| Author | Post |
|---|
gsx1138
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed May 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | Bremerton, Wa |
| Posts: | 310 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 03:13 am |
|
mpg9999 wrote: "Until pot-smokers and gun owners and low-taxers and sexual minorities recognize that liberty is indivisible and that we're all in this together, we're going to be picked off piecemeal by government officials all too happy to exploit our mutual antagonisms."
-J.D. Tuccille
Pretty much true. As someone who used to detest homosexuals I see Liberty as essential to any true free society.
However, it doesn't bother me that D. Huffman believes in an invisible sky daddy who makes arbitrary rules that dictate his behavior. It also doesn't bother me if two dudes want to get married. Because Liberty should be afforded to both of those groups of people whether you agree or not. It is when one group chooses to use their belief to infringe on the Liberty of another that the problems arise.
It always starts small and seems innocuous. But the moment you give any Government entity the authority to take away your freedom you've lost.
|
Shawn
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sat Jun 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | Missouri USA |
| Posts: | 279 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 03:21 am |
|
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/11/anyone_have_a_n.php
4th one down.
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:24 am |
|
Well, I guess I'll be the least popular guy on the forum tonight. But I would suggest that maybe a second reading of Cramer's article is in order.
In the first place, I do not think he is roundly attacking OC to nearly the degree that many here are seeing. He concedes that OCing a handgun in Phoenix is not unusual or alarming, it is the OCing of an AR-15 outside a presidential event that causes him concern. He also admits a myriad circumstances in which OC doesn't bother him in the least: rural areas, when hunting or target shooting, in places where OC is legal but CC is not, when those who cannot get a permit to CC can legally OC.
Step back and look at this in context. Is there ever anyplace that we would admit OC might not be appropriate? At a wedding or funeral in which some or many other attendees would be uncomfortable or offended at seeing a gun? Can we not admit that walking around town with a AR or AK slung across back with bandoleers full of loaded magazines hanging down our chests might just be a bit beyond what is prudent? While some houses of worship are ok with OC, there are many that--while not being anti-RKBA--simply would prefer not to have firearms openly present in worship service.
Please note, that I (and so far as I can tell, Cramer) am not suggesting that such conduct should be illegal. Just as the law should not presume to dictate to consenting adults what their private conduct should be, neither should the law presume to ban conduct which is merely impolite or inappropriate.
Good manners, decent decorum, and even a modest respect for the feelings of others dictate that we give some thought to those times and places where openly carrying a firearm may be deemed to be in bad taste, poor manners, or offensive to others whose feelings we should be considering. No civil person would ever deliberately carry a ham sandwich into a Jewish or Muslim house of worship. Nor do mature adults feel compelled to point out every place where their own religious beliefs differ from those of their host when attending a christening, baptism, confirmation, or funeral in a church of a different denomination. It is rude to invite a vegan to dinner and not provide some options she can eat. It is equally rude for that vegan to launch into a tirade about the evils of meat while a guest in another's home.
I expect that Cramer is far more concerned about what others think of OC than most here are. But I don't see that he is entirely hostile to it.
And where the exact line is between properly exercising rights, acclimatizing others to the notion that regular law-abiding citizens can and should carry guns, and being needlessly, even counter-productively off putting and offensive is a fine debate.
The Libertarians I know used to say to those who wanted smaller government but were not quite ready to embrace everything in the Libertarian platform, "Get on the train and help us go as far as you want to go. If you want to get off after we've gone 50% of the way, that is your right. But help us turn the ship and get this nation headed in the right direction."
Cramer's RKBA credentials cannot be questioned. But is he the enemy because he draws a different line on when OC is appropriate than most of us do? Do we attack him because he disagrees with us on 10% of gun issues? Or do we count him an ally because he agrees with us 90% of the time? Or even 30%/70%, respectively?
And remember, his article is not calling for laws to ban OC; merely some introspection on the part of gun owners as to when and where OC may do more political damage than good.
All right, I've said my peace. Fire away.
Charles
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:41 am by utbagpiper
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:33 am |
|
utbagpiper wrote: Step back and look at this in context. Is there ever anyplace that we would admit OC might not be appropriate? At a wedding or funeral in which some or many other attendees would be uncomfortable or offended at seeing a gun?
I'm going to invite people to OC at my wedding and if I don't die without warning, I'm going to request people OC at my funeral.
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:39 am |
|
N6ATF wrote:
I'm going to invite people to OC at my wedding and if I don't die without warning, I'm going to request people OC at my funeral.
Yes, I would expect that many, maybe even most of us here would not be offended in the least with others OCing at such events. THAT is not the point.
The point is, can you recognize ANY situation in which the visible display of a firearm might legitimately be considered rude or inappropriate?
If not, then I think we are in real trouble.
Charles
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:59 am |
|
utbagpiper wrote: N6ATF wrote:
I'm going to invite people to OC at my wedding and if I don't die without warning, I'm going to request people OC at my funeral.
Yes, I would expect that many, maybe even most of us here would not be offended in the least with others OCing at such events. THAT is not the point.
The point is, can you recognize ANY situation in which the visible display of a firearm might legitimately be considered rude or inappropriate?
If not, then I think we are in real trouble.
Charles
Only in front of criminals or criminal advocates... but then I don't consider these to be legitimate considerations. Those who want law-abiding gun owners to hide (their crime deterrent effect) and be taxed into oblivion, if not be wiped off the face of the earth, don't deserve consideration.
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 07:54 am by N6ATF
|
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 07:43 am |
|
"Any situation in which the visible display of a firearm"? Hmmm. evidently someone has a job at the Department of Redundancy Department. 
