Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Wayne LaPierre Claims That Guns Prevent Rape
Wayne LaPierre has adopted a new strategy to oppose any changes in gun laws that would prevent mass shootings. LaPierre is now claiming that arming women will prevent rapes.
LaPierre delivered his usual Obama is coming to take your guns conspiracy theory rant, “That’s their answer to criminal violence? Criminalize 100 million law-abiding gun owners in a private transfer? Build a list of good people? As if that would somehow make us safer from violent criminals and homicidal maniacs? That’s their answer? Are they insane? What’s the point of registering lawful gun owners anyway? So newspapers can print those names and addresses for criminals and gangs to access? So that list can be hacked by foreign entities like the Chinese, who recently hacked Pentagon computers? So that list can be handed over to the Mexican government that, oh by the way, has already requested it. In the end, there are only two reasons for government to create that federal registry of gun owners — to tax them and to take them.”
The NRA head’s desperate attempt to kill off any law that might reduce mass shootings included a new and despicable tactic,
I see a lot of young women here today. Here’s some more advice from political elites who know what’s best for you:Some members of the Colorado State Legislature think women are too emotional to deal with a violent attack. Senator Jessie Ulibarri said that, instead of using a firearm, you would be better off using “ballpoint pens” to stab an attacker when he stops to reload.
A ballpoint pen?
At the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, officials recommend that women defend themselves against a rapist with quote, “passive resistance.”
Passive resistance? The one thing a violent rapist deserves to face is a good woman with a gun!
They call me crazy, yet the people doing the finger-pointing are saying things that are absolutely bizarre.
Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion. A woman who is in the process of being attacked by a rapist is supposed to be armed, have access to the weapon, have it loaded, and shoot their rapist.
This is the same fantasy scenario that the NRA claims would prevent school shootings if only all teachers were armed. The problem with this scenario is that rapists don’t usually announce their intentions in advance, so unless a woman has their weapon loaded, pointed, and ready to fire at every man they encounter all day long, I don’t see how a gun will prevent a rape.
What LaPierre was suggesting was that he would rather see women face potential murder charges for shooting their rapists than new laws about guns.
The NRA tried to use protecting children to advance their agenda. That didn’t work, so they have now moved on to women and rape.
Yes, we call Wayne LaPierre crazy, because that is exactly what he is.
Related Posts :
Wayne LaPierre went so far off the crazy cliff today that even Fox News had to call out his conspiracy l ...
While Wayne LaPierre was testifying against gun control in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee at le ...
The NRA has decided that it is great strategy to claim that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy whose husband and son ...
Listening to Wayne LaPierre testifying with feverish rage against something as common sense as backgroun ...
Joe Scarborough has a message for those who are defending assault weapons, "If you go out and try to def ...
55 Responses to Wayne LaPierre Claims That Guns Prevent Rape
Public Service Advertisements
Paws
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
LaPierre is an imbecile and his “arguments” have no practical basis in reality and they aren’t meant to. His goal is to make you so afraid that you arm yourself to the teeth and get so paranoid of the world that you start jumping at your own shadow and hiding out in your closet, waiting for an “intruder” to enter your bedroom so you can live out some Jane or John Wayne fantasy, only to find out the “intruder” was your spouse, or partner, or, worse, your own child.
Sandra
Mar. 16th, 2013 at 1:11 pm
So how does his argument re. preventing rape works?
Is he suggesting that women walk around with a loaded gun in the open when most attacks occur from behind and one can easily be disarmed by the initial shock of the attack before she can aim her loaded gun. This guy is really stupid and crazy, how the hell did he get elected?
PSzymeczek
Mar. 16th, 2013 at 2:42 pm
He’s never been elected to anything. He’s a shill for the gun manufacturers
Brendan O'Brien
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Oh the million or so women who are defenseless and are rape are just “paranoid.” Nice, really sensitive there bud.
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 12:54 pm
That is not what Paws said at all. Nice try
Just A Dumb Fireman
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 1:19 pm
Lunatic asshole.
Actually, he isn’t a lunatic. He’s just desperate, and the only things he can come up with to defend his indefensible position just sound abysmally stupid.
