My body, my choice (Article)

[jimpeel]

This woman has it all together. She makes her points lucidly and factually. More women need to think like her.

SOURCE

...

But the Second Amendment applies to us all, “the people”, not just men. So as a woman, I want to state my feelings about this amendment and what rights I believe it bestows on me:

• I have the right to defend myself, no matter what the “weapon.”
• I have the right to defend my children, my grandchildren and any other loved ones.
• I have the right to carry my defense wherever I go, not restricted (and in danger of being victimized) based on another person’s fear or lack of knowledge.
• I have the right to be free of intimidation, ridicule, bias, discrimination and judgment from those who disagree with my stand or are simply uneducated and ignorant of the facts about gun ownership, self-defense, and safety.

[MORE]

 

[TheNatureBoy]

Pressing "like" button.

 

[Buzzcook]

I have the right to be free of intimidation, ridicule, bias, discrimination and judgment from those who disagree with my stand or are simply uneducated and ignorant of the facts about gun ownership, self-defense, and safety.

Well, except for physical intimidation, not that part.

no matter what the “weapon.”

That one needs a dependent clause. Area weapons should be frowned upon.

 

[HiBC]

This link will get you a you tube animation of a woman explaining why she carries.I think it is well done...and,it applies to why anyone might carry,not only women.

http://youtu.be/NuLoVaGaa3w

 

[tekarra]

Very succinctly stated.

 

[SPEMack618]

While my sister is placated with turkey, I am going to drag her in front of the computer and make her read that word for word.

 

[Warrior1256]

My wife feels exactly the same way as do I. This lady has my utmost respect.

 

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

marriage potential

 

[Nathan]

Pretty good. i like'd it.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Well, I hate to poop on her parade but it's pet peeve of mine when people claim "rights" that don't exist.

While I agree with her over-all point, she does not have a right to be free of ridicule or judgement. Quite the opposite, in fact. Others have every right to ridicule and judge her. It might be no more palatable than a KKK convention, but they have the right.

 

[JerryM]

[While I agree with her over-all point, she does not have a right to be free of ridicule or judgement. Quite the opposite, in fact. Others have every right to ridicule and judge her. It might be no more palatable than a KKK convention, but they have the right.]

Agree.
If she uses deadly force over that "right" she will find herself in prison.
Jerry

 

[jimpeel]

Reading far too much into this, guys.

You went from her assertion of a self-endowed right to her using deadly force against someone for "ridicule, bias, discrimination and judgment from those who disagree with [her] stand or are simply uneducated and ignorant of the facts about gun ownership, self-defense, and safety."

As for the other part where she asserts a right against intimidation -- if that intimidation is a guy standing over her with a ball bat, or other threatening device, she should use whatever force is necessary to stop that intimidation.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I made no association to use of force against those things. I'm simply pointing out that she DOES NOT have the right to be "free of.." those things. I don't like it when people try to make everything into a right. Rights are special. Not being bothered, annoyed, critiqued, made fun of, ridiculed, judged, etc, is not a "right".

 

[jimpeel]

Clarifying:

You (Brian Pfleuger) went from her assertion of a self-endowed right to (JerryM) her using deadly force against someone ...

I agree with you about her self endowed rights. I thought it was a bit over the top to assert that she might use deadly force to enforce those rights.

 

[HiBC]

I'm all in favor of armed and dangerous women.

I can applaud her statement as a newfound sense of something and painting in broad strokes.

At the same time,the devil is in the details.Her points one and two are valid and strong.


But,after that,IMO Peetza makes some valid points.I share his comment on Rights.That word is misused .Every day I see "You have a right to...(something someone else should pay for) and you are some kind of victim if it is not provided."

IMO,I do not have a right to food.If I was hungry and could not provide for myself,people would help me and I would be grateful.That is not a right.If I felt food was my right and stole food,I would be violating someone elses right.

And,we cannot carry everyplace.We can argue what should be,but we must deal with what is.Beyond ridicule or intimidation,I would be fired and charged with a crime if I carried at work.

I admire her spirit,and her statement.Some fine points need to be aged and mellowed.

The effectiveness of concealed carry is compromised if it is "out".

If no one knows she is carrying,her issues are moot.She won't need approval if she is silent about carrying.

We cannot control the fears,reactions,thoughts,and words of others.Carrying concealed has responsibilities.