If the Colorado Democrats put their foot in their mouth one more time on gun rights, I am going to recommend mercy killing for the lot of them. To be clear, we voters are the one who deserve a little mercy.
Joe Salazar has largely gotten away with his characterization of women as histrionic little ninnies who can’t be trusted with a gun, least we get all emotional and “pop a round” in a strange man who is following us around on a dark and lonely road for only the purest of intentions.
Which means Evie Hudak, possibly the most morally repugnant pile of oxygen-deprived-cells and half formed ideas to be sliming around the Capital this session, is up to bat.
The kindest thing I can conjure up about Evie is that she belongs to a class of far-lefties who have never used a gun and may not even know any gun owners, people who think of guns as mystical totems that very nearly have a life of their own. Such people are terrified of guns because they know nothing about how to use one.
However, I can’t extend that charity to give an elected member of the Colorado General Assembly a pass on dangerous and ill-informed comments that indicate a preference for rape over concealed carry.
In yesterday’s marathon session, which I neither attended nor followed, deliberately, I might add, Hudak had the opportunity to hear testimony from a rape survivor, Amanda Collins, who, though in possession of a CCW, was not carrying the night she was attacked:
As I live with the memory, weighted with the question of my life: ‘What would have been different if I had been carrying the weapon I was licensed to carry that night?’ I would like to leave you with a question: ‘How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?’
Lest you think that no progressive, caring feminist, on fire with the drive to stamp out violence and improve the lives of women, would ever do something so callous as blame a rape victim first for being raped and again for having the nerve to have tried to defend herself, enter Evie:
I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you and possibly use it against you …
Dear lord, where would one even begin? By saying that conflating martial arts and firearms is moronic, for one. Because a woman was unable to free herself from a rapist using hand-to-hand combat alone does not tell us anything about what she would have been to do to defend herself with a gun.
Hudak cited no statistics to back up her offensive statement and it’s not clear what report or data set she thought she was appealing to. FBI statistics show that in the vast majority of cases where an intended victim uses a gun, she only brandishes it or fires a warning shot. In her own defense, Hudak claimed that the Colorado Coalition Against handgun Violence ‘found’ that, for every one woman who successfully uses a gun to prevent sexual assault, 83 women are disarmed and murdered by their assailant.
Tell you what, Evie, you prove that statistic and I will take you shooting at my club. Range fee on me, girlfriend.
Hudak tacitly admitted one truth that women face when dealing with ill-intentioned men. They are just bigger and stronger than we are. Guns level the playing field and give a victim a real chance. But Evie doesn’t see it that way. To follow her line of thought, because men already have the advantage of speed and brute strength, we should just cede dominance and not do anything that might antagonize them further.
In this formulation, rape is an unalterable reality for women and our options for avoiding it are limited to pleading with an attacker, vomiting on demand, and offering passive resistance. I don’t even know what this last one means. Am I to make it abundantly clear that I’m not enjoying being raped? What sort of victory do I score by declining to ‘get into it’?
Hudak also went in for perverse circular reasoning: because women are already at a real disadvantage against a man who wants to hurt them, it’s proper to accept that as both the norm and the good and to preserve it.
While she offered a personal apology to Amanda Collins, Miss Collins told media she doubted the sincerity of the apology. That makes two of us. Hudak wasted no time in doubling down on her statements during the hearing, spouting off the aforementioned nonsense that most women who carry firearms will ultimately be disarmed by an attacker who will use the gun against them.
And then she gave us all the money shot. “I feel so horrible for what some of these people have endured. I am actually really looking out for their best interest.”
Implied in that quote is Hudak’s unassailable belief that the vast majority of people don’t know what’s in their best interest but that Evie Hudak does. Judging by her waistline, Evie doesn’t know what’s in her own interest, or lack the willpower to do anything about it. But, by god, she knows what’s best for the rest of us. Go figure.
Perhaps most chilling is that Hudak’s conception of what “best” is that any woman targeted by a rapist should be raped rather than fight back and risk making her attacker angrier or turning rape into rape-and-murder. It’s the worst kind of risk aversion; Evie Hudak is hoping to pile up political wins for herself on the suffering of other women. Hudak would rather see women victimized and forced to live with the aftermath of sexual assault than allow that she might be in the wrong.
What would happen if there were no bans – like campuswide abrogations of the Second Amendment of prohibitively high fees to get a CCW – on women arming themselves? Rape incidence would drop and more women would see themselves as capable of protecting themselves, rather then ‘needing’ to reply on the state. More rapists would be arrested and, yes, shot. And that would be awesome.
To the point, allowing women to legally defend themselves against sexual assault would put paid to leftist chatter than guns don’t do anything to prevent violence.
I don’t think this is an overstatement. Hudak has been quite clear that she’d rather see rape incidence go up than allow anyone to have a firearm. Her only defense consists of a feeble, illogical and statistically unsupported claim that women having firearms actually makes rape more likely and increases the chances that a rapist will murder his victim.
Not only is she fine with this absurdity, she thinks that risk assessment is her choice to make. I would rather pull a gun on a man set on rape and take the chance that he will disarm me than accept the certainty that I will be utterly at his mercy. Taking that risk should be my choice to make, and every woman should be able to make such a decision herself.
Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"
- "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow
- PPC Training for Activists
UPDATE: Something apparently got messed up with the PayPal buttons during this past weekend’s database glitch – fixed now. Yes, it’s that time again — PPC will be conducting training classes for center-right activists on Saturday, April 20 and Saturday, April 27, at Independence Institute in Denver. The tentative class schedule is as follows: Saturday, [...]
- Holder’s First Letter to Paul Precipitates the Best Filibuster Ever
- The Lamest Twitter Argument Ever Offered?
- Return of the PPC Re-Education Camps – You Know You Want to Be There
- Supreme Courts Blesses Warrantless Surveillance of Citizens in a Kafkaesque Farce
- GOP Elite and the Ruling Class
- Do We Now Get to Call Joe Salazar a “Rapist”?