Individuals on both sides of the gun control debate provided testimony during Wednesday morning’s U.S. Senate hearings on gun violence. Speaking in favor of firearms, Independent Women’s Forum Fellow Gayle Trotter ripped Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for misunderstanding the Second Amendment and advocating for a ban on semi-automatic rifles.
Sen. Whitehouse used one specific example of an 18-year-old Oklahoma mom who shot and killed a home invader with a 12-gauge shotgun, which he said would not be banned under Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) gun control legislation.
“It proves the point that with ordinary firearms, not 100-magazine, peculiar types of artifacts — people are quite capable of defending themselves,” he added. For the record, no one is fighting for 100 round magazines and it’s unclear if he is referring to a specific incident.
“I respectfully disagree,” the woman replied.
She continued: “I understand your also a graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law and you were close to Monticello where Thomas Jefferson penned our Declaration of Independence and close to Montpelier where James Madison was instrumental in drafting the Bill of Rights. I think you can understand that, as a woman, it is very important not to place undue burdens on our Second Amendment right to choose to defend ourself.”
Whitehouse was unmoved and reiterated the fact that the woman who defended her home used a 12-gauge shotgun. which would be “perfectly allowed.”
“Would it have been unreasonable for her to use a different gun to protect her child,” Trotter replied calmly.
The Democratic senator again when back to “100-round” magazines, saying: “I think if she was using a ’100 weapon’…Let me put it another way. She would clearly have an adequate ability to protect her family without the need for a 100-round piece of weaponry.”
Slightly annoyed, Trotter then made the argument that women are left defenseless in certain situations and are forced to defend themselves and their children from threats. She told Whitehouse, being a “large man” couldn’t understand. Then she tore into him.
“You are not a young mother who has a young child with her,” she said. “And I am passionate about this position because you cannot understand, you are not a woman stuck in her house, having to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to seek safety, on the phone with 911, and she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child, and she is not used to being in a fire fight.”
With no additional point to make, the senator said his “point” was that the mother defended herself and her child using “lawful firearms.”
Watch the video via CSPAN/Mediaite below:
We need more women like her who understand the police can't be there 24/7, so they have to defend themselves against the scum of the earth. Politicians who are anti-gun, have armed guards around them. so they can talk their crap about how bad guns are.
WE here in Texas have drug cartel members crossing the border wirh impunity, the large city's are rife with gang bangers that the ACLU think are misdirected Boy Scouts, we have Muslim training camps that are using automatic weapons, and the government want's too restrict US. They seem to have no intention too stop any of that ILLEGAL activity but they will come after the legal people. I think they won't go after the cartel's and gangs because they know they will get their asses handed to them.
The point she should have made is that a large man is better to handle the RECOIL of a 12 gauge, whereas a small female is better off with a small caliber, high capacity rifle....say an AR-15.
I appreciate Trotter's intensity. But this whole discussion (most discussions I have heard in fact) still miss the point. The point is not about hunting, protecting oneself nor about Tyranny per se. The issue which no one seems (at least I have not heard them) to screaming from the rooftops is who or what gives politicians the Constitutional authority to determine whether a weapon is legal or not? Yes, there must be laws to keep certain people from possessing or accessing weapons but that is a horse of a different color.
If the 2nd amendment is implemented as it ought, civilians would be armed with military-style weapons to ensure the docility and obedience of the politicians.
We must force people to ask and politicians to answer, Where is the Constitutional authority?
I put this together to put on my FB groups.
An article was posted on Constitutional Emergency called “Pro-Gun Woman Scolds Dem Senator: ‘You Are Not a Woman Stuck in Her House, Having to Defend Her Children.”
As I read the article I began to think that despite Trotter’s courage to stand up to this progressive Senator, she missed the point. Her argument failed because she as well as we have allowed progressives to define the argument. Progressives have dumbed down the argument on the 2nd amendment by attacking the argument from two non-Constitutional directions. I am defining a progressive as anyone who does accept the Founders’ original argument concerning the 2nd amendment whether they call themselves conservative or not.
We have made two errors we need to rectify.
Mistake One: We have allowed the Progressives to define the argument. The problem with allowing progressives to define the argument is that they have rejected the Founders’ argument made when the 2nd amendment was instituted so that the Colonies would ratify the Constitution. The Progressive’s argument, any argument, is possible only by dumbing down America. Dumbing down America is easy since the Progressives have had the school system working on this for a Century. This will make Constitutionalists’ work that much more difficult. In the above article the Senate keeps asking the question, who needs a 100-round clip (magazine) to protect themselves in their home? This is an answer which makes sense only if the audience is already dumbed down.
Mistake Two: Constitutionalists either refuse to openly argue or do not fully understand the Founders’ argument for the institution of the 2nd amendment. In the article I referenced earlier the argument centered on a woman’s right to protect herself. One of the NRA’s A-Rated politicians argued that he supported the 2nd amendment because he supported hunters. What happened to tyranny? The 2nd amendment provides the American people to be armed as well as the military to enforce both the docility and obedience of the Federal government.
