Skip to main content

View Diary: Colorado town officials prepare to quit en masse after council votes for guns in hearings (291 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If I said (10+ / 0-)

    "Being openly gay is a method of "normalizing" homosexuals in society, ie, let people see them, and in theory get comfortable with them and then the general/voting public will become more accepting and expand gay rights", and said this as a bad thing, you'd think I was an anti-gay bigot.

    Like this one
    and this one
    and this one
    and this one

    So I'm not sure your choice of phrasing places you in comfortable ideological territory vis-a-vis Daily Kos.

    Similarly, as far as "purpose" goes, I was not aware that it was part of the liberal platform to require third-party endorsement of "proper purpose" before we engage in non-criminal consensual acts.

    Would you go as far as to say advocacy groups should have to get prior approval to make sure their "purpose" was acceptable, lest they be shut down?

    •  Yeah, all of those homosexual mass murders are (3+ / 0-)

      appaling, aren't they. And it's amazing how they manage to do it without even using any firearms.

      Here's an idea, why don't we civilize those folks and get them to start packing a pistol on their hip. Or, hell, really mainline them and get them to open carry an AR-15?

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 07:40:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If there weren't so many gay bashers (5+ / 0-)

        Pink Pistols wouldn't exist.  

        I'd love to civilize gay bashers but it would have been difficult, like trying to persuade the Spanish Inquisition to believe in religious tolerance.  

        I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

        by DavidMS on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:12:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Congratulations! You win the bigot booby prize! (5+ / 0-)

        Today's award for lack of self-awareness goes to oldpotsmuggler, for failing to realize that bigots who equate things like homosexuality with pedophilia are ethically the same as those who equate gun owners with mass murderers.

        Today's booby prize pool includes a white hood, a badly spelled placard and a fetus on a stick. Please tell us which prize you want and where you want it shipped.

        •  This is the third diary I've seen RKBA members (6+ / 0-)

          either twist words of put words in people's mouths in order to then turn around and call them bigots.

          Do you guys go on a rotation system for these attacks? Draw straws?

          •  Go back and read the comments (4+ / 0-)

            "I find your open expression of a non-criminal and/or consensual behavior that I morally disapprove of to be a bad thing which should be banned, and I will characterize all people who do this with the absolute lowest and most criminal of people who share your characteristics."

            That would be an accurate description of both the homophobes I linked to, and the hoplophobes in this thread. For instance, oldpotsmuggler is making a clear link between "open carry" and "mass murderers". And when given a choice between criticizing his bigoted view or supporting it, you chose to support it. Classy.

            I point this out in the context of RKBA because other Kossacks are sensible enough that they do not need to be called out as racists, homophobes, misogynists, anti-Semites, etc., because they aren't. It's only on the matter of guns that the whole notion of what it means to be a liberal gets tossed in the trash. Because guns are a special snowflake for which the normal rules of liberal belief do not apply. It's like a special relief valve. Hooray, something we're allowed to be irrationally hateful about! I think this is a good point for a relevant Kossack quote:

            You seem out of touch with how more than half the country actually lives. When you project your imagination onto them, and paint all gun owners with a broad brush you reveal your tunnel vision and and a few other things about yourself, but contribute nothing to addressing the problems.
            If you find that the only difference between you and a hate-filled irrational bigot is the subject matter of the thing you are yammering about, there is a simple solution. Stop being that way.

            Or, you know, complain and play the victim card.

            •  Wait. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              Are you calling me a 'hate-filled irrational bigot' now?

              asdf.

              •  Are you? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, Neo Control

                Do you feel that non-criminal conduct (public or private) should be subject to the whims and fears of a moralizing and irrational third party?

                If not, then just say so in a straightforward manner and we can apply your answer to matters of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, reproductive choice, marijuana legalization, end-of-life decisions and guns.

                If you only agree with the first paragraph for everything but guns, then I cannot speak to the "hate-filled" part, but you could certainly qualify as "irrational" and the selective hypocrisy is certainly indicative of being a "bigot".

                Your choice.

                big·ot: noun ˈbi-gət\
                a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group
    •  Wow what an offensive load of horseshit. (6+ / 0-)

      Let me know when being gay in public FUCKING KILLS ANYONE

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:23:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It supposedly killed Matthew Shepard. (7+ / 0-)

        Though I believe those hateful sociopaths would have chosen anyone, for any reason, and Matthew was just one of several likely targets of opportunity.

        He could have been female, Latino, African-American, Asian, or Native-American.  
        Instead his visible minority was gay, which, like James Byrd Jr's being black, was "the reason" for some really hateful people went well beyond the "mere" act of murder.

      •  Being drunk in people gets people killed.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shamash, Neo Control, FrankRose

        .... a very small percentage of the time anyways.  We aren't outlawing alcohol, are we?

        You attribute the actions of a infinitesimal percentage of gun owners to all gun owners.

