The Gun

In this story about people running from defeat in America, I got stuck on this quote:

“I do love my country and it hurts me very deeply to see what’s happening here, to see us so far off course,” she said. “But I’ve met a lot of evangelicals and they believe it deeply. They’d rather vote for fetuses and against gay people, rather than voting against war, with thousands dead, against guns, which we know kill people. When you’re talking about deeply held religious beliefs, you’re out of luck.”

There are so many things to fisk in that one statement, but there is one that I must address. “…guns, which we know kill people.” If there was ever a statement that embodied the culture war, that is it.

When I see a gun, I do not think, “This gun will kill someone someday.” I think that the person above does, and it disturbs me to think of what this does to that person’s psyche. When I look at a gun, I think about lots of things. I think about the ingenuity of the person who designed it. I think about the craftsmanship embodied in the elegant machine. But when it comes to the purpose of the gun, killing is furthest from my thoughts. I think, Someday, this gun might save someone’s life.

One of my favorite television programs is Tales of the Gun, and I think it has one of the most insightful introductions that I have ever heard:

The gun has played a critical role in history. An Invention which has been praised and denounced, served hero and villain alike… and carries with it moral responsibility. To understand the gun is to better understand history.

What does this person think when they see a police officer with a pistol on his hip? “One day this cop is going to kill someone?” God forbid that he have to kill someone some day! What do they think when they see a soldier? “That guy is a Killer.” He isn’t a Killer. Killing is incidental to what he does, just like the policeman. He protects. He liberates. He saves.

To understand the gun is to better understand history. The gun is an extension of the personal projectile weapon. It harkens back to the English Yeoman. He is the soldier that won the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. For the first time, a commoner, a peasant, could slaughter charging Noble Knights. They could kill their “betters.” Think about what that means. For the first time, the English Yeoman and the French Noble were equals.

This carried, with momentum. That momentum started with the Magna Carta in 1297 and culminated in The Declaration of Independence in 1776. America exists because the people who were not “the authorities” were armed and able to fight, and yes, kill, those who were in authority. The gun should be remembered not for serving the villain, but the hero. It was the gun that rounded up the Jews for the camps, and it was the gun that liberated them from it. It was the gun that plunged East Germany into communism and the gun that saved West Germany. For every gun that murders someone on the street, there are a hundred, or a thousand, that will save someone’s life.

Guns are a fact of life. They are all around us, all over the world. If you live in fear of the gun, then you must live in total fear. I can think of few things that are more debilitating and damaging that living in constant fear. Go buy a gun. If nothing else, you are buying a gun that you know won’t “kill people”. Use it. Conquer your fear, and learn the difference between Audie Murphy and Adolph Hitler.

44 Comments

  1. Alex D. says:

    I’m curious as to where people get these assumptions. If I’m not mistaken, it is possible to shoot someone without killing him/her. Plus the fact that another person must make the decision to pull the trigger before a gun can do anything.

  2. skh says:

    Alex D., they make these assumptions because they are simpletons who haven’t matured enough to reason through their emotional-based reality. Liberals use words such as “mean,” “fair,” and “hateful” as if they are proof of something. Specifically, liberals think people who own killer guns are “mean” or “heartless” and aren’t joining their idea of a collective utopia.

    There’s nothing we can do to disabuse them of their asinine notions except cast ridicule in their direction. Pfft.

  3. Aidan says:

    where do you get the idea that on average, liberals seek to deprive you of your guns?

    i’ve spent time on many liberal mailing lists & internet forums over the past year, and I haven’t seen discussion on this issue.

    liberals don’t care much at all about your guns, in fact. they really don’t have some secret plan to take your toys away from you.

    are you a jesus freak? an ‘evangelical’?

  4. Phelps says:

    http://www.vpc.org/
    http://www.bradycampaign.org/
    http://www.gunowners.org/108anatb.htm

    (We call that “the horse’s mouth.”)

    And since I don’t believe in the resurection and see no point in worshiping a zombie messiah, I would say that “jesus freak” and “evangelical” would be pretty far off the mark.

