Tie gun rights to other rights.

[nicki]

When talking with others about gun rights, it probably would be useful for us to ask the other person what rights they feel are important.

This will require a little bit of study on our part, but I feel it will help us reach out to others.

Many people are not gun owners, ironically, many of our strongest gun rights activists are not gun owners, they do it for principle.

The Bill of Rights is a package deal, if we shred out sections, pretty soon we have nothing except shredded paper.

Some of us may have to take a look at where we stand on other issues because if we support destruction of other's rights, we set the stage to lose our own rights.

Nicki

[Tumerboy]

like gay marriage? I totally agree, you should stand for the rights of others as strongly as you stand for your own rights.

[DrjonesUSA]

like gay marriage?

:rolleyes:

[DedEye]

:rolleyes:

:owned:

[bwiese]

We need to exercise caution here.

Focusing on RKBA as a fundamental, enumerated right just like the other Bill of Rights is great.

Politically it may not be wise to tie/entangle that fight for RKBA with other rights: sometimes clarity is best when things aren't considered in a mix.

[DedEye]

We need to exercise caution here.

Focusing on RKBA as a fundamental right just like the other Bill of Rights is great.

Politically it may not be wise to tie/entangle that fight for RKBA with other rights: sometimes clarity is best when things aren't considered in a mix.

Agreed. Just look at the differing opinions on Prop 8 (for example) to see that the RKBA community is not in uniform agreement on other rights.

Even more clear-cut examples of other rights such as the 1st, 4th or 5th Amendment will still lead to debate amongst gun owners and can potentially divide the community unnecessarily.

[Model X]

like gay marriage? I totally agree, you should stand for the rights of others as strongly as you stand for your own rights.

The governments ability to recognize marriage and provide special tax classes for them is discriminatory anyways.

i say down with government recognized marriages!

[Texas Boy]

I think the issue is not any one particular right, but the sovereignty of the individual - i.e. unless you can show that I HAVE caused you harm (not that I MIGHT), you have no authority to limit what I do.

As I heard someone state, the issue isn't gun control, it is control.

[Tumerboy]

The governments ability to recognize marriage and provide special tax classes for them is discriminatory anyways.

i say down with government recognized marriages!

I agree but if the government is going to be in the business of marriage at all, it needs to be nondiscriminatory.

Sorry, yes I know that my first post was a bit of a jab, but it felt necessary after all of the various prop 8 threads have been closed. I'll shut my mouth about it at this point.

We need to exercise caution here.

Focusing on RKBA as a fundamental right just like the other Bill of Rights is great.

Politically it may not be wise to tie/entangle that fight for RKBA with other rights: sometimes clarity is best when things aren't considered in a mix.

I also agree that it may not always be the best idea to mix things up.

[bulgron]

Ironically, the whole marriage license thing stems from the desire of southern states to keep blacks from marrying whites in the post-civil war era. In other words, marriage licenses have always been about controlling who people can and cannot marry.

I think the whole marriage license thing stinks, and it has no place in a secular republic such as ours.

All the other brouhaha is just a big distraction caused by an arguably unconstitutional intrusion of the state into citizen's private lives.

The government should be about civil unions only, and at that only because someone has to make sure society plays nice on contractual agreements. Marriage, on the other hand, should be the sole providence of the church to which you choose to belong.

[Rivers]

OK, this is already sidetracked into Prop 8 discussion and how any kind of licensing is an exercise of control by one party over another. If Prop 8 was just about allowing a civil union, that would be simple enough. But if without Prop 8, our very liberal teachers' union can teach an alternate lifestyle agenda to our children - against the parents' wishes, that is a very different debate.

Why can't things be clearcut, just once?

[DedEye]

OK, this is already sidetracked into Prop 8 discussion and how any kind of licensing is an exercise of control by one party over another. If Prop 8 was just about allowing a civil union, that would be simple enough. But if without Prop 8, our very liberal teachers' union can teach an alternate lifestyle agenda to our children - against the parents' wishes, that is a very different debate.

Why can't things be clearcut, just once?

Prop 8 isn't about teaching alternative lifestyles. Period.

[CSACANNONEER]

like gay marriage? I totally agree, you should stand for the rights of others as strongly as you stand for your own rights.

