New York Times op-ed Op-Ed Contributor Wendy Button clearly confirms what I've been saying. Although very politically incorrect, it is clear evidence of the fact that a segment of our population would rather suffer the consequences of being defenseless than accept the responsibility of self-security. Here is her plea<= to have the government protect her from herself and what she's willing to sacrifice to feel protected.
...our leaders should do more to keep us safe from ourselves.
Please take away my Second Amendment right. Do more to help us protect ourselves because what's most likely to wake me in the early hours isn't a man's body slamming at my door but depression, that raven, tapping, rapping, banging for relief.
I have a better chance of surviving if I never have the option of being able to pull the trigger.
OK first off, suicide is not dependent upon a firearm, Japan has a much higher rate of suicide that the US and far fewer guns. When you consider the fact that overdosing on pain meds now claims more lives than auto accidents and far more than gun related deaths of any type taking away her Second Amendment right won't make her safer from herself. It will however make any man who attempts to rape her 10 times more likely to succeed. She used government stats to support her claims, she ignored a bunch of them though. Like the fact that according to the FBI less than 3 in 100 rape attempts are successful if the woman is armed, while 3 in 10 are successful when the woman is unarmed.
The fact is women have historically proven individually and as a group to be willing to sacrifice liberty, and personal responsibility, for security. To women security is more important than liberty. You can see the evidence in the number of women who stay with an abusive relationship, because the security he provides outweighs the freedom from occasional abuse.
The problem with people like Wendy Button is that she assumes everybody believes as she does, she assumes that no rational person would prefer being self reliant than being protected by the government, even from themselves; she believes that nobody should have the liberty to take risks for themselves she doesn't want to take for herself.
I'd be willing to bet Ms. Button doesn't own a gun, so taking away her right to own one would not affect her in any way. The main stream press agrees with her, they routinely don't cover and spike stories where individuals use guns in self defense. Where was the wall to wall coverage of a mom saving her kids shooting intruders breaking into her home. Ms. Button wants to deny mothers an effective means of protecting their children, so that she can feel safe knowing that if she get's depressed she'll have to jump off a bridge instead of shooting herself. She knows she isn't capable of taking care of herself, and being responsible for her own actions, so projects her lack of confidence and fear to everybode else.
Ms. Button, the solution is far simpler, you don't need the government to keep you from owning a gun. If you are afraid on some dark lonely night that the evil call that the raven, tapping, rapping, banging desire of relief from your depression will cause you to pick up your gun and kill yourself, then don't buy a gun. What makes you think because you're an insecure person who doesn't even trust herself that nobody else can be trusted, and that nobody else should have the right to Keep and Bear arms? What evidence do you have that the government will take better care of you than you can yourself. Do all those who live off the government, in government housing, fed by the government with SNAP, WIC, etc. have better lives than those who are self reliant and provide for themselves. You may want the government to save you from yourself, but who's going to save you from the government?
If you allow them to take away your right to Keep and Bear Arms for your own good, what makes you think they won't take away your right to a jury trial for your own good; after all if we can't be trusted to keep us safe from ourselves, how could we be trusted to determine who should and shouldn't go to jail.
What about your right to privacy; if we can't be trusted to keep us safe from ourselves, doesn't the government have the right to see all your papers, medical records, and track your every purchase and movement so that they can better protect you from yourself? Who needs the Fourth Amendment, it severely impedes the government's ability to protect us from ourselves.
What about our unspecified rights; if we can't be trusted to keep us safe from ourselves, doesn't the government have the right limit our activities? Who really needs to play football or volleyball or baseball or race cars or ride horses or ride bicycles, to keep us safe from ourselves does should the government restrict us to only low impact aerobic exercise, and sports that have zero danger. In fact to protect us from ourselves shouldn't the government be even be allowed to require a certain amount of low impact aerobic exercise per week, and limit our television time, and so that we don't get any bad ideas that could lead to self destructive or dangerous behavior; shouldn't the government take away our right to read watch or produce books, movies, songs etc. that could be harmful. You might read a sad story that makes you depressed and then shoot yourself. Having a government that has the power and authority to protect us from ourselves sounds a lot like tyranny.
Obviously New York Times op-ed contributor Wendy Button is using her emotions not logic and reason to call on government to take away her rights for her own good. Clearly she hasn't thought out what a government that for her own good can determine what is and isn't in her best interest, can dictate and monitor her every action. She is clearly neither emotionally nor intellectually mature enough to handle liberty. That's the battle folks, a feminized society that feels security is more valuable than liberty and doesn't think things through. We instituted our government to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to protect us from ourselves. You can't have liberty and be protected from yourself. The call to have a government big enough, strong enough, and powerful enough to protect us from ourselves, is a call for tyranny, as that form of government could and would dictate to us how to live, and would not be a government of a free people.