We've talked occasionally about not letting liberals off the hook so easily when they shoot their mouths off. Well, the mouth shooting-off was in rare form this week, thanks to a couple of blowhards. Meet Todd Akin's leftist counterparts.This week, no doubt in reaction to recent furor over guns, the Colorado State House passed a bill that would ban concealed-carry on all state college campuses. (This is also proof that the state needs to go ahead and conduct a purge of all California-born residents, but I digress.) There were all the usual reasons cited: guns in the hands of intoxicated youths are bad, concealed-carry makes random shootings more likely, blah blah blah. I want to point out, though, that for once, Republicans did something smart; rather than talk vaguely about liberty and such, they made the issue specific, arguing that gun control takes away the ability of people to defend themselves--not least threatened young women. A gun-rights advocate said of concealed-carry:
"The types of people who go through the process to obtain a concealed carry permit are exactly the people who any mother or father would want to be able to defend themselves on campus. A woman shouldn't have to wait until it's too late to find out if she's actually going to be raped or not. We should allow competent, trained women the ability to defend themselves."This is really very smart messaging. It puts the matter in concrete terms--people might be divided on gun rights, but nobody wants to stop a woman from defending herself. Also, this could serve as a bridge to certain demographics which typically do not vote Republican: Young, single, professional women in this case. But it could easily work in creating a dialogue with other groups. I've even heard many openly gay people support wide-ranging gun rights, if only to protect themselves from potential "hate crimes." And then there's the fact that such an argument forces Democrats to try and explain how this doesn't leave women vulnerable, with a high chance that they'll end up saying something really stupid. Which they did.
Witness one Democratic state rep, Joe Salazar, who in the course of debate on the bill defended the legislation by saying that although women might feel like they could get raped, there's no way of knowing for sure. "It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And...[if you feel like you're being threatened when you actually aren't] you pop out that gun and you pop...pop around at somebody."
First of all, "pop around at somebody"? I'm pretty sure, based on that alone, that Mr. Salazar has never handled a gun in his life. Secondly, safe zones? Really? I've spent most of the past seven years on college campuses, and I couldn't point out a safe zone to you if I tried. But I guess they have magical properties that prevent thugs from getting anyone inside them. Maybe that's why I don't know of any. They're invisible to young men, or something.
But I haven't even reached the piece de resistance yet. I don't watch Fox's The Five often; apart from Gutfeld, most of the people on there are just too shallow. But the show does reveal a lot about liberals and conservatives through their gut reactions to news pieces. For proof of this, look no further than the panel's representative from the Left, Bob Beckel, who on Tuesday, as this issue from Colorado was being discussed, defended the Dems by arguing that campus rape was not a good reason for concealed-carry, because turns out, it doesn't actually exist. Really. His words were "When was the last time you heard about a rape on campus?" and he then went on to suggest that date rape didn't count. Well, then! I mean, even Akin didn't suggest that rape wasn't a thing.
Look, Beckel is, as I said, a blowhard, and one could make the excuse that he was speaking off the cuff and the words came out wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that however frequent liberals believe campus rape to be, they would rather put this nanny-state project above the welfare of young women. If you think that's too harsh, consider the University of Colorado's guidelines, presumably written out after calm deliberation, about what women should do in a threatening situation. Among the winners: "If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense." "Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating." "Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone." So there you go, ladies....you can't use lethal force to defend your body, but you can humiliate yourselves to your heart's content. I know I shouldn't speak for women or whatever, but if I had two X chromosomes and were placed in that position, I think I'd rather say "Stop or I'll shoot!" than "Wait, I'm on my period!" But that could just be me being misogynistic.
Anyway, this whole episode, despite the possible signing into law of this terrible bill, is good for our side. Not only did it provide an effective counter to Republican missteps concerning women's rights (or at least it would have if the media had given it equal coverage), it shows how the Left can't even provide a coherent platform. They claim to support empowering women, but when a dear cause like gun control comes up, that goes right out the window. We need more episodes like this.
47 comments:
Colorado needs to codify that. Sexually assaulting a woman on a college campus for personal gratification only is not RAPE. In fact, it's a crime of lust and progressives are only human after all (wink-wink).
