If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Woman who came out against the Violence Against Women Act pleaded with Senators yesterday that women need assault weapons to defend themselves. If only there was some law that punished those that attacked women with violence   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 159
    More: Ironic, Violence Against Women Act, Gayle Trotter, Sen. Patrick Leahy, assault weapons, temporary visas  
•       •       •

1373 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jan 2013 at 9:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-31 09:09:28 AM  
It won't stop all violence against women.  Even the liberals will admit that.  Laws don't stop bad things from happening and any fool can see they are largely useless, but it does allow the government to embiggen itself.  Of course some people want that sort of thing.  Bad people, is who I mean.
 
2013-01-31 09:09:31 AM  
 
2013-01-31 09:19:33 AM  
At least she didn't say that she was against VAWA because criminals would just ignore the law.
 
2013-01-31 09:21:30 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: At least she didn't say that she was against VAWA because criminals would just ignore the law.


This is almost as bad
 
2013-01-31 09:32:00 AM  
And I'm sure if someone actually asked her about this she would never see any kind of inconsistency in her positions, and neither would any other Republican.
 
2013-01-31 09:51:27 AM  
Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.
 
2013-01-31 09:51:27 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: It won't stop all violence against women.  Even the liberals will admit that.  Laws don't stop bad things from happening and any fool can see they are largely useless, but it does allow the government to embiggen itself.  Of course some people want that sort of thing.  Bad people, is who I mean.


So what you're saying is that you are an anarchist
 
2013-01-31 09:52:10 AM  
People need to see her interview on Lawrence O'Donnell last night.

It was Chris Matthews on Kevin James epic. LOD asked her how she could support having women with guns while opposing VAWA and she just went in with her pre-set talking points.

I swear she was going to yell out "APPEASEMENT!"
 
2013-01-31 09:54:20 AM  
One token minority who is obviously a paid shill does more harm than good Republicans......it not only shows how vile you are, but also insults the intelligence of everyone who hears your message.
 
2013-01-31 09:55:28 AM  
Is this the idiot who testified about needing "scary looking" guns?
 
2013-01-31 09:56:11 AM  
That was nothing but a Republican Clown Show...

It's incorrect to call these shameless assholes completely clueless. These are ideologues and they're nothing more than tools of the gun manufacturing industry and its champion, the NRA.


What a farking joke these people have become.
 
2013-01-31 09:57:13 AM  

Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.


So I guess a rocket propelled grenade launcher is out of the question then.  Because those things are awesome.
 
2013-01-31 09:57:44 AM  

CPennypacker: hillbillypharmacist: It won't stop all violence against women.  Even the liberals will admit that.  Laws don't stop bad things from happening and any fool can see they are largely useless, but it does allow the government to embiggen itself.  Of course some people want that sort of thing.  Bad people, is who I mean.

So what you're saying is that you are an anarchist


I think he's sarcastic, since I recall him NOT being a Fark Independent™ most days.  However the people who ACTUALLY hold those views (Republicans) are.  They dream of the day when society collapses and they can stand on top of the mountain with their canned food and shotguns and say, "I told you soooooo!!!!"

Probably while masturbating.
 
2013-01-31 09:57:48 AM  
www.westernsporting.com
Wow, look at this patch of natural grass!
 
2013-01-31 09:59:41 AM  

Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.


So when you've defended your home, what worked better, your shotgun or your pistol?

And why is an AR-15 bad?

I figure that if you live on a ranch or a large area of land, a rifle would be better because it's more accurate at a distance.
 
2013-01-31 09:59:55 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: It won't stop all violence against women.  Even the liberals will admit that.  Laws don't stop bad things from happening and any fool can see they are largely useless, but it does allow the government to embiggen itself.  Of course some people want that sort of thing.  Bad people, is who I mean.


wut?

Those are all English words (well... except the cromulent one), but in the way they're ordered, they don't appear to be in any sort of English I've ever known...

keylock71: That was nothing but a Republican Clown Show...


Out of curiosity... how long has it been since republicans participated in anything that they <i>didn't</i> ultimately turn into a clown show?
 
2013-01-31 10:00:37 AM  

GAT_00: And I'm sure if someone actually asked her about this she would never see any kind of inconsistency in her positions, and neither would any other Republican.


There is no inconsistency.  I think women should be armed... I think that giving a subsidies to women who claim to be baterd makes it possible for abuse.  Can you point where the two statements even touch?
 
2013-01-31 10:02:09 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: keylock71: That was nothing but a Republican Clown Show...

Out of curiosity... how long has it been since republicans participated in anything that they <i>didn't</i> ultimately turn into a clown show?


Heh... Beats me.
 
