Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why did these republicans think we women needed, or wanted, their support to arm ourselves for defense?

Asked by Dutchess_III (39545points) 2 weeks ago

We’ve heard the rumor that a group of male republicans wore pearls to a gun control hearing to mock to “mock” mothers of the murdered children.
I didn’t waste half a second calling BS, then I went and found the real reason they wore them: They were supporting women’s rights to arm themselves for defense…....

What makes them think we women need their support to arm ourselves for defense? Has someone proposed a law that says we can’t? Do they think we’re afraid to carry and they’re going to give us manly man courage? Are we supposed to admire them for or something? I don’t understand their point. Do you?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

39 Answers

kritiper's avatar

Isn’t that always the way???

Dutchess_lll's avatar

What do you mean?

Yellowdog's avatar

Leave the part out about them being there to “mock” mothers of children killed (by accident or murder) due to loose gun control laws, and the narrative makes more sense.

There are plenty of women living alone who use a gun for defense, because they are vulnerable.

Gun control tends to disarm only the law-abiding.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

@Yellowdog, what would you think if a group of Women wore some cuff links to a hearing to show they support men’s right to arm themselves for defense?

KNOWITALL's avatar

Its a little odd, is it a new movement? Lots of women carry here. Maybe its their version of female empowerment. I dont take offense to their pearl necklaces lol.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Is their approval important to you @KNOWITALL?

kritiper's avatar

That’s the way Republicans (and some others) are. Taking credit for something they had nothing to do with.
And now I’ll take credit for the GA you’re going to give me.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess No, its my right.

There are a lot of abused women and children, I cant say I resent it.

Its obvious pandering to the NRA at most though.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Why would I find it condensending?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess Based on the OP, that seemed the obvious choice.

I found most of the liberal political movements to be mostly positive. I dont see much difference tbh.

JLeslie's avatar

I didn’t see this in the news. It sounds stupid, and condescending. Sometimes men are clueless about what will be condescending, they think they are trying to be helpful, or they convince themselves women will like what they’re doing, or women will be stupid enough to think it’s good for them.

Some sort of NRA pandering, I agree with that. Plus, trying to pander to women in their party I guess.

Yellowdog's avatar

The NRA does support the 2nd amendment, ..

and teaches gun safety.

So why are the Left constantly bashing it?
Supporting the rights for people to protect themselves, in a nation where its a right, and people are trying to take away those rights, is not condescending. I guarantee that many women are part of the movement—they have been assaulted or are vulnerable to assault. They have a right to defend themselves. Demonizing them, or the men who support their movement, convoluting their message, is unethical.

If you don’t think their message is legit, at least learn what it is before smearing them.

JLeslie's avatar

@Yellowdog I have a female relative who has a carry permit who doesn’t support the NRA, because she feels the NRA doesn’t do enough for women, especially in states where laws are very strict, very difficult to buy a gun, and very expensive to satisfy all of the requirements.

The NRA goes too far. Most of the US is not like Memphis. I’ve lived in Memphis, I completely understand why Memphians worry about protection and say laws just take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but other parts of the country it doesn’t feel the same, the presence of guns feels almost non-existent. It feels better living in those places in my opinion. I doubt Memphis, Detroit, and several other cities can ever feel like that.

Also, the main goal of gun sellers is to make money. They love when the Democrats talk gun control.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Why did they focus on women @yellowdog? If I want to carry a gun I will. I don’t give a crap who may or may not support it.

seawulf575's avatar

I am a firm believer in the right of every American to protect themselves. Felons excepted. If people want to carry a gun, they should be allowed to. In the same thought, though, is the idea that everyone has the right to not carry a gun.
But along the same thought process of this question, why do Democrats feel so strongly that we want or need them to tell us how to safely carry guns? Why do they do foolish things like sit-ins in Congress to try pushing the point?

