PDA

View Full Version : The gender gap & gun rights


Marthor
12-27-2012, 9:13 AM
After looking at an anti-NRA white house petition signatures I see most of the them are women signing it. This reality has made me come to grips with the fact that women voters are a bigger threat to the constitution than i realized before.

look at the signatures and see mostly women (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/revoke-tax-exempt-nonprofit-status-nra-conflict-interest-not-promoting-public-safety-pursuit/fZDDm7hf)

The 2 most recent appointees to the supreme court were women. Obama could have easily appointed a liberal man judge, but his goal is to pander to women voters. The "war on women" theme in 2012 was manufactured and successful because no matter what, all the Dems need to do is get more women votes to win.

So, how do we influence these women and thus influence the polls and thus influence the elections? If a majority of women don't support the 2A, it's the greatest threat.

The term used to describe independent swing women voters is "soccer moms". Most kids raised today are in single mother homes. I'd use the term "single moms" to describe the typical democrat women voters. They don't have a husband and use government assistance as their stand-in husband helper.

School shootings are a threat to their kids. We need to convince all these soccer moms and single moms that guns can protect their kids in schools. It can be additional police or security guards. It can be letting teachers use their CCW permit on school grounds. It can also be having a few volunteer teachers be trained with Tasers as part of the solution.

If we aren't reaching across gender lines better, we are losing on all fronts. :oji:

Poll Link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/19/cnn-poll-bare-majority-now-support-major-gun-restrictions/)

"There's also a gender gap, with 41% of men saying say support major restrictions or an outright ban, with that number jumping to 62% among women."

bbq_ribs
12-27-2012, 10:22 AM
Well, part of that problem is the "get back in the kitchen, dumb girl, make me a sandwich" old boy mentality that too many in the pro-2A community exhibit. Won't make any friends that way.
Too many see "pro gun = Bible carrying, Jesus screeching, anti-choice, misogynist pig man" and that's what needs to change. Seriously. Women bashing is going to get the movement nowhere fast.

What is more likely to help is involving them in the process. Explaining the self-defense ideals, which women are actually more likely to encounter.

Meplat
12-27-2012, 10:59 AM
Geez, immediate response from the unhelpful, and opinionated, on both sides! I believe that women in fact saved our @$$ on handguns and CCW. I think enough women saw the light that neither big brother government nor hubby could be there 100% of the time and helped advance the CCW movement across the nation. You don’t hear the ‘Saturday night special’ language bandied about by the press and the Bradys, accept rarely, anymore. They know they have lost that fight; and they lost it to women. You go girls!

vector16
12-27-2012, 11:04 AM
So, how do we influence these women and thus influence the polls and thus influence the elections?

Hey all you you that have wives, girl friends and mothers. You need to get them to want to own a gun and then go with them when they finally decide to buy one. leave hints all the time about how dangerous the streets are and how much daneger they are acctually in. If they say they live in a safe area, find the crime reports every day and make some sort of a thing about it. tell them that criminals don't want to rob poor people they are targeting people in safe, unsuspecting areas.
Once they own a gun that they like, whether it be a .380 with pink and gold leaf trim or dimond studs in the handle etc, trhey will not want to give that thing up EVER. That is what I did with my girl. I took a left wing liberal and changed her outlook to a Rush loving, 640am listening, right wing activist, democrat hating, women my Great Grandfather would love. It did not take too long either. maybe 2 months. Take her shooting every weekend and get her to think that she is better at it than you are amd it is something that you can do together.

donny douchebag
12-27-2012, 11:05 AM
Dunno 'bout you all but the very last thing I want is for women to be anything remotely like men.

vector16
12-27-2012, 11:14 AM
Dunno 'bout you all but the very last thing I want is for women to be anything remotely like men.

If you want to be able to play with your toys and go fishing with the guys whenever the heck you want to then they need to be able to go do the same kind of activity with the girls and think that they can always out do you. AND you let them sometimes.
Pay attention, don't loose focus on what we are trying to accomplish here, chief.

Marthor
12-27-2012, 11:20 AM
I don't have anything against Wayne LaPierre, but what if the head of the NRA was a woman? I think that would be a disruptive game changer for the positive.

If the NRA is our 2A leading lobby group and spokesperson, then I want it to do a full-court press at appealing to women.


. They know they have lost that fight; and they lost it to women. You go girls!

Exactly! Win over women and we win the war!

wildhawker
12-27-2012, 11:29 AM
Uhm, do you really wonder why gun rights has such a gender gap with statements like, "I agree with you completely, but we're talking about WOMEN here. Women aren't exactly known for rational, logical thinking, especially when it comes to little children, ponies, their vaginas and the aftermaths of school shootings. Didn't a considerable amount of women vote for Obama also? Women operate on emotion and that's why they'll never be on board with pro-2A folk even if you spell it out for them."

Ignore, or worse, insult, a core constituency at our peril.

-Brandon

vector16
12-27-2012, 11:38 AM
Uhm, do you really wonder why gun rights has such a gender gap with statements like, "I agree with you completely, but we're talking about WOMEN here. Women aren't exactly known for rational, logical thinking, especially when it comes to little children, ponies, their vaginas and the aftermaths of school shootings. Didn't a considerable amount of women vote for Obama also? Women operate on emotion and that's why they'll never be on board with pro-2A folk even if you spell it out for them."

Ignore, or worse, insult, a core constituency at our peril.

-Brandon

If you convice them it could have been their children, which it could have been, women would be the first pick up arms and go get the SOB that killed their child. My anti-gun mother went and bought a gun after this CT shooting happened. She was a teacher for 35 years.

dave_cg
12-27-2012, 11:43 AM
The appeal to women is self-defense. Look at how many women take (and pay for) self-defense courses where they are told things like how to hold their car keys so that their fist is stronger and pointier.

Maybe if it was pointed out to them that firearms are an option, at least in places where it hasn't been denied by non-issue CCW, they might see things differently. Point out that firearms are more effective at greater distance than pepper spray or vomiting on your attacker. Also, point out that the chance of a firearm being used against the victim is far less than pepper spray being used against the victim.

Really, I just don't think women see firearms as an option for themselves simply because they lack an understanding of them. Also, look at your favorite gun shop. Then look in your wife's closet -- the shoe rack probably has some stylish pumps for a night out, and some practical, comfortable pumps that get her feet through 8 hours at work. Do you see any "tactical pumps" in there? Nope. The average gun store is a threatening place for the average soccer mom to walk into unless she is highly motivated.

If I had an FFL, I'd open a second shop down the street from the main shop and call it a "self defense store". Stock it with lots of non-FFL self-defense items, lots of concealed carry purses and such, and have just a few stylish handguns in the corner. Adjust the decor, stock presentation, and staff appearance to make it just as inviting to walk into as the family shoe store next door. Sell them pepper spray and DVD's, let them browse the concealed-carry purses, and subtly let them know that guns are an option. Send them home with flyers about upcoming classes.

When soccer mom's start asking the sheriff why they and their college-age daughters are being disarmed, we win. It will be a long, slow education process. The first step is women need to understand that guns are an option for them, and that they are fully as capable of operating a handgun as they are of driving the mini-van.

madjack956
12-27-2012, 12:04 PM
I don't have anything against Wayne LaPierre, but what if the head of the NRA was a woman? I think that would be a disruptive game changer for the positive.

If the NRA is our 2A leading lobby group and spokesperson, then I want it to do a full-court press at appealing to women.




Exactly! Win over women and we win the war!

Now your on to something Marthor!

Remember when you were a kid dating and you had to meet the girls family.

Well my dad taught me something early on. He told me not to worry about the dad, just be real nice to the mom. If you win her over, the ol' man will fall into place. He was right.

I think the right woman, being a spokesperson for the NRA would do us a lot of good right now. The sooner, the better.

Marthor
12-27-2012, 12:18 PM
We're about to have the big AWB fight and big debate in January. I don't want any distraction of trying to switch leadership right this moment. Some good women 2A advocates need to be given the microphone. I know there are several.

supermanuf
12-27-2012, 12:21 PM
The NRA needs to cough up some dough and hire Brad Pitt as their front man. He's an unapologetic supporter of the 2A, and he'd bring the women back in droves. Johnny Depp, too. Because the antis are winning the "culture war." We've all seen that video of the anti-gun celebrities. Time to get some A list starpower on our side--Chuck Norris and R. Lee Ermey don't exactly make our image more appealing to women.

Marthor
12-27-2012, 12:22 PM
The NRA needs to cough up some dough and hire Brad Pitt as their front man. He's an unapologetic supporter of the 2A, and he'd bring the women back in droves.

Whatever works. :D

vector16
12-27-2012, 12:24 PM
The NRA needs to cough up some dough and hire Brad Pitt as their front man. He's an unapologetic supporter of the 2A, and he'd bring the women back in droves.

Brad Pit is an devoted Obama supporter and so is his wife. I think he'd loose the president out of his pocket if he took that stand. He may have been pro-gun at one time but after the CT shooting he has probably changed his mind AGAIN

Ford8N
12-27-2012, 12:28 PM
There are always leg humpers in the gun community, I don't blame females for avoiding the whole gun scene.

vector16
12-27-2012, 12:31 PM
in fact if he would get his head out of his you know what and start supporting the constitution instead of voting to destroy it he might draw a larger crowd. Brad Pit is a commi just like the rest of'em

readysetgo
12-27-2012, 12:31 PM
Garbage thread!
Apparently there's an intelligence gap in the the community too!
IBTL

IVC
12-27-2012, 12:33 PM
Time to stop dividing into male/female, black/white, rich/poor, etc.

Those who are with us are welcome, those who are against us we'll fight on all fronts. A woman doesn't get any more of a pass for being anti gun than a man does. Even if she is black and he is white. Time to stop this apologetic nonsense that we need to coddle some people into accepting civil rights. If a person chooses to ignore civil rights, it really doesn't matter why they choose so.

At the "sporting level," however, it is important to involve groups who are traditionally hesitant to join. This also helps at the political level. But, having a shooting hobby is completely different from accepting that "armed self defense" is a core right, which is the battle that we are currently fighting.

vector16
12-27-2012, 12:36 PM
Yes, I've actually thought about doing something like that. Sounds like a full time job, though, which sort of cuts into range time :)

Although I'd be a little bit more scientific about it. Hire a marketing consultant and do it by the numbers. I don't pretend to understand exactly how to make a gun store as non-threatening as a shoe store to soccer moms -- but I'm sure people that could tell me how are available at a reasonable consulting fee.

It reminds me of story about a model railroading nut that opened a hobby store -- he did much better after he let his wife decide how to invest inventory dollars -- she stocked what sold because she didn't give a rat's butt about trains, whereas he stocked what he personally liked, which only sold to like-minded train nuts. I think the same rule applies to doing this kind of gun store -- you have to get the true gun nuts out of the merchandising decision loop.

My girl is in the fashion industry and she is also a gun lover, now. you are right the gunstores are intimidating to women. you make it more of an accessory store and get that one chick that designs all that womens hunting gear to partner up with you. She could sell her gear in your store and she already knows how to get their attention. My girl owns some of her gear for when we go hunting.

Gray Peterson
12-27-2012, 1:02 PM
There are always leg humpers in the gun community, I don't blame females for avoiding the whole gun scene.

Misogyny too

Meplat
12-27-2012, 1:05 PM
I don't have anything against Wayne LaPierre, but what if the head of the NRA was a woman? I think that would be a disruptive game changer for the positive.

If the NRA is our 2A leading lobby group and spokesperson, then I want it to do a full-court press at appealing to women.




Exactly! Win over women and we win the war!

Marion Hammer didn't seem to make much of a difference.

Meplat
12-27-2012, 1:14 PM
Women have been a great help with handguns and CCW, EBR’s are another story. Our burden of education is greater on that subject. I had a girlfriend that I taught to shoot handguns. I also helped her get set up with a carry gun and bought her a pistol purse. She had grown up on a farm, her Dad was a solid 2A supporter, and she was raised to be pro gun to start with. One day when EBR’s were in the news she said to me; “You know I respect you and Dad’s opinions when it comes to guns, but I just can’t see what those things are good for except killing people.”

I told her that they were good for lots of things besides killing people; but that I would concede that they were very good for that. Being a farm girl she had grown up with the rhythms of life, death, birth and renewal. She was also a level headed realist. I told her that we have to accept reality, and reality is that sometimes, there are people who need killing, and that was why she carried her Smith and Wesson. She admitted to the logic of the thing but said that EBR’s still gave her a bit of a queasy feeling. A few years later, after she had moved to another place to get a well deserved promotion, she told me that she had often gone back in her mind to our conversation on EBR’s and she was now firmly in the pro camp, qualms be damned.

Cast your bread upon the waters and know that there are more smart women out there than one might expect. I’m sorry I let that one get away.

Ford8N
12-27-2012, 1:16 PM
Misogyny too

Yes, I noticed that too. Especially in male dominated jobs, which also tend to have a lot of gun owners. Pretty sad.

safewaysecurity
12-27-2012, 1:17 PM
Sad that many women and discriminated minorities fight for more gun laws. It usually hurts them the most.

IVC
12-27-2012, 1:18 PM
Misogyny too

Sounds like you are justifying a personal choice to be anti-civil liberties based on likeability of those who fight for those civil liberties.

Should abused women in third world country have "white man friendly" bulletin boards in order to attract broader support for their case? Should LGBT modify their message in order to appeal to "mainstream men?"

We must take personal responsibility for actions to support or oppose civil rights regardless of whose rights they are and how we feel about the group whose rights are being violated or the type of rights that are being violated. Those who choose not to do so are responsible for their actions, full stop.

Tarn_Helm
12-27-2012, 2:02 PM
Uhm, do you really wonder why gun rights has such a gender gap with statements like, "I agree with you completely, but we're talking about WOMEN here. Women aren't exactly known for rational, logical thinking, especially when it comes to little children, ponies, their vaginas and the aftermaths of school shootings. Didn't a considerable amount of women vote for Obama also? Women operate on emotion and that's why they'll never be on board with pro-2A folk even if you spell it out for them."

Ignore, or worse, insult, a core constituency at our peril.

-Brandon

I agree.

There does seem to be a strong biological factor, however, that we need to figure out: Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716).

Most folks in 2AM circles have just been ignoring this for years.

Occasionally I bring it up.

Result: [Crickets chirping].

We had better get used to expanding our arsenal of "concepts critical to promoting armed self-defense" or else we will continue to alienate and insult 50% of the electorate.

What we have been doing has not really worked too well.

Time to upgrade our conceptual and rhetorical arsenal.

:facepalm:

Marthor
12-27-2012, 2:08 PM
Time to stop dividing into male/female, black/white, rich/poor, etc.

There's a BIG difference between trying to divide with say class warfare and the opposite of trying to reach out and bring together. The call here is to find ways to reach out to women.

When Obama made his speech in Newtown, he claimed a majority of Americans support this, and a mojority of Americans support that. The actual poll numbers were 52% and 57%. Especially that 52% one could be swung the other way.

Where are the groups of people pushing those gun control numbers up in the polls? Look at the poll linked in the OP, that it's 62% women. Preaching to the choir won't be as effective as reaching out to women would be.

bwiese
12-27-2012, 2:08 PM
Remember that women voters are generally focused on their prime issues - which is NOT gun control. Sure, they're signing petitions. But their actual vote - all that really counts - is generally based on non-gun issues.

The fix for the situation the OP mentions is not to burn huge cycles to get some fraction of women over to our side - that's fine & great - but for GOP to stop alienating women, especially professional single women in the the 26 - 52 age range. That's far easier to achieve than making the Dems a pro-gun party [outside of acknowledging & supporting individual Dems that are pro-gun].

Fix that, and you make their gun stance irrelevant because they are NOT single-issue voters on guns. Women in general as a voter bloc are far more concerned with anti-choice etc. matters - and we saw this in the recent national election where F votes actually changed in response to commentary about abortion (plus a national turn around on LGBT rights) to some extent by Romney but far more by Akin and Mourdock, who created huge backslashes outside their districts. [Further proof that the Tea Party either hires idiots for management or specifically intends to lose elections.]

Trenchfoot
12-27-2012, 2:15 PM
I'd use the term "single moms" to describe the typical democrat women voters. They don't have a husband and use government assistance as their stand-in husband helper.



Ahhh...disdain. Women will come running here to join in no time! :facepalm:

IVC
12-27-2012, 2:17 PM
There's a BIG difference between trying to divide with say class warfare and the opposite of trying to reach out and bring together. The call here is to find ways to reach out to women.

There are two aspects to this debate: (1) the hobby aspect, and (2) the civil rights aspect.

While one can say with impunity "I am not into hobby of shooting," there is an ethical and moral liability to say "I am against your civil rights." For the former we need all the outreach we can get since it's about "hearts and minds." For the latter, outreach is only one piece of the overall strategy since it's about something that belongs to us whether they like it or not.

