Suggestion to Disarm Men as Offensive as Bloomberg’s Desire to Disarm Blacks

By David Codrea

Eugène_Delacroix_-_Le_28_Juillet._La_Liberté_guidant_le_peuple
Only a “progressive” who doesn’t have a clue as to the unalienable nature of rights would believe government needs to take them from men to give them to women –or that rights come from and are given by government in the first place. (‘Liberty Leading the People' by Eugène Delacroix)

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Maybe Someone Does Need to Take Our Guns Away,” an opinion piece at Complex proposes. As is always done with such screeds, that headline offers instant refutation of the ubiquitous “progressive” protest that no one is talking about taking anyone’s guns.  Of course they are, and have been, from the initial Brady Campaign predecessor goal to ban handguns to the current draft Democrat platform to ban politically incorrect semi-autos, to repeated (and increasingly high profile) calls to repeal the Second Amendment.

That’s the end goal. It’s been clear since the start that the plan was to do things incrementally, and if anyone notices, they're to be ridiculed as paranoid.

Liars gonna lie.

Another Complex piece scales things back by only calling for disarming men.

“Here's An Idea: Only Women Should Have Guns,” this new theme goes. “[S]ince it's abundantly clear that they'll commit less violence than men and be vulnerable to violence committed by men, let's take all the guns away from men and give them to women.”

“Let’s” as in “let us”?

And who would that “us” doing the dirty work be? Certainly none of the bloodthirsty little simpletons at Complex, who are playing with a fire they don’t understand.

It figures that Opposite Day “progressives,” who portray themselves as defenders against sexism, would offer such a patently sexist and offensive non-solution. It’s every bit as offensive as billionaire citizen disarmament fanatic Michael Bloomberg leading the “progressive” charge to challenge the fitness of blacks to own guns.

Collectivists gonna collect  — or at least wish they could.

The gun-grabbers aren’t sincere about arming women, of course. They’re the loudest and most shrill voices against women being armed. It’s the “side” maligned as “haters” who champion the rights of women and minorities to keep and bear arms. That would be us gun ownership advocates.

Still, there is one area where special attention to the rights of women would be appropriate, and would actually remove a sexist provision from the law. That would be United States Code, where it defines the “militia.”

The only recognized “female citizens … are members of the National Guard.”  They’re not included in the “unorganized militia,” and contrary to the developing trend in the military, they’re not subject to being called up.

They have as much a right to keep and bear common use militia weapons as anyone. But don’t expect “progressives” who represent themselves as “feminists” — like Hillary Clinton — to push for any recognition in that law.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 7
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    7 Comment threads
    0 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    6 Comment authors
    Wild BillJanekBackwoods EngineertrumpedElmo Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @BE, I am pretty sure that what you allude to will not be a risk, but an expenditure.

    Janek
    Guest
    Janek

    If ‘Libs’ can make ‘sexist comments’ about men it should be fair to say women should be kept ‘barefoot and pregnant’? LOL

    Backwoods Engineer
    Guest
    Backwoods Engineer

    One must ask, if Progressives are so hell-bent on taking our birthright away, why don’t they just get King Hussein I to send forth his DHS thugs door-to-door to collect “assault weapons” and even handguns? Why don’t they stop talking so much, and start going door-to-door Katrina-style? Why don’t they just invade a Southern state in force, and CONFISCATE and EXTERMINATE? The reasons they don’t are a) all they really know how to do is talk; b) they quiver in mortal fear of a competent, principled peaceably-armed citizenry, because c) they know if they send forth thugs, the MP-5-wielding, jack-booted… Read more »

    trumped
    Guest
    trumped

    So then using the same logic, since blacks commit at least seven to eight times as many murders per capita than whites – is this Social Justice Warrior Feminazi calling for taking away guns from all blacks aand given them to whites?

    For some reason, I doubt the cultural marxist would have the courage to say that. Kind of like how it is ok to say the nonsense “white privilege” garbage, but the same people would never, ever dare use the phrase “Jewish Privilege.”

    Elmo
    Guest
    Elmo

    “A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders.”
    – Larry Elder

    Eric
    Guest
    Eric

    Wonder what they thnk of my wife, who is taking up archery at 48 , enjoys firearms , which her democrap NY cop cousins dislike.

    Janek
    Guest
    Janek

    It’s just the same Progressive Liberal mantras, they keep recycling them in the hope that it will wear down your resistance to their lies and/or propaganda. A good counter strategy would be to remind everybody that Hillary is a loser. On her first run at the Presidency the Democrats chose Barack Hussein Obama, a nationally unknown Illinois politician, as their candidate for President. Why do you think they did that?