“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.
Speaking of Bloomberg, take a look at his endorsement plans: