PDA

View Full Version : Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist


Twisted Cross
05-15-2002, 03:41 PM
http://www.gunowners.org/wv06.htm


My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist
By
Katherine von Tour
GOA Member
© 1999



Most people who support the Second Amendment have probably wondered at one time or another how to change the thinking of anti-gunners.

Since I was once a staunch gun-control proponent, including being a member of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) in the 1970's, but am today a fervent and virtually no-compromise Second Amendment supporter, perhaps the story of my mental shift will be of interest.

When I recall my mindset in the 1960's, when I was in college in Chicago, and in the early 1970's, when I was teaching grade-school in a private school in Pennsylvania, what I remember most is how completely convinced I was that government was the best and ultimate answer to all of society's ills -- war, poverty, crime and injustice.

I was a true Sixties liberal, who protested the Vietnam War, sported a "Question Authority" bumper sticker on my Volvo, who was a charter member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a charter subscriber to Ms Magazine.

I voted for George McGovern. I hung out with other earnest liberals, many of whom were also members of NOW. It wasn't that I believed government was perfect - far from it! - but I had blind faith that, with enough effort and money, it could be made so.

My idea of a perfect government was one which had a generous welfare program, free medical care for all, lots of benign and helpful social programs, and government-mandated fairness and equality for all.

I joined NOW because it promised to fight for equality under the law for women; it encouraged women to empower themselves, and to be independent. Since I was a single woman, these all sounded like a sensible ideas to me.

I joined HCI because it had convinced me that guns were a root cause of violence and crime, and that only criminals owned and used them.

The Liberal Years
I had grown up stationed with my family overseas, and had been sent to private boarding school in Honolulu, where my family is from, and then to Chatham Hall, a young ladies' "finishing school" in Virginia.

Most of my life had been protected and privileged; while my family didn't have a lot of money, we somehow gave the illusion that we did, since we lived overseas, complete with servants and first-class travel paid for by my father's company.

I had been raised, as my mother puts it, "to be a lady," and certainly "ladies" in our social circle weren't trained in self-defense, particularly self-defense involving firearms, which, in any case, were completely banned in the countries where we lived.

After graduating from Northwestern, and doing graduate work at Lehigh, I got a job teaching 6th grade at a private day school in Pennsylvania, where I stayed for 10 years, during which time I was an earnest and unwavering liberal.

It was during this time that I joined HCI and NOW, and crusaded loudly and vociferously against "violence," "intolerance" and "unfairness."

The "Bubble" Bursts
After ten years of teaching, I was still making very little money, and had burned out. I decided to move back to Hawaii, which was my home, and where my parents had retired after 25 years of being stationed overseas, and purchase a franchise of a skin-care and cosmetic business, whose products were sold through home shows.

I spent five ghastly years in Honolulu, struggling to run a business in a government climate which was as socialistic and larded with welfare and social programs as any I had previously worked towards; those five years were the undoing of my liberalism.

I tried in vain to recruit women who were on welfare to work to do home shows and make money by being independent, but I could in no way compete with the obscenely generous welfare benefits they were receiving for staying home and doing nothing, except in many cases growing pakalolo, (marijuana) which they had plenty of time to do, since all of their needs were more than being met by the state.

The Hawaii State Labor board delivered the final death blow to my business by declaring that all of the independent contractors who worked for my company - and whom I could hardly convince to work at all - were to be classified as "employees," and that I had to pay unemployment, workers' compensation and health care for them.

The government cared not a whit that there was no money in my company to fund this state-mandated largess. I was forced to close down the business, to file bankruptcy, and I moved back to the Mainland, my formerly liberal tail between my legs, a newly-hatched libertarian conservative.

I no longer saw government as the solution to social problems. It certainly hadn't solved mine, nor had it encouraged my trying to create jobs for the people of Hawaii, jobs which they didn't want to do because it was too much work, even though the Honolulu Star Bulletin was filled almost every week with whining letters from people complaining that there were no jobs to be had, and imploring the government to "create" more jobs.

With the fervor and passion I had previously reserved for trying to get the government to expand its powers and programs, I began to read the writings of conservative and libertarian authors -- Bastiat, Hayek, Thomas Sowell and others. I also plunged into the writings of the founders of America - Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Paine, George Mason.

