Subverting Feminism for Guns
The National Rifle Association in the United States of America has very few female members, but those that are members claim that guns empower them, protect them and give them more freedom in a country marked by the highest crime rate in the world. Members of the NRA sometimes even use feminism as an excuse to support females bearing guns and to prevent gun-control legislation.
Lets analyze this for a moment, and we will do so by examining the text of another website:
We use firearms for self-defense in preference to less effective tools. The need for effective, capable equipment is not unique to self-defense. For example, no one uses 1986 vintage computers and few people drive 1968 cars. No one claims that access to modern computers should be restricted to deter hackers or that prohibiting new car models would reduce the number of deliberate hit-and-run accidents.
We're not going to dispute that one. Nobody out there is worried about their abusive ex-husband walking around with a rusty musket that can't shoot. Its the ones with the musket that can shoot we should worry about.
Yet much of the effort by the perpetrators of gun control has been to deny the rest of us safe, effective and well-designed guns.
Actually much of the effort has been to keep guns and weapons that are considered "too dangerous" off the streets. Things like rocket launchers, grenades and other items usable by terrorists. Besides, who carries a grenade or an automatic sub-machinegun like a Mac 10 around for self-defense?
People who wish you defenseless often claim that effective defensive rifles and shotguns have "no legitimate sporting use". Would they consider defense of your family from an attack to be un-sporting? Remind them that the concept of a "sporting use" comes from their spiritiual forebears, the Nazis. Those thugs determined that trying to stay out of a concentration camp was not a legitimate use of arms, while hunting women and children for sport was.
Okay, so apparently anti-gun activists are NAZI children now. That is going to take a big leap of faith to believe. Also, I have NEVER heard of any laws trying to prohibit shotguns, which is primarily a weapon for hunting deer, elk, bears. I could however see laws prohibited automatic assault rifles (like the kind the military sometimes use) because their purpose is not to shoot deer but to go on a shooting spree (aka, to go postal).
The other target of the prohibitionists are the magazines. A standard magazine for a small or medium caliber rifle is thirty rounds. In 1994 such a magazine cost $15 and worked reliably. A standard magazine for a handgun held about fifteen rounds and cost $20.
The reasoning for this was simple: Magazine clips that contain 10 bullets are more useful to people who carry automatic weapons (which are illegal in most states). You just hold down the trigger and the handgun keeps firing, a bit like a machine gun, which means the criminal in question has the ability to fire many rounds at a police officer quickly and easily, and is more likely to hit the target as a result. Thanks to the 10 bullet limit the person runs out of bullets a lot faster. Since that law has been in place officers in many American states have seen a dramatic drop in the death of police officers due to automatic weapons.
After production of magazines with capacity over ten rounds was banned in 1994, the prices on the standard magazines had increased to to over $100 for most models. The crippled ten-round versions had to be produced in a way that makes restoring them to standard capacity impossible. Those changes made ten-round magazines less reliable. In 2004, that ill-intentioned law sunset, but several states implemented even more restrictive versions of their own.
Those changes were only less reliable for people using automatic weapons. The new magazines were designed specifically to jam up frequently when used in an automatic gun.
Why the need for standard magazines? Ask your local police officer. He is on patrol with a handgun which uses standard magazines and, in many cities, an automatic rifile or a submachine gun with standard magazines. Under stress, even well-trained people can miss. Moreover, a single hit is not guaranteed to stop an attack. Fortunately, he has the benefit of body armor and backup just a radio call away.
Precisely. Criminals are the ones who use automatic weapons and therefore are willing to pay more to find the old standard magazine clips.
Most other people have no such luxuries. They don't sleep with magazine pouches affixed to their nightgowns and would depend on that one magazine already in their weapons. Arbitrarily requiring that even that one magazine hold a lot less ammunition than normal has the effect of giving attacking criminals an edge over the law-abiding humans.
True enough, but only if the criminal in question can find the old magazine clips and use them in an automatic gun. Taking the old standard clips off the market completely and destroying any that are found would be the ideal solution.
