Insty links this National Journal story:
The Gender Gap on Gun Control
Who cares? Really. They can pass any law they want, I will not obey it. Yes i hear the ones saying I’ll bury my guns!! they will remain buried if you do, If you’re not standing up today you won’t tomorrow. The Government needs to hear a resounding “NO” from the 90 Million gun owners of America.
There are two classes of people in this nation
Americans and amerikans… which are you?
The media certainly is doing it’s self-appointed job. We need to do ours better.
Assumes facts not in evidence:
– that the benighted female class is susceptible to evidence other than personal experience
– that said group pays any attention at all to the non-collectivist media/blogosphere
For every Tam and Roberta X (and many other valued others), there are 3x low-info, news=630 pm national fluff stories, look it’s Dancing With The Stars women.
Am open to any practical suggestions, but honesty demands that we face hard facts.
Repeal the 19th amendment.
Seems legit. This mirrors my own experience. I seem to have to explain this shit to my wife over and over again. Women are ruled by emotion rather than rational thought. They are easily swayed by the anti-gun propaganda campaign because they have no fucking clue what an “assault weapon” is to begin with. If you don’t know what it is, how can you comprehend why you might need one, or, why restricting them will have no impact whatsoever on crime?
This is obviously a generalization. There are plenty of gunnie women out there who know their shit, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule. As a group, women are fucking clueless on guns and gun control.
Still, in the clue (and testicular fortitude) department, even Republican women are better off than Democrat “men”.
“I seem to have to explain this shit to my wife over and over again”.
W/ utterly NO offense intended, what you describe is what I call ‘chick (or, if you prefer, immature) mentality’ the hallmark of which is the deep seated refusal to comprehend & process the reality of a situation, seek out & accept advice from those who’ve been thru a similar situation & triumphed, then permanently incorporate that knowledge into their psyche. And such behavior isn’t just a female attribute, there’re a helluva lot of guys who’re also that way & not all of them were raised w/o fathers/other mature male influences. There’re also many genuine men who were brought up in a predominantly female environment as well as genuine women who came from a primarily male one, & you’re doubtless aware of instances where the reverse (heavy male/female influences respectively) is true. To me, John Wayne’s screen persona pretty much symbolizes what’s called ‘manly behavior’ while his actual conduct was the opposite of that standard.
Cassandra (of Troy)
The main problem is that we gave them the vote. And with it they have designed the government against men. I’ve posed some questions and thoughts in these links in the past year or so.
Feminism has destroyed the family and massive parts of our culture with it, just as it was intended to do. Even Ann Culter agrees with repealing the 19th Amendment.
The main problem is that we gave them the vote. Ding! Give that man a cee-gar. I’ve been saying this, along with returing voting to property owners vs. masses, for a number of years.
While I think there is likely some degree of difference between how women and men see these things, I still think it’s all pretty much bullshit. I don’t believe in polls. That’s why I don’t cite them – pro or con. So it doesn’t matter to me, for example, if 99% of the folk believe in my right to own weapons or be free to live without government intrusion into my life. If it mattered to me that 99% supported my rights, then when the wind shifts and gullible mankind thinks differently and only 1% support my rights, then it has to matter to me then too.
I guess I should add that I believe that only heads of families should get to vote. With this model what women think about guns would matter less.
Um, natural born, property owning, male, heads of households at least 25 years old.
Word. You just got more detailed than I did. Our agreement is comprehensive and complete.
I was born in Vancouver, B.C., am now a US Citizen, gave 12 yrs to the USMC, own my house free and clear for 15 yrs, pay all local property taxes, and I can’t vote?
Alan may have better said “naturalized” (legal) citizen, but I’m sure he will clarify his own.
No, natural born not naturalized. I adopted this particular aspect from the Confederate constitution. I would also extend the requirement to anybody that holds public office.
While I know and understand that the belief raises hackles for some, I think it’s just common sense.
