President Obama pontifically told Kimberly Corban in a propaganda event touted as a “CNN Gun Control Town Hall Meeting” that she'd be more likely to have her gun taken away and used against her.
In his answer to Ms. Corban, he stated, “What is true is you have to be pretty well trained in order to fire a weapon against somebody who is assaulting you and catches you by surprise, and what is also true is there is always the possibility that a firearm in a home leads to a tragic accident.” (Bold mine)
He then goes on to talk about background checks to prevent criminals from buying firearms. Not that criminals typically obtain their weapons where background checks are already required to be performed, such as from dealers at gun stores or gun shows. Criminals either steal them or buy them on the street, where no background check is done, even if there were a law requiring it in those cases. Or, “surprise”, they have someone who can pass a background check purchase one for them. Looks like we have a background check “loop-hole” here that can't seem be closed by any law. Perhaps they could pass a law making it illegal to do a “straw purchase”. Oh, excuse me, they already did. Problem solved, right?
Right after this, Obama said, “There's no doubt that there are times when somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is they may not have been able to protect themselves but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.” (Bold mine)
There's nothing like leftist elitists to pretend to empower women when at the same time they pat them on the head and basically say:
"Forget it, little lady, you just don't have the ability to do what you believe you can do. You'll wind up getting hurt, so don't resist and think happy thoughts while being raped."
Perhaps the President should have read his own CDC report that he commissioned as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January, 2013. It cost a cool $10 million. The CDC study is entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence”.
Here's an except:
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies”. (Bold mine)
Women who had used firearms had better outcomes overall than women who either did not resist, or who fought back using less effective means. In other words, they were not raped, and they were not murdered.
Strong Women Are Despised
Make no mistake, if you are a strong woman who believes you can successfully defend yourself against a rapist by using a firearm, you are first patronized, as Obama did to Kimberly Corban, then scoffed at and belittled, and finally utterly despised by those for whom your worldview conflicts with their anti-gun narrative. They are not actually opposed to guns, they just want only the government and its agents to have guns, and not the citizens.
The more successful women are in using firearms to defend themselves against criminals, the more foolish these idiot patronizers are revealed to be.
If you want a good laugh look up Vice President Biden's video where he suggests to get a double-barreled shotgun and fire two shots outside your house to scare away anyone that might want to break in. This is a video from February 2013 in which he was responding to online questions from readers of Parents Magazine.
Vice President Biden's Advice
"If you want to protect yourself get a double-barreled shotgun. Have the shells of a 12-gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I told my wife - we live in an area that is wooded and somewhat secluded - I said, Jill, if there is ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here - put that double-barreled shotgun - fire two blasts outside the house - I promise you whoever is coming in is not gonna - you don't need an AR-15. It's harder to aim. It's harder to use. And in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun."
First of all, this sounds like a good way to quickly rid your double-barreled shotgun of its ammunition. What will Biden then advise you to do then when multiple bad guys pop around the corner while you hold an empty weapon?
2nd Amendment Not About Need
Secondly, he states you don't need an AR-15 and don't need 30 rounds. Perhaps Biden knows better how to protect you than you do? Really? Well, even if he did know better in some alternate reality universe where the absurd passed for common sense, the Second Amendment is not about NEED. It's about the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
As far as an AR-15 being harder to aim than a shotgun, how is that so? It's a lighter weapon with a single 16” small caliber barrel, compared to the heavy shotgun with two 20” barrels that he recommends. And harder to use? That double-barreled shotgun must be opened up when empty, to load only two more shells, then closed again, and those large barrels are not light to swing down and then back up again to do a reload. With an AR-15, you don't have to reload until 30 rounds are fired, then you can pop out the light-weight magazine and insert a fresh one easily.
Excellent Choice For Self-Defense
Biden is clueless on the use of firearms in self-defense and doesn't have to be anything other than that. He and his family have highly trained and well-armed government agents with rifles similar to the AR-15 that give them protection. Oh, but he doesn't want you to own an AR-15 “assault weapon” that can hold 30 rounds and fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. No! He only wants you to have just two rounds to fire, then you can reload your shotgun while under attack by multiple criminals breaking into your home. He sounds like a great guy who cares about women. Not!
To tell the truth, if multiple criminals were breaking into my house, and all I had was an AR-15 rifle with only one 30 round magazine, I'd feel under-equipped. I'd want at least a spare “high capacity” magazine or two. Contrary to the government, I trust citizens to own these rifles. They are light-weight and make excellent self-defense weapons. They do not “spray” bullets as their military counter-part, the M16 can. And one should be able to own an AR-15 even if not a deer hunter. It is a fine self-defense firearm.