Sally
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 1:27 pm
I kind of like that” have the gun loaded and ready and shoot every man she sees.” I mean, what rich white men can we actually trust anyway? They all want to rape us either using their own inadequate equipment, or with a vaginal probe, or by continuing to underpay us. It may take a female rebellion stop these maniacs. Plus, everyone knows a woman with a gun is able to overcome a man who outweighs her, outmuscles her, and then grabs the gun and uses it to coerce her into the rape. Great. Arm every female. How is that different, Wayne boy, than publishing a list. Now all a drug addict has to do is stop any random woman on the street, hit her over the head from behind, and voila, he now has a gun!
If poor Wayne only had a brain to go with that venom sitting from his lips.
46A9MA
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
Mr LaPierre, have you ever considered the scenario that some lunatics can hold a woman at gunpoint, rape her, then shoot her in the head? If an average joe can easily get a gun, criminals can get them even more easily, by many methods. Not just from black market, but also by burglary and robbing random people on the street just like purse snatchers.
You are beyond help now.
Kdj
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 6:49 pm
Or the rapist takes the gun away from the woman and then rapes her at gunpoint using her own weapon against her. A scenario that is just as likely or more so than the NRA wants us to believe.
Brendan O'Brien
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 12:48 pm
The idea that a women is to stupid and unskilled to control her firearm is one of the most sickening forms of misogyny that exists. I suppose you think women can’t serve in the military either because the enemy will just take their gun. Seriously though, there is not once instance of that ever happening, however there are millions of instances of defense against rape.
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
You seem so stuck on defending guns that you’re unaware that reality is passing you by. How are most women raped? Are they given time to pull a gun out of their purse in most cases? Do you think that the rapist taps her on the shoulder and says if you have a gun please get it out now?
It might help if you came down to reality instead of being so ridiculous.
Zero evidence of a woman’s gun being taken away from her? Millions of instances of defense against right? You’re a fricking idiot if you expect anyone to believe that
UncaJoe
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 1:48 pm
Gun nut logic at work.
It must be true… I’ve never heard of a gun gettin’ raped. Knotholes…Yes, Farm Animals…Yes, Raw meat…Yes but I ain’t never heard of a twelve gauge Mossberg being raped. They are kindly made love to by their admires, but NEVER raped.
mk53
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 2:08 pm
LaPierre is simply a good shill for the gun industry – the lifeblood (green “blood”) for the NRA. He is selling guns and NRA memberships with his scare tactics. He’d be a good insurance salesperson too.
By the way I understand he has full support from all the criminals, mentally unstable, and anti-Americans out there who are planning to buy guns in the near future. I can hear them now… “NO BACKGROUND CHECKS! NO BACKGROUND CHECKS! NO BACKGROUND CHECKS!”
PSzymeczek
Mar. 16th, 2013 at 2:44 pm
He’s a snake-oil salesman.
mjh
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 2:45 pm
Wayne LaPierre Claims That Guns Prevent Rape
He forgot to mention; only if its “illegitimate” rape . . .
.
Smitty
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 3:17 pm
Look I understand your naive fear of guns. You are welcome to protect your household, pets, family and property with forks, knives, cell phones and mace. However please don’t infringe on my rights as a law abiding citizen. When the big bad wolf comes and blows your house down you can complain and apologize to your family then.
Paws
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 5:11 pm
No one is infringing on your rights as a law abiding citizen. What exactly is happening to YOU, as a law abiding citizen, that is infringing on your rights? Nothing. You have the right to own a gun and no one is taking your right to own a gun away.
If you’ll recall, at one time there was a ban on assault weapons. So tell me, did anyone take your right to own a gun then when that ban was in place? No.
Your argument is weak and diminishes your cause.
Good day.
Monty Jack
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 3:26 pm
Actually, during the assault weapons ban, gun owners’ rights to own weapons WERE taken away- specifically, the weapons defined as “assault weapons.” Additionally, you must be aware that Jan Schakowsky just got caught on mic saying that the purpose of said bans was to incrementally go for handguns in the long game.
Whether we rank-and-file liberals want to admit it, the Democratic party absolutely IS attempting to end gun rights in this country.