        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

        by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:04:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Being opening gay doesn't lead to a bullet (3+ / 0-)

      accidentally or intentionally killing someone.

      When someone's idea of "freedom" interferes with a peaceful public square - there is a problem.

      And, FYI, my gay friends and family don't agree with you.

      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

      by We Shall Overcome on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 06:40:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How does OC necessarily (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        interfere with the peaceful public square?

      •  My firearm has never interfered with the peaceful (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kasoru, FrankRose

        public square, so why do you have a problem with me carrying it?

        There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

        by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 07:37:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As far as you know - can you read minds? Many (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          people feel threatened at the site of a gun. Many people feel very uncomfortable at the site of a gun.

          It blows me away that open carry supporters don't respect people who feel that way.

          "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

          by We Shall Overcome on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:06:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not an open carry "supporter". (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, Kasoru

            So fail for knowing who you're talking to and what his position on the issue is.  I do not advocate for open carry.  Personally I won't do it, except while hiking by myself in the wilderness, because I'd rather retain the element of surprise.

            This argument is bullshit though:

            Many people feel very uncomfortable at the site of a gun.
            Your irrational fears are not my problem.  Many people feel very uncomfortable at the site of an interracial couple, something tells me your response to such people would be "Get over it"

            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

            by Crookshanks on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 12:27:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  So, the core of this belief is... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kasoru, FrankRose
        When someone's idea of "freedom" interferes with a peaceful public square - there is a problem.
        Explain it to me. How exactly is this not the very definition of bigotry when no crime is being committed and the only interference is in the minds of observers? Remember, we are not talking about anyone violating the law here. If they are open carrying and open carry is illegal, then yeah, they're breaking the law. If they are threatening or overtly intimidating someone, likewise.

        Officer, that scary nigger, spic, kike, raghead, faggot, gun nut is interfering with my enjoyment of this public place by their offensive and intimidating presence. Please have them removed at once.

        •  Open carry supporters are ignoring people. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          Many people feel bullied at the site of a gun. Many people feel threatened at the site of a gun. The planning commission in Castle Rock does not want to have heated exchanges with armed people for obvious reasons.

          I'm not calling you a gun nut. You are making that up out of whole cloth. The gun is the issue - not the person. Guns are not people, my friend.

          Calling me bigoted is similar to "shall not infringe" line - it's meant to shut down debate.

          I am happy to debate open carry on the merit, but please don't hide behind charges of bigotry.

          "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

          by We Shall Overcome on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:20:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I fail to see your point (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kasoru, FrankRose

            Just because "many people" feel threatened at the sight of a homosexual african-american gun owner does not seem to be any rational basis for restricting their presence. Just because a bigot says "blacks as a group commit more violent crimes than whites" does not justify singling out blacks in public as a specially restricted group (aka "stop & frisk").

            If someone crosses the street or reflexively locks their car doors when they see a black man coming towards them, you would probably think that person was overreacting and possibly harbors some sort of irrational bias.

            But apparently someone who does the same thing upon seeing a gun owner is being objective and rational? Does not compute.

            Guns are not the issue. Guns are never the issue. Guns don't do anything unless a person is there to do something with it. So, feeling threatened by me because I have a gun is feeling threatened by me because of who I am as a person. I regularly carry a knife. I carry it for utility purposes, but it is long and sharp enough to kill a person. Upon seeing the sheath for my folding knife openly carried on my belt, would you feel the same unease, knowing that many people are stabbed to death by total strangers each year? Probably not.

            You as a liberal either assume trust as a default position, or you do not.

            So, if you want to shut down any accusations or implications of bigotry and engage in rational debate of this important subject, then simply state that your feelings about risk in public and the restrictions on individual conduct that you think should be applied are consistent with the level of risk. In which case your opinion on public carry will be the same as your opinion for everything with that approximate level of risk and we can take the discussion from there.

            Seems easy enough.

            •  Well, that's one way to think of it. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              And again - you keep changing the subject. We started out on open carry, then you moved the goalposts to "gun nut" and now you again move the goal posts to "gun owner".

              Not all gun owners open carry nor want to.

              I don't have a problem with gun owners. I have a problem with OC, as do a lot of gun owners, themselves.

              "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

              by We Shall Overcome on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:42:34 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've noticed that when push comes to shove (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, Kasoru

                few if any gun control advocates want to be put on the spot when it comes to declaring they have ethical consistency and a rational assessment of risk. Twice in this subthread people have been challenged to do so and absolutely refused to do so.

                There could be any number of reasons for this, but the most likely is that they would not be able to hold their current gun control views if they did. Which says a lot about them, or in this case, you.

                It is hard to have a rational debate when the other party outright refuses to state that their position is rational.

                •  That's a rather vague comment - not sure what (0+ / 0-)

                  you are getting at.

                  I would venture that a large % of gun owners are against OC - do these people also lack ethical consistency?

                  "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                  by We Shall Overcome on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 01:41:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site