I started meeting people who had also been abused by government agencies - the police, Customs, DEA, IRS and others. I started hearing stories of people having property seized without due process, and of people calling 911 and not having the police not show up in time.

But the pivotal turning point for me was the Los Angeles riots.

Armed in L.A.; guns save lives
I was living in Orange County at the time, but had to go up to LA regularly on business. At that time there had been a rash of violent car-jackings, many of them committed against women who were driving alone.

A friend, who knew a great deal about guns and had grown up around them, told me that, because I was a woman living and driving alone, he wanted me to start carrying a pistol in my car.

He lent me a .38 Special, and showed me how to load, unload and fire it.

One day, just before the riots exploded, I was driving in downtown LA in a scary part of town. It was dusk. As I was stopped at a stop-light, with one car in front of me, two men who had been watching me began quickly and menacingly approaching my car from the sidewalk. One of them was carrying a tire iron.

I grabbed the pistol, which I had laid on the seat beside me, and held it up so they could see it.

The look in their eyes changed in an instant from threatening to fearful, and they immediately turned around and ran in the opposite direction. The light changed. I drove away.

No one was hurt, but a gun in my formerly liberal hand had, I believe, probably saved my life, or at least prevented me from likely injury.

L.A. Riots turn anti-gun advocates into pro-gun supporters
Within a week, the very street where this incident happened had erupted in rioting, looting and killing.

I watched on television as the Korean grocers defended their property with AK-47's and AR-15's, and thus prevented it from being torched and looted. The police couldn't stop the violence and killing.

I had friends who worked in the garment district in LA who barely made it out alive, and who told tales of pulling out pistols and having would-be attackers turn tail and run away.

Guns were saving lives and property.

As the riots threatened to spill over into Beverly Hills, myriad Hollywood types stormed gun stores to arm themselves, only to be told that there was a 15-day waiting period; radio talk shows boiled with people calling in and screaming about how unfair this was, and how the law was leaving them helpless.

Some of them even admitted that they had previously supported the waiting period, and that they were now furious that it had left them unarmed.

Coming full circle: From HCI to GOA
My transformation was complete. I joined the National Rifle Association (I didn't know about Gun Owners of America or Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership yet) and started reading their literature. I bought and read "Armed and Female" by Paxton Quigley - another ex-gun-control woman.

I fell in love with and married the friend who had lent me the .38 Special, and started learning in earnest about guns and how to use them. We joined GOA and JPFO.

And the National Organization for Women? Here's the thing that makes me crazy about an organization ostensibly dedicated to the empowerment of women - NOW is uncompromisingly and adamantly anti-gun, including urging all women to disarm themselves, and supporting legislation to force their disarmament.

The incongruity and hypocrisy of this stance is simply stunning. How can such an organization claim to be "for women?" In my experience as a single woman, there is nothing more effective than a gun for protection.

In my experience as a married woman, when my husband can't be there to pull out a firearm to protect us and our home, he has made sure that I can do so. What could be more empowering and independent and equalizing for a woman than that?

And what could be more threatening to women than women like Sarah Brady, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy and Barbra Streisand who, while beating the drum for "women's rights" are attempting to disarm women as well as men, and leave them at the mercy of criminals? I still believe fervently in the original NOW position supporting the empowerment of women.

And I believe that the most effective thing any woman can do to empower herself is to acquire and learn to use a gun, and to become vocal and aggressive in defending gun rights and the Second Amendment.

When I look back on my mindset when I supported gun control, I see that I was naïve, idealistic and swayed by irrational, baseless propaganda, especially the absurd myth that, by disarming law-abiding citizens, society will be made safer.

There is absolutely no hard evidence to support this. Criminals by definition disregard laws, especially gun control laws. In Australia, which has disarmed its population, it is reported that violent home invasions have increased in some areas by 44%. Rapes and murders have also increased substantially.

In being confronted by the reality that government cannot and will not guarantee my personal safety, I am infinitely thankful, both as a woman and an American, that the Bill of Rights still guarantees my right to defend myself with a gun. Any true feminist must support this position. Any woman who claims to be a feminist, but who supports disarmament of law-abiding citizens is simply a dangerous hypocrite.

survivor99
05-22-2002, 06:36 AM
This is a great article. I wish more women felt the same way and would quit denouncing guns and gun ownership!!! This freedom is one we must fight to protect because it keeps us free and infinitely safer from criminals. I applaud the guy who showed this woman the pistol and how to load and shoot it in the first place. All it took was a patient teacher to disspel a lifetime of illogic.

survivor99

Twisted Cross
05-22-2002, 10:07 AM
The L.A. riots are a prime example for not restricting access to firearms. It shows everyone that the Gov't cannot protect us when the chips are down.