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Provide a link or as usual,well fill in the blank
Monty Jack
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 3:39 pm
I’d love to provide a link, unfortunately, my work firewall blocks YouTube. However, if you just put in “Jan Schakowsky” “Jason Mattera” into YouTube it will probably be the first hit.
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Are you really that dense and paranoid?Glenn Beck?Let me let you in on a little clue about politics,Any major legislation starts out incrementally.The clip was about background checks which is the first step to keep firearms out the hands of criminals and others that shouldnt have them.
Are you afraid that you wont be able to pass a background check?If so then damn right you shouldnt be able to legally own a gun.Next time dont bring a gold hustling grifter into a debate
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Because one person said so?
Harry Reid is an avid shooter and hunter. He has a couple of gun ranges named after him in his state. If he says taking away all guns is not the aim, does that mean its not?
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Nice try. But like all Insane Wayne disciples, you have no idea what the argument is. Nor do I think you are capable of understanding it.
But….Im afraid you are infringing opn others rights to life, that takes precedent over guns.(I know that kills ya)
According to the Supreme Court you have the right to possess rifles shotguns and pistols. You have the right at the government’s behest to own assault weapons and other types of weapons. The government has the right to regulate those weapons and to remove them from availability.
I know it’s far past people like you to stop acting like idiots because we haven’t killed enough people for you. But when the big bad wolf comes for your house is probably going to catch you in your sleep or not paying attention because your masturbating with your rifle. Stop being such a joke
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Everything you just said has restrictions.The first amendment I dont think you can own child porn.Search and seizure?I see you never went through a dui checkpoint.There no absolutes to any of the bill of rights and your argument would be laughable if you wasnt so ignorant.And that makes it sad.
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 5:43 pm
I see you just climbed off the dumb train
The Supreme court did exactly what I said it did. your level of ignorance and condescension is appalling
As for running off to the the other amendments, I can only assume you have no rebuttal to what I said.
Neiner neiner neiner doesnt do it for rebuttal boy.
www.politifact.com/truth-...
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 6:16 pm
Your argument was the infringement of rights and I gave you examples.Now you can rebut them but if you are an absolutist on the Constitution then there is no ifs ands or buts.No one is talking about confiscation but there should be restrictions and the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of restrictions.
And if you think you should be able to own anything you want well I’m an atheist but thank god for scalia on this issue
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 6:19 pm
Im sorry, the stupid had to leave suddenly. he locked his keys in the car
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Sometimes I wonder if they make the connection.Keys start car.See car go.BTW what does the r means?
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 6:22 pm
It was funny he accused you of changing the subject while he himself changed the subject. He said I had nothing to rebut but he couldnt help himself from trying.
denon servo
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 9:31 pm
I think the point is that the ban would criminalize gun owners simply for owning a type of gun. The child porn argument is a non sequitur because possessing child porn means you have (or promoted someone else in) sexually abusing a child. The mere fact that you own a gun doesn’t cause anyone harm.
I believe the reason gun owners bristle at the insinuation is because with child porn there is direct harm brought upon the child, by definition. On the other hand, someone owning a gun, who uses it for sport, hunting, self-defense or even a wall-hanger (or any other use that does not directly harm someone) is not doing anything illegal. CP has a clear reason to be banned from possession (due to sexual abuse of a child) but someone who legally owns a gun (as their right allows) should be allowed to own a gun. The type of gun or accessories on the gun should not matter, instead we should look at how the individual uses the weapon. If they use the weapon for target shooting, home defense, hunting, or any other legal reason (heck, they can even put the gun on the ground and dance a jig around it) then it should not matter. Once they use the weapon to harm or recklessly endanger another, then it becomes a problem and illegal.
The idea that we should stop people (now and in the future) from legally possessing a gun (which they have a right to) because someone used a similar gun to harm and kill people is nonsensical, especially if you apply the same logic to other rights.
I understand both sides of the issue, and I think, at a fundamental level, both groups want similar results, to reduce violent crimes and death (It’s hard to come to agreement when there are jerks on both sides who stifle good debate). BUT I think the gun rights folks feel that accepting the reality that there will always be violence/violent people means that people should always have the *choice* to equip themselves with what they feel is effective for their protection of their lives and the lives of their family. On the other hand I think the gun control folks feel that there is adequate protection from threats by the government, and someone who owns a gun for protection is doing so needlessly.