When you think about it, these legislators are only trying to protect their own young men - future legislators - from being gunned down while they rape a co-ed.
Salazar isn't a California transplant...
I would agree, Rav, they stepped in it. Apart from the core fact that the second amendment is really about guaranteeing the right of citizens to defend themselves, it is actually nice to see, however small, the right actually getting a specific message that relates to real people. I honestly don't see the gun control issue as being politically a winner, but I've been wrong a lot lately.
LL, it would be nice if they were that open about it, but they don't have that much courage. No doubt they still believe they're totally on the side of female empowerment and against patriarchal oppression and all that.
I didn't think Salazar was a California transplant; I'm pretty sure he's part of that native Colorado dynasty. But this crap would never fly if the Centennial State hadn't been invaded by said human locusts.
Jed, I think the Left maybe had a narrow window following the Newtown shooting in which they could have enacted gun control--nothing near as complete as they would like, but some enhanced restrictions, sure. As it is, though, McCain is already privately saying no one should expect any kind of ban to pass Congress, and coming from the mouth of Mr. Compromise, that seems a strong indicator that this issue will have a slow and quiet death. Unless Mr. Executive Order decides to step in, of course.
In a just world, Beckel's 'date rape isn't real rape' claim would end his career but Fox keeps him around because he is bomb thrower, not because he is bright. Fox could do conservatives a big favor by hiring more of the dumber liberals (Keith Olbermann is looking for work).
Funny how the mainstream media coverage of Beckel almost invariably fails to mention that he is a liberal (most of them just mention that Beckel is a Fox host which leads people to the opposite conclusion).
As a token liberal, Beckel can make any outrageous claim and fellow liberals will lap it up as if it's honey.
Why didn't Salazar suggest arming those women who have CCW permits with Tasers? Less lethal? Rather than a rape whistle and teaching them to vomit and void on threat?
"Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone."
Or he could get really mad, and knowing you are unarmed, decide to not only rape you but beat the living s--t to the point that you look like something out of Picasso -but more bluish.
What is a "safe zone"?
And how do they "work"? At least in theory?
Wait, College Rape does NOT exist?
Huh, I thought liberals were telling us it was the greatest danger women face today and that any man was a potential rapist.
Liberals, keep your damn facts straight! Otherwise, us neanderthals won't be able to keep up!
Things my mother never taught me...vomiting on command. And she spent a lot of time potty training me as a toddler, so...oh, good lord almighty, men are stupid. Present company excepted. And notice that these are MEN saying these things. No one ever asks women and, once again, WHERE THE HELL IS N.O.W.? Where are the Women of The View? Whoopie should be all over this! Oh, wait, she's famous for "Well, it wasn't rape-rape" about Polanski's child-rape.
Okay, once I gain my composure and can think clearly again, I will continue.
Great article T-Rav!
Anthony, that's just the thing. With one or two exceptions, all the mainstream news sources reported this as "Fox News host claims campus rape doesn't exist," rather than "Liberal commentator claims campus rape doesn't exist." Yeah, way to be impartial, guys.
I used to like Beckel a little bit, because he could at times put down the spin and be a rational analyst; he had no problem admitting it if he honestly thought something had hurt the Obama administration. But he's repeatedly been misogynistic and boorish, and it's increasingly hard to overlook.
LL, clearly you have not heard all the talk in recent years about how terrible Tasers are. Apparently if even one person on the receiving end has a heart condition or something, they're just as dangerous and violent as guns. Hey, at least vomiting doesn't carry that threat. Because it is all about making sure criminals aren't put in a threatening situation, right?
damn frickin' idiots.
Kit, think of it as a two-fer. Women can be humiliated once by expelling body fluids to avoid getting raped, and then a second time by getting raped anyway.
In all seriousness, good point. A lot of the minds sick enough to commit rape are also sick enough to enjoy the whole vomiting/urinating thing.
Kit, a "safe zone," as far as I can tell, is an area of campus that's reasonably well-lit and/or near enough to populated areas (dorms, etc.) that a would-be criminal probably wouldn't enjoy anonymity.
