Many women are injured in domestic violence on a regular basis. The radical conservative base continues to pander to the NRA and the gun lobby instead of promoting women's rights.
From the same far right republican party that stops the passage of laws to promote women in the workplace comes opposition to laws to help women in the home. The republican party, long the party of males, has continued to push its relentless anti-women agenda through the nomination of conservative radicals to the courts who are hostile to women's rights. These judges and their party refuse to recognize the plight of women in modern America.
When will these radical conservative fascists come to the conclusion that we need to get rid of the guns and stop battering women? Possibly never.
In 2008, there is a candidate who takes women's issues seriously. Hillary Clinton has been endorsed by the National Organization for Women and will fight for women in the White House. She will put women's interests ahead of the interests of far right organizations like the NRA and the gun lobby and fight for sensible gun control. She will protect America from the terrorists. Indeed, Hillary Clinton has a history of supporting laws to stop terrorism such as the Patriot Act. Under her watch, there will be no more tax cuts for the rich, and women will finally have health issues addressed. Who knows, we might possibly finally achieve affordable child care as well to help women care for their children while they are in the workplace.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 15:10
Seriously, who gives a shit about women. Bitches ain't shit but hoes and tricks...the words of a wise man.
When the fuck are you going to get it through your thick fucking skull that GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! People are the problem. Guns don't jump up and just shoot people. It's the stupid assholes who have no self control who pick up the gun and fire it at someone for no good reason at all.
And what if you do get rid of guns? You honestly think that'll end violence against women? No. People will just use knives and baseball bats to hurt each other. Well, maybe you could take those away too. Oh, but they'll just use rocks and fists. Guess you have to ban those too, right?
Banning guns will not help anything you silly faggot. How about we treat the illness (men's negative views toward women and ideas that promote misogyny) instead of treating the symptom (gun violence directed toward women). Banning guns will only serve to empower criminals, who just ignore gun laws anyway, and strip the American people of their only way to defend against a corrupt government (which I assure will come into place if we allow the Bush-Clinton dynasty to continue).
agreed.
banning is the simple solution to everything, unfortunately people just find ways around laws and boundaries authoritys set up. its only when a more complex solution is found when things may start to change for the better
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 18:19
>>1
How will women defend themselves without access to firearms?
By leaving shitty relationships, learning martial, or buying a totally legal knife or pepper spray? Or how about calling the cops and threatening legal action? Leaving and going to a shelter followed by legal action is the best course of action, not blowing his head off and getting thrown in jail.
Guns aren't the heart of the domestic abuse issue; however, people fail to realize that guns are designed to kill whereas baseball bats and knives are mostly designed to hit balls and cut salad. Even knives designed for combat aren't nearly as effective at killing as guns.
>>7
The protection of the victim is of prime importance. Knives and pepper spray do not have sufficient stopping power, especially when a victim is physically weaker than their assailant. The fact that a firearm is designed to kill will ensure instant security for the victim, the abuser will either realise there is too much risk in attempting to disarm the victim or the abuser will be neutralised.
The only thing we should be discussing are the policies of firearm education, firearm training, firearm registration and perhaps even firearm subsidisation the state should undertake so that we can live in a society which allows the weak to defend themselves.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 20:57
Guns and AIDS = nigger population control.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-21 21:11
>>7
"...and knives are mostly designed to hit balls and cut salad."
cut salad? cut SALAD?
You obviously don't know what most knives are designed for. Fail harder.
The other day right outside my classroom some guy showed up with an aluminum baseball bat and started swinging it at people, I noticed him hitting 2-3 people, but they all ganged up on him, and he ran away.
Note, this was an outsider from a part of town setteling beef with people from another part of town that happens to go to my school.
Imagine if we lived in a country without any proper gun control like the US.
IF SOMEONE IS CRAZY ENOUGH TO SHOW UP AT MY SCHOOL WITH A FUCKING BASEBALLBAT AND SWING AT PEOPLES HEADS, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF HE HAD A FUCKING GUN?
"Guns dont kill people, people kill people?" <- except pulling a trigger proves to be like 100x more effective than swinging a baseball bat around when outnumbered ofc.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 2:44
>>12
"WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF HE HAD A FUCKING GUN?"
