Democrat politicians would like you to believe that they’re women’s best advocates and protectors. (Mind you, you mustn’t ask them Matt Walsh’s question “What is a woman?” That would upset them terribly.) They constantly prattle about “women’s rights,” as if one’s rights are in some way dependent on one’s sex. But then, we know what they’re really talking about, don’t we, Gentle Reader?
Well, it seems that in the Democrats’ view, “women’s rights” don’t include the right guaranteed to all Americans by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
That’s an actual Democrat legislator who currently sits in the Minnesota state legislature. And yes, she’s just admitted, publicly, to being too stupid to learn how to operate a handgun. So perhaps she shouldn’t have one. But as an advocate for women’s rights…I’d imagine the leaders of her caucus, if they haven’t already taken her to the woodshed, will be doing so quite soon.
I’d suggest spreading that clip around, especially to your left-leaning female friends and acquaintances. But I’m not quite done with this yet.
A few questions of particular import:
- Do you own a handgun?
- Do you have it on your person when you leave your home?
- Do you have it on your person when you’re in your home?
- Where is it right now?
- Do you think that’s where it should be at this time?
I’ve been thinking about this in the light of two other considerations:
- “Safe storage” laws and counsels;
- The “when seconds count” mantra.
The “safe storage” shibboleth, to which innumerable persons would automatically pledge their allegiance, is in direct contradiction to the “when seconds count” concept. After all, if we could predict when a need to defend oneself or a loved one would occur, there would be no value to the “when seconds count” notion. But we can’t, can we? Such moments can come upon us without much warning. When that happens, I wouldn’t want to need to descend to my basement, dial the combination of my gun safe, extract my handgun and a loaded magazine for it, combine them properly, then return upstairs and say to the threat, “Okay, Suddenly Appearing Threatening Person, I’m ready for you now.” Especially if I’m not at home at the time.
A handgun is a defensive tool. If the need for self-defense can arise at any moment, should your handgun really be in a locked steel safe where it would take you a couple of minutes to fetch it and ready it for use? Would you expect to say to an intruder, “Just a second, I’ll be right back,” and have him assent?
Now, many Americans live in districts that can legitimately be called “safe:” i.e., where in one’s day-to-day meanderings, a need for self-defense is highly unlikely to arise. But such districts are fewer than they once were. Ironically, the shrinkage of such safe areas can be directly, causally connected to the decline in Americans routinely going about their day armed and ready.
Long Island, where I’ve made my home this past half-century, has both safe and unsafe areas, by my personal criteria. I would no more venture into one of the unsafe ones unarmed than I would pick my nose in church. But New York, “the Vampire State” whose residents’ Second Amendment rights have been deeply infringed in defiance of the Constitution, won’t have it. A Long Islander must go unarmed except when hunting or perforating targets at a state-approved shooting range. We’re not even allowed Tasers.
At this time, New York Metro, which includes most of Long Island, is regarded as one of the least safe areas in the country. Yet decent people must go about unarmed, while predators do whatever they please. Make sense of that, if you can.
Not long ago, a young nurse-practitioner-in-training asked me “Do you own any guns?” I was tempted to reprove her for it. I didn’t; her training officer was nearby and probably would have intervened, to everyone’s dissatisfaction. But even fully-fledged medical practitioners routinely ask that question of their patients. I think the AMA demands that they do so.
This is the milieu. This is the state of our supposedly free country in this Year of Our Lord 2024. Being armed has been made akin to a disease, something medical practitioners must take into account when treating you for a cough or a blister. We wouldn’t want your KelTec P15 to interact negatively with the pill for your infection or the salve for your wound, would we?
It’s more than a symptom. It’s a regression from our understanding of the prerequisites of safety and civility. It dismisses the central precept of all rights-based polities:
He can defend.
But never fear, Gentle Reader. Officer Friendly will protect you. Didn’t he tell us so?
3 comments
I have two favorite handguns. One is a revolver and there is no safety. It is the gun I prefer to have near my bed because it is the simplest to use in the dark and when barely awake. Zero mistakes due to operational issues. The other is a Glock and it has no safety. That isn’t really true Glock claims it has multiple safeties but, not really. No lever of button safety it is always ready to fire. Which presents it’s own problem so like most people who have thought this through I only use it without a round in the chamber. Therefore I have to cycle the action first to load a round ready to fire and then it is ready without any physical safety. I have just said at least two things that will excite some gun owners to disagree with.
My take on that question at the doctors office, respond with question in kind: “In my answering of this question, is todays prognosis going to depend on a positive or negative response from me?” and watch the squirm commence. It’s not about medicine, its about tracking the “extremists”. The day when we went to UMR (universal medical records) was the day they began tracking much of those things they didn’t normally have access to, like gun ownership, drug usage and addiction assessment, mental stability reports, etc.
So much information that can be arbitrarily applied as desired by those that want the power.
Never tell your doctor that you own a gun. That information will go into your medical record (now electronic) and be eventually shared with the government. How you ask? For many years I was a scientist at a major teaching hospital and saw it all first-hand. I was there when HIPAA was enacted. Staff was trained to the point of nausea about the ‘absolute confidentiality’ provided by the law. HIPAA however, has a backdoor. I did some scientific instrument testing for other hospitals which required me to sign a ‘Business Partnership Agreement’ as I was likely to view patient data. Fast forward a few years and I had a back injury for which I sought treatment at my academic medical center. Within a week of my first appointment, I was contacted by a company (“Trover Systems”), demanding to know the circumstances of my injury. Was it an auto accident, or a fall in a store, etc. That’s odd, I thought, as I was promised this was private. I blew off the letter until a more threatening letter arrived. I contacted our HIPAA Compliance Officer to complain. He did not know, but called me back in a week and said I had to answer their questions. What? It turned out that Trover Systems had a ‘Business Partnership Agreement’ with my medical center and so it was “OK”. I asked for a copy of that agreement and was denied. “That’s confidential”. That last question gets to the point of my comment: “Can Trover sign a BPA with yet another party and hand along my data?”. Yes was the answer, and I would not be allowed to know of it.
Trover (an antiquated word for ‘treasure hunter’) combed the patients’ records looking for circumstances where other entities could be forced to bear some or all of the costs of treatment. That meant that my institution was dumping the ENTIRE medical record of EVERY patient to this company.
The government can easily be that down-the-line party that signs a secret BPA, and receive your medical records with NO due cause.
Lie to your doctor or be prepared to lose your freedon.