Mistake Three: The issue of the 2nd amendment before us is not hunting, self-protection nor even tyranny per se. Granted, we must reeducate the populace about the reality of the amendment. Hunting and self-protection were considered the norm. No one questioned the God-given right to put food on the table and to protect oneself, family and strangers from harm. The new Federal government was about to create a standing army which bothered most of the Founders. Nevertheless, it seemed the Founders understood the military would be used offshore. So, who would protect the American people from the government if it turn tyrannical? A well-armed militia made up of the citizens of this great nation. But for the citizen to effectively protect the Republic from its leaders demands that the citizen be armed well-enough to face the standing military if necessary. This means the citizen must be armed with military-styled weapons like automatic weapons, grenades, etc.
So where is mistake 3? The question no one is asking and forcing politicians to answer is, Who gave politicians the Constitutional authority to outlaw any weapon? The founders emphatically placed the phrase "shall not be infringed" on the end of the amendment to protect our God-given right from POLITICIANS! Many of the colonies demanded a Bill of Rights whose purpose is create a line drawn in the sand over which the Federal government was not to step. The phrase “shall not be infringed” is that line. The phrase “shall not be infringed” is the line in the sand. What was to hold that line? A military armed citizenry. The people who were not to infringe on this amendment are those who make up the Federal government which is the Presidency, Congress and the Judiciary. We The People are constitutionally permitted to be as well armed as our military.
It is necessary for someone to determine who should not possess or have access to a weapon. Criminals and those who mental issues ought not have access to a weapon and it is up to the lawmakers to make such laws. But this is a horse of a different color.
So, what must we do? Constitutionalists, we alone have the right to define the argument because we alone will argue from the Founders’ perspective. We have that right now we must stop using it. Every time there is a discussion about “gun violence” we must define the argument by asking each politician and forcing them to answer the question, Who gave you the Constitutional authority to made this or that weapon illegal?
Until we do we will continue to lose the battle on a popular level.
And homeowner's liability will be dramatically increased in order to cover any harm caused by the guns.
I saw this on FOX News this afternoon.
All firearms are lawful. In the 4 words "shall not be infringed" what is unclear?
Gayle Trotter is right, but she is missing the point. The 2nd Amendment isn't about self defense, or hunting, or sport shooting. The 2nd Amendment was written to specifically make sure that the citizens would be armed with the best technology available to defend the nation from external invasion and from potential internal tyranny. No dictators in America.
The byproduct of this reasoning also gave people the ability of self defense.
Every woman out to be taught how to use a weapon to protect herself and her family. If all woman had the opportunity to take courses in protection when they are young there would be less violence in our country. That's right, if they were hassled by anyone, they would know what to do...even if it was just to yell their lungs off. It would stop the other person from hurting them. In the USA children, especially girls are abused by bullies, older adults and even their own gender. Now, our President wants to remove all self-help industries from training in protection against others, plus taking guns out of control of the legal citizen. Why is that??? The reason being is called dominance over society. If a person cannot protect themselves against the criminal, he or she is at the mercy of the criminal and the corrupt society that has taken their guns and other protections away from them. Now if you are afraid of guns, stop and listen. Being afraid of guns is stupid, it's not the gun that kills...it's a person with a gun that doesn't know how to utilize that weapon. GO TO CLASSES AND LEARN HOW A GUN CAN PROTECT YOU. GO TO CLASSES AND SEE HOW YOU CAN LEARN TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM PEOPLE THAT WANT TO HURT OR KILL YOU. Don't be stupid, be smart and learn how to protect yourself. Policemen and women are great if they can get to you in time. When someone wants to hurt you, it's now, not wait until the police come. You may be dead by the time the police make it to your destination.
Lets just cut the mustard !!! They the leftist ,correction COMMUNIST want to disarm us PERIOD !!!!!
They sling this BS & that BS this assault weapon & that saturday night special , this snubbie and on and
on . Enough of this BS !!! Look at their record ,look at their statements for example quote J Patrick Moyniham
" We will tax them out of existance " Hillary Clinton " Never ever waste a perfectly good crisis "
Obama sat on the board of the Joyce Foundation for two years . The Joyce Foundation is dedicated to make void the 2nd amsndment of the Constitution !! Bill Ayers , radical Weatherman BOMBER sat on that very same
board right next to our tyrant Barack Obama Their message is crystal clear , they want us disarmed in order
to totally CONTROL us !!!! WAKE UP AMERICA WAKE UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Charlie - we are awake - many of us - and we are doing something about the problem. We are working to get Obama and his cronies tried for treason. In the meantime, we are also organizing a well regulated militia as defined by the 2nd Amendment. You need to help also. Contact people in your area and get organized with them. As local organized militia get themselves established, the local militias can start setting up communications across the country to all the other local militias.
This is grass roots organization Charlie. And, if you live in a farming area talk with the farmers. Ask them to plant the least amount they need to break even. Don't grow more than that. The same goes for ranchers with cattle. The least number of calves to break even.