Discussions
Gays, Guns, and Self-Defense
Posted by johnbisceglia • 2/10/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: equality, guns, hate crimes, knives, prop 8, self-defense
Given that our country allows hate groups to organize and purchase hate (Prop H8), I’ve gone from being “anti-gun” to “pro-gun”...or at least pro-weapon.
Queers have enough problems in today's society. Aside from trying to navigate through American life without the same legal protections others rely on, we also try to avoid being murdered or seriously injured as the target of a hate crime.
So when government ITSELF fails miserably to offer EQUAL PROTECTION under the law, when the legal system and police regularly ignore hate crimes for what they are, and when the Federal Government ALLOWS a majority’s tyranny over a minority in the voting booth…..well, that makes an even STRONGER case for gun ownership. Or at the very least some serious thought about self-defense and possible weapons (knives, mace, baseball bat, lock and sock, etc.).
Some interesting resources here:
gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/2009/01/gays-and-self-defense-post-prop-8.html
User Comments
-
Guns are as much a part of the American history as the pilgrams and indians (Native Americans). Guns were in every house on the continent of North America for a couple hundred years, to ensure that hostiles did not invade your home and do harm to you or your family. They were there to provide food, safety, and security. Everyone in the house knew where the gun was, and how to handle it safely and employ it with deadly results when needed.
I think it is our RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to continue that tradition today, so that when our primary social defences (laws and police) fail to protect us, we are our own last line of defense! Through bogus attempts at Gun Control legislation, the government is only ridding the law abiding citizens of thier last line of defence, because criminals already have thier guns and the government does not know who they are... so when they take away our guns, we will truly be defenseless
An unarmed population is less likely to resist government tyrany because they do not have the means.
This extends to every citizen regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, race, whatever... -
I don't like guns. I prefer halberds, nodachi, katana, kunai, and longbows to solve problems that rational discourse cannot tackle.
-
Am with you there, I own 6 bows and know how to use them, everything from a Korean horse bow, compound to a recurve (also known as an Olympic bow)
gun are for pussies. -
I'm with you. I'd take a bow over a gun any day. -
When you can kill at 1000 yards with a bow... I will switch. Until then.. a bow of any kind is for kills under 75 yards that must be silent... or for shooting deer. Unless your a ninja... the bow as a long range weapon is a lost art. In the modern world... the only place for a bow is in the woods before and after rifle season.
As it happens, I can hit my 3 inch diameter target at 40 yards consistently... -
Im with madscientist on this one.
You grab your bow, i'll grab my gun. I really like my odds on that matchup.
-
-
Nature for the most part is heterosexual and human beings are for the most part heterosexual but there have been a small percentage of gay people throughout history...
Human beings should be judged by the content of their character...
Gays pose no threat to the hetrosexuality of mankind and should not be discriminated against...
Countries that have legalized gay marriage have remained heterosexual and have suffered few if any ill effects by allowing gay marriages...-
I'm not arguing for or against be clarifying a point here.
In a direct threat you are correct there really isn't but in an indirect sense some question this. That heterosexuality is natural as nature designed human bodies they way it did for productive purpose and that homosexuality as it does not have this purpose is unnatural. The threat perceived is moral values influence on other moral values. Both sides want their values protected but they do conflict.
As far as guns I am very pro arms guns or not because in America you have that as right. The founding fathers designed this not just for sport but for self preservation as well. This if ever under invasion or if the government ever turned on its people makes this key and was an aspect of this rights design. -
And that's why we need the right to own guns.
-
-
Gay's guns and self defense
I shot a gay person....it was self-defense!!
no??
wrong answer?? -
I don't see what the question or statement here is.
I thought every law abiding citizen had a right to arm him or herself. (in most states that is)-
Except in California... of all places where Barret Arms produces on of the most effective sniping rifles of all time the .50cal.... You as a civilian can not purchase or own one.
I am pretty sure that since the civil war, the National Government trumps the state government. Thus making this STATE law UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as it curbs or curtails the US Constitution's provision protected in the 2nd Amendment. -
Except in California... of all places where Barret Arms produces on of the most effective sniping rifles of all time the .50cal.... You as a civilian can not purchase or own one.
I am pretty sure that since the civil war, the National Government trumps the state government. Thus making this STATE law UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as it curbs or curtails the US Constitution's provision protected in the 2nd Amendment.
-
-
No guns. Yes gay marriage. That's what my children would say. -
Wow Polybore thought your discussion title was for a new specialist magazine.
As for US gun control it is up to you guys at the end of the day. If the US wants to have 3rd world rates of gun violence that is your democratic right.-
When guns are outlawed only the outlawas will have them. As for me, they can take my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands!
-
No one is advocating taking guns away from the police or military.
-
Oh Poly, many of the police are just as criminal as the criminals. They should not, I repeat not be the only ones allowed to have guns here.
-
-
crime decreases with concealed carry permits. outlawing guns wont make a major difference because you only stop the law abiding ones from getting them. the problem with that is - the law abiding ones aren't the problem. so as you can see it doesn't fix anything. look at prohibition and how effective that was. hopefully one can see that guns wouldn't be a largely different experience. like the saying goes guns dont kill people, people kill people. the method is relatively irrevelant because it doesnt matter. if one wants to do it they'll find the way. latin american gang menbers make their own guns. if it comes down to it how would one not expect us to do similar?
regardless, the founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms and we can do it and will continue to do it. constitutional amendments are extremely difficult to pass and being so divided on the issue support for this will never come easily. and even though i do not own any guns personally i believe i have the right to defend myself with them if i so choose to do so. -
Polybore is dead on! I get so sick of hearing how people should not own guns but police can have fully automatic weapons, tasers (which kill people), weapons that are "Less-Letahl", etc. They are the ones that you have to watch out for and are the reason that the founding fathers wanted us to be armed in the first place. -
Why not use though other weapons for home protection other than guns? Why not a weapon that just stuns people until police arrive?
Guns in the home have killed a lot of innocent people. They also get stolen. If someone steals only a stun weapon, it won't do as much harm.-
Like I said guns don't kill people; people kill people. And a stun gun won't protect you from the police if they ever turn against you. We had that right to defend ourselves against government as well (US vs British? Declaration of Independence? The King's Proclamation?).
-
Haven't you seen COPS... or read an issue of "Special Weapons for Law Enforcement"???? They routinely have stories of patrolmen having to taze a person 5-6-7 times or multiple officers having to do it... and in some cases they have had to draw thier service weapon and shoot the guy anyway. The point I am making here is that when your life or the lives of your family are threatened... you have to make sure that threat is neutralized completely. I for one do not want a home invader coming too before the police arrive because he is going to be PISSED....
Also, our rights to self defense are so severly hampered thanks to bleeding hear liberal judges, that criminals who are shot and wounded are filing civil suits against the victims of the intended crime for malicious wounding.
So... having been trained by Uncle Sam to eliminate threats once and once only from up close and personal to over a 1000yds away...I would have no problems stopping any threat....regardless of the source.
-
-
Mike,
I'll tell you exactly why. A "stun gun" requires direct contact with the assailant. Which is about as dangerous as you can get.
A tazer, has a single shot. If you miss, you have nothing but your strength against his.
If you think that gun control is the answer. Then ask yourself why the areas with the most strict gun-laws are always on the top of the gun violence statistics.-
There's a lot of bickering about the statistics surrounding gun laws, CSI. Regardless, I would rather rely on myself than the authorities. When seconds count, the first line of defense (cops, usually) are minutes away. If it comes down to my life versus the life of a murderer, the murderer dies. My mom always says, "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six."
On a side note, gun control isn't equivalent to gun abolition. -
Your mom is right.
Chances that the cops are going to stop someone before they manage to get to you are slim to none.
Gun control unfortunately only disarms the law-abiding population.