Gun control laws are funny things. When you look at the actual facts behind gun deaths, you find that very few murders happen by people that are normally law-abiding citizens. The majority of gun deaths in this country are suicides. The next largest chunk is gang related shootings. There is not a gun control law in place that would stop those deaths. Suicides want to end it and the gun is just a convenient method. Gangs aren’t known for their compliance with the law. By the time you get down to actual murders (including shootings at schools and nightclubs) you are looking at a relatively small number of deaths annually from an even smaller percentage of gun owners.

Dutchess_III's avatar

This was NOT a question about gun control laws. If you want to start that fight, start your own question.

I repeat, THIS WAS NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL LAWS..

Dutchess_III's avatar

Hm. Maybe they need to really clarify what their point was in wearing pearls..

seawulf575's avatar

Now that you have given a citation (though the NYT is definitely biased left), it all makes a bit more sense. The Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire says they gave the law makers the pearls, something they say they have done in the past to show concern over “red flag laws”. The other party involved, Moms Demand for Gun Sense in America, claimed they felt the purpose of the pearls was some slam on them.
I guess in my view, the legislators shouldn’t have worn them as they are supposed to be impartial, considering the view of all the constituents. But I would say they wore them more in support of one side as opposed to ridiculing the other.
But to further address your initial question, it doesn’t look like they are trying to force anyone to carry a gun. But it sounds like the pro-gun side, the Women’s Defense group, is fighting to ensure their right to carry a gun is not removed. So my comment about Dems holds true. What makes them think that we gun owners want or need their control to be able to own guns safely?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575…. ”Women’s Defense group, is fighting to ensure their right to carry a gun is not removed…” What? Are you suggesting someone out there is trying to remove women, and only women’s right to carry a gun? What about minorities? Are they trying to remove their right to carry a gun?
Of course not. So why protest something that is nonexistant?

Yellowdog's avatar

Women are more vulnerable if our gun rights are curtailed.

Not very many women carry firearms, but those who live alone will be taken advantage of.
Remember, criminals will still have guns no matter what.

Dutchess_III's avatar

So, this hearing was called by “Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.” The women want stronger gun laws. Some of them have children who who were fucking murdered in the classroom by someone who should NOT have had a gun.

But the men, as usual, are going to tell us they know what is best for our empty little heads and why don’t we go on back to the kitchen and tend tp the babies and let the men deal with the real stuff. And be sure and look pretty for us when we get home. Pearls would be nice.

Yellowdog's avatar

A lot of women are part of the movement.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III No, I’m not suggesting someone is trying to remove only women’s right to carry a gun. It sounds like the concern with the proposed law is that it is adding some clause to allow the state to confiscate the guns of anyone they deem “a threat” or “unsafe”. That’s pretty broad, as most of these gun grab suggestions are. With that sort of thing, all someone has to do is say, “Hey, Dutchess_III is really volatile. She shouldn’t have a gun.” and your guns could be gone, leaving you a costly uphill battle to get them back.
As for men telling you what is best for your empty little heads…it is women that are against the push. It is women trying to voice their opinions. It is women that handed out the pearls. I really think you are on the man-hating kick. Did you even read the article you cited? The legislators were minor players in that article and nowhere did it show the misogynistic slant you are putting on it.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Yellowdog You should come to Missouri, lots of women carry, even older ladies and professionals. A date night often includes gun range time lol

seawulf575's avatar

@KNOWITALL I had to go out and buy a gun because my wife wanted to get a concealed carry permit.

Dutchess_III's avatar

As I said @seawulf575, there was absolutely no reason for the republicans to wear those pearls. Any way you slice it it was rude.

Why didn’t your wife go buy her own gun?

seawulf575's avatar

She could have, but I ended up finding a really good deal and so we bought it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Did you wear pearls when you bought it? You know, in case they refused to sell it to you since it was for a woman?

seawulf575's avatar

No, no pearls. I used to have my ear pierced and did have a pearl earring, but that phase was gone long ago. So let me ask…if one of the legislators had been transgender or gay and wore the pearls, would you have been upset? I’m guessing not. The thing I see as wrong on here is that they wore pearls that came from and represented one of the sides in an issue they had to vote on. That sort of bias bothers me….you know bias bothers me. I don’t see it as anything else. You apparently see it as some sort of slam on women. I can’t get there since they came from women.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Did they try to stop you from buying a gun since it was for a woman? No? So why the hell do we need males to show support for our right to carry if we want?
Not all the male republicans wore them. Just the ones from New Hampshire that feel they should control women’s rights. If someone was transgender or gay I have no idea. I guess it would depend on if that person also felt they should control our lives and I would object.

