This is awsome. Canadian women against gun control.

[Tim01]

http://www.clairejoly.org/laf/help.html

"It says a lot about the so-called "women's groups" that they pull for a gun registry, rather than for more effective use of government resources. The groups certainly do not speak for women like writer Claire Joly, who advocates fighting back against violent criminals, rather than persecuting men."
-- Gary Mauser


Gun control will fail to make Canada a better place to live in and has worrying implications (Next City Magazine, winter 1995).
By Karen Selick


Wow, you guys have to check this out. It's freakin' great.

You gotta love strong women.


I'll bet we would be in the same boat without the 2nd amendment.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Too bad most women are victimized by people they know and more reluctant to use weapons on them. nt

[Tim01]

3. Pepper spray has a lot of positive qualities.

One of them is not really injuring the person who gets sprayed. I think it is just the ticked for those "gray areas".

Not sure what he is up to but you are feeling threatened? Spray him, and sort it out later.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Before I went to Moscow, I went to a Silver Spring gun shop and got me a mega

heavy duty pepper spray.

[Tim01]

6. We got gassed in training.

We got the mild stuff and it was really bad news. I had to struggle not to panic. It felt like I was choking to death, while I was blind. Most uncomfortable.

[iverglas]

11. no no no

You are not paying proper attention to what the big daddies are telling you.

Sexually abused as a youngster by your father / neighbour / teacher / clergyman?
SHOOT THE BASTARD.

Sexually assaulted by a man you are on a date with?
SHOOT THE BASTARD.

Coerced/blackmailed into sexual acts by your employer / physician / psychiatrist?
SHOOT THE BASTARD.

Think that guy walking behind you on a dark street might have designs on your person?
SHOOT THE BASTARD.


If only women were ... how did that go?

Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?

Why does every one do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do everything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?

Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please.
Whenever you're with them, you're always at ease.

Why is thinking something women never do?
And why is logic never even tried?
Straightening up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?

[Tim01]

13. Do you think a woman should never shoot a man to prevent a rape?

Or does that only apply to you?

[iverglas]

14. do you have a reason for asking me that question?

Or are you just being your very plainly incivil self?

[Tim01]

16. Your post 11 is clearly hostile toward men. And to women shooting rapists. Gonna answer?

Do you think women should not shoot a person who is trying to rape them? Easy question.

[iverglas]

17. if you actually think I'm here for your amusement

you can try thinking again. Or for the first time. Ever, maybe.

[Tim01]

19. I'm sure you have more important things to do than answering 1 question.

Another day in the salt mine,eh?

[iverglas]

20. go start your own thread

This one is about some right-wing loonytarian outfit that doesn't exist.

Any opinions about that?

[Tim01]

21. Do you really have your own opinions? Is there anything to you at all?

You use lots of big words to tell everybody else how THEY are wrong and stupid. But you never want to stand your own ground.

Well, I guess you've already answered that question haven't you.

Ha ha, accusing me of going off topic. I'll remember that.

Have a nice evening.

[iverglas]

23. do you really have the attention span of a gnat?

Are your reading skills so lousy you can't tell what the subject of this thread is?

Are your thinking skills so lousy you can't come up with anything to say about it?

Do you really think you are the boss of me?

Or are you just engaging in a little stalking?

[iverglas]

18. oh, btw

My post 11 was a compendium of two things:

(1) a parody of the gun militant response to the victimization of women, posted to demonstrate the total lack of concern gun militants actually have for victimized woman;

and

(2) lyrics from a song sung by Prof. Henry Higgins in the musical My Fair Lady.

Quite separate and different things.

To which of those were you falsely ascribing your characterization: "clearly hostile toward men"?

Just so's I know.

[SteveM]

29. Sure she's hostile -- then scrambles about NOT admitting it! (nt)

[gorfle]

22. Forget it, Tim.

She never answers direct questions that would show her true colors. You'll have to settle for innuendo.

[iverglas]

24. and you never speak a true word when a falsehood will serve your purposes

Once again, the demonstration.

[gorfle]

31. Everyone else thinks it's true...

"I'm not out of step, the rest of the army is!"

[Tim01]

27. Oh,I know. It's kind of silly. nt

[iverglas]

25. any of the clever boys here want to ADDRESS THIS POINT?

It's been sitting here for some time now.

Crickets?

[gorfle]

32. What do you want us to do about apathy?

Look, pro-RKBA folks are for people having the tools available for people who wish to avail themselves to them to defend themselves.

But we can't do anything about people who, for whatever reason, don't want to use them, or can't use them. Firearms can't fix apathy.

It's a well known fact that women quite frequently put up with abusive situations and even refuse to press charges against their abuser when the abuse is brought to light by authorities.

It does not follow, however, that just because there are some people who won't defend themselves with deadly force that no one ever does or should have that ability.