Yes. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, if prop 8 passes, it will make another class of citizens. I think we all can agree that that is not right! Unfortunately, if it passes and stands up in court, it will set a precedent. So what's the big deal? Right now, California has two classes of citizens already. Those that can legally obtain and register AWs and those that can not. If prop 8 passes, it will further justify the same type of discrimination that the AW ban has created.

[bwiese]

Yes. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, if prop 8 passes, it will make another class of citizens. I think we all can agree that that is not right! Unfortunately, if it passes and stands up in court, it will set a precedent. So what's the big deal? Right now, California has two classes of citizens already. Those that can legally obtain and register AWs and those that can not. If prop 8 passes, it will further justify the same type of discrimination that the AW ban has created.

Bingo.

[dfletcher]

The governments ability to recognize marriage and provide special tax classes for them is discriminatory anyways.

i say down with government recognized marriages!

Well perhaps marriage licenses could expire just like a driver's license - little signs in City Hall that say "Your vision must be this bad ...... to renew". :p

[Tumerboy]

OK, this is already sidetracked into Prop 8 discussion. . .
:( Sorry guys, it was not my intention . . .

[RomanDad]

like gay marriage? I totally agree, you should stand for the rights of others as strongly as you stand for your own rights.

So... I take it you haven't met Nicki?

[DrjonesUSA]

You guys are high.

Marriage is the most fundamental building block of our society - marriage exists so that a man and a woman can reproduce and raise their offspring in order to ensure the survival of the human race.

Homosexuals getting married in no way contribute to that purpose and society has no interest whatsoever in allowing them to "marry."

[bdsmchs]

But if without Prop 8, our very liberal teachers' union can teach an alternate lifestyle agenda to our children - against the parents' wishes, that is a very different debate.


Why do people keep saying unfounded bull**** like that?

Prop 8:

No: NOTHING changes in CA. NOTHING AT ALL.
Yes: We remove an existing right from a group of CA citizens.

Why do misinformed people keep thinking that for some reason if prop 8 doesn't pass, the end of the world is going to happen?

Still, why does this thread have to be about Prop 8? Because it is VERY SIMILAR to what we already have in CA regarding GUN RIGHTS.

There are two classes of people in CA in regards to guns. We have LEO's, who for some reason are allowed to buy "unsafe" handguns for nothing more than plain ole personal use. And then there's you and I and everyone else. This is why it's the same kind of issue, and why we should be tying certain rights together.

[bdsmchs]

You guys are high.

Marriage is the most fundamental building block of our society - marriage exists so that a man and a woman can reproduce and raise their offspring in order to ensure the survival of the human race.


Apparently, you're the one who's high.

Guess what? You don't have to be married to have children. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage has nothing to do with sex.

Your quote, fixed:
Sex is the most fundamental building block of our society - Sex exists so that a man and a woman can reproduce and raise their offspring in order to ensure the survival of the human race.

[DedEye]

You guys are high.

Marriage is the most fundamental building block of our society - marriage exists so that a man and a woman can reproduce and raise their offspring in order to ensure the survival of the human race.

Homosexuals getting married in no way contribute to that purpose and society has no interest whatsoever in allowing them to "marry."

Dude, epic fail.

Married people aren't required to have kids, and you aren't required to have kids to get married.

Epic, epic fail.

[bwiese]

You guys are high.

Marriage is the most fundamental building block of our society - marriage exists so that a man and a woman can reproduce and raise their offspring in order to ensure the survival of the human race.

You're bringing a central valley religionist bias in.
Many fine people marry and have zero desire to have children.
I'm a perfect example, were I to marry: ZERO children, period. (Well, it goes without saying that's the same condition in my unmarried state too.)


Homosexuals getting married in no way contribute to that
purpose and society has no interest whatsoever in allowing them to "marry."


Go speak for your society. I'm not brave enough to speak for other folks.
Too many folks are trying to speak against my right to own guns, and I'm not going to propagate that misbehavior into other spheres.

Maybe if we stop beating on certain segments of society so much they might actually join our political side - guns, freedom, limited gov't.

[dixieD]

Well perhaps marriage licenses could expire just like a driver's license - little signs in City Hall that say "Your vision must be this bad ...... to renew". :p

This is a great idea!

Note to wife: just kidding

[dixieD]

Maybe if we stop beating on certain segments of society so much they might actually join our political side - guns, freedom, limited gov't.