Now, these areas aren't useless, don't get me wrong. But look--I've trudged through poorly-lit lots at night before, and safe zones, call boxes, and the like offer only partial security. I personally didn't feel entirely safe until I got inside a building or my car (though I tend to the neurotic in such matters). Are these things going to stop a guy who's on a mission to do some harm? No. You know what will? A well-placed bullet.
I'm glad to see conservatives at the state level really taking it to liberals. Here's hoping the national-level players are paying attention.
Salazar's statement is a shambles, and I think he is rightly lambasted for it b/c it reveals many preconceived notions endemic to liberal thinking. Not just the anti-gun sentiment, but the idea that "the Man" can protect you in any situation.
You can't have call boxes everywhere. My alma mater had them, but we also had a student parking lot jokingly referred to as the "rape lot" because of a conspicuous absence of call boxes and lighting and its remote location. Thankfully, it was only ever a joke.
And the idea that women ought to carry rape whistles around with them just seems to give into "damsel in distress" stereotypes. It also raises the question, if a woman blows a whistle and no one is around to hear it, does she really get raped?
Bev, thank you for excepting the present company. :-)
No, really, it's okay though, because Salazar later explained that he has two daughters and supports women's rights and so on, so he totally is not trying to degrade women. You know, basically what Todd Akin said last year. Don't you feel better now?
Huh, I thought liberals were telling us it was the greatest danger women face today and that any man was a potential rapist.
Kit, that reminds me of a Family Guy sketch from back when it was still kinda funny. It showed an Intro to Women's Studies course, where the professor said, "Ladies, look to the man on your left. Now to the man on your right. Chances are, both of those men will rape you."
I guess we're all rapists until it's convenient for us not to be.
rla, I couldn't agree more.
tryanmax, only if she makes a sound.
I denounce myself.
I very much feel that the best gun arguments are actually premised on the idea of women defending themselves because that's who really needs guns if push comes to shove.
As for the rape stuff, conservatives really do need to start attacking every one of these leftists who spouts off and calling this the war on women or something similar to push the idea that the left hates women.
Bev, You can't vomit on command? It's easy. There's a button near your rear... just push it. It's right next to the hope and change shoot.
RE: vomit on command -- now who doesn't understand female biology?
But I can see how a leftist might think that women can just puke at will. I mean, aren't they all doing that to stay skinny, anyway? The ones that want a man, anyway. That's not misogynistic, is it?
Andrew, I would really like to see the next GOP figure asked about whether the party has a problem with women to pull this story out and beat on it for all it's worth. Every conservative up in front of a camera should be talking about this at the first opportunity. But that's just me. I guess being civil and taking the high road is more important.
I can vomit on command, but only if I've eaten lots of pizza and barbecue nachos first. For the record, I think we're entering the "too much info" realm here.
tryanmax, T-Rav, et al: report immediately to the nearest Women's Studies/Gender Studies/Oppression Studies department to begin your reeducation program.
Bev, you are, of course, a traitor to your birth-gender.
T-Rav - with TOTUS in charge (isn't that a TV show?), the high road is no longer navigable! The GOP needs to get back in the race and a useful, helpful road and screw the high road!
T-Rav, I agree. This is the sort of thing the GOP needs to learn to exploit. They can't keep giving the left a pass on these things. Treat them as a singular being and attack them for the comments any of them make.
Of course the "war on women" angle is the one we must exploit. It´s only fair. But I think liberal politicans do not look down on women in particular. They look down on all "little people". And make no mistake, we are all little people.
The great planners can´t stand uppity, independent citizens. They want to take your guns away for the same reason that greens want to take your car away and regulate the temperature of your home. In your own best interest, of course. Guns are just politically easier to do.
Jed said: "I honestly don't see the gun control issue as being politically a winner, but I've been wrong a lot lately."
I think on balance it can only help Republicans.
Not everyone cares about the second amendment but those who do - and some of them are otherwise quite liberal - take it very seriously.
On the other hand, show me a person that would not vote for a candidate because he/she is pro-gun and I´ll show you a person that would not vote for the GOP anyway, under any circumstance.
The trick is of course to play it right. Put this in a wider "civil liberties vs. overbearing government" context, try to sound sane, stay on message, hammer Obama for lying and being untrustworthy ("I won´t come for your guns") and for shameless exploitation of a tragedy.
