A series of posters appeared around the Washington State Capitol in the last several days linking gay rights and opposition to gun laws. One poster even suggests that laws intended to prevent gun violence are the moral equivalent of discrimination:
Another poster proposes armed vigilantism to “defend” the right to marry:
The poster of the two women isn’t new. It has been around for about four years and St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hofmann wrote about it in November 2009. I suppose Kurt's a big supporter of the poor-persecuted-gun-owners idea. Maybe he's be willing to elaborate for us.
Kurt will speak for himself--and may do so here, if you let him--but I've said the same thing as these posters for a while now. It's cute how ShrinkProgress doesn't know the source of these. I took one look and knew instantly that they come from Oleg Volk. Of course, doing a little research is such a chore for the control freaks.
ReplyDeleteYour opinion on the posters, Mikeb?
I thought my opinion was made quite clear in my use of the "poor-persecuted-gun-owners" remark. You guys love to paint yourselves as the discriminated-against freedom fighters. Remember the discussions about Rosa Parks?
DeleteTo follow your "reasoning," Parks should have stayed at the back of the bus. After all, she would have had a ride by complying with what the government allowed her to do, and she didn't really need to sit down.
DeleteVery well done, as usual, Greg.
DeleteI suppose Kurt's a big supporter of the poor-persecuted-gun-owners idea. Maybe he's be willing to elaborate for us.
DeleteAs Greg mentioned, my comments seem to have trouble sneaking past your "poor-persecuted-Mikeb" complex, so it seems a little silly to actively solicit them.
But whatever--let's give it a try.
On what, specifically, would you like me to "elaborate"? Do you want to know if I believe that people have the right to be gay? Absolutely. Do you want to know if I believe that this right is sometimes threatened by bigots? Absolutely.
Do you want to know if I believe that people have the right to own guns? Absolutely (and of course, and "duh"). Do you want to know if I believe that this right is sometimes threatened by bigots? Absolutely.
It seems that racism, along with gun ownership, is a western phenomenon.
DeleteJadegold adds to the list of things that he's arrogantly ignorant about.
DeleteYou refer to me as "Jadegold" is a childish and unbecomingly successful attempt to irritate me. You should be aware of the fact that I am not "Jadegold". Do your part in this world, and be entertaining without the added unpleasantness.
DeleteThe laws of your country allow its subjects to possess lethal arms and racist thoughts. Such an irresponsible sentiment is not shared among other lawmakers and lawgivers internationally.
E.N./Jade, both of you made the error of commenting on my blog. Don't play games with me. As for the other part of your comment, prove it. You boast and whine and threaten, but in the end, you're not even as capable as a schoolyard bully.
DeleteWhy would I go out of my way to step on an ant? It would be a waste of my time and would achieve nothing except to demonstrate the obvious, and deprive me of the entertainment of watching and observing the ant.
DeleteHowever if the cricket chirps too loud, he may be caged and paraded around for good luck.
The first poster looks like they snagged the pic from some of Oleg Volk's work along the same line. Oleg is a supporter of gay rights and has made similar posters to the top one before.
ReplyDeleteAs for the gays with guns issue, there are organized groups that I'm sure some of the others will link to that promote gun ownership by gays so that they can protect themselves from being assaulted by violent bigots. You'll also find gay people commenting in various places on the internet about how that risk is one of the primary reasons they started carrying.
But, these posters are not only about gays defending themselves. These are about equating gun-rights with gay-rights, which to me is about as bizarre a stretch as you can get.
DeleteIt's only bizzare to someone who doesn't view guns rights as rights. If one actually views the Second Amendment as being a real amendment that recognizes real rights of individual Americans, then suddenly it becomes as important to protect as any other right.
DeleteThis isn't saying that gun rights and gay rights are the same thing, it's saying that as rights, they're equally important. They also have the subtext of gun rights being important to defend gays who might be attacked for exercising their rights.
You're right about my not considering gun ownership a right. But, I'm not so sure all rights are equal. I keep hearing that from you guys, but I don't believe it.
DeleteAbout Oleg's photo, don't you think he was a little creepy using models as young as they appear to be. I doubt if those two are old enough to own guns.
Mikeb, don't you notice that as the years accumulate, young adults look younger and younger?
DeleteBut do tell, why don't you see all rights as equal?
You support both non-State gun ownership (murder) and rape. What a surprise.
