War on Women?

There is a war on women. It's not the one you think it is; this isn't really about the "war on women" as the liberals have framed it. That debate, as framed and narrated by liberals, suggests that the right to abortion, abortifacients and contraceptives, trumps all other rights and privileges, even those embedded in the Bill of Rights. If you don't agree, you are part of the "war on women". Conservatives can't frame it that way; it's not about the woman, or women's rights. We see a woman carrying a live, unborn child (i.e. fetus, latin, unborn child) to an abortionist, and when the woman emerges, the living child has been killed. It is the baby-killing which offends us, or more accurately, which we understand offends God. So that "war on women" should be recognized as part of the Liberal's War on Children.

No, this is about the Liberal's War on Women. Madame Senator Feinstein recently wrote Senate Majority Leader Reid asking that no votes be scheduled on two bills which would ensure reciprocity of concealed-carry laws between states. The unspoken political rational, of course, is two-fold. The erstwhile Democratic Senators ardently oppose gun rights for anyone but their own bodyguards; and as with Obamacare, they just don't care what the Constitution says. Equally importantly, they don't want to be on record against gun rights before an election, because many Americans do believe in the Constitution.

You may not agree that this is part of any Liberal War on Humans, or even that there is a Liberal War on Humans, but it is. Liberals are at war with everyone; they want abortion, euthanasia, population control, free access to deadly addictive drugs, you name it. They seem to approve of anything that kills people; humanity is, in their mind, a great danger and offense to the planet, if nothing else.

In this case, they have presented a ludicrous argument against these concealed carry bills. Madame Feinstein writes, "Imagine that a man who has been convicted of a domestic violence crime against a woman he had been dating seeks — and obtains — a permit to carry a concealed firearm from his state of residence. Under the concealed carry reciprocity bills, he could legally travel across state lines and confront his former girlfriend ..."

Obviously, you have to imagine it- what man has ever filed an application to legally carry a firearm across state lines for the stated purpose of killing his girlfriend?

Have you ever seen the old Bugs Bunny cartoons out of the Fifties? In some of them there appears the dapper little gangster, Rocky, and his outsized loutish henchman, Mugsy. Try to imagine these in Madame Feinstein's incredulous scenario:

Rocky: "My goilfriend has run outa state. Get da guns, we are teachin' her a lesson."

Mugsy: "But, but, but, Rocky! Our guns ain't licensed, and we don't got permits! We can't take da guns outa state!"

Rocky: "C'mere, Mugsy." (Pow! Whack!) "Now get dis. We are da bad guys. We don't license our guns and we don't get permits, got it? We are goin' to commit a crime and we DON'T take registered guns! We DON'T tell da cops, get it?"

In the cartoons, it's comedic; in the real world, it isn't.

Consider the reality. Without reciprocity, the abuse victim moves or travels out of state. As a law-abiding citizen and crime victim she leaves her gun behind- prohibited by law from protecting herself.

Yet none of these legal niceties about licenses, permits, and reciprocity is likely to deter or even occur to the murderously enraged and demented abuser.

It is the abuse victim whom Madame Feinstein endangers, even in the scenario she proposes. As with all liberal gun control proprosals, it is the innocents who are rendered helpless and left to die. In the liberal mind, though, this presumably works toward the greater good of population reduction, a primary goal of the Liberal War on Humans.