Seriously, though, open carry has two compatible goals: The exersise and affirmation of the natural right enumerated in the Constitution and the deterrence of mefarious activity by the reminding of the creeps that they6 might just have to deal with an armed citizen. So yes, there is a ssituation where open "display" of a firearm is offensive. Bad guys will almost always be offended that their prey are armed. In my opinion I would like to live where every single adult has a firearm on his hip all day every day; where one is not considered dressed without a weapon. It would be a polite and peaceful society.
Edited to correct an horrendous faux pas
Last edited on Wed Nov 4th, 2009 02:53 am by Alexcabbie
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 11:08 pm |
|
crisisweasel wrote:
I would love to say that my primary objection to Cramer's comments centered around my objection to gay-bashing, and that my only standard for anyone has been whether or not they respect my rights, by which I mean, they make good neighbors, which many gay people, Muslim people, and other popularly bashed minorities obviously do.
But really what irked me was the whiny bitchiness of being "offended." A free society is necessarily going to be a diverse one, and I, for one, enjoy having my own sensibilities confronted. Not at the time, obviously - but even in his example, would I possibly be uncomfortable in the presence of a gay demonstration such as the one he mentions?
Yeah, I would. But that is *my* problem. It is good for me to have that challenged. Cramer goes in the cowardly direction with this, whereby the thing for people carrying openly to do is to not offend the sensibilities of others, just as public displays of affection among homosexuals should be avoided because he has personal issues.
In point of fact, the whole concept of being offended by what other people do is the root of all manner of small tyrannies in this society - behind every attempt, for example, to censor either pornography or hate speech is some whiny little insect carping about how he is offended or made uncomfortable by the depiction or display of someone else's sensibilities, and therefore someone ought to intervene on his behalf.
My God, that's weak.
In any representative sampling of gun owners you will find belligerent rednecks, potentially insurrectionary anarchists (yeah, they're out there), god-fearing Christians, Neo-Nazis, atheist libertarians, gays, women, and racial minorities who have had their safety threatened just because of who they are, and so on.
I have fears. Many of them. But I have never had a fear of looking out across America and seeing how diverse we are. Should someone offend me, fine, I'm offended, but I sure as hell don't expect anyone to change their behavior because I have a problem with it. That's an issue for me to work on. Tread anywhere you want and however you like, just don't tread on me. The first part of this is as important as the last.
It would be worth it to live with city streets lined with electronics stores displaying TV sets in the windows showing hardcore gay pornography, neo-Nazi propaganda, religious programming, pagan blasphemy, Orwellian statist indoctrination, and any other example of the kind of thing that might offend someone, blaring in the faces of both ourselves and our children...
...if in exchange it meant we'd never have to accommodate the psychological and ideological tics of delicate little flowers who are always finding excuses to get someone (often the state*) to stomp on someone else's Constitutional Rights so they don't have their sensibilities offended. I will take the most obscene depictions of any sexual act you can imagine over a single drop of censorship any day of the week.
(*Inasmuch as almost anyone will state that quote about "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to defend it" or any other cheap platitudes with similar sentiments, the kind of people we have in office, the kind of laws they pass, and even what opinion polls show that in the safety of an anonymous vote, most people in this society will in fact line up in support of the state ramming their agenda down everyone else's throat.)
So yeah, we can make the point about homophobia and gay bashing, and that's legitimate, but my disgust for him as a human being - as a man - for being such a craven little geek about being offended, I have to admit, far outweighs it for me in terms of priority. It would almost be worth it to go gay and engage in obscene public acts just for the pleasure of offending him.
Great post. +1000000
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 12:32 am |
|
Alexcabbie wrote: "Any situation in which the visible display of a firearm". You IDIOT.
FIrst of all . "Visible Display" as opposed to what?? "Invisible display"?? Open carry has two compatible goals: The exersise and affirmation of the natural right enumerated in the Constitution and the ndeterrence of mefarious activity by the reminding of the creeps that they6 might just have to deal with an armed citizen. So yes, there is a ssituation where open "display" of a firearm is offensive. Bad guys will almost always be offended that their prey are armed. In my opinion I would like to live where every single adult has a firearm on his hip all day every day; where one is not considered dressed without a weapon. It would be a polite and peaceful society.
What a shame you cannot frame a debate without first resorting to personal insult. Is this an example of the "polite and peaceful society" you envision if we all owned guns? We, gun owners, should be sterling examples of civility and decorum in all we do. Otherwise, our propensity to quote Heinlein about armed and peaceful societies starts to look pretty hollow. Not to mention how poorly you reflect on your home State and region: and area of the nation I love to visit because of the fine manners of its residents. Your immediate sinking to personal insults is a disgrace to Southern manners.
I can understand and appreciate your desire to live in a society where a person is not considered dressed without a gun. I would like to live in a society where a gun is never necessary, where we don't need locks on our doors, and where little kids never have to worry about getting hit by a car, abducted by some pervert, or succumbing to disease or illness. Some would like to live in a society where ragged jeans and t-shirts are as dressed up as is ever required for any event. There are a few people who think overt, public displays of sexual affection should be appropriate. None of these visions reflect our current society.
So, I own and carry guns for self defense, lock my doors, and keep a close eye on my kids. I put on a suit and tie for certain events, and even a tuxedo or Scottish formal wear for a rare few special events.
Those who refuse to recognize that in current society there may be times when it is not appropriate or polite to OC a firearm probably have a hard time understanding why sometimes a suit and tie is needed rather than ragged jeans or even why there is a time and place for heavy kissing and there are times and places where such overt sexual conduct really should be avoided. Either that, or they refuse to recognize the obvious parallels between OCing a firearm, dressing appropriately, and limiting overt sexual expression to appropriate venues.
