And the National Organization for Women? Here's the thing that makes me crazy about an organization ostensibly dedicated to the empowerment of women: NOW is uncompromisingly and adamantly anti-gun, including urging all women to disarm themselves, and supporting legislation to force their disarmament.
The incongruity and hypocrisy of this stance is simply stunning. How can such an organization claim to be "for women?" In my experience as a single woman, there is nothing more effective than a gun for protection.
And what could be more threatening to women than women like Sarah Brady, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Carolyn McCarthy and Barbra Streisand who, while beating the drum for "women's rights" are attempting to disarm women as well as men, and leave them at the mercy of criminals? I still believe fervently in the original NOW position supporting the empowerment of women.
And I believe that the most effective thing any woman can do to empower herself is to acquire and learn to use a gun, and to become vocal and aggressive in defending gun rights and the Second Amendment.
The author of this piece takes things a little far for my taste. I think the key to women's empowerment is economic (good education, good job, etc) - not a firearm. That said, I think she has a very good point about the non-sensical stance of organizations that claim to be about empowering women, but think that women shouldn't have the right to own a gun. This is not to say that all women should run out and buy a gun tomorrow, that's not what I'm advocating. What I'm saying is, they should be allowed to do it if they want to. I suspect many of them won't want to. And I consider that a good thing, because it shows that we have built a safe society, where people don't need to bother with carrying a gun. But I'd still like for them to have the option. Hell, I think everyone should have the option.