To the extent we are fighting for civil rights, women, like everyone else, have to understand that fighting against civil rights is bigotry no matter how unappealing those rights are. Not being coddled on a gun forum is not an excuse for a bigoted stance.

farfromhome63
12-27-2012, 2:41 PM
Guys this is easy to fix. Do what I did, find cool wife, buy her a pistol of her prefrence hers happens to be a 1911 45acp :) and let her put pink grips on it.
Let her show it off to all her girlfriends.
Fill her mind and all our conversations with gun control and wala her facebook becomes a advertising machine for pro women gun rights. Donski!

mosinnagantm9130
12-27-2012, 2:47 PM
The term used to describe independent swing women voters is "soccer moms". Most kids raised today are in single mother homes. I'd use the term "single moms" to describe the typical democrat women voters. They don't have a husband and use government assistance as their stand-in husband helper.


I agree with you completely, but we're talking about WOMEN here. Women aren't exactly known for rational, logical thinking, especially when it comes to little children, ponies, their vaginas and the aftermaths of school shootings. Didn't a considerable amount of women vote for Obama also? Women operate on emotion and that's why they'll never be on board with pro-2A folk even if you spell it out for them.

GUNS ARE SCARY!!!!!1111:eek:

19th Amendments to the Constitution were the early accomplishments of the Progressive Movement. They knew they could not take control of the country with only men in charge.

It's take them 100 years, but they've nearly destroyed this country.

Get a woman store manager and a couple of educated sales women and a few gun loving queers

Wow guys, these posts are a great way to win over converts! Lets just insult women, equal rights, and LGBT all at the same time! That'll make em wanna join up with us! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Those attitudes are exactly why there is a "gender gap".

Drop the anti-women, anti-gay stance and we'll be fine. Keep up this BS and we will lose.

BRoss
12-27-2012, 2:48 PM
After looking at an anti-NRA white house petition signatures I see most of the them are women signing it. This reality has made me come to grips with the fact that women voters are a bigger threat to the constitution than i realized before.

look at the signatures and see mostly women (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/revoke-tax-exempt-nonprofit-status-nra-conflict-interest-not-promoting-public-safety-pursuit/fZDDm7hf)

The 2 most recent appointees to the supreme court were women. Obama could have easily appointed a liberal man judge, but his goal is to pander to women voters. The "war on women" theme in 2012 was manufactured and successful because no matter what, all the Dems need to do is get more women votes to win.

So, how do we influence these women and thus influence the polls and thus influence the elections? If a majority of women don't support the 2A, it's the greatest threat.

The term used to describe independent swing women voters is "soccer moms". Most kids raised today are in single mother homes. I'd use the term "single moms" to describe the typical democrat women voters. They don't have a husband and use government assistance as their stand-in husband helper.

School shootings are a threat to their kids. We need to convince all these soccer moms and single moms that guns can protect their kids in schools. It can be additional police or security guards. It can be letting teachers use their CCW permit on school grounds. It can also be having a few volunteer teachers be trained with Tasers as part of the solution.

If we aren't reaching across gender lines better, we are losing on all fronts. :oji:

Poll Link (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/19/cnn-poll-bare-majority-now-support-major-gun-restrictions/)

"There's also a gender gap, with 41% of men saying say support major restrictions or an outright ban, with that number jumping to 62% among women."

I agree with you completely, but we're talking about WOMEN here. Women aren't exactly known for rational, logical thinking, especially when it comes to little children, ponies, their vaginas and the aftermaths of school shootings. Didn't a considerable amount of women vote for Obama also? Women operate on emotion and that's why they'll never be on board with pro-2A folk even if you spell it out for them.

GUNS ARE SCARY!!!!!1111:eek:

You know you can get an FFL and you can open a shop that cater to women. Get a woman store manager and a couple of educated sales women and a few gun loving queers and to show the girls how great they would look with a James Bond gun that goes with their outfit and their shoes and you'll be a rich man.


If any women are lurking this forum, posts like these aren't going to make them want to jump right in to the 2A community. Just FYI.

Marthor
12-27-2012, 3:07 PM
Some good pro-2A female spokespersons that I know of are:

New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez
Texas Congresswoman Suzanna Gratia Hupp

Meplat
12-27-2012, 3:22 PM
I agree.

There does seem to be a strong biological factor, however, that we need to figure out: Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716).

Most folks in 2AM circles have just been ignoring this for years.

Occasionally I bring it up.

Result: [Crickets chirping].

We had better get used to expanding our arsenal of "concepts critical to promoting armed self-defense" or else we will continue to alienate and insult 50% of the electorate.

What we have been doing has not really worked too well.

Time to upgrade our conceptual and rhetorical arsenal.

:facepalm:

The women of the human race have contributed to its continued fitness by bringing forth, nurturing, and protecting human life. Women are gatherers and nurturers; men are hunters and warriors. It has been that way for hundreds of thousands of years. Role changes have only impinged upon our evolution for a few thousand, and serious blurring of the lines only for a few hundred. Inbred instincts do not change that fast.

Women look at defending themselves and their families as a one on one thing. Men think like warriors. If things go badly for his family, clan, tribe, or nation, a man sees the need of having battle implements that multiply his personal ability to protect them against superior odds; women, not so much.

Women and men think differently, but the way both think is better for their role in perpetuating the human race. But sometimes it almost seem like we are different species.

SgtDinosaur
12-27-2012, 3:22 PM
Marion Hammer didn't seem to make much of a difference.

Marion was elected in 1995, after the ban was already in effect. Other than that I don't remember specifically what she did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_P._Hammer

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-05-17/marion-hammer-the-nras-most-powerful-weapon

penguinofsleep
12-27-2012, 4:10 PM
can't tell if half of these posts are sarcastic or serious...

readysetgo
12-27-2012, 5:29 PM
Some good pro-2A female spokespersons that I know of are:

New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez
Texas Congresswoman Suzanna Gratia Hupp

Bad example bud, unless your claiming that these ladies are "single mother homes" with no husbands living off government assistance.

SilverTauron
12-27-2012, 5:37 PM
The dilemma of bringing gun rights to women is impossible to solve so long as the GOP is the only electable party bothering to publicly support the 2nd Amendment.

Note that I'm not claiming the GOP is a champion of gun rights here;but in terms of marketing, the party at least gives enough of a damn about gun rights to consider the matter rationally. Democrats as a collective want weapons banned or under lock and key, period. This presents an ugly choice for the female voter, because female centric political issues are championed by Democrats. Put another way, Democrats are just as regressive on gun control as Republicans are on reproductive issues.

Thus, a woman has to choose between gun rights and reproductive rights. Most women don't own guns, so by default they choose B-which is all in for Democrats, full stop. More than one young woman and feminist-supporting guy voted for Obama because they want a liberal supreme court to guarantee Roe Vs Wade for posterity.

Until we can get the left to embrace gun rights-which is never at this point-women will always choose their own gender rights over gun rights, which will screw us all in the long run. Nothing less then changing our party dynamics will fix this.

Marthor
12-27-2012, 5:47 PM
Bad example bud, unless your claiming that these ladies are "single mother homes" with no husbands living off government assistance.

I've heard them both speak on 2A and they have great personal stories. They don't need to be single mothers to appeal more to all the soccer and single moms. :)

Tarn_Helm
12-27-2012, 5:53 PM
The women of the human race have contributed to its continued fitness by bringing forth, nurturing, and protecting human life. Women are gatherers and nurturers; men are hunters and warriors. It has been that way for hundreds of thousands of years. Role changes have only impinged upon our evolution for a few thousand, and serious blurring of the lines only for a few hundred. Inbred instincts do not change that fast.

Women look at defending themselves and their families as a one on one thing. Men think like warriors. If things go badly for his family, clan, tribe, or nation, a man sees the need of having battle implements that multiply his personal ability to protect them against superior odds; women, not so much.

Women and men think differently, but the way both think is better for their role in perpetuating the human race. But sometimes it almost seem like we are different species.

You might be right.

However, you supply no research for your claims.

Some of it seems plausible based on my own subjective "feel" for these things.

However, there remain definite and deep gender lines in politics.

Not only regarding specific issues.

But also regarding larger, philosophical issues.

The whole "individualism vs. collectivism" issue is a stark case in point.

It is not a coincidence that Germany fought for their "Fatherland" and Russians fought for "Mother Russia."

Germany is now capitalism's (individualism's) champion in Europe today.

Russia: a failed attempt at collectivism that is now mimicking the xenophobic Nazism of pre-WWII Germany.

But read the book.

I encourage all to read it.

I do not agree with Lakoff's Democrat politics, but it is difficult to gainsay what he points out in this book.

(And yes, I do know that pre-WWII Germany was technically "Socialist." But in reality it was just a dictatorship led by a deranged, authoritarian "Father Figure" who used the cachet of then-trendy "socialism" to his rhetorical advantage.)

Some attitudes seem rooted in genetics and epigenetics, shored up of course by cultural conditioning and consciously espoused ideology.

SilverTauron
12-27-2012, 6:11 PM
You might be right.

However, you supply no research for your claims.

Some of it seems plausible based on my own subjective "feel" for these things.

However, there remain definite and deep gender lines in politics.

Not only regarding specific issues.

But also regarding larger, philosophical issues.

The whole "individualism vs. collectivism" issue is a stark case in point.

It is not a coincidence that Germany fought for their "Fatherland" and Russians fought for "Mother Russia."

Germany is now capitalism's (individualism's) champion in Europe today.

Russia: a failed attempt at collectivism that is now mimicking the xenophobic Nazism of pre-WWII Germany.

But read the book.

I encourage all to read it.

I do not agree with Lakoff's Democrat politics, but it is difficult to gainsay what he points out in this book.

(And yes, I do know that pre-WWII Germany was technically "Socialist." But in reality it was just a dictatorship led by a deranged, authoritarian "Father Figure" who used the cachet of then-trendy "socialism" to his rhetorical advantage.)

Some attitudes seem rooted in genetics and epigenetics, shored up of course by cultural conditioning and consciously espoused ideology.

The problem is not ideaology.A .22LR pistol is fun to shoot no matter what your political leanings are. How far you'll go to support policies which allow people to own and shoot them is where the politics come into focus.

I've never met a girl yet who disliked shooting afterwards.

That said,for most personal choice of which party to support comes down to a choice. For most men supporting gun rights isn't an idealogical conflict. Liberal men who believe in the principles of government mandated equality and security don't feel conflicted voting against politicians who back gun rights, and conservative men who back individualism against a large central government obviously have no issue voting libertarian or GOP.

We come to a problem when it comes to women-centric issues and politics. If a woman wants greater attention to female-centric issues in Washington, she's voting Democrat whether she wants to or not. For many women they find gender rights to be a non-negotiable issue which supersedes all others. Unless the Republican Party emerges from the 1950s , they'll be superseded themselves-and they're the only national party with gun rights in the charter.

Tarn_Helm
12-27-2012, 6:25 PM
The problem is not ideaology.A .22LR pistol is fun to shoot no matter what your political leanings are. How far you'll go to support policies which allow people to own and shoot them is where the politics come into focus.

I've never met a girl yet who disliked shooting afterwards.

That said,for most personal choice of which party to support comes down to a choice. For most men supporting gun rights isn't an idealogical conflict. Liberal men who believe in the principles of government mandated equality and security don't feel conflicted voting against politicians who back gun rights, and conservative men who back individualism against a large central government obviously have no issue voting libertarian or GOP.

We come to a problem when it comes to women-centric issues and politics. If a woman wants greater attention to female-centric issues in Washington, she's voting Democrat whether she wants to or not. For many women they find gender rights to be a non-negotiable issue which supersedes all others. Unless the Republican Party emerges from the 1950s , they'll be superseded themselves-and they're the only national party with gun rights in the charter.

Unless we learn to understand what drives the other 50% of the electorate and why, we Second Amendment supporters will not become able to enlist large-scale support from female voters in America.

Ideology seems to have biological roots.

Culture and history also play a role.

Lakoff's linguistic research can teach all of us a lot--men and women--about ourselves.

This is just one area we need to map out and figure out if we are going to succeed in enlisting the Second Amendment support of female voters in America.

It might sound like a trite, sexist cliche, but ask any woman: How you talk about something matters a lot.

Equally important is how you listen: You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (http://www.amazon.com/You-Just-Dont-Understand-Conversation/dp/0060959622).

There is a lot of homework to do.

It is no coincidence that Lakoff, author of Moral Politics (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356664909&sr=1-1&keywords=moral+politics) and Democrat, is trying to figure out how to package the Democrat message.

We need to learn how to do what he advises the Democrat party to do.

The Democrats seem to know how to speak the language of the vast majority of female voters in America.

wildhawker
12-27-2012, 6:46 PM
Somebody sticky this.

-Brandon

Unless we learn to understand what drives the other 50% of the electorate and why, we Second Amendment supporters will not become able to enlist large-scale support from female voters in America.

Ideology seems to have biological roots.

Culture and history also play a role.

Lakoff's linguistic research can teach all of us a lot--men and women--about ourselves.

This is just one area we need to map out and figure out if we are going to succeed in enlisting the Second Amendment support of female voters in America.

It might sound like a trite, sexist cliche, but ask any woman: How you talk about something matters a lot.

Equally important is how you listen: You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (http://www.amazon.com/You-Just-Dont-Understand-Conversation/dp/0060959622).

There is a lot of homework to do.

It is no coincidence that Lakoff, author of Moral Politics (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356664909&sr=1-1&keywords=moral+politics) and Democrat, is trying to figure out how to package the Democrat message.

We need to learn how to do what he advises the Democrat party to do.

The Democrats seem to know how to speak the language of the vast majority of female voters in America.

Marthor
12-27-2012, 6:58 PM
I agree that in the 2 party system, women will vote women's issue ahead of gun issues, but the polls indicate women are against gun rights in the same proportions. In other words, they aren't voting woman issues against their gun views.
Yes, the Republicans need to appeal to women issues, but there is also a gender gap on women's support of gun rights specifically.

I think we all agree that guns empower women even more than men. There are plenty of angles and stats that will appeal to win over women. They banned guns in England and Australia and rape and home invasion and other physical violent crime rates went up significantly. Having a gun empowers the woman to be able to defend herself, her kids and her home even against a bigger man.

madjack956
12-27-2012, 7:23 PM
The Democrats seem to know how to speak the language of the vast majority of female voters in America.

The republican party could probably start by trying not to tell women what to do with their body for a good start.

Now, I'm not a big fan of killing fetuses. But trying to tell a 20 or 40 year old women that had an unfortunate mistake, that they are stuck and their life is going to change drastically, isn't going to win many votes.

Usually, that drastic change is not for the better with regards to a youngster.

I say, let them be. The day will come when they will have to answer for it.

Trenchfoot
12-27-2012, 7:44 PM
I agree that in the 2 party system, women will vote women's issue ahead of gun issues, but the polls indicate women are against gun rights in the same proportions. In other words, they aren't voting woman issues against their gun views.
Yes, the Republicans need to appeal to women issues, but there is also a gender gap on women's support of gun rights specifically.



You don't need them to get on board with gun rights if they get on board for other issues.

As much as the GOP talking heads went on and on about Obama voters wanting "stuff", it wasn't about that. The GOP alienated every group of Americans besides white christian men and their wives.

People that are pro gay rights don't want "stuff".
People that don't think the government should force a woman to carry a rapist's baby, don't want "stuff".
People concerned about climate change, don't want stuff.
People that don't want a theocracy in America, don't want "stuff".
People that are tired of war, don't want "stuff".
People that don't want the 14th Amendment repealed, don't want "stuff".

Was there a part of his voting bloc that is dependent on government? Sure. But there were people on welfare in the deep south that voted Romney too.

It's time for the GOP to stop making excuses and realize that social issues are going to kill them in national elections. In 10-12 years, with the growing latino population, Texas will no longer be a sure thing. And in 2030 with latinos becoming 50% of the population of Texas, the White House will be forever gone unless the GOP moderates themselves on social issues.

Steph
12-27-2012, 8:04 PM
The republican party could probably start by trying not to tell women what to do with their body for a good start.

Now, I'm not a big fan of killing fetuses. But trying to tell a 20 or 40 year old women that had an unfortunate mistake, that they are stuck and their life is going to change drastically, isn't going to win many votes.

Usually, that drastic change is not for the better with regards to a youngster.

I say, let them be. The day will come when they will have to answer for it.

This right here. Ideology is my biggest gripe with the Republican party (I'm independent but voted R). They all seem to be about small government and staying out of Joe American's life...except when it comes to Jane; and they think they can tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies based on THEIR ideology. We don't all share that same ideology and it's time they recognize that. And they did answer for it on Nov 6th unfortunately.

Meplat
12-27-2012, 8:21 PM
You might be right.

However, you supply no research for your claims.

Some of it seems plausible based on my own subjective "feel" for these things.

However, there remain definite and deep gender lines in politics.

Not only regarding specific issues.

But also regarding larger, philosophical issues.

The whole "individualism vs. collectivism" issue is a stark case in point.

