The gender gap & gun rights

[SPROCKET]

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]

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]

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]

[SilverTauron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[wildhawker]

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

THAT is an idea worth exploring.

-Brandon

[IVC]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.