Universal suffrage is a detriment to our Republic. If the chance ever presents itself to correct this particular evil, it will have my full support.
Even if he is a jarhead, I’m gonna have to stick up for SF0321 on this one. The man gave 12 yrs. of his life to this country, earned his citizenship, and is a property owner. To somehow conflate that with “universal” suffrage because he wasn’t born here is ridiculous.
This is why the sorting out period after the upcoming festivities may well be uglier than what precedes it.
“This is why the sorting out period after the upcoming festivities may well be uglier than what precedes it.”
Yep…Power Vacuums Really Suck…
And I am seriously worried about more than a few members of the current crop seeking power…
“And I am……seeking power…”
You mean like the representatives the League of the South/’Southrons’ or the happy crew over at SBPDL/Stuff Black People Don’t Like & similar sites? Being what they might deem a ‘mongrel’, such as they concern me just as much as their politico-racial opposites. And need I mention the ‘aliens are among us’ devotees?
“Call for Napoleon XIV, call for Napoleon XIV on the red courtesy phone”
No not really…though I suppose if I paid attention to those groups I would be more seriously concerned than I am now.
I was specifically thinking of those who after what appears to be serious consideration, conclude that the way to return to where we should be, roughly half the population should be denied certain rights…and taken to its logical conclusion, denied the right to own property…and once that goes, may as well get fitted for what amounts to burquas. I wonder if they will come in colors, if they will be lightweight cotton for summer, and lined for winters…
All this without so much as an “Honorable Mention” regarding the concept of codifying remedies and penalties for infringement upon Constitutional parameters by elected officials, as the first order of business.
I think a good general rule is that whomsoever seeks power should be just lined up and shot from the get go…
Conditionally agree. Consider, however, that both Jimmy Stewart & George McGovern did their duty for the country.
“This is why……precedes it.”
And when you factor in the large number of sociopaths/those who’ll follow them it REALLY gets interesting. Then there’s the ones who appear to be ravening monsters but are actually (as Curly often said) ‘victims of circumstance’ like the oft cited otherwise decent guy who’s been wrongfully sent to the joint & has to behave like a high-end savage to survive.
If that’s the case, then it would be up to those same (presumably male) heads of families ALONE to perform duties like LE & war fighting, right?
I wonder how it would poll if you told women that you were going to ban pepper spray to stop rape maybe that would put things into perspective.
When you put emotion in a box with logic, emotion always wins.
In the old daze you just backhanded the hor and said ‘git your ass back in the kitchen’.
I can’t speak to the veracity of the poll…most poll participants are pre-selected. However, I can say within my personal experience, this poll does not accurately reflect the opinions of the women with whom I have association.
For example, after the Sandy Hook incident, my sister, a lifelong advocate of gun control not only armed herself, but her husband, her adult children and began classes. She now has her own reloading equipment.
Her response was based upon the pure logic that without a gun, one cannot defend oneself or one’s family, when faced with an armed assailant.
Now I realize that this is but one person, however, she relates that the shooting classes are filled with women…of all ages. Among the reasons cited for this newfound realization is school and theater shootings in “gun free zones.” It seems they are determined to make certain they will no longer be found in “gun free zones” even if it means they will carry the guns.
I see the meme everywhere…”women won’t take care of business, and won’t submit to the wisdom of men who will take care of business”, but what I find to be true in the real world is that there are precious few men who take up this cross and bear it with grace, along with growing numbers of women who have buried children while waiting… and finally…are waiting no more.
Simply put, I do not have association with anyone, male or female who is unprepared to defend life, therefore this poll comes no where close to reflecting accurate percentages in my little corner of the world. Perhaps the region from which the data was collected has some bearing.
Where do you live?
The population centers with the most women are cities and urban areas, and if you were to meet the women there, most would not share your views.
I live in the South…The heart of the South…and there is a very good reason I settled here…chief among those reasons is so I don’t live in areas where the majority of the population is stupid…as evidenced by the fact that they live in large population centers.