I do welcome civil, and polite discussion and even vigorous debate. But I do expect that firearm owners not to reinforce negative media stereotypes of uneducated, rude, boorish hicks in their discussions on an open forum. So if you choose to respond again, please try to live up to that whole "polite society" claim.
Charles
Last edited on Wed Nov 4th, 2009 02:31 am by utbagpiper
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 01:54 am |
|
N6ATF wrote:
Only in front of criminals or criminal advocates... but then I don't consider these to be legitimate considerations. Those who want law-abiding gun owners to hide (their crime deterrent effect) and be taxed into oblivion, if not be wiped off the face of the earth, don't deserve consideration.
I might well point out the logical fallacy of grouping together those who want to tax gun owners into oblivion or even wipe us off the face of the earth with those who would merely prefer not to see a firearm at certain, limited venues.
But rather than dwell on that, I'll point out the incivility in refusing to even consider the thoughts or feelings of others, including potentially close friends, professional associates, family members, clergy, and so on. A hallmark of a mature, civil society is the ability and willingness to consider what others may think or feel about an issue.
Some of the same men who framed our 2nd Amendment and ensconced the RKBA as fundamental to our way of life, also signed their names to a document containing these words: "...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Have we less respect to the opinions of our friends, family, and neighbors than our much beloved founding fathers had for all of mankind? Is an armed society a polite society ONLY insofar as criminals are kept at bay? Or is an armed society also polite in semi-anonymous speech on the internet? Are we polite in considering whether we ought to remove our dirty shoes before entering a home, tipping a hat to the ladies, removing our hats at the table and so on?
To deliberately offend, to deliberately ignore the feelings of others, when our rights may just as well be secured and exercised without such offense is not protecting our rights. It is reinforcing an ugly stereotype the media and others would like to pin on us.
To be clear, I do NOT accept nearly as broad of limits on OC as Cramer seems to suggest might be appropriate. But neither do I believe that my RKBA is secure only so long as I OC 24/7 regardless of circumstance or effect on my fellows.
To everthing, the Good Book says, is a time and season. I strongly support and frequently exercise my right and legal ability to OC. I also believe there are some times and places where decorum dictates that firearms not be openly carried out of decent respect to the feelings (however misguided) of others.
Charles
|
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 02:49 am |
|
utbagpiper wrote: Alexcabbie wrote: "Any situation in which the visible display of a firearm". You IDIOT.
FIrst of all . "Visible Display" as opposed to what?? "Invisible display"?? Open carry has two compatible goals: The exersise and affirmation of the natural right enumerated in the Constitution and the ndeterrence of mefarious activity by the reminding of the creeps that they6 might just have to deal with an armed citizen. So yes, there is a ssituation where open "display" of a firearm is offensive. Bad guys will almost always be offended that their prey are armed. In my opinion I would like to live where every single adult has a firearm on his hip all day every day; where one is not considered dressed without a weapon. It would be a polite and peaceful society.
What a shame you cannot frame a debate without first resorting to personal insult. Is this an example of the "polite and peaceful society" you envision if we all owned guns? We, gun owners, should be sterling examples of civility and decorum in all we do. Otherwise, our propensity to quote Heinlein about armed and peaceful societies starts to look pretty hollow. Not to mention how poorly you reflect on your home State and region: and area of the nation I love to visit because of the fine manners of its residents. Your immediate sinking to personal insults is a disgrace to Southern manners.
I can understand and appreciate your desire to live in a society where a person is not considered dressed without a gun. I would like to live in a society where a gun is never necessary, where we don't need locks on our doors, and where little kids never have to worry about getting hit by a car, abducted by some pervert, or succumbing to disease or illness. Some would like to live in a society where ragged jeans and t-shirts are as dressed up as is ever required for any event. There are a few people who think overt, public displays of sexual affection should be appropriate. None of these visions reflect our current society.
So, I own and carry guns for self defense, lock my doors, and keep a close eye on my kids. I put on a suit and tie for certain events, and even a tuxedo or Scottish formal wear for a rare few special events.
Those who refuse to recognize that in current society there may be times when it is not appropriate or polite to OC a firearm probably have a hard time understanding why sometimes a suit and tie is needed rather than ragged jeans or even why there is a time and place for heavy kissing and there are times and places where such overt sexual conduct really should be avoided. Either that, or they refuse to recognize the obvious parallels between OCing a firearm, dressing appropriately, and limiting overt sexual expression to appropriate venues.
I do welcome civil, and polite discussion and even vigorous debate. But I do expect that firearm owners not to reinforce negative media stereotypes of uneducated, rude, boorish hicks in their discussions on an open forum. So if you choose to respond again, please try to live up to that whole "polite society" claim.
Charles
A gazillion apologies. I was not trying to insult but to make a crack about redundancy (Display has by definition got to be visible) Unfortunately I failedd to convey the tone of good-natured ribbing I intended. As you doubtless know I am usually much more articulate than that. So, I will go back and edit the post to convey exactly what I meant and how I meant it. thanx for reminding me, I post so much that this might have allowed to hang out and give a wroing impression of what I am about.
|
N6ATF
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:23 am |
|
utbagpiper wrote: N6ATF wrote:
Only in front of criminals or criminal advocates... but then I don't consider these to be legitimate considerations. Those who want law-abiding gun owners to hide (their crime deterrent effect) and be taxed into oblivion, if not be wiped off the face of the earth, don't deserve consideration.
I might well point out the logical fallacy of grouping together those who want to tax gun owners into oblivion or even wipe us off the face of the earth with those who would merely prefer not to see a firearm at certain, limited venues.
Let's see. utbagpiper. The UT, I'm guessing, stands for Utah, especially since you are a state researcher. In Utah, to hide your firearm, you must pay a tax of $65.25 initially, and $10 to renew every five years (at the current PKBA - Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms - rate).
If you were speaking from a Vermonter's perspective (where it really is a right and not a taxed, regulated privilege) to OC and CC, then I could understand your logic rebuttal. On the other hand, I live in the polar opposite state to Vermont, where OC and CC run from regulated and taxed privileges up to the total prohibition of effective self-defense without bribery.
To want someone to hide their firearm can constitute wanting them to be completely and utterly defenseless, if they cannot, or will not, pay the PKBA tax, or follow the Constitution and violate the infringing law+tax. If you voice these concerns to me, I educate you that you are advising me to commit a criminal or near-suicidal act, and you insist I do so anyway or disarm completely at risk to my safety and everyone around me, then I will politely refuse to associate with you further, and not be the least bit surprised when you become a victim.
Last edited on Wed Nov 4th, 2009 03:25 am by N6ATF
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 04:26 pm |
|
Alexcabbie wrote:
A gazillion apologies. I was not trying to insult but to make a crack about redundancy (Display has by definition got to be visible) Unfortunately I failedd to convey the tone of good-natured ribbing I intended. As you doubtless know I am usually much more articulate than that. So, I will go back and edit the post to convey exactly what I meant and how I meant it. thanx for reminding me, I post so much that this might have allowed to hang out and give a wroing impression of what I am about.
Apology accepted. Thank you.
Charles
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 04:26 pm |
|
#*#*@%#* double post.
Last edited on Wed Nov 4th, 2009 04:27 pm by utbagpiper
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 4th, 2009 04:53 pm |
|
N6ATF wrote:
Let's see. utbagpiper. The UT, I'm guessing, stands for Utah, especially since you are a state researcher. In Utah, to hide your firearm, you must pay a tax of $65.25 initially, and $10 to renew every five years (at the current PKBA - Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms - rate).
If you were speaking from a Vermonter's perspective (where it really is a right and not a taxed, regulated privilege) to OC and CC, then I could understand your logic rebuttal. On the other hand, I live in the polar opposite state to Vermont, where OC and CC run from regulated and taxed privileges up to the total prohibition of effective self-defense without bribery.
To want someone to hide their firearm can constitute wanting them to be completely and utterly defenseless, if they cannot, or will not, pay the PKBA tax, or follow the Constitution and violate the infringing law+tax. If you voice these concerns to me, I educate you that you are advising me to commit a criminal or near-suicidal act, and you insist I do so anyway or disarm completely at risk to my safety and everyone around me, then I will politely refuse to associate with you further, and not be the least bit surprised when you become a victim.
Yup Utah. And yes, our RIGHT to carry a gun concealed without a permit is not currently recognized in State statute: though the permit is shall issue and not overly difficult nor expensive to obtain. Of course, our RIGHT to peaceably carry a gun near or into schools and school zones without a permit is specifically abridged by both federal and State law. While these latter laws are not enforced with nearly the regularity of the former, the large number of children in Utah (coupled with a local preference for small and mid-sized, rather than very large, schools) translates into a high density of schools and thus school zones. Strictly speaking and taking into account the rarely enforced 1000' school zone law, it is as illegal to OC in much of urban/suburban Utah without a permit as it is to CC without a permit.
And Utah does not allow permit free carrying of even an OC gun that is fully loaded. A fully charged magazine is ok, but the chamber must be empty: Israeli carry we call it. So in much of Utah, any discussion about OC being a right and CC being a privilege is to start picking nits and being a bit selective about what aspects of law you want to look at. Under the federal (Amd 2) and Utah State Constitutions (Art 1, Sec 6), owning peaceably carrying a fully loaded and usable firearm--either openly, somewhat obscured, or fully concealed--is a RIGHT. That right is not yet fully respected in ANY jurisdiction in this nation as ever State imposes off-limit locations that are offensive to the right. In total, practical terms, I believe Utah's limits on the RKBA are among the least onerous in the nation for any who are able and willing to get a carry permit (which allows fully loaded OC and allows carry in schools and even schools themselves). But that is a discussion for another time.
Now, that all said, let me clarify. I am not suggesting and never suggest nor encourage anyone violate statute, no matter how much I may disagree with those statutes. Indeed, I specifically noted that Cramer accepts OC in those cases where CC is not permissible but OC is. And I fully accept and echo your expressed sentiments about the general value of OC.
My ONLY point is that we, as gun owners, should be able to recognize some limited number of circumstances in which OC may be viewed as inappropriate, rude, or offensive to perfectly law abiding, decent people. I am not suggesting such things be codified and banned under statute. Far from it. What I am saying is that mature adults have a respect for the feelings of others.
I have every legal right to dress as I choose. I prefer jeans and T-shirts to suit and tie. But there are some number of events for which jeans are simply not appropriate in the society in which I live. There may be places in the Caribbean or elsewhere where I'd never be expected to put on a suit and tie. But I don't live there. And so I end up tying a noose around my neck (after putting a razor blade to my own throat to shave) from time to time. When invited to the home of Jewish friends for religious events, I happily accept and don the Yarmulke they offer to all male guests entering the home for such occasions.
And in similar vein, from time to time I choose to conceal my self-defense rather than carrying it openly.
There are times and places where I think it so appropriate to OC and make a statement that it is almost essential: when voting, when visiting the legislature, at Independence Day celebrations, and so on. There are countless other times and places where OC (and making the statements that OC makes) should be viewed as perfectly acceptable and one should not hesitate to do so: while shopping or running errands, going out to the movies, working in the yard, etc, etc, etc.
But I continue to assert that there are some limited number of cases---cases that will vary depending on exactly where we live, exactly which church we attend, exactly who our friends and family are, and so on--in which the polite, respectful thing to do is not to OC if we have any legal, reasonable option to do otherwise.
There is a huge difference between advocating for a law to require or ban something, and merely encouraging individual choice to be respectful of the feelings of others. In fact, I would hope that as a group, gun owners would NOT need the law to restrain our behavior. I would hope we would choose to act within the limits of civility, politeness, and decorum in ever regard possible.
The law should respect our right to OC. And we generally should be free to do so without it being considered rude or offensive to the vast majority of people. But we should also be willing to recognize some small number of circumstances in which OC may not be the most appropriate way to secure or safety or exercise our rights.
My apologies for being verbose. I hope I have at least been clear.
Charles
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:24 am |
|
conservative85 wrote:
Sorry about picking your post to reply to but the D word is a good starting point to take on this issue.
" A free society is necessarily going to be a diverse one"
Diversity is one thing but Wrong is another. The D word gets thrown around way to much. Diversity does not come from the way someone dresses, or the way they look (ethnic background) or even someones behavior. It comes from understanding, and thought processes that consist of different ideas, rational debate, & commonsense.
A college campus that has a "diverse" mix of Chinese, or Africans, does technically make it an ethnically diverse campus it does however not make it any better than the next. It's academics! the free expression of speech & ideology.
Same goes for a "Free society" I do agree that simple minded and narrow minded can be good as well as bad, depending on the principals, standards, and morals of not only a "free society", but a civil one! I did not read the article because I do believe it is a coward way of expressing your opinion. Resorting to bashing, & rhetoric is less than civil. On the other hand it is bad/wrong what ever you like to call it. calling it "diverse" doesn't make it acceptable, if it's ok behavior than why do you need my approval, just be gay with a gun, you don't have to push it on me, I don/t run around wanting their approval that I am hetero!
In the last 20 years or so, the Homosexual community has organized and well for that matter, a movement to win public opinion by a campaign of desensitizing the populous by renaming their gay life style choice as gay rights/civil right!.
It's not civil it's not right! Civil rights are for everyone, believe it or not Homosexuals have all the same rights as I. Just because they get picked on because of their behavior does not mean they are not afforded the right to speech, religion, and guns. This desensitizing uses words like tolerant, diversity, open mindedness, consenting adults, and gay instead of queer, basically a kill them with kindness attitude.
The problem with this whole desensitizing is what we have today, and that is intolerance of a person who disagrees with this behavior. Now I understand he was quite crass about his way of doing it but, offended or not that is my problem, but I do have the same right to openly disagree, as they think they have a right to openly exhibit their life style. To be criticized for that by being called intolerant is the Hipocracy of this whole debate of free society. You are criticized by both Gays as "closed minded", and criticized by the appeasers as "intolerant" if you even hint that you disagree with the gay life style... which by the way is a life style same as drug users, and gang bangers...It's wrong in every way. I don't see society accepting of these people snorting coke in the city streets or gangs fighting other gangs, I mean after all their all consenting adults.
While I like to think we live in a free society (diverse) freedom is not free, with it come responsibility, and respect toward others rights, and opinions. In private what you do is your business, but in public, we as a civil society lay down standards, and values...I don't care if your hetero, or homo, if I am in a park with my child I don't particularly want my kid to see two teens groping and sucking face, let alone two homosexuals.
As far as morals go I do have a problem with this behavior, it all boils down to right & wrong. If your definition of a free society boils down to tolerance of everything than this is when civil societies break down, then all behavior can be accepted. For instance if two consenting adult (males) having sex can be acceptable, then you have to accept two consenting adults (father & daughter). as acceptable behavior. I don't think any one will agree that is diversity! but maybe in another twenty years..., the way we are going who knows?
I know we need as many people on our side as possible, but I am not selling my morals down river to gain support for something that I already have!
Remember your rights were granted by God, and guarantee by George
I apologize if I offended anyone  , with my bad English, & writing skills. I admit I am no writer, but I do love to write, that's all that matters right?
While I agree that some in the so-called "gay community" are too aggressive with their views, when what they are essentially (or should be) seeking is a live-and-let-live scenario, I have serious issues with your post. I intend no offense; I do not seek to push any agenda, only to rectify what I see as a failure of understanding.
First of all, you act as though there is no civil rights issue, because gays have the right to "God and guns and speech" (as though rights are limited to just those three things, as opposed to any act which does not infringe upon the right of another to the same), and then a paragraph later you seriously question whether it ought to be "acceptable" (read: legal) for gays to engage in sexual intercourse.
Don't you see the problem here? If someone arbitrarily denied you the right to engage in sexual intercourse, I suspect you'd be concerned with more than just "God guns and speech" yourself. You might think this is irrelevant because of your arbitrary definition of "normal". But your definition is irrelevant. Only substantive harm matters.
Every state in this country outlawed homosexuality, or what some call the "homosexual act", in one form or another, until the latter half of the 20th century. Some still do.
Forget incest. That is a red herring, misleading vividness, a slippery slope fallacy, and entirely irrelevant. The only thing that you rightly ought to address is harm to another. I would require you to show me how two consenting homosexuals doing whatever they please causes any more harm than a heterosexual couple performing (essentially) the same acts. (Very few father-daugher relationships are characterized by anything like informed consent without coercion, and real, substantive harm is a near-certainty.)