Yet another benefit of removable magazines is that they are safer than most types of integral magazines. It is simpler and faster to remove a magazine than it is to unload an old-style lever action gun in which every cartridge has to be chambered before it can be ejected.
Exactly. And criminals love it when they can change clips quickly and easily. It makes it easier to fire back police officers. Using clips with less bullets means criminals will run out of bullets sooner. Please note that police officers and the military still have access to the old standard clips.
The prohibitionists are trying to ban all guns (except those controlled by them). Guns which are too small or too large, too accurate or too inaccurate, ammunition which penetrates too much or too little, in short, they wish to ban every gun ever made. It is of no use explaining to them how safe the designs are or how important for preserving lives: like the Inquisitors out to burn heretics, they are motivated by irrational hatred and by lust for control over others.
Actually anti-gun activists are usually motivated by a death in the family, usually a loved one who was killed by a school classmate, by an irate co-worker or even an ex-lover. Its not a matter of control, its a matter of trying to prevent the same type of deaths happening to someone else. Imposing gun control laws is just one way people are trying to voice their opinion that the system isn't perfect and needs to be fixed. Not all guns need to be removed. There will always be need of guns for the purpose of defense, but defensive weapons do not need to be AK-47s or M4A1 assault rifles.
Clearly, our safety is not a concern for the prohibitionists. What they want is to reduce our ability to defend ourselves. Some sick people get off on being in control of others. Some turn to rape and battery to satisfy their urges, others run for Congress. The sentiment which governs the two groups is identical: desire to be in control of others. Just as rape is more about control than it is about procreation, so gun banning is about social control and not about public safety.
Apparently anti-gun activists are just like rapists and wife-beaters, in addition to being NAZI children. Wow. We agree rape is more about power than sex, but so is high-powered machine guns and assault rifles. Its not about self-defense. Its the feeling of POWER when you pull the trigger on a Sig or an Aug and shoot the target with armor-piercing rounds. That kind of extreme power is addictive and a bit like the first time you sit behind the wheel of a really fast car. You can feel the power in the palm of your hands. You can control it. You feel safe and dangerous at the same time and it gives you an adrenaline rush. Protection? Bah! For the brief instant you are the angel of death and have the power to take lives. It is a power-trip and there is no doubt about it.
Even some older rifle designs from the 1940s are such ancient tools they have been banned from manufacture ostensibly because it has a flash hider (designed to keep the user hidden so people can't see your location), a folding stock (for compact storage) and a bayonet lug. The prohibitionists claim that these features turn the rifle's owners into psychopaths. Yet the very branch of the government enforcing the prohibition, the ATF, issues weapons with similar features to its agents. A double standard at work.
Some weapons are specifically designed to be used covertly. Weapons like the Colt M4A1 assault rifle (military issue) come with detachable silencers which can pick off enemies at distances without even a whisper. Such weapons are banned because they are designed specifically for assassins, snipers and government agents. They are not the kind of thing you want your wacko next door neighbour owning. Piss off your neighbour and he could shoot you 30 times from 200 yards away and nobody would even hear the gun fire.
"But all we want to ban are assault weapons and Saturday Night Specials," say the gun-grabbers. "Your deer rifle and you pheasant shotgun are safe." They do not tell you that your sniper rifle (formerly known as the deer gun), your big-bore streetsweeper (aka hunting shotgun) and your Dirty Harry death machine (target revolver) are next. When you read or watch news, look out for loaded yet meaningless phrases like cop-killer bullet, deadly automatic high-power assault pistol, and the like. The sound bytes are nonsense once you think about what they really mean, but not everyone questions what the news tell them.
The person who wrote the website we are criticizing is extremely paranoid. Next he'll tell you the government is out to brainwash you or something like that.
The gun banners hate effective weapons because armed people are less afraid of their own government and less dependent on it. It is no surprise that totalitarian governments world-wide keep most of their populations disarmed. They know from history that even a handful of armed people can stand in the way of genocide and check its advance. It does, however, take well-armed and well-trained people to stop evil in its tracks. Although most civilians' training level is sufficient only for a last-ditch stand, that stand is much better done with a rifle than with a shovel. I would guess that those relatives of mine who got turned into lampshades during WW2 did wish for a way to fight back, if too late.