I agree. My voting philosophy now is to vote for anything that expands individual right, and against anything that tries to curtail it.

[ilbob]

The government should be about civil unions only, and at that only because someone has to make sure society plays nice on contractual agreements. Marriage, on the other hand, should be the sole providence of the church to which you choose to belong.
Ironically, the Puritans questioned whether the church should be involved in marriage, thinking it to be a matter for the government.

[tgriffin]

Will someone lock this already please? I'm tired of this ****.

[katphood]

I think the whole marriage license thing stinks, and it has no place in a secular republic such as ours.


You nailed it! I'm with you on that. Simple and wise. Marriage is a religious institution. End of story.

[N6ATF]

IBTL

Read this (http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58), and tell me marriage is a religious institution. It has been a governmental institution since before religion even existed. This is almost like saying the first Pope invented fire, or Al Gore invented the internet. History predates idiotic claims such as these.

[Vic]

Dude, epic fail.

Married people aren't required to have kids, and you aren't required to have kids to get married.

Epic, epic fail.

You beat me to it DedEye.

[Wizard99]

IBTL

Read this (http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=58), and tell me marriage is a religious institution. It has been a governmental institution since before religion even existed. This is almost like saying the first Pope invented fire, or Al Gore invented the internet. History predates idiotic claims such as these.

Reading that it appears that the primary reason for marriage was the production of children. There is mention that a man usually only married once unless his wife proved unfertile then he could take a second wife.

There is no mention of government in this article. Marriage and the associated contract appears to be a custom adopted by society, not a law or function of government.

I don't believe this article supports your claim at all.

[aileron]

You guys are high.

Marriage is the most fundamental building block of our society - marriage exists so that a man and a woman can reproduce and raise their offspring in order to ensure the survival of the human race.

Homosexuals getting married in no way contribute to that purpose and society has no interest whatsoever in allowing them to "marry."


Marriage throughout history was (and still is in some places) about the transfer of property. In a lot of places women were considered no better than chattel.

[Adonlude]

Lots of beating around the bush and elaborate justification on both sides here. I read prop 8 and saw 1 simple question being asked: Would you like to live in a more openly gay society, yes or no? Nope, no thanks. Not passionate either way but don't really feel like it at the moment. Ask me again in a few years and we'll see.

Will someone lock this already please? I'm tired of this ****.
Why did you enter this thread then? Maybe you can get a lock on the 1st amendment while you're at it.

[Meplat]

I think Nicki was more focused on using other rights as leverage to persuade other interest groups, not as a wedge to divide 2A supporters.

If we cannot understand that, and the need for caution it implies, perhaps we are not mature or savvy enough to use any but the most simple tools.

As evidence I site the near immediate posting of the divisive hot button issue of gay marriage. An obvious juvenile and non-productive ploy to divide us.

I am surrounded by **** ASSED ****.:(



I agree but if the government is going to be in the business of marriage at all, it needs to be nondiscriminatory.

Sorry, yes I know that my first post was a bit of a jab, but it felt necessary after all of the various prop 8 threads have been closed. I'll shut my mouth about it at this point.



I also agree that it may not always be the best idea to mix things up.

[Meplat]

Thin think before you run off at the mouth!:mad:


:( Sorry guys, it was not my intention . . .

[Meplat]

That could be argued; but I won't.:p




You guys are high.

Marriage is the most fundamental building block of our society - marriage exists so that a man and a woman can reproduce and raise their offspring in order to ensure the survival of the human race.

Homosexuals getting married in no way contribute to that purpose and society has no interest whatsoever in allowing them to "marry."

[Meplat]

Ok, you sucked me in. My problem is the tertiary effects. Like photogs and caterers being forced to participate in an activity that is morally repugnant to them. And don’t poo poo this as it has already happened. With rights come responsibilities, when the gay community becomes responsible enough to not use the law to rub their Asses in other people’s faces I'll reconsider.

I know several gay people, probably twice as many as I think I do. 90+ percent just want to live and let live. When they can control their obnoxious minority, they will make progress.;)

[Meplat]

Careful there. I would look around me and check out the nut gatherers, Libs, hippies, kooks, treehuggers and just plain clueless sheeple before I would start talking about the Central Valley. In the Central Valley, we know where food comes from. We also know where rights, freedom, and dignity come from.



