Downplaying the threat of rape? Check. Questioning the ability of grown, sentient women to perceive that threat? Check. A man in a position of power presuming to know what’s best for women he knows nothing about? Check. Limiting women’s choices by law in potentially life-threatening situations? Check. Six months ago, this was known as the frightful patriarchy. Now, it’s just another member of the Party of Women doing his part for the good work of gun control.

In arguing for the disarmament of college students in Colorado this week, state Rep. Joe Salazar suggested a novel method of self-defense for women on campus— just chill, ladies.

“It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment! I guess if you are raped, there’s this…safe zone. Look, colleges are welcome to establish safe zones (though criminals are notoriously unobservant of such signage), call boxes, lighted paths, and whistles to help prevent campus attacks. I have benefited from at least a few of these tools, and begrudge no one their use. But I would also like women who choose to arm themselves, in the event that safe zones, call boxes, lights, and whistles don’t work, to retain the right to their chosen tool of prevention.

Revealing Politics has background on the bill in question:



House Bill 13-1226 to prohibit the lawful concealed carry on Colorado college campuses passed the Colorado House of Representatives this morning. Many of the arguments Democrats used to justify the bill included the alcohol and drug use common on campuses coupled with the age and immaturity of average college students. These arguments didn’t resonate with many Republican lawmakers and opponents of the bill who cited Colorado’s intensive training process for obtaining a concealed carry permit and the state’s requirement that permit-holders be 21 years of age, as rebuttal.

Salazar has apologized for revealing how incapable he believes women are. (Notice the framing of the story in local media is not about his comments, but about conservatives objecting to them.)

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone. That was absolutely not my intention,” Salazar said. “We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. “I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”

Charles Cooke notes the University of Colorado’s advice for women under attack. This would be the liberal-sanctioned method of self-defense if the Rep. Salazar method of hoping real hard doesn’t pan out. Passive resistance, bare feet, and your period:

Be realistic about your ability to protect yourself. Your instinct may be to scream, go ahead! It may startle your attacker and give you an opportunity to run away. Kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them. Don’t take time to look back; just get away. If your life is in danger, passive resistance may be your best defense. Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone. Yelling, hitting or biting may give you a chance to escape, do it! Understand that some actions on your part might lead to more harm. Remember, every emergency situation is different. Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.

“Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.” That is, unless you’d like to use a projectile more potent than vomit, in which case, settle down little missy. You can’t be trusted.

In other “common sense” gun control news, a Washington state bill obliterates the Fourth Amendment for gun owners. Oops:

It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far. “They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.” That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats. Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal. But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this: “In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.” In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.

When the sheriff shows up, try vomiting or urinating.