14 January 2012

An Interesting Contradiction

Oklahoma law allows the use of deadly force against intruders, and prosecutors said McKinley clearly acted in self-defense. According to court documents Martin, 24, was holding a knife when he died.
McKinley was about 22 feet from the door when Martin came through the door and forcefully pushed the couch that she had used to barricade the door out of the way, she told Fox News.
That's when McKinley saw Martin with something shiny in his hand, which she took for a pistol, but later was determined to be the knife. She fired when she saw him shove the couch out of the way.

This story has been beat to death by the 2nd amendment crowd, so I won’t dwell on the “right to bear arms aspect of it other than to say that this is yet another reason why one’s right to own a gun shouldn’t be infringed:  it handily and effectively deters criminals.  It is axiomatic in some circles that the government is the biggest criminal of all, hence gun laws.

Anyhow, this story brings a greater political point in sharp relief.  Namely, the left’s contradictory philosophy on feminism and gun control, and on equality.

The left often promotes feminism as a way of giving more power to women (some strains want equality, some strains want superiority).  Yet the left also opposes gun ownership.  This strikes me as somewhat weird because women—as seen in this news account—clearly benefit from gun ownership.  In fact, it is arguable that gun ownership gives more power to women than to men, relatively speaking.  And yet, those who claim to want to increase women’s power are also the ones who want to prevent them from effectively having any (personal) power.  The implication of these conflicting policies is that women are to only have power collectively; they cannot be trusted with it individually.  The ultimate implication is that women individually are not to be trusted with power.  Ergo, feminism is anti-woman.

Also, it’s interesting how leftists, when all is said and done, effectively oppose equality.  It is axiomatic that guns are equalizers.*  Yet, the leftists want to take them away, even though doing so will simply accentuate whatever inequalities exist.

Men are generally stronger, faster, taller, heavier, and smarter than women, which is why women don’t often beat men in fights or sports competitions.  Yet those advantages mostly disappear when a man is twelve feet away from an angry woman who has a gun in her hands, trained on him, and is ready to fire.  If that doesn’t help to place women on equal footing with men, I don’t know what will.

As should be clear, leftists lack governing principles.  They seem to be incapable of thinking through the connections between their policies and their principles, hence their often contradictory policies.  It is unclear why this is the case; perhaps it’s because leftists are more concerned with signaling their affiliation and support of a cause than actually doing anything, but that’s a post for another day.

* Of course, this is a general statement.  There are instances when having a gun does not negate inequality of abilities.  For the most part, though, guns are great equalizers.


  1. Men are generally smarter than women? Psssh hahahaha!

    Granted, women do dumb things, often because of a tendency to FEEL rather than THINK - but when we do think, look out! ;P

  2. @conservativewerewolf- Please note that "smarter" refers to raw intelligence. "Smarter" is not equivalent to "wiser," nor is it equivalent to "more knowledgeable." My assertion was that, on the average, men possess more raw intelligence than women, which is generally useful in combat, which was the point of comparison. As Mencken asserts, men are often stupid about many things (most notably women and interpersonal relationships). However, Mencken's assertion (which I generally agree with), is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, for the discussion is centered on how well women can handle physical combat relative to men.