CO Democrat: Even if you feel like you might get raped, you may not, so no guns for you
posted at 9:31 pm on February 18, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham
Downplaying the threat of rape? Check. Questioning the ability of grown, sentient women to perceive that threat? Check. A man in a position of power presuming to know what’s best for women he knows nothing about? Check. Limiting women’s choices by law in potentially life-threatening situations? Check. Six months ago, this was known as the frightful patriarchy. Now, it’s just another member of the Party of Women doing his part for the good work of gun control.
In arguing for the disarmament of college students in Colorado this week, state Rep. Joe Salazar suggested a novel method of self-defense for women on campus— just chill, ladies.
“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”
Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment! I guess if you are raped, there’s this…safe zone. Look, colleges are welcome to establish safe zones (though criminals are notoriously unobservant of such signage), call boxes, lighted paths, and whistles to help prevent campus attacks. I have benefited from at least a few of these tools, and begrudge no one their use. But I would also like women who choose to arm themselves, in the event that safe zones, call boxes, lights, and whistles don’t work, to retain the right to their chosen tool of prevention.
Revealing Politics has background on the bill in question:
House Bill 13-1226 to prohibit the lawful concealed carry on Colorado college campuses passed the Colorado House of Representatives this morning. Many of the arguments Democrats used to justify the bill included the alcohol and drug use common on campuses coupled with the age and immaturity of average college students. These arguments didn’t resonate with many Republican lawmakers and opponents of the bill who cited Colorado’s intensive training process for obtaining a concealed carry permit and the state’s requirement that permit-holders be 21 years of age, as rebuttal.
Salazar has apologized for revealing how incapable he believes women are. (Notice the framing of the story in local media is not about his comments, but about conservatives objecting to them.)
“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention,” Salazar said. “We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. “I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”
Charles Cooke notes the University of Colorado’s advice for women under attack. This would be the liberal-sanctioned method of self-defense if the Rep. Salazar method of hoping real hard doesn’t pan out. Passive resistance, bare feet, and your period:
Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself.
Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away.
Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.
Don’t take time to look back; just get away.
If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense.
Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating.
Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.
Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it!
Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm.
Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.
“Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.” That is, unless you’d like to use a projectile more potent than vomit, in which case, settle down little missy. You can’t be trusted.
In other “common sense” gun control news, a Washington state bill obliterates the Fourth Amendment for gun owners. Oops:
It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.
“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.
Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.
But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
When the sheriff shows up, try vomiting or urinating.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Of course they did.
It’s part of that “Bill of Rights” that Democrats seem to hate so much.
Maybe we can just replace it with a photo of Obama and Jon Stewart.
tetriskid on May 15, 2013 at 7:27 PM
Question Time With Mo: Are Speech Codes Constitutional?
Resist We Much on May 15, 2013 at 7:27 PM
Obama,
44th President of the United States.first dictator, post Republic of the United States.actions…….that is what proves it.
PappyD61 on May 15, 2013 at 7:28 PM
What a field day for spite, jealousy or being angry a guy ignored you.
Charen makes an excellent point.
INC on May 15, 2013 at 7:29 PM
I wonder how many of those about to freak out would limit free speech for Muslims.
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 7:31 PM
Here’s a clue. Don’t take fed $$ and you can say what you want.
Gotta keep ‘em separated.
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 7:35 PM
The analogy doesn’t work. There’s no conflict between Hillsdale College (a conservative place, BTW) policy and the Constitution or justice.
INC on May 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM
Immoral equivalence again.
INC on May 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM
…F R E E D O M…!
KOOLAID2 on May 15, 2013 at 7:41 PM
So I understand that this may not be binding on other agencies, but I assume that it can be used as support for other things, like FCC complaints?
Anyone have a list of liberals’ favorite TV shows? I want to make sure they’re not saying anything objectionable.
malclave on May 15, 2013 at 7:42 PM
So the Affirmative Action Bake Sale is off?
Wethal on May 15, 2013 at 7:45 PM
While we’re wondering, I wonder why you liberals are so devoid of integrity.
Is it a causal link, or just coincidence (approaching 1.0)?
If there is a causal link, does being a liberal lead to corruption, or does being dishonest lead to being a liberal?
malclave on May 15, 2013 at 7:46 PM
Why is speech being made a crime? For people who like to kill innocent babies, they sure do find adults to be emotionally fragile.
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 7:47 PM
Don’t include me, I think they speak to little. The radicals need to be seen for what they are and the moderates need to prove that they are the majority. Instead we have have this hands off mentality leaving everyone in limbo.