Where I stand: I think that, in a perfect world, there would be no need for guns as a defensive tool (they could still be used by folks in shooting sports). BUT since perfection is an impossibility due to our human nature, there can be no guarantee of absolute safety. Therefore we should allow people to defend themselves with the most appropriate tools. Now, we can say that owning ordinance, from explosives to nukes for defense is ludicrous. But arms, as in man-portable firearms, (from derringers to rifles) should be OPTIONS. People will pick the firearm most conducive to their defense, so at their home, a rifle may be the best option, but outside their home it wouldn’t make sense, and they’d go for a carry pistol.
both sides aim to reduce violence, but with different methods
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 10:31 pm
Then you may not know what you think you know about weapons. The type does matter in how many can be killed ina few seconds and the power thats delivered in extremely fast manner.
There is no reason under the sun for people to own military style weapons that can dismember people. And the Supreme Court agrees.
Its not that often people use guns to protect themselves, but there is something that needs to be said.
Read
www.politifact.com/truth-...
You can hardly tell who is going to use a weapon and for what purpose unl;ess its obvious. The almost shooter at the college they just found with explosives and other weapons was a nice guy to everyone. You take away part of what can cause so much chaos. Its all you can do
BTW, I am not arguing against the wepaons the SCOTUS says are legal. I own a rifle myself
mjh
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
I don’t have a naive fear of guns.
I have a naive fear of idiots like you that think every teacher, theater usher, and janitor in America should be heavily armed with as many assault weapons as they can buy w/o background checks . . .
.
Ingrid Buxton
Mar. 16th, 2013 at 9:14 am
It is far, far better to be afraid of having a loaded gun in the house than to live in constant fear of those “others”. Guns are self medication for the fearful and paranoid. Thankfully it looks like less than 35% of American households live in fear.
The MOST likely scenario involving guns is somebody in the house shooting another member of the household. No thanks.
PSzymeczek
Mar. 16th, 2013 at 2:45 pm
But that <35% lives with a heck of a lot of fear.
KatzKids
Mar. 16th, 2013 at 9:59 am
Or you could be like the Texas genius who just shot his 10 month old baby & killed him while “handling” his “family protector” in a motel room with his wife and three babies.
There are incidents like this happening every day, including children killing other children or themselves by “playing” with the loaded “family protectors” left lying around by people so afraid of their own shadows they neglect every safety rule in the book.
It must be obvious to everyone that how can anyone protect themselves against the boogey men if they don’t have their guns loaded & in every room so they’re nice & handy? Isn’t it Smitty?
AuntInAZ
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 3:17 pm
He shouldn’t mock the ball point pen scenario. I know of a case where a woman fought a rapist by stabbing him with a sharpened pencil. It was the only thing she had handy. Not that it would work every time, but when you consider the author, Jason Easley’s point articulated in this passage, the gun scenario is unlikely to help many women at all.
“Let’s take this to it’s logical conclusion. A woman who is in the process of being attacked by a rapist is supposed to be armed, have access to the weapon, have it loaded, and shoot their rapist.
This is the same fantasy scenario that the NRA claims would prevent school shootings if only all teachers were armed. The problem with this scenario is that rapists don’t usually announce their intentions in advance, so unless a woman has their weapon loaded, pointed, and ready to fire at every man they encounter all day long, I don’t see how a gun will prevent a rape.”
LaPierre is once more stepping off the slippery slope into the deep end. Every time he opens his mouth the NRA looks even stupider and more extreme.
Kevan Scott
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
LaPierre is the most unintelligent and totally nuts person the NRA could find to speak for them. Criminals of any sort often have the drop on anyone, gun or not. They aren’t going to take a moment to be polite enough to tell u what their intentions are. There are common sense scnerio’s where having a gun would be a help such as the burglar who wakes you up by making noise and u have time to get your gun, but most usually it is the criminal who surprises you and is immediately in control. I’m on the same page as the person who said the more Wayne L. speaks he more in favor I become. I don’t usually agree with Scaroborough but he said it right What a jackass!!
