Hey Hillary and Tim - You Really Want to Empower Women?
LET THEM CARRY A WEAPON
If Hillary Clinton and Tim Caine really want to empower women, then why would these two Democrat/Socialist/Progressives take their right to bear arms, to protect themselves and their families, away from them? Its easy for Hillary and Tim to strip everyone else of the ability to have a gun when she is surrounded 24/7 by about 10 agents, all packing handguns and rifles.
Most women that carry a gun do so for one simple reason: Empowerment. The ability to protect themselves from rape, murder, theft, attack and the ability to protect their children is the reason they buy, carry, and train with a gun. Statistics show that more and more first time gun buyers are women. In fact, according to industry statistics, women may be as high as 50% of all new gun buyers.
Hillary and her running mate, “Come Out of the Closet Already" Tim Caine, claim to be “for women’s empowerment”. But at the very moment they say this, out of the other side of their mouth they want to take away a woman’s ability to defend herself. They want to strip her of her ability to be empowered. In California, for example, a woman who applies for a license to carry a concealed weapon in order to protect herself from potential harm when she leaves work, walking to her car in a parking lot late at night, or a single mother who wants one to protect herself when she closes her shop or restaurant at night, will most likely be DENIED that license. She won’t have “just cause”, which is an unconstitutionally vague term that allows law enforcement agencies to deny you your right to carry a gun. In most counties in California, a woman applying for a concealed carry license will be denied because she won’t have enough "just cause" - even if she has a stalker and has received a restraining order from a court against a stalker.
THIS INFURIATES ME. IT SHOULD INFURIATE ALL WOMEN. TELL ME TIM "I'M A TOTAL FRUITCAKE" CAINE, HOW THIS EMPOWERS A WOMAN? IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL ANTI-GUN ADVOCATE, IF YOU’RE NANCY "I CAN'T PUT TOGETHER A COHERENT SENTENCE" PELOSI, TELL ME HOW THIS HELPS A WOMAN FEEL EMPOWERED AND SAFE AND IN CONTROL OF HER OWN LIFE?
If the Clinton Foundation wants to empower women around the globe, they should be buying guns for them, not using the contribution money for private jets, 5 star hotels and giving Chelsea a $10 million dollar condo in the Flat Iron district of Manhattan and paying her $900,000 a year for part time work!
LIBERALS MAKE NO SENSE
I’ve always wondered why the liberals want to control guns when an overwhelming number of deaths are from someone “clubbing” another person – hitting them with a baseball bat or frying pan or other blunt object. Why aren’t we controlling who can have a baseball bat? Why is California trying to control who I can lend my gun to, but not who I lend my baseball bat to? It makes no sense. If you want to protect people and lower crime, why not regulate the thing that really causes the most crime?
As Ben Shapiro so aptly said, why are you trying to regulate rifles like AR-15’s? It makes no sense, he says, and he’s right. Almost nobody is killed with an AR-15. Its laughable, actually. It’s such a small fraction it’s hard to even find on any stats anywhere, but its around 0.1% of firearms killings as best we can tell. Lots more people are killed with baseball bats and frying pans and peoples bare hands. Is it because the AR-15 is scary looking and not as many people have them? That has to be the only reason. Because if you were really, truly interested in limiting killings by guns, you would go after the guns that do most of the killing, and they aren’t AR-15’s! So it's apparent that your goal is to chip away at gun rights, starting with the AR-15. And if you were really interested in preventing humans killing humans in general, you would limit and control the sales of frying pans and baseball bats FIRST!