There are many faces of gun ownership in America, but the media doesn’t often show its diversity. We never see the young women who are gun owners. Rarely do we see news articles about how many crimes and rapes are prevented by gun owners. More importantly, we never hear about how infringing on our Second Amendment rights is precedent to infringe on our other constitutional rights.
However, we do constantly hear a direct assault on our rights and a distorted role of government from politicians and from the media.
Leading the charge of this assault on our rights is the Democrat nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. It’s unfortunate that the first women to be nominated for President of the United States does not believe in a person — a woman’s — inherent right to self-defense. If she did, she would support the right of women to protect themselves with the tools best suited for their protection.
Despite her lies in this weekend’s interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Clinton disagrees with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court struck down Washington’s handgun ban and recognized that the Second Amendment applies to the individual’s right to bear arms.
Just last year, Clinton said that she would consider a national gun buyback program similar to Australia’s compulsory buyback program, which included banning semi-automatic weapons.
Clinton voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed by Congress in 2005. Not even Bernie Sanders believed that gun manufacturers and dealers should be held liable for the “criminal or lawful misuse” of firearms. But Clinton does.
She believes that companies that supply our firearms for personal protection and home defense, for our police officers and our military, should be sued out of business for someone else’s actions.
Using her logic, Jiffy, as well as the supermarket that sold the peanut butter could be sued and held liable for fatalities caused by a peanut allergy.
Cuisinart, as well as Bed Bath & Beyond, could be sued because one of their knives was used to stab and kill someone.
Honda, as well as the local dealership, could be sued for injuries caused by a drunk driver…
Her positions are self-serving and her attacks on the Second Amendment are just another conduit to advance her political agenda. An agenda where political disagreements are demonized and suppressed — in fact, she told us herself that our democracy is “isn’t working.”
Just yesterday, in her interview with Chris Wallace, Clinton said that every right that we have is open to and subject to reasonable regulations. That government has the right to restrict our First Amendment rights to free speech, religion, petition, press, and assembly. What Clinton revealed is that progressives view disagreement as sedition, and therefore must call for censorship.
In her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Clinton said “We should be working with responsible gun owners to pass common-sense reforms and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and all others who would do us harm.”
If she wanted to keep guns out of the hands of criminals then she would be talking about the criminals who are illegally obtaining guns, directing the DOJ to aggressively pursue straw buyers. If she wants to keep guns out of the hands of evil people, then she would have talked about radical Islamic terrorists and their dangerous ideology.
If Clinton wanted to work with responsible gun owners to pass common-sense reform, she would talk about improving the system for law-abiding gun owners not restricting it. For example, one measure she could propose would be to permit any individual who is looking to sell their firearm to pay a small fee to access the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This would allow private sellers to run a background check on the individual looking to purchase their firearm. Law-abiding citizens do not want to sell a gun to someone who can’t legally own one.
We can take other preventive measures as well; such as teaching students and faculty to identify warning signs of mental illness and providing counseling to those individuals while enhancing campus alert systems and training for campus police. Additionally, we should allow trained, licensed adults who legally carry concealed handguns to do so on college campuses.
But Clinton isn’t going to propose real solutions because she’s not really concerned about what’s good for us; it doesn’t help her attain power.
As a young woman, choosing to be a responsible gun owner empowers me because my firearm is the ultimate equalizer. Irrelevant restrictions and deceptive rhetoric do nothing to protect me. I protect myself.
When I’m inside a shopping mall, leaving a grocery store, walking to my car in a parking lot, or pumping gas late at night, the only thing that comforts me is knowing that I have the opportunity to fight back against a criminal if I find myself in an unfortunate situation. I refuse to be a defenseless target and so should all young women.
It always surprises me that feminists advocate against themselves by opposing gun rights. It surprises me that the Democrat Party, the party of so called “equal pay” and “gender equality” thinks women’s access to firearms is a partisan topic. What’s even more disappointing are the women who support these politicians and cheer as they promise to take away their rights.
Young women (ages 18-35) have become the most talked about voters in America, especially since so many voted against Clinton in the primary. America has embraced the rise of the independent woman and encouraged her success. I am one of them. We no longer rely on a partner to protect or support us financially. The Democrats want women to marry the state, to control them and “protect” them because they’re too weak, inept, or soft to do it themselves. Women shouldn’t accept this characterization; I certainly won’t.