Told you so. There is some evidence to suggest the United States is becoming a police state, but we would also have to admit the cause of that is more the result of rampant gun crime and the growth of terrorism. If the Jews during WWII had had more guns available to them it would have been one more excuse for Hitler to hunt them all down, which he attempted anyway. Exploring What-If scenarios is a bit time consuming however so we shall skip that tangent.
The current, all-inclusive catch phrase is assault weapon. These days it is used to describe any gun that the thugs in office wish to ban. For instance, in California, even Olympic style target pistols are classified as assault weapons.
Sometimes law makers do go overboard with their definitions and they fail to narrow down precisely what makes and models are being banned. But that is also a form of progress. Eventually someone in society points out the error and the laws are modified and rectified.
Yet the states which have the most onerous and restrictive laws, all make exceptions for police and military use. They claim that most models of guns are unsafe to the users...unless the users are police officers. Many politicians have bodyguards armed with the guns prohibited to the rest of us.
And rightly so. Only people who are responsible and knowledgable of the weapons they carry should be using them. We're not about to start handing out Desert Eagles to school children afterall, even in the event of a war children should be the last people given arms. We feel that the police and the military have the proper training, the responsibility and indeed the DUTY to use the best possible weapons for defending America.
No one in their right mind looks for trouble. Yet, we must take up arms in self-protection, wouldn't using effective tools help? Our opposition won't go easier on us just because we use obsolete and ineffective means of self-protection.
That is true, but what if the opposition is forced to use obsolete weaponry or can't even find a weapon period? A criminal could rob a convenience store with a baseball bat or a knife, but it is hardly an effective weapon against a bank teller behind reinforced glass.
What makes an effective weapon? Semi-automatic clones of army rifles have been generally considered effective. They are reliable, durable and accept a cartridge of sufficient effectiveness. Because the type is so common, ammunition and magazines are relatively inexpensive, though that is changing as restrictive laws reduce their availability. A mothballed rifle and its ammunition can remain usable for decades. For that reason, people who would do us harm would much prefer that we had no access to such useful means of self-defense.
No dispute there. Whole heartedly agree. Statistically however you are 4 times more likely to be murdered or accidentally shot by a relative or a close friend than you are by a complete stranger. Tempers flare, people get mentally disturbed, your uncle goes crazy with lust for your 10 year old daughter and decides to kill you and kidnap your daughter. When he pulls out his old rifle from his Vietnam days you aren't really going to have any time to reach for your trusty .357 Magnum. That is the thing about gun murders. They happen so fast that even if you did have a gun in the house it would be too late.
Ability to defeat body armor is one of the useful characteristics of rifles. Just as the crossbow and the longbow challenged the dominance of the armored knight, the rifle reduces the ability of an armored enforcer to operate with impunity against civilians.
So why does regular law-abiding citizens need high powered rifles and/or armor piercing bullets? Answer: They don't. Only criminals and terrorists want that kind of weaponry. We make exceptions for the SWAT team and the military, but otherwise such weapons need to be kept off the streets and away from youth gangs. The last thing we need is teenagers bringing armor-piercing bullets to school.
Sporting rifles are usually based on older military designs. They are at least as powerful as the more recent types but have smaller magazines and lower rates of fire. For those reasons, they are less well suited for personal protection.
Most gun crime occurs within point blank range. The criminal typical has the gun in your face or directly to your head. Its more personal and intimidating to do so. A rifle is not an effective weapon in close quarters. Once again, this is a situation where you should be reaching for your trusty .357 Magnum.
So, what happens if effective arms are banned from sale and possession? Two scenarios exist.
The first one is that the commoners, the serfs, the subjects, whatever term is used for us, end up with only feeble, obsolete weapons for self-defense. We would be at the mercy of whoever controls the military and police, the way Japanese peasants were at the mercy of the samurai for centuries. Or, if ever compelled to make a stand in our own defense, we'd be in the position of the gun-less natives forced to take on the European machine guns with spears or tomahawks.
