The gender gap & gun rights

[kcbrown]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...............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]

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]

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]

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"?


.

[Meplat]

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]

Suzanna Gratia-Hupp

THAT is an idea worth exploring.

-Brandon

I agree.

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.