The gender gap & gun rights

[billmaykafer]

civil rights are not divided by gender. they are civil rights.

[SilverTauron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...vide-is-sharp/

[IVC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Extra411]

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]

You guys are your own worst enemy. One day your own words will be used against you.