It is not a coincidence that Germany fought for their "Fatherland" and Russians fought for "Mother Russia."

Germany is now capitalism's (individualism's) champion in Europe today.

Russia: a failed attempt at collectivism that is now mimicking the xenophobic Nazism of pre-WWII Germany.

But read the book.

I encourage all to read it.

I do not agree with Lakoff's Democrat politics, but it is difficult to gainsay what he points out in this book.

(And yes, I do know that pre-WWII Germany was technically "Socialist." But in reality it was just a dictatorship led by a deranged, authoritarian "Father Figure" who used the cachet of then-trendy "socialism" to his rhetorical advantage.)

Some attitudes seem rooted in genetics and epigenetics, shored up of course by cultural conditioning and consciously espoused ideology.


I do not claim any scholarly reinforcement for my claims. Anything of this sort has been suppressed sense the 1950ís. I do not remember even where to start in researching it. Just look at it as something to think about. I would refer you to the book ďThe Whisperings WithinĒ author forgotten.

Gray Peterson
12-27-2012, 8:26 PM
You don't need them to get on board with gun rights if they get on board for other issues.

As much as the GOP talking heads went on and on about Obama voters wanting "stuff", it wasn't about that. The GOP alienated every group of Americans besides white christian men and their wives.

People that are pro gay rights don't want "stuff".
People that don't think the government should force a woman to carry a rapist's baby, don't want "stuff".
People concerned about climate change, don't want stuff.
People that don't want a theocracy in America, don't want "stuff".
People that are tired of war, don't want "stuff".
People that don't want the 14th Amendment repealed, don't want "stuff".

Was there a part of his voting bloc that is dependent on government? Sure. But there were people on welfare in the deep south that voted Romney too.

It's time for the GOP to stop making excuses and realize that social issues are going to kill them in national elections. In 10-12 years, with the growing latino population, Texas will no longer be a sure thing. And in 2030 with latinos becoming 50% of the population of Texas, the White House will be forever gone unless the GOP moderates themselves on social issues.

I know quite a few Obama voters who basically viewed it that way. Recriminating people for voting the way they did in 2012 is kinda stupid now. The presidential election is over.

Those "quite a few" Obama voters that I know are currently part of the pro-gun mobilization to stop the Feinstein ban (they also happen to hate her for being an opponent to the Senate privacy amendments to the NDAA), and for anyone to do a Brewer-style finger point or berate them is absolutely unhelpful.

Extra411
12-27-2012, 9:17 PM
I think we all agree that guns empower women even more than men. There are plenty of angles and stats that will appeal to win over women. They banned guns in England and Australia and rape and home invasion and other physical violent crime rates went up significantly. Having a gun empowers the woman to be able to defend herself, her kids and her home even against a bigger man.

I've tried to present this argument sometimes to women, but I feel it has limited appeal. I've heard things like:

-We should deal with societal issues so people are less likely to become criminals, and there would be less of a need for a gun to defend yourself.

-Even if they were in a dangerous situation, they don't think having a gun would help. They feel it may escalate the conflict, or that they are not confident in their ability to wield a gun, or that they don't think they'll be able to point at/shoot another person. There are many reasons why some WOULDN'T want to use a gun.

-Some believe the dangers that widespread firearm access poses outweigh the need to have them to defend yourself. Here's where I usually hear the "lots of people die from gun accidents, many are children" and the "having firearms in the home is more dangerous than any good they will ever do".

I know some women who have personally been assaulted/stalked/nearly kidnapped by people, and they still would not prefer to possess a firearm, and I've met enough of them for me to think that trend of thought is not uncommon. I know of very few women who treats gun rights as civil rights. Even fewer would single-issue vote on gun rights compared to abortion.

dave_cg
12-27-2012, 9:35 PM
I've tried to present this argument sometimes to women, but I feel it has limited appeal. I've heard things like:

-We should deal with societal issues so people are less likely to become criminals, and there would be less of a need for a gun to defend yourself.

-Even if they were in a dangerous situation, they don't think having a gun would help. They feel it may escalate the conflict, or that they are not confident in their ability to wield a gun, or that they don't think they'll be able to point at/shoot another person. There are many reasons why some WOULDN'T want to use a gun.

-Some believe the dangers that widespread firearm access poses outweigh the need to have them to defend yourself. Here's where I usually hear the "lots of people die from gun accidents, many are children" and the "having firearms in the home is more dangerous than any good they will ever do".

I know some women who have personally been assaulted/stalked/nearly kidnapped by people, and they still would not prefer to possess a firearm, and I've met enough of them for me to think that trend of thought is not uncommon. I know of very few women who treats gun rights as civil rights. Even fewer would single-issue vote on gun rights compared to abortion.

So you are saying they have been educated to recite the Brady talking points. I'm not surprised at that. Keep making your points. Think of it the way car companies engage in advertising wars -- if side 'A' plays their message over and over, then side 'B' needs to play their message over and over and over and over -- it's about number and frequency of advertising impressions.

Meplat
12-27-2012, 9:37 PM
This right here. Ideology is my biggest gripe with the Republican party (I'm independent but voted R). They all seem to be about small government and staying out of Joe American's life...except when it comes to Jane; and they think they can tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies based on THEIR ideology. We don't all share that same ideology and it's time they recognize that. And they did answer for it on Nov 6th unfortunately.

Allow me to make some observations on this.

My mother was a schizophrenic. This made my childhood difficult to say the least. My life was hell until I was out on my own. My mother and I never got along.

That said, I must say that there are times in the life of every individual when your continued existence is entirely in the hands of others. When you are very young, when you are very old, and when you are very ill, your life depends entirely on the decisions of others. This is no different than when you are in the womb.

There are questions of whether you are worth keeping alive when you are old or sick; there are questions of whether you are worth keeping alive at other times. Even in light of what I have said about my mother, I would rather the decision be hers than the governments.

A lot of pro life people need to think long and hard about this. This is a family decision; the government has no place in it. If we give the government the right of life or death over a fetus, we give it the same right over the old and sick.

SilverTauron
12-27-2012, 9:48 PM
I've tried to present this argument sometimes to women, but I feel it has limited appeal. I've heard things like:

-We should deal with societal issues so people are less likely to become criminals, and there would be less of a need for a gun to defend yourself.

-Even if they were in a dangerous situation, they don't think having a gun would help. They feel it may escalate the conflict, or that they are not confident in their ability to wield a gun, or that they don't think they'll be able to point at/shoot another person. There are many reasons why some WOULDN'T want to use a gun.

-Some believe the dangers that widespread firearm access poses outweigh the need to have them to defend yourself. Here's where I usually hear the "lots of people die from gun accidents, many are children" and the "having firearms in the home is more dangerous than any good they will ever do".

I know some women who have personally been assaulted/stalked/nearly kidnapped by people, and they still would not prefer to possess a firearm, and I've met enough of them for me to think that trend of thought is not uncommon. I know of very few women who treats gun rights as civil rights. Even fewer would single-issue vote on gun rights compared to abortion.

Here's the point on this:most women who have that attitude have been around people who they wouldn't trust with a potato gun.

A telling comment came from an ex gf of mine. When I dated her I carried regularly, and due to logistical circumstances I had to make her aware of my CCW status on the first night out. Two weeks later the topic of responsible gun safety came up, and she said at first she believed I was a show-off yahoo trying to play gunslinger. 14 days of responsible gun ownership later showed her that someone could own a gun and not wave it around or be an irresponsible moron.

From what I gather based on her and other women I've met and known, they consider firearms to be a tool much too powerful for our irresponsible society. Some of them have been around dim bulb guys who pulled out weapons and acted stupid to impress them ; everyone who has a gun is an ambassador for us for better or worse, and a lot of nitwits out there own hardware without the faintest idea of the 4 rules. The combination of horny guys and guns has created more anti rights voters then any politician. I personally know one chick who had a gun pointed at her head by a high school Rambo who thought he was the thug boss. She's a hard core anti today and I can't say its a surprise why.

Women who've grown up with responsible backgrounds in gun ownership don't share this opinion, but with families nowadays being divorced/ split this is a rare situation. If all a chick sees of gun ownership is idiocy and negligence, she'll think the media's right when the categorize us all as criminals waiting to happen.

Extra411
12-27-2012, 11:07 PM
SilverTauron:

I think you are very correct in your observation; now that you mentioned it, I've also remembered many women who are antis have told me how people they know are irresponsible gun owners. Many are very surprised when I tell them I buy ammo in bulk, as apparently many gun owners they know don't even practice shooting, and only own a gun because it makes them "feel better".

Gray Peterson
12-27-2012, 11:17 PM
Sounds like you are justifying a personal choice to be anti-civil liberties based on likeability of those who fight for those civil liberties.

Should abused women in third world country have "white man friendly" bulletin boards in order to attract broader support for their case? Should LGBT modify their message in order to appeal to "mainstream men?"

As a result of modifying of several different messages to appeal to "mainstream men", marriage for same sex couples by passed by statewide initiative/referenda in three states (Washington State, Maryland, and Maine).

Like-ability has a lot to do with perception of civil rights battles in a political & legislative arena.

Nyanman
12-27-2012, 11:18 PM
So, how do we influence these women and thus influence the polls and thus influence the elections? If a majority of women don't support the 2A, it's the greatest threat.


Seeing as I am not a woman, I wouldn't know.
Personally, I would pose this question just to the lady Calgunners, since their input would be more..beneficial and relevant.

I don't live in LA, so asking me about things in LA isn't going to be of any help to you. I'm not a soccer mom, I wouldn't begin to know how to change their opinions. I'm not female, so asking me what being a woman is like would get you nothing but guesses. Instead, it would be better to pose these questions to people who may best be able to answer them.

nicki
12-28-2012, 2:07 AM
Women's views on guns are changing, the problem sadly is many gun owners and gun shop dealers.

While the shooting sports do tend to be a boy's club, unlike other boy's clubs, women generally are welcome.

The problem is many women automatically assume we are like the "country clubs" where male businessmen keep women out.

I run a Pink Pistols chapter in San Jose, overall I would estimate that about 40 percent of the people who show up at my shoots are female. On my meetup group, even though we are a LBGT gun group, open minded straights are welcome and probably 30 percent of my members fall into that group.

The reality is most women are clueless about firearms, once they get some hands on, we can at least get their ear.

I use a 22 cal pistol and a .22cal AR to start with. The .22cal AR is popular and when funds permit, I will get another one with a 16 inch barrel and collapsable stock.

The .22 versions of the ARs are our friends because they open the door that our "ergonomic rifles" are not so "evil".

When we spend time, we can talk them. Women do seek safety and can be misled by fear tactics. However once they realize they have been lied to, they are like pit bulls.

When women realize that anti rights forces are using the guise of protecting their children to steal their children's future, the women will turn on them.

How we make that case is something I and others are working on.

Nicki

Funtimes
12-28-2012, 3:18 AM
Sandy Froman ran the NRA as its president. Posts like many here are counter to including women.

Having fun with guns, shooting, blowing things up, and hanging around good honest people - who are not *******s is what I have seen bringing women into shooting. Explaining self-defense and promoting empowerment are what we do here.

Probably 30% of my classes or more are females. I've never had one leave unhappy or not looking forward to shooting with me again.

IVC
12-28-2012, 7:40 AM
Like-ability has a lot to do with perception of civil rights battles in a political & legislative arena.

Civil rights exist independently from the political arena. The lack of likeability cannot be used as an excuse to be against civil rights for someone who allegedly supports all civil rights.

This thread is about reaching out to women in order to get support for the civil rights aspect of 2A. I find it offensive that we as a community are taking it for granted that it is acceptable for most women NOT to support civil rights just because they don't like the messenger, or because they might not like the civil right in question. Can't we just call it what it is - a bigotry?

After all, I couldn't say with any legitimacy something along the lines: "I don't support women's rights in the Middle East because I think Hillary is an angry woman. Unless she changes, I won't support women's rights." However, this is the kind of "pass" we condone by discussing "reaching out to women" as a means to gain support for a civil right.

glbtrottr
12-28-2012, 11:10 AM
Unless we learn to understand what drives the other 50% of the electorate and why, we Second Amendment supporters will not become able to enlist large-scale support from female voters in America.

I live with 3 women. I have for years.
I don't understand them. I doubt I ever will. I think I have a good idea as to some of their thought process, but learning to understand them is a lost cause and completely unnecessary for the goal at hand.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8444/7984815150_4ace26617c_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/7984815150/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/7984815150/) by borinajm (http://www.flickr.com/people/32271230@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8081/8319401424_73c770d0ec_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/8319401424/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/8319401424/) by borinajm (http://www.flickr.com/people/32271230@N08/), on Flickr

Yup, I guess they know how to shoot a little as well.

Ideology seems to have biological roots.

Culture and history also play a role.

American women have a largely skewed sense of reality colored by entitlement and with a stronger anti-male foundation. No other culture is more anti-male than the United States of America. From any angle you want to view it, from the amount of money that you see spent on breast cancer versus prostate cancer, from the amount of organizations that focus on women's issues versus men, on and on...this is simply a pro-woman society with men largely marginalized.

Lakoff's linguistic research can teach all of us a lot--men and women--about ourselves.

Lakoff is a sycophant, a moron, an idiot, a fake, and a condescending puke. Sophistry at its finest.

http://www.tcg.org/events/conference/2005/lakoff.jpg

While there's no doubt that men and women's wiring is fundamentally different, and it doesn't take a genius to figure it out, Lakoff makes some ridiculous assertions comparing conservatives versus liberals (whom he refers to as "progressives") that are downright polarizing. He's nothing more than an academically trained hypocrite who panders to democrats for money, going so far as to bring his "little blue book" (comparable to Mao's little red book) into the conversation and talking about Global Warming, a topic he is completely unqualified to know squat about.

Consider the comparisons he makes:

http://cdn.pjmedia.com/zombie/files/2012/07/lakoffs_paradox.jpg

So let me get this straight: Conservative parents have no morals, are deceptive, puritanical and have selfish politics? Shoot, I'm not a conservative parent, but if I was, I'd want to shoot myself in the head with an assault rifle!

This is just one area we need to map out and figure out if we are going to succeed in enlisting the Second Amendment support of female voters in America.

Surely. Put your money where your mouth is. You don't enlist women by "listening to them". You actively engage them. Women don't subscribe to sissy little men who "listen to them" but rather to men who lead in whatever pursuit they indulge in, and bring them into his world.

Here are the girls spending quality time with some guy named Colonel Grossman. They enlist each of their friends in 2A conversations. Yes, I hate my dopey picture; bad hair day. Only sharing it to make the point.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8504/8319371164_f5ab250cc1_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/8319371164/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/8319371164/) by borinajm (http://www.flickr.com/people/32271230@N08/), on Flickr

They make their own firearms to shoot...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8495/8319398684_3fa43b2cd2_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/8319398684/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/8319398684/) by borinajm (http://www.flickr.com/people/32271230@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8435/7984827867_1f949f625b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/7984827867/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/32271230@N08/7984827867/) by borinajm (http://www.flickr.com/people/32271230@N08/), on Flickr

And they cook and clean to boot while holding full time jobs.

It might sound like a trite, sexist cliche, but ask any woman: How you talk about something matters a lot.

Snore.

Regardless of "how" you talk to women, the conversation is immaterial. They are bombarded with pop psychology and easy fixes, rather than righteousness and higher values.

Place them in a position to make difficult choices, and their own brains bombard them with analysis paralysis, too many choices, fear of failure, all combined with the very nurturing Lakoff likes to capitalize on.

Women aren't stupid. In fact, they graduate from college more often statistically than men do, as a single indicator of accomplishment or intelligence; one of my favorite cases to discuss with them is Warren versus DC - a curious line to discuss:

" For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse."

What would SHE do?

That generally is an interesting discussion point about "waiting for the police", "banning guns", protecting one self and more.

The finding of the court?

"Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed."

Conclusion?

"police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection"

What would SHE do?

The more important decision, the Supreme Court case Castle Rock vs Gonzales, has a woman who sued the Police for failure to enforce a restraining order, resulting in the murder of her 3 children by her estranged husband. The court held that the police had no duty to protect them.

There is a wonderful moment that takes place when women who listen with an open mind, faced with these rulings and accept their existence, ask the question: what then, is the job of the Police?

Equally important is how you listen: You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation (http://www.amazon.com/You-Just-Dont-Understand-Conversation/dp/0060959622).

Let me know how those listening classes go, ok?

There is a lot of homework to do.....

You bet. The US Marine Corps teaches masculinity classes; the downside is you have to sign a 4 year contract.

It is no coincidence that Lakoff, author of Moral Politics (http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics-Liberals-Conservatives-Think/dp/0226467716/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356664909&sr=1-1&keywords=moral+politics) and Democrat, is trying to figure out how to package the Democrat message...We need to learn how to do what he advises the Democrat party to do

Who cares about the democratic message? Why play into their stupid tune? Play your own message: the government is here to protect itself, not you. Do your best to take care of yourself and your loved ones, and protest people charging you money for services they simply don't provide you.

