Shotgun News Followup about recent Pink Pistols column

[Gray Peterson]

This is the pertinent part:

One day I got a call from a pleasant-sounding man who said, “I see you are taking advertising from the JFPO.” When I confirmed that, he went on. “Don’t you know that all Jews hate guns? Feinstein, Schumer, all of Hollywood: they all hate guns.”

I conceded those he mentioned were clearly on the wrong side, but that JFPO was an organization for Jews who liked guns, and was in fact one of the strongest and most vital voices for gun rights.

The caller said that couldn’t be right: all Jews hated guns and wanted them confiscated. Clearly JFPO was some sort of agent provocateur entity cooked up by the Bilderbergers or maybe the Elders of Zion to lead gun owners astray, and that I should quit taking its ads. He had to hang up unsatisfied with my response.

The pleasant-sounding man’s position was that Jews can’t like guns, and, by extension, gun owners can’t like Jews.

This is the kind of crazyness that goes on against minorities all of the time.

Btw, the very definition of irony given this article: Alan Gura (Heller/McDonald fame) is Jewish.

[CCWFacts]

Btw, the very definition of irony given this article: Alan Gura (Heller/McDonald fame) is Jewish.

And Robert Levy. The fact that we have any constitutionally-protected RKBA today is thanks to two brilliant, courageous Jewish attorneys.

[cmaynes]

The author of this article clearly gets it. I'll avoid engaging any further in this thread other than to say that the author with shotgun news is a true patriot. It saddens me that I know I'm the first responder of a soon to be locked thread.

+1!!!!!

It is a Civil Rights issue. period.

[Mesa Tactical]

Last time I checked, this was CalGUNS, not Calallcivilrightsyoucanpossiblythinkof.

Civil rights are civil rights.

[quiet-wyatt]

The development of a "Left wing gun rights" movement by default will allow us to pick up many people in the political center and will further isolate the gun banners as "EXTREMIST".

Nicki

Exactly...!

[monk]

Straight people deserve the right to self-defense.
Gay people deserve the right to self-defense.
Bi-Sexual deserve the right to self-defense.
Whites deserve the right to self-defense.
Blacks deserve the right to self-defense.
American Indians deserve the right to self-defense.
Hispanics deserve the right to self-defense.
Men deserve the right to self-defense.
Women deserve the right to self-defense.
Catholics deserve the right to self-defense.
Protestants deserve the right to self-defense.
Hindus deserve the right to self-defense.
Jews deserve the right to self-defense.
Atheists deserve the right to self-defense.
Mormons deserve the right to self-defense.
Jehovah's Witnesses deserve the right to self-defense.
Pastafarians deserve the right to self-defense.
_____________ deserve the right to self-defense.
_____________ deserve the right to self-defense.
_____________ deserve the right to self-defense.
_____________ deserve the right to self-defense.
_____________ deserve the right to self-defense.
_____________ deserve the right to self-defense.

The list is endless.

EVERYONE deserves the right to self defense. And there are members of almost every subset of Human Culture who are pro-gun.

This list is flawed. I think we can all agree that no one wants shrimp to have access to firearms.

[bwiese]

I think we're at risk of losing our focus here.

But our focus here should be on the right to keep and bear arms....
{SNIP}
I voted for Proposition 8 and have no regrets. That shouldn't mean that I can't be on the same side as a gay person/ally with regards to gun rights.

On the surface that may appear to be so. However....

1. The overlap between gun rights and equal rights for LGBT community
is via the 14th Amendment which applies the 2nd. I think in the future you'll see much more interface between some aspects of anti-Prop 8 takedown and RKBA. (Similar to Roe v Wade aspects being relevant to RKBA court fights.)

2. One of the reasons more Dems oppose guns is the Reeps have tried
to 'own' the issue. If the issue were about use of purple Dixie cups and
the Reeps to 'own' that issue, the Dems would oppose it just to
oppose the Reeps.

And thus we get to CA situation where the Reeps try to say they 'own'
the issue, but don't do much about it other than make some puff-piece
statements and continue to lose elections due to their overall odor to the majority of Californians - and the Dems then oppose the issue in large part just to oppose the Reeps. Add the urban vs. rural 'magnification' of the difference and you can see how things get screwed up.

Plus we've gotten about all the political usefulness out of the right-wing cammies crowd we can, outside donations to gun orgs and legal figts - there are just not enough of them here in CA to be of remote political relevance to swing any elections. And the association of gun issues with a political bloc of folks who (rightly or wrongly) are associated with various other issues doesn't help.

[QQQ]

On the surface that may appear to be so. However....

1. The overlap between gun rights and equal rights for LGBT community
is via the 14th Amendment which applies the 2nd. I think in the future you'll see much more interface between some aspects of anti-Prop 8 takedown and RKBA. (Similar to Roe v Wade aspects being relevant to RKBA court fights.)

