a meaningless comparison, or is it out of 84 attempts to use a firearm in self defense, only one was successful? I tend to think it was the former, rather than the latter. Can anyone here provide a link to that would confirm or deny that thought?
We need to discredit garbage stats like this (assuming I’m right) at every opportunity.
The way they use the number, they imply 83 women killed with the guns they were carrying (and had taken away from them) for every successful defence. Kind of the same crap they used to say you are more likely to be hurt than helped by the gun in your house (when in fact most of the cases they used were guns brought in from the outside). If so, yes, the proper reponse would be, “So, you want to make it 83 women killed with guns without any defending themselves?” That’s what they would really be advocating. Perhaps their argument would be correct if they could wave a magic wand and take away all guns (in which case the young women would have been raped at knife point), but that’s not what they were talking about. Needs to be a researched answer to that crap they keep flinging.
Minor correction – 84.
Because the one DGU wouldn’t be.
Not sure about the 1:83…probably made up. However, shouldn’t a person be able to decide to take that risk? Just curious, how many victims of rape end up committing suicide? Would they have rather gone down fighting? I don’t know…but again isn’t that a persons decision to make?
Another Caring Liberal
Read that as: Another Crypto-Commie
The only thing that Senator left out was asking if she tried vomiting or urinating and claiming she was pregnant. I hear that is the way to go now.
It’s kind of funny to see a Democrat woman make statements as insensitive to women as a Republican man. Everyone’s an a-hole. You just have to give them a chance to reveal themselves.
Evie is really hard on the eyes. I think her face and body would actually be a better deterrent than a gun to rape. All kidding aside that is one ugly creature.
This seems to be the source of the ratio of women killed using handguns to women who killed using handguns in self defense (violence policy center):
http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm
They cite numbers from the 1998 FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data. I haven’t been able to find the original data, but you can tell already that they are comparing total number killed (not specifying who owned the gun) vs. number of women who killed in self defence using a gun.
So, here are two key points to make when someone thows that 83:1 crap at you:
1) They are not talking about women who carry guns getting them taken away and used against them, so the way they use that number is grossly misleading (in no way does this stat support the implication that chosing to carry a gun makes you 83 times more likely to get shot by an attacker than to shoot an attacker).
2) As we all know, defensive gun uses rarely result in the attacker’s death (most flee injured or uninjured). So, that 1 defensive use out of 83 deaths is not only a meaningless comparison, it is also unrepresentative of how many attacks are actually foiled.
Every now and then, a leftist inadvertently drops their act and gives us a true glimpse of what filth they are, as a people and as a political ideology. Progressivism represents everything that darkens the human soul and chains humanity to the utter depths of its potential.
But, hey, Obama and anyone with a D after their name still get the female vote hands down. Slaves who continue to lick the hands that beat them.
Certainly they will, gotta have those government services.
I had to come back to comment on this(after about an hour). My initial anger would not let me say anything productive.
My heart truly broke listening to Senator Hudak’s remarks to that poor girl. To tell someone who has gone through probably the worst thing a woman can go through, that she would not be able to defend herself is sickening. How can anyone with a heart tell that Ms. Collins after hearing the emotion in her voice. Ms. Collins is a better person than I not going off on her.
Women’s rights groups need to be all over this.
That woman is one of the most cold-hearted, disgusting and reprehensible individuals I’ve ever seen.
To be able to look a rape victim in the eyes and tell her in so many words what she endured means zip is inhuman. Senator Hudak’s despicable reaction is a shining example of how little a tragedy that doesn’t fit their agenda means to an anti-gunner.
And will be easily reelected
Enough with this please? I am tired of the repubs playing the same games as the dems: create some outrage, get outraged, further solidify “us-vs-them” politics.
There’s nothing wrong with what she said. Statistics MAY show that she is wrong, factually, but it’s hard to say because it’s essentially impossible to study (relies on self-reporting, subject to confirmation bias, false positives, etc). Not really relevant. Trying to pass laws based on an appeal to pathos is just as wrong when the right does it as the left.
The law is a cold, hard, factual thing and this kind of nonsense does not belong in it. You should (and I THOUGHT it was this site’s standard POV) that the 2nd amendment is clear and shouldn’t be infringed. Who cares if a person does or does not believe a gun is helpful for self defense? That’s immaterial. The Dems view the constitution as open to interpretation. That’s what you should argue against, not this penny ante nonsense.
While I’m at it, can we cut the doom and gloom? The world is not ending. Obama is not about to pass the new world order. He isn’t an alien body snatcher.
Obama couldn’t pass anything that his party supposedly wanted back when he rode into his first term and controlled congress. What on earth makes you think they’ll be able to get much of anything done on gun control given the whole mess congress is in right now?
Some people here need to relax, calm down, go to the range, maybe get laid or something.