The Democrats seem to know how to speak the language of the vast majority of female voters in America.

The democrats cater to everything that is wrong with this culture, along with the destruction of the fabric of this country, the subjugation of traditional values, the dislike of anything that doesn't agree with them, outright discrimination of thought with conviction, hateful practices against anyone that isn't all accepting.

Individuality and conviction is entirely looked down upon by Democrats. Anyone speaking in disagreement and with conviction must be ridiculed.

Enjoy your trip down democrat worship lane....

wildhawker
12-28-2012, 11:25 AM
Ignoring tactics that work make quick work of losing.

-Brandon

IVC
12-28-2012, 12:07 PM
Ignoring tactics that work make quick work of losing.

There are multiple simultaneous battles with multiple disparate tactics. Some battles are more critical to winning the war than others.

wildhawker
12-28-2012, 12:15 PM
There are multiple simultaneous battles with multiple disparate tactics. Some battles are more critical to winning the war than others.

If anyone thinks we can ignore Gen Y, women, and minorities and win, please mail whatever you're smoking to 751 Laurel Street Suite 935, San Carlos, CA 94070.

-Brandon

IVC
12-28-2012, 12:38 PM
If anyone thinks we can ignore Gen Y, women, and minorities and win, please mail whatever you're smoking to 751 Laurel Street Suite 935, San Carlos, CA 94070.

We need them for enforcing our civil rights as much as African Americans needed the support of the Southern Democrats to end segregation.

If they go along, it helps. If they don't go along, it's still civil rights. Believing that we need some sort of "majority consensus" for establishing civil rights is contradictory to the very definition of a civil right.

kaligaran
12-28-2012, 12:47 PM
This thread is so full of fail it's not even funny.

Have any of you 'men' ever considered that perhaps a lot of the gender bias may be created by men?

Think about it. Do you take your daughters, sisters or mothers out shooting, hunting or camping? What about your sons/dads/brothers? Do you actively try to get them involved in outdoor activities? Especially from a young age.

Growing up in Tennessee females were more active in outdoor and shooting sports. Because that was part of the culture.

My father involved me in all activities when I was a child. I was treated no differently than a son. As a result, I didn't grow up with the gender bias that most young girls do.
I believe that as a direct result, I started shooting competitively when I was 12 or 13 in a school skeet team, I am an engineer by trade (another predominately male profession) and am a proud gun owner and 2A advocate.

A lot of this is nurture, NOT nature. And I assure you that the thinking and posts in this thread is what contributes to it significantly.

EDIT: I should also mention the school skeet team I was a part of was a GIRLS ONLY private school who competed against co-ed (read male mostly) schools in the county. And we had some of the highest scores consistently in the county.

wildhawker
12-28-2012, 1:05 PM
We need them for enforcing our civil rights as much as African Americans needed the support of the Southern Democrats to end segregation.

If they go along, it helps. If they don't go along, it's still civil rights. Believing that we need some sort of "majority consensus" for establishing civil rights is contradictory to the very definition of a civil right.

Right...

Boy, that ideological purity is sure working wonderfully in the real world for... Wait. That's right. It's not.

We're going to win some core issues in the courts. We're going to have to develop a new culture and consensus for the rest of it. You won't like what you're left with if all you have is the former.

-Brandon

IVC
12-28-2012, 1:21 PM
Boy, that ideological purity is sure working wonderfully in the real world for... Wait. That's right. It's not.

We're going to win some core issues in the courts. We're going to have to develop a new culture and consensus for the rest of it. You won't like what you're left with if all you have is the former.

It's not "ideological purity," it's only establishing the starting positions. I am all for outreach and having everybody start loving and understanding gun owners, just that in case they don't (because we are not "nice people"), the facts are still on our side.

As for the "culture and consensus," it's applicable only to the aspects that are NOT part of the core right. A "carry" ruling for our side and striking down a single AWB is pretty much all we need to avoid future drama. If we can get that through courts, I can do without a group hug.

kaligaran
12-28-2012, 1:23 PM
Do a quick google search, female gun ownership, you'll find things like this:
http://statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
Source: Gallup Inc, Gun Owners of America
male gun ownership 43%
female gun ownership 35%

That's not much of a difference.

But I would say that as a woman (ya know with a vagina), listening to the misogynistic bull**** in this thread would really turn me off of supporting calguns if I was just borderline on the issue. Lucky, I realize the ignorance being spewed here is just by people that don't know any better.

Think before posting and contributing to the ignorance. No wonder the NRA has a reputation of being a 'boys club'.

Also, get the females in your life more involved ESPECIALLY from a young age. Break this cycle of 'male-dominated' anything. It's all about the culture, don't contribute to it.
And luckily that culture is finally changing as gender roles/stereotypes are being challenged.

And thank you Brandon for being a male voice of reason in this thread. We need more people like you to call out the foolishness.

OHOD
12-28-2012, 1:25 PM
I agree with you completely, but we're talking about WOMEN here. Women aren't exactly known for rational, logical thinking, especially when it comes to little children, ponies, their vaginas and the aftermaths of school shootings. Didn't a considerable amount of women vote for Obama also? Women operate on emotion and that's why they'll never be on board with pro-2A folk even if you spell it out for them.

GUNS ARE SCARY!!!!!1111:eek:

Asshule of a comment.

I'm a woman and I support 2A.

OHOD
12-28-2012, 1:30 PM
Garbage thread!
Apparently there's an intelligence gap in the the community too!
IBTL

About time someone said something.

This thread is full of anti-woman hate.
Which is one of the reasons I have been backing off from participating.

Californio
12-28-2012, 1:35 PM
My wife asked her tennis buddies, who voted democrat, why? The main answer was reproduction and their personal control of themselves, not the economy, not social issues, not gun control.

The republican party needs to get out of their Vagina, to start the ball rolling in the right direction.

IVC
12-28-2012, 1:47 PM
Also, get the females in your life more involved ESPECIALLY from a young age. Break this cycle of 'male-dominated' anything. It's all about the culture, don't contribute to it.
And luckily that culture is finally changing as gender roles/stereotypes are being challenged.

Part of equality is for women to take the leadership role and get more involved instead of asking men to get them move involved. Your statement implies certain gender inequality which is sexist.

kaligaran
12-28-2012, 1:50 PM
Part of equality is for women to take the leadership role and get more involved instead of asking men to get them move involved. Your statement implies certain gender inequality which is sexist.

Really? Getting children involved is about female leadership?

Perhaps you missed the part about 'ESPECIALLY AT A YOUNG AGE'.

Wow... just wow...

EDIT: remember, the topic is about gender bias right now. How bout help break the bias. All pro-2A women I know that have children take daughters shooting. I can't say the same for all the men I know that have daughters.

kaligaran
12-28-2012, 1:55 PM
That's it. I can't follow this thread anymore. The ignorance here is too blinding and I don't need my blood pressure to be any higher.

From a fellow female calgunner, it takes all of us to change the stereotypes.

If you refuse to help, you're part of the problem.

Gray Peterson
12-28-2012, 2:03 PM
That's it. I can't follow this thread anymore. The ignorance here is too blinding and I don't need my blood pressure to be any higher.

From a fellow female calgunner, it takes all of us to change the stereotypes.

If you refuse to help, you're part of the problem.

Tone deafness is what I call it.

IVC
12-28-2012, 2:13 PM
Really? Getting children involved is about female leadership?

As much about female leadership as it is about male leadership.

Mothers can take kids to the range too, no?

IVC
12-28-2012, 2:14 PM
Tone deafness is what I call it.

In a society where people are equal, tone deafness swings both ways.

Gray Peterson
12-28-2012, 2:35 PM
In a society where people are equal, tone deafness swings both ways.

David Gregory proved that wrong.

Trenchfoot
12-28-2012, 2:36 PM
As much about female leadership as it is about male leadership.

Mothers can take kids to the range too, no?

If we accept the fact that men are more active in the shooting community, then it stands to reason, that a child's father would be the one more likely to take them shooting. That's not to say women shooters shouldn't be the ones to take kids to the range, but in most of the families I know, Dad is the shooter.

Look at it this way. I have never been to a NASCAR race. Who is more likely to invite me to go with them to a race, my black friends, hispanic friends, asian friends or white friends? In order to grow their market, NASCAR is actively out pursuing women and minorities to get involved either as a participant or a fan. They didn't just say, "Well, if they don't want to be a part of NASCAR, eff 'em, we're not going to reach out to them.".

IVC
12-28-2012, 2:46 PM
David Gregory proved that wrong.

Maybe. Time will tell...

Californio
12-28-2012, 2:52 PM
David Gregory proved that wrong.

But the next person that gets popped is going to have the David Gregory Defense.

IVC
12-28-2012, 3:01 PM
Look at it this way. I have never been to a NASCAR race. Who is more likely to invite me to go with them to a race, my black friends, hispanic friends, asian friends or white friends? In order to grow their market, NASCAR is actively out pursuing women and minorities to get involved either as a participant or a fan. They didn't just say, "Well, if they don't want to be a part of NASCAR, eff 'em, we're not going to reach out to them.".

Those who don't watch NASCAR are not actively trying to ban it. NASCAR is not a civil right.

The analogy is good for the entertainment and sports aspect of shooting, but we are discussing the "other" side of gun ownership, the side that ain't about deer huntin' and plinkin'.

Tarn_Helm
12-28-2012, 3:10 PM
I live with 3 women. I have for years.
I don't understand them. I doubt I ever will. I think I have a good idea as to some of their thought process, but learning to understand them is a lost cause and completely unnecessary for the goal at hand.

. . .

Individuality and conviction is entirely looked down upon by Democrats. Anyone speaking in disagreement and with conviction must be ridiculed.

Enjoy your trip down democrat worship lane....

Um.

Where do I start?

Maybe I should point out what I did not say (or mean).

I am not a Democrat.

I do not vote Democrat.

I do not like Lakoff or his politics or his tactics.

(Any more than I "like" Saul Alinsky.)

I do understand his work and his little games.

I do, however, look everywhere for insight into ways to commmunicate our important message more effectively.

If we continue to package our message the same way, we will continue to get the same response.

That's all I meant by what I posted.

Most of the other belligerent stuff you posted will receive the response it deserves: [Crickets].

Real men don't brag about how the Marines turned them into real men.

They were real men before entering.

You did learn the importance of studying your enemy's tactics at some stage of your training, right? (Or is that not taught anymore?)

Let's take a deep breath.

Remember the golden rule?

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

There's a variant on it that many of us here need to meditate well on.

"Know thy enemy as thyself."

Verbum sit sapientiae satis est.

You and I are on the same side.

(I think.)

Trenchfoot
12-28-2012, 4:03 PM
Those who don't watch NASCAR are not actively trying to ban it. NASCAR is not a civil right.

The analogy is good for the entertainment and sports aspect of shooting, but we are discussing the "other" side of gun ownership, the side that ain't about deer huntin' and plinkin'.

What I believe you are basically saying is that all Americans should be pro 2A with little restrictions, because it's in the Constitution, and it is their right. (correct me if I am wrong) I agree, but I think you are missing what I am saying.

What I am saying is that people defend things that they think affect them. There are non gun owners out there that don't have a strong opinion either way on gun control because they don't think it affects them as non gun owners. The goal is to get to those people and show them that it does affect them. And the best way is to get them involved.

In the same way, the 14th Amendment is clear on birthright citizenship, but there are 93 GOP members that want to strip citizenship away from people who were born and lived their whole lives in the US, based on the fact that their parents came here illegally. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1868/show

Now why isn't there the same outrage among gun owners about this affront to the Constitution? Because only 27% of gun owners are asian or latino, the two groups with the highest percentage of illegal immigration in the US. Most of us probably don't have any illegal immigrants in our immediate families, so our "birthright" wouldn't be denied.

tl:dr,
We need to show on-the-fence people that even though they may not own guns, the 2A still ensures their pursuit of the American dream. We shouldn't deride them for not caring, we need to show them that they should care.

Fundamentals
12-28-2012, 4:11 PM
I come from the other side. I found my grandfather's pistol one time when I was young. I asked him if he could teach me to use it. His response was along the lines of, "Women don't do those things." Now, I am making up for lost time.

It is not just that aspect of it though, it is the whole encompassing culture that still drives many socialization events in childhood. You think boys have it bad when they play fight on the school grounds and get caught? Try growing up as a tomboy. Any masculine traits I had were constantly under assault to be suppressed by the adults around me. I was supposed to be playing with dolls or socializing with other girls, not acting as a block in tackle football or horsing around with the boys. Not to mention the constant parade of "calming" colored clothes, such as pastels.

The girls who are raised by flexible parents are very lucky indeed. They are not forced into gender roles. The rest of us who are pushed into molds from day one, have to fight tooth and nail to not believe any of that mess. It took me years to realize that violence is a part of life, and that it is okay to have the aggressive urges that I have, as long as I have an outlet that will not hurt my fellow man unless he threatens my prosperity and safety.

Tldr; raise your daughters differently. Educate your nieces, your cousins, your grandchildren. Do not let them be pushed into the stereotypes. We women have over 200 different hormones, including testosterone - help us grow to our full potential.

AlexDD
12-28-2012, 4:15 PM
Why don't we piss off all the women, that way with the leftover non gun males they can repeal the second amendment. Though not likely, can we just stop.

We should be doing every thing in collective our power to bring democrats and women to the 2A side.

That NRA newsmax article said basically that 64% of democrats and 60% of non gun owners do not see the NRA in a positive light.

That doesn't give the warm and fuzzies no matter how many republicans feel differently. I would love to know the stats on women for the same survey.

Let's stop alienating others we want to draw to our side.

Also, I bet there will be more women put on the supreme court also!!

Trenchfoot
12-28-2012, 4:38 PM
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

Just a few stats on gun ownership.

SilverTauron
12-28-2012, 4:43 PM
Lets set aside the macho BS and get back to basics here.

Bottom line, women are the future voting power in America no matter what our individual thoughts are on Misandry vs Misogyny. If we don't want to see our Constitutional rights voted into the landfill of history, we need to get them to LIKE the 2A.

Step 1, we need to be responsible gun owners. Joe Dirt is out there, and he'll show off his brother's .50 AE Desert Eagle to the girls he knows if he feels like it, finger on the trigger and 4 rules be damned. We can't afford to be in the 2nd Amendment closet-tell people you carry, and then never show the gun to anyone. When your at the range, be the safest shooter you can be. You'll change minds without ever knowing it.

Step 2, leave your ego at the door. That goes for guys and girls. Guys need to quit acting like being male equates to shooting ability, and women need to put aside cultural baggage that says guns are tools of violence and male aggression. It takes two to tango, as the saying goes.

Step 3, we need to get the Democratic Party to accept the 2nd Amendment as a creed. I say this realizing its a pipe dream to rival faster then light space travel, but our rights are going nowhere fast with the GOP as its champion. Like it or not our country's political trend is turning left with every election;and the GOP is a sinking ship, a political Titanic in progress. I don't say this lightly-I am a registered Republican-but the leadership of the GOP is stuck in the 1950s. Unless they become a centrist-liberal party with a quickness, they'll be sent to the dustbin of history-and so will the RKBA if its tied to the GOP. California is a great example of this sad situation;since the RKBA is foreign to the Democrats in CA politics, the entire civil right has been marginalized from state politics. The same thing will take place nationally so long as the GOP is the only electable party championing the 2nd Amendment.

SPROCKET
12-28-2012, 4:46 PM
If anyone thinks we can ignore Gen Y, women, and minorities and win, please mail whatever you're smoking to 751 Laurel Street Suite 935, San Carlos, CA 94070.

-Brandon

This.

If we want to preserve our rights in the long term, we need to reach out to these groups. Long term, I'm less concerned about Dianne Feinstien than I am about misogynist, homophobic, racist gun owners. They will ensure this is the last generation of gun owners in this country. It's a numbers game, and angry old white people are dying out. It would be nice if they didn't poison things for the rest of us before they kick the bucket.

glbtrottr
12-28-2012, 4:54 PM
What I fail to understand is this devotion to somehow try to cater to women whose fundamental common sense is completely flawed.

There are some fabulous American women. As a voting block, they simply generally make my head spin.

The time to get them to have a proper set of values and interested in our community was a long time ago; not at the last minute when Obama and Feinstein are using the constitution an particularly the second amendment to light up a doobie and toke up or wipe their keester after a multimillion dollar White House dinner with foreign donors.

Any work to cater to women and change the message requires a bit more Effort . Overcoming the fearful, reactive emotional stereotype of guns in women, which in many of them is so ingrained with the thought of violence and machismo, isn't an easy effort akin to a band aid.

The rabid tone of some women on Calguns who somehow want the pro 2a to bend over backwards even more and somehow change or conceal the nature of the very gun owners who are their fathers, uncles, brothers, children, and friends is just ridiculous.

Most women in the coastline states don't get it, and no amount of work for them to get it will ensure they will.



