12

Better to be Raped Than to be Armed

At least that is what Joe Salazar, a Democrat State Representative in Colorado, apparently believes:

 

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Go to Red State here to read the rest.  Safe zones?  Whistles?  Call boxes?  I have always found it hilarious that liberals sometimes refer to themselves as “the reality based community”.  For most liberals when reality collides with their ideology, so much the worse for reality.  Gun control can be an abstract issue for many of us.  For a woman confronting a male attacker with an almost inevitable height, weight and muscle advantage, the abstract can become very concrete, very fast.  To deny them the right to arm themselves if they feel it necessary for their safety is a dramatic infringement on their personal liberty.  I have often in my law practice advised female clients fearful for their safety to purchase a firearm and learn how to use it.  Liberals often prate about freedom of choice.  The choice to own a firearm or not is a freedom that no man or woman should be denied in our society except by due process of law and not because some idiot liberal legislator has an anti-gun fetish.

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  • 4
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    4
    Shares

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

12 Comments

  1. About 30 years ago, a TV weather man got canned for advising a woman being assaulted to , , , I won’t repeat it.

  2. The above government official makes it appear that the crime of rape is of no consequence. The above video is almost as sensible as “the Spitball Defence”, whistles and bells and call boxes. “Excuse me, if you are going to rape me, I have to call for help now.” “Excuse me. Are you going to kill me or only rape me.”
    Most rapists come onto campuses because there are more victims to be found, and most likely will have a concealed weapon. An HIV/aids carrier is a death sentence. There was a time when any person who infected another with HIV/aids was to be tried for murder.
    Women are being cheated and disparaged by government officials for absolutely no reason. The Second Amendment has not been unratified, nor has it been changed by two thirds of the states. The above government official makes it sound like the government has authentic authority to remove concealed weapons. They do not. If they do, then the state can be sued for allowing the rape to occur.
    In the Bible, the rapist had to support his victim for her whole life.
    Give Obama and his family no security guards, no guns, only whistles and call boxes.

  3. Jay Anderson:

    The student was raped. The university suspended the rapist for two months. The victim’s father said: “NO, that is not enough” He went to civil court. The court decided double jeopardy…another rape of the victim.
    Eleven year old rape victims are told that they “asked for it” in court, when the criminals use this “she asked for it” as his defence. Rapists must get in line for their free rapes.
    It is incumbent of a decent citizen to provide counsel and care for any person so deluded as to “ask for it”, especially uninformed minor children.

  4. Mary, not sure why your comment was directed to me. All I did was post a link to another liberal downplaying campus rape rather than admit that guns can protect women from unwanted aggression.

  5. Mary,
    Double jeopardy is a procedural defense against criminal charges. It has no currency in a civil case. It is hard for me to understand how a university proceeding works to prevent civil proceeding. Perhaps by filing a complaint with the university the complainant agrees to not seek any other recourse? If so, it appears that the complainant may have made an unfortunate decision.

Comments are closed.