Cyndi
Mar. 15th, 2013 at 6:01 pm
What LaPierre was suggesting was that he would rather see women face potential murder charges for shooting their rapists than new laws about guns.
Well the woman better let the man rape her first before she pulls out her gun and shoots him because if she shoots him with only a suspicion that he was going to rape her she’d be a murderer.
And by all means, let’s have all teachers in schools with loaded weapons because we all know that all teachers are mentally well and never do anything to harm students and of course never ever go off the deep end and commit crimes. Right?
denon servo
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 9:58 pm
i’d rather see a woman on trial for murder and get acquitted because it was self-defense than see a girl get raped because she was not given the choice of taking as many steps as possible to mitigate her chances of being raped.
I think that anyone getting raped is a terrible thing, and I would especially hate it if a woman who has taken steps to reduce those chances (situational awareness, walking in well lit areas, walking in a group, self-defense classes etc.) another one of those being getting a CC license, and having that measure of protection taken away by banning concealed carry somewhere.
I would advocate for all women to take steps (it’s up to them how many steps they want to take) to reduce the possibility of being raped. Hell I want everyone, everywhere to take steps to reduce the likelihood of being victimized in any way. And one of the steps available (i.e. someone can use it, or choose not to) should be to carry a firearm for defense.
It kind of follows logic from the abortion issue. Pro-life folks feel that no one should have an abortion because it’s immoral/killing a child. Pro-choice folks DON’T feel that all women should have abortions, rather they should have the option to choose if they want an abortion. I’m sure pro-choice folks don’t hate women who opt to have a baby over having an abortion. The same way that people who are pro-choice for women to carry concealed won’t hate women who don’t want to carry.
I think people on both sides get blindsided by trolls (also on both sides) which stops regular folks from continuing a nice discussion. I’ve also noticed that many internet arguments deteriorate because one side doesn’t convince the other, but not due to faulty logic or willful ignorance, but a different fundamental beliefs. For example, I could get into a debate with a devout Christian about abortion, but they believe that life begins at conception, and I believe life begins at some later point. Nothing I say will convince them otherwise, and nothing they say will convince me. As long as I understand their basic belief, I can then understand that they are a person that won’t agree. Not because they ignore stats about poverty levels and lack of sex ed, but because my stats would work if they shared my belief that life doesn’t begin at conception.
I feel that it’s a point that lots of folks miss, they get frustrated, and say their opponent is…whatever (something bad). After that, the discussion is lost, and everything is reduced to petty attacks and nothing gets done.
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 10:42 pm
True to form, you blame the woman. Weapons dont even enter into it.The way rapes happen for the most part a wo,man probably wouldnt even have a chance to get a gun out. Just like someone robbing you. This is all bullshit. You can talk about women being trained band thats fine, but why should they have to be when people like, you wont blame men for rape?
denon servo
Mar. 19th, 2013 at 1:59 am
I never excused the rapist. It is his fault. I am curious as to your position on the following: On my campus the police sponsor a “RAD” self-defense class for women. If a woman goes to that class, I look at it as one thing she is doing to reduce her chances of being a victim. But I’m not saying it’s perfect, or that women who don’t take that class are foolishly opening themselves up to rape (and, as you believe my point to be, deserving of what happens to them). There should be programs to educate people on sexual assault and programs that offer help and support to victims.
Ugh. Let me try and make my point succinctly (sorry i tend to put down all my points as they come, so things might be a bit disjointed, but bear with me).
A few weeks ago there was debate over a ban on concealed carry on Colorado uni campuses. There was testimony from a woman who was licensed for concealed carry, but due to a rule at her school she wasn’t allowed to carry on campus. While on campus she was raped, and she told the senators that if she had been carrying she could have stopped the rapist. Evie Hudak rebutted by saying “statistics weren’t on your side” and ‘you had tae kwon do training but it didn’t help because the rapist was much larger and stronger than you, so it would have probably ended up with your gun being taken away from you’. My reaction to that is there was a woman who was trained and licensed to carry, but that option was taken away from her due to the rule, and she was stripped of a tool that has been proven to be effective as a force equalizer. I blame the rapist for the rape, but I’ll blame the CC ban for handicapping the victim.
