Some adherents of this mantra have taken it to bizarre extremes, in fact, likening their position to African-Americans in the Civil Rights movement. No, not kidding. Look at this latest stemwinder by Joe from Idaho.
In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.It is mind-boggling, but you’ve got to hand it to them: It takes a very skilled strategist to perform the social ju-jitsu necessary to turn what is, in essence, armed political bullying into victimization (after community members reject their tactics) and get others to nod their heads in agreement.
The truth, of course, is that guns and gun carrying are obviously not immutable characteristics of people, and that the whole cultural framework around the issue of gun violence prevention is a sham. (Brady Center Vice-President Dennis Henigan has exposed this most recently here and here.)
It's writing like this that makes The Brady Campaign the unchallenged leader in the gun control movement. The most enjoyable part for me is how the NRA strategists come up with some bogus idea, then several key figures in the gun rights movement with huge readership pick up on it, and then it's disseminated to hundreds of smaller bloggers who repeat and repeat what was originally said. With the incredible volume of repetition the idea begins to take on an increased credibility and before long it's carved in stone.
A recent example is the open-carry protesters, those misunderstood patriots blazing the trail for their brother gun owners. On the internet we've read hundreds of incidents comparing their efforts to blacks and gays and Jews. My idea is they would better be compared to tree cutters with chainsaws hanging on their utility belts.
What's your opinion? Do you think the Brady Blog post clarifies the misleading cries of bigotry on the part of gun enthusiasts? Do you think this is another aspect of the grandiose victimism they often suffer from?
Please leave a comment.
If religion can be a civil rights issue despite being a mutable characteristic, then can so can guns. They are both personal choices and both protected by the Constitution. There isn't very much social ju-jitsu involved at all.
ReplyDelete"It's writing like this that makes The Brady Campaign the unchallenged leader in the gun control movement."
Like being the leader of the mosquitoes. They are simply the loudest sound that is being ignored. Even their Chosen One, Obama has paid them no attention.
George Monbiot notes this phenomenon in relation to Global Warming:
ReplyDelete"When I use the term denial industry, I’m referring to those who are paid to say that manmade global warming isn’t happening. The great majority of people who believe this have not been paid: they have been duped. Reading Climate Cover-Up, you keep stumbling across familiar phrases and concepts, which you can see every day on the comment threads. The book shows that these memes were planted by PR companies and hired experts."
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/
Similarly, the special interest groups posing as "Gun Rights" spread concepts which are parroted constantly.
"It's writing like this that makes The Brady Campaign the unchallenged leader in the gun control movement."
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you MikeB. And I for one am glad that they, as the unchallenged leader in the gun control movement have absolutely nothing else to write about.
Maybe they could write about their victory pressuring Starbucks. Oh yeah, I forgot, they lost.
Maybe they could write about how great it is to have a Democratic controlled House, Senate, Presidency and how it is now "our time". Oh yeah, their pets in Congress and the Executive failed to come through for them.
Maybe they can write about all of their other grand victories. Oh, yeah, they don't have any.
I for one am thankful for Brady and the fact that they are the unchallenged leader of the gun control movement.
"Religion" is not a civil rights issue. The free practice of religions or the lack of practice of them IS a civil rights issue. You can be as Cath-O-Lick, Buddhist, Muslim, Jainist as you want to be--as long as your practice or lack of practice is NOT a source of injury, oppression or threat to others. I think that someone praying, loudly, in a public setting, as vexing as it may be, is in no way equivalent to someone showing up at a political event with an M-16 or one of the civilian weapons of similar appearance and design.
ReplyDeleteYou really are clueless aren't you MikeB.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA didn't come up with this "idea" only to have bloggers seize on it.
Many in your ilk are bigots, plain & simple MikeB. I'm glad you provide examples of that bigotry for us to use against you.
Similarly, the special interest groups posing as "Gun Rights" spread concepts which are parroted constantly.
ReplyDeleteWell since the "bigotry" concept being "parrotted" here was originated by one blogger rather than some special interest group I guess we can say you're wrong yet again.
We are the very definition of grassroots. That's something the Brady's know nothing about.
Religion" is not a civil rights issue. The free practice of religions or the lack of practice of them IS a civil rights issue.
ReplyDeleteFor once I actually agree with Demo. The free exercise of religious freedom is a civil rights issue, JUST LIKE the free exercise of the right to BEAR arms is a civil rights issue.
I have to laugh at just how sad and irrelevant the Brady's have become. We're winning the war against anti-rights bigots slowly but surely.
Laci is correct in that I see a lot of similarity between the gun control and the global warming myths.
ReplyDeleteFirst, there is no real data that suggests either is true. What data is presented is usually easily debunked.
Secondly, the masses that operate on common sense do not agree with either myth so the promoters try baseless attacks such as the Coal Companies or the NRA is "duping all of you stupid people."
And finally, there will not be significant legislation passed in favor of either of those myths any time soon.
Joe Huffman, of course, is clinically insane.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty telling that virtually all major religious organization and civil rights orgnaizations oppose the gunloon crowd. In fact, most of them have made the NRA's "enemies" list.
Thus, "bigotry" as defined by the clinically insane Joe Huffman is actually practiced by the overwhelming majority of this country's religions and civil rights groups. Of course, a definition of clinically insane involves the belief everyone is against you...
--JadeGold
Dr. (presumably) JadeGold says:
ReplyDeleteJoe Huffman, of course, is clinically insane.
This is not the first time I've seen JadeGold refer to a gun rights advocate as being "clinically insane." Care to share with us what your credentials in psychiatric medicine would be, Dr. JadeGold? Does your "diagnosis" of Mr. Huffman and the others involve more than reading blog posts? If not, that seems a rather shaky foundation on which to build a diagnosis of insanity. If so, it would seem a pretty blatantly illegal violation of patient confidentiality.
Or are you, as is your cherished custom, simply talking out your ass?
The Brady Bunch says:
ReplyDeleteThe truth, of course, is that guns and gun carrying are obviously not immutable characteristics of people . . .
It seems that the Brady Bunch is contending that the reason that racial prejudice (or gender prejudice, or sexual alignment prejudice, etc.) is wrong is that the maligned characteristic is "immutable." That's got to be the most back-handed civil rights advocacy I've ever seen:
Be nice to black people--they can't help being black.
Bless her heart--she's just a girl.
Etc.
"Immutability" has nothing to do with whether or not rights must be recognized.
"You can be as Cath-O-Lick, Buddhist, Muslim, Jainist as you want to be--as long as your practice or lack of practice is NOT a source of injury, oppression or threat to others."
ReplyDeleteThen by your logic, I should be able to carry and own any gun I want, as long as it's not the source of injury, oppression, or threat to others.
And since I don't need a license to practice a religion in public, I shouldn't need a license to carry a gun in public.
"I think that someone praying, loudly, in a public setting, as vexing as it may be, is in no way equivalent to someone showing up at a political event with an M-16 or one of the civilian weapons of similar appearance and design."
And by your logic, that makes you a hypocrite, because by your logic, they are equal.
"It's pretty telling that virtually all major religious organization and civil rights orgnaizations oppose the gunloon crowd."
ReplyDeleteAnd it's pretty telling that all white supremacist organizations opposed the integration of public schools.
Bigots oppose the things they are bigoted against. Imagine that.
mikey:
ReplyDeleteFor someone who consistently berates others for "reading comprehension" problems you seem to have that problem at least as often as anyone else.
Having your guns is NOT the issue. Showing up at a public event with a weapon, particularly one that is as symbolic as an M-16, is the issue.
You and your fellow guerilla warrior wannabes are fully aware that a lot of people are intimidated by someone who is carrying guns--even if that person is an LEO. But, since you can get away with it, you enjoy your "rights" while causing others anything from mild discomfort to outright terror. Of course you have no intention of intimidating anyone; you just need to demonstrate that YOU are by GOD a real man and you ain't gonna take no shit offa nobody!
Guns don't scare me; idiots with guns and an inflated sense of their own importance don't scare me--but they are certainly what they can in pursuit of that objective.
When I see Type 2A's conflating attacks on their sacred right to possessing and deploying any sort of weaponry they can get with a belief that global warming is a "myth" I stop having any respect for their arguments. It becomes apparent, when that sort of rationalization is used that it's only about what the gunnutz want, not about what the rest of the planet might need.
ReplyDelete"You and your fellow guerilla warrior wannabes are fully aware that a lot of people are intimidated by someone who is carrying guns--even if that person is an LEO. But, since you can get away with it, you enjoy your "rights" while causing others anything from mild discomfort to outright terror."
ReplyDeleteAt one point in time, certain people were intimidated by groups of black people peacefully sitting down at a lunch counter. It caused others everything from mild discomfort to outright terror. We call those people bigots and rightfully so.
Some of the hoplophobes are no different. Their fear is nothing more than a well constructed facade for their bigotry. They are the same types of people who tug on the stewardess' skirt when the bearded guy a few seats down from them starts reading a quran.
Zorro, Just leave your chainsaw at home, thank you very much.
ReplyDeleteZorro says;
ReplyDelete"It seems that the Brady Bunch is contending that the reason that racial prejudice (or gender prejudice, or sexual alignment prejudice, etc.) is wrong is that the maligned characteristic is "immutable." That's got to be the most back-handed civil rights advocacy I've ever seen:
Be nice to black people--they can't help being black.
