The left likes to pick-and-choose selective narratives. They will rant about a baker politely declining business from a homosexual couple, but ignore the devastating and systemic slaughtering of suspected homosexuals in the Middle East. They will pretend that not buying Sandra Fluke her birth control is proof of a “war on women,” but will simultaneously rail against arming women with a tool that can help them defend themselves against attackers.
Recently, an anti-Second Amendment crusader claimed that women should not be allowed to be armed on college campuses as they are too weak to be able to handle the responsibility.
On Al Jazeera’s Third Rail, Leah Gunn Barrett, the executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, argued with of Florida state Representative Rehwinkel Vasilinda (D-9th) over whether citizens should be allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights on college campuses.
Vasilinda was nearly raped in college and was able to defend herself from the horrific ordeal when she reached for her gun that her father had given her for protection. Because of her experience, Vasilinda spoke passionately about wanting to pass laws that would make it easier for women to carry firearms onto campuses.
Barrett spake from atop her ivory tower and lectured that college campuses are “some of the safest places in the nation” and questioned why we “would want to change that.”
Barrett also maintained that she would never let her daughter, a sophomore in college, attend a college where women were granted the full use of their Second Amendment rights.
Barrett and Vasilinda went back-and-forth until Barrett offered the amazingly sexist assertion, “Women are not physically powerful like men are. A gun could easily be turned on the woman, and it is frequently.”
It is true that firearms can be used against a law-abiding carrier. However, every day in America, lives are saved by “the great equalizer.” Though we should soundly reject Barrett’s assertion that women are too weak to be entrusted with their Second Amendment rights, we can concede that there are slight women and there are humongous attackers.
If a 6’4” linebacker attacks a 5’0” coed, it’s likely that the linebacker would have the upper hand.
However, I have yet to meet a linebacker who can withstand 6 rounds of .40 caliber hollowpoints at point-blank range. Even if he does not die right away, the fight will surely be taken out of him.
The point here is that not all women are physically weak, but even in instances where there is a disparate level of strength, a firearm is a tremendous equalizer- a tool where a cheerleader can defeat a giant attacker with the pull of a trigger. Why wouldn’t we welcome an opportunity to get guns into the right hands?
Further, it is time to lay the “Republican war on women” fiction to rest; Republicans want to empower women to stand on their own and remain independent- to purchase their own birth control and to be trusted with the power of the Second Amendment.
Liberals seek to infantilize them and assume that they are incapable of the awesome responsibility of firearm ownership. I can think of few things so contrary to feminist ideals as that.