The Right to Choose To Defend Yourself

There are times when honest debate can solve large problems through reason. These times require both sides to negotiate in good faith. America is not in these times today. We have a president and a progressive movement that is dishonest and favor demagoguery for political advantage.

With this said, we hope there are still honest people on both sides of issues and this is an appeal to the remaining true and honest members on the American left. Please consider the following argument.

When a woman is raped and impregnated through violence, many Americans feel that the victim has the right to choose the fate of her body and her pregnancy. This is a difficult life and death decision with innocent lives at stake.

It is preferable to prevent the rape, the pregnancy and the resulting difficult decision. It is preferable to save the victim from the crime itself.  The sole choice that prevents rape and victimization is the personal choice of how to defend yourself.

You may be capable and confident to defend yourself without exercising your 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. However, the choice is your constitutionally protected civil right as a citizen of the United States. Bearing arms may lead a woman into another difficult life and death decision when facing a rapist. Gun rights give victims the choice between the life of a rapist, her own life and the possibility of a rape induced pregnancy.

It is logically and emotionally inconsistent to support a victims right to choose for her body, but not her right to defend that body.

Supporting Information

Facts are stubborn. Most gun violence in the last few years has occurred in gun free zones. We won't diminish our discussion by going very far off track, but there are important and current facts that support the wisdom of the Second Amendment. Some of these facts are reflected in San Diego, California.

In the first half of 2012, San Diego forcible rapes skyrocketed 27% after the repeal of open carry, increased restrictions to gun registration and ammo availability. The California Department of Justice has also begun confiscating guns from subjects deemed "Prohibited." I call them subjects, because the defenseless are not equals in rights or civil liberties as they offer no deterrence to those who would subjugate them. An opinion reinforced by the historic origins of gun restrictions imposed in the south against minorities.

There is a Russian saying, "it comes down to who has the strength to pull the trigger." America's founding fathers had a different view and wished only for the people's power to balance the separated powers of the government. This is why our 1st Amendment is the right to free speech and why it is backed by our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.  With this in mind, not everyone has the strength to pull a trigger, but everyone's civil rights ultimately depend on someone who is holding a gun.

The most empowering choice a person can make is to hold those rights in their own hands.

P.S. 

For more information on Civil Rights, fellow SLOBs author Blogger in Chief has details about The South Central Los Angeles Tea Party 

Update 3/12/2013:
Per The Blaze
‘GUN GIRL’ CONFRONTS DEM. REP. AT TOWN HALL WITH TOUGH QUESTION — AND HE LITERALLY REFUSES TO ANSWER

“Why aren’t you pro-choice when it comes to self-defense for women?” she asks.

His response: “On to the next question. I’m choosing to move to the next question.”

Obama Lying to Women About Rape

Enough. The entire "legitimate"/"forcible" rape discussion is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. That the media continues the lie is a disgustingly bias mutilation of the American system. The fact that this is now spun into a statement on women's health care is simply intolerable.

Allow me to set the record straight, then you can decide to continue reading or not.

Republicans are not against women's health, they are opposed to the government forcing Catholics and others into paying for abortions. The entire #WarOnWomen is a fantasy created to scare women into voting for Barack Obama.

Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin mistakenly used the term "legitimate" in place of "forcible" when discussing rape. Everyone in the news business understands the difference between statutory rape and "forcible rape." The difference is the lack of consent.

The term "forcible rape" is a legal definition used to distinguish between statutory rape and non-consensual rape. The term is used by legislators and law enforcement in the United States and in United Nations statistics.

Some types of rape are excluded from official reports altogether (the FBI's definition, for example, used to exclude all rapes except forcible rapes of females)

Statutory rapes are legally different and carry different criminal penalties than forcible rapes.

These definitions have important consequences to legislation. For example, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez (R)  recently removed the term "forcible" from legislation that may have harmed young victims of statutory rape, by forcing them to contact their rapist for child support before being able to qualify for state childcare assistance.

Lets look at the full context of the Todd Akin statement, in the event there is any doubt that his intention was to distinguish between statutory and forcible rape. His full comments during the Jaco Report interview is available here. The abortion and rape comments occurring in part two around the 1:56 mark:



After watching the entire context, it is clear that Rep. Akin

• Rep. Akin was very emotional at the moment he was speaking.
• Does not believe that it is impossible to get pregnant from a rape.
• He meant to distinguish between statutory rape and forcible rape. A point which he further explains here.

In addition to the Missouri Senatorial Candidate's recent comments, the media has attempted to tie Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan to the misstatement. The connection is attempted through the expressed legislative language "Forcible rape" within a recent proposed bill. A bill that neither Rep. Paul Ryan nor Rep. Todd Akin wrote, but both had supported as cosponsors in an effort to reduce public funding of abortion. The bill was titled: the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act."

In the original language, it also allowed exceptions in cases of "forcible rape." The term provoked an outcry from critics, who said that rape is by definition committed by force and that lawmakers were seeking to exclude from coverage certain kinds of rape by adding the modifier - for example, cases in which the victim was underage or unconscious.

The bill now would allow exceptions in all cases of rape.

A spokesman for Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.), a chief sponsor of the bill, said Thursday that lawmakers decided to change the term because it was being "misconstrued."

(Update) Politifact has joined us in this fact finding mission:

For perspective, we checked the cosponsors of both the 2010 and 2011 introductions of the bill using THOMAS, the congressional database.

The version introduced July 29, 2010, included among its eventual 186 cosponsors all 20 Texas Republicans plus two Democrats -- Solomon Ortiz of Corpus Christi and Henry Cuellar of Laredo -- from the 32-member Texas delegation.
...
We looped back to Angle with our findings on the cosponsors and the intent of the bill. Angle told us that he believes the Texas Republicans showed by cosponsoring the bill that they supported making a legal distinction between rape and forcible rape.

Additionally, the bill had sparked a heated debate in which major far left abortion advocates became unhinged.

The "Protect Life Act" would prohibit federal funding of abortions under the national health care overhaul. It also would prevent funding from being withheld from institutions that are opposed to providing abortions.
...
The heated emotions surrounding the abortion debate were on display at Tuesday's Senate Democratic news conference. Lautenberg said the Pitts and Smith bills sound "like a third-world country that's requiring women to wear head shawls, cover their faces even if they don't want to do it."

The emotional nature of the debate made any mention of abortion a misconstrued mess in the minds of the far left. This is the entire genesis of the false narrative attempting to tie Paul Ryan and the distinction between statutory rape and forcible rape to a Missouri candidate who mistakenly used the term "legitimate."

Rep. Paul Ryan has since clarified the situation by making a public statement that the term "forcible rape" is stock language when writing laws.

Can the media and the Obama campaign now stop with the lies? No.

President Obama and his allies in the media are a bunch of liars who try to use scare tactics against women. It is simply DISGUSTING. The government controlled media and the Democrats are a disgrace.