So much of their worship for Barack is greater than the single point issue of 2a. The environment, saving the children, saving the whales, women's rights, how cool and handsome Barack is, education, birth control and Obamacare, the oppression of religion, equal work for equal pay, blah blah blah.

If they haven't voted with good reason by now, it takes quite a bit of work to get to vote your way- and they aren't going to anytime soon.

glbtrottr
12-28-2012, 5:09 PM
What I fail to understand is this devotion to somehow try to cater to women whose fundamental common sense is completely flawed.

There are some fabulous American women. As a voting block, they simply generally make my head spin.

The time to get them to have a proper set of values and interested in our community was a long time ago; not at the last minute when Obama and Feinstein are using the constitution an particularly the second amendment to light up a doobie and toke up or wipe their keester after a multimillion dollar White House dinner with foreign donors.

Any work to cater to women and change the message requires a bit more Effort . Overcoming the fearful, reactive emotional stereotype of guns in women, which in many of them is so ingrained with the thought of violence and machismo, isn't an easy effort akin to a band aid.

The rabid tone of some women on Calguns who somehow want the pro 2a to bend over backwards even more and somehow change or conceal the nature of the very gun owners who are their fathers, uncles, brothers, children, and friends is just ridiculous.

Most women in the coastline states don't get it, and no amount of work for them to get it will ensure they will.



So much of their worship for Barack is greater than the single point issue of 2a. The environment, saving the children, saving the whales, women's rights, how cool and handsome Barack is, education, birth control and Obamacare, the oppression of religion, equal work for equal pay, blah blah blah.

If they haven't voted with good reason by now, it takes quite a bit of work to get to vote your way- and they aren't going to anytime soon.

Trenchfoot
12-28-2012, 5:25 PM
http://www.troll.me/images2/john-boehner/the-gop-needs-a-bigger-tent-lets-focus-on-gay-marriage-immigration-and-abortion.jpg

SilverTauron
12-28-2012, 5:45 PM
What I fail to understand is this devotion to somehow try to cater to women whose fundamental common sense is completely flawed.

.

Here's a clue Sherlock; unless we cater to women and former minorities, the 2nd Amendment is dead in 20 years. Period.




There are some fabulous American women. As a voting block, they simply generally make my head spin.

The time to get them to have a proper set of values and interested in our community was a long time ago; not at the last minute when Obama and Feinstein are using the constitution an particularly the second amendment to light up a doobie and toke up or wipe their keester after a multimillion dollar White House dinner with foreign donors..

And how did our current esteemed leadership ascend to office? Armed takeover? Political intrigue? Crooked electoral college? Villainous plot to poison the water supply?

NEIN. These people are in office because they were CHOSEN by the very people who you claim have no common sense. The point is that unless we make guns an appealing political topic to women and ethnic minorities, the anti's win. All they have to do to claim victory is wait.




Any work to cater to women and change the message requires a bit more Effort . Overcoming the fearful, reactive emotional stereotype of guns in women, which in many of them is so ingrained with the thought of violence and machismo, isn't an easy effort akin to a band aid.
.

Neither is overcoming fearful and reactive stereotypes of guns in men, some of whom drink tall glasses of frothy coffee and think that all who own and use firearms are criminals. That effort is in my estimation harder. A young woman sees the utility of a firearm rather quickly if a threat to her life is presented. I personally knew a rabid anti-gun feminist who asked if I "brought my Glock" when we made a wrong turn down Ghetto Blvd in her truck. A man who's raised in the anti-gun dogma will consider it a moral imperative to oppose legal gun ownership, with the idea that any self defense problem he's likely to encounter can be solved with fists.



The rabid tone of some women on Calguns who somehow want the pro 2a to bend over backwards even more and somehow change or conceal the nature of the very gun owners who are their fathers, uncles, brothers, children, and friends is just ridiculous.
.


Either the 2nd Amendment "bends over backwards" in consideration of the population changes in America, or it bites the dust.

Most women in the coastline states don't get it, and no amount of work for them to get it will ensure they will..

"Get busy livin, or get busy dyin."

-Shawshank Redemption.



So much of their worship for Barack is greater than the single point issue of 2a. The environment, saving the children, saving the whales, women's rights, how cool and handsome Barack is, education, birth control and Obamacare, the oppression of religion, equal work for equal pay, blah blah blah.

If they haven't voted with good reason by now, it takes quite a bit of work to get to vote your way- and they aren't going to anytime soon.

You know why they "worship" Barrack? Because he told them he's not going to order the Feds to order women what to do with their genitals.

I'll bet you'd worship him too if he promised to shut down the ATF and abolish may-issue CCW. What those issues are to us gun owners, that's the import of gender rights to women. I'm not asking you to like that, but I am asking you to face reality. There are more women voters then gun owners-and unless we start merging the two categories with a sense of urgency, the women will eliminate gun ownership at the polls for lack of an education.

And you know who we'll have to blame for that ? Not the Feds, not Feinstein, not George Soros or the Supreme Court. US. We , the gun owners of America, will have handed the anti's the rope they'll use to hang us.

glbtrottr
12-28-2012, 6:03 PM
Silver,

I agree with most of your post, but you're blurring a hugely important distinction - Barack wasn't elected because of his burning desire to destroy 2nd amendment rights - women voted for him for the reasons you state, but convincing them of the importance of them will amount to a blip in the voting radar.

My point is that it will take impossibly long to convince women as an electorate of the stupidity of their choices as a voting block. They were sold a bill of goods much bigger than 2a issues, and all the Glocks in their pockets isn't going to change the outcome of this election.

Attempting to convince them to stem the oncoming attempt to ban firearms lends a little too short a runway.

Every woman I talk to (and I talk to a couple) I get to a 2a conversation at some point. My point isn't to give up on the topic but rAther that it is not a small, band aid, platitudinal effort but something that requires much more than a casual conversation

wildhawker
12-28-2012, 6:14 PM
Rights that are not exercised are lost. Rights that are not adopted are not exercised. Rights that are perceived to be a threat or antithetical to one's values are not adopted.

-Brandon

Trenchfoot
12-28-2012, 6:28 PM
Silver,

I agree with most of your post, but you're blurring a hugely important distinction - Barack wasn't elected because of his burning desire to destroy 2nd amendment rights - women voted for him for the reasons you state, but convincing them of the importance of them will amount to a blip in the voting radar.

My point is that it will take impossibly long to convince women as an electorate of the stupidity of their choices as a voting block. They were sold a bill of goods much bigger than 2a issues, and all the Glocks in their pockets isn't going to change the outcome of this election.

Attempting to convince them to stem the oncoming attempt to ban firearms lends a little too short a runway.

Every woman I talk to (and I talk to a couple) I get to a 2a conversation at some point. My point isn't to give up on the topic but rAther that it is not a small, band aid, platitudinal effort but something that requires much more than a casual conversation

So, you agree that many women vote against the GOP because of issues important to them, and then call them stupid for doing so in the same post? Any open minds to your viewpoint will end up closing if that is the mindset you go into the conversation with.

How dare they place not wanting to be forced to carry a rapist's baby above your right to bear arms!

If you are going to blame anyone, blame the GOP for making the decision to move farther to the right on social issues after getting beaten in 2008, and blame the Dems for crusading for pretty much every civil right but the 2A.

kcbrown
12-28-2012, 7:43 PM
Now your on to something Marthor!

Remember when you were a kid dating and you had to meet the girls family.

Well my dad taught me something early on. He told me not to worry about the dad, just be real nice to the mom. If you win her over, the ol' man will fall into place. He was right.

I think the right woman, being a spokesperson for the NRA would do us a lot of good right now. The sooner, the better.

Suzanna Gratia Hupp as the new head and/or spokesperson of the NRA. :43:

wildhawker
12-28-2012, 7:49 PM
Suzanna Gratia Hupp as the new head and/or spokesperson of the NRA. :43:

THAT is an idea worth exploring.

-Brandon

IVC
12-28-2012, 7:50 PM
What I believe you are basically saying is that all Americans should be pro 2A with little restrictions, because it's in the Constitution, and it is their right. (correct me if I am wrong) I agree, but I think you are missing what I am saying.

Very close. What I am saying is that those who OPPOSE 2A even though it's in the BoR and try to justify it by saying they don't like the messenger or the people who are pro-2A, are no different than people who oppose ANY OTHER civil right and don't justify it at all.

Somebody who is for segregation because he hates black people is no different than someone who is against 2A because they think NRA is not friendly enough. The reason for being a bigot is irrelevant in this discussion, yet we are trying to appease the latter while disparaging without question the former.

My position is that those who are against civil rights deserve to be labeled as such and not get any benefit of the doubt, regardless of their stated cause. Should we start making exceptions for anti-civil liberties people, we will end up either declaring that 2A is a substandard civil right, or that it is acceptable to violate civil rights as long as there is a "good reason." I find both of these positions unacceptable and I am not apologetic about it.

IVC
12-28-2012, 7:58 PM
Rights that are not exercised are lost. Rights that are not adopted are not exercised. Rights that are perceived to be a threat or antithetical to one's values are not adopted.

That's why these days we fight for *concealed* carry as opposed to open carry. It alleviates the problem of being antithetical to local moral norms while allowing people to make very personal choices about their own safety.

The most important aspect of the right to exercise 2A is that it will not be "visible" to those who have strong moral or ethical opposition, while allowing full effectiveness to those who choose to protect themselves. In this case we have a proper win-win possibility as long as we can get a single positive "carry" decision from the Supreme Court.

SilverTauron
12-28-2012, 8:27 PM
Very close. What I am saying is that those who OPPOSE 2A even though it's in the BoR and try to justify it by saying they don't like the messenger or the people who are pro-2A, are no different than people who oppose ANY OTHER civil right and don't justify it at all.

Somebody who is for segregation because he hates black people is no different than someone who is against 2A because they think NRA is not friendly enough. The reason for being a bigot is irrelevant in this discussion, yet we are trying to appease the latter while disparaging without question the former.

My position is that those who are against civil rights deserve to be labeled as such and not get any benefit of the doubt, regardless of their stated cause. Should we start making exceptions for anti-civil liberties people, we will end up either declaring that 2A is a substandard civil right, or that it is acceptable to violate civil rights as long as there is a "good reason." I find both of these positions unacceptable and I am not apologetic about it.

Semantics.

The problem we face is simple. Our society does not value its own civil rights, otherwise this very forum would be unnecessary. As such choosing to support an elected official always involves choosing one right over another, in nearly every case. By voting for Romney I prioritized the RKBA over the right of a woman to choose the affairs of her own body. Much like the government doesn't have a right to tell me I can't use a gun to defend myself, it also doesn't have a right to tell a woman whether or not she's going to have a kid.

Just like gun owners have a right to keep and bear arms no matter what D.C. says, every woman is the final arbiter of whether or not she's going to carry a pregnancy to term no matter what D.C. or the State says.

By your impossible standard, I and every gun owner who voted for Romney are thus opposed to ALL civil rights. Every issue is a calculus; to me gun rights are more important then abortion issues. Being a man that's an easy choice for me to make because if I knock up a girl the choice is not mine to make. For a woman , the odds of her having sex are exponentially higher then ever needing to shoot someone in self defense. With that statistical basis in mind its logical to prioritize gender issues over gun rights, especially when you consider there's a greater number of women who don't own weapons compared to men.

Unless we make gun rights a palatable issue for women and the left , we're screwed.

wildhawker
12-28-2012, 8:34 PM
We fight for *carry*. It happens that the State of California has pre-elected the manner by operation of its Penal Codes. So have most other states (except IL, which soon will).

Personally, I'd rather have the option to choose open or concealed carry depending on things like weather, location, circumstances, etc.

-Brandon

That's why these days we fight for *concealed* carry as opposed to open carry. It alleviates the problem of being antithetical to local moral norms while allowing people to make very personal choices about their own safety.

The most important aspect of the right to exercise 2A is that it will not be "visible" to those who have strong moral or ethical opposition, while allowing full effectiveness to those who choose to protect themselves. In this case we have a proper win-win possibility as long as we can get a single positive "carry" decision from the Supreme Court.

kcbrown
12-28-2012, 9:05 PM
We need them for enforcing our civil rights as much as African Americans needed the support of the Southern Democrats to end segregation.


I hate to break it to you, but the reason the African Americans ended up winning their civil rights in spite of lack of support of Southern Democrats is that they had the media on their side. Let that sink in.

We do not have that advantage. Quite the opposite: the media is against us.

That means we must get as many of those who would otherwise be opposed to us on our side or, at the very least, on the sidelines, because constant pounding by the media will push them to oppose us if we don't. Since a political party choice is a package deal, the only way to accomplish that is by changing the package that our side offers.


And the current Republican party just isn't doing it.


It should disturb you greatly that neither "electable" party is a pro-liberty party. We all wind up being forced to choose which liberties to give up, as opposed to whether to give them up. As much effort as can be mustered needs to be made to move one of those parties towards the side of liberty. Fail to do that, and it's just a matter of time before there's no liberty left.



If they go along, it helps. If they don't go along, it's still civil rights. Believing that we need some sort of "majority consensus" for establishing civil rights is contradictory to the very definition of a civil right.

And just what are you going to tell yourself when those who are opposed to firearms manage to get sufficient traction to make repeal of the 2nd Amendment possible? You claim this isn't about numbers. You are horribly wrong. It is all about numbers.

And repeal of the 2nd Amendment is the worst case, the hardest for them to achieve. Just like the Supreme Court wrote the 14th Amendment's privileges/immunities clause out of the Constitution in Slaughterhouse, so too can it write the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution. And guess what the only way to avoid that is? Yep: make sure we get Presidents who will nominate pro-2A justices to the Supreme Court. And that takes popular support.


So like it or not, the numbers game is critical to our success.

It's not enough to know your history. You have to understand it. Fail to understand it, and you will lose.

IVC
12-28-2012, 9:47 PM
By your impossible standard, I and every gun owner who voted for Romney are thus opposed to ALL civil rights.

Voting is a package deal as you mentioned. You can support different rights based on your conscience, even though you have to vote for a single person. What some politician does or believes is different than what you believe.

I would keep abortion out of this thread. It tends to derail arguments based on how it's phrased by either side. It's controlling woman's body vs. baby killers. Neither is *entirely* accurate.

IVC
12-28-2012, 9:53 PM
Personally, I'd rather have the option to choose open or concealed carry depending on things like weather, location, circumstances, etc.

You won't have that option. Open carry in downtown SF will never be acceptable. We need the right to carry and in such a way that everybody is happy, which happens to be concealed in large urban centers.

The really, really nice side effect is that this type of carry doesn't require acceptance by those who oppose 2A, just the lack of awareness that you're carrying.

IVC
12-28-2012, 10:06 PM
And just what are you going to tell yourself when those who are opposed to firearms manage to get sufficient traction to make repeal of the 2nd Amendment possible? You claim this isn't about numbers. You are horribly wrong. It is all about numbers.

Exercising 2A is a very private affair. It's nobody's business what I do at home or what I keep in my pants. There is also no easy way to find out. Thus, there will be very little friction with exercising 2A which will make repeal virtually impossible.

If I accepted your position about numbers, then any guaranteed civil right would be no different than, say, seat belt laws or smoking in public. The Constitution must count for something, especially when we talk about protecting a potential minority. If anything, a continued attack on gun owners should elevate us to the "protected class" so we cannot be discriminated against institutionally.

Don't get me wrong, numbers DO help. It's just that there is a limit to what the majority can do.

kcbrown
12-28-2012, 10:42 PM
Exercising 2A is a very private affair. It's nobody's business what I do at home or what I keep in my pants. There is also no easy way to find out. Thus, there will be very little friction with exercising 2A which will make repeal virtually impossible.

If I accepted your position about numbers, then any guaranteed civil right would be no different than, say, seat belt laws or smoking in public. The Constitution must count for something, especially when we talk about protecting a potential minority. If anything, a continued attack on gun owners should elevate us to the "protected class" so we cannot be discriminated against institutionally.

Don't get me wrong, numbers DO help. It's just that there is a limit to what the majority can do.

If, by "majority", you mean "greater than 50% of the population", then you're right.

But a "majority" that comprises greater than 75% of the states is unlimited in terms of what it can do under the Constitution.

And if you don't believe me, then you need only look at Prohibition, which was enacted through Constitutional amendment.


Your characterization of the exercise of the 2nd Amendment as a "private affair" is also very wide of the mark (if, by "private affair", you mean that it won't be visible to others). The most likely exercise of the 2nd Amendment is in public, for it is in public that the chance you'll need to defend yourself is at its greatest.


The government gets ever more meddlesome over time, and that is happening while the public looks on with approval. How many times have you heard "there ought to be a law..."? Have you ever said that yourself? Every time that is said, it is another person wishing for government intrusion. The number of people who truly believe that government should truly get out of our way so that we can live our lives in peace is vanishingly small. Indeed, very recently I debated someone who believes that the very purpose of the government is to control the public! You are absolutely right that the government has no business telling you what you carry, or in what way, or anything else of the sort. But the number of people who really agree with you is tiny.

