progressive civil right vs. conservative civil right

[HunterJim]

So the Supreme Court rules on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states, and a federal district judge rules against Prop 8 and for a right to gay marriage this week. Then what happened?

Arnold and Jerry are silent about a California right to keep and bear arms, but they are in court immediately asking for gays to marry legally in California.

Why the disparity? If we have to sue in the federal courts to compel local and state officials to comport with the law on keep and bear arms, why don't gays have to do likewise to marry?

So much for the blind justice system.

jim

[PatriotnMore]

So the Supreme Court rules on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states, and a federal district judge rules against Prop 8 and for a right to gay marriage this week. Then what happened?

Arnold and Jerry are silent about a California right to keep and bear arms, but they are in court immediately asking for gays to marry legally in California.

Why the disparity? If we have to sue in the federal courts to compel local and state officials to comport with the law on keep and bear arms, why don't gays have to do likewise to marry?

So much for the blind justice system.

jim

This is not just about CA, Jerry, Arnold, and the courts. This is about every level of government in this country.

The veiled lie concerning justice, law and every branch of our government is slowly being peeled away. I for one, was shocked we had a positive Heller decision, I was expecting a loss, and was one vote shy of that reality.

I was not as shocked by McDonald because, personally I see that as another tool for the Federal government to take more power from the States, and add more control to the Federal Government.

The level of corruption/contamination which has taken control of our system of government by the old boy political machine, banks and big business, and the slight of hand used to deceive the public into thinking we actually have the government given to us by our forefathers, are becoming more and more transparent, to an ever wakening public.

We have been, and are told one thing, and given the other. More and more are saying no, not just no, but hell no. This power struggle will come to a standoff, and a breaking point. If those in leadership cannot deceive, or get away with a lie any longer, they will be forced to become more direct, and demand.

If you could be the fly on the wall in government, away from the camera's, smiles and lies, and actually hear and see the real government that we have, you would reach for the ammo box like our forefathers did, who went to war over a minuscule tax compared to what is being demanded of us today.

My real fear, and unknown to me is, if we lose/ have lost the courts to corruption, and politicians, we will lose what is left of freedom, in any meaningful way.

[Gray Peterson]

So the Supreme Court rules on June 28th that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states, and a federal district judge rules against Prop 8 and for a right to gay marriage this week. Then what happened?

Arnold and Jerry are silent about a California right to keep and bear arms, but they are in court immediately asking for gays to marry legally in California.

Why the disparity? If we have to sue in the federal courts to compel local and state officials to comport with the law on keep and bear arms, why don't gays have to do likewise to marry?

So much for the blind justice system.

jim

I think you highly misunderstand the RKBA situation versus the Prop 8 situation. Considering the political pedigree of the people involved in the plaintiffs legal team (Ted Olson) and the Judge involved (he was blocked for two years due to opposition from gay rights groups and other progressive/liberal groups), it is not a matter of "progressive civil rights" and "conservative civil rights". It's a matter of civil rights, period.

If some of the folks understood that the key linchpins of legal cases between [i]Heller, McDonald, Lawrence[i] and now, Perry, they would be cheering on Perry.

A little homework and reading:

RECAP Docket of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

It is a long read, and originally there wasn't much in the RECAP docket, but a bunch of folks started RECAPing files and pretty much the entire docket is available. Is it too much to ask for the same folk who do great legal analysis of RKBA cases do the same for Perry, and see it for what it is: A case against animus against a defined group of individuals, and it'll help us as gun owners win the case that our 1st amendment rights and our right to equal protection is important.

Prop 8 was a highly unique situation which had never before occurred in American history. Let's do a allegory of what happened with In re Marriage Cases in the California Supreme Court. Let's assume, for a minute, that us gun owners were able to reverse Kasler v. Lockyer, and get our RKBA via Article 1, Section 1 of California's state constitution. They order the sheriffs to issue licenses to carry.

LCAV, the Brady Campaign, and the media machine in California decide that this is an intolerable situation and decide to pass a constitutional amendment to exclude gun ownership from the protections of Article 1, Section 1. They use the unholy trifecta method of scary images about gun owners. They use the following images:

1) Video black and latino gang members holding guns in their hands, with a off screen narrations saying "Do you want California residents to be intimidated and threatened by these people *gun fire sounds*? Vote Yes on Proposition ____" to protect our communities"

2) Video of the "beer swilling redneck" having a can of beer in one hand and pistol in another, with off screen narration "Do you want to make it to where a sheriff has to issue a license to carry to this person? Vote Yes on Proposition ____ to protect our communities".

3) Video of a two kids who attempts to guess the combination of a safe (Yes, this is an actual video that I saw over a decade ago) while casually discussing things, and then taking a gun out of a safe. "Do you want to protect our children from killing themselves? Vote Yes on Prop ____ to protect our children".