Also: Marriage of one form or another developed independently in every society in the world. The down and dirty basics are that it is nearly impossible for the human female to successfully bring a child to term and provide for it in a natural environment without assistance. With few exceptions the female gets protection and provision and the male gets exclusivity. The children get a mother and father.

In recent times some believe that society has made the father obsolete. But that has been proven not to be the case. No matter what the economic circumstances a mother and a father have proven to be the optimum for raising well-adjusted children.

Just because marriage is not for you and you are not for marriage has nothing to do with the history of or reason for the institution. People who marry with no desire to have children prove nothing either. If a railway is built for people to commute back and forth to work and an occasional passenger rides it just to sightsee that has no bearing on the original purpose of the train. It was built for commuters.

Marriage was built to protect and provide for women and children.

You can’t turn 400,000 years of human evolution on a dime.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to play house and call it marriage or anything else they want.

BTW, are you SHURE you have no children?;)








You're bringing a central valley religionist bias in.
Many fine people marry and have zero desire to have children.
I'm a perfect example, were I to marry: ZERO children, period. (Well, it goes without saying that's the same condition in my unmarried state too.)





Go speak for your society. I'm not brave enough to speak for other folks.
Too many folks are trying to speak against my right to own guns, and I'm not going to propagate that misbehavior into other spheres.

Maybe if we stop beating on certain segments of society so much they might actually join our political side - guns, freedom, limited gov't.

[movie zombie]

When they can control their obnoxious minority, they will make progress.;)

wow, control the obnoxious minority and then you can have protection and rights under the law. doesn't matter that 90% only want to live and let live...... not the kind of society i want to live in. rights is rights, protections are protections, and have nothing to do with any obnoxious minority.

movie zombie

[Meplat]

I'm just being pragmatic. It is not right, it just what is. I agree with you, it's just that the majority does not.;)



wow, control the obnoxious minority and then you can have protection and rights under the law. doesn't matter that 90% only want to live and let live...... not the kind of society i want to live in. rights is rights, protections are protections, and have nothing to do with any obnoxious minority.

movie zombie

[yellowfin]

I wish more people would come to the honest conclusion as I have that the far greater problem than who sleeps with who is what they vote into power. If you've got no bigger problems in your life than to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do then I wish I had your life, but stop making that my problem. Screw anyone you want in the bedroom for all I care, but stop screwing us at the ballot box.

[DedEye]

I'm just being pragmatic. It is not right, it just what is. I agree with you, it's just that the majority does not.;)

I don't base my morals, values or standards of decency on what the majority thinks.

If CA gun owners did that, how many OLLs do you think we'd have in this state :rolleyes:?

[N6ATF]

Reading that it appears that the primary reason for marriage was the production of children. There is mention that a man usually only married once unless his wife proved unfertile then he could take a second wife.

There is no mention of government in this article. Marriage and the associated contract appears to be a custom adopted by society, not a law or function of government.

I don't believe this article supports your claim at all.

Looks like you didn't really read it then.

Code of Hammurabi.

/unsubscribe

[movie zombie]

I wish more people would come to the honest conclusion as I have that the far greater problem than who sleeps with who is what they vote into power. If you've got no bigger problems in your life than to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do then I wish I had your life, but stop making that my problem. Screw anyone you want in the bedroom for all I care, but stop screwing us at the ballot box.

a voice of reason in a desolate California/US political landscape.....

movie zombie

[hawk81]

Where in the constitution does it say homosexuals have a right to marry? I bet the framers of the constitution would would be rolling over in their graves if they knew we were trying to pass laws to allow homosexu.als to be married. Whether you like it or not, our country was founded on christian principles and morals. This is exactly why our country is going to hell in a hand basket, due to all of the immoral stuff that is going on

[Deamer]

Where in the constitution does it say homosexuals have a right to marry? I bet the framers of the constitution would would be rolling over in their graves if they knew we were trying to pass laws to allow homosexu.als to be married. Whether you like it or not, our country was founded on christian principles and morals. This is exactly why our country is going to hell in a hand basket, due to all of the immoral stuff that is going on

I don't see anywhere in the Constitution saying man and woman can be married either. I guess by your thinking since it isnt in the Constitution all marriages are void.

I do see the freedom of religion, so if the religion you follows allows gay marriage you are good to go.

Also the 14th Amendment. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So just because you believe someone is going to burn in hell for their actions don't mean they should have less rights than you.