TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:

parabelum wrote:

AndyC wrote:

TexasTornado wrote:Reverend Allen Brockway "solemnly advises women that their Christian duty is to submit to rape rather than do anything that might imperil a rapist's life. Rhetorically posing the question as 'Is the Robber My Brother?'"

"Rev. Brockway seems to concede that a woman may shoot a rapist if she knows for a certainty that he will kill her.

Wonder if the good Rev would feel the same way if HE were the one about to be brutally raped....

Good point. What a deranged fool.

*biting my tongue really really hard on this one*

Why?

Because what I'd really like to say about the good Rev. and those of like mind isn't exactly forum appropriate.

JerryK wrote:The last time this was brought up, the person (Clayton Williams 1990) was run out of the gubernatorial election on a rail and the same should happen here!!!

But Claytie was a Republican. That's different.

Or so some would have us believe.

Oldgringo wrote:I suspect neither Friedan nor Brockway are in danger of being raped.

They belong to the clerisy and so are entitled to bodyguards and other protections. We hoi polloi have no right to compare ourselves to them.

Or so it seems if you compare their words to their behavior.

Their agenda, only allows for their subjects to rely on the government for protection. They will even go against feminism, which is supposed to empower women, and try to tell them that they are too weak, incompetent, and otherwise unable to defend themselves, against rapists, because otherwise they will have to admit that firearms are the ultimate equalizer.
They have no statistics to back up their claims, that women will have a gun turned on them, if she tries to use it for self defense, but they endoctrinate them with the fear. They won't even listen to the proof, of women using a gun to either save herself from rape, or even death. Even though they claim, to be the group most responsible for women's rights, they drop all pretense when it comes to self defense.
This is the same group that advised women to urinate on themselves to prevent rape.



If any of them have ever seen the aftermath of a sexual assault, or been victimized themselves, their outlook would change.

Jusme wrote:Their agenda, only allows for their subjects to rely on the government for protection. They will even go against feminism, which is supposed to empower women, and try to tell them that they are too weak, incompetent, and otherwise unable to defend themselves, against rapists, because otherwise they will have to admit that firearms are the ultimate equalizer.
They have no statistics to back up their claims, that women will have a gun turned on them, if she tries to use it for self defense, but they endoctrinate them with the fear. They won't even listen to the proof, of women using a gun to either save herself from rape, or even death. Even though they claim, to be the group most responsible for women's rights, they drop all pretense when it comes to self defense.
This is the same group that advised women to urinate on themselves to prevent rape.



If any of them have ever seen the aftermath of a sexual assault, or been victimized themselves, their outlook would change.

Never mind the fact that mindful urination is on an opposing neurological pattern to flight, fight, and freeze responses which would make that nearly impossible for someone to do.....

It makes no sense.

Papa_Tiger wrote:When testimony was being given before the Senate Committee on State Affairs for SB11 and SB17, Austin's Police Chief Art Acevedo testified that it would be preferable for a woman to submit to rape and then avail herself of the victim services offered by UT and APD rather than defend herself. To hear it in context from the Chief's mouth, watch here, starting at 4:23

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pskvqhlnz8

The senator who leads the question is Senator Rodney Ellis D-Houston who obviously thinks the same way as the Chief.

To be fair to the Police Chief he clarifies his statement around the 11:30 mark. While I still do not agree with the Chief's conclusion on this subject he did express the reasoning for his concerns. To only listen to the 4:30 mark would being taking this totally out of context which tends happen more often by liberals. Again, I find very little agreement on the Chief's opinion, conclusion or confusion.
(The Chief is not from Texas, imagine that.)

I just came across this post.

The anti-gun, pro-criminal, don't self defend promotion simply makes zero sense. It fly's in the face of self preservation. It's completely without merit and is unconscionable from every perspective.

So, what's the real agenda these nitwits are attempting to achieve by promulgating this psychopathy?

Abraham wrote:So, what's the real agenda these nitwits are attempting to achieve by promulgating this psychopathy?

Disarming all law abiding American citizens. Once only the government has guns all their other agendas can move forward unopposed by the "gun nuts" and "second amendment wackos".

Hhhmmm, ok...but I have a difficult time believing even so-called progressives would meekly go along with being raped or killed thinking it more noble than acting with some type of self defense when threatened. They can't all be such lemmings...

I can't believe many, sure maybe a handful would buy into this preposterous, Conscientious Objectors attitude, but not many.

Or, am I wrong?

I'm not quite as disgusted with those that buy into this bizarre attitude regarding self defense as those who espouse it.

It's quite simple... They are just looking out for the criminals.

It's called, "Professional Courtesy".

Pawpaw ,

I think you nailed it as nothing else in this this absurd attitude regarding self defense makes sense or perhaps it'd be more accurate to say non-self defense.

Abraham wrote:Hhhmmm, ok...but I have a difficult time believing even so-called progressives would meekly go along with being raped or killed thinking it more noble than acting with some type of self defense when threatened. They can't all be such lemmings...

I can't believe many, sure maybe a handful would buy into this preposterous, Conscientious Objectors attitude, but not many.

Or, am I wrong?

I'm not quite as disgusted with those that buy into this bizarre attitude regarding self defense as those who espouse it.

I'm sure that almost any woman would rather be able to defend herself that to be subjected to an attack, but, the talking heads, the ones who get the air time, who for the most part, have 24/7 security details, can't bring themselves to admit that a firearm is the best way to fend off an attacker.

So they come up with cockamamie ideas, like rape whistles, self urination, and a host of other things that know have never worked to deter a rapist, but still put them out there so that they can say they have a way for women to be less defenseless. ( I guess that's a proper phrase) They refuse to look at hard data, even interviews with rapists, who would tell them that they fear someone with a gun, more that a whistle.

They also espouse the idea, that the police will somehow magically appear, during an attack to save the woman. Many women who originally bought into these premises, had to go through an attack, before seeing the light, and are now spokespersons for being armed.