Wednesday, February 10, 2010

More on Bigotry

RE: this AM's podcast...this is from Rob Allen at Sharp as a Marble:
And why my support for the Second Amendment is so strong. Jeff Soyer writes
It’s rare that I even bring up “gay issues” here, mostly because — and this might surprise you — I’m not all that interested in them. I have a gun. If someone wants to take issue with my being gay, I can present my own argument.
You can swap out "gay" with practically any other description and it works the same
* If someone wants to take issue with my being a woman
* If someone wants to take issue with my being handicapped
* If someone wants to take issue with my lifestyle
* If someone wants to take issue with my belief in God
* If someone wants to take issue with my belief there is no God
* If someone wants to take issue with my lack of pants
Seriously. If you have a problem with {X}, it behooves you to lay your case out for the public to see and discuss the merits of your issue. If you think your personal demons grants you the right to act out violently against those who disagree, well then be prepared for resistance.


Anonymous said...

I have long thought the left and right in this country have a serious disconnect in their thinking on guns VS about any other issue. Typically the right wants gun rights enshrined, yet resists the protection of rights of the "listed" groups, fights against gay marriage, legalizing pot, etc.

the left likes the various "people" groups protected, would like uncle sugar to get out of the drug cop biz, yet fights for government restriction (elmination) of guns...

Might be we could each take a page from the others' playbook and just ask that the government declare once and for all that folks have rights, they always did, and congress shall make no law....

When gun-owners respect and defend the medical maijuana folks and gays with the same respect that the NRA had when they marched WITH MLK Jr, when both camps decide the GOVERNMENT is the problem, we'll all gain, regardless of if we have guns, or who we go home to at night.....

Geoff aka Pathfinder on DRTV said...

Anonymous at 11:30 said: "When gun-owners respect and defend the medical maijuana folks and gays with the same respect that the NRA had when they marched WITH MLK Jr, when both camps decide the GOVERNMENT is the problem, we'll all gain, regardless of if we have guns, or who we go home to at night....."

Right, the gummint is the problem, we all agree on that. But comparing MLK with medical marijuana is silly to the extreme.

Not to mention the silliness in comparing MLK's insistence on rights guaranteed with gays whose rights are demanded. There is no comparison.

And, nice job lurking anonymously, real brave of you there.

My 2A rights are not dependent upon anything, and certainly not in "celebrating" or even "respecting" post-modern "rights du jour" as demanded by the libs but nowhere in evidence in the Constitution.

John Baker Smith aka Anon Internet Poster! said...

CC everyday and glad I live in a shall issue state. That said I think bringing up the "Bigotry Angle" needs to be approached much more carefully than it is by posts and commenters online. You CAN "substitute" any oppressed or discriminated term in place of "Gun Carrying Citizen" but it doesn't really work that way. BEING a Black and CHOOSING to carry aren't the same.

Make your argument with rational points of personal safety etc etc. Pulling the "race card" runs the risk of someone substituting "nudist" or something else ridiculous that undercuts your argument

@ ALL Posters - It's just lame complaining every time someone posts anonymously here - It's the INTERNET - I can put ANY name on here I want - who gives a crap? If you need to resort to calling out the (very common) anon posts on ANY SITE you look weak instead. Address the points made, not weather there's a "name" behind them. Being a "man" and "standing behind your words" on the internet is a farce.

@Pathfinder -"Not to mention the silliness in comparing MLK's insistence on rights guaranteed with gays whose rights are demanded. There is no comparison."

WOW - Not helping your credibility there are we? Pre-Civil rights, wern't African Americans demanding equal rights? Pre Womens Suffrage, weren't women demanding this right?

Mack Johnson said...


As I said to my more conservative friend when he joined in a pro 2nd Amend debate I was having with friends at a Super Bowl Party this past Sunday. (I was explained the virtues of CC to the group)

"Please. Don't Help Me. No Really. Don't help"

Michael Bane said...

I don't actually think standing behind your words either on the Internet, in print or in the Real Spoken World is "a farce." I have been a journalist my entire life, and I have never once spoken, published or posted anything that did NOT have my name attached to it.

I am definitely a real person, and you all know where to find me — I just did a quickie Google of me, and it shows how to reach me through the blog, DRTV, the various television shows, IMDB, my book pages, blah blah.

When you attach your name to your words, you allow the world at large to know and to judge whether you walk your talk, whether you lie or tell the truth, whether you overstate or understate your accomplishments and your capabilities, and, ultimately, whether your word is good.

To me, there is no greater honor attributed to a person than to say his or her word is good. All the paper contracts in the world pale in the face of that simple statement.

My $0.02 worth...your mileage may vary...


Mark Brown in WA said...