I hope the distinction is clear, if not I’ll work on the wording to try and clarify. But the point of bringing up that story is that a woman was raped and she had something that had a good chance (not 100%, I’m not contesting the fact that there is a chance of the weapon being taken away) of stopping the threat but it was taken away.
The question for me isn’t ‘why adopt a measure like carrying a pistol for defense when there are lots of other options available?’ the question is ‘why not adopt a measure like that?’ The senate hearing had an answer for that one, “What we are trying to do is to protect students and teachers from feeling uncomfortable by you carrying a gun to protect yourself”. I find this rather appalling. If a woman wants to defend herself, and chooses to do so by carrying, (which can be a very effective method of stopping an attack) I would not give a flying feather about the ‘feelings’ of others being near a gun. I think the fear is there because people don’t make the distinction between someone CC’ing responsibly and some idiot flashing a gun all willy-nilly. But rather than say ‘hey, I don’t feel the need to carry, I have these other options, but you can choose what works best for you’ they say ‘i don’t feel the need to carry, you shouldn’t either so I’m going to nix that option’
denon servo
Mar. 19th, 2013 at 2:27 am
I feel like a follow-up is in order. You are correct, a woman shouldn’t have to carry. People should need to worry about being attacked and assaulted. In an ideal world, self-defense would not exist because there would never be any ‘attack’.
However, this is not the world we live in. There are rapists, there are attackers and they are a very real threat (in some places, more likely a threat than in others). The point I’m trying to get across to you (and I apologize if I wasn’t clear earlier) is that people should be given the OPPORTUNITY (i.e. choice) to determine how they mitigate these threats.
Imagine I buy a house. It’s in a relatively low crime area, but it’s (to me) not unreasonable if I buy a home alarm system, and deadbolts for my doors. Maybe for an extra layer of security I buy one of those motion sensing lights, with a camera that activates if the sensor is tripped. Now these are sensible steps i have taken to prevent unauthorized entry into my home (burglary/home invasion), but I’d ask what is standing between me and the criminal if they ignore the camera, break the deadbolt and now stand in my foyer while the alarm is tripped and the police are sent to my home. 3 layers of defense are broken, why is it so outlandish for me to want something as a last line of defense. Maybe a panic room? sure. maybe a big dog. why not? but how about a gun? All three are viable, final barriers between me and the invader.
And then, what if I’m allergic to dogs? and what if I can’t afford a panic room? should I just be content with the 3 layers of defense because guns are dangerous? Of course they are, but are they so dangerous that it’s ok to deprive me, even of the choice to have one?
This is a hypothetical yes, but it’s realistic. There ARE break-ins and home invasions. I’m confident that you would not deny that they happen. And it’s not my idea to say everyone has to have a gun. The same way that I should have the choice to have one, you have the choice to forgo one, and that is a perfectly fine decision and I wouldn’t hold it against you. What I have a problem with is people that say ‘I would never have a gun, and can’t see why anyone would want one’ (a perfectly reasonable statement) but they go on to say ‘therefore, no one can have a gun because, in my view, there is no need for such a thing.’
I appreciate you taking the time to respond btw. Just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean I will dismiss your arguments out of hand. (Plus I enjoy verbal sparring now and again)
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 19th, 2013 at 9:10 am
as you have done, let me make myself perfectly clear. I am 100% in favor of people owning a side arm or pistol, a shotgun or a rifle. I am not in favor of anyone( in the citizenship) being in possession of assault type weapons. I am in 100% in favor of you owning the types of weapons I noted above for both hunting, sport shooting and home defense.
As far as women protecting themselves with a weapon from a rapist, I don’t have any problem with women carrying guns. I do feel that a rapist, like someone who is holding you up for your wallet 99% of the time has the upper hand. Rate this do not set down and tell the woman go ahead and get your gun out and shoot me while I wait.
I am not in favor as I noted, of people owning military or assault style weapons and large capacity magazines. They are completely unnecessary in society and completely unnecessary for people to possess. The less people who possess these types of weapons the less criminals will get them. I certainly understand that criminals can buy these weapons but they also get them out of your homes too.