Contrary to popular belief samurais did not rule with the sword. They ruled with highly effective training that made them very good men-at-arms. The katana and wakizashi swords were the tools of choice, but they were also trained with Japanese bows, spears and many other tools of the trade. Likewise contrary to popular belief Native Americans were very good at what they did, despite their weapons. Bows have a much faster rate of fire, enabled the archer to shoot burning arrows and burn down whole forts. Tomahawks were a close range weapon, the equivalent of a soldier's bayonet. White men colonizing America did not win through military force, they won through trickery and diseased blankets.
The other possibility is that, penalties for any weapon being drastic, we would try to get the most potent arms possible. Moreover, millions of guns already exist. These are durable tools and do not degrade much over time. The only way to get those from the population would be to threaten dire punishment for non-compliance. That way lies a civil war, a distinctly unpleasant process.
Many people in the past have theorized that a ban of various weapons in the United States could spark a civil war between the NRA and the government. The person who wrote the article we are criticizing seems to think the government would do a door to door search for illegal weapons but that is simply not feasible. The standard thing to do is to politely ask people to register their legally acquired firearms, to get special permits for any weapons that are restricted and to seize/destroy any illegal weapons found during criminal investigations.
Throughout history, anyone who said "Make yourself defenseless or else we will harm you" has inflicted harm even in the event of full compliance. Thus lawful humans have nothing to lose by retaining their ability to protect themselves.
No one has ever said that. The American government is certainly not threatening to kill its own citizens for the sake of gun control. The person is being ridiculous.
Some prohibitionists express hope that we will run out of ammunition. They don't realize that most individuals have several thousand rounds on hand at any time and, if buying more becomes impossible, none of those cartridges would be wasted on non-essential uses. Fighting will become the sole, essential use.
True enough. But making armor-piercing bullets illegal is just the first step in keeping our police officers safer. It also means that people will be less likely to sell their precious armor-piercing rounds to criminals because they will want to keep them to themselves.
The main indication that gun control in America has failed is the fact that its supporters are still alive. Millions of people who have invested in arms, training and lobbying in response to past restrictive legislation have no plans to surrender. If gun control efforts begin to infringe significantly on their ability to fight in the future, those who wish to disarm others will be killed.
Guns are addictive, hence all the Americans who own guns and love them so much. Its fun to twirl a fully loaded pistol on your finger and play cowboy with the mirror. The last part of the statement above is an outright threat that essentially says: "Try to take my guns away and I will kill you." Which is funny because attempting to assassinate politicians will only reinforce people's beliefs that gun laws need to be tougher.
The reason for such a blunt statement is that being a gun owner is made up of two components: posession of a weapon and posession of skills and training. One can surrender a gun but not the training.
Actually the "training" is an illusion. People think that just because they can shoot a target that isn't moving that somehow they have great aim and shooting skill. Its a bit like how many Americans think they are good at driving a car but in reality can't even park properly. Shooting a fast moving target in the forehead, now that takes real training. It can't be done with "natural talent", it has to be acquired through a lot of practice shooting under extreme conditions.
That skill is the gun-banner's problem. It means that a person trained to use weapons will be able to make use of guns acquired in the future. He would also have a strong motivation to avenge the loss of his means of self-protection. Guns can be made, stolen, bought or taken off enemy casualties. Furthermore, tools other than guns can be used for offensive actions. A gun-banner would have to watch his back for the rest of his life.
More idle threats for any politician willing to ban certain guns. The user is basically saying he is a gun addict and will give up his guns over his own dead body. Yada yada yada, he's wacko.
The only solution to it would be gulags, prison camps or execution for the former gun owners. Soviets, for example, use a combination of the two approaches. Knowing that, gun owners cannot surrender their arms and expect to be left in peace. And the gun control fans cannot just remove the guns and expect to survive long after that.
He didn't finish his thought properly. We're surprised he didn't start bashing communists and claiming that we need guns to prevent Soviet invasion.
Fortunately, we have a realistic perception of how terribly destructive a civil war would be. All other means of combating gun control - education, lobbying, moving to less restrictive jurisdictions will be tried first.