I agree by default that any time the "gay agenda" or "community" or any sort of pro-gay activism engages in aggression (using the law, or their behavior) or otherwise causes real harm that it has gone too far. But the same applies to the "anti-gay agenda". You don't get a free pass just because you think you're "normal".
I know you *say* that you don't have a problem with what people do in private, but that is belied by your insistence on bringing up "what people do in a park", as though homosexuals automatically, by default, inherently commit lascivious acts in public more often than heterosexuals do (I hate to admit it, but my own history as a youthful heterosexual would put serious challenge to that claim).
If someone is "obscene in public" (I question whether actual harm occurs, by the way), that has nothing to do with whether that person is a homosexual or a heterosexual, merely that they were "obscene".
This post is rambling and failing to coalesce, but the point I'm trying to suggest is that, as long as you deny there is a civil rights issue while questioning the inherent morality of homosexuality, you will fuel what you perceive to be the "gay agenda".
It's a two-way street, and as long as gay couples are denied hospital visitation rights because "there is no civil rights issue, and besides homosexuality is wrong anyway because kids like to make out in parks", the fire is fueled and will burn.
If personally know gays who feel they need to be aggressive to affect the changes they (rightly) seek. While I don't necessarily support this view, it occurs to me that the easiest way to deflate the "in-your-face" gay activists (like the ones we see here in San Francisco) would be to stop playing games and grant them equality before the law.
Simple things, that don't require government getting involved with religion. Like, stopping the licensure of marriage, and granting civil benefits to couples (like hospital visitation rights), either by law or through contract. Irrelevant as you may see them, there simply are civil issues that extend beyond "god guns and speech".
Please understand, I'm not suggesting that you personally are responsible for any of these problems. I'm merely trying to point out the other side of the issue, that it's not as simple as talk radio would have you believe. That some people take things too far doesn't nullify their core validity. Please keep that in mind.Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 11:28 am by marshaul
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 5th, 2009 08:33 pm |
|
marshaul wrote:
Every state in this country outlawed homosexuality, or what some call the "homosexual act", in one form or another, until the latter half of the 20th century. Some still do.
Forget incest. That is a red herring, misleading vividness, a slippery slope fallacy, and entirely irrelevant. The only thing that you rightly ought to address is harm to another. I would require you to show me how two consenting homosexuals doing whatever they please causes any more harm than a heterosexual couple performing (essentially) the same acts. (Very few father-daugher relationships are characterized by anything like informed consent without coercion, and real, substantive harm is a near-certainty.)
It's a two-way street, and as long as gay couples are denied hospital visitation rights because "there is no civil rights issue, and besides homosexuality is wrong anyway because kids like to make out in parks", the fire is fueled and will burn.
If personally know gays who feel they need to be aggressive to affect the changes they (rightly) seek. While I don't necessarily support this view, it occurs to me that the easiest way to deflate the "in-your-face" gay activists (like the ones we see here in San Francisco) would be to stop playing games and grant them equality before the law.
Simple things, that don't require government getting involved with religion. Like, stopping the licensure of marriage, and granting civil benefits to couples (like hospital visitation rights), either by law or through contract. Irrelevant as you may see them, there simply are civil issues that extend beyond "god guns and speech".
We are now way off topic, and what I write below I write as a private person, NOT as representative of any group or organization to which I may belong, but a couple of counter thoughts. I've quoted on the items to which I want to respond.
1-The Lawrence decision has made enforcement of anti-sodomy laws impossible. They now have no more bearing than the racists restrictions that still exist on the deeds of some properties in this nation. That said, society should remain free to distinguish between public acts of what may or may not be considered obscene. A modest heterosexual kiss is one thing. An equally passionate kiss between a homosexual couple or between man and animal, might well be properly considered obscene IMO. What real harm you may ask? No more or less than people choosing to walk around public naked. Either we rationalize allowing public nudity, OR we recognize that at some point, in some areas, somebody's morals and views and standards are going to apply. They can be the standards of the majority, or the majority can be subjected to lack of standards from every fringe minority out there.
2-Incest is not a red herring so long as we are talking about consenting adults. Ditto polygamy, S&M, B&D, wife-swapping/swinging and any number of other sexual practices that the majority may find offensive and from which homosexuals may want to distance themselves for PR reasons. If society cannot ban, or otherwise express legal disagreement with homosexual conduct among consenting adults, then it has no rational basis for banning or expressing legal disagreement with any other (private) sexual conduct among consenting adults.
3-The "denied hospital visitation" is the homosexual equalvalent of the anti-OCers "someone will target your first" or "your gun will be taken and used against you." I'd like to see actual citations of hospitals in this nation denying visitation to a homosexual intimate in the last 20 years, much less the last 10 years. There MIGHT be a case or two, but nothing approaching a pattern of abuse, especially if we disregard cases in which legal next-of-kin and a lack of medical directive were involved. Evidence to the contrary welcome. But post Terry Schivo, every adult--married or not--should have some medical directives, medical powers-of-attorney, etc, in place to assure their desires are followed should they be unable to voice those desires at some point.
4-Homosexuals have equality before the law. Indeed, California's civil union law granted and (even post Prop 8) continues to grant complete and total legal equivalence (at the State level). That did not prevent the "in-your-face" crowd of homosexuals from suing for the use of the term marriage. It is not mere legal equality (which I contend exists even without civil union laws) for which certain segments of the homosexual community strive, but rather total and complete social, religious, and political acceptance of their homosexual conduct. Wedding photographers, infertility doctors, and religiously owned reception centers in this nation have been sued for politely declining to do business with homosexual couples. In Canada and other nations that have progressed down the road to social acceptance of homosexual conduct, clergy members have faced criminal charges for merely voicing the religious doctrine that homosexual conduct is sinful. Any who believe such forced acceptance of homosexual conduct is not the end-game of major segments of those demanding "equality" probably also believe that the Brady Bunch really only want a few, "common sense gun control laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals."