Armed students and teachers would shoot him thus preventing a massacre.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 2:47
It is good to see so many 4channers are receptive to this topic (women's rights). We need to launch a national campaign to restore women's rights and protect women. Part of that will indeed come from more strict gun control, but of course as many noted that isn't the only solution. We will also need to start controlling pornography and violent anti-women video games, something Hillary Clinton has taken the lead on. We will need a national health care and national day care system to provide women with quality health care and childcare so that they are more able to enter the workplace. As many of you no doubt know, the pornographic industries regularly conduct their assault on the public and its view toward women. For any who doubt this, you need only read this book by noted feminist Andrea Dworkin: http://www.amazon.com/Pornography-Possessing-Women-Andrea-Dworkin/dp/0452267935/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195717056&sr=8-1
Then you will understand how critical it is to the creation of a society where women are empowered that women be free of pornography, free from being viewed by males as mere objects or chunks of meat. As you know, pornography encourages men to eroticize the domination, humiliation, and abuse of women. It thus comes as no surprise that we live in a society so full of patriarchy and male chauvinism. This needs to stop, and the only way we are going to do it is by addressing the central cause: pornography. People need to learn that women aren't slutty chunks of meat for male amusement.
But the Niggers might spread aids to the white man. As those dirty monkeys do drive by shootings on each other they might hit a white person. I think shiping them back to africa would sort everything out.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 9:23
>>14
Retard, if Hillary Clinton becomes president the US public may never elect a woman again.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-22 9:58
this doesn't have anything to do with women's right you dumbfucks. how many women are actually SHOT as part of a domestic dispute? and out of those, how many would have been beaten to death if a gun wasn't available?
there are many reasons to ban guns (most of which i disagree with) but this domestic abuse prevention shit isn't one.
If women had guns, they'd be harder to beat. I smell fail.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-24 5:51
>>20 The fact is is that many women don't like guns and don't want guns because women don't lower themselves to such a level as do men. Then you have a situation in which only men are armed and the men abuse women! We need to empower women, not women haters!
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-27 12:08
Gun control does more to preserve and protect the power of the state than it does to protect the lives of innocent men. Keep that in mind as the government continues to be used to undermine your liberties and spread and support oppression abroad.
>>1 >>14 >>21
I'm literally speechless because of the sheer amount of ignorance in this thread. If I had the time I'd go through each reply sentence by sentence and point out the huge holes in your argument, but I have better things to do. Like hitting my head against a wall. For example, men are just as likely to be victims of domestic violence as women, but you wouldn't know that because your tunnel vision has blinded you. Sage'd.
By the way, I think I might vomit from the amount of political bias for profit in the link in >>1. The sword of double standards strikes again. Against men. Oh wait, has it ever hit anybody else? Sage'd once again.
When they put this law into effect, their crime rate DROPPED by 74%
Would you really pull a gun out in a store when you know that everyone else will pull theirs on you? Or, in this case, on a woman, when you know she may just shoot you too?
Anyone who wants to ban guns is an uneducated nigger.
Name:
Savage2007-11-27 23:22
I support and indeed advocate for responsible gun control, such as waiting periods, background checks and safety courses. However, I do not for a moment subscribe to the conceit (and yes, it is just that) that removing guns from the equation will have a drastic effect on the amount of violent crime in our nation, much less the amount of violence directed against women. The crime that is endemic in our society is entirely an issue of economics and education, and not an issue of who owns and carries firearms. Crime is so great in inner cities because the inner city neighborhoods are hotbeds of poverty. A person who is unable to feed his family or himself will of course consider turning to crime in desperation. Combine this with sub-standard education, and a media that constantly bombards people with a message promoting a lifestyle that focuses on owning bigger and better things and you have a huge problem. If our government would spend less time worrying about gun control and more time worrying about ever-expanding deficit spending, the growing gulf between the rich and the poor, the health care crisis, the subprime mortgage crisis, the trade imbalance and the refusal of China to engage in fair trade practices (which greatly reduces the demand for US goods and thus harms the labor market), we'd see much less crime and be generally better off.
Furthermore, the reduction in the number of guns would have little effect on domestic abuse issues or on violent crime against women. What WILL have an effect is educating women about their rights and alternatives. If more women would stop being ashamed of it and start reporting incidences of rape, then law enforcement would be better equipped to police such crime. If women would become educated and more independent, then dependence on a spouse for livelihood would decrease; this along with more education as to the alternatives and options that a woman in a domestic abuse situation has would have a huge impact on the number of cases.
Looking to gun control to protect US women is pointless and counterproductive in that it robs energy and resources from efforts that actually address the problem.
Name:
Largo Andante2007-11-27 23:35
As the whole point of civilian weapons ownership is to ensure that the populace can mount an effective revolt against the government should it ever become necessary, ANY government restriction on civilian weapons ownership is illegitimate and absurd.
Nice. Cold-war reasoning ftl! MAD results in unregistered guns with rogue nations, I mean, rogue citizens with axes to grind. Terrorism is the cold war's failures. This won't work. Next hypothesis please.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 3:56
your dick is a Republican but your asshole is a Democrat. sex may be needed to prevent a political argument.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 15:24
Hillary Clinton is not a person. She's a fembot, and I wont have a fembot running my country.
You idiot. Every town in the U.S. that has lax gun laws or even mandatory ownership laws has had an extreme decrease in crime rates. Next "rebuttal" please.