The Right Opinion

The Anti-Choice Left's Disarming of the American Woman

By Michelle Malkin · Feb. 20, 2013

If radical gun-grabbers have their way, your daughters, mothers and grandmothers will have nothing but whistles, pens and bodily fluids to defend themselves against violent attackers and sexual predators. Women of all ages, races and political backgrounds should be up in arms over the coordinated attack on their right to bear arms.

In Colorado this week, male Democratic legislators assailed concealed-carry supporters and disparaged female students who refuse to depend on the government for protection. The Democrat-controlled House passed a statewide ban on concealed-carry weapons on college campuses, along with several other extreme gun-control measures that will undermine citizen safety and drive dozens of businesses out of the state.

Condescending Democratic Rep. Joe Salazar of Colorado asserted that young women can’t be trusted to assess threatening situations at their colleges or universities: “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles,” Salazar said during floor debate. “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…”

Colorado Sen. Jessie Ulibarri, another elitist Democrat, argued that instead of firing back at a crazed gunman, innocent victims would be better off using “ballpoint pens” to stab him when he stops to reload. Colorado Rep. Paul Rosenthal, another Democrat, told women to rely on the “buddy system” instead. And on Tuesday, after personally lobbying Colorado Democrats to restrict self-defense options, Vice President Joe Biden blithely dismissed a woman’s concerns about family security. He advised her, “You don’t need an AR-15” – even though it is the long arm of choice of three million law-abiding citizens, half of whom are veterans, law enforcement officers or both.

The presumptuous paternalism of gun-grabbing male Democrats is not confined to the political arena. On college campuses across the country, the literal disarming of women is standard operating procedure. At the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, officials advise women that “passive resistance may be your best defense.” The school’s recommendation to girls: “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.”

If that fails, it’s time to deploy other assault bodily fluids! No joke. UCCS seriously advises potential victims: “Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.”

In a quick survey of campus tips for women, editor Jenn Taylor notes that at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, women are also told that “passive resistance (vomiting, urinating, telling the attacker you’re diseased or menstruating) may be your best defense.” The University of Wisconsin Oshkosh tells girls to “©ry or create a scene of emotional or mental instability.” Instead of a Glock, the school prefers students take a page from “Glee.” Yes, ladies, when you fear for your lives, it’s time to engage in theatrics by faking a “faint” or “seizure.” And at Oregon State, female students are advised to tell sexual predators they are “sick or pregnant,” because guns and knives are banned on campus.

As I’ve noted before, colleges and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregated dorms, politically correct academic departments and designated “safe spaces” to protect students selectively from speech the left deems “hateful.” Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. As the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.

Where are the War on Women warriors of the left when you need them? Paging Ashley Judd, Eva Longoria, Sandra Fluke and every indignant feminist who (rightly) took Todd “legitimate rape” Akin to task – as I did – last fall. The sexist stance of gun-grabbers goes far beyond Akin-esque junk science about magical wombs that can prevent pregnancy. The idea that women can’t be trusted to know when they are at risk takes direct aim at their very sovereignty and security.

It’s anti-self-determination. It’s anti-freedom. It’s anti-choice.



rab in jo,mo said:

There is no debate, the best defense against rape is lead - delivered to the perpetrator at high velocity. Repeat treatment until the threat is eliminated.

At least, that's what my wife and daughter understand.

The way I look at it, any facility/entity that prohibits or impairs individual self-defense should assume all liability for the safety of said individuals. Maybe some lawsuits are needed to change the idiotic policies?

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 8:13 AM

Kevin from Arkansas in USA said:

""It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles,""

Using this logic colleges don't need fire extinguishers or sprinkler systems to fight fires. One only need to call or whistle up the fire department. Better yet just post "No Fire Zone" but don't confuse the "No Fire Zone" with the free fire zone the "No Gun Zone" creates.

Liberal Logic: The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

More Liberal Logic: Call boxes, safe zones, whistles, urinating and vomiting will stop an attacker but a women shooting a would be rapist with a .357 magnum will only make him mad.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 8:16 AM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

We went to TEA PARTY rallies, we went to Church, we went to Congress with letters, we handed in our ballots, now it may be time for bullets! I pray that I'm wrong, Michelle!

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Dick Belmont in Fergus Falls, MN said:

Isn't it interesting that Akin and Murdoch were taken to the cleaners for their comments on rape but Salazar and Ulibarri are given a pass for their disgusting, sexist comments. There couldn't possibly be any media bias here, could there with Akin and Murdoch being Republican and Salazar and Ulibarri being Democrats? Add the disgraceful suggestions by the elites at the colleges and universities to the list of liberals not held accountable. And these are the same folks that want women on the front lines in combat. Perhaps we can just let these female soldiers spill bodily fluids on the enemy instead of giving them weapons because they clearly don't have the emotional stability to use a rifle. Get it, left wingers.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 9:22 AM

KarenS in California replied:

I thought the same thing about women in combat when I read the article. According to some Democratic legislators and university officials, women are unable to discern a true threat from an imagined one, yet our government is now willing to put women in positions of combat, where the need to discern true threats is paramount. The inconsistency of their positions is clear, and it should be obvious that they can't have it both ways.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 10:42 AM

rippedchef in sc said:

my wife could stomp his guts out-what a fat soft wimp-man am I glad I live in SC

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 11:05 AM

GeorgePA in PA said:

To sum up, Dems prefer everyone be victims, and remain that way.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Kathy in West Texas said:

"..if you feel like you're gonna be raped.." First, how would you know if you’re about to be raped? Do you know the potential rapist is coming up behind you? Will he announce his intentions? Is now the time to tell him to wait, ‘I’ve got to run to the next call box’, or just start puking? Or I could just point the Safe Zone Sign and say no-no, not here.