People don't want real freedom, because it is scary, and because they can't stand the thought of someone else doing something they abhor, but which otherwise brings no harm to others. People who truly understand and value liberty are rare. You'd better wake up to that fact.

SPROCKET
12-28-2012, 10:53 PM
If I accepted your position about numbers, then any guaranteed civil right would be no different than, say, seat belt laws or smoking in public. The Constitution must count for something, especially when we talk about protecting a potential minority.


Ask Japanese Americans how that worked out for them... A panicky public will happily throw us under the bus. You only have the rights you have power to defend. One form of power is popular support. The gun demographic is old,white and rural; all of which are in decline. If we don't tell the backwards amongst us to sit down and shut up, in 40 years the NRA convention is going to be 3 guys in a trailer in Idaho.

kcbrown
12-28-2012, 10:53 PM
The really, really nice side effect is that this type of carry doesn't require acceptance by those who oppose 2A, just the lack of awareness that you're carrying.

The antis, through their lapdog media, will ensure that awareness of carry in public is high, so that, sans direct court intervention, it will require acceptance by those who oppose 2A in anti-2A areas.

Trenchfoot
12-28-2012, 10:55 PM
I would keep abortion out of this thread. It tends to derail arguments based on how it's phrased by either side. It's controlling woman's body vs. baby killers. Neither is *entirely* accurate.

I don't believe you can remove abortion from the topic. The 2012 GOP party platform opposes abortion in ANY case, even to save the life of the mother. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-20/republican-platform-won-t-protect-mortgage-tax-deduction They complain about the so called "death panels" in Obamacare, but would impose a death sentence on a woman with a dangerous pregnancy without her or her husband's consent. It happened in Ireland just last month. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/world/europe/ireland-abortion-controversy/index.html

In a case of rape, they want the government to force a woman to carry the pregnancy to term. So, you have a woman, pregnant without her consent, who now has her life upended by this pregnancy. The government will now force her to spend her money on prenatal care and doctor visits (because if the republicans can overturn Roe v. Wade, then Obamacare will be gone as well). Without insurance, costs are estimated at up to $25,000 just for the delivery. It gets even worse for a woman that is enrolled at one of our military academies, where pregnancy usually gets you kicked out. That rape pregnancy just ended her career, not to mention the "christian" schools out there that expel girls for getting pregnant.

So, it's not an exercise in semantics. This is about the government having the power to say who lives, and who dies in a situation like this, not the family. 2 women die everyday in the US from complications due to pregnancy, if all abortion was banned, it would be much higher. So if a woman votes based on that fact, I have no problem with it, considering her odds of dying during a complicated pregnancy is much higher than the odds of US citizens legitimately having to take up arms against the government. (my opinion)

IVC
12-28-2012, 11:08 PM
The gun demographic is old,white and rural; all of which are in decline. If we don't tell the backwards amongst us to sit down and shut up, in 40 years the NRA convention is going to be 3 guys in a trailer in Idaho.

You've got three out of four wrong. The one you've got right is that white is in decline.

The gun demographics is changing as rapidly as the overall society. The society is aging (rapidly, to be precise) and rural areas are growing due to amenities in exburbs and telecomuting.

IVC
12-28-2012, 11:13 PM
I don't believe you can remove abortion from the topic.

We are discussing guns, not political platforms of the major parties. Sticking to the single issue is what unites us. Introduce N issues and you'll have 2^N different groups bickering about their favorite non-gun topic.

Trenchfoot
12-29-2012, 4:50 AM
We are discussing guns, not political platforms of the major parties. Sticking to the single issue is what unites us. Introduce N issues and you'll have 2^N different groups bickering about their favorite non-gun topic.

True, but when the question is asked why more women voted for Obama than the supposed pro 2A candidate, that is the answer. So, if 2A supporters want the GOP to win more elections, they either need to stop nominating candidates with such rigid views on sensitive matters such as this, or try to get the Dems on board with the 2A.

SPROCKET
12-29-2012, 7:19 AM
You've got three out of four wrong. The one you've got right is that white is in decline.

The gun demographics is changing as rapidly as the overall society. The society is aging (rapidly, to be precise) and rural areas are growing due to amenities in exburbs and telecomuting.

Below is the percentage of US rural population. This has been trend occurring for the past 80 years. The only growth in rural counties has been from adjacent metropolitan areas spilling over into them.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-rural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.png?s=%2funited-states%2frural-population-percent-of-total-population-wb-data.html

IVC
12-29-2012, 11:17 AM
So, if 2A supporters want the GOP to win more elections, ...

This is an important misconception. The 2A supporters want to be left alone and not have legislation introduced annually to chip away at their rights. The political party is irrelevant.

Many on these boards lean libertarian and you'll find supporters of both D and R. What we have in common is that we want our 2A rights.

Meplat
12-29-2012, 12:02 PM
What I fail to understand is this devotion to somehow try to cater to women whose fundamental common sense is completely flawed.

There are some fabulous American women. As a voting block, they simply generally make my head spin.

The time to get them to have a proper set of values and interested in our community was a long time ago; not at the last minute when Obama and Feinstein are using the constitution an particularly the second amendment to light up a doobie and toke up or wipe their keester after a multimillion dollar White House dinner with foreign donors.

Any work to cater to women and change the message requires a bit more Effort . Overcoming the fearful, reactive emotional stereotype of guns in women, which in many of them is so ingrained with the thought of violence and machismo, isn't an easy effort akin to a band aid.

The rabid tone of some women on Calguns who somehow want the pro 2a to bend over backwards even more and somehow change or conceal the nature of the very gun owners who are their fathers, uncles, brothers, children, and friends is just ridiculous.

Most women in the coastline states don't get it, and no amount of work for them to get it will ensure they will.



So much of their worship for Barack is greater than the single point issue of 2a. The environment, saving the children, saving the whales, women's rights, how cool and handsome Barack is, education, birth control and Obamacare, the oppression of religion, equal work for equal pay, blah blah blah.

If they haven't voted with good reason by now, it takes quite a bit of work to get to vote your way- and they aren't going to anytime soon.

When you are going down the wrong path the time to turn around was probably yesterday or last week; but that is not possible, how about now?

You are thinking like a campaign manager when you look at, and speak of women as a voting bloc. You can only change a Ďvoting blocí one mind at a time. The GOP proved this by scraping up every minority and female R they could find to speak for them this time around; and look where it got them. We gotta do this one on one folks, sorry.

IVC
12-29-2012, 12:17 PM
Below is the percentage of US rural population. This has been trend occurring for the past 80 years. The only growth in rural counties has been from adjacent metropolitan areas spilling over into them.

This is a *ratio* so it doesn't show what you need. The rural population is indeed increasing, just that the urban population is growing faster. That is qualitatively different from around 80 years ago when the rural population was decreasing. There is also an issue how "urban" and "rural" are defined...

dave_cg
12-29-2012, 12:37 PM
This is a *ratio* so it doesn't show what you need. The rural population is indeed increasing, just that the urban population is growing faster. That is qualitatively different from around 80 years ago when the rural population was decreasing. There is also an issue how "urban" and "rural" are defined...

Yes, how do you define "rural"? Yuppie living on an acreage is, I suppose, rural by some definition. I'd rather look at where they get their money from as a better indicator of attitudes. Do they get it from corn and cattle the way my dad (and father-in-law) did, or do they have a job where you take your shower before you go in to work, instead of after you come home.

Trenchfoot
12-29-2012, 12:38 PM
This is an important misconception. The 2A supporters want to be left alone and not have legislation introduced annually to chip away at their rights. The political party is irrelevant.

Many on these boards lean libertarian and you'll find supporters of both D and R. What we have in common is that we want our 2A rights.

Trust me I understand that... but the fact is, pro 2A politicians are very much on the R side of the spectrum. It will be easier to convince the GOP to move towards the center on social issues, seeing as it killed them in the last 2 elections, than it will be to convince the Dems to start supporting gun rights.

If as many people who claimed to be Libertarian, acted or voted that way, there might actually be a chance that the Libertarian party could make some changes in America

LoneYote
12-29-2012, 12:55 PM
Libertarian candidate got most votes ever recorded for one I believe. Yes it was only like 2% of the overall votes. Yes, even adding those votes to Mitt would not have changed the outcome. I voted! I ain't sayin' who fer.

Meplat
12-29-2012, 1:16 PM
The republican party needs to get out of their Vagina, to start the ball rolling in the right direction.

And the uterus.

Tarn_Helm
12-29-2012, 1:16 PM
Rights that are not exercised are lost. Rights that are not adopted are not exercised. Rights that are perceived to be a threat or antithetical to one's values are not adopted.

-Brandon

+1

And we do not need to set as a goal the persuasion of all female American voters, as some seem to assume.

We only need to move the needle to "51% in favor of RKBA" as we understand it.

More would be better, but we do not need a super majority.

Our political battles are not zero sum games.

But they are won through careful, patient, incremental change, the only kind of change that is stable over time.

Truly "revolutionary," instantaneous, and radical changes almost never last nor achieve their original, stated goals.

Just my 2 cents.
:cool:

Ford8N
12-29-2012, 1:19 PM
And the uterus.


:iagree:

Meplat
12-29-2012, 1:40 PM
I have never met a woman who was taught to shoot as a child who was anti-gun. For every woman who is anti-gun there is a father somewhere that didnít do his job. It sounds like we have some of those hanging around here.

Of every man here that says things like women canít think logically, I would ask; first, how many girls under twelve have you taught to shoot and safely handle a firearm, second, what kind of bat **** crazy chicks do you hang out with anyway.:rolleyes:

Funtimes
12-29-2012, 3:40 PM
Yes, how do you define "rural"? Yuppie living on an acreage is, I suppose, rural by some definition. I'd rather look at where they get their money from as a better indicator of attitudes. Do they get it from corn and cattle the way my dad (and father-in-law) did, or do they have a job where you take your shower before you go in to work, instead of after you come home.

If you shower after, isn't it really before?

nicki
12-29-2012, 4:39 PM
When you go out shooting next time, ask your daughter does she want to come.

Don't have a daughter, well how about a niece.

Take your girlfriends when you are going shooting, at least offer, if necessary, make a deal and agree to go shopping with her one day.:eek:

Now if you are in my neck of the woods, do the following.

Tell your girlfriend that you don't know LBGT folks and that while some have been saying they are pro gun, you don't want someone hitting on you, so would she please come along so that people know that you are taken and unavailable.

Yeah the above line is total BS, but if you get her to the range, I will get her shooting and once that is done, all you have to do is follow up.

Of course follow up means plan on opening up the wallet cause your girl will want a 22 pistol and a 9mm pistol for herself. Also I strongly reccomend lots of shooting to become second nature, so add another 5000 rounds of 22 and 1000 rounds of 9mm.

Nicki

BRoss
12-29-2012, 5:14 PM
That's it. I can't follow this thread anymore. The ignorance here is too blinding and I don't need my blood pressure to be any higher.

From a fellow female calgunner, it takes all of us to change the stereotypes.

If you refuse to help, you're part of the problem.

THIS.

A couple of people said it in earlier pages of this thread, but the best way to get more women in support of the 2A is to take them shooting and teach them about it. Take your daughters, mothers, sisters, cousins, friends, pastors, every female you know to the range and teach them gun safety and how fun it is to go shooting. Take them hunting. They will then tell their friends, mothers, sisters, cousins, friends, pastors, etc. how much fun they had and how they should consider going as well. And the word spreads. And, as long as they enjoy themselves and people aren't being d-bags like they are in this thread, then BOOM - you've got more 2A supporters.

If it was not for a friend that offered to take me to the range with him one day a long time ago, my life would be very different today.

smokehammer
12-29-2012, 5:16 PM
It is tough to choose between these civil liberties vs those civil liberties. However, with the republicans, if push comes to shove and you REALLY hate some law they enact or destroy you can always take up arms to "fix" it. So, when your sister/girlfriend/wife/daughter starts harping on Republicans being "old school" and too "right-wing" and totally anti-woman you might want to remind them that all of their rights begin and end with force. Force that as the "weaker" sex physically they're giving up when they dont vote "one-issue" in favor of guns.

SilverTauron
12-29-2012, 7:40 PM
So, when your sister/girlfriend/wife/daughter starts harping on Republicans being "old school" and too "right-wing" and totally anti-woman you might want to remind them that all of their rights begin and end with force. Force that as the "weaker" sex physically they're giving up when they dont vote "one-issue" in favor of guns.

Guess what, the ladies will retort with the factual truth that reproductive issues are of a greater import then the 2nd Amendment.

What's statistically more likely to happen to a girl-a criminal defensive incident involving shots fired , or having consensual sex?

Unless a chick becomes a nun reproductive issues are a vital political topic which practically supersedes all other issues for her. If a girl has sex, she has to consider the possible outcome of it being an unwanted pregnancy , period. Condoms and birth control are NOT 100% effective even when used together. A wise woman votes for the candidate who won't boss her around when contraception doesn't live up to the hype.

I prioritize the RKBA over abortion rights, -but that's easy for me to say because I'm not a chick. An unwanted pregnancy is a problem ill never have to personally consider. Unless we get a candidate who's pro 2A and pro Abortion at the same time, we are sunk like the Titanic.

movie zombie
12-29-2012, 10:53 PM
interesting thread.
some very good points.
i'm impressed that so many men here actually "get it".

so many of you are worried about how to get more women into 2A rights and yet so many at calguns go out of their way to alienate the few women that participate on calguns.

i am a pro-choice woman for many of the reasons outlined in many posts in this thread by i'm pleased to say MEN. i have been verbally beat up and called so many names on calguns its not even funny. i'm not alone. being a woman and having to listen to the scrap that gets dealt out here is not only offensive, it means i can't recommend to any woman i know that she join in this group.

i will also say re 2A rights: yes, it comes 2nd to roe v. wade.
i'm not alone in this.
even my 88 year old mother who used to be against abortion has changed her mind and now says she never knew there was so much hatred in this country towards women and that she supports a woman's right to chose. of course, she still has her beretta!

so women are out there that do support 2A rights but not at the expense of their own quality of life.

i expect to get flamed. i am not as eloquent as so many others here. but you guys want to know how to bring women into the fold? quit pushing them out and stop with the macho BS. keyboard commandos do not win women over to the 2A cause and telling them that their own issues are unimportant and have no basis in a discussion re who one votes for is pure drivel.

and now its time for me to apologize for my rant. its been building. i appreciate the leveler heads here that recognize a problem and are looking for ways to be more inclusive. the real enemy is in the mirror, guys. ok, i shouldn't have written the last sentence but i did and its staying.

good night.

ps give me a pro-choice and pro-2A rights candidate and i have a win-win. until then i won't be voting for the anti-choice candidate.

wildhawker
12-29-2012, 11:00 PM
She's our [should be current and] future constituency, people. Listen up.

-Brandon

IVC
12-30-2012, 2:40 AM
i will also say re 2A rights: yes, it comes 2nd to roe v. wade.

When it comes to *voting* everybody gets to vote their most important issue. The candidates that are running come as a package, so one cannot pick and choose. Absolutely no problem there, even if the candidate is completely anti gun.

When it comes to *supporting* 2A rights, given that it is now a recognized civil right, there is no excuse for being against it, man or a woman. Yet it appears that most of the posts here are about how to get more women to *support* 2A rights. As if it's acceptable for a woman to be *actively against* 2A rights just because the men who are into guns are not likeable.

In this day and age of equality, having to pander to women just to prevent them from actively opposing a civil right, while not calling them on bigotry is just mind boggling. Again, it's not about the voting record, but about the actual support or opposition to the 2A rights.

A man could never get away with actively opposing a civil right, say being pro-segregation just because he feels unwelcome among black people. A man could not expect to be pandered to just to support women's suffrage. I would find it extremely demeaning to a woman if I said: "I'll support your right to vote if you cook me a nice meal." Yet, in this thread it's completely acceptable to put a certain level of blame on men for why some women actively oppose a civil right. Enough people are suggesting "take females to the range" (counterpart of "cook a nice meal") and if you don't, you are to blame because "you don't get it." Well, I get it that we can buy support this way, but what I don't get is (1) why would this be a condition for supporting a civil right, and (2) why don't we call those who oppose civil rights "bigots," regardless of their gender.

Ford8N
12-30-2012, 3:40 AM
give me a pro-choice and pro-2A rights candidate and i have a win-win. until then i won't be voting for the anti-choice candidate.

Ah, thank you for your honesty and I think this is something that gun owning men(who vote) should remember. It just confirms my personal beliefs.

billmaykafer
12-30-2012, 4:31 AM
civil rights are not divided by gender. they are civil rights.

SilverTauron
12-30-2012, 6:40 AM
civil rights are not divided by gender. they are civil rights.

To quote my Air Force MTI in Basic, "Wake The Piss Up".

You don't have to like it .You don't even have to agree with it.But you WILL confront the truth of matters,and it is that not all civil rights are equally regarded.As far as the electorate is concerned,Roe vs Wade establishes a fundamental right for a woman to choose.Since the electorate picks our leadership by extension they pick out laws.

With that out the way lets just be clear about something;the odds of a sexually active woman having a pregnancy scare are damn near 100%. The odds of a woman having to shoot someone dead in self defense are minute. I may not like the calculus behind why women vote for abortion rights above all else,but its definitely a logical concept for a female voter.If I were a sexually active chick and had to choose between a world of abortion rights but no guns and a world of guns and forced motherhood, I'd pick the former in a heartbeat. If either way your rights are being denied, you may as well sacrifice the right you're less likely to need. Quite naturally male voters like myself don't face this dilemma,which is the source of all this macho bulls--t about "2nd Amendment >Roe vs Wade".

Unless we jettison this BS attitude now and start mindlessly and sycophantically kissing feminist & Latino rear selling the RKBA as a liberal rights issue, in 20 years this nation WILL vote to strike the 2nd right out of the Constitution. How ironic it would be for most Calgunners to see a Constitutional Convention meet in the near future which deletes the right to keep and bear arms in exchange for an enumerated right for a woman to have an abortion. If you think thats a joke you need to wake up and recognize what country you live in and not the one you WANT it to be.

IVC
12-30-2012, 9:57 AM
Unless we jettison this BS attitude now and start mindlessly and sycophantically kissing feminist & Latino rear selling the RKBA as a liberal rights issue, in 20 years this nation WILL vote to strike the 2nd right out of the Constitution. How ironic it would be for most Calgunners to see a Constitutional Convention meet in the near future which deletes the right to keep and bear arms in exchange for an enumerated right for a woman to have an abortion. If you think thats a joke you need to wake up and recognize what country you live in and not the one you WANT it to be.

A constitutional amendment needs 75% of the *states*, so 13 states can block both of your suggestions. CA and NY count as one each, no matter how many people live there.

RKBA *is* a liberal rights issue and rather than "kissing someone's rear" to have them accept the reality, we need to point out that not supporting RKBA puts them on the wrong side of righteousness. This concept is as weird as saying that "feminist and latino population needs to kiss white man's rear in order not to repeal the 14th and 19th."

If we allow the Constitutional Amendment process to become a simple popularity contest, then we no longer have a Republic. When this happens, the same process can be repeated any time the balance of power changes and civil rights become meaningless by reducing them to the level of ordinary law.

Finally, there is currently more pro-life than pro-choice support, with Latino population due to catholicism being more pro-life. According to your reasoning, there is a lot of rear end kissing that needs to happen between various groups. If we are going to make predictions about extremely unlikely amendment process, we at least might want to make them correctly.

movie zombie
12-30-2012, 10:16 AM
i posted this in another thread. its worth the read.



http://www.naturalnews.com/038471_Bill_of_Rights_declaration_America.html


worth thinking about, guys.

Trenchfoot
12-30-2012, 10:56 AM
Finally, there is currently more pro-life than pro-choice support, with Latino population due to catholicism being more pro-life. According to your reasoning, there is a lot of rear end kissing that needs to happen between various groups. If we are going to make predictions about extremely unlikely amendment process, we at least might want to make them correctly.

You are forgetting what the GOP did this year. They opposed abortion in ALL cases, even rape and life or health of the mother. Many people who identify as pro-life, consent to abortion being legal in those cases. 74% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in those cases. (YouGov poll: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/abortiontabs.pdf )

As far as latinos opposing abortion, in general, you are correct, but that changes when you look at 3rd generation latinos ages 16-25, where 58% of them say abortion should be legal. http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/117.pdf
I would also imagine that with 93 congressional republicans supporting stripping citizenship from Americans born to illegal immigrants (purely to try to take away votes from the Dems), that would take precedence over abortion and the 2A.

I'm not saying I think the GOP needs to go full pro-choice, but one of the big reasons Romney isn't in the White House is because of the GOP's stance on women's issues. The idea that the government can force you to carry a rapist's child, or even worse make you die due to a dangerous pregnancy is abhorrent to me. Between their rigid stances on abortion, contraception in healthcare (including having a congressional hearing on the matter and not letting a single woman speak), and equal pay, they are alienating a growing, powerful voting bloc, the single professional female. Ignore them at you own peril. But of course, the GOP can't seem to see forest for the trees, because the GOP spin since the election is that they lost because they weren't conservative enough.

IVC
12-30-2012, 11:50 AM
You are forgetting what the GOP did this year.

You keep on going back to partisan politics, when we are discussing a newly recognized civil right (4 years since Heller is very little time in the grand scale of things). It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it's a matter of sticking to the 2A issues.

I am putting forward two important points: (1) supporting or opposing any civil right is a personal decision for which the person in question is held responsible *regardless* of likeability of the traditional supporters of the right; (2) Constitution and civil rights cannot be subject to the whim of the majority, thus we have a process that virtually guarantees that the 2A will not be repealed.

Now, many posts appear to challenge these two points, but instead of saying so, e.g., "it's okay for women to be against 2A *if* their fathers (men) failed to introduce them to shooting (hobby part of 2A) at an early age," they go into abortion and other strawman arguments. Similarly, there are many posts that claim we can get a repeal of 2A due to some perceived voting pattern, when even Proposition 8 passed in (gasp) CA in (gasp) 21 century. If we stick to the actual points, we might get it out in the clear who is supporting what position.

Trenchfoot
12-30-2012, 2:07 PM
You keep on going back to partisan politics, when we are discussing a newly recognized civil right (4 years since Heller is very little time in the grand scale of things). It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it's a matter of sticking to the 2A issues.

I am putting forward two important points: (1) supporting or opposing any civil right is a personal decision for which the person in question is held responsible *regardless* of likeability of the traditional supporters of the right; (2) Constitution and civil rights cannot be subject to the whim of the majority, thus we have a process that virtually guarantees that the 2A will not be repealed.



In a perfect world, we would value our rights even if we didn't exercise them. However, we live in the real world where rights can be bought and sold. To someone who doesn't own a gun, and thinks that defending against a tyrannical government is just a paranoid redneck fantasy, the 2A is an afterthought during elections. A single mother in Trenton, NJ, may have never seen anything positive regarding civilian gun ownership.

2A isn't the single most important issue for most voters beyond gun forums. Just because you value something above the 2A, doesn't mean you don't value it.

Why would a gay, gun owning couple vote GOP, when they want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage?
Why would a latino gun owner, who was born to parents who were illegal immigrants, vote GOP when there are 93 congressional republicans who want to repeal the 14th Amendment and strip him of his citizenship?
Why would a pro choice woman vote GOP, when they want to force her to have a baby, even if it kills her?

Call it what you want. Butt kissing, outreach, education, but the bottom line is that gun ownership is declining by registered Democrats and Independents. Dems have gone from 45% gun ownership in '73, to 22% in 2012. Independents, 50%-30% in the same timeframe. If the GOP doesn't attract a bigger cross section of Americans, or the remaining gun owning Dems don't assert their support of the 2A to their politicians, our 2A rights will be in even more jeopardy in 2030 when TX turns blue.

You can either complain about women not supporting the 2A, or you can show them why it's important.

Some party statistic on gun ownership: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

IVC
12-30-2012, 2:33 PM
You can either complain about women not supporting the 2A, or you can show them why it's important.

So are you saying that (1) majority of women don't support the 2A, and (2) they get a free pass because I (we, men) haven't shown them why it's important?

The partisan stuff with partisan talking points is just a bait that I am not willing to take in this forum. Using a NY Times poll for an anti gun argument is like using a Bible to prove that God exists. Let's stick to the 2A topic and science.

kcbrown
12-30-2012, 3:46 PM
You keep on going back to partisan politics, when we are discussing a newly recognized civil right (4 years since Heller is very little time in the grand scale of things). It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it's a matter of sticking to the 2A issues.


Clearly you're not getting it.

When it comes to voting it is impossible to stick to all rights unless you vote for a third party candidate (something most here regard as "throwing your vote away"). And voting is, arguably, the most important means of supporting a right.


I am putting forward two important points: (1) supporting or opposing any civil right is a personal decision for which the person in question is held responsible *regardless* of likeability of the traditional supporters of the right; (2) Constitution and civil rights cannot be subject to the whim of the majority, thus we have a process that virtually guarantees that the 2A will not be repealed.


Yes, virtually guarantees. But a virtual guarantee is not an absolute guarantee. If current trends continue, then it is only a matter of time before the 2nd Amendment becomes vulnerable to being amended out of existence.

That means, to avoid that eventuality, current trends must be changed. And that means, like it or not, the 2nd Amendment must stop being put up against other rights in the voting process.


What exactly are you going to do if, for instance, the 2nd Amendment were pitted against the 1st Amendment in the political arena? If your very right to speak were on the line? What would you do in the political arena? How would you vote? For an "unelectable" third party that supports both? For the "lesser of two evils" and, thereby, implicitly throwing one of those rights under the bus?


Your stance entirely ignores the political reality of the situation. And if you ignore the political reality, then you will lose in the end. Isn't that precisely why people here were encouraged to vote for Romney while holding their noses, as opposed to voting for a third party candidate? Because of the political reality?

You can't have it both ways. Either you pay attention to the political reality, or you do not. Which is it?


It is possible in principle to support all rights. I certainly do. But how are you going to do that in practice when the two major (i.e., "electable") political parties force us to choose in practice between rights? Haven't you yet figured out that in the end, voting is the only thing that matters? It is the only control we have over government, period, full stop. It even applies to the judicial nomination process!

So given that voting is the only real way to support a right in the end (all other means of supporting the right ultimately end up being gated through the outcome of the voting process), how exactly do you propose to support all rights in practice?

kcbrown
12-30-2012, 3:58 PM
If either way your rights are being denied, you may as well sacrifice the right you're less likely to need.


And now, maybe, some people here will finally understand the ultimate folly of voting for the "lesser of two evils" in the general case, for if you do so, you will sacrifice some of your rights in the process.

I do understand that there are some circumstances, such as in the last election, where one of the major choices is so bad that it must be opposed at all costs, but that has not generally been the case. In the general case, there is little reason to vote for the "lesser" of two evils.

Trenchfoot
12-30-2012, 4:06 PM
So are you saying that (1) majority of women don't support the 2A, and (2) they get a free pass because I (we, men) haven't shown them why it's important?

The partisan stuff with partisan talking points is just a bait that I am not willing to take in this forum. Using a NY Times poll for an anti gun argument is like using a Bible to prove that God exists. Let's stick to the 2A topic and science.

I never said that the majority of women don't support the 2A. A sizable number of women don't support 2A candidates, who are primarily GOP, because of their stances on other issues. That is totally different.

You can say all you want that the 2A shouldn't be a partisan issue, which it shouldn't. Unfortunately, here in the real world it is. And when the time comes for the Supreme Court to rule on gun related issues, wouldn't you rather have Justices appointed by a pro-2A President?

As far as the NY Times poll...Dick Morris, Karl Rove and a lot of the GOP talking heads discounted Nate Silver's analysis this past election cycle. We see how well that worked out for them.

IVC
12-30-2012, 4:46 PM
Clearly you're not getting it.

When it comes to voting it is impossible to stick to all rights unless you vote for a third party candidate (something most here regard as "throwing your vote away"). And voting is, arguably, the most important means of supporting a right.

Post after post I am making the same point that the problem is NOT how women as a block vote, but how they don't consider 2A a valid civil right and are getting a pass on this forum, while men are being blamed for not taking them shooting. Not to mention that 2A is about plinking as much as it is about fencing or learning karate - it's not the tool that matters, but the concept of using a tool as an arm in defense of life.

I'll repeat it: it's the "pass" part that I am addressing. If we can recognize that the "pass" part is wrong in light of the civil rights aspect of 2A regardless of gender or other political positions, then we might have a discussion where we can say openly that not supporting 2A is a bigoted position. This is much stronger than trying to "buy votes" through making someone like plinking.

To be blunt, I don't have to have a gay experience to support gay rights and just because I don't vote gay rights doesn't mean that I would get a pass if I was homophobic. I am just applying the same logic to plinking and 2A.

Meplat
12-30-2012, 5:12 PM
interesting thread.
some very good points.
i'm impressed that so many men here actually "get it".

so many of you are worried about how to get more women into 2A rights and yet so many at calguns go out of their way to alienate the few women that participate on calguns.

i am a pro-choice woman for many of the reasons outlined in many posts in this thread by i'm pleased to say MEN. i have been verbally beat up and called so many names on calguns its not even funny. i'm not alone. being a woman and having to listen to the scrap that gets dealt out here is not only offensive, it means i can't recommend to any woman i know that she join in this group.

i will also say re 2A rights: yes, it comes 2nd to roe v. wade.
i'm not alone in this.
even my 88 year old mother who used to be against abortion has changed her mind and now says she never knew there was so much hatred in this country towards women and that she supports a woman's right to chose. of course, she still has her beretta!


so women are out there that do support 2A rights but not at the expense of their own quality of life.

i expect to get flamed. i am not as eloquent as so many others here. but you guys want to know how to bring women into the fold? quit pushing them out and stop with the macho BS. keyboard commandos do not win women over to the 2A cause and telling them that their own issues are unimportant and have no basis in a discussion re who one votes for is pure drivel.

and now its time for me to apologize for my rant. its been building. i appreciate the leveler heads here that recognize a problem and are looking for ways to be more inclusive. the real enemy is in the mirror, guys. ok, i shouldn't have written the last sentence but i did and its staying.

good night.

ps give me a pro-choice and pro-2A rights candidate and i have a win-win. until then i won't be voting for the anti-choice candidate.




I cannot fathom the attitudes of some of the guys around this place. I donít see how you can even dignify it with an answer.

I totally get that R v W is more important to a lot of women than guns. I can see why and I donít blame them. Where I differ is that I donít think a choice needs to be made. Roe v Wade is not going anywhere. It has been the law of the land for decades and no serious threat to its continued existence is presenting its self. Politicians use it for a wedge issue, but they really donít want to change anything. On the other hand there are very real and credible threats to the 2nd amendment. Just something to think about.

Extra411
12-30-2012, 5:15 PM
I for one, am sick and tired of rights being on the line every few years. Look, it doesn't matter whether Romney defeats Obama *this* term or not. In the long run, you KNOW some other democrat (or Anti-gun Republican, doesn't matter) will be elected president, and you'll pray he/she doesn't nominate an anti-gun supreme court justice, or push for some anti-firearm regulations, etc. This cycle is going to happen EVERY FEW YEARS. Every few years you'll worry whether your rights will be under attack, whether a new Supreme Court will overturn Heller and McDonald (you all know it's inevitable that there will be a liberal majority Supreme Court at SOME point), whether another crazy massacre will bring calls for more bans.

IVC, you're some kind of naive idealist. In reality, you already cannot own machine guns (it's as close to being banned as you can get, and in another couple decades machine guns made prior to 1986 will be antiques), AWB was active for a decade, and now there's renewed push for another AWB. 2A has already been infringed, and it's constantly being infringed. Our individual "pre-existing right" is constantly under attack. The only way to stop this ridiculousness is to garner majority support for these rights.

I don't want to have high blood pressure every year there's a presidential election. I don't want to have to worry about another ban every few years. Start now, and begin changing the minds of people around you, so that over time we might one day not to have to constantly distress over this BS. Every responsible gun owner needs to pull his/her weight and bring those around them (regardless of gender) to our cause.

anthem
12-30-2012, 5:22 PM
You guys are your own worst enemy. One day your own words will be used against you.

kcbrown
12-30-2012, 5:28 PM
Post after post I am making the same point that the problem is NOT how women as a block vote, but how they don't consider 2A a valid civil right and are getting a pass on this forum, while men are being blamed for not taking them shooting. Not to mention that 2A is about plinking as much as it is about fencing or learning karate - it's not the tool that matters, but the concept of using a tool as an arm in defense of life.

I'll repeat it: it's the "pass" part that I am addressing. If we can recognize that the "pass" part is wrong in light of the civil rights aspect of 2A regardless of gender or other political positions, then we might have a discussion where we can say openly that not supporting 2A is a bigoted position. This is much stronger than trying to "buy votes" through making someone like plinking.


Fully agree with this. It's a civil right as much as any other.

And while some here may be giving a pass to women who do not regard the 2nd Amendment as a true civil right, it seems to me that the vast majority of the argument centers around the fact that in practice, women are being forced to make a choice between supporting the 2nd Amendment and supporting the right to control their own reproductive destiny.

Which is to say, the reason the GOP is becoming less relevant with each passing day is precisely because it refuses to acknowledge the right of women to control their own reproductive destiny, and that, combined with the fact that the Democrats are openly anti-2A, forces women into choosing between the 2nd Amendment as a right and the right to control their own destinies.



To be blunt, I don't have to have a gay experience to support gay rights and just because I don't vote gay rights doesn't mean that I would get a pass if I was homophobic. I am just applying the same logic to plinking and 2A.

