There’s been much to do about Gayle Trotter’s testimony to the senate about women and AR-15 rifles. She asserted that women need AR-15 rifles because that was one of the only way’s women could feel safe, protecting their families. That breeds all sorts of complicated discussions that I would not assume any direction. As a man in this modern day, I have heard women argue the most ridiculous cases to get what they want and I have always been in the wrong, somehow. So, I will do my best not to comment on how women should think, act, or feel.
In this case, it seems clear that the NRA is using anything they can to gain an angle on the gun discussion going on in Washington. So here they are using women. As this woman, Gayle Trotter speaks ‘for all women everywhere’, it seems that her stance is that women are different from men. They do not posses the upper body strength that men genetically have, and that hand-to-hand confrontation would favor the man. She then tells a lengthy story about a real woman defending her family in her home while two assailants broke in. She concludes with the assertion that an AR-15 is the safest thing for a woman to protect her family. The senator’s response was pointing out that the woman in the story, Sarah McKinley used a shotgun to defend her home, a weapon that would not be affected by the proposed legislation. Gayle Trotter did not recall this detail of the case, which remains the only detail of pertinence in the entire story. However, her conclusion remained the same.
This argument all comes out along with the decision to allow women to serve in combat units in our military. I am not sure if the NRA has voiced an opinion on that topic, but in war-time combat, when men and women who each posses AR-15 rifles or other military weapons, are we to assume that the NRA’s perspective would believe women to be at a disadvantage?
That aside, Gayle Trotter’s testimony leads me to believe that the NRA is using women in any way to get their agenda passed. The politics of politics these days is so disgusting. There is little respect shone to any and all demographics of people one way or another. We denounce any viewpoint and therefore the person with that viewpoint if it is not our own. As for the congressmen who conduct these hearings, America is showing less and less respect for these divisive tactics, but that doesn’t stop them from continually voting those very players into powerful positions that make our laws and influence our companies and people and pay them a salary until death. It is quite a phenomenon. And so it continues with these people holding this hearing with groups who clearly have an agenda and will say anything to make it happen. And, like always, it’s done all in the pursuit of making money.
Again, after hearing Ms. Trotter’s testimony, I only had one reaction. This is also my suggestion to the NRA for their next argument. March another woman down to the capitol and go further. Why not state that women are such terrible shots and that their aim requires the thirty bullets found in the contested magazines. (I mean, women know their magazines.) State that a woman who only has ten bullets needs those extra shots to prove affective. Worry not against the inevitable argument asking the destinations of all those strays that were the necessary byproduct of a woman defending her home. Surely there's a fix to the 29 stray bullets all for the sake of killing a man with that final one. Maybe we should all have bulletproof walls and windows, too? I mean, that’s the only reasonable solution, right? Somebody has to sell that stuff! Guns may kill people, but they create jobs.