Well, I’d say that biases your sample of woman just a bit. Not that it’s a bad way to live…
Association, freely chosen, is a great way to live.
My sister lives in a major population center. Her classes are full of women who have decided to arm themselves, and learn what to do, when to do it and how to do it well.
It isn’t a national poll, but then again…arms sales figures need to weighed in the balance…don’t you think?
On a one to one comparison basis…one woman says “gun control” while another one purchased multiple firearms for every member of her family in a one month period, and signed them all up for training.
I don’t think I’ll worry so much what the social engineer wannabe has to say.
Education begins at home – teach your wives and daughters to shoot. It is your moral responsibility to teach them to protect themselves. Once they are not scared of guns, opinions will change.
Yep…Love Is…teaching your wives and daughters to shoot.
Women are smarter than that, its ‘Mainstream Medias’ painting of what an assault weapon is and the lack of a visual comparison between a semi-autoloading firearm and a REAL assault weapon (i.e. select fire) and the number of crimes committed using the ‘assault weapon’ using REAL numbers.
Mainstream Media would have a cow if one of them would allow this to occur during their watch, its all about control of information.
Big-city, government-dependent, media-brainwashed women no doubt dominate this poll. We have to face it: America is no longer a pioneer society. Gunnie women are the far minority. Most just emote their way through life. To me, this poll is Exhibit A that America must break apart at some point.
“To me, this poll is Exhibit A that America must break apart at some point.”
If/when it does, the death squads, deportation centers, and re-education camps in the Free areas are going to be running triple shifts. Pretty much the only demographic that favors liberty (as a whole) is white males, and even that group is far from monolithic in its support. All others (women, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, all major religious groups, etc.) range from somewhat antipathetic to outright hostile. Some may swing over depending upon events, but it is going to be a *very* tough, if not impossible, sell to most.
At the end of the day, liberty is just not a popular concept with the American body politic.
There is a stupidity gap in this country where the lamestream media lead the low informationistas around by their little noses and tell them what to think, and to hell with any facts. It’s not just women it’s men, and neither gender could find their tails with both hands and a flashlight.
Don’t know about anywhere else, but I’ve had at least 110 women come through my firearms and self defense classes who would say NO. No “gun ban” is ever going to get traction in rural Wyoming.
I’m a certified instructor and OC all the time, everywhere. See the story of the man I had to shoot to save my life. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/?page_id=846
And don’t let stupid surveys like this bother you. The questions are rigged, as well as those being asked hand picked, for the most part. They can’t speak for us all.
Being a gunny girl, formerly a hippie chick, and thus having been on both sides of it at different times, here’s my $.02:
It is not our physical brains/hormonal makeup that is causing women to hate/be afraid of guns – because look at native women and how tough they were. Or look at pioneer women. There was no shying away from guns there.
And don’t think that men are all these totally logical people like Spock. Men are also prey to their own emotions. Investment is one example I can think of. Men fall prey more often than women to investment phone scam artists who appeal to their sense of manliness and self determination. These same scam artists just hang up on the women, they know they won’t get anywhere with us.
I would say the main culprit why women vote against guns is preconditioning by culture and brainwashing. The whole women’s lib movement and every piece of media that women touch is infested with messages of victimhood, helplessness and righteous indignation. Look at the freakin’ Lifetime Network and the twaddle it spews. Or don’t, because your brain will feel soiled.
Incidentally I had to deprogram myself. I don’t watch TV. Haven’t for over 20 years.
We’re not the problem, guys, it’s the hijacked state with its economic and propaganda machine that is the problem. The best way to make things change is not to legislate someone’s rights away but to “be the change you want to see”. Maybe you need something like the Million Man March was. Where men assert their rights to fatherhood and reject the intrusion of the state into family life.
And, please support programs that teach women to shoot. Use the Women’s Lib angle, and then more women will see a gun as a means to defend themselves rather than a Big Evil Thing to Ban.