When the riots happened here in Cincy last year I had 5 clips loaded and a tin of ammo for my AK along with my 1911 loaded with 3 clips and a box of ammo for that. I had the 1911 on a belt with the ammo pouches that I could throw over my shoulder and move quick with it. I would be damned if I was going to get let any piece of crap come near my house or my neighborhood to destroy or burn us out.:mad:

survivor99
05-22-2002, 10:37 AM
SangRun Hunter,

What you've just described is what I call "Defending our Freedom." Anyone who has any lick of intelligence would also have done likewise. If we are infested with terrorists, you'll find many more of us locked and loaded.

Our laws are so careful as not to ruffle any feathers of criminals for fear of violating the SOB's rights. It's not our police officers, it's the courts, the attorneys, and the legislators. Our law enforcement folks are in a bad situation, they relly can't do their jobs because of legal repercussions. I have many friends from the gym who are cops. Their frustration is very evident.

This country needs a return to times like where you shoot the criminal and that's that. No need for judge, jury, or lengthy prison terms that we the taxpayers have to pick up the tabs on!

survivor99

Twisted Cross
05-22-2002, 02:27 PM
Survivor99,

You can believe there would be some feather ruffling if some piece of crap tried to get in my house. They would have get past my dogs before the AK though and that would be comical to say the least.

I know what your saying though, we need laws that tell criminals there will be no one feeling sorry for them if they get hurt or killed trying to rob/murder/rape a law abiding citizen in his dwelling. In Ohio under the law I cannot attack an attacker if I come home and see my wife is being violated. I am supposed to leave the house and call for help. What a crock of shit!:mad: My wife told me you better damn well rip their head off if you come home to that.;) The thing is no jury would convict you if that happened,but some stupid judge could intervene or an appeal could throw a wrench in it.:mad:

survivor99
05-22-2002, 02:48 PM
Yep, some bleeding heart attorney trying to make a name for himself, no doubt. If you have to sit back and not violate the so-called "rights" of some SOB who is raping your wife, we don't deserve to even live. That's just my opinion. I would fight to the death, whether it be mine or his. But he wouldn't exactly get a free ride because my wife is as big a gun nut as I am. She wouldn't hesitate to shoot him several times, just for satisfaction. And if that didn't get him then I would.

Look at foreign countries. In some they cut a thief's hand off for stealing. A man can be executed for undressing another man's wife with his eyes. Here, a murderer is protected by law while the victim's families undergo all kinds of scrutiny. And lots of times they let the bastard go free.

We need a return to justice. Not a bunch more laws aimed at limiting our rights to defend our homes, our families, and our possessions. If criminals knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that we would shoot them if apprehended, it would measurably decrease crime.

This, I truly believe.

survivor99

insider
06-19-2002, 11:07 AM
CRIMINALS HAVE NO RIGHTS! KILL THE SOB, DEAD MEN DON'T TALK, AND A FULLY INFORMED JURY CAN THROW THAT OHIO LAW OUT. tHAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THE JUDGE IS GOING TO INTIMIDATE THE JURY INTO VOTING AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. jUST SPEND A DAY IN A COURT ROOM AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT BS COURT REALLY IS!:mad:

Twisted Cross
06-19-2002, 02:25 PM
Yeah! How about that San Francisco judge throwing out that jury's decision of murder for the female lawyer that owned those pitbulls that killed that woman. Those 2 were just dispecable, the victim's family had a chance to address them at the sentencing and the guy just sat there and did his paper work while they yelled at him. His wife just stared straight ahead.

The woman that was the victims partner said they had never even said sorry for what happened. Those 2 should be shot and they tried to blame that woman's death on herself after they had something like 84 complaints about those dogs. What a bunch of crap. The one woman said why even have a jury trial if a judge is just going to overturn it. Nothing but a bunch of self serving politicos.

insider
06-19-2002, 06:52 PM
"Legally" that judge cannot overturn a juries decision, however, we know that judges don't play by the rules.:rolleyes: