The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on August 10, 2009, 10:46:50 AM
-
http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d7-New-antigun-strategy-Demonize-CCW-holders
Bigotry assumes many forms, hides behind many facades, but always it is the same; the social demonization of entire groups, classes or races of people in an effort to make them appear inferior and detrimental by their very existence.
In the wake of a nasty multiple shooting at a Pittsburgh, PA-area fitness club by a not-so-clearly psychotic man identified as George Sodini, America’s gun prohibitionists – led by the Violence Policy Center and Freedom States Alliance – are clamoring for restrictions or repeal of concealed carry statutes.
In the case against legally-armed citizens, the VPC has even manufactured an innuendo-riddled “study” to support their prejudices. My colleague, Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner Daniel White, writes about the shooting here.
Their hardly subliminal argument appears to be that citizens licensed to carry concealed handguns for personal protection are a threat to the community. This contention is based on six shooting incidents over the past couple of years in which the gunman had, or apparently had, a carry permit.
A 39-year-old Ypsilanti man used his concealed weapon and his experience in the Lebanese army to stop an alleged bank robber.
Meanwhile, proponents of public disarmament haven’t said a thing about the estimated five million other citizens who are licensed to carry, and haven’t harmed anybody. There hasn’t been a peep from the gun prohibition lobby about the armed citizen who shot a convenience store robber in Virginia recently, heading off a bloodbath.
Nor have the gun grabbers mentioned the incident a week ago in Topeka, KS in which a legally-armed store clerk fended off two robbers at closing time. Self-defense Examiner Eric Puryear wrote about that incident here.
And you never heard applause from the hoplophobes – about whom I wrote the other day – after an Ypsilanti, MI man named Nabil Fawzi last year intervened in a bank robbery, did you?
An employee with a concealed carry license used his handgun to defend himself and stop a pair of criminals who tried to rob his shop.
Instead, what we get from the gun prohibitionists is a steady diet of fear mongering with but one purpose: The stripping of a fundamental civil right to keep and bear arms so that we lose our ability to exercise that most basic of human rights, that of self-preservation.
Nowadays, about the only form of acceptable overt social bigotry is against gun owners. The gun bigots argue that when one person with a gun does something heinous, all gun owners are expected to bear responsibility, and surrender their rights as though it would undo the crime.
Before the armed citizen, it was the owners of .50-caliber rifles who were likened to terrorists and cop-killers. Next week or next month, who will the prohibitionists smear in their effort to promote public hatred of fellow citizens whose only “crime” is that they exercise a constitutionally-protected civil right?
The VPC and Freedom States crowd would have us all believe that every armed citizen is just like George Sodini, and that he is like all of us; a killer waiting to strike.
While they are loathe to admit it, there is really no difference between gun bigots and racial or religious bigots. One form of class hatred is no less divisive than another.
-
Nice sentiment, piss poor argument. Since when did gun owners become victims? One of the things I dislike about the religious right is their absurd whining that white male Christian conservatives are "oppressed" Please! HTFU! The culture of victimology is a disease. Even if you are a victim, preach empowerment not whining. Anti-gun bigots? Hardly. Fools who can't read the plain language of the constitution is more like it. I won't tell them I'm oppressed, I'll tell tell them to repeal the 2A or kiss my ass. The day I whine that that mean Sarah Brady is discriminating against me, a poor oppressed victim, I will trade my AR in on a gun buy back for a $50 Wally mart voucher. Plese do not play the por victim card, that's what we have guns for in the first place right?
FQ13
-
Nice sentiment, piss poor argument. Since when did gun owners become victims? One of the things I dislike about the religious right is their absurd whining that white male Christian conservatives are "oppressed" Please! HTFU! The culture of victimology is a disease. Even if you are a victim, preach empowerment not whining. Anti-gun bigots? Hardly. Fools who can't read the plain language of the constitution is more like it. I won't tell them I'm oppressed, I'll tell tell them to repeal the 2A or kiss my ass. The day I whine that that mean Sarah Brady is discriminating against me, a poor oppressed victim, I will trade my AR in on a gun buy back for a $50 Wally mart voucher. Plese do not play the por victim card, that's what we have guns for in the first place right?
FQ13
I'll let Tom take this one. ::)
-
Nice sentiment, piss poor argument. Since when did gun owners become victims? One of the things I dislike about the religious right is their absurd whining that white male Christian conservatives are "oppressed" Please! HTFU! The culture of victimology is a disease. Even if you are a victim, preach empowerment not whining. Anti-gun bigots? Hardly. Fools who can't read the plain language of the constitution is more like it. I won't tell them I'm oppressed, I'll tell tell them to repeal the 2A or kiss my ass. The day I whine that that mean Sarah Brady is discriminating against me, a poor oppressed victim, I will trade my AR in on a gun buy back for a $50 Wally mart voucher. Plese do not play the por victim card, that's what we have guns for in the first place right?
FQ13
How about since we are the only group in America that are not protected from hate crimes? As much as I despise the culture that hero worships victimhood, whats good for their goose is good for our gander. Another example of your hypocrisy, It's bad to demonize "faggots" for spreading AIDS but demonizing ALL gun owners for the acts of a microscopic minority is OK ?