So yes, we get it. Lots of women know their attackers and won't defend themselves or even leave their attackers. Unfortunately I don't have any solutions for them. But for those who wish to be empowered to defend themselves, I have a solution for them.

[iverglas]

35. thank you

So your answer is that victimized women who don't kill their abusers/assailants are apathetic.

I shall keep that in mind.

[gorfle]

38. Not just kill...

Not just kill, hell even just leave.

Apathy, fear, need, greed, whatever. Whatever it is that keeps someone from making the choice to stand up to their aggressors - if you have made that choice no firearm is going to help you. Once you have decided to roll over and take it, no weapon is mighty enough to save you once you've made the choice not to resist.

But this is being held up as some kind of reason as to why no one should have the means to defend themselves. The logic being that because lots of women don't stand up to their aggressors no one will, and moreover, none should be able to do so with a firearm if they so choose.

It doesn't hold any water.

[Tim01]

34. I don't see you offering solutions. Just complaining about us. But pepper spray is a good idea.

Please, name your solution.

[iverglas]

36. thank you

So your answer is ... oops! No answer! Gosh. Colour me surprised.

[Tim01]

37. Still nothing useful from you huh? Please name your sloution. nt

[TPaine7]

28. We need to attack that problem from all sides

1) Men (and women) need to understand they can't take sexual liberties with other people against their will. We need education and social scorn; sexual abuse, rape, and molestation are no funnier than drunk driving. They ruin lives and kill people, too.

2) People need to value themselves and have the support of society to take sexual assault very seriously. There are people who would be livid about insults or slights that have little permanent effect on their lives but will rationalize rape or sexual assault--"did I lead him on?"

The problem needs to be attacked from both ends. Sexually victimizing others needs to be held in appropriate contempt, and the willingness to use force--deadly force if necessary--needs to be approved and embraced. Women who fight, wound, or kill their attackers should have the full support of society.

Unfortunately, sexual victimization is often hard to prove. This complicates the victims position considerably. Fortunately there are technical devices that can help in some circumstances. I believe that anyone subject to serious criminal activity should, by virtue of that fact, be authorized to record audio and video of their victimization. For example, a woman (or man) whose boss is repeatedly pressuring her (or him) for sexual favors could record the incident using hidden cameras, microphones, etc. This is illegal in some states now without a warrant or consent of both parties--I believe crime should create an exception for the victim. Obviously, there are many cases where this won't work, but we should do what we can.

Unfortunately there are misogynistic troglodytes who deny that a woman has a moral right to resist rape using means that may kill or seriously injure her assailant. Rape just isn't serious enough to justify it, according to this school of "thought"! This is stupid, self-contradictory and uncivilized--as I show here--but such thinking still exists.

Fortunately, America is more enlightened on this than, say, Canada.

[Tim01]

30. A really tough subject.

This subject goes the whole unpleasant spectrum of human nastiness.

A couple of teenage girls recently changed their story on what a local guy did to them. It turns out the guy had made them mad so they decided to get even. Throw this kind of nonsense into the mix and it is hard to tell who the bad guys are. Really messy.

It's hard enough to get rape victims to come forward.

[Captain Hilts]

33. When I lived in Toronto, I was shocked by the troglodyte judges. nt

[iverglas]

42. oh look, Master Paine!

I found your source for word-of-the-day!

Now, if I say "pumpernickel", will I come back to find you spattering it all over the board tomorrow?

I'll have to get some good ones lined up so I can slip them into the conversation and see how long it takes for them to show up on your posts. That should be good for at least two days of fun.

[TPaine7]

43. I know reading and logic aren't troglodyte fortes...

but surely there's an intelligent, trustworthy person near your cave?

Get her to read post 33 to you--especially this part: "Response to Reply #28." After that, have her read post 28 to you. Then have her explain your mistake, using small words--and accompanied by soothing music if necessary.

I'll have to get some good ones lined up so I can slip them into the conversation and see how long it takes for them to show up on your posts. That should be good for at least two days of fun.

What would be fun--or at least a shocking diversion--would be you making sense. Debating a troglodyte is no more fun than it is challenging.

[iverglas]

44. oh dear, it was such a short post

and still you didn't understand it. Genuinely didn't understand it this time, it seems.

Oh well. You're the one looking thick, so it ain't my problem.

[HeresyLives]

2. Addy is American.

Run thru Toronto.

http://www.who.is/whois/clairejoly.org/

[Tim01]

5. I think you are talking techinical just a shade above me.

What do you mean?

[HeresyLives]

7. The site is American, not Canadian.

It's certainly possible some Canadian women think like this, but I've never heard of any. And I'm a Canadian female firearm owner.

[Tim01]

8. Ok, I believe you.

But why is so much of the site in French, and about Canadian stuff?

