postheadericon Liberals offer better alternatives than firearms for self-defense

Which do you prefer?  Solutions to protect yourself from liberals or the one offered by conservatives?

Which do you prefer? Solutions to protect yourself from liberals or the one offered by conservatives?

As the assault on our Second Amendment rights continues, liberals have been quick to try to assuage the anger of the American people by offering a wide variety of asinine alternatives to protect ourselves.  In recent days we have heard that urinating, claiming you have a disease, whistles, and a host of other measures are better for self-defense than guns.

On Friday, Colorado State Representative Joe Salazar (D-Thornton) said that he was concerned an emotional woman might shoot the wrong person in an attempt to protect herself from being raped.  On the floor of the House he said whistles and safe zones were adequate defenses.

Not to be outdone, Representative Paul Rosenthal (D-Denver) similarly said there are certainly alternatives.  He offered the buddy system and judo as ways for women to protect themselves on college campuses.

Vice President Joe Biden who has been putting the pressure on his fellow Democrats at Colorado’s capitol offered his own alternatives.  Biden said a double-barreled shotgun would suffice for home defense.  Best of all, you don’t even have to shoot at an intruder – just “fire two blasts outside the house.”

Perhaps the vice president should lead by example.  I tend to think that if he feels a double-barreled shotgun is adequate for defense, he should arm the Secret Service detail that protects him and his family accordingly.  Let them be the first to dump their semi-automatic handguns and AR-15s.

One bill that is likely to pass the Colorado legislature will take away the right of students on college campuses to protect themselves with a concealed firearm.  No worries though, the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs Department of Public Safety has a whole host of solutions that will surely keep you just as safe as a gun.

UCCS offered 10 extraordinary tops on their website (and subsequently removed them) that are sure to keep you safe from an attacker:

  1. Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
  2. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
  3. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
  4. Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
  5. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
  6. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
  7. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
  8. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
  9. Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
  10. Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

Democrats and liberals are certain that these defensive measures will be every bit as effective as firearms in keeping you and your family safe.  No doubt you feel better now about having your constitutional rights stripped from you.

Editor’s note, 1:00pm: We almost forgot one other Colorado Democrat’s brilliant recommendation to protect yourself – a ball point pen.  Such was the proposal from State Senator Jesse Ulibarri (D-Adams County).

Subscribe to Tony’s Rants to be notified by email when a new story is posted:


 

3 Responses to “Liberals offer better alternatives than firearms for self-defense”

  • Ellen:

    Sorry, I will take my .40 over the peeing or puking defense. Liberals trying to take my gun will find that out the hard way.

  • Marco's Waterbottle:

    The Second Amendment refers to “arms” not “every type of death device that could ever exist once people, 200 years from now, figure out how to fire dozens or hundreds of bullets a minute from a single firearm.” Of course one has a right to have a gun, but I think we can agree one does not have a right to have a shoulder-fired missile launcher. The question then is where to draw the line. I have not heard a rationale defense for why one would need more than 10 bullet ammunition clips for legal purposes or armor piercing bullets.

    Moreover, while you of course have the right to keep a gun at home, very simple statistics show that a gun owner is more likely to HIMSELF die from his own gun than he is to use it to protect his home:
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

    So I don’t think it is unreasonable to demand certain regulations to ensure that guns are safely kept. And it is most definitely not unconstitutional. It’s funny how easy some folks on the NRA side of things forget what the Second Amendment actually says. It is only one sentence! “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The word regulation is IN the Second Amendment!

    • Tony:

      Love the pen name! ;-)

      The fact the Second Amendment is one sentence is irrelevant and has no bearing. In fact all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are single sentences. The key thing with the Second is the phrase “shall not be infringed” – that is pretty blunt language and its meaning crystal clear.

      At the time the Bill of Rights was written, citizens owned weaponry equal to that of the government and clearly the forefathers saw no problem with that. Much of that would have been considered “high tech” for the day.

      Are we to now believe that the government has rights that the citizens do not? Of course not.
      Indeed the Constitution was very specifically written to limit government, not the people. Not one Amendment in the Bill of Rights places restrictions on citizens and that was clearly done very purposely.

      Having said that, are there reasonable limitations on these rights? Yes. But as you say, where is the line drawn?

      You would likely argue that the forefathers never envisioned the types of weaponry envisioned now and as such it is absolutely acceptable to “regulate” it.

      However, it can also be said that they never envisioned a system by which any citizen could have the power to speak singularly to the entire globe as is the case with the Internet. Does that mean our freedom of speech is to be regulated accordingly?

      The Obama administration blamed a YouTube video for a death of four Americans in Libya. Perhaps we need to shut down the video service or limit access to these types of communications to prevent such tragedies.

      That of course is ludicrous and the mere thought of government regulating speech would send a shiver up any liberty loving American’s spine. Similar feelings should be felt over any infringement on our inalienable rights.

      As for “the line” to be drawn today, that is tough to say. If someone came to me with a proposal I found reasonable and promised there would be no more restrictions ever in the future, I might be on board. However history has shown that is not the case. Little by little the infringement happens and never ends.

      Gun owners have given and the government has taken many times in the past.

      I look to England as a prime example. Citizens there have allowed the government to whittle away at their right to bear arms over the past 100 years. Now personal ownership of firearms is virtually impossible and you even have to register a BB gun.

      Thanks but no thanks. I’ll cling to my guns and religion.

Email Subscription

Switch to our mobile site