But the entire point here is that women as a bloc do not vote in support of 2A!! If they did, we clearly wouldn't be talking about this topic at all. While I agree that they at the very least should believe the 2nd Amendment to be a civil right just as much as any other, in practice they are being forced to choose between them.

That is no different than being forced, at the polls, to choose between the 1st Amendment and the 2nd Amendment.


Let's suppose for a moment that all the women in the country believed the 2nd Amendment to secure a fundamental right just as the 1st Amendment does. How would that change anything? In the contest between the 2nd Amendment and the right to control their own reproductive destinies, it is the latter that will win. So even if all women in the country believed the right to keep and bear arms to be fundamental, what possible practical difference would it make? Their voting patterns would be the same regardless, would they not?

And that means the end result would be the same.

Extra411
12-30-2012, 5:29 PM
Post after post I am making the same point that the problem is NOT how women as a block vote, but how they don't consider 2A a valid civil right and are getting a pass on this forum, while men are being blamed for not taking them shooting. Not to mention that 2A is about plinking as much as it is about fencing or learning karate - it's not the tool that matters, but the concept of using a tool as an arm in defense of life.

I'll repeat it: it's the "pass" part that I am addressing. If we can recognize that the "pass" part is wrong in light of the civil rights aspect of 2A regardless of gender or other political positions, then we might have a discussion where we can say openly that not supporting 2A is a bigoted position. This is much stronger than trying to "buy votes" through making someone like plinking.

To be blunt, I don't have to have a gay experience to support gay rights and just because I don't vote gay rights doesn't mean that I would get a pass if I was homophobic. I am just applying the same logic to plinking and 2A.

So you want to call them "bigots", so what? Honestly, who the hell cares how you label them? When has calling people names ever been constructive in finding a peaceful solution? These things are about core beliefs, not labeling, and I don't give a **** who's to blame - I just want the situation improved.

kcbrown
12-30-2012, 5:37 PM
I cannot fathom the attitudes of some of the guys around this place. I donít see how you can even dignify it with an answer.

I totally get that R v W is more important to a lot of women than guns. I can see why and I donít blame them. Where I differ is that I donít think a choice needs to be made. Roe v Wade is not going anywhere. It has been the law of the land for decades and no serious threat to its continued existence is presenting its self. Politicians use it for a wedge issue, but they really donít want to change anything.


Um, what? If they don't really want to change anything, then what is the point of alienating more people than you attract by claiming to be on the opposite side of the issue than said "more people"?


That said, it is only by pointing out that a conservative Supreme Court has already had opportunities to overturn Roe v Wade and didn't that I was able to convince my wife to vote for Romney in this last election. That is very thin ice to be skating on.

No, the problem here is that it's ultimately about perception. And women perceive GOP candidates to be against them as regards their reproductive rights, and view those rights as overriding the 2nd Amendment. That the GOP continues to ignore this is precisely why it will continue to lose support, and the 2nd Amendment will suffer mightily for it.



On the other hand there are very real and credible threats to the 2nd amendment. Just something to think about.

That's for sure.

IVC
12-30-2012, 5:50 PM
And while some here may be giving a pass to women who do not regard the 2nd Amendment as a true civil right, it seems to me that the vast majority of the argument centers around the fact that in practice, women are being forced to make a choice between supporting the 2nd Amendment and supporting the right to control their own reproductive destiny.

Political prioritizing is what we all do based on what's near and dear to us. In all reality, I will vote for anyone lowering the top tax bracket ahead of guns any day and twice on Sunday because it affects me much more.

However, this is different than anti gun organization and serious polls indicating hostility towards 2A, not merely the lack of prioritization. Absent this hositlity I wouldn't have any issue.

Let's suppose for a moment that all the women in the country believed the 2nd Amendment to secure a fundamental right just as the 1st Amendment does. How would that change anything?

We wouldn't be insulting those women who understand that 2A is just another right by treating them as infants who need to be shown right from wrong by playing at the range. Instead, we would have a gender-neutral discussion about how to achieve the goal of expanding 2A to the level of meaningful self defense in public.

IVC
12-30-2012, 5:57 PM
So you want to call them "bigots", so what? Honestly, who the hell cares how you label them? When has calling people names ever been constructive in finding a peaceful solution?

It's not about calling anyone names, it's about clarifying an anti civil liberties position. Most of anti gun women that I know are leaning left on social issues, so pointing out that their anti gun stance is actually a far-right position is a strong argument for anyone who is having a serious conversation.

kcbrown
12-30-2012, 8:15 PM
It's not about calling anyone names, it's about clarifying an anti civil liberties position. Most of anti gun women that I know are leaning left on social issues, so pointing out that their anti gun stance is actually a far-right position is a strong argument for anyone who is having a serious conversation.

Far-right and far-left are very nearly identical as regards rights and liberty of the general population (as opposed to liberty of those with large amounts of wealth).

kcbrown
12-30-2012, 8:34 PM
Political prioritizing is what we all do based on what's near and dear to us. In all reality, I will vote for anyone lowering the top tax bracket ahead of guns any day and twice on Sunday because it affects me much more.

However, this is different than anti gun organization and serious polls indicating hostility towards 2A, not merely the lack of prioritization. Absent this hositlity I wouldn't have any issue.


Brandon's keen observation on the nature of rights directly bears on this: "Rights that are not exercised are lost. Rights that are not adopted are not exercised. Rights that are perceived to be a threat or antithetical to one's values are not adopted."

The root of the problem is that women aren't given any real choice as regards supporting the 2nd Amendment as a right. When one is forced to consistently choose to act against something one believes in, it should be no surprise that said person's belief in said thing will degrade over time. I believe that is what has been happening here.

Put another way, the 2nd Amendment is being positioned by the major parties as being falsely antithetical to women's reproductive rights, because women are being forced to choose between them.



We wouldn't be insulting those women who understand that 2A is just another right by treating them as infants who need to be shown right from wrong by playing at the range.


I know of no other set of rights that anyone, much less a major fraction of the population, is forced to choose between at election time. Furthermore, I know of no other right that is opposed to the degree the right to keep and bear arms is. I strongly suspect that the fact that the same right is involved in both of those is not an accident, and that the former directly affects the latter.



Instead, we would have a gender-neutral discussion about how to achieve the goal of expanding 2A to the level of meaningful self defense in public.

We should be having that discussion as well. But when the majority of those opposed to RKBA is composed of women, then how exactly can a gender-involved discussion be avoided, particularly when it should be clear that only women are being forced to trade the 2nd Amendment for a right more dear to them?

yellowfin
12-30-2012, 8:54 PM
Fully agree with this. It's a civil right as much as any other.

And while some here may be giving a pass to women who do not regard the 2nd Amendment as a true civil right, it seems to me that the vast majority of the argument centers around the fact that in practice, women are being forced to make a choice between supporting the 2nd Amendment and supporting the right to control their own reproductive destiny.

Which is to say, the reason the GOP is becoming less relevant with each passing day is precisely because it refuses to acknowledge the right of women to control their own reproductive destiny, and that, combined with the fact that the Democrats are openly anti-2A, forces women into choosing between the 2nd Amendment as a right and the right to control their own destinies.


But the entire point here is that women as a bloc do not vote in support of 2A!! If they did, we clearly wouldn't be talking about this topic at all. While I agree that they at the very least should believe the 2nd Amendment to be a civil right just as much as any other, in practice they are being forced to choose between them.
The willful ignorance required to believe that someone representing an ideology that doesn't support the right to preserve one's own life and that of their family can be trusted to support their rights in any other regard is utterly foreign to me. Is it some kind of fashion statement to swallow then claim ownership to such shallow nonsense? To hold onto some notion of controlling one's destiny on the presumption that everything else is a given--economic rights of earn one's living of choice and keep one's paycheck to put food on the table to name only one-- an absurdly improbable outcome at best and as far from present reality as Manhattan is from Mars? What kind of empowerment of any use comes from discarding wisdom and reason (real reason, not emotional false reason)?

kcbrown
12-30-2012, 9:11 PM
The willful ignorance required to believe that someone representing an ideology that doesn't support the right to preserve one's own life and that of their family can be trusted to support their rights in any other regard is utterly foreign to me.


Same here.

But what do you propose instead of attempting to remove any barriers, perceived or otherwise, between the people we're discussing and their support of the right to keep and bear arms?

Is it your contention that we don't need them? Oh, how I wish that contention were true.




Is it some kind of fashion statement to swallow then claim ownership to such shallow nonsense? To hold onto some notion of controlling one's destiny on the presumption that everything else is a given--economic rights of earn one's living of choice and keep one's paycheck to put food on the table to name only one-- an absurdly improbable outcome at best and as far from present reality as Manhattan is from Mars? What kind of empowerment of any use comes from discarding wisdom and reason (real reason, not emotional false reason)?

Believe me, I'm fully with you on this. The problem is, quite simply, that, with the very rare exception, there is no "electable" politician in existence that supports all our rights. I don't believe that to be an accident, either.


Moreover, it is very rare to find someone who truly supports liberty and understands the nature of it. It is far more common to find someone who claims to believe in liberty, but then goes on to support restrictions on those things that they personally dislike but which do not constitute violations of the rights of others. Should we dispense with those people as well? If we do, then we'll find ourselves numbering in the thousands, not in the millions. That way lies the death of all we fight for.


So like it or not, we must gain the support of those who are not fully on the path of liberty.

movie zombie
12-30-2012, 10:23 PM
...............But when the majority of those opposed to RKBA is composed of women, then how exactly can a gender-involved discussion be avoided, particularly when it should be clear that only women are being forced to trade the 2nd Amendment for a right more dear to them?


worth repeating.

IVC
12-31-2012, 9:04 AM
But when the majority of those opposed to RKBA is composed of women, then how exactly can a gender-involved discussion be avoided, particularly when it should be clear that only women are being forced to trade the 2nd Amendment for a right more dear to them?

Tradeoff is only during voting. Nobody is forcing women to join anti gun organizations and sign anti gun petitions. Nobody is forcing women to state their anti gun positions in polls. Same goes for anti gun men.

The anti gun position is a choice not a tradeoff.

Meplat
12-31-2012, 9:12 AM
Their voting patterns would be the same regardless, would they not?

.

Not 100%, I know plenty of pro life women. At least some of those must be indiffernt or hostile to the 2A. If you could change those minds it would be a net gain. Women are not as monolithic on R v W as some like to think.

Meplat
12-31-2012, 9:34 AM
Um, what? If they don't really want to change anything, then what is the point of alienating more people than you attract by claiming to be on the opposite side of the issue than said "more people"?


.

Because you need the votes from the ones you are attracting and you think most you are alienating won't vote for you anyway.

Maybe I can see this because I have a lot of women in my family that are less pro choice than I am. It is in fact not all black and white; many of the women I know would be amenable to a third trimester (baring extenuating circumstances like R-I-LOM) law. But then that's their thing, being male I donít have much of a dog in that fight.

Meplat
12-31-2012, 9:41 AM
Far-right and far-left are very nearly identical as regards rights and liberty of the general population (as opposed to liberty of those with large amounts of wealth).




When a right winger and a left winger start around the opposite sides of a tree they generally find a Libertarian in the back.

Tarn_Helm
02-09-2013, 12:42 PM
THAT is an idea worth exploring.

-Brandon

I agree. (http://www.suzannahupp.com/)

She is the right age.

She has the right kind of personal and political experience.

The NRA needs to create some sort of ad hoc position for her, send her around the country giving speeches, and have here appear on national TV constantly.

Why hasn't the NRA funded a documentary on this woman's experience at the Luby's massacre?

The NRA is too sluggish.

And it is missing a great opportunity to enlist the talents of a perfect female spokeswoman. (http://dailyrushbo.com/dr-suzanna-gratia-hupp-explains-2nd-amendment-and-the-need-for-assault-weapons/)

:coolgleamA:

AyatollahGondola
02-09-2013, 5:04 PM
If as many people who claimed to be Libertarian, acted or voted that way, there might actually be a chance that the Libertarian party could make some changes in America

They're not going to be making much difference in California anymore though

AyatollahGondola
02-09-2013, 5:16 PM
A lot of interesting commentary in this thread. I just rejoined the republican party after being a libertarian for like two decades. I've been attending meetings where a lot of this abortion, immigration, race hustling, and religion stuff is being discussed. There are women at these meetings, bit I'd say they're pro-life type. I don't think republicans hate women. We do have some problems relating to them, especially those republicans in the upper levels. I can't say how they feel about women with guns overall. I'll be exploring soon

SilverTauron
02-09-2013, 5:35 PM
worth repeating.

A lot of interesting commentary in this thread. I just rejoined the republican party after being a libertarian for like two decades. I've been attending meetings where a lot of this abortion, immigration, race hustling, and religion stuff is being discussed. There are women at these meetings, bit I'd say they're pro-life type. I don't think republicans hate women. We do have some problems relating to them, especially those republicans in the upper levels. I can't say how they feel about women with guns overall. I'll be exploring soon

Part of the trouble in explaining this dynamic is rooted in the fact that there is no male equivalent to the dilemma pro-gun women face when they head to the polls.

A good analogy for the situation women face is us guys having a political candidate who supports striking down evey anti-gun law in the nation, but supports a law mandating all men be forced to have govt. funded vasectomies unless we pay a $500 per year "fertility tax".

Meanwhile the other candidate is a card carrying Anti who wants guns banned but otherwise doesn't support forced sterilization of men.

Ill bet given the choice between forced sterilization versus a nationwide gun ban, most guys will rather live without the AR15. While not QUITE the same issue, that nevertheless is the choice women face when they vote at the polls.
We solve that problem by offering them a pro 2A candidate who doesn't want the govt. barging into their bedroom.

Put another way, us gun owners don't want Uncle Sam telling us what to buy.
Yet; more people male and female don't want Uncle to tell his women how she's going to plan her family. Since our voting system favors the majority, we are doomed to irrelevancy so long as we keep forcing nearly half our voters into choosing between the two issues .

LuvLRBs
02-09-2013, 6:27 PM
I agree. The candidates who get roped into talking about abortion, or if fetuses from rapes should live, are in a lose/lose situation. It's time to change the platform to say that the party favors life but respects choice. Then it becomes easier to ask for respect for gun right choices.

Poms&Guns
02-09-2013, 7:09 PM
I’ve been reading through this thread and thank God I am already a 2A supporter because if I weren’t, I would not have made it past the first page. Well..to be honest, I gave up after page 2 and just scanned as some posts I ignored completely. Fellas, there ARE women out there who like having their own gun and defending our basic right of self-defense. There are also a lot of women that are coming over to our side. Yes, it might be slower than we would like, but like a few posters said, you might have to actually cater a little bit towards women. I am not saying to pamper and be condescending to the “little ladies”. Just treat them like you would like someone to treat your mom or your girlfriend/wife who is now wondering about the necessity of owning a gun.

I am the CA Coordinator for Second Amendment Sisters. SAS is a women’s advocacy group dedicated to preserving the basic human right to self-defense. We believe in personal responsibility, education, and enforcement of laws against violent criminals.

It is important for all women regardless of race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, income level, religion, or politics to stand up and educate each other about the dangers of people trying to take away or infringe upon our basic right of self-defense under the auspice of “common sense”. They want to take away our ability to protect ourselves and our families against violent criminals who will not obey the law.
Women want to protect their family. And you are sadly mistaken if you think they only want to protect them on a one-on-one basis. A woman will defend her family against hundreds, if she has to, in order to protect her children. We are at a crossroads. More and more women are becoming more vocal about gun rights. People are questioning why women are suddenly arming themselves and learning to shoot. There are many reasons. But there is one glaring reason that is facing us as a nation today. When you think of a child, who comes to mind first as comforter…as protector? As moms….as sisters…as women…we are the ones capable of protecting our children whether it be as a gun owner ourselves, or as supporters of the 2nd Amendment and insisting on the repeal of the killing field known as the "gun free zone".

Sorry for the soapbox, but people do need to realize that there are many women out there who support our cause, but might just not know how to go about doing it. And some just need to be educated on how the 2nd amendment is a “women’s right issue”. And for some women, they many need to hear it from another woman who is not afraid to stand up for what they believe in. I have just recently been told that when I start my Ladies’ Shoots up here in the Santa Cruz area, there are several women who want to be in that first class. And they are all moms of elementary, middle, and high school students. What is great about this is that the more women you involve, the more young girls you involve. I now have 5 cheer moms who want to take my class and each of them has 1-3 daughters who will come along with them at some point. This is progress I can be happy with.

AyatollahGondola
02-09-2013, 7:18 PM
A good analogy for the situation women face is us guys having a political candidate who supports striking down evey anti-gun law in the nation, but supports a law mandating all men be forced to have govt. funded vasectomies unless we pay a $500 per year "fertility tax"..

Every man with children is paying a fertility tax

mag360
02-09-2013, 7:25 PM
Dunno whats wrong with ur wiminz mine carries her glock 26 everywhere. Git ur women in line.

;-)