We know there is not a lot the Democrats can actually do (and what they can do can be undone, fingers crossed) but when you are on the right side of an issue, a little grandstanding will do no harm.
rla, will there be beatings? Please tell me there will be beatings.
Andrew, hear hear. I just hope we're prepared to be denounced as simplistic and reductive and anything else the Left can think of to call us.
El Gordo, I agree, with all of your points. Democrats do see everyone as "little people" which should only make it easier to stick the accusation that they look down on this group or that group. Because they do. And in spite of them lumping everyone together, their condescension still comes out in targeted ways, like this yahoo politician's comments.
I also agree the Republicans generally benefit from the gun control debate. Which is all the more reason for them to tie it to other subjects that usually hurt them. Heck, I'm devious enough to go as far to say, "Democrats want to abort rape babies. Republicans want to prevent the rape."
rlaWTX, I will consent to my Women's Studies/Gender Studies/Oppression Studies reeducation, but only if it is administered by the University of Colorado.
No T-Rav, no beatings. You will be forced to watch an endless stream of Rom-coms, Lifetime, and Hallmark movies until you been properly indoctrinated.
El Gordo, I'm typically not a fan of grandstanding, but under the circumstances, I think it's high time the Democrats got some of their own medicine.
Good point about liberals and elitism. Normally, I'd say that young college women ought to be the sort of people they would not look down on, but as this episode proves, that's only true as long as their interests mesh with the Left's ideology of control. Or until they start thinking in a way that runs counter to liberal dogma.
Seriously, Bev?! It's not like I killed anyone!
T-Rav and El Gordo, I think there's a huge difference between grandstanding and attacking. The left engages in systematic attacks to create an image that hurts us. Firing back makes sense. To me, grandstanding is something done by single politicians to enrich themselves or make themselves popular.
I also agree with El Gordo that guns are a strong issue for Republicans because it's a direct attack on freedoms. People love their freedoms.
Bev, no fair telling the curriculum before we get them in the door! Besides, didn't the Powers that Be decide that the hallmark movies were to family friendly? I believe they've been replaced with hours of The View, backstage at The View, and the other daytime women's talk shows...
Andrew, it doesn't matter what we call it. Whatever they're throwing at us, it's more than fair that we start throwing it back at them.
Regardless, like I said to Jed earlier, I think the window for passing gun control is nearly (if not already) closed, and the longer this gets drawn out, the more the public will turn against such measures.
rla, to be honest, that beats Hallmark's previous line-up of 24/7 B-grade Christmas movies. In summer.
rla - Sshhhhh! I was just using the "Hallmark" thing as a ruse to lull them into a false sense of security about the program. Of COURSE, we are using The Vie...er...T-Rav, you didn't read what you just thought you read! Hey, Look over there -=> cookies!
I thought I smelled a ra--Cookies??? Where?!?!
Ok, maybe grandstanding is not the ideal way to put it. We all can agree on attack! One of these days, Republicans in Washington may get the hang of it. If they´re still interested. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.
El Gordo, yes, stranger things have happened indeed. I think there were four.
Nice article. We talk a lot about taking advantage of these liberal gaffs. What can we as little people do to exploit this? It's nice to talk and complain but what can I do?
Thanks, Koshcat. I don't have any easy answers on that question. As I said, the key thing is to not let the issue die. Bookmark this story somewhere, and the next time you hear a lib say "War on Women," bring this up and hammer away at them.
Of course, this won't always come up on its own, so I guess the thing to do is seize even a tangential opportunity. Remember Breitbart's rules: Always be on the attack, never the defensive.
There is a point that is beoing missed.
My freind Dave a stauch conservative and gun rights activist was former Navy and was in school. He lived in an area that was near Projects that were considered a bad neighborhood but is was near the campus. He had several guns.
One night there were three thugs messing with his car and the alarm had gone off. Dave got his 9mm and walked out the door. He yelled at the three guys "Hey I am armed". He brandished the weapon in his right hand holding the barrel toward the sky.
Upon seeing this the three guys ran out of the parking lot and did not come back. He never had to fire the weapon to protect himslef or his property. It was enough that he just showed he was armed. This is why the argument is wholly stupid.
Post a Comment