[Irreverend IX]

39. The whois data just says that her site is hosted in the US.

The server her website is on is located in California, that has no bearing on where she is. The domain contact given is for a contact privacy company located in Ontario, which suggests she does live in Canada. A contact privacy company puts their address on a site's whois description to protect the privacy of the actual registrant, kind of like having a P.O. box.

[iverglas]

9. oh, you people make me laugh

For your next trick, will you offer up, oh, Sarah Palin, as an example of ... well, I dunno what all this is supposed to be an example of, but will you?

And for the love of .... did you want to hear about Gary Mauser all over again???

I think you read this week's thread about him here. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether you remember.

http://www.clairejoly.org/laf/help.html

Mmmmmm mmm. The first two publications listed appeared in the National Post (see as above re Gary Mauser) and something called the "Canadian Conservative Review", which I have, sadly, never heard of. Probably related to Albert Report and its cousins. The Ottawa Citizen is the National Post's younger stupider sibling. The other major dailies publish a range of opinion in op-ed pieces.

Diane Francis is a right-wing ideologue editorial writer.

Claire Joly features here:

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/apjoly.htm

En faveur de la liberté individuelle, de l'économie de marché et de la coopération volontaire depuis 1998
Promoting individual liberty, free markets and voluntary cooperation since 1998

Like nobody knows what that's all code for.

Oooh.

http://www.vigile.net/_Joly-Claire_

She's the executive director of the Quebec league of taxpayers.

Like nobody knows what that's code for.


Anybody need some hints?

Here you go.

RIGHT-WING SCUM. Need any bigger print?

Linda Thom? Nice medals. She didn't have to be right-wing scum just because she's a champion shooter. She chose to be.


Always nice to drop in and get my daily chuckle. I found Rick Mercer's Talking to Americans a tad OTT sometimes, just not quite nice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seYUbVa7L7w

But sometimes, it's all just so true.

I mean, if someone weren't so ignorant of all things Canada, why would s/he be offering up, and praising, these right-wing scum at a d/Democratic/liberal/progressive internet site??

[iverglas]

10. neglected someone

Problem is, I have no clue who Claire Joly and half of her fellow travellers are. We really just don't pay a lot of attention to the loonytarian fringe up here.

http://www.karenselick.com/

I am currently a lawyer with the firm Reynolds O'Brien LLP in Belleville, Ontario. My main areas of practice are matrimonial law, wills & estates and small business law. Effective June 30, 2009 I will be ceasing private practice to become Litigation Director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation.

http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/

Asshole right-wing provocateurs. It's not like we don't have them here too.

[Tim01]

12. Association of Women Shooters of Canada

I'll just add this one.
http://sharongunclub.org/awscd.html

[iverglas]

15. and here they all are

behaving just like any number of people around here behave:

http://sharongunclub.org/awsc03.html

Association of Women Shooters of Canada
Presentation to the Senate

BRIEF TO THE SENATE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
FROM THE
ASSOCIATION OF WOMEN SHOOTERS OF CANADA
NOVEMBER 1995
presented by
LINDA THOM, JUDITH ROSS
GAIL DOBNEY, KATE MACQUARRIE

Of considerable concern to women shooters is the attempt by the anti-gun lobby to label gun control a women's issue. Women are presented as being little more than potential victims of male violence. The violence is presented as being primarily the result of the misuse of firearms. Not only is this untrue and insulting, it is also dangerous rhetoric as the actual threats to women's safety and well-being are ignored by the anti-gun lobby and their colleagues from some women's shelters and victims groups.

The posturing contends that the presence of firearms in a household constitutes a threat. If that were the case, then the presence of knives and other objects in a household would constitute even more of a threat since knives and other means of injuring and killing are much more often used in domestic violence than are firearms.

One need only examine the actual figures on domestic homicide in Canada to see that the issue of firearms has been very much exaggerated by the anti-gun lobby which in reality is far more concerned with prohibiting private ownership of firearms than they are with women's safety.

The fact is that 21 women were killed by the use of firearms in domestic homicides in Canada in 1994, out of a total of 65 women killed by spouses or ex-spouses. (Juristat)

Beating at straw, misrepresenting, cherry-picking ... yup, they'd fit right in.


Why are you presenting right-wing cretins for the approval of members of DU?


Listen, I hate to burst your bubble. But ... have you figured out yet that this Association of Women Shooters of Canada doesn't actually exist?

[iverglas]

26. yoo hoo, Timbo -- the Association of Women Shooters of Canada DOES NOT EXIST

Any other toys you'd like to share?

[HeresyLives]

40. Never heard of em.

Probably another Stephen Harper initiative. :rofl:

[iverglas]

41. nah, predated Steve ;)

Good old Linda Thom plus a couple of loonytarians. Thom's the only one I've ever heard of - and of course provided the profile. The others (a Crown attorney and a couple of nondescript others) have sunk into oblivion, it seems.

Always entertaining to see the, er, gun fanciers south of the border trying to find Canadians of a feather, eh?