Prohibitionist Exploits Own Incompetence to Deny Emergency Gun Access to Endangered Women

Does anybody see anything “commonsense” about this gaggle that presumes to define “gun safety” for the rest of us? (Representative Kaohly Vang Her/Facebook)

“Rep [Kaohly Vang] Her just said on the House Floor that we shouldn’t allow women to keep guns in their own homes for self-defense because they aren’t trained well enough,” MN House GOP War Room posted Thursday on X, along with a video of the DFL politician stating her objections to any exceptions to her gun storage bill for women who have been victims of stalking or who have petitioned for a restraining order.

Her reasons? Existing “exceptions” apply to people she says are “experts at using firearms. This amendment would give exceptions to those who are not…”

By “experts,” she means “Only Ones,” members of law enforcement who give daily examples of why they don’t have special qualities that automatically make them more trustworthy than the rest of us. Predictably, the restrictions “do not apply to … firearms … owned or possessed by a peace officer … while the officer is engaged in the performance of official duties…”

In case anyone is still unclear on how that appellation came to be, meet the DEA agent who shot himself in the leg while holstering his firearm after telling a classroom full of children “I’m the only one in this room professional enough … to carry this Glock 40.”

It’s fair to ask why there should be exceptions on rights for anyone, or more to the point, why there should be infringements in the first place. Then again, “justifying” those as being “for the greater good” has proven to be one of the more effective ways of swindling the witless out of their rights and getting them to demand stripping them from everyone else. And if there’s one thing Her has shown herself adept at, it’s using logical fallacies to sway a critical mass of non-critical thinking Democrats.

Case in point is the way she announced another infrtingement, her lost and stolen gun reporting bill.

“As a firearm owner, I know the importance of responsible ownership,” Her declared. That actually presents two logical fallacies,  the first being the false authority that merely being a firearm owner qualifies her to define what is important to all, and then the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, implying that responsible gun owners agree.

As for Her’s claim that forced self-reporting will “give our law enforcement another tool to help keep our communities safe and free of gun violence,” she conveniently omits another exception: Criminals can’t be forced to report their lost or stolen guns because to require it would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (see the precedent in principle established in Haynes v. United States).

Having presented herself as a firearm owner authority in the reporting bill, Her now reverses polarity to deprecate her competence and apply it to all. She’s been a hunter (a Fuddette?) and had guns for 30 years. She still can’t get the hang of working the safety. If she was ever in a life-or-death situation, she’d klutz it up. In all those 30 years she hasn’t shot the thousand rounds her unnamed trainer told her are needed to become familiar enough to use a gun defensively.  If you let these women have immediate access to guns that aren’t locked up, why, disaster will ensue! No? (See Gun Owners of America’s summary of the lock up your safety bill.) See for yourself:

Discouraging women from defending themselves with the greatest equalizer yet devised and encouraging ignorance and fear is a major part of the gun prohibitionists’ unified propaganda effort. “A gun in the home is more likely to be used to injure women than to protect them,” all the major gun grab groups declare. What they deliberately leave out, because their intent is to scare everyone, is that they’re relying on violence occurring in criminal households and then applying equal risks to all households, basically the same scam they use when they demand blanket citizen disarmament because of homicides that overwhelmingly occur “in a small set of urban areas.”

So, they go to great lengths to scare ignorant, silly people into the false belief that the best way for them to be safe is to be helpless and place themselves at the mercy of monsters, arguing for absurd alternatives to guns such as:

The attitude against using something that might actually work to repel an attacker is revealingly expressed by District of Columbia Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. Per the January 1994 issue of Women & Guns magazine, she was one of 25 women in Congress who sent a letter to the National Rifle Association protesting its then-new “Refuse to be a Victim” program.

“Women are virgins when it comes to guns,” Norton advocated. “It should stay that way.”

Perhaps Norton and Her have a point. Perhaps any women who believe them, who join groups like Moms Demand Action and vote for gun-grabbing Democrats, really are too incompetent to own guns — or make other decisions that are the province of free adults.

Which makes it fair to ask why anyone who’s not a useful idiot should listen to unteachable bumbling dolts about anything

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David CodreaDavid Codrea

We will be happy to hear your thoughts

Leave a reply
Shopping cart