There are women who are afraid of strangers.
There are women who are afraid to be home alone at night.
There are women who are afraid of big cities.
There are women who are afraid of walking to their cars in parking garages.
There are women who are afraid of guns.
I am not one of those women.
I have lived in some neighborhoods that won’t ever be featured in Better Homes and Gardens, but I have never felt I needed a gun. Beloved Soul Mate has wanted me to have a gun to protect myself, but I’ve never wanted one. I suppose I’d secretly hoped that if I were ever in that much danger, there would be a man nearby to protect me.
Despite this, I bought a gun.
The were two main factors in my decision. The first was owning a cuter-than-cute holster, made of oiled leather. Lord knows, I’ve always been a sucker for good leather and it just seemed a shame to let this potential fashion accessory languish in the closet, when I could be wearing it, but having a holster and no gun, is like having a fabulous C-cup push-up and nothing to put in it.
The second factor was good-ole girl spirit. Most people don’t respond favorably to the word “no”, but that word affects me in the same way a spur affects a horse. It makes me highly motivated. Whenever people tell me I can’t do something, my smile says, “Watch me.” So recently, with so much political energy being spent on stripping away the rights of gun owners, I knew the time had come for me to own a gun.
For the last couple years, I have been splitting my time between my two “hometowns”. One is the city in Southern California I now call home, the other is a town in rural Arizona, I used to call home. They are 400 miles and worlds apart from each other. In one, if you show up at the 7-11 with a gun at your side, the clerk will trip the alarm. In the other, guns are welcome, except in places like saloons and City Hall, where arguments sometimes get heated. In one town, guns are respected, in the other they are feared, but like the saying goes, “An armed society is a polite society.“ Perhaps, this is why there is less gun crime in my Arizona hometown, than in my California hometown.
It takes more courage to own a gun, than to use one. For me, being a gun owner is scarier than being unarmed, because at the moment of the purchase, my name was added to a list of persons who can be legally detained without charges, as per the terms of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This bill makes owning a gun a good enough reason for the government to take me away and hold me indefinitely, without charges, like Jews in the time of Hitler. With the adoption of the NDAA, owning a gun in America, has never been more dangerous.
I am hoping never to need this gun, but I needed this gun. Buying it was a symbolic vote for American freedom and liberty. When I made the purchase, I knew the gun was more likely to cause me harm, than guarantee my safety, because I am exactly the kind of person our government seeks to disarm. Like any other American with a sound bill of mental health, I hate fighting and killing, but like our founding fathers, I believe in the right of Americans to defend themselves and their property.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric of peace (which is also the rhetoric of disarmament) is misleading. The problem is those who would arm themselves to preserve lives, are always disarmed before those who would arm themselves to take lives. What the anti-gun crowd touts as the way to end violent crimes and killing, inevitably results in the opposite.
A recent news bit reported that China disapproves of American gun rights, calling them a violation of human rights. The same China that disarmed its citizens, then massacred 73 million of them, is telling us guns in the hands of citizens are bad???? It’s ironic, but across the globe, every maniacal dictator and horrific massacre of citizens was preceded by an attempt to seize guns from the innocents, who would later become victims.
Guns in the wrong hands ARE bad, but guns have also done the world a world of good. Lots of guns were needed to end slavery in America. After that war, lawmakers enacted provisions to give the newly emancipated slaves the same right to own guns as every other American citizen, so that they’d have a way to protect themselves against sore losers and such, but you can be sure, many would have preferred to keep the “Freedmen” defenseless.
Fast forward to the era of Fast & Furious…it isn’t clear why the same government that gives guns to bad people, wants to take them from good people, but in an another affront to our constitution and civil liberties, our leaders plan to sign The Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Listen to the rhetoric and you’ll be convinced this international treaty is for the good of all mankind, but before you surrender your arms, you should know what’s at stake.
The first problem with the treaty is that it was created by one of the most anti-American groups on American soil. Largely funded by The United States, The United Nations was created to promote peace and human rights. Their mission was to assist in humanitarian efforts and to promote economic development across the nations. Sadly, the agency has a dismal record in every one of those areas, and has done little, if anything, to make the world a better place. They have turned a blind eyes to countless genocides, cooperated with oppressive governments, misappropriated humanitarian aid, and propagated corruption of all sorts, including the sex trafficking of women & children. There are some things the U.N. does well, chiefly, they promote contempt for America, make money disappear and seem to be pretty good at covering the shameful tracks of their misdeeds.
Spokespersons for the treaty tell us the intent of this treaty is to prevent small arms from ending up in the hands of rebels, criminals, drug traffickers and other bad guys. That’s good, right? Less guns means less killing, but gun control isn‘t about controlling guns, it‘s about controlling people. The Arms Trade Treaty is a back-door way of rendering America’s Second Amendment null and void. It is a way of lessening American sovereignty and chipping away at our constitutional freedom.
This bait and switch tactic has been used by the U.N. in the past, to get nations to sign on to treaties which were promoted as necessary for human rights, but later reinterpreted with other intents. Previously, the U.N. convinced nations to adopt The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and The Convention on The Rights of the Child. Though both sound noble, they have been used to degrade the freedoms already held by those who we were told they would protect. Both have been used to create a transfer of parental authority to the governments, so that women could work while the government took control of their children.
It is widely believed there is no threat of us being held to this treaty unless the Senate approves it, but under the terms of The Vienna Convention, the treaty is enforceable as soon as it’s signed. We are bound to its terms as set forth (and/or reinterpreted) by The United Nations, until such a time as the Senate chooses to overturn it, but we won’t likely ever see that happen, because those who want to sign it want to nullify the second amendment.
Guns and peace are mutually exclusive in the double-speak of the U.N., because the U.N. is not committed to peace. U.N. peacekeepers don’t keep peace or protect anyone. In fact, under the watch of U.N. peacekeepers women and children have been routinely victimized. Where I come from, we don’t need peacekeepers, because we have something call a peacemaker. It’s a Colt .45, and I can tell you it’s a hell of a lot more effective at keeping women & children safe than than U.N. peacekeepers.
There are women who believe the government will protect them.
There are women who believe all guns are bad.
There are women who believe we would all be safer without guns.
I am not one of those women.