As a parting note, did you know the women’s lib movement in China is all concerned that women are waiting too long to get married? Different culture, different priorities in the women’s libbers. I thought that was kind of funny.
The problem is that women are much more easily brainwashed and herd-like than men are.
Free range time for women.
Rather than $100 bucks to the NRA, take five women in your life or female acquaintances to the range for free. Maybe three, you’ll have to squeeze ammunition in that $100 too.
Start with .22lr rifles with red dots, something with a detachable magazine, preferably a wood stock Ruger 10/22. Make it a small magazine – 10 rds to start. Just use one magazine.
After they have to reload 2-3 times and their thumb is sore, introduce the higher capacity magazine, banana clip magazine.
“ooh – i can shoot longer with a bigger magazine…this is more fun”
Then break out the AR with a .22lr conversion kit. It will feel the same in terms of recoil, naturally.
Don’t go crazy on technique and don’t criticize, just let them shoot.
Before you leave the range, show the two rifles side by side and re-emphasize that they are the same thing, they just look different.
Depending on how this is all received, move up to full power AR, but show them the two bullets first, same size, different packaging.
Again, don’t go crazy on technique, just let them have fun. If they’re serious and like it, technique comes later. If they don’t, they’ll unconsciously appreciate the fact that you let them handle it and weren’t trying to make them Chris Costa on their first time to the range.
They more inexperienced shooters are exposed to the practical, enjoyable side of shooting, the less fear they have. The less fear, the less opposition.
Contrary to historical fact. Weapon control and disarmed peasants didn’t all start 100 years ago when women took the vote. Women voting made no political change at all. All those promises about women ending war by never sending their sons to war turned out false. The 20th century was full of mechanized death, yes, but that’s not because it was the first century with women voters, it’s because it was the first century with mechanization.
“Women voting made no political change at all.”
No. State by state, and nationally, when women got the vote, government spending went up, and kept going up, exponentially. The graph resembles the famous “hockey stick, chart of the so called “global warming.”
Good analysis, and more details of the many effects of women’s suffrage here: http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
This is the same John Lott we all know from his devastating statistical analysis proving that gun ownership reduces crime. Th article is preceded by this quotation:
“If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.”
—Ann Coulter, Oct. 2 New York Observer
Proof for a cause/effect relationship in statistics has been described as ‘you can’t remove the effect without also having removed the cause’. That same trajectory of exponential spending for 200 years on colonial empire followed by financial collapse occurred in Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, France, and Britain before it happened in the US. However, women weren’t voting in the first five instances.
In the US, first the Democrat party had drifted away from its libertarian roots and towards bigger government, and then women in the US took the vote.
So, was Lott’s methodology and statistics wrong re: the correlation between gun ownership and diminished violent crime as well?
You can parse and obfuscate all you want, criticize statistics in general any way you wish, refer vaguely to the libertarian roots of the party of slavery and demagoguery, but the facts are there.
Did you even bother to read the Lott article?
And, do you actually know many women?
Lott is factually correct about guns vs. crime, and factually incorrect about the political impact of womens’ votes. Lott does valuable work, but that doesn’t mean he is infallible.
“You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.” Even if that were true, does it have anything to do with the political analysis we are doing? Yes, I read the article. Yes, I know women at the weekly bowling pin shoot. When a person starts stops addressing the points and starts speaking fallacies, that means they know themselves that their argument is broken.
To repeat, the same pattern of 200 years of exponential government spending followed by collapse occurred in Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, France, and Britain; but women weren’t voting then. Therefore, I don’t blame the current US situation on women voting, either.
I live with a black woman, votes Dem (kind of a family/tribal thing), owns guns and hunts big game, always buys more gun gear, believes in self defense to the max!
But yes, the poll reflects lots of people I know, scared of guns, and always wanting more laws to fix shit. I think most of these folks are afraid of their own shadow, scared of anything the media says will harm them and others. They have no internal compass to guide them, so they blow around with the breeze and are swayed by whatever the TV god tells them is this weeks fear factor.
