Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

‘Feminist’ writer reserves special hostility for armed men

Carolyn McCarthy, Demanding Moms and billionaire/body-guard-protected Mike Bloomberg would evidently rather see defenseless women brutally raped and murdered than armed and capable.
Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

A recently promoted and parroted monopoly of violence cult talking point appears to be that women wouldn't "need" guns if men were all good. And if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets, or if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Ain't that something? It seems like James Madison, someone who had more than a passing interest in the Second Amendment, expressed related thoughts in The Federalist #51:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

Leaving the realm of wishful MILM fantasies, we have this little thing called "reality" to face. Or avoid.

Ann Friedman of has chosen to avoid it, but not before blaming men in general and male gun owners in particular for her particular level of indignant Prozi dysfunction. That's the collectivist way, of course, spreading collective guilt as opposed to holding individuals accountable for their actions. If she were speaking of a specific race, as opposed to the opposite sex, a statement like "They've sure got rhythm" would be no less offensive. In any case, it appears Ann is one of those who truly would rather see women raped and butchered like hogs than armed.

As an aside, naming firearms after women is not particularly new, nor is it particularly associated with weird sexual projection:

Davy affectionately named [his flintlock rifle] “Old Betsy,” after his oldest sister.

Herschel Smith of "The Captain's Journal" has some further insights about Ann and her war on men worldview, along with two other features, one of his trademark "Notes from HPS" posts, and, well, I don't need to comment on what "A SWAT Team Blew A Hole In My Two Year Old Son" is about, except to note those are the Only Ones hysterical sexists like Ann think should be armed around women.

As for the "thesis" that the gun community being inclusive towards women is an extension of patriarchal oppression, the "For 'Progressives,' every day is Opposite Day" truism comes to mind. As I noted 14 years ago (yeah, I've been taking these ridiculous hypocrites on for even longer than that, but I could have been addressing this to Ann):

What a rabbit you seem compared to the free and confident armed women whom secure and trusting men cherish and admire.

So who are the true feminists?

How telling that so many antis, without anything more than feelings of frustration and inadequacy to rely on, ultimately resort to Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule centered around penises. There's a Godwin's Law corollary in there somewhere. And someone who knows Latin, help me out here: Would such arguments be “Reductio ad verpa?”


If you're a regular Gun Rights Examiner reader and believe it provides news and perspectives you won't find in the mainstream press, please subscribe to this column and help spread the word by sharing links, promoting it on social media like Facebook (David Codrea) and Twitter (@dcodrea), and telling your like-minded friends about it. And for more commentary, be sure to visit "The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance."


Those who would disarm you against your will can't always get what they want. My latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it well before the issue hits the stands. Click here to read "Gun-grabbers Can't Get No Satisfaction.”


My latest JPFO Alert notes, true to their "Every Day is Opposite Day" natures, it is the "progressives" who prove to be the most ignorant and hateful of bigots. See “Minority Gun Owners Share No ‘Stigma of Violence.’”


Don’t like the latest Supreme Court ruling? My newest entry in The Shooter’s Log recommends “To Prevent Another ‘Abramski,’ Get in the Fight.”

Report this ad