5-Government properly grants recognition and benefits to marriage between man and woman because at the macro level, that relationship--like none other--has demonstrable benefits to society Government rightly denies granting equal benefits to other relationships--including homosexual coupling--because those relationships do not provide similar benefits to society. It is like granting tax benefits to buying a home, but not to buying a sports car. In fact, homosexual conduct is strongly correlated with a host of personal and social ills including attempted suicide at rates several times higher than among heterosexuals, alcohol and drug abuse/addiction at rates much higher than among heterosexuals, etc. It would be downright foolish to reward or encourage homosexual behavior given the strong correlation with these personal problems that translate into social ills. It is one thing to respect the rights of consenting adults to do self-destructive things. It is quite another to encourage or reward those things.
Now, this post will doubtless offend some here, including at least one moderator or State researcher. And that offense will needlessly divide us even on issues like RKBA where we are in absolute agreement. But I can no longer stand silent--in any forumn--and watch as the march to normalize and even incentivize homosexual sexual conduct is advanced.
RKBA is a constitutionally enumerated RIGHT. It is part of a 200+ year old contract between citizens and their government. It is was a recognized right of free Englishmen (and others) for several centuries prior to that. And by and large, we in the RKBA and OC community ask/demand nothing more than to be left alone in our peaceful possession of firearms. The vast majority of our victories have been won at the ballot box by persuading the voters of the correctness of our position. 39 States are now shall issue on concealed carry, plus Vermont with no permit needed. Several others generally allow OC even if they don't issue permits on a reasonable basis.
Until a couple decades ago, nobody credibly considered the notion of changing the definition of marriage to include same sex couples. That includes among ancient societies where homosexual conduct and even pederasty were quite well accepted including among the classics. Homosexual relationships were not extended legal benefits.
Those who engage in homosexual conduct are long since past the point of facing criminal sanction by and large so far as their government is concerned. No one goes to jail for being homosexual, or even privately engaging in homosexual sexual conduct. Of the 7 States where marriage licenses have been issued to homosexual couples (including Cali and Maine where laws to that effect have been repealed by popular vote), 4 had the laws thrust on them by judicial fiat, and the other 3 were imposed by legislative action. Not a single State has altered their definition of marriage by popular consent. Since the Hawaii Supreme Court first raised the spectre of imposing same-sex marriages in 1993, 30 States have adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman only. A 31st State, Maine, has now rejected by popular vote the change in marriage definition imposed upon them by their legislature. In EVERY State--31 in all--where the issue has been given a popular vote, the populace has chosen to retain the traditional and real definition of marriage. Maine voters chose to do that on the same day they chose to expand the legalized use of medical marijuana. Hardly religious nut cases up there in New England.
Simply put, except at the most trivial levels, there is very little legitimate comparison between RKBA/OC and attempts to gain marriage or other legal benefits for same-sex coupling. There is great political benefit in casting the issues as though they were similar or even equivalent. Some probably even sincerely believe they are. But they are not. And given the highly divisive, morally sensitive nature of the topic, it really is best left avoided in this forum as the inevitable responses to my post, and my response to your post, prove all to well.
Charles
Last edited on Thu Nov 5th, 2009 09:04 pm by utbagpiper
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 12:58 am |
|
gsx1138 wrote:
However, it doesn't bother me that D. Huffman believes in an invisible sky daddy who makes arbitrary rules that dictate his behavior. It also doesn't bother me if two dudes want to get married. Because Liberty should be afforded to both of those groups of people whether you agree or not. It is when one group chooses to use their belief to infringe on the Liberty of another that the problems arise.
It always starts small and seems innocuous. But the moment you give any Government entity the authority to take away your freedom you've lost.
Well, the question becomes then what is within the proper bounds of liberty?
Am I acting within the proper bounds of my liberty not to rent to or hire someone because I find his sexual conduct offensive? Am I free not to provide business services to someone if I find him or his conduct offensive?
Or do I have some right to force others--including those who have started a business, acquired rental property, etc--to associate with me despite them not wanting to associate with me?
If 999 sets of parents at a school do not want homosexuality or homosexual conduct covered as part of sex ed or other school curriculum, but a couple of sets of parents (or even activists in the community who don't have children) demand that "Heather has two Mommies" be part of the kindergarten reading list, how do we properly decide who gets to set policy for the school?
Ignoring the question of whether the government should be rewarding and thus encouraging on equal basis with heterosexual monogamous marriage that has demonstrable benefits to society, conduct that is strongly correlated with a host of personal and social ills and disorders there is the question of how current law and reality imposes legal obligations on others the moment a person is legally married.
For better or worse we do not live in Libertopia. And there are laws both on the books in some places and being pushed in many others that force people to associate with others when they'd rather not. Granting legal marriage to homosexual couples greatly expands the legal obligations thrust upon other private individuals. Changes in tax rates (either to a couple's benefit or detriment depending on individual circumstances), and inheritance rights from the government are the least of the issues. Landlords are forced to rent to those they'd rather not; employers are forced to hire or retain those they'd rather not and to extend health benefits to homosexual spouses on equal footing as they do with any other spouse. Wedding photographers, receptions centers, and fertility doctors are forced to render services to couples they'd rather not serve.