Bless her heart--she's just a girl.
Etc.
"Immutability" has nothing to do with whether or not rights must be recognized."
This:
"Race-Related Characteristics and Conditions
Discrimination on the basis of an immutable characteristic associated with race, such as skin color, hair texture, or certain facial features violates Title VII, even though not all members of the race share the same characteristic."
is from here:
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-race.html
It says that you're wrong about immutability not being a basis for one's civil rights.
Practicing a religion and owning guns are NOT immutable characteristics. I would be perfectly happy if religions were taxed and regulated like any other business entity. That, quite obviously is not at all likely. It is also, not at all likely that idiots with guns will be prevented from acting like idiots until AFTER they've killed, injured or threatened to kill or injure someone with insufficient cause.
As I said in an earlier comment, you guys can parade around with your guns (in some locales) and, dammit! nobody's gonna stop you. I find it all indicative of a degree of fear and paranoia that is foreign to me.
Aztec Red:
You wrote:
"At one point in time, certain people were intimidated by groups of black people peacefully sitting down at a lunch counter. It caused others everything from mild discomfort to outright terror. We call those people bigots and rightfully so.
Some of the hoplophobes are no different. Their fear is nothing more than a well constructed facade for their bigotry. They are the same types of people who tug on the stewardess' skirt when the bearded guy a few seats down from them starts reading a quran"
When you can show me that a group of unarmed black people who want to eat lunch are attempting to intimidate a much larger group of whites--many of them armed and wearing badges--or that the action is somehow equivalent to a person toting a rifle that looks quite a bit like a military weapon into a political meeting then you might get some traction with that comparison. Until then, not so much.
And you do have some backup for that comment about "hoplophobes" being the ones who are tugging on the "stewardess' skirt" (when was the last time you flew in a commercial airliner?) to alert her to an impending terrorist act? I may have missed that in the stories about the underpants bomber.
Also, could you please furnish the citation from DSM-V that recognizes "hoplophobia" as a genuine mental condition?
Thanks.
Democommie wrote: Also, could you please furnish the citation from DSM-V that recognizes "hoplophobia" as a genuine mental condition?
ReplyDeleteI'll let you know in 2012. That's when the next full revision of the DSM is scheduled to be released.
Showing up at a public event with a weapon, particularly one that is as symbolic as an M-16, is the issue.
ReplyDeletePlease show proof that someone was carrying around an M-16. Oh wait, they weren't.
Hoplophobia is defined as a mental illness in Joseph Segen's "Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine" and is as much a mental illness as any other irrational fear / phobia.
Democommie, I stand by my position that "immutability" is an idiotic basis on which to determine whether or not a person is the victim of bigotry. I should, perhaps, have made more clear that I was not referring to the narrow legal definition of "bigotry," as defined in the Civil Rights Act, but to a more general usage of the term.
ReplyDeleteHere's a hypothetical question for you. Suppose that some revolutionary medical technique were developed, that would safely, easily, and cheaply make an African-American appear Caucasian (not just skin color, but hair texture, facial features, etc.). With "blackness" no longer "immutable," would discrimination against blacks be any less evil and disgusting than it is now?
By the way, for those who think that Open Carriers in California aren't victims of bigotry, does this sound very different from bigotry to you?
ReplyDeleteAfter several more comments in the thread, Tuason apparently joked that officers should shoot the advocates, who have made recent headlines throughout the Bay Area for sipping coffee at cafes and performing other everyday acts with visible weapons.
"Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!" Tuason wrote. "Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement ... 2 weeks off!!!"
That's a cop--one of the people the Brady Campaign is perfectly fine with being armed in Starbucks.
"When you can show me that a group of unarmed black people who want to eat lunch are attempting to intimidate a much larger group of whites."
ReplyDeleteIntimidation doesn't require the intimidator to intentionally set out to intimidate people. Like I said, some people were intimidated by nothing more than the presence of black people.
The Starbucks situation is no different. You have people who are intimidated by nothing more than the presence of someone with a gun.
"And you do have some backup for that comment about "hoplophobes" being the ones who are tugging on the "stewardess' skirt" (when was the last time you flew in a commercial airliner?) to alert her to an impending terrorist act? I may have missed that in the stories about the underpants bomber."
Ever since 9/11, there have been numerous incidents of phobes on planes freaking out over non-events. One such incident was discussed on this blog. The guy was "intimidating" the flight crew by strapping on prayer boxes. By your logic, he set out to intentionally intimidate the flight crew. Me? I just see a dumb and/or bigoted flight attendant.
"Also, could you please furnish the citation from DSM-V that recognizes "hoplophobia" as a genuine mental condition?"
