Saw a sign at the rally that read “GUN RIGHTS ARE WOMEN’S RIGHTS”, and as I tried to unpack that, I realized I had no idea what it even means. Where’s the blur team when you need them.
The counterfactual was, in fact, factual; the Black Panthers were one group of black people (usually, but not exclusively, men) who took the right to bear arms seriously. The government’s answer was to disenfranchise the right from felons, and to make a great number of black men felons. (Black men make up approximately 6% of the US population, and approximately 50% of the US prison population. And, as a final fun fact, the US has approximately 25% of the world’s prison population.)
Lady Mondegreen
The counterfactual was, in fact, factual; the Black Panthers were one group of black people (usually, but not exclusively, men) who took the right to bear arms seriously. The government’s answer was to disenfranchise the right from felons, and to make a great number of black men felons.
And, of course, to pass gun control legislation in California. Under governor Ronald Reagan.
James Garnett
We know what happens when they are not white men: the governor immediately signs a law banning open-carry.
Dang it, James, read the comments first. Lady Mondegreen beat you to it!
southwest88
#1 twiliter — I am a woman who travels long distances alone in areas where help is not going to arrive in time if I am attacked. So, to me, carrying a gun is a women’s right because it allows me to have a chance of defending myself with lethal force against larger/stronger attackers. Does having a gun always work for self-defense? No, cops get their guns taken away from them in fights. The person who attacks from behind always has the advantage.
I have never illegally “brandished” my weapon at anybody but I have had some sketchy men approaching me decide to change direction when I stretch and my weapon is visible for a second. So, yeah, I will gladly call gun rights part of women’s rights. When male violence against women is no longer a thing, I will rethink my position but I think I will be carrying for the rest of my life. :)
twiliter
Yes by all means SW, protect yourself and be safe out there. I simply don’t understand the conflation of the two. Seems to me that gun rights are not necessarily gender specific, as the second amendment doesn’t make the distinction in any explicit way. My neighbor works at gun shows and sells various pepper sprays and stun guns for self defense (she markets particularly to women in fact), so I see the need for self defense, guns or otherwise. Also the need for self defense is not completely a women’s issue, there are also a lot of men who are victims of violence. But yes, attacks by men against women are particularly nasty, not to mention more frequent, and women should protect themselves!
latsot
The way those men in the pictures are obviously treating this as a LARP particularly disturbs me.
Rob
It’s striking isn’t it Latsot? Sure, some of them are military veterans, but there are guys who are neither veterans or police, dressing up in surplus military uniforms, kit and weapons. On the one hand it’s pathetic and laughable because it speaks to some deep insecurity and need to feel powerful and in control. On the other hand it’s scary, because insecure and potentially unstable people have access to military grade weapons and equipment.
I’m perfectly relaxed about NZ’s decision to ban civilians from owning anything that could be considered a military weapon or accessory to one.
Comments
10 responses to “Festivities have commenced”
Saw a sign at the rally that read “GUN RIGHTS ARE WOMEN’S RIGHTS”, and as I tried to unpack that, I realized I had no idea what it even means. Where’s the blur team when you need them.
Ha “the blur team” – good one.
The counterfactual was, in fact, factual; the Black Panthers were one group of black people (usually, but not exclusively, men) who took the right to bear arms seriously. The government’s answer was to disenfranchise the right from felons, and to make a great number of black men felons. (Black men make up approximately 6% of the US population, and approximately 50% of the US prison population. And, as a final fun fact, the US has approximately 25% of the world’s prison population.)
And, of course, to pass gun control legislation in California. Under governor Ronald Reagan.
We know what happens when they are not white men: the governor immediately signs a law banning open-carry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
Dang it, James, read the comments first. Lady Mondegreen beat you to it!
#1 twiliter — I am a woman who travels long distances alone in areas where help is not going to arrive in time if I am attacked. So, to me, carrying a gun is a women’s right because it allows me to have a chance of defending myself with lethal force against larger/stronger attackers. Does having a gun always work for self-defense? No, cops get their guns taken away from them in fights. The person who attacks from behind always has the advantage.
I have never illegally “brandished” my weapon at anybody but I have had some sketchy men approaching me decide to change direction when I stretch and my weapon is visible for a second. So, yeah, I will gladly call gun rights part of women’s rights. When male violence against women is no longer a thing, I will rethink my position but I think I will be carrying for the rest of my life. :)
Yes by all means SW, protect yourself and be safe out there. I simply don’t understand the conflation of the two. Seems to me that gun rights are not necessarily gender specific, as the second amendment doesn’t make the distinction in any explicit way. My neighbor works at gun shows and sells various pepper sprays and stun guns for self defense (she markets particularly to women in fact), so I see the need for self defense, guns or otherwise. Also the need for self defense is not completely a women’s issue, there are also a lot of men who are victims of violence. But yes, attacks by men against women are particularly nasty, not to mention more frequent, and women should protect themselves!
The way those men in the pictures are obviously treating this as a LARP particularly disturbs me.
It’s striking isn’t it Latsot? Sure, some of them are military veterans, but there are guys who are neither veterans or police, dressing up in surplus military uniforms, kit and weapons. On the one hand it’s pathetic and laughable because it speaks to some deep insecurity and need to feel powerful and in control. On the other hand it’s scary, because insecure and potentially unstable people have access to military grade weapons and equipment.
I’m perfectly relaxed about NZ’s decision to ban civilians from owning anything that could be considered a military weapon or accessory to one.