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 7:49 PM
Considering that so many in the Obama admin are university flunkies and lifers this is not surprising. They already helped to create the intolerant campuses as they exist today.
NotCoach on May 15, 2013 at 7:51 PM
Because the democrats have to work hard to convince people that they’re victims so they stay on the plantation.
malclave on May 15, 2013 at 7:53 PM
A 15-year-old can walk into a pharmacy and buy Plan B without her parents knowing about it. Yet to protest that bad ruling is quickly becoming a “hate crime” because some view killing their children as a right and you might just offend the killer or potential killer by standing up for life.
We live in a pretty sick world. BTW, they actually interviewed a Gosnell supporter this afternoon. The attitude was a “so what” to the murders because of all the women he’s helped.
Happy Nomad on May 15, 2013 at 7:56 PM
You’re a troll.
CW on May 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM
Democrats can’t win a war of ideas. They can only demonize, curtail civil rights, steal elections, and otherwise chip away at society. Look at HotAirLiberal a textbook example of an idiot who never wins an argument but shows up to be as nasty and vile as possible.
Happy Nomad on May 15, 2013 at 7:59 PM
That is so insane it almost defies belief. It is essentially a requirement that one person read another’s person’s mind before speaking to them.
I wonder how many college kids who voted for Obama, or who urged their parents to do so, are going to feel when they get trampled under the boot of this tyrant and his idiocy. Was it worth losing your basic freedoms so you could be one of the “cool” kids and put an Obama bumper sticker on your car, or hang a Che poster in your dorm room?
AZCoyote on May 15, 2013 at 8:00 PM
I’m freaking out, but it has nothing to do with Muslims, nor would I limit their ability to speak their mind. I’m happy to engage any blithering idiot in conversation, as this paragraph so amply demonstrates.
RationalIcthus on May 15, 2013 at 8:01 PM
Hmmmm, I don’t think “helped” means the same to me that it does them. And considering his income compared to the state of his facilities, I think question his motives.
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 8:01 PM
So if Bruno Jr. is walking through the Student Union at his college and sees a poster advertising “The Vagina Monologues” he can be “offended” and bring a harassment suite against all of those associated with event, right?
Sweet!
Cloward and Piven here we go!
Spread the word! Conservative and libertarian kids can go wild every time a delicate sensibility is tweaked!!
The gift of unintended consequences!
Bruno Strozek on May 15, 2013 at 8:03 PM
Have you been paying attention to the IRS story?
//
CW on May 15, 2013 at 8:07 PM
Speech: safe, legal, and rare.
tom daschle concerned on May 15, 2013 at 8:08 PM
The administration will claim there is no merit, then turn around and charge him with harassment for filing a false complaint.
Liam on May 15, 2013 at 8:09 PM
Speech codes are tyranny’s hand maiden.
VorDaj on May 15, 2013 at 8:10 PM
Good practice divorce court. War on Men continues.
Little Boomer on May 15, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Who cares? It will be Blue on Blue crime at these lefty universities just like the feminist mouthbreather found out when her beta male son was brought before the kangaroo court. Let them find out the hard way, like the French did, when the revolution consumes its own.
Not our problem.
What we really need to do is Napsterize the entertainment industry and destroy the propaganda machine. Roll back the draconian copyright laws and let the pirates eat Hollywood alive. What kid doesn’t like free music and movies? We can do free stuff! :-D
Punchenko on May 15, 2013 at 8:12 PM
Huh Phoenix is sounding better and better.
CW on May 15, 2013 at 8:14 PM
War on liberal beta males. The war doesn’t touch you if you marry a good girl from a good family and with good values. The war doesn’t touch if you send your kid down South or overseas for school.
Don’t feed the beast, stay local, reconnect with family, community, and provide for your family while being a man. Get rid of the TV and invest in some good reading. Even Robespierre, that pillar of the revolution, fell to his own folly. Their revolution consumes and destroys and will in time leave them in need of Emergency Financial Managers.
Guess who will be assigning the Emergency Financial Managers? US, LOL!
Punchenko on May 15, 2013 at 8:21 PM
I consider that any words coming from the mouths of libruls or dhimocrapts to be harassment.
Old Country Boy on May 15, 2013 at 8:22 PM
Actually, it’s even worse than that. It presumes that the offended party already read the mind of the offender, and read it accurately.