Can we talk about guns again now, please? Good lord
i dont say this lightly, but i bet she’d be singing a different tune if she had been a rape victim herself.
An open letter to the Senator
Senator Hudak,
I am not one of your constitutions nor do I live in Colorado, but I was disgusted by the comments you made to a rape victim at the hearings in the CO gun control proposals. How dare you say a person does not have the right to defend themselves with the most efficient means available in the event of an assault on their person. You said “The statistic are not in your favor.” let me tell you this, carrying a firearm is not a magic shield, it does not guarantee safety or survival. All it does is level the playing field and give you a chance. It does not matter if 99 out of 100 people who used a firearm to defend themselves in a rape incident had their weapon used against them. I would rather have a chance at being that 1 out of 100 who was not violated and killed rather than have a 100% chance of being raped and murdered.
In regards to the idea of banning people from protecting themselves because it makes you “feel uncomfortable” I would say your feelings of comfort leveled against an individual’s right (note that word… RIGHT) to be able to defend themselves holds no water what so ever. It makes me uncomfortable that a person such as yourself would be elected to public office but I don’t see you stepping down any time soon.
You and those like you who seek to destroy our natural right to self preservation seem to think that those opposed to your policies are small in numbers and won’t matter come election time, so I will leave you with this. we are not hundreds or thousands, we are millions. It doesn’t matter in which state you hold office, if you attempt to rob us and out future generations of our rights we will rally against you and see to it that you are voted out of office and never hold a public position again. Think about the implications of what you are proposing and reconsider for the sake of yourself and more importantly the law abiding firearms owners of Colorado who are more than capable of booting you out of office.
Ahhhh!!!!! Senator Hudak’s response is beyond disgusting. Someone has to take her to task.
Her statistic is completely disingenuous. Of course any ratio comparing 100% armed criminals to law abiding women — who are almost never armed — is going to be incredibly skewed. Of course armed criminals have killed many more law abiding women than law abiding women — who are almost never armed — have killed armed criminals!!!!! Of course women come out on the losing end when 100% of the criminal attackers always acted with the element of surprise and 100% of the women who were victims were always reacting to the criminal’s surprise attack.
I also have to believe that the senator’s statistic includes domestic violence attacks. Again, 100% of men who used a firearm to murder their wife/girlfriend were armed with a firearm. And almost all of the women they murdered were not armed with a gun — or else they probably would have used it and never become a murder victim!
This example should make the senator’s statistical slight-of-hand crystal clear. Cars are incredibly dangerous for average citizens because 83 average citizens die in cars for every 1 Amish person who dies in a car. Well of course — because Amish people by definition don’t drive in cars!!!!!!!
This senator’s response is troubling on another level. Many people — including myself — have been thinking or saying that we need more emotion on the gun rights side. If Ms. Collins’ testimony was not able to sway a female senator, nothing will.
Strange how in this time of every gunshot in the nation being reported on national news that this woman’s remarks are not shown.
It is incredibly important that everyone understand how the progressive mind works. The progressive mind sits in judgement over others and then justifies any policy/action with what they judge to be “good” intentions. The pattern is always the same and “good intentions” always take precedence over rights.
In this case the senator thinks she knows better than Ms. Collins and other women. And the senator wants to protect Ms. Collins and other women from themselves. Since the senator knows better and her intention to protect women from themselves is good, she is right (in her mind) to hamstring women and infringe on their rights.
It is the same with “redistribution of wealth”. A “wealthy” person doesn’t need all their money and giving money to an impoverished person is good. So it is good for government to steal money from someone and give it to someone else because the government has good intentions.
The problem should be obvious. And I fear that facts, logic, and emotion won’t sway a person with that mind set.
The first thing I noticed was she has barney frank’s chin.
How about this absurd notion, Senators – TEACH MEN NOT TO RAPE! Let women carry, and not just rape whistles but a GUN they can use to defend themselves!
Stop sending the message to women that rape is acceptable but carrying a gun to defend ourselves is not.
I vaguely remember a Larry King show one night years ago when he was interviewing someone concerning a shooting that had occurred and was big in the news that day. The interviewee was in favor of people being armed to protect themselves and all Larry King could say was “but wouldn’t that result in a SHOOTOUT?”. DUH. I couldn’t believe anybody with a brain could say that. Well, yeah it would, Larry ( and Sarah, and Diane, and Chuck). Without a shootout you are a sitting duck, which is what they would prefer. By the way I read where the “shootout” at the OK Corral lasted around 5 seconds! But nobody there was a sitting duck. “Gun violence” seems to be what all the libtards are afraid of and I think the “violence” part is just because guns go BOOM. Get over it. Wear earmuffs or get some custom earplugs and wear them all day.
Comments are closed.