Howard Stern is usually known for outlandish antics, usually involving strippers or lesbians. Often both. Iz normal. Every now and then however, he surprises listeners as he did with his rant on the defense of Israel. Here’s a new one that no doubt will upset the left… he’s pro-2nd Amendment. Very much so…
He said that he was “nervous” about Clinton’s stance on guns because, “I believe the Second Amendment issue is one of the most important. I think every citizen needs the right to be armed.”
He expanded on his position by saying “the great equalizer is the pistol, semi-automatic weapon, or revolver”:
The caller was from Wyoming, and said he lived in a rural area, “15 to 20 minutes from the closest sheriff ever getting to my house.”
Stern used this as more reason for his strong support: “The police can’t be everywhere. I know gun violence is horrible and guns get in the wrong hands. I’m all for a national registration and things like that, but at the same point, I don’t know how else, if all the guns were gone, how else would you defend yourself against a thug with a baseball bat?”
Good question. Why is it such a good question? Because it’s a question that can be answered definitively and accurately with only one possible answer. It just so happens to be an answer that angers SJW, leftist, anti-2nd Amendment activists. How would a woman defend herself against violent, possibly armed attackers without a gun?
ANSWER: she wouldn’t.
The only chance that a woman has of survival against a violent, male attacker… is a firearm. Now I know, I know the comments section will be riddled with “WHAT ABOUT RONDA ROUSEY!?” or “I’M A TOUGH FEMINIST! I CAN HANDLE MYSELF! YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW!!”
Incorrect. I do know. You’d be raped. Ronda Rousey would be raped. If a violent criminal, particularly “a thug with a baseball bat” wants to sexually assault, or physically harm a woman, she’s got one chance at making it out unharmed. Does she have a firearm (and does she know how to use it)? Generally, violent men attacking women are armed. But even if they aren’t, the case remains the same. Here, follow my scientific “rock, paper scissors” visual aid below.
UNARMED MAN > UNARMED WOMAN
ARMED WOMAN > UNARMED MAN
ARMED WOMAN = ARMED MAN
Imagine what the Vegas betting odds would give you? Howard Stern is generally pretty liberal, yes. But the 2nd Amendment is becoming less and less of a political issue, and more of a litmus test in determining those willing to acknowledge reality. Listen, you may not like guns. You may not want to own guns. You may wish that fewer people had guns. But the reality is that many people have guns, and the only way to give women a fighting chance on the streets is to grant and encourage their access to guns. Period.
Now that we’ve acknowledged a very simple reality. Allow me to address the most common “anti-gun” arguments in greater depth…