From the “party of science”.
runawayyyy on May 15, 2013 at 8:23 PM
I’M OFFENDED BY THE GOVERNMENT “SPEECH” CODE! NOW WHO DO I COMPLAIN TO?
GarandFan on May 15, 2013 at 8:26 PM
The grammar teachers you apparently ignored?
Bam!
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 8:31 PM
When you have to go there you know you don’t have much.
CW on May 15, 2013 at 8:34 PM
I couldn’t follow the logic leading to the bam conclusion.
Axe on May 15, 2013 at 8:35 PM
It also says a lot when someone is bothered more by someone’s grammar than the government’s and these universities’ overreach.
CW on May 15, 2013 at 8:35 PM
That is CH trying to prove he is a moderate and not a liberal. Fortunately most of us here pay attention.
CW on May 15, 2013 at 8:36 PM
Actually for the dimmest of wits this seems like a radical Muslim’s dream.
CW on May 15, 2013 at 8:43 PM
Yeah, what does “Bam!” mean?
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 8:45 PM
Let me know you can muster one iota of genuine discourse. So far all I hear from you in response to my even my most detailed comments are ad hominem.
How could you possibly think that I’m motivated by your approval? You’re either stupid or lying.
I’ve stated and restated. I don’t care if we agree or disagree. I’m probably not going to like you much. That’s not bias. That’s what it is to be a _______________ pick your term. (a-hole, prat, loser, etc.)
You mean like your substantive retorts, adhomboy?
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 8:48 PM
I agree with your remark. Somehow CW finds this to be a false flag when most people here do not even agree with it.
How old are you people? Is this a geriatric blog? Yes, that’s an ageist question.
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 8:50 PM
Crap. I should have probably been nice to Cindy Munford. She really really goes out of her way to really understand things and express herself clearly.
next time
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 8:52 PM
I would have liked to hear the Hamster’s take on the role of a woman’s reaction to sexual harassment as such found on a college campus, as she was raised with brothers. Do the feminists want a college campus where a young man never comes on in any way to a young woman? Or makes a rude remark? Are women in that situation to be seen as victims, without any recourse? Are they all defenseless flowers?
Do we want, and can we even have, a college campus where young men never make any rude remarks about young women?
Paul-Cincy on May 15, 2013 at 8:54 PM
I thought it meant “Case in point!” — or “Gotcha!” That’s how I would use Bam! If I used Bam! CW interpreted it as agreement, which makes more sense.
Axe on May 15, 2013 at 8:54 PM
Doh. There it is. :) Sorry, was typing.
Axe on May 15, 2013 at 8:55 PM
Heh. You’re hilarious. Do you know what irony means?
There’s another word that presents you with real issues.
You trolls are always a hoot.
Bam!!
Does that = substantive?
I will write that down. What you are really is pompous and just like most of the other trolls it is apparent that not only are you not liked here but your not even liked in that little world you call your real life.
Oh that is substance! ….now I get it.
Nothing fallacious there.<<<< That is sarcasm.
Just in case you did not get it.
CW on May 15, 2013 at 8:58 PM
Yes, yes. I have expressed the breadth of my outrage just for you, sap.
Don’t be offended. But I believe that you did not graduate from a four year university. I don’t think you made it anywhere near a university. There are some for whom this would be an achievement in that it left them free time to do something. In your case, I suspect, you’re just an idiot.
That probably shades the way I deal with you. I’m pretty sure that’s some kind of prejudice, right? Maybe that will get me into the HotAir in-crowd.
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 8:58 PM
Awwww I think someone has been offended.
CW on May 15, 2013 at 9:00 PM
This is going to get good. Have to eat; back after dinner and a hump or two.
…so about 20 minutes
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 9:01 PM
or flattered
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 9:01 PM
din din
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 9:02 PM
Poor CH called out for what it is and much like lights to roaches it scurries on.
CW on May 15, 2013 at 9:03 PM
Going no where in court. No where.
pat on May 15, 2013 at 9:10 PM
I can’t give you the average age of the folks here but I am careening to 60. I don’t think you should get upset that people didn’t immediately figure out your meaning, afterall, not everyone knows who Emeril Lagasse is.
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:12 PM
They don’t care, they will make a lot of noise and pay a lot of lawyers.
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:15 PM
Oh dear. I’m not upset. I’m just a jerk.
Also I got rebuffed on the humping until after I shower. UGH.
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 9:16 PM
Don’t worry, your treatment of me was fine. I’m not easily offended and don’t require blind agreement with my views.
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:16 PM
Thanks for sharing.
