Jack E. Kemp
Many years ago in Eilat, Israel, a male acquaintance of mine surprised me by scaring two young American women just by telling them not to walk on a unpaved embankment area near a street corner “because there were mines there.” Being unfamiliar with weaponry and where a government’s military would place mines, these twenty year-old appearing women quickly ran off the sandy area where they were standing. I wouldn’t have said this to the two young women, but was amazed at how easily they were scared.
Ann Coulter’s new column has the adult version of this same scare tactic, done not for petty spite and amusement, but for Democratic votes. Ann states in “Ending Gun Violence Requires Commitment Not All of It Voluntary” that:
Instead, the Democrats will jawbone about "assault weapons" and other meaningless gun laws for the sole purpose of scaring soccer moms into hating the National Rifle Association. Expect to hear a lot about Republicans preferring "the gun lobby" to "children." (Which is evidently not at all like preferring the teachers lobby to children.)
Democrats are hoping to pick up another dozen congressional seats in 2014, so they need terrified women.
Yes, there are Democrats making shrill arguments against rifles that look like military weapons but can’t rapid (automatic) fire, Democrats such as Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer and Barack Obama would like to ban most if not all guns, but that is more of a long term strategy. As Ann Coulter keenly sees it, this scare talk about “assault (appearing) weapons” is designed to make Soccer Moms and single women jump off the Republican “embankment” into the Democratic “street” (and voting column) in 2016 by playing on their fears of the unknown (to them). I should add that these scare tactics wouldn’t work on Ann Coulter, herself a rifle owner, and the former Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin – and not just because of their political affiliations.
Since U.S. women will soon be allowed in combat, a brief comparison of women with military training in two other countries will reflect on how much the Democrats can play upon women’s fears of weapons elsewhere. Could such a scare tactic based on a false definition of semi-automatics be foisted off on Israeli women voters who have to do compulsory military service for two years, including weapons training? I don’t believe so. You may recall the famous photo of the female Israeli soldiers in a convenience store with their AR-15s. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=israeli+women+soldiers+famous+p... Also, as pointed out by John Griffing at American Thinker, http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/too_fast_too_furious.html#ix...
Every Swiss male must serve in the military for a fixed period of time, and the law requires marksmanship training of all male and female citizens. All Swiss citizens are required to possess guns.
END OF QUOTE
Could the U.S. Democrats scare Swiss women with arguments about rifles being too “assaultive?” I also doubt it because they know too much about guns.
Since the percentage of women in the U.S. military has risen to approximately fifteen to seventeen percent, we are seeing more and more women who cannot be fooled by such scare talk about rifles. And as these women finish their time in the service and join the general population, women’s knowledge of weapon capabilities increases. Add to this that CBS News reports women’s participation in target shooting in the U.S. has doubled between 2001 and 2011 to reach a count of five million. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57348612/more-and-more-women...
In the short term, I have to agree with Ann Coulter’s assessment that the Democrats will be able to “scare up” some women’s votes in both House and Senate races by playing upon soccer mom’s fears and gain some seats during the next election. However, conservatives could use those same fears to come to a different conclusion than the Democrats’ idea of having the government ban reality, as was seen in the Journal News gun registry fiasco in White Plains, New York. Conservatives could advocate increased gun training for women and men, be it private or compulsory, so we could have a realistic dialogue about guns – by people who know them.
Recently a woman wrote a comment to one of my articles at another website. http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/liberal-dilema-when-gu... She told of knowing another woman who is very liberal and lived in the country, “surrounded by liberals” and not owning a gun. A man described as an illegal alien was invited to stay on a neighbor’s property but he then came to her house, threatened her with a knife (she was with two young children and was very pregnant with another). The pregnant woman was able to escape physical harm. After that scare, she decided to change her attitude toward guns by getting one – and presumably learning how to shoot it.
My woman commenter said that few liberals will have to face such harsh realities, so they will remain in their anti-gun mindset. I wonder about her conclusion. There are a lot fewer places in America today than there were years ago where people not rich enough to own remote and/or guarded property (such as Al Gore’s baronial estate) can feel safe from the risk of home invasion. In fact, with homes being built closer to the habitats of wild animals, there is also more need for protection from such four legged predators. http://www.wildthingssanctuary.org/living-with-wildlife.html The political and demographic trends point to greater need for conservatism – in the area of gun ownership. It’s getting harder for liberals to laugh at “bitter clingers with their guns” when a coyote just ate their cat.