2013-01-31 10:02:57 AM  
Come all ye young fellas
That handle a gun
Beware of night rambling
By the setting of the sun
And beware of an accident
That happened of late
To young Molly Bán
And sad was her fate
 
2013-01-31 10:03:17 AM  

Saiga410: I think that giving a subsidies to women who claim to be baterd


I have no idea what you or GAT_00 are on about, but I do find it amusing that the position of every republican these days on every issue seems to be that we shouldn't help anybody in a given group of victims because some of those people may just be pretending to be victims.

Exactly when DID the republican mantra become "It's always best to throw the baby out with the bathwater"?

Well... except guns... with that issue we apparently have to drown the baby in the bathwater.
 
2013-01-31 10:03:23 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.

So I guess a rocket propelled grenade launcher is out of the question then.  Because those things are awesome.


I want one of those magazine-fed grenade launchers like Poncho had in Predator.

/Iff'n I can't have my stuff, NO ONE WILL!!!!
 
2013-01-31 10:03:30 AM  

1derful: Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.

So when you've defended your home, what worked better, your shotgun or your pistol?

And why is an AR-15 bad?

I figure that if you live on a ranch or a large area of land, a rifle would be better because it's more accurate at a distance.


So if you live on a ranch you shoot anyone you see on your property?
 
2013-01-31 10:03:39 AM  

Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.


I was impressed that, in a hearing about "assault weapons" and high capacity mags, none of the people who came to testify brought even a single story about how one of those weapons saved a life.  All their scary stories were stopped with regular shotguns and pistols.
So they couldn't even defend their position.
 
2013-01-31 10:04:10 AM  
IF women are equal why should violent crimes against them be subject to greater prosecution effort and enhanced punishements than violent crimes against men?  Are women after equal treatment under the law or demanding special/unequal treatment?

If they can handle combat the same as men they can certainly handle violent crime as well.
 
2013-01-31 10:04:22 AM  

Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.


I listened to her on on the way home last night, her basic argument was that a scary looking weapon was need if a woman was being attacked by 3 or 4 attackers at once.  I thought there is a certain noise that a pump action shotgun makes that conveys a very primal message.
 
2013-01-31 10:07:15 AM  

Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.


An AR is an excellent home defense weapon. Cops have had pistols and shotguns for ages, yet more and more departments are replacing the shotgun with AR-15s and answering any weapons or active intruder calls with them. Why?

- ARs have far less recoil. Easier to control, easier followup shots. Much less painful training means you are going to go to the range and be more competent with it.

- ARs have better ergonomics than shotguns. Better with body armor. Better for smaller officers and women.

- .223/5.56mm is far less lethal after going through walls than 00 buck, slugs or handgun ammo. AR rounds tend to tumble and break apart after hitting something hard and lose a lot of lethality. This is why SWAT teams all ditched their 9mm HK MP5s for AR rifles years ago - less liability in case someone is in a room behind the bad guy.

- The modular nature of the AR platform makes adding things like a red dot sight and light easier than on a shotgun. Police and military studies have definitively proven that red dot sights require far less training and significantly increase the hit probability for shooters of all skill levels. Lights are an absolutely necessity for home defense in the opinion of most law enforcement and civilian firearms trainers.

- While 30 rounds is likely far more ammo than someone will ever need in any defensive situation, the fact is that getting hits on a bad guy is very hard when under stress (even for the police). For a citizen, with the adrenaline and fear of an actual lethal encounter going on, the 5-7 rounds in a shotgun may honestly not be enough. Remember - trained police only have a 30% hit rate during shooting engagements (and they are far more inoculated to stress and fights than your average citizen).

You may disagree with all of this, but again, police departments across the country study defensive shootings intensely. Every major department is moving away from shotguns (aside from less than lethal applications), putting more ARs on the street in patrol cars and answering as many high risk calls as they can with them.

Or think of it this way - if someone is breaking into your home, the first thing the cops will likely put through your front door (when they eventually get there), is the muzzle of an AR-15. Skip the middleman.
 
2013-01-31 10:07:18 AM  

hasty ambush: IF women are equal why should violent crimes against them be subject to greater prosecution effort and enhanced punishements than violent crimes against men?  Are women after equal treatment under the law or demanding special/unequal treatment?

If they can handle combat the same as men they can certainly handle violent crime as well.


katpadi.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-31 10:07:50 AM  

Cheron: I listened to her on on the way home last night, her basic argument was that a scary looking weapon was need if a woman was being attacked by 3 or 4 attackers at once.


www.rawstory.com
I don't think this woman needs any gun to scare 3 or 4 fellows away.
 
2013-01-31 10:08:27 AM  

born_yesterday: Marcus Aurelius: Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.

So I guess a rocket propelled grenade launcher is out of the question then.  Because those things are awesome.

I want one of those magazine-fed grenade launchers like Poncho had in Predator.

/Iff'n I can't have my stuff, NO ONE WILL!!!!


2.bp.blogspot.com

I ain't got time to bleed.
 
2013-01-31 10:09:32 AM  

hasty ambush: IF women are equal why should violent crimes against them be subject to greater prosecution effort and enhanced punishements than violent crimes against men?  Are women after equal treatment under the law or demanding special/unequal treatment?

If they can handle combat the same as men they can certainly handle violent crime as well.


Because of the bolded part.  Because there's a legacy of idiots like you acting as though your dick makes you superior, and that doesn't suddenly go away just because women are allowed in combat.
 
2013-01-31 10:09:35 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: It won't stop all violence against women.  Even the liberals will admit that.  Laws don't stop bad things from happening and any fool can see they are largely useless, but it does allow the government to embiggen itself.  Of course some people want that sort of thing.  Bad people, is who I mean.


And how does it ''embiggen'' government, exactly? What specifically are you concerned about?
 
2013-01-31 10:09:56 AM  
GIS for "assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies "

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-31 10:10:03 AM  

hasty ambush: IF women are equal why should violent crimes against them be subject to greater prosecution effort and enhanced punishements than violent crimes against men?  Are women after equal treatment under the law or demanding special/unequal treatment?

If they can handle combat the same as men they can certainly handle violent crime as well.


I could take the time to tear your "argument" apart, but you're just trolling.
 
2013-01-31 10:11:42 AM  

Glicky: GIS for "assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies "

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]


According to California law, that firearm is not an "assault weapon".
 
2013-01-31 10:11:45 AM  

hasty ambush: IF women are equal why should violent crimes against them be subject to greater prosecution effort and enhanced punishements than violent crimes against men?  Are women after equal treatment under the law or demanding special/unequal treatment?

If they can handle combat the same as men they can certainly handle violent crime as well.


Kind of the point.  The woman in question was arguing that against the VAWA but then hypocritically used a "think of the women" argument in favor of owning AR-15s.

Philip Francis Queeg: 1derful: Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.

So when you've defended your home, what worked better, your shotgun or your pistol?

And why is an AR-15 bad?

I figure that if you live on a ranch or a large area of land, a rifle would be better because it's more accurate at a distance.

So if you live on a ranch you shoot anyone you see on your property?


Hey now!  When poachers are on your ranch, with guns, you need to be able to make them leave by having a big scary gun to intimidate...wait, aren't AR-15s supposed to be harmless and not scary at all?

And yes, even in Texas you can't just shoot somebody for setting foot on your property.  The law is pretty solid that you can't just shoot somebody unless they are clearly threatening you, and they aren't automatically clearly threatening you until they break in.
 
2013-01-31 10:11:52 AM  

Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.


But then, why have recent spree shooters used it---and why do policy makers want to restrict it?

I think the answer is, in part, because it's an especially effective weapon for taking out a bunch of people in a combat situation---and therefore a good weapon to have when facing down a gang of home intruders.

I've noticed a lot of arguments over gun control, on both sides, vacillate over whether an AR-15 is worth anything at all.  One side argues that it's no better than a semiautomatic pistol for home defense, so you don't really need to have one.  The other side argues it's no better than a semiautomatic pistol for a spree shooting, so you don't need to ban it.  It seems to me that if people can cite a good reason to have one for home defense, that is also a reason why it's a weapon of choice for spree shooters.
 
2013-01-31 10:12:38 AM  
Heard this on the way home from work yesterday. Thought it was interesting.
Swiss Worry About Americanization of Gun Debate


And wow... These new post formatting options suck ass.
 
2013-01-31 10:13:44 AM  

hasty ambush: IF women are equal why should violent crimes against them be subject to greater prosecution effort and enhanced punishements than violent crimes against men?


Because violence against men is rarely perpetrated because the victim is a man while violence against women is often motivated by their unique status as women. This fact, in combination with the fact that our legal system has always considered motivation a significant part of how we prosecute a crime means that women are in a unique position to be victims of certain crimes that men are not.

You might as well have asked why we treat serial killers any differently from people who accidentally run someone over while talking on a cell phone.

Next dumb question?
 
2013-01-31 10:14:10 AM  
She sounded like a six year old recounting an A-Team episode.
 
2013-01-31 10:14:26 AM  

Dimensio: Glicky: GIS for "assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies "

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]

According to California law, that firearm is not an "assault weapon".


An assault on taste...
 
2013-01-31 10:15:06 AM  

Glicky: Dimensio: Glicky: GIS for "assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies "

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]

According to California law, that firearm is not an "assault weapon".

An assault on taste...


and common sense.
 
2013-01-31 10:17:16 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Glicky: Dimensio: Glicky: GIS for "assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies "

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]

According to California law, that firearm is not an "assault weapon".

An assault on taste...

and common sense.


California law mandates the features that violate "common sense", other than the colour.
 
2013-01-31 10:17:48 AM  

born_yesterday: Marcus Aurelius: Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel to come breaking down your door.