Hollywood is very good at showing us what post WWIII would look like, but never in all the versions we've seen was the apocalypse caused by a bunch of gun wackos upset by new gun laws.
Some people dismiss the possibility of civilians going to war over abuses of their rights and actually winning. They say that a handgun is useless against an army. They are partly right: handguns are primarily for self-defense. For that reason, the 2nd Amendment covered all military weapons, as those were needed to check state tyranny.
Damn right we dismiss it. A hand gun is quite effective actually, especially in street combat and guerrilla warfare, but an assault rifle with 30 bullets would definitely be cause for worry. That is the kind of weapon used for killing everyone in a bank or a post office.
Fortunately, the army on which the enemy is counting isn't eager to do their bidding. Much of the support for our rights (and for this web site) comes from the members of the armed forces and from police officers. If push comes to shove, at least part of this nation's soldiers will not be following orders.
I think the user has miscalculated how much the military would be involved, which is not at all. This falls under FBI and CIA jurisdiction if people start assassinating politicians. The men and women of the American armed forces wouldn't even be involved.
You'll note that the above article was two things:
#1, despite the stuff about protecting yourself from rapists he really didn't discuss much about women protecting themselves.
#2, he was much more obsessed with gun control laws and worried about the government taking away his precious automatic assault rifles (and threatening people with civil war).
The use of graphics on his site told a different story however, you can see them here on this site as we have copied all of them. It was a very obvious use of power symbols as propaganda tools to convince women that they need guns to protect themselves from rape.
And more so, they don't just need a trusty .357 Magnum or similiar (yet powerful) handgun, but they specifically need shotguns and rifles.
The internet user we are criticizing had many reasons for wanting to keep his guns: Aesthetic values, going outside and shooting stuff for exercise, that the media is biased against guns, that guns are a necessary evil, that guns make good art works/topic starters/fashion statements, that martial arts is no excuse to not carry a gun, that fake guns are for wimps, that you need to defend your home, that not wearing a gun is like surrendering without a fight and that you depend on others to protect you... and finally a variation on the Biblical story of the Good Shepherd, except instead the Shepherd threatens and shoots his own sheep with his shotgun (WTF?) in order to keep them from straying off.
But in total, after reading all of it, we concluded the guy was a complete wacko, a bully and like all bullies if there was ever new laws ever made regarding his precious assault rifles we firmly believe he would hide his guns in his basement/attic and be too much of a chicken to actually go try to assassinate politicians.
We're not going to discount the possibility that he might try do a Timothy McVeigh (the guy who planned the Oklahoma City bombing, the largest act of terrorism prior to 9/11 which killed 168 people and injured over 800) stunt and build homemade explosives. He sounds like the type of coward who would say things to intimidate people but in reality is too attached to his tiny penis to actually risk his own life.
If it was his interest to compel women with the extreme fear of rape to go buy a gun he really didn't do a good job of it. He was really just preaching to the gun-loving masses who already agree with him.
And its not our business to dissuade women from buying a gun for protection. But make sure its the right gun for the job, and make sure you are buying it for the right reasons.
If you were to buy a gun to protect yourself from rapists we recommend the Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum. It is relatively small, easy to carry and aim and packs a punch like a boxer on steroids. It may not be a .50 calibre Desert Eagle with armour piercing bullets, but what rapist wears armour?
Do not bother with a shotgun, a rifle, a submachine gun or grenades. Most rapes are date rapes or work/family related. A shotgun doesn't fit in your car glove box and most people would be concerned if you started carrying a machine gun to work. Big flashy guns are for men with small dicks.
The biggest trick to not being raped is actually just confidence. If you look like an easy victim rapists will automatically be drawn to you. They want someone who is quiet like a mouse, won't struggle or tell anyone afterwards. Rapists are more likely to be a relative, a co-worker or even your boss or husband.
Frankly the best tool against a rapist is laughter. Men can't stand it when you laugh at their equipment. Call it a combination of dick-envy and male ego, but men get really upset when you laugh at their pathetic private little pistol.