DeleteMike, those models look like they could be 18-mid twenties. I'm bad at guessing ages (always have been) but only one of them has the very young look of college freshmen and sophomores.
DeleteAs for whether rights are equal, of course there are some that are more important to have than others in a pragmatic sense of "As long as I truly have the right to free exercise and free speech in a society, I could get by even if the society didn't respect rights against warrantless searches."
However, we don't live in just any society, and we're not supposed to be pragmatically trying to determine what we could and couldn't live with. This is the US and the Constitution, as the highest law in the land, is supposed to protect our rights. Some of them are listed in it, and it notes that others are unstated. (Screw Bork, the Tenth Amendment is not an Ink Blot.)
All are worthy of being fought for with the great vigor, especially those written down, because if the government starts to violate various rights in contravention of the highest law in the land, then its will becomes the highest law in the land and God help us because all of our rights are in danger just as soon as the government's will gets around to them.
We can see the groundwork being laid even in our own history. The First Amendment was first because it is, pragmatically, the most important. It is also the first that got targeted in the Alien and Sedition Acts. Later, rights to criticize the government and to protest wars were greatly restricted when Holmes made his bad analogy between crying fire in a theater and protesting a war, equating criminal mischief and the exercise of free speech.
Later, we got the right to protest wars back, but we kept the precedent that even the First Amendment could be violated as long as the government had a good reason. Now we hear the "fire in a crowded theater" comment repeated when we're told that the government can restrict whatever rights we have under the Second Amendment, comparing the ownership of AR-15s to attempting to start a stampeding panic. This is, again, a bad analogy. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is to Free Speech what shooting into a crowd is to the RKBA.
Do you understand where I'm coming from a little better?
About Oleg's photo, don't you think he was a little creepy using models as young as they appear to be. I doubt if those two are old enough to own guns.
Delete"http://www.salon.com/2013/04/15/new_gun_control_ad_which_of_these_is_more_dangerous_for_kids/
It is not surprising that one as depraved enough to advocate for gun ownership by mere persons, would also make illusory comments which may be interpreted as to advocate the rape of children.
DeleteE.N./Jade, you're making even less sense than usual. You say that "mere persons" don't have rights, but now you're opposing rape. Rape is precisely a violation of an individual's right to choose.
DeleteThe crime of Rape is primarily codified, prosecuted, and punished as a violation of the States right against unauthorized mating, and the social disturbance that frequently accompanies such. It is in the interest of the Governing Classes to minimize the social damage and loss of productivity caused by involuntary mating by means of inflicting a punitive measure against rapists, and as a means to discourage excessive mating which may lead to the production of excessive offspring (a common problem encountered by the State) or as a method of discouraging forms of mating or mating between parties that We, the State find to be objectionable, or which lack significant social benefit.
DeleteJade, you're boring your audience.
DeleteI doubt if those two are old enough to own guns.
ReplyDeleteUm--there's no federal minimum age for owning a long gun, so unless you somehow know what state the photo was taken in, your statement makes no sense.
Most States do, so if the picture portrays an actual event both may be guilty of being in possession of a firearm, as well as rape.
DeleteFrom MikeB,,
ReplyDelete"You're right about my not considering gun ownership a right. But, I'm not so sure all rights are equal. I keep hearing that from you guys, but I don't believe it."
THERE IT IS!! That's the crux of the problem of this country concerning ANY CIVIL RIGHT.
Mike there is no diminishment of one right over or under another. It does not work that way. You either have civil rights or you don't. Here in the USA, as you FULL WELL KNOW, certain civil rights are protected and that means not up for a vote or opinion from an individual or group to curtail those civil rights of all people by the founding fathers document called the Constitution and its BIll OF RIGHTS. Those rights are enumerated, explained and protected from any government or group or person to deny those CIVIL RIGHTS of any and all people.
If you don't like the protections of those enumerated CIVIL RIGHTS, then work to get those rights amended in the Constitution. But be careful when you do, you may end up with no rights at all. Like limits on the first amendment, or no first amendment at all. That means no MikeB blog, right? No rights to own property, privacy, choice, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and so on.
So go ahead, try your best, good luck. It will be a long road. But up and until your successful in that effort, ALL CIVIL RIGHTS are EQUALLY protected and we will always fight for them to remain in place, for everyone.