Your liberalism prevents you from admitting the difference between "whining" and justified verbalization of valid complaints.
Are you going to say the Founding Fathers were "whining" that that nasty old King George was taxing them ? Get a clue.
-
I'll let Tom take this one. ::)
Sorry Eric, I did not mean to go off on you, even at a distance. I am just sick and tired of political arguements being won by the most aggrieved (real or perceived) party. Since when did "I've suffered more than you" become a substitute for sound reasoning and adherence to basic Constitutional rights? If this seems an absurd position to you (which from your response it does) please tell me why. I am always happy to stand correscted and I come to this board to learn more than to teach. The floor is yours.
FQ13
-
How about since we are the only group in America that are not protected from hate crimes? As much as I despise the culture that hero worships victimhood, whats good for their goose is good for our gander. Another example of your hypocrisy, It's bad to demonize "faggots" for spreading AIDS but demonizing ALL gun owners for the acts of a microscopic minority is OK ?
Your liberalism prevents you from admitting the difference between "whining" and justified verbalization of valid complaints.
Are you going to say the Founding Fathers were "whining" that that nasty old King George was taxing them ? Get a clue.
A There should BE no such thing as a "hate" crime. All crimes are motivated by hate. The only exception should be an organized conspiracy, like Al Queda or the KKK and even then they should be hit with conspiracy charges. Anything else is punishing a thought crime.
B There is a difference between saying a constitutional (or in Founders, and this, case God given) right is being violated, and saying I am a victim of bigotry.
Same point, but very different ways of getting there. One relies on reason, tradition and law. The other on appealing to sloppy sentiment which ain't in our favor in the media, though it is in most Americans according to poll data. I really don't think we disagree on substance, its just a matter of style. I don't think arguing from a point of weakess, and making it a virtue, is either a good idea or healthy for the nation.
FQ13
-
Nice sentiment, piss poor argument. Since when did gun owners become victims? One of the things I dislike about the religious right is their absurd whining that white male Christian conservatives are "oppressed" Please! HTFU! The culture of victimology is a disease. Even if you are a victim, preach empowerment not whining. Anti-gun bigots? Hardly. Fools who can't read the plain language of the constitution is more like it. I won't tell them I'm oppressed, I'll tell tell them to repeal the 2A or kiss my ass. The day I whine that that mean Sarah Brady is discriminating against me, a poor oppressed victim, I will trade my AR in on a gun buy back for a $50 Wally mart voucher. Plese do not play the por victim card, that's what we have guns for in the first place right?
FQ13
Tom-
Put your glasses on buddy, there are two absurd statements there.
-
Tom-
Put your glasses on buddy, there are two absurd statements there.
So, your point is what Eric? Take your shot. I've answered Tom,adequately or not in your estimation. I would like to answer you. Just ask the question.
FQ13
-
So, your point is what Eric? Take your shot. I've answered Tom,adequately or not in your estimation. I would like to answer you. Just ask the question.
FQ13
I just think you are pointing out two groups who NEVER claim to be victims.... You are right on the money, that the whole "I'm a victim... Its not fair.... I am not responsible" mentality that has become so wide spread in our society is BS, but come on....
When its time to call a spade a spade, do it. You cant just write off something under the cover of "the victim mentality" when in fact, in this instance they are being specifically targeted.
As far as the religious right claiming oppression..... I mean how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that out ??? The religious right/white male Christians are probably the furthest 180 away from the victim mentality that it gets. Even though you could put being fed to the lions right up there with the atrocities of slavery that occurred in this country.... I'm sorry man, but I just dont hear Christians going around playing the victim card and asking for affirmative action/reparations/etc.
-
I just think you are pointing out two groups who NEVER claim to be victims.... You are right on the money, that the whole "I'm a victim... Its not fair.... I am not responsible" mentality that has become so wide spread in our society is BS, but come on....
When its time to call a spade a spade, do it. You cant just write off something under the cover of "the victim mentality" when in fact, in this instance they are being specifically targeted.
As far as the religious right claiming oppression..... I mean how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull that out ??? The religious right/white male Christians are probably the furthest 180 away from the victim mentality that it gets. Even though you could put being fed to the lions right up there with the atrocities of slavery that occurred in this country.... I'm sorry man, but I just dont hear Christians going around playing the victim card and asking for affirmative action/reparations/etc.
Ok Eric, thanks for your candor. I would like to take your questions in reverse order. The religious Right, at least Dobson, Robertson and The American Center For Law and Justice (a not half bad group) have been pitching this line for years. All the while the GOPcontrolled both houses of Congress, a conservative Christian sat in the White House and the Court had a 5-4 conservative majority. If this is oppresion deal me in. Understand this is not a substantive dispute. I disagree with Dobson, but that's not the point. The issue here is with buying into the culture of victimhood. I have the same issue with pro-choice groups who talk about past history, not fundamental rights (if you take the other side in the abortion debate thats fine, just accept it in arguendum). The days of saying women are weak and helpless are over. Just ask Palin or Hillary. The point is you should make your case out of logic, law and history.