2. One of the reasons more Dems oppose guns is the Reeps have tried
to 'own' the issue. If the issue were about use of purple Dixie cups and
the Reeps to 'own' that issue, the Dems would oppose it just to
oppose the Reeps.

And thus we get to CA situation where the Reeps try to say they 'own'
the issue, but don't do much about it other than make some puff-piece
statements and continue to lose elections due to their overall odor to the majority of Californians - and the Dems then oppose the issue in large part just to oppose the Reeps. Add the urban vs. rural 'magnification' of the difference and you can see how things get screwed up.

Plus we've gotten about all the political usefulness out of the right-wing cammies crowd we can, outside donations to gun orgs and legal figts - there are just not enough of them here in CA to be of remote political relevance to swing any elections.

I thought we were approaching this issue through the courts rather than the ballot box. Is this a misunderstanding on my part?

And the association of gun issues with a political bloc of folks who (rightly or wrongly) are associated with various other issues doesn't help.

This goes both ways- it should apply as much to the LGBTQ community as it does to rural conservatives.

[Gray Peterson]

I thought we were approaching this issue through the courts rather than the ballot box. Is this a misunderstanding on my part?

There are certain advantages to having a Legislature understanding of our issues. For example, post-carry case bills, such as, just for an example, listing of guns on carry licenses, extensions of time for the LTC so that it'll be less expensive overall, etc. There's only so much we can do in the courts, as the courts cannot write statutory law.

This goes both ways- it should apply as much to the LGBTQ community as it does to rural conservatives.

No, because living in a rural area is a choice and so being a conservative. Also, being rural or conservative is not an indicator of being anti-gay. Ted Olson is a conservative, but he's definitely not anti-gay, and there's plenty of "under the radar" gay people who live in rural areas. See Iowa as an example.

Gay people should not be expected to support politicians who's fundamental inclination is to recriminalize their behavior in the bedroom by overturning Lawrence. As Bill has pointed out repeatedly, anti-gay laws such as exclusion from marriage is a symbol of statist mindset similar to what anti-gunners engage in. If you look at the behaviors the folks calling for laws against gays in general (AFA, Focus on the Family, etc), the quality of their data and research is at the level that anti-gunners use to target owners, saying we're unstable, tend to murder our own patriae, etc etc etc....

[gunsandrockets]

Yep.

Round two



http://www.shotgunnews.com/2012/01/2...pride-round-2/

Good link.

[bwiese]

I thought we were approaching this issue through the courts rather than the ballot box. Is this a misunderstanding on my part?

Generally so.

But do you think we need new gun legislation to get thru and add more years?

This goes both ways- it should apply as much to the LGBTQ community as it does to rural conservatives.

Really? What have they done to hurt you?

[marcusrn]

That comment about age of consent was tedious and unnecessary.

[Gray Peterson]

That comment about age of consent was tedious and unnecessary.

Agreed.

[dantodd]

Civil rights are civil rights.

[QQQ]

Generally so. But do you think we need new gun legislation to get thru and add more years?

That is a good point.

Really? What have they done to hurt you?

Neither gays nor rednecks have done anything to hurt me personally. I don't see why we have to throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are certain advantages to having a Legislature understanding of our issues. For example, post-carry case bills, such as, just for an example, listing of guns on carry licenses, extensions of time for the LTC so that it'll be less expensive overall, etc. There's only so much we can do in the courts, as the courts cannot write statutory law.

Are these realistically going to happen in the forseeable future in urban California?

No, because living in a rural area is a choice and so being a conservative. Also, being rural or conservative is not an indicator of being anti-gay. Ted Olson is a conservative, but he's definitely not anti-gay, and there's plenty of "under the radar" gay people who live in rural areas. See Iowa as an example.

Gay people should not be expected to support politicians who's fundamental inclination is to recriminalize their behavior in the bedroom by overturning Lawrence.

Fair enough. But you can't turn around and expect others to support organizations that would require everyone to define an institution inconsistently with their own beliefs, either.

As Bill has pointed out repeatedly, anti-gay laws such as exclusion from marriage is a symbol of statist mindset similar to what anti-gunners engage in. If you look at the behaviors the folks calling for laws against gays in general (AFA, Focus on the Family, etc), the quality of their data and research is at the level that anti-gunners use to target owners, saying we're unstable, tend to murder our own patriae, etc etc etc....

And some of us anti-statists oppose the government telling us that we have to define marriage in a manner that contradicts our own personal beliefs. If it were up to me (and many others who supported prop 8), the government would get out of the marriage business altogether. If someone wants to go to a gay-friendly church and get a "marriage" ceremony, that's their own business. You shouldn't have to recognize my straight marriage if you don't want to, and I shouldn't be forced to recognize yours, either.

Again, none of this should have anything to do with deciding who can and cannot lend their support to the 2A.