Dem. lawmaker: Women too impulsive, should use rape whistles, not guns

Ladies, put down your weapon and blow your rape whistle because you’re too emotional a creature to properly determine if you are about to be raped or if you just feel like you’re about to be raped.

That’s the asinine thinking of Colorado Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar, who argued Friday against concealed carry on college campuses.

RedState’s Dana Loesch wrote a scathing article Monday on Salazar’s idiotic statement saying, “This is the real ‘war on women’ I’ve talked about: the progressive insistence that women disarm.”

Salazar spoke on the floor of the state House Friday and said:

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.

Uh-huh. Joe wants you to run to a safe zone, blow your whistle, and maybe the feeling of imminent danger will go away. Why doesn’t a woman just click her heels three times and say, “There’s no place like home”? Ridiculous. And dangerous.

Loesch and others took to Twitter to share their thoughts on whistleblowing vs. pulling out a legal firearm for self-defense. From Twtichy:

[email protected]: Honestly, ‪#COLeg, can Salazar define what “feel like you’re going to be raped” means? #waronwomen”

[email protected]: Rapists can’t enter “safe zones.” Didn’t you know? Just like werewolves can’t enter holy ground. ‪#Salazar ‪#COLeg ‪#waronwomen”

[email protected]: Dear Rep. Joe Salazar of Colorado: You owe the women of your state an apology for your insane, insensitive wacky views.”

[email protected]: Earlier today I “felt like I was going to be raped” found a call box and the feeling went away. ‪#COLeg ‪#Salazar”

According to the Fox News affiliate in Denver, Salazar issued an apology, if that’s what you want to call it, for his remarks:

I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention. 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.

The comments don’t offend me. It’s the brain that thinks women are safer with whistles that offends me.

Read more from RedState.

Watch the Reveal Politics video of Salazar’s comments:

Popular Stories:

Washington gun bill includes annual home inspections

Backlash intensifies over Capital One spokesman Alec Baldwin’s racial meltdown

Who will beat the nation’s ‘most vulnerable Democrat’?

Janeen Capizola

"And though she be but little, she is fierce." And fun! This conservative-minded political junkie, mom of three, dancer and one-time NFL cheerleader holds a bachelor of arts degree in political science. [email protected] Twitter: @JaneenBPR

Comments

62 thoughts on “Dem. lawmaker: Women too impulsive, should use rape whistles, not guns

  1. Barry G says:

    Known gangs that are armed and not one Lefty will do a damned thing about it, no, they want the guns owned by registered law abiding American Citizens so that Obama can then finish the job of "fundamentally changing America" with no blowback from people like the Tea Party, we know what is up lefty's. http://www.businessinsider.com/dangerous-american

  2. Barry G says:

    Hey Libtard, Newtown only needed a Principal with a gun, or a Teacher with a gun, or an armed guard, or the Cops in the parking lot instead of Dunkin Donuts, either way you dimwit, we have the right to arm ourselves and we won't let sissy's like you take that right away without a fight.

  3. joe says:

    seazen. You have your opinion thats fine. If you dont want to be armed thats fine. Just dont tell me I cannot be if I choose. Not everyone will choose to carry. Thats there right as a citizen. I should have the same right and choose for myself. I dont want you or the gov. to tell me I cant

  4. JCD says:

    I am a man. That means that I (like Salazar) am fundamentally incapable of properly empathizing with the issue at hand. In this sense, I actually AM insensitive.

    I am sensitive enough to say this, however:

    Even if we ASSUME that more (relatively) innocent men WILL be injured or killed as a result of legalizing this kind of self-defense (in this kind of situation)…

    Were this kind of self-defense legalized, it would DEFINITELY and DRASTICALLY reduce the frequency of this kind of assault on women.

    So.

    So, lets just suppose there is an even exchange of numbers:

    An additional accidental injury/death of a man who was merely "creeping" or "stalking" a woman, instead of actual intending harm-

    In exchange for one successful shooting of a "hopeful" rapist by his intended victim.

    If properly implemented, this height of injuries/deaths would be very unlikely, but still, lets assume it. I'll take those numbers. A few more men accidentally shot, in exchange for an increased deterrent on campus rape? I'll take it. Hands down.

  5. JCD says:

    I would argue that seeking to create a society whose approach to creating an environment that is healthy, safe, and humane is through the widest possible dispersion of weapons (which, obviously, are designed to kill) AMONG RESPONSIBLE MORAL CITIZENS is the only rational response to an honest analysis of the world we naturally live in. To reject this is either due to:

    1) Simple ignorance about the nature of the world.

    2) Willful pretension that the state of the world and humanity at large is not radically and pervasively broken.

    The state of the world and humanity at large IS, however, radically and pervasively broken, as can be easily demonstrated from any number of international (or even merely national statistics). The law of the jungle IS the basic law of society- and thus, inevitably, the only way to protect individuals (especially women) within that reality is (when they are not perpetrators OF that reality) is to ensure that they have the ability to handle themselves within that situation.

    The most practical, effective, and easily implemented way to ensure this is to legally require all competent and responsible adults to own lethal weaponry. In addition to common sense, history thoroughly demonstrates that this is the most practical, effective, and easily implemented method, in absolutely every relevant historical example.

  6. Doug Rodrigues says:

    Joe Salazar forgot to mention Gun Free Zones. Yeah, that'll work.

  7. derp says:

    buy a stun gun

    -save money on ammo and gun maintenance

    -avoid killing someone

    -easy to use

Comments are closed.

Related Posts