No matter how much money the NRA and gun rights groups can muster, regardless of how much we'd outspend the anti-gun cabal.....with the combination of the three above video and radio ads, we will lose. Why? Because people in California do not like blacks and latino "gang bangers" getting guns, they don't like "beer swilling rednecks" getting guns, and they think they're going to "protect their children" by voting for the constitutional amendment. Both the LCAV/Brady Campaign/Handgun control Cabal and ADF/LC/Family Research Council/Yes On 8 Cabal have one thing uniquely in common: They use "For the Children" for their rallying cry. It worked for Prop 8, and it would also work for "exclusion of RKBA from the California constitution", even today.

Do you folks not remember that Nordyke v. King, where there is a 1st amendment and equal protection claim, that Mary King declared that her purpose was to "eradicate the gun culture"? What she espoused is pure animus and bigotry against a specific kind of minority culture (which is us).

AG Lockyer, and then AG Brown, defended Prop 22 in Court. They lost and they accepted the decision.

It was after Prop 8 passed that AG Brown took a stand and said "I am the attorney general of the State of California, and the circumstances of this situation is exactly the same as Romer v. Evans, which the US Supreme Court ruled that animus is not an acceptable reason to discriminate. I thereby decline to defend this law".

Also, Sykes and Peruta filed suits against sheriffs, not the state. Sheriff's will not give up their power to decide who lives or who dies at the hands of criminals, and they will be addressed by the above cases. You notice that AG Brown could have intervened on behalf of the sheriffs after he was notified of the cases against the enforcement of good cause and good moral character, and he refused to intervene?

This is not just about CA, Jerry, Arnold, and the courts. This is about every level of government in this country.

The veiled lie concerning justice, law and every branch of our government is slowly being peeled away. I for one, was shocked we had a positive Heller decision, I was expecting a loss, and was one vote shy of that reality.

You're going to keep getting surprised. Our RKBA right is strong and will continue to get stronger.

I was not as shocked by McDonald because, personally I see that as another tool for the Federal government to take more power from the States, and add more control to the Federal Government.

The 14th amendment, Section 5, gives congress the power to enforce the civil liberties of citizens. I should know because I am using the civil injunction provisions (just like the Perry plaintiffs did in California) of Title 42 United States Code Section 1983, so that I can carry in Denver, Colorado. The 14th amendment is the law of the land, and the states are commanded to respect it, regardless of the "States Rights" perspective.

[Bhobbs]

It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

[HunterJim]

It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

Bingo, a winner!...jim

[Gray Peterson]

It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

If it was politically correct, Obama wouldn't say words like "God is in the mix" to be against same gender couples marrying.

If AG Brown had a situation that I described happen in the same manner as prop 8, he would have been on our side while we sued in federal court to overturn the proposition, considering the animus based bigotry shown by anti-RKBA Proponent supporters in order to win.

[Bhobbs]

The liberal media has a nice way of putting a spin on things.

Gay rights victory means that everyone is more free.

Gun rights victory means death and destruction will rain from the sky, blood will run through the streets and people will have rolling gun battles all over the city.

[bigstick61]

Progressives and conservatives have fundamentally different conceptions of rights. The former do not believe in natural rights or anything like that, but they do tend to support certain kinds of freedom that can generally be lumped freedom below the belt but take that further, and they also support the positive rights of collectivities or even of the state. Support for "civil rights" in many cases is just the use of those battles as a political tool to achieve a certain end. They tend to be agnostic or moral relativists affects ethical and moral systems and often means there is none of consequence; what is retained tends to be bits and pieces from a pre-Progressive past that society still embraces.

The conservative conception is largely one based on natural rights/natural law among other things and only supports negative individual rights, although the degree of this varies somewhat among those on the right. The majority also believe in certain systems of ethics and morality and this tends to serve as an underpinning for their overall beliefs including those regarding rights. We're talking about two different strongly opposed views of the world here.

As far as Prop. 8 goes, from a conservative perspective (which I'll do my best to give since that's where I'm at politically), the "gay rights" stuff has nothing to do with civil rights, natural rights, or anything like that. It is nothing other than an effort to impact society in a way to make their lifestyle more widely accepted and supported by the state, this lifestyle being one that conservatives generally view as immoral, wrong, bad for society if widely accepted, etc. Conservatives view this as a battle for society and whether the state is to be used for good or bad ends or none if possible when it comes to the moral realm. Given the definition of marriage and the fact that the rules apply to all regardless of race, orientation, etc., conservatives generally believe there is no rights violation occurring here or unequal treatment by the state.

The RKBA battle, by contrast, is viewed by conservatives as a battle for one of the most fundamental natural rights that they believe is firmly rooted in natural law and this has been the theory on the matter for centuries. To compare it to oxymoronic gay "marriage" is to compare apples and oranges.

[jdberger]

It's politically correct to support gay rights. It is not politically correct to support gun rights.

Bingo, a winner!...jim

The liberal media has a nice way of putting a spin on things.

Gay rights victory means that everyone is more free.

Gun rights victory means death and destruction will rain from the sky, blood will run through the streets and people will have rolling gun battles all over the city.