If guns are so dangerous, how come we never see mass shootings at gun-shows. Or NRA conventions?
Can you imagine someone trying that crap when everyone in the room is armed? -
Psychopath is as psychopath does. You can't blame the guns for school shootings, post office shootings, or crime.
Although, I do kinda sympathize with the liberals' fear of crazy fundamentalist Christians having enough weaponry to stock a small militia; if only for the fact that I would be a target. -
Actually, I DO blame them for much of it. especially the ones at VTech. To tell students that they can't defend themselves on campus, and then not having enough police to ensure that they are as safe as they would be if they could is unforgiveable.
Gun free zones only protect the criminals. -
You red herring'd, CSI. I said, "You can't blame the guns for school shootings..." You responded, "Actually, I DO blame them for much of it... To tell students that they can't defend themselves on campus..."
It seems you think I said "the gun control" instead of just "the guns." -
No that was my bad. I got mixed up in the "gun control" aspect.
I Blame gun control laws for prohibiting law-abiding civilians from protecting themselves.
When you do that, and at the same time don't stop crazies from carrying guns into a "gun-free zone". You end up with not only violating the second amendment, But the declaration of independence since you have taken away their right to "LIFE.. liberty and the pursuit of happiness". All to protect the would be gunman from being shot himself. -
[No that was my bad.]
Alright. Thought so.
[I Blame gun control laws for prohibiting law-abiding civilians from protecting themselves.]
Which is not irrational. The statistics on the gun control laws are unreliable (The false cause fallacy is used on both sides in different degrees). -
Mere statistics doesn't change the simple fact that a well trained armed student could have stopped the VTech gunman very quickly.
My assumption is that if there were many such students, they would have stopped him much sooner.
But the law prevents anyone who follows the law from carrying a firearm on most campuses. Leaving the gunman the only one in the equation that was armed.
Check out most mass shootings. They happen in "gun free zones". If that notion worked, there wouldn't be any shootings there.
Malls, Schools, anywhere the gunman can assume that his targets won't be able to shoot back. -
[My assumption is that if there were many such students, they would have stopped him much sooner.]
The problem with your assumption is that, even though unarmed, NONE OF THE VICTIMS had any defensive wounds. Kids nowadays just let themselves die like sheep.
-
-
Gays should not be allowed to have guns.-
-
Are you sure you meant to say it like that? Sounds ignorant and discriminatory.
Are you arguing that gays should not have the right, but heterosexuals should? Or are you arguing that nobody should have guns? Please clarify and, in the event of bigotry, please retract your claim if you cannot provide a rational argument for your statement. -
... ... ... ....... . ...... !? ...
-
was a joke
-
-
When one cannot always rely on the police, and when society considers a "vote on my family's legal worth" the same as a vote on school levies, building new bridges, or other issues, gays in SOME areas need self-defense.
PROP 8 has already led to more gays feeling the need to arm themselves against H8. Things will definitely get worse if we continue allowing popular votes on family rights.-
Get the gun. Learn how to use it with deadly precision. But, one note of caution to anyone who opts to get a gun for protection. IF YOU EVER PULL IT OUT, YOU BETTER USE IT. And remember DEAD MEN can't sue you for malicious wounding.
I am a firm believer in the Constitution, and the intentions behind every word that the founding fathers deliberately put there. I also am aware that every one of the founding fathers were devoted Christians. Having said that, I think that PROP8 was about defining not your family, but the word "Marriage". The vote upheld the current ENGLISH language understanding of a marriage as being a union of a man and woman or husband and wife. This understanding of the word goes back at least as far as the Bible. So in a country where the majority of people are Christian (if even by only a slight margin) did you really expect them to go all DEMOCRAT and change the legal definition of a word that carries with it religious significance?
Look, if your gay, great, I dont care who you sleep with (providing they are consenting adults). What you do or don't do in the privacy of your own home is no concern of mine. But when your rights to equal protection from the police, and equal justice for crimes committed against you are violated... then I have a real problem.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