And the media lies out it’s ass, just like fedgov.
This is exactly why women should not be in positions of power such as the Presidency or military command. They think based on emotion and not rational thought.
Call it sexist. I stopped caring a long time ago.
Sorry, can’t go along with blanket prohibitions and other collectivist solutions. There will always be exceptional women such as Margaret Thatcher who earn positions of leadership. Banning all women from all positions of leadership is as foolish as saying that any woman should be allowed to do any job (e.g., NFL lineman, Navy SEAL).
Slightly OT, but I caught this comment on ZH.
“I recall a interview with a supposed DHS insider (Rosebud) that there will be no budget deal from either sides of aisle. This is designed to create havoc and get the masses to fold. As a result gun confiscation after the time period of chaos will ensue.”
And, you might appreciate this, too.
I think Steve Sailor wrote an article a couple of days ago tying women’s sufferage with prohibition. And a couple of years ago Vox Day showed information that it was German women who were largely responsible for electing Hitler to office when they saw his social programs. It is a women’s nature to seek protection from the outside world whether it is through a husband, government regulation or both. Don’t be surprised by how they vote when you provide them with the vote….they do not think as men. That is their God given nature.
It is a women’s nature to seek protection from the outside world whether it is through a husband, government regulation or both.
It’s a man’s nature, too. Where do you think economic protectionism against workplace labor competition from Chinese, African, Italian, Irish, and Mexicans immigrants came from? Or government grants of legal privilege such as patents and monopolies that permit only one politically-connected company to do a job? Or import tariffs against foreign-made goods, both Chinese today and European 200 years ago? Or export duties against Southern cotton in 1850? These government policies didn’t come from women, who weren’t voting then, they came from conservative men.
a couple of years ago Vox Day showed information that it was German women who were largely responsible for electing Hitler to office when they saw his social programs.
Contrary to historical fact. The German inventor and promoter of cradle-to-grave nanny government wasn’t Hitler, it was Otto von Bismarck (1815-1898). Women weren’t voting then.
I think Steve Sailor wrote an article a couple of days ago tying women’s sufferage with prohibition.
I seem to recall Gary North writing a book about both sexes of religious types deciding to bring others to salvation by imposing virtuous behavior by force.
If you get the disease diagnosis wrong, you will get the disease treatment wrong, too. Women are not the problem. Pushing innocent people around at gunpoint is the problem.
“If you get the disease diagnosis wrong, you will get the disease treatment wrong, too. Women are not the problem. Pushing innocent people around at gunpoint is the problem.”
My nominee for Quote of the Week.
IMO the main problem is one of definition. The terms ‘woman/women’ & ‘man/men’ are thrown around w/o much thought about what they actually mean. A woman can be girlish, a girl can be womanly, a man boyish, & a boy manly, but a woman who’s passed a certain chronological point & continues to behave as a girl to me is little more than a chick & the same goes for a male doing likewise w/ him being classed as a boy/punk kid. I know, I know, there are numerous examples of young females/males taking on adult responsibilities & acquitting themselves admirably but those instances are more often than not an involuntary response to circumstance & as such are meaningless for use as a measure of the entirety of a population.
I’ve met more than a few 10/13/15yr olds who had more on the ball than the average 30yr old &, conversely, a whole helluva lot of chronological ‘adults’ who’re little more than kids w/ some years on ’em. The old saw about it not being the years but the miles applies to an extent, but even that isn’t a reliable indicator of maturity w/ the ‘Greatest Generation’ & their 1st gen children being the most glaring recent exemplars. The ‘GG’ (which, if one thinks about it is actually 2gens) first went thru the hard times of the Depression & right after that the horrific carnage of WW2 & those experiences left psychological scars whose results are still manifesting themselves nearly a century later via post-war govtl/social policies.
