The Coastal Post - December, 1995

Women's Equality Means Armed Women

"The borrower is servant to the lender." Proverbs 22:7

Throughout nearly all of recorded history women have "borrowed" something from men. They have borrowed protection. Men have died to protect women from carnivores, raiding tribes, invading nations and criminals. Whether the debt is recognized or not, women were psychologically indebted to men all that time.

A young woman recently said to me: "Men were not put on Earth to protect women." She was historically incorrect, but presently correct. In the past, whether men were cosmically or genetically designed to protect women is not the point. The point is that men did protect women. And the women accepted it. The borrower owed the lender.

And then Sam Colt introduced his "Equalizer." His was not the first handgun, but it became the most famous. And Colt himself became famous for his recognition that a personal firearm made a dainty hundred pound lass the equal of a two hundred pound male sociopath. For the first time in recorded history, women came out from under their fundamental obligation to men. An armed woman is, in every physical sense of the word, the equal of an armed man.

In fact, she is likely superior. Women have a higher tolerance for pain. A wounded woman could continue to fight more efficiently. Women are superior marks"men". Any firearms instructor can tell you how often beginning female shooters more quickly demonstrate accuracy than their male counterparts. Women, on the average, have a more delicately developed hand-eye coordination. That translates into a steadier aim and a smoother trigger pull.

Advocates of so-called "gun control" who call themselves feminists are one of the lowest forms of hypocrite. While espousing the equality of women, they recite a litany of sexist myths regarding the capability of an armed woman to protect herself. "A gun will just be taken away from you and used against you!" Or: "Women are nurturers, not killers!"

A badly wounded or dead man does not disarm his intended female victim. Weapon retention tactics have proved highly effective in the training of all those "weaker" female cops in our midst. A woman would have to be insane to prefer to face a rapist or mugger unarmed. Yet this very absurdity is incessantly preached by droves of so-called "liberated women." Senators Feinstein and Boxer are pitifully mired in Sarah Brady's gun-phobic zombie squad.

As far as women being "nurturers"? No argument there. But the female lion is also a nurturer. And she has lightning reflexes backed by razor claws and dagger fangs.

Suppose the day comes when women vote themselves every conceivable form of social, political, and economic equality. And then suppose the men simply don't go for it. If women do not own firearms, they remain indebted to armed men to enforce the law. Or, even worse, they might be enslaved at gunpoint. However, if women are heavily armed, they will be able to enforce their equality without the aid of armed men. The ballot box is always, and I mean always, backed up by the bullet box. It is the height of liberal-socialist idiocy to deny this fact of history.

The women's sufferance movement, that gave women the right to vote, was born on the American frontier. Armed women realized that the relationship between the sexes had changed. Upper body strength and swordsmanship faded into history. Steel nerves and a steady trigger finger became the arbiter in combat. And this leads one to naturally consider the role of women in the military.

First, let us agree on one thing: All men are not physically or mentally suitable for military duty. The Marine Corps doesn't mentally and physically torture recruits for the fun of it. That drill instructor knows that the wimps have to be weeded out. That drill instructor knows that his abuse may someday save the lives of the young men that he is hardening. Any woman who can withstand the identical physical and mental rigors of boot camp should be handed a rifle and service pistol with equal honor. But the standards must not, ever, ever be lowered. Just like men, not every woman can make it into the Marine Corps.

The female soldier will, by the very requirements of warfare, be stronger and mentally more intense than most of her sisters in the civilian population. Without lowering the standards, she will be as strong as, or stronger than, the weakest man in her unit. She will shoot as well as, or better than, the least accurate man in her unit. She will hold up to the verbal and mental abuse as well as, or better than, the most "sensitive" man in her unit. Or she will not be a Marine. It is that simple. And it is logical to conclude that there will probably be, in the foreseeable future, many more male Marines than female Marines, until young girls are physically and mentally trained to seek careers as freedom's warriors.

But the female civilian doesn't need to do 50 pushups, run five miles with a backpack, or endure the brain raping of a drill instructor to avail herself of her inalienable right to self-defense. Handgun ownership and carry demand only two things: a modicum of physical skill and a rock-steady awareness of personal responsibility. In that sense, owning and carrying a handgun is no different than driving an automobile. Two tons of Detroit iron is far more dangerous to a crosswalk full of pedestrians than a .357 magnum.