Cute Cartoon from FishyJay

Dan Choi - Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Advocate.com posted a wonderful article and video about the issue of gays in the military.

As Lt. Dan Choi and about 100 LGBT activists staged a “don’t ask, don’t tell” protest Sunday afternoon across the street from the White House, six plain-clothed civilians chained themselves to the White House gates.

Choi, who has twice been arrested after handcuffing himself to the White House gates and has now been court ordered not to enter a certain perimeter around the White House, was joined by a handful of other speakers, including former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, Servicemembers United executive director Alex Nicholson, and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network executive director Aubrey Sarvis.

The protest came on the heels of a letter leaked late Friday afternoon in which Department of Defense secretary Robert Gates urged House Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton “in the strongest possible terms” to delay legislative action on repeal until the Pentagon completes its assessment of how to implement repeal.

In the video, Choi explains that the current policy results in enforced closets for gay soldiers. What do you think about that? Is it a problem?

There's also a reference to the fact that Democrats generally favor repeal of this law while Republicans do not. Why is that? Why do the Republicans have to be such nay-sayers?

I couldn't help but remember some previous discussions we've had in which we talked about the conservative / liberal divide. Conservatives, generally speaking, are against gun control, for capital punishment, racist against blacks and now we can add against gays in the military. Liberals are the opposite. I know that's a sweeping generalization, but is it true?

Opinione had a post about this the other day, but I wasn't sure what he meant by this.

Some of these soldiers look like should be in Key West and San Francisco, instead of a forward operating base in Afghanistan.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Tam on Her Favorite Gun Control Cliché

Over at View From The Porch, Tam published a typically sarcastic post about a WSJ article opposing open carry. She likened the article to a "cliché stew," which according to her exaggerated commentary, contained every single cliché.

Well, except for one. If you're playing along at home and your bingo card has "penis compensation joke" on it, you'll have to wait for her next try, because she missed it this time 'round.

This is another case of the pro-gun person bringing up the stupidity of penis comparison.
On the Uncle post, which Tam hat-tipped, he made no mention of this silliness, but a commenter did. I guess that's where the idea came from. Of course, some of Tammy's commenters were right with her, even referencing Freud's On Narcissism.

What's your opinion? Why is it so often the pro-gun folks who bring this up? Why do they keep saying it's a gun control cliché when they're the ones who keep saying it?

Is this a case of putting words in the mouth of your opponent? The article in the WSJ presumably had enough to complain about, why was it necessary to introduce this too?

Please leave a comment.

The Great State of Texas

The Truth About Guns reports on the concealed carry situation in the Lone Star State.

Total number of active CHL licenses (including instructors): 404,795 souls, or roughly 2.25% of all [documented] Lone Star State residents.

That sounds like a high percentage to me. How would that compare to places like Arizona with their new law, I wonder?

Do you think Texas is safer because of all the concealed carry permit holders? Do you think it would be even better off if they'd adopt a policy like Arizona's?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

It Must Be Virginia

I just can't decide whether Virginia or Arizona tops the list. I guess it's Virginia, after all. Ohh Shoot reports.

A Virginia man bought a 9mm handgun. Two hours later while he was trying to clear the chamber he unintentionally discharged the gun. The bullet went through his apartment wall and into his neighbor's apartment. A 14-year-old girl lying on her bed heard the gunshot and saw a picture hanging on her wall break. The bullet was later found on her floor.

The bullet went through three walls and hit a fourth. Fortunately, no one was injured.

Virginia does not require any gun safety training when purchasing a firearm.

Ohh shoot.

Kids Shooting Each Other

Click on Detroit reports on the latest child shooting.

This has become such a familiar story there's no need to copy and paste it. The uncle was upstairs, the 4-year-old brother shot his 2-year-old sister in the head. She's in critical condition.

The video contained a couple interesting things. The police chief said, "The terrible thing about it is the parents have to be responsible..." I guess what he meant was the terrible thing is gun owners who are parents are not acting responsibly.

At the end of the video, the news guy said the police said there "could be charges, with the emphasis on could."

I guess that about sums it up. Even where responsibility is direct, charges are only possible. No wonder we can't seem to put an end to this stuff.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Sebastian on Outing the Opponents

I made a critical comment over on Sebastian's blog the other day, which I must admit was fairly well received. For some reason four or five of my most vicious detractors stayed out of it. Part of my remark, the gist of it really was this.

Thirdpower discovered this dirty secret about Josh Horwitz, just like that famous case with John Lott and his female alias. I say, “so what – who cares?”. What a waste of time for Thirdpower and what a waste of time for you Sebastian. Talk about getting off the topic, this whole topic is off the topic. This is immediate personal attack, nothing else.

FishyJay made an interesting follow-up comment.

I have not seen MikeB say “so what – who cares?” about the John Lott case when it comes up on his blog, but now I expect Mikeb do so in the future.

I guess that's a fair point, but unless I actively condoned the outing of poor John Lott in some way, it does not disprove my claim that I say, "so what - who cares."

In another post, Sebastian took up the idea for further clarification. Basically he laid out a description of the difference between attacking someone's political existence and his personal existence. I don't find the explanation very convincing. How about you?

Do you think this is all about personal attacks or is it like Sebastian says, some of it is political or professional and therefore in bounds?