Next Rep. Salazar says that if you feel like you’re in trouble, you could pop a round in somebody innocent, but the problem here is that an innocent person wouldn’t be stalking or following you, so that statement won’t hold water.

Now we have the problem with the other Democrats defending Salazar, calling his words a ‘Bidenism’. So, like Uncle Joe, he meant well, he’s just not very eloquent. He might want to take notes from Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri before he speaks of rape again.

The only things Biden and Obama are after is a ‘strong statement’ from a western state to help drive their gun control/confiscation agenda. They do not give a tinker’s damn about rape, protection, safety and least of all, our second amendment rights.

Lastly, I’ll say that there isn’t a politician in this country that could possibly have the slightest perception of the feeling in that situation, so stop telling women to get a whistle. Unless, of course, you’ve been there; then please let us know how that whistle worked out for you. Did it stop the attack? I didn’t think so.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Torp44 in Ione, Wa. replied:

Great comments, Kathy! Keep 'em coming!
You Texas folks, though, have GOT to do something about a particular Legislator down there who I just can't understand being elected in Texas, of all places! To wit:........... "I stand here as a freed slave because this Congress came together. Are we going to be able to do it today to free America?" --Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
What part of Texas elected this goofball??

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 1:54 PM

BJ in St. Cloud, MN said:

In 1776 while attempting to enforce one of the first gun control laws against the colonists by taking their guns from the armory at Lexington. The British tried to cross the bridge at Concord. The colonists had the same weaponry that the British army had and stood up to them, Hence, the "Shot Heard Round The World." "Shall Not Be Infringed" was built into the 2nd Amendment and it means what it says. ANY gun laws are Unconstitutional. ANY Restriction of "gun rights" by the people we may have to fight against is a ludicrous concept. You get to bring a single shot or semi auto to a fight where the aggressor has mortars, machine guns, radar, drones, cruise missiles, body armor, aircraft, etc etc.
Dipstick vice prez joe biteme says "the govt has the right to restrict what type of weaponry the public can have." Not even close to the truth. "Shall Not Be Infringed"
All three branches of govt are way past the point of despotic at this point. Individual rights, which this country was built on, are now a thing of the past while we're FORCED to serve the "collective" of barack hussien obama and his regime of collectivist minions. Biteme says "buy a shotgun." These are the people that should know what's in the Constitution better than anybody so when they say a gun is to protect your family from badguys or for some sporting purpose they're really just trying to convince the "sheeple" that it's true. "Shall Not Be Infringed" Registration has ALWAYS been followed by confiscation in the history of the world. Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, etc and 50 plus million people were killed by their own govts last century. Since badguys don't obey laws, and laws aren't enforced anyway, gun laws only affect the good guy while the badguy stays armed and we're disarmed. "Shall Not Be Infringed"
Would more gun laws have stopped Columbine, the CO. movie theatre, the school shootings, Luby's? Many gun laws were broken each time and everytime yet the collectivist govt wants you to believe that more gun laws will solve the problem. "Shall Not Be Infringed" Do gun laws stop the mayhem in our big cities? Do gun laws stop the carnage of over 50,000 killed near the Mexica

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

BJ, an interesting article by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

It compares the 68 GCA with the 38 law in Germany.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Tracie H in Florida said:

Could not agree more! Things on the left have gone entirely too far.

Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 5:35 AM

Ted R. Weiland in Nebraska said:

How did such people as these Colorado legislators and other nincompoops, scoundrels, and criminals inhabiting Crime Hill in Washington D.C. get into office in the first place? Among other reasons, the genesis is Article 6's ban of Christian tests for federal officials (and now the same in all state constitutions), thereby eliminating Biblical qualifications from the equation. Had the framers not done so, such people today would not be the decision makers in America.

For more, see online Chapter 9 "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land" at http://www.bibleversusconstitu.... Also, don't miss our Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar.

Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 11:48 AM

David in Mountain View Missouri replied:

Liberals and socialist say it’s the guns, it’s the guns that kill people. Ted says it’s the a piece of paper, it’s a piece of paper that kills people! We need to ask ourselves as we read such comments, why are they both using the same argument? Then lets see what Gods says:
“For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,” Mk. 7:21

Nothing about guns or paper here. It turns out the Christian Founders agreed with God as we can see:
Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

It comes down to what choice we each make, for God or for evil, not physical objects.

Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Robert in Texas Republic said:

Even a bat in the hands of an able bodied male may not be enough against 1 or specifically multiple attackers. How much less that ow women, children and the elderly or infirmed?

FORCE; Strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement. How is one to stop an aggressive force unless one have enough capacity to stop that force and do so without HARM to the INNOCENT?

Bottom line truth is God APPROVES because LIFE is precious... that we STOP THREATS which would disturb our Gift of life.

Genesis 9.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 2:45 PM