There are those who are quite open about their belief that "discrimination is bad" and they are therefore more than happy, anxious even, to use the power of government to force everyone to treat homosexual couples as if they were exactly the same as heterosexual couples. Such persons make very clear that their claims about "freedom" are very one-sided and shallow. If freedom is really about tolerating conduct from others we merely find offensive, but that does not infringe our rights, then it must impose a burden of tolerance not only on those who find homosexual conduct offensive, but also upon those who find private individuals choosing to withdraw association from homosexuals to be offensive.
I don't really care what 2 or 20 consenting adults do with each other in the privacy of their own home. I care very much about whether grossly offensive conduct is taking place inside a home I own, and rent to others. I care very much about whether I am forced hire, retain, or provide health benefits to a person who publicizes what he and others do in their bedrooms that I and most of the rest of society find offensive.
Consenting adults must be free to live their private sexual lives as they see fit. And peaceably, law-abiding citizens must always be free to have the means to defending themselves against criminal violence, including from the small number of bigots who would actually turn to violence over being offended at another's private conduct (or, on the flip side, his or his church's political positions).
But society must remain free not to associate with those who choose to engage in sexual conduct that society finds offensive.
Charles
|
marshaul
Activist Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:05 am |
|
I'm not going to post another lengthy rebuttal, because, as you said, this is off-topic.
I'm merely going to provide a single example of how you're being disingenuous.
You point out that California has "domestic partnerships" which offer essentially the same legal function as a marriage, therefore, you argue, there is no reason for them to still want "marriage" and they are being "in-your-face" to demand it.
You conveniently ignore the fact that marriage is recognized, by constitutional mandate and Federal law, across every state. California's "domestic partnership" is not a marriage, so it is not recognized by other states, therefore it is not "the same as" a marriage.
You want to know where there is systematic denial of hospital visitation rights? Generally it occurs when "domestic partners" travel to other states, to find out their partnership is suddenly void, something which married couple never have to worry about.
OK, there is my one example.Last edited on Fri Nov 6th, 2009 02:08 am by marshaul
|
utbagpiper
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Jul 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 753 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 6th, 2009 03:01 am |
|
marshaul wrote:
You point out that California has "domestic partnerships" which offer essentially the same legal function as a marriage, therefore, you argue, there is no reason for them to still want "marriage" and they are being "in-your-face" to demand it.
You conveniently ignore the fact that marriage is recognized, by constitutional mandate and Federal law, across every state. California's "domestic partnership" is not a marriage, so it is not recognized by other states, therefore it is not "the same as" a marriage.
You want to know where there is systematic denial of hospital visitation rights? Generally it occurs when "domestic partners" travel to other states, to find out their partnership is suddenly void, something which married couple never have to worry about.
OK, there is my one example.
marshaul,
You've provided a theoretical case of when a hospital might be prone to deny visitation. You've failed to provide any actual example of it happening. I can tell you that here in Utah we do not have any domestic partnership nor civil union law. Our State Constitution not only defines marriage as one man and one woman, but specifically bans government from giving marriage-like benefits to any other relationship. We are the headquarters of the LDS Church and a majority of our population are members of that Church. Even here, I've yet to have anyone provide me a documented case of a hospital denying visitation to a sexual intimate regardless of marital status or sexual orientation. I can imagine it happening in the case of a person not having a medical directive and their legal next of kin exercising their rights to control medical care while the person is unable to speak for himself. Even there, I can't find any documented cases. So maybe those claiming that this is so widespread as to contribute to any justification for "in your face behavior" should bear the burden to provide documentation it happens.
I was not the least bit disingenuous about Cali. I made very clear that civil unions in cali grant every STATE level benefit of marriage. I am well aware that the reason for pushing for marriage included a desire to have standing to file federal suit to force Utah and other States to accept as valid those "marriages" despite our constitutional definition to the contrary. The other, overarching goal is total and complete social acceptance, even if it must be forced via criminal penalties on those who continue to hold some traditional view of morality. It was, and remains, the homosexual militants who are disingenuous as they claim that Prop 8 was not my business because I don't live in Cali. Recognizing the reason for going after marriage licenses, Prop 8 was very much my business.
So my question remains. Does freedom go both ways? You believe homosexual couples should get marriage licenses if they want them? Do you also believe that I should be free not to rent to, employ, provide benefits to partners of, or provide business services to homosexuals if I don't want to? Do you support my freedom not to associate with homosexuals if I choose not to? I'm not asking whether you think doing so is a good idea, nice, kind, Christian, or proper. I'm asking whether you think I should have the legal freedom to do so if that is what I want to do?
Because the cold hard reality is, under current law, the so-called "freedom" of homosexual couples to get marriage licenses or even domestic partnerships or civil unions comes at the cost of other individuals' freedom to choose their associates as they see fit.
I don't care what consenting adults do in private. I care very much whether the law forces me to associate with someone I don't want to associate with.
And under current law, I'm allowed to be a prude. I don't have to associate with someone who reveals to me that he is into S&M, B&D, wife swapping, polygamy, incest, or other sexual activity I consider deviant, immoral, or offensive. I see no reason why I should not enjoy similar freedom to peacefully disassociate with someone who refuses to keep private, his decision to engage in homosexual sexual activity.
Bottom line, there is no excuse for the kind of in-your-face tactics employed by too many homosexuals. And don't even get me started on the overt criminal violations against my church, its property, and some of its members; crimes that have gone unprosecuted even as the specter of "hate crimes" enhancements would loom on any who engaged in similar conduct against the homosexuals.
Charles
|
Current time is 01:39 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   |
|
|
|
