Gun control is anti-women: Rapists empowered by gun restrictions
J.D. Heyes
(NaturalNews) In New York City on a recent morning, a man approached a woman standing at a Queens bus stop, forced her to a nearby cemetery by knifepoint, then proceeded to rape her.
The man, whom the victim described as 25-30 years old, approached the 41-year-old victim and asked her who she was waiting for, according to police. When the woman answered, "my husband," the thug put a knife to her back, then proceeded to walk her to a high school parking lot, where he made her empty her pockets. He then forced her to the cemetery and committed his heinous, cowardly act of sexual assault.
A few months ago, in December, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, speaking at a local press conference just a few feet away from heavily armed men whose job is to protect Hizzoner from harm, was lecturing city residents and the nation in general on the need for more gun control.
"The time for talk is over. Congress and the White House [have] to come up with something that stops this carnage no matter what the political ramifications are," Bloomberg said. "Somehow or other, we've come to think that getting reelected is more important than saving lives, that political power is more important than saving lives, that partisan politics is more important than saving lives. Enough."
Shortly thereafter, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, himself well-protected by armed men wherever he travels, heralded new strict gun control measures recently passed by likeminded lackeys in the state Legislature.
"The new law will limit gun violence through common sense, reasonable reforms that include addressing the risks posed by mentally ill people who have access to guns and banning high capacity magazines and lethal assault weapons. This legislation is not about hunters, sportsmen, or legal owners who use their guns appropriately. It is about reducing gun violence and making New York a safer place to live. I thank leadership of both the Assembly and Senate for their action on this important legislation," said Cuomo.
Nothing is more detrimental to protecting women than progressive hypocrites
Well, obviously New York isn't much safer, and while the woman who was victimized by the knife-wielding coward in Queens wasn't killed by a gun, she damn sure wasn't protected by one, either. So the rapist claimed another victim, the woman became another statistic, and Cuomo and Bloomberg slept like babies later that night under the protection of armed guards and without any knowledge of, or concern for, the raped woman, who must now try to survive the trauma of her ordeal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Left-wing ultra-progressives like Cuomo and Bloomberg supposed to be all in on women's health and other issues? Don't lefties like these two well-defended hypocrites claim to be the arbiters and champions of women?
What they are - and what their statist, like-minded friends and associates really are, however - is anti-woman, because they would rather let women be victimized by thugs, losers and cowards than be able to defend themselves with the best self-defense tool available - a firearm. New York City, as many of you already know, is known as a bastion of strict gun control, where concealed carry is all but prohibited.
New York State isn't much better in terms of allowing its citizens the right to keep and bear arms, as the founding fathers intended that right to be used. New York, you see, is a may issue state, not a shall issue one, meaning the decision to allow a person there to carry concealed is up to local officials who the state has given the power to determine whether or not the person applying is worthy of protection.
But here these two hypocrites are, lecturing the women of New York and the rest of the country about what types of firearms they "need" or "don't need," all from the safety of their protected lairs, as more and more women fall victim.
And yet, a gun in the hand of a trained woman would make life much safer for her - a helluva lot safer than she otherwise would be.
'How does disarming me protect me?'
"If a woman can protect herself, it's the first line of defense. She is 30 to 40 percent more likely to be attacked than a man," one 30-year Philadelphia police officer and firearms instructor told the website, The Well-Armed Woman.
Other experts agree. They note that women are:
-- More likely to be stalked;
-- More likely to be killed by a husband or boyfriend;
-- More likely to be raped;
-- More likely to be beaten and victimized.
In the hands of a trained woman, a gun is an equalizer. Most women are smaller than the average man and, hence, physically no match for them, but with a firearm handy, they don't need to be physical. Just accurate.
Rape survivor Amanda Collins appeared before a panel of the Colorado Legislature March 5 pleading with lawmakers to allow concealed carry on college campuses, like the one where she was raped. She summed up in her testimony the hypocrisy of the Left in opposing this basic right of self-defense for women (and men, for that matter) as well as the futility of gun control laws enacted by well-defended men and women who exist in a bubble of taxpayer-provided protection:
As I live with the memory, weighted with the question of my life: 'What would have been different if I had been carrying the weapon I was licensed to carry that night?' I would like to leave you with a question: 'How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?'
No progressive anti-gunner - who otherwise claims to have women's best interests in mind - can satisfactorily answer that question.
Sources:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/z039874_gun_control_womens_rights_rape_victims.html