Firearms Hard To Use By Women?
Some examples of women's success with firearm use in self-defense are presented below. Does anyone believe that these women had to have been “pretty well trained”, as Obama asserted they must have been? Firearms are not as difficult to operate as some would have you believe.
If they are trying to persuade you that you should leave your protection to the police, the professionals, I can assure you they will present firearms as being very difficult for you to use in your own defense. They will give you a sympathetic look, speak with a voice that exudes concern, and proceed to tell you in a nice way that you're an idiot for thinking you can defend yourself with a gun, just as Obama did with Kimberly Corban.
Self-Defense Example One
A Cape Girardeau, Missouri woman borrowed a friend's shotgun (by the way this would be illegal if mandatory background checks for private transfers were required) after being unarmed and raped Oct 25th, 2008. Six days later she shot and killed Ronnie W. Preyer as he was breaking into her house a second time to rape her again, and most likely murder her. Before breaking in he had cut the power to her house.
Good thing she didn't waste the shells by firing blindly outside her house!
Self-Defense Example Two
A female Days Inn motel clerk in 2011 defended herself against a rapist weighing 100 pounds more than her and standing a foot taller. He was armed with a knife and was starting to tie her up with zip ties when she took a .22 pistol from under her shirt and shot him square in the chest. When police arrived they found him dead right there on the floor.
Tell Obama's lie to the "little lady" motel clerk! She was neither raped nor murdered by her attacker thanks to her good use of her pistol.
Self-Defense Example Three
In July, 2002, an Albuquerque woman wishing to be identified only as “Mira” faced a convicted rapist, 51-year-old Michael Magirl, after he broke into her home, climbed into her bed, and held a gun to her chest. She did not have a gun until she managed to wrestle his gun away from him, and shot him twice, killing him.
Talk about turning the tables around! Perhaps Mira could give Obama a lesson on what women are capable of when it comes to firearms and self-defense. Even if situations like Mira's do not happen often, at the very least I suspect that woman who already have their own gun would be able to handle their own business.
Guns Save Lives
To search for additional true stories of self-defense by women using firearms, visit http://gunssavelives.net/ or just use Google. Disclaimer: Most cases of self-defense involving firearms will not be found anywhere in the news, because not a single shot was fired.
Why The Lies?
Democrats lie to women by saying they need a lot of training in order to use a gun in self-defense. Many, many women have used pistols, rifles, and shotguns successfully in self-defense with only basic point and shoot knowledge.
Democrats lie to women by saying with a straight face that an AR-15 is hard to aim and hard to use.
Democrats lie to women by telling them it is more likely their own gun will be used against them by a criminal.
Democrats lie to women by telling them the danger is greater from a firearm related accident at home than from criminals.
These lies are their attempt to manipulate women into buying into their gun confiscation scheme, and into buying into their worldview that victim-hood is better than protecting yourself. Their victim-hood mindset for Americans make it easier for government to offer and sell its solutions for safety and security. Citizens who deign prefer to protect themselves are viewed as rogues, and a danger to government's plans for disarming them. In other words, those who honor the Constitution and prefer liberty are views as a threat.
Democrats are chomping at the bit to be able to ban AR-15's and all other rifles like them. They already make the excuse you don't need them for hunting or self-defense, therefore you, free American citizens, should be banned from possessing them. Sporting use and recreational uses are not even given consideration.
Depend On Government For Safety?
All of this proves is that Regular Democrats and Republican Democrats do not trust citizens to have the means to defend themselves. Democrats hate the idea of self-sufficiency. They want you to depend on government for your safety from criminals and terrorists so they can stay in power and pass more laws which infringe on your freedoms.
They lackadaisically enforce our southern border while criminals from Mexico and other countries south of it continue to invade us, and then we import refugees from countries where ISIS is active and is infiltrating the refugee population, with no way to truly vet them before they enter our country.
These things make our lives more dangerous as we go about our daily business. Yet, the government at the same time is telling us we cannot have the tools we desire to keep ourselves and our families safe. Because we don't need them. Just because they say so.
Some of us refuse to trade away our liberty in order to have the “privilege” of being told what we can and can't own, for “our own good”. We're not buying what they're selling.
The author is a self-defense rights advocate and member of the NRA, GeorgiaCarry.org, and FloridaCarry.org, and is published by AmmoLand.com.