Gary
Mar. 16th, 2013 at 12:22 am
Anyone else notice the eyebrow, or the slowly sloping forehead? Would that be Pro-Magnon or Neanderthal?
denon servo
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 9:33 pm
Cro-magnon*
Sherlock
Mar. 16th, 2013 at 1:21 pm
What is it with the Teapublicans and rape? Bet some shrinks would have a field day downloading these terrorists bastards.
labman57
Mar. 17th, 2013 at 11:06 pm
Furthermore, gun-toting women who do get raped will not get pregnant, and women who opt to not carry a gun in their purse deserve whatever happens to them.
Anonymous
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 12:14 pm
Yes, disarm the citizenry, so when Obama and the democrats decide it’s time to come and take your property as well as your money you have nothing left to defend yourself with. The persons commenting on this article are obviously not smart, or knowledgeable enough to realize that the reasons the 2nd amendment exists isn’t to protect you from rape, or murder, or crime, it’s to protect you from a government that is usurping your rights, trampling your freedoms, taxing your livelihood.
Wake up sheep, the wolves are here, and you are supporting them while they devour us.
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 12:22 pm
You have any ideas how hilarious you are, and how badly you strive to prove you should be disarmed.
Do you think Obama is going to take your guns just to have a republican president give them back? Didnt insane wayne tell you its unconstitutional for the president or congress to take your weapons?
Are you really that stupid? You really need to be taken off the streets and make sure that you dont breed
Also, the 2nd is not to protect you from the government. If you are trying to quote Thomas Jefferson, he was not talking about your right to own weapons. He was talking about the whiskey rebellion and he wasn’t even in the country at the time. His quote had nothing to do with the American Revolution or protecting yourself from the government.
By the way, did you know more people have been killed by guns in the United States since 1968 then have been killed by all the wars the United States has been in?
djchefron(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Thats funny I thought it was bush that started TARP to transfer your money to the banks.I thought it was a republican SCOTUS that ruled you have no eminent domain
Justices Affirm Property Seizures
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...
So again,how is this President Obama’s Fault?Oh yeah I forgot he is a blah man and we know they always after white peoples women and stuff.
pdawes
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 2:07 pm
Well, I don’t know about statistics, but I know how my girlfriend was raped in 2011.
She went for a job interview, responding to an ad on craigslist. A man was showing her around the site after closing. She noticed he was acting weird, tried to call me, and he told her to put the phone away or there was “going to be a problem.” He was much stronger and more intimidating than she was, so she did. He then proceeded to force himself on her, mostly using the threat of strength but ultimately pinning her down (from the front, because apparently this matters to all the self-defense experts in this comments section).
The police told her they’d “look into it.” The man’s business is still open. Nothing has happened as far as I can tell. She is ruined emotionally, and has struggled with drug addiction for years as a result.
You may not like guns. You may not think the RKBA is worth the social cost. However, people protect themselves with firearms. It is a thing that happens. Had she been armed, there is no doubt in my mind (nor hers) that she would have been able to break away from him and call the police (most likely without a shot fired). You can’t see how it would happen? That’s nice, I wasn’t aware that you were there; why didn’t you help?
There are pros and cons to every issue, I understand this. LaPierre is terrible at PR, to say the least. You are within your right to be anti-gun. But it is monstrously insensitive of you to suggest that these instances, which are the realest thing anyone will ever have to experience, are somehow “a fantasy.” I don’t dare show this comments section to her, as I know it would ruin her week.
james
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
When did the NRA suggest that ALL teachers be armed? I believe that there was a suggestion that there not be laws PROHIBITING educators that would like to conceal carry, not mandating. Please stop fear mongering and realize that people should be allowed to defend their person, and live their life how the choose.
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 3:51 pm
Boy does that open up the insanity
stephen
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 4:25 pm
you’re so right. no woman has ever used a gun to defend herself from a rapist. nope. not ever.
preview.tinyurl.com/cmw8m...
Shiva(Moderator)
Mar. 18th, 2013 at 5:45 pm
Who said they didnt? Your girlfriend said there has never been a case of a woman being disarmed.