No DSM citation, but it is in "Contemprary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders" in table 7-1 under the heading "Names of Some Phobias" in the category of "Unusual".
democommie, Thanks for that information about "immutability."
ReplyDeleteI say no chainsaws or guns in public places.
When I hear people start crying about global warming, I know we are dealing with a kool-aid drinker.
ReplyDeleteNo one worried about global warming 10 years ago, because very few had heard of it. No one wakes up sweating and starts thinking, "hmm, the planet sure is getting hot. Hope them polar bears are okay".
Anyone worried about global warming is a good example of someone that has been media trained.
Aztec Red:
ReplyDelete"Intimidation doesn't require the intimidator to intentionally set out to intimidate people. Like I said, some people were intimidated by nothing more than the presence of black people."
That statement is either incredibly disingenuous or just plain stupid. Are you genuinely convinced that the black people and freedom riders who were trying to secure civil rights for their fellow man by engaging in sit ins and marches have something in common with a guy walking into a Starbucks with whatever sort of gun he thinks looks spiffiest today?
Zorro:
"Democommie, I stand by my position that "immutability" is an idiotic basis on which to determine whether or not a person is the victim of bigotry. I should, perhaps, have made more clear that I was not referring to the narrow legal definition of "bigotry," as defined in the Civil Rights Act, but to a more general usage of the term."
Then you certainly need to be more specific and show me the other approved usages of the word.
Immutability doesn't mean anything, in terms of civil rights, except what's in the law. I don't care if you agree with it or not.
If black people could magically be made white? Howsabout if white people could magically be made black?
Fat White Man
"No one worried about global warming 10 years ago, because very few had heard of it. No one wakes up sweating and starts thinking, "hmm, the planet sure is getting hot. Hope them polar bears are okay""
So, you're just that dismissive of scientific studies about shrinking polar ice caps and their effects on marine mammals?
"Anyone worried about global warming is a good example of someone that has been media trained."
And anybody who makes comments that stupid and broadly general must be a Fat White Man.
mikey:
ReplyDeleteOh, darn, I do just get carried away sometimes. You know how it is with us folks that don't know what end of the gun a bullet comes out of. It was an AR-15 NOT AN M16.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32457652/ns/politics-white_house/
I know, I know; there are huge differences and the two weapons don't look anything alike, even to the most ignorant or casual observer. Oh, wait, this guy says they do look a bit alike:
http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/registeredreceiver.htm
See, mikey, that's the thing about guns. A lot of folks who don't own them don't obsess on the details and so they just get a little nervous when they see some odd looking individual in black fatigues sporting one at a church or some guy carrying one outside a venue where the PotUS is giving a speech.
And before you start foaming at the mouth, I know that it is YOUR right to be a scary ass mofo with your guns. Actually, I think that for you it might be a necessity.
Democommie says
ReplyDeleteThen you certainly need to be more specific and show me the other approved usages of the word.
Please forgive me, O Great One, for my lack of specificity. I have no idea what constitutes, to your satisfaction, an "approved" use of the word "bigotry," but if an online dictionary meets your high standards:
obtuse or narrow-minded intolerance, especially of other races or religions.
The Brady Campaign's bleating about "immutability" would have made some sense, had open carry advocates tried to claim that open carry is protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I'm pretty confident that you'll not find a single instance of anyone making that claim, though.
Democommie also says:
If black people could magically be made white? Howsabout if white people could magically be made black?
Sure--if you prefer. Let's indeed imagine a hypothetical medical (or "magical," if you wish) procedure that could safely and cheaply make a Caucasian person indistinguishable from an African-American. Would a business not be guilty of bigotry if it banned all white people--"whiteness" now not being "immutable"?
Democommie says:
ReplyDeleteI know, I know; there are huge differences and the two weapons don't look anything alike, even to the most ignorant or casual observer. Oh, wait, this guy says they do look a bit alike . . .
I realize you were addressing Mike W., and not me, but I hope Mike W. will forgive me for taking this one. You might dismiss the differences between an AR-15 and an M-16 as being trivial, and not of interest to intelligent, emotionally healthy individuals, but the government certainly doesn't. To the government, the difference is 10 years in federal prison and a quarter million dollar fine. Can you perhaps see, now, why the differences between the two would be of interest?
If you still think it's silly to make such distinctions, then by all means, write your Congresscritters, and urge them to repeal the National Firearms Act of 1934, so that AR-15s and M-16s are treated the same under the law.
And anybody who makes comments that stupid and broadly general must be a Fat White Man.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyone who must continually attack other commenters is clearly someone who uses insults in place of a reasoned & intellectual response.
Why is it you always take the low road? Is it so hard to act like an intelligent grownup?