As to your second point. Yes, the Anti's really are out to get us. So what? The question is what tactic do we use. Do we appear to be nanny state whiners that say they are bullies, or do we argue the facts about the benefits of SD and the small minority of folks who abuse a CCW? The facts are on our side, the law is on our side,the Constitution is on our side, history, tradition and common sense are on our side and if the polls are to be believed 80% of America is on our side. Why grovel and play the victim card in a bid for sympathy from the Oprah viewers who aren't likely to give it to you anyway? That is the only point of disagreement we have.
Peace
FQ13
-
Christians aren't oppressed ? What planet do YOU live on ? A nation founded on Christian principles, that guarantees religious freedom, no longer allows even the mention of prayer in it's schools, Prohibits Nativity scenes on the town commons they were put on for decades, and considers Christians, not Muslims, to be "potential terrorists". I'd say that's pretty damned discriminatory !
Also, what you classify as "whining" is the refrain that our enumerated Constitutional rights are being infringed.
-
Christians aren't oppressed ? What planet do YOU live on ? A nation founded on Christian principles, that guarantees religious freedom, no longer allows even the mention of prayer in it's schools, Prohibits Nativity scenes on the town commons they were put on for decades, and considers Christians, not Muslims, to be "potential terrorists". I'd say that's pretty damned discriminatory !
Also, what you classify as "whining" is the refrain that our enumerated Constitutional rights are being infringed.
Ok Tom
I had no idea that my posts would be so controversial. Yet I stand by what I've said and I think I've pretty much said what I have to say on this topic. I HATE Dr. Phil/Oprah Winfrey victimology as politics. As far as anti-Christian discrimination, I will say three things.
1 I am a Christistian. I don't hide it, dont apologize for it and anyone who's been on this board more than a week knows that.
2 I greatly oppose efforts to remove religious speech from the public square. Speech is speech, it should all be respected and protected.
3 I also do not believe in giving religious indoctrination to captive audiences. IE. reading a government approved prayer at the start of the school day. At a football game or a graduation cermony if its led by a student, great. A teacher tells me to bow my head and repeat after him, not so much.
This is not (or should not be) a difficult issue for reasonable folks to resolve, but oppression it ain't. Believe me, if Christians are being oppressed, rather than just annoyed by paranoid idiots, I'll let you know.
FQ13
-
We are having our Constitutional rights trampled, that is just as much oppression as slavery.
-
Quaker -
I think you just need to find out who pissed in your corn flakes this morning and kick their ass! For some reason your anger today has just gotten you a little off kilter about which argument to use where and why.
Now as a little tongue in cheek example of why your argument that Christians are out there playing the victim card is wrong:
Consider if you will the good "reverend" Jessie Jackson, and my close spiritual adviser and long time friend the "reverend" Al Sharpton..... Now, dont you think that if there was any money to be made from playing the "Christians are victims card", these two race hustlers would be shaking down any and all people/corporations they could? And especially now that "The Man" is now.... well.... a black man, and by definition their job as arbiters of all racial injustices is now no longer needed. The answer is because, although you can very easily make the that Christians are discriminated against on a daily basis, Christians are just not of the victim mentality.
But please remember that just because a certain demographic is experiencing success, it does not mean that they are not being discriminated against.
-
Quaker -
I think you just need to find out who pissed in your corn flakes this morning and kick their ass! For some reason your anger today has just gotten you a little off kilter about which argument to use where and why.
Now as a little tongue in cheek example of why your argument that Christians are out there playing the victim card is wrong:
Consider if you will the good "reverend" Jessie Jackson, and my close spiritual adviser and long time friend the "reverend" Al Sharpton..... Now, dont you think that if there was any money to be made from playing the "Christians are victims card", these two race hustlers would be shaking down any and all people/corporations they could? And especially now that "The Man" is now.... well.... a black man, and by definition their job as arbiters of all racial injustices is now no longer needed. The answer is because, although you can very easily make the that Christians are discriminated against on a daily basis, Christians are just not of the victim mentality.
But please remember that just because a certain demographic is experiencing success, it does not mean that they are not being discriminated against.
Sorry if I came off pissed, I'm really not. I stand by (and the facts stand with me) the fact that Roberston and Jay Sekulow of The American Center For Law and Justice (again not a bad group), play the victim card to rally the troops. As far as Sharpton and Jackson, they are the one's that annoyed me to begin with. They peddle in guilt for power and profit. I don't want to go down that road even if it is tactically advantageous (and I dont think it is as those suceptibable to it don't like us) it is strageically a bad idea. Why? Because it weakens the rational basis of this Republic and reduces argument to sympathy. I really do feel strongly about this and if there is piss in my Cheerios thats where it comes from. You and Tom, I can argue and reason with. Onrecess wanted to phsychoanlyse us and maybe have a cathartic cry. Thats the difference. If I'm wrong, tell me why. I'll listen, but don't give me a sob story about your great whatever. I didn't do it, can't change it, and its not going to help the problem we have now. Thart's why I don't like victimology. It ends rational discourse and replaces it with emotion. Something impervious to reason and evidence. Just like racism and fanaticsm it is is anathema to a democratic republic for just that reason.
FQ13