Glamour Magazine Editor Says Woman's Desire for Self Defense "Strange"

Posted: Jan 10, 2013 6:28 AM

Late last night, Independent Women's Forum [IWF] Senior Fellow Anna Rittgets released the following statement about how banning high capacity ammunition magazines leaves women and their families more vulnerable:

 I am passionate about the 2nd Amendment, particularly because I'm a mother.  I'm a thirty-something year old woman with a 3 year old and a nursing newborn.  Without my concealed weapon,  I wouldn't be able to protect myself against an assailant that seeks to do me or my family harm.  

Five bullets fired from a .38 revolver weren't enough for a Georgia mother of two to stop one intruder last week in an unexpected home invasion--what if there had been more intruders?  

It often takes several shots to stop one attacker.  If the maximum magazine capacity is 10 (or if all semiautomatic handguns are banned, but 6 shot revolvers remain), and a woman in danger has to stop and reload her weapon while trying to protect her children (who are likely hysterical at this point), it gives the bad guy an opportunity to react--potentially fatally.

Laws limiting magazine capacity and availability of semiautomatic handguns will directly impact women, who use these weapons for self-defense inside and outside the home. Any executive action by President Obama to restrict guns will limit a women's capability to fight back against attackers and protect herself and her family.

The bottom line is that guns are used for lawful self-defense every day.  Sadly, they also used for illegal violence every day.  But enacting laws that further restrict or ban law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms does nothing to address violent crime.  It merely disarms the good guys.

Victoria Coley, IWF's communications director, sent the statement to Glamour Magazine Editor Lauren Lannotti who responded, "Please unsubscribe me to your strange, sensationalizing polemics. Thank you."

Got that ladies? Stick to the free birth control, lipgloss, shoes, sex and celebs. Despite Glamour Magazine claiming to be a publication that empowers women, Lannotti makes clear a woman's (not to mention a mother) right to self defense is something to be ignored, mocked and belittled.

As Glenn Reynolds wrote a month ago, it's time for rich conservatives to seriously consider purchasing a fashion magazine or two.

Mitt Romney and the GOP lost, but it wasn’t for lack of money. They spent a lot; they just didn’t get enough bang for the buck.

Billionaire Sheldon Adelson alone donated $150 million. But Romney lost anyway, especially among unmarried women.

Which is why I think that rich people wanting to support the Republican Party might want to direct their money somewhere besides TV ads that copy, poorly, what Lee Atwater did decades ago.

My suggestion: Buy some women’s magazines. No, really. Or at least some women’s Web sites.

One of the groups with whom Romney did worst was female “low-information voters.” Those are women who don’t really follow politics, and vote based on a vague sense of who’s mean and who’s nice, who’s cool and who’s uncool.

Since, by definition, they don’t pay much attention to political news, they get this sense from what they do read. And for many, that’s traditional women’s magazines — Redbook, Cosmopolitan, Glamour, the Ladies Home Journal, etc. — and the newer women’s sites like YourTango, The Frisky, Yahoo! Shine, and the like.

The thing is, those magazines and Web sites see themselves, pretty consciously, as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party. So while nine out of 10 articles may be the usual stuff on sex, diet and shopping, the 10th will always be either soft p.r. for the Democrats or soft — or sometimes not-so-soft — hits on Republicans.