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:17 PM
I’m a fed and a few weeks ago I received a message from GSA (ostensibly the part that manages the cars used for local travel) urging us to lobby our state governments to pass texting-while-driving laws. Sounds like a violation of federalism and the Tenth Amendment at least.
321mdl on May 15, 2013 at 9:19 PM
Is that the first time you’ve received a suggestion like that?
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:22 PM
Wow. The stupid is thick with this one. You morons are so hellbent about disagreeing with me that you miss the point. Hillsdale supports my comment perfectly. It is a great example of how to avoid Big Gov intrusion into your place of business.
Maybe you’ll get it when your state is deciding whether or not to accept fed imposed speed limit and BAC standards.
Now bend yourself over yourself.
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 9:23 PM
Hot.
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 9:23 PM
…Thanks for sharing
(:->)
KOOLAID2 on May 15, 2013 at 9:27 PM
I missed this earlier, sorry. There does seem to be a need to cultivate the victim mentality. I think this sort of thing almost always comes back to bite them.
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:29 PM
…contort your head up your anal passageway.
KOOLAID2 on May 15, 2013 at 9:30 PM
WHOA!
It would be great if more people in your position spoke up about the blurred lines that must be so common.
What was your reply? Probably best to bite your tongue if you want to keep your job. That’s not cowardly, it’s prudent.
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Nope, you’re not glomming on or anything.
Capitalist Hog on May 15, 2013 at 9:33 PM
I am incredibly troubled by this. As a former college residence administrator, the incidences of false accusations and he-said-she-said situations are far more than anecdotal. Removing the higher burden of proof will subject students, mostly male, to grave repercussions for innocent actions. My college had a policy that all lesser offenses by a victim were ignored (alcohol, drugs, visitation hour violations, etc.) if the victim accused someone of sexual assault. When caught, many of these victims would fabricate stories about sexual assault to avoid personal trouble. Lowering these standards makes me fear for the college male of tomorrow.
blammm on May 15, 2013 at 9:33 PM
Yep, just ignore it. If he finds out that they know if he did or didn’t act on it, that’s a more interesting situation. He could be famous!!
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:34 PM
It’s kind of weird that they would lower the standards for this or discrimination since there have been some very high profile cases of fraudulent accusations. Including on the part of faculty members.
Cindy Munford on May 15, 2013 at 9:36 PM
I feel violated just reading these guidelines. Therefore, these guidelines ARE harrassment and must be removed from college campuses.
questionmark on May 15, 2013 at 10:53 PM
Bullsh!t.
A22holes.
profitsbeard on May 16, 2013 at 2:14 AM
The issue with Muslims has never been their free speech.
I do tend to object to their free jihad…
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 16, 2013 at 3:31 AM
You know… It would be a lot easier for students and universities to comply with this edict if they had gender-segregated dormitories. Normal conversation could be construed as “sexual harassment” under the new rules. e.g.
“Did you see Jane Smith come to class in her pajamas today?”
“Yeah. Guess she was too busy with extra-curricular activities to get dressed today.”
“Yup. So anyways, Dr. Urchin is being a real hard-ass about those exams, huh?”
“Yup.”
In a gender segregated world, this conversation would not be considered sexual harassment. If Jane Smith lives in the same hall, perhaps the room next door, then it might be.
And yet, the strong push on universities is to make co-ed roommates, not just gender-integrated dormitories. Nuts.
DrUrchin on May 16, 2013 at 7:14 AM
The Democrats played with sexual harassment laws so much that “their” president got caught up in it and they had to claim his lies were “all about sex”.
bflat879 on May 16, 2013 at 7:35 AM
College women these days certainly aren’t demure little innocents. College men need to flood the complaint department with harrassment complaints that mirror the idiotic ones sure to be filed against them.
krome on May 16, 2013 at 9:34 AM
Sue the administration and the accuser for libel/slander. That puts it in a court of law with discovery. And, there the ‘reasonable man’ standard does apply.
GWB on May 16, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Step 1: Come up with or devise a new sexual activity and label it the “Constitution”.
Step 2: Claim any reference to the “Constitution” is a reference to this sexual term.
Step 3: Claim harassment if the “Constitution” is ever mentioned on campus.
…
Rinse & repeat for any conservative talking points or issues you’d rather avoid entirely or ban from campus.
This plan took me less than 15 seconds to devise; and can be used to implement speech bans on any topic you can imagine based on the letter from the Government.
Glad I’m not in college, you guys are doomed.
gekkobear on May 16, 2013 at 1:54 PM