So I guess a rocket propelled grenade launcher is out of the question then.  Because those things are awesome.

I want one of those magazine-fed grenade launchers like Poncho had in Predator.

/Iff'n I can't have my stuff, NO ONE WILL!!!!


I'm torn between the boiling tar/oil cauldron or the giant swinging axe from the Capitol One commercials

(would provide helpful pic of each, but sadly, I am at work)
 
2013-01-31 10:18:19 AM  
www.theblaze.com Ahh yes...the bubble is strong with Ms Trotter.

Lawrence O'Donnell last night pretty much ripped her a new one on his show. (youtube) (wait for it.....its right after the short testimony section which is also pretty embarrassing )

She has some points - I will give her that - but she seems incapable of speaking in terms that have real context. Instead, it is like listening to some stupid politician running for office with all sorts of crazy, heart-string tugging stories, but not a single ounce of truthful backup. I am surprised she didn't have Sarah McLachlan doing some schmoopy soundtrack playing in the background during her testimony and interview.

O'Donnell can get pretty stupid at times, that is for certain, but I do like it when he calls out these fakers in interviews. What always surprises me is that people actually go on his show at all. I mean, this is not the first time he has done this sort of confrontational interview. I guess they think "this time he will not rip on me" or that they are smarter than him or more prepared. Yet, it never happens.

Oh and yeah, she played the "go to my testimony which is posted on line" angle, but at least she did not say to study it out. But there was enough stupidity to make up for it.
 
2013-01-31 10:18:20 AM  

hillbillypharmacist: It won't stop all violence against women.  Even the liberals will admit that.  Laws don't stop bad things from happening and any fool can see they are largely useless, but it does allow the government to embiggen itself.  Of course some people want that sort of thing.  Bad people, is who I mean.


Right, so let's repeal all laws.  After all, as you said, they're largely useless and only bad people want them.
 
2013-01-31 10:20:01 AM  
Why do these NRA types always resort to the idea that you're going to have to defend yourself against a home invasion by 7 - 10 (black) criminals?  What post apocalyptic hellscape do they think we live in?
 
2013-01-31 10:20:36 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Saiga410: I think that giving a subsidies to women who claim to be baterd

I have no idea what you or GAT_00 are on about, but I do find it amusing that the position of every republican these days on every issue seems to be that we shouldn't help anybody in a given group of victims because some of those people may just be pretending to be victims.

Exactly when DID the republican mantra become "It's always best to throw the baby out with the bathwater"?

Well... except guns... with that issue we apparently have to drown the baby in the bathwater.


I am not defending her point on VAMA.  I just am having trouble understanding the inconsistancy that Gat sees.
 
2013-01-31 10:20:49 AM  

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Glicky: Dimensio: Glicky: GIS for "assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies "

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x375]

According to California law, that firearm is not an "assault weapon".

An assault on taste...

and common sense.

California law mandates the features that violate "common sense", other than the colour.


I'm talking about making a weapon look like a young child's toy. Do you consider that to be that actions of a responsible gun owner?

I
 
2013-01-31 10:20:53 AM  
Xcott:
I've noticed a lot of arguments over gun control, on both sides, vacillate over whether an AR-15 is worth anything at all.  One side argues that it's no better than a semiautomatic pistol for home defense, so you don't really need to have one.  The other side argues it's no better than a semiautomatic pistol for a spree shooting, so you don't need to ban it.  It seems to me that if people can cite a good reason to have one for home defense, that is also a reason why it's a weapon of choice for spree shooters.

There is a massive difference in the dynamics between a defensive shooting and what a mass killer does.

The mass killer is basically walking into an area filled with unarmed, cowering people and facing little/no resistance and with limited opportunities to escape. The Newton shooter was active for 10 minutes. The Columbine shooters were active for 20 minutes. The Virginia Tech shooter was active for 23 minutes. They have all the time in the world to take careful aim on their victims and to reload. These maniacs are basically in complete control of the situation.

A defensive shooting for a police officer or citizen is a totally different affair. By their nature, you are reacting to the violent actions of someone else. You are intrinsically NOT in control of the situation. You are also in a confrontation with someone who is also actively attempting to not get shot AND they are shooting back. Things like magazine capacity begin to matter because (as I said above) actually hitting a moving bad guy who is attacking you is a lot more difficult than the movies or TV shows make it out to be. People also don't stop attacking you because you shot them - plenty of bad guys have been shot 10 to 15 times and been able to walk to the ambulance.
 
2013-01-31 10:21:22 AM  

Dog Welder: Again, an AR-15 is really not a good home defense weapon.  You're far better off with a good, reliable pistol or a shotgun.  If you "need" an assault rifle to defend your home, you're seriously doing it wrong.  Or you're a drug dealer expecting the Cartel wild pigs to come breaking down your door.


FTFY
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report