And that’s where ‘common sense’ is shown to be a fiction because it’s SUBJECTIVE. Decades ago I was told an apochryphal story about ‘Indians’ & ‘white people’ that illustrates my point.:
2 ‘indians’ were standing on a bluff watching ‘whites’ below busily setting up farms to exploit the readily available water of a medium sized creek & the rich soil on its sides. Months went by w/ the ‘indians’ occasionally stopping by to see what progress the ‘whites’ had made, & after awhile someone asked them what they thought of the ‘whites’ obviously successful efforts.
“No good”, said the ‘indians’, which shocked the ‘white’ man causing him to go on about the bounty that had come from the well-watered & incredibly fertile creekbed the ‘whites’ had transformed into a thriving (& increasingly prosperous) community. “Look at how we tamed the wilderness”, said the ‘white’ man, “see how fast our community’s growing as more people come to start new farms, build stores, schools, churches, stables, & blacksmith shops. Soon we’ll have our own post & telegraph office, & maybe even the railroad’ll come thru after awhile & we’ll get even bigger, might even fill up the entire valley!”.
“No good”, the ‘indians’ replied, & that REALLY set off the ‘white’ man. He yelled & squawked, jumped up & down waving his arms then said “Damn stupid savages!” & stalked off to tell the other ‘whites’. Upon hearing the tale, the ‘whites’ turned out to laugh at the ‘indians’ who said nothing & eventually everyone left. A week later & 150 miles north, a huge storm raged for 3 days saturating 50 square miles before moving away to the N/E. 3 days after that the result of that storm blasted down from the north completely washing away all that the ‘whites’ had accomplished & killed many of the formerly smug farmers. The ‘damn stupid savages’, however, were largely unscathed by the deluge as they’d set up their camp well above the flood plain that the ‘whites’ founded their paradise on.
Once the area dried out enough, the ‘whites’ got busy rebuilding what they’d lost & as they did noticed that the ‘indians’ had again returned to their observation spot. “Wonder what they want”, more than a few ‘whites’ thought, “probably amazed at how we don’t let things get us down”. The ‘indians’ simply stood there & watched for awhile longer, then one said, “white people”, his companion grunted in agreement, & they left.
“SFW?”, you may ask, “WTF’s that have to do w/ ‘common sense’?”. The point’s that to the ‘indians’ it’s ‘common sense’ that you just don’t plop down anywhere, you look around to see if there’s anything dicey before you set up & only an idiot would think/do otherwise. To the ‘whites’ it was ‘common sense’ to take advantage of a good thing, especially when it’s right in front of you & everything seems to be okay, & only an idiot would think/do otherwise. Both are to an extent right while simultaneously being wrong & it’s unlikely either would understand (or admit) that. Same thing w/ women/chicks & men/punk kids, both are able to behave as adults & see things in a rational manner but if for various reasons they don’t want/have to & the culture around them supports/rewards such a childishly emotion based (& ultimately destructive) mentality it’s not too surprising that they’ll usually choose to be Eloi & will become angered & even hysterically violent toward anyone rude/cruel enough to bring up Morlocks.
This premise was the basis for Dan Kiley’s The Peter Pan Syndrome which, although addressing males, nonetheless applies to females as well w/ them being ‘Princesses’ if not Tinkerbell & also (despite appearences) to many of the ‘GG’. Scoff if you will at my contention, but the proof of it is apparent when you do a before/after comparison of the behavior of generations prior to the ‘GG’ & those following it. And don’t try using the ‘Gilded Age’ & ‘the Roaring 20s’ as counters since neither resulted in the massive politico-social shift the ‘GG’ & their 1st gen offspring caused. Remember, it was from ‘GG’ ‘adults’ like Ken Kesey, Allen Ginsberg, & Timothy Leary that the ‘Love Generation’ got their ideas & encouragement. That’s enough for now, so go ahead & let fly.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,780 other followers
Sign me up!