I don’t understand what you meant, ” I can’t get there since they came from women.”
What came from women?

seawulf575's avatar

The law they were going to be voting on was not specific to women. I would not support such a law as being unconstitutional. It was an overall gun law. From the article you cited:

“New Hampshire has among the least restrictive gun laws in the country, and support for gun rights is strong. Democrats took control of both chambers of the legislature in November and are now pushing a package of bills aimed at setting limits on guns, including bills requiring background checks for commercial gun purchases, creating a waiting period between the purchase and delivery of a gun, and allowing school districts to create gun-free zones.” These rules are not geared against women only.
There were two major women’s gun issue groups present….the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America in favor of the gun law and Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire that opposed it.
The pearls came from women, they came from the WDLNH. The MDAGSA complained saying the legislators were ridiculing them. It is unclear if that was the purpose or not. It might have just been a fringe benefit for the WDLNH.

Dutchess_lll's avatar

Can you provide me with some info that shows the women from WDLNH provided them?

seawulf575's avatar

Geez Louise! Read the article you cited! Do you just randomly post stuff without actually reading it? It states in that article all that I have been saying, except the part about why I think it is wrong for the legislators to wear them…the displayed bias.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Got it. You’re right, I should have read it. I now have a different opinion.

PS You could have said all that above without the rage.

seawulf575's avatar

No real rage, just frustration. I had been responding with info from your citation and you kept on like I was making stuff up. I even asked you at one point if you had read your own citation, but you kept on. It was very confusing.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, see how easy it was in the end? Proof is all you need,confusion gone. Wish you’d do it more often.
Wait..you didn’t actually provide the proof. You just screamed at me to read my own link, which meant I had to scroll back through half the conversation to find out which link you referred to, then I had to glance through the article again to find specifically what you were talking about…..why didn’t you just copy and past like this… ”Kimberly Morin, the president of a gun rights group that also attended the hearing, told The New Hampshire Union Leader that her group had distributed the pearls.” Why?

However, I’ll point out that the very next sentence read that the gun rights group distributed the pearls to protest ”…a proposed “red flag” bill, which would allow courts to temporarily take away guns from people FOUND TO BE AN IMMEDIATE RISK TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS.
Hmmm.

seawulf575's avatar

Nice try, but you are dancing to the wrong tune. Which link I referred to? Why the only one you provided and the only one in any of the answers. You know, the one where I asked you (6 responses ago) if you had read it? Yeah, that one. The one I pointed out was from the NYT which is biased left (7 responses ago). As for proof, I thought (7 responses ago) when I addressed your citation and explained my take on it, that should be good enough. I was using your citation. If you don’t consider that proof, then you are a lost cause.
But eventually you got to the real story YOU were citing. Amazing. And I didn’t start going off on you until 7 responses later when you continually raved about stuff that was contradictory to the proof you provided. So maybe what we have here is that you were in a rave and had no proof to back it up? It certainly wasn’t provided by your source. So where did all your accusations come from? Show me the proof. Oh wait….you really don’t have any. You saw an article (or more likely some media stooge referenced it) and had the entire wrong information from it because, well, you didn’t actually read it. Yeah…no confusion on your part whatsoever. Just anger on my part. What a tool.

Dutchess_III's avatar

My point is, why didn’t you just do it? I did all the work for you, though, to prove your point (you’re welcome,) and the argument was resolved.

Good bye.

seawulf575's avatar

You asked the question!!! Why should I do the work to research YOUR question for you? Please…you screwed up…just own it. Continuing to “make your point” just makes you look more foolish.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther