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.
Idiots
Galore
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.
Manipulation
Attempt
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment