Noted Anti-Rape Activists At The NRA Surprisingly Cool With Domestic Abuse

Are you having a nice Monday? Well we are here to help you with that. Go find a bucket and read this New York Times front pager about gunz and protective orders and prepare for some rage-induced dry heaving. Things are about to get hardcore sad up in here.

So for the past few weeks the normally uber-masculine folks who are associated with the gun lobby and the other various tangential steel-phallus worshiping groups have all been very concerned with rape, or at least one very specific form of rape. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre spoke at CPAC last week (because wherever there is an open mic LaPierre will find it through a process of passive osmosis) to once again tell the fervent crowd about how the industry that floods his 401k with blood money is literally the only force that is securing the existence of our people and a future for white women and children. Specifically, LaPierre was very concerned about the hordes of spree rapists lying in wait throughout this country and only being kept at bay by women empowered through the dependable panacea of a concealed handgun permits.

Now, many sentient people identified this latest act of trolling from the gun industry’s designated peep-show cumshield as an idiotic and patronizing shifting of responsibilities consistent with the frightfully insane hobbesian world of death that the NRA has always promoted. But since our wonderful news media still believes that empowering "both sides” of a debate outweighs the enabling of delusional asshats, this latest twist on the NRA’s myriad of masturbatory revenge fantasies is actually being taken seriously as part discussion on how to prevent rape. (Also this is a man speaking about the horrors of rape and not some overly emotional feminist-type so you know what LaPierre is saying is grounded in the truth.)

But despite this new-found concern about the ubiquitous (and very specific) threat of stranger rape, it seems that the NRA has not been entirely consistent with its desire to enable victims of sexual or domestic violence through legislation. In fact, the Times’ in depth look at Washington state seems to support the outright SHOCKING idea that the organization has actually endangered the lives of at-risk women in abusive relationships through making the ownership and possession of weapons an absolute and sacrosanct right for even our most psychopathic ex-husbands and boyfriends:

Under current law, judges issuing protective orders are required to order the surrender of firearms only in very specific situations, like a determination by “clear and convincing evidence” that the person has used the weapon in a felony or has committed another offense that by law would disqualify him from having a firearm. Otherwise, judges have the discretion to issue a surrender order under a variety of circumstances, including a finding that there is a threat of “irreparable injury.” (There is also a court form specifically requesting the surrender of firearms, but advocates say it is rarely used because few victims of domestic violence know about it.)

All five of the Washington cases identified by The Times in which the woman who obtained the protective order was later killed were murder-suicides. In three cases, the woman wrote in her petition that her husband or ex-boyfriend possessed firearms. In none of the cases did the judges issue surrender orders.

In each of these cases women attempted to protect themselves through alerting the law to the fact that allowing their ex to have access to weapons amounted to handing gasoline and a box of matches to a paroled arsonist. And in each case the concerns of these victims were either ignored or entirely dismissed due to the legal miasma intentionally created by the NRA these exact situations. WHOOPS! Who could have ever have predicted this?

But before you get all weepy about a few women who died from entirely preventable acts of violence that were arguably the direct result of a cynical lobbying strategy by the weapons industry, let’s remember thatthis is what freedom is all about. Yes these women and probably thousands like them might exist in a perpetual state of fear because the government that they fund is powerless to protect them from a known and completely fixable danger, but really shouldn’t the onus of keeping oneself safe from harm be on the individual anyway? More guns could easily defuse any and all domestic arguments. Each heated discussion in the kitchen about infidelities or which brand of dish soap to buy could be solved via quick draw contest, just like god intended! Let’s not let the “safety net” of an organized police force and justice system become a hammock for these lay-about domestic abuse victims. The NRA is helping them pull themselves up by their own holster-straps in order to take care of themselves! Therefore if these women fail to do so and end up being killed/raped by their ex-husbands then they really just brought the harm on themselves.

Finally too let’s acknowledge the NRA’s wonderful contribution to the rights of the accused and convicted. In a time when prisoners, parolees, and even just people charged with crimes are universally despised and feared by an uncaring society, it is the NRA that has really stepped up to protect the rights of society’s dregs. Without any thought or hesitation (obviously) it is the NRA alone that has worked tirelessly to prevent the enactment of legislation or proper enforcement measures that would deny these men access to the only right that really matters: the right to possess and own a weapon. So what if maintaining this access to guns pretty much just guarantees that an incensed and unstable person has a now inalienable right to commit a violent felony? It’s just a small price to pay for liberty™ in the end.

[ NYT ]