Gray takes the time to put together a well thought out defense of the Prop 8 ruling, how it positively impacts us as gun owners and these are his responses....

The fact is, it's easier to marginalize us, as a group, because we're just engaged in a "hobby".* Homosexuals are wired that way - they're more like people with different colored skin. We could always stop playing with guns - they have no choice.

Arnold and Jerry are silent about a California right to keep and bear arms, but they are in court immediately asking for gays to marry legally in California.

Arnold is silent because it doesn't get him anywhere. Brown, on the other hand has made numerous statements. The day after Heller was decided, he was asked if he though that the 2A really applied to individuals, he responded, "Of course it does. There's no way to read it any other way and remain honest." (I'm paraphrasing).

Quit looking for enemies everywhere - understand who your friends are and don't get distracted. We're winning this fight.


*According to the antis.

[CalNRA]

Homosexuals are wired that way - they're more like people with different colored skin. ... they have no choice.

eh....okay. Sure, you can say that.

[Vox]

At one time it was politially incorrect to believe that Blacks and whites were equal. It waspolitically incorrect to believe that Homosexuality wasn't a psychological disorder.

Even if it doesn't further our own personal agenda we should be championing the rights of everyone everywhere in the United States.

[Gray Peterson]

Progressives and conservatives have fundamentally different conceptions of rights. The former do not believe in natural rights or anything like that, but they do tend to support certain kinds of freedom that can generally be lumped freedom below the belt but take that further, and they also support the positive rights of collectivities or even of the state. Support for "civil rights" in many cases is just the use of those battles as a political tool to achieve a certain end. They tend to be agnostic or moral relativists affects ethical and moral systems and often means there is none of consequence; what is retained tends to be bits and pieces from a pre-Progressive past that society still embraces.

The conservative conception is largely one based on natural rights/natural law among other things and only supports negative individual rights, although the degree of this varies somewhat among those on the right. The majority also believe in certain systems of ethics and morality and this tends to serve as an underpinning for their overall beliefs including those regarding rights. We're talking about two different strongly opposed views of the world here.

Except that "this varies somewhat among those on the right" also includes the ability of the state to tell you what you do with consenting adults in the privacy of your own home. Religious political conservatives still cling to the pre-Lawrence belief that you can ban someone from doing certain kinds of acts in the privacy fo the bedroom.

As far as Prop. 8 goes, from a conservative perspective (which I'll do my best to give since that's where I'm at politically), the "gay rights" stuff has nothing to do with civil rights, natural rights, or anything like that. It is nothing other than an effort to impact society in a way to make their lifestyle more widely accepted and supported by the state, this lifestyle being one that conservatives generally view as immoral, wrong, bad for society if widely accepted, etc. Conservatives view this as a battle for society and whether the state is to be used for good or bad ends or none if possible when it comes to the moral realm. Given the definition of marriage and the fact that the rules apply to all regardless of race, orientation, etc., conservatives generally believe there is no rights violation occurring here or unequal treatment by the state.

Your use of the term "lifestyle" means that you believe that gays are fundamentally "wrong".

Nathanson (one of the defendant's expert witnesses) testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence directed at gays and lesbians......



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As religion is at the heart of the hostility and violence (by both the state and private actors) against gays and lesbians, this is an form of religious establishment.

It also prohibits the free exercise of religions which support and affirm marriages between same gendered couples.

Freedom of speech is also effected. Accidentally mark down on some federal form that you're married, even if you have a marriage license to someone on who is the same gender, You will go to prison for 5 years. Ask Martha Stewart what happens when you are believed in any way to be lying by the feds.

The RKBA battle, by contrast, is viewed by conservatives as a battle for one of the most fundamental natural rights that they believe is firmly rooted in natural law and this has been the theory on the matter for centuries. To compare it to oxymoronic gay "marriage" is to compare apples and oranges.

2nd amendment, 9th amendment's right to privacy, and the 14th amendment are part of our constitution too. Ignore them at your own peril.

[andalusi]

Quit looking for enemies everywhere - understand who your friends are and don't get distracted. We're winning this fight.

I wish everyone who read your post would focus on this sentence and take it to heart. Gun rights advocates can be their own worst enemies sometimes. Just because someone doesn't happen to have the same political party, religion, or stance on things like gay rights or global warming, it doesn't preclude that person from supporting the right to keep and bear arms.

We're all supporters of the Second Amendment here, regardless of whether we voted for Obama, McCain, or Dr. Insano. Some people would rather kowtow to a political line than accept allies from the other side of the spectrum. So stupid. So childish.

[bwiese]

You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don't like. This is why I don't shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.

[Gray Peterson]

You cannot split opposition to Prop 8 from gun rights; support of Prop 8 is logically inconsistent with support of gunfights and reflects a statist worldview.

Freedom comes with the burden of having to tolerate things you don't like. This is why I don't shoot people wearing Birkenstocks.

SIG WORTHY!!!