Agreed, in Genreal terms, being a man of your word is honorable and stand up. This being your blog, with your name and very public image on it, put you in a very different light than people commenting in a forum or on here. You will meet with people all the time and are a spokesperson for the community in some ways. 99.9% of posters on here will NEVER interact with one another in real life or for that matter, on the internet. They know that as do we, the other readers. This inherent anonymity for the common poster (you aren't in this group) is known by all and thusly, conscious or not, can influence a posters words and also reduce the gravity of them.

Your posts hold more weight and value over the rest as do other blogs with "known" authors.

I have to agree with "John" above. Online arguments need to be focused the points made (or lack there of) and not on the "who" is making them.

Regardless of if the person posting "walks the walk" the argument or point they make still exists and it is that POINT that deserves our attention.

Case in point - If I vociferously argue pro 2nd Amendment ideas online but don't myself own a gun does that make my points less valid? Perhaps. It all depends on the ideas being stated.

What I believe this boils down to is realizing that ones credibility comes into play only in certain situations.

If one were to ask you "Michael, do you feel you're safer carrying a concealed weapon?" and you answer "yes", your ANSWER has more weight in an argument vs a random online poster because of your credibility.

When things are being argued and the points made are not reliant on ones credibility, anonymity has little bearing.

(And for the record - I own many and carry daily)

Anonymous said...

I can't disagree with Michael's comments regarding "signing" ones name to what one writes. But, there is more to this universe of bloggers than that. For some, anonymity is actually essential. "How could that be?", might you ask. Well, for some individuals engaged in some occupations, or professions, even being pro-gun can be a job killer. It can also be an interview killer, if you're in the "search" mode.
How can one sell ones soul to the Liberal Devil? Easy, you need to put food on the table. You also are not at work to promote the 2A, or anything else that unfortunately has become politicized. You're there to just do your job and your private life must remain private.
Many will disagree, but for me, that's how it works.
I DO sign my name to all of my professional work. I DO also work in an industry that has been taken over, as most have by "HR-types" that are pure Liberal Terrorists and they filter resumes that don't conform to their view point. They "Google" your name and then pass judgement. You may not even know that it's going on.
Now, just so that we all know: Would you rather that we "anon's" just go away? If so, it was nice being here.
Life Member
P. S.: And no, I won't let the door........

Anonymous said...

I'm the anonymous that got ripped up above.

I can assure you I posted nothing I haven't said to friends, all of whom know my thoughts are most closely aligned to LIBERTARIAN and not LIBERAL.

My reasons for NOT signing my name do indeed have to do with my work, and the fact is, the mostly conservative, sometimes ultra-conservative folks I deal with every day are often just as obtuse on some issues as the libs are on others.

As some said above IDEAS matter more than who speaks them.

My mother used to recite this little plum:
Small minds gossip about people, average minds gossip about events, wise folks discuss ideas...

Like I said, in terms of a couple of issues, notably the 2nd and drug policy, the right and left may as well have traded jerseys and played for the other team.

The right NORMALLY wants to be left alone, the left wants a nanny.

But on drug policy the Right wants phohibition and all the nasty black market cum gangland money and degradation of society that goes with. On guns,they want hands off.

I want the government to print money and provide for the common defense, and not a whole lot more. If you want a gun, or to sleep with somebody of your own gender, or to smoke pot, or to marry someone of another race, or pray to a dead chicken, I say it ain't nobody's business but yers AS LONG AS you ain't trying to force me to do the same....

AlanR - said...

Arguing that carrying a gun isn't the same as being black is a straw man.

Sure one can't choose their color but one may choose their faith or even an opinion on any given subject but that is protected by the First Amendment.

Just because something is a choice doesn't mean that choice isn't protected.

Anonymous said...

I will start by pointing out that any one who reads the forum knows that I'm about as Conservative as you can be, they also know that I think the "War on Drugs" is a failed money pit that serves only as cover for the erosion of our Civil rights.
I will also draw the Anonymous poster's attention to the group "Pink Pistols". Gay's are probably among the most liberal members of Society, yet here is a group of them that support gun rights to the point of challenging, and defeating, the City of San Francisco, so your stereotype is flawed to begin with.
Further, while the right to arms, and voting rights are enshrined in our Constitution, thus making it "Law of the Land", I defy you to find similar references to "drugs" or "orientation". In fact, considering that the Founding Fathers were Christians, you should peruse the book of Leviticus to see what Christ had to say about Gays, and then reference some of the "Morals" laws that were in place in America until fairly recently.
The Constitution is just as interesting for what it DOES NOT say as for what it does, more people who are going to talk about it should READ IT .
Thomas C. Bogan

AlanR - said...

Re: The lack of reference to drugs and orientation.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendment cover both (and more) by virtue of the lack of reference.

Re: founded by Christians.

Most of the founding fathers were not Christian. Most of the founding fathers were deists of different sorts, including Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. The American Revolution was largely bankrolled by a Jew.