Ah yes, this is what the war on women really looks like. Senior Fellow of the Independent Women’s Forum Gayle Trotter gave testimony on Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. "An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies at her home becomes a defense weapon,” Trotter said as the heckling began. “Guns are the great equalizer during a violent confrontation.”
Pick up Trotter's testimony at the 44:30 mark:
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) demonstrates that he should carry the title of "knucklehead" as he told Baltimore County, Maryland Police Chief James Johnson (God love you people in the Baltimore area, because Police Chief Johnson doesn't love you or the Second Amendment of the Constitution) about the issues of armed police officers respond to an event where there are armed and "untrained" school teachers trying to defend students in a school. Obviously his biggest problem is assuming that armed, and I highly doubt "untrained" teachers, would have not neutralized the situation before police could arrive.
While Johnson pointed to an incident that happened between on duty personnel within the police department shooting one of their own as evidence that arming teachers was a bad thing, it really doesn't help his case for armed police officers arriving on scene at a school does it? I think not. Surely, most teachers would discern the difference between children and a lone gunman who was shooting at them.
Whitehouse then turned to Ms. Trotter and said, "Sarah McKinley, in defending her home, use a Remington 870 Express 12 gauge shotgun that would not be banned under the statute, correct?"
When Trotter said she didn't know what type of weapon, Whitehouse said "Trust me, that's what it was." While it was the weapon, Whitehouse's point is irrelevant to the Second Amendment, which is at the heart of the controversy in this issue. However, Trotter wanted to point distinguish between "ordinary firearms" and "100 round magazine" firearms, which instruments that hold 100 rounds are normally termed as "drums."
She then took him to task by respectfully disagreeing. "I also understand that you are a graduate of the University of the Virginia School of Law and you are close to Monticello, where Thomas Jefferson penned our Declaration of Independence, and close to Montpelier, where James Madison was instrumental in drafting the Bill of Rights. I think you can understand that, as a woman, I think it's very important not to place undue burdens on our right to choose to defend ourselves."
Feeling the pinch of "right to choose" and Second Amendment, the Senator tried to interject, but Trotter would have none of it. She continued, "I don't know what weapon she used, but..."
Trotter then went on to try and hold her to one example that she used in her argument, which was McKinley and a double barreled shotgun. He kept pointing back and saying that weapon was not considered under the proposed Feinstein legislation.
"So would it have been unreasonable for her to use a different gun to protect her child," Trotter shot back.
Whitehouse started to make an argument and then backtracked stating that he thought she would have adequate ability to protect her family without having a 100 round piece of weaponry. Obviously, he wasn't interested in dealing with the most common 30 round magazines in his argument, but is attempting to bolster the argument emotionally, because, after all, it is an emotional argument.
"How can you say that?" Trotter asked. "You are a a large man...a tall, tall man. You are not a young mother, who has a young child with her."
Trotter went on to passionately speak about a woman in the home with her child, inexperienced in a firefight, on the phone with 911 and unable to get police to her fast enough.
The Senator dismissed her by stating that McKinley took care of things, which she did.
But the bigger issue is the Second Amendment and the Second Amendment doesn't limit people to shotguns, though they are very effective in home defense. The Second Amendment isn't just about women protecting children, though that is certinaly within the parameters of it. It's about keeping people like Senator Whitehouse, Senator Feinstein and Barack Obama, as well as, armies that would be mounted against us by a tyrannical government from doing so while we sit by with less equal arms. There should be no arms restrictions placed into law by the Federal government and all such that have been are necessarily unlawful, for the Second Amendment is clear when it states that the right to keep and bear arms, for the security of a free state, "shall not be infringed."
David Kopel, who is a policy analyst for CATO Institute and Denver University professor, gave similar testimony to that of Trotter in written testimony. “A woman in Great Britain is three times more likely to be raped than an American woman,” his testimony reads. “Overall, the violent crime rate in England and Wales is far above the American rate. Using the standard definition for the four most common major violent crimes: homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.”
Kopel also went on to demonstrate how ineffective Feinstein's ban was the first time around. “In 2005 the National Institute of Justice study found that the 1994-2004 the manufacture or import of such magazines had no discernible benefit,” he said. “Mandating universal background checks will only work with universal gun registration.”
Newly elected Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) echoed Kopel's statements by citing Bill Clinton's Department of Justice. “Assault weapons ban failed to reduce the average number of victims of gun murder and incidents of multiple,” he said. “Under it there has been no discernible reduction the lethality and injuriousness of violence.”
Thoughout the hearings there was hecklings and mockings at both the Second Amendment and the Founding Fathers
Instead of being focused on the weapons ban legislation that Senator Dianne Feinstein 9D-CA) introduced, the hearing turned to universal background checks and the lack of prosecutions, specifically under the Obama Justice Department, which we have documented.
While several Democrats pushed for universal background checks claiming falsely that “40 percent of all guns sold don’t go through a background check.”
Even more lies were presented as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said there was no federal punishment for straw purchasing, in spite of the fact that there is.
The National Rifle Association's Wayne LaPierre said that Feinstein's bill is "based on falsehoods that people not familiar with firearms don't understand, and that adding universal background checks will only lead to a "universal nightmare." I'll add in that it will add a universal increase in cost, as well as, bureaucracy.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.