Comments on: Gayle Trotter Argues for Arming Women in Home, Not on Battlefield

By: thefirstone00

thefirstone00 — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:18:56 +0000

This woman told a story of a woman who’s home was invaded by two men. We are told that this woman shot and killed one of these men and the other one fled…so, for this reason this woman needs to have an assault weapon to protect herself. When asked what kind of weapon this woman used to successfully defend herself and family Ms. Trotter said she did not remember what kind of weapon was used…..really…she recounted in detail this story obviously she did her research on the incident and she does not know what kind of weapon was used…could it be because she used a shotgun!!! which completely destroys her point. And lets not forget Mr. Lapierre who believes we should not have ANY laws which a criminal will not obey. Makes sense to me…why should we have stop lights because there are those drives who will not stop anyway.

By: angus

angus — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:11:16 +0000

After carefully reading the proposed ban list of so-called “assault weapons” under Feinstein’s bill, I have concluded the following….she wants a gun ban in the long run. I am just curious how many Colt AR-15 Semiautomatic rifles REALLY have a grande launcher? ( yes, its in there..). What if a person NEEDS a pistol grip to hold a rifle, due to a physical limitation?( yep..illegal under the bill…) She lost out before, and since she cannot accomplish anything else, she will keep trying. Just another political ploy by the far-Left to usurp the rights of the people…granted, NO ONE needs a grenade launcher (which are already illegal), so WHY put that in the bill? you tell me….

By: Deb

Deb — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:57:23 +0000

What kind of ding bat is this? Where does the NRA come up with these people???? How out of touch can you be if you really believe (and sell) that you need a semi-automatic rifle to mow down 4 or 5 big, scary men intruding in your home (WHERE?????) and threatening you and your children. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of such a scenario actually happening, Ms. Trotter. Why do the Republicans & NRA have to use FEAR to sell their b.s.? Because that’s all it is – is B.S. Fear is an illusion.

Why not try a little love and kindness Ms. Trotter – put your gun happy ways behind you.

By: The Women's Vote

The Women's Vote — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:20:31 +0000

If a woman is not free to care for her child, what kind of liberation does she have?– ——— uhhhh, women who are asking to be in combat either done have children or have someone caring for them which is why they are asking to be allowed to serve in combat. So once again, republicans say women should have no choice what they do in their lives. Apparently being a women means you ARE a mother , you have no choice at a career, and according to this piece of garbage, if women are around men then they will automatically be pregnant…uh huh. So, she’s young, why isn’t she pregnant? why does she get to have a career? Hey, lady, live by the sword you’re swinging! S hut your mouth hurry up and et pregnant and then shut up and dont make any choices in your life or have an opinoin!!! be what you espouse !

By: Noz

Noz — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:57:38 +0000

Too bad she can’t ask Stanley Ann Obama that question.

By: Noz

Noz — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:55:30 +0000

“If a woman is not free to care for her child, what kind of liberation does she have?” – Gayle Trotter

Something to think on.
Too bad she can’t Stanley Ann Obama that question.

By: pksk531

pksk531 — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:44:21 +0000

This woman is a huge hypocrite. She is using the violence against women as a reason FOR guns, but is against continuing the Violence Against Women Act. Women do not use high powered automatic weapons to defend themselves and are in LARGE part in favor of background checks Most women killed by guns are killed in their HOMES by a family member.

By: saiditrabbit

saiditrabbit — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:50:13 +0000

Rawlings, I put Palin and Bachmann brain power up against Pelosi and Boxer any day of the week. Sorry but not only are the republican representative prettier but smarter by a long shot.

By: Diane Reeves

Diane Reeves — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:08:20 +0000

Women shouldn’t be in combat, but it’s ok for them to have a military style assault weapon to protect themselves from bigger men. Ms. Trotter, if you can’t bring down a man using a pistol and six bullets – or a shotgun, you should be handling ANY weapon, sweetie. Here’s a hint Ms. Trotter: women have already been in combat. The generals have been using them for years in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 130 women have already given their lives in service to this country. Women serve a different prupose in combat, making contact with the women of remote villages who will refuse to talk to men – giving valuable intelligence for troop maneuvers. The order that Leon Panetta signed just legitimized what’s already going on.21st century warfare has no front line – everyone gets shot at. Further, far more unplanned pregnancies happen after school in the afternoon than in combat. But, when you get your information from the uninformed, Ms. Trotter, expect you be considered stupid and ignorant – I don’t care if you are a tax attorney – so is Michele Bachmann and she’s as dumb as a box of rocks. Evidently it doesn’t take much to graduate from tax attorney school.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:17:55 +0000

“The GOP disagrees with me. They must be wrong.”

• Captured women will be raped (vastly more often than men). The mass psychological effect this will have back home should be carefully considered.

• Men witnessing women be killed and men being responsible for the mortal safety of their mixed-gender unit *will* cripple men psychologically in real-time in combat. This added distress will put us at a disadvantage.

• That women will become pregnant is 0% shameful, as one commenter here alluded. Sex and sex drama will happen, so to be ignore its effects is to be willfully blinded by partisan dogma.

• Women’s bell curve of strength is weaker collectively than men’s. So long as women in the military don’t eventually call for “equality of outcome” (i.e., lowering the mandatory physical standards) and are OK with equality of opportunity, this point won’t be an issue.