  5. Aidan says:

    >http://www.vpc.org/
    >http://www.bradycampaign.org/
    >http://www.gunowners.org/108anatb.htm
    >
    >(We call that “the horse’s mouth.”)

    what did Clinton do to resctrict your access to guns?

    Are the above links representative of Democratic party policy, by the way?

  6. skh says:

    See? A perfect example of a juvenile moonbat. Mouthing the epithet-du-jour of the leftists: “jesus freak.” This wretched sap can’t even find examples of Democrats suppressing firearm ownership. What does that tell you?

    Aidan, as much as it might pain you to discover, Demmocrats actually have more on their agenda than “REDEFEATING BUSH!!!” By your goofy-assed comments above, you aren’t worth much of a discussion.

  7. Phelps says:

    I’m not going to play “whack-a-mole” with you, so this is the last stupid question I’m answering. This is what Clinton did: the Assault (i.e. scary looking gun) Ban and the Brady Bill. Two laws that were so egregious that they were enough to lose the Democrats control of the house and send Newt Gingrich to power. Yes, the above links are representative of the Democratic party in the same way that the NRA is representative of the Republican party.

    BTW, that was the same election cycle (1995) that Democrat darling Ann Richards lost the governership here in Texas. She lost because she vetoed the Concealed Carry Bill in the state over the objections of a wide majority of Texas voters. Once she was gone, the state legislature sent it back to the Governer’s Mansion, and the new governer, George W. Bush signed it.

  8. Aidan says:

    >I’m not going to play “whack-a-mole” with you, so
    >this is the last stupid question I’m answering.

    i’d say my questions are unimformed rather than stupid. i am uninformed (on this issue) because i don’t care about this issue. ๐Ÿ™‚ Also, I can’t be bothered following your links. Please give me a single paragraph explaining why Clinton’s moves were so terribly offensive to you. What is the problem — you still had your precious hand-guns, right?

    >Yes, the above links are representative of the >Democratic party in the same way that the NRA is >representative of the Republican party.

    that means nothing to me.

  9. Aidan says:

    >See? A perfect example of a juvenile moonbat.
    >Mouthing the epithet-du-jour of the leftists:
    >”jesus freak.”

    “jesus freak” is old school, it is not ‘du jour’.

    1 in 5 of us the electorate is ‘evangelical’… I am most interested to meet one.

    I seek to classify the nature of pelp’s homophobia — does it stem from religious teaching for example?

    >This wretched sap can’t even find
    >examples of Democrats suppressing firearm
    >ownership. What does that tell you?

    it tells you I find the topic unstimulating, and can’t be bothered googling on it for the finer details.

    what I wanted to convey is that this is not an issue of vital importance to self-identified liberals, as far as I can tell.

    >Aidan, as much as it might pain you to discover,
    >Demmocrats actually have more on their agenda
    >than “REDEFEATING BUSH!!!”

    no, that wouldn’t pain me at all.

    >By your goofy-assed comments above, you aren’t
    >worth much of a discussion.

    here’s your chance to explain to a self-identified liberal just why it’s so important for you to have an arsenal in your back yard.

  10. thuperman says:

    Adian,
    Why don’t you tell Phelps how to give a reach around!

  11. Phelps says:

    Let me get this straight:

    * You jump into a discussion about a subject that you admit you are completely ignorant of and have no basis to argue about

    * You ask a question that insinuates that you think that it isn’t an issue

    * You refuse to actually read the answer to your question

    * what knowledge you do claim to have is demostrably false (“not an issue of vital importance”)

    Am I on the right track there?

    You want the one paragraph answer to the Clinton question? He signed a bill that attempted to create a firearm registry (which Nazi Germany, Britain and Australia show is the first step to confiscation), he oversaw at least two systematic and condoned murders (Waco and Ruby Ridge) in pursuit of disamament, he signed specious bans on regular capacity magazines and “scary looking” weapons, and he oversaw the DOJ that argued that the 2nd Amendment gave no protection to individuals.

    You want to know why it is “so important to have an arsenal”? Because I am a Free Man.

  12. Aidan says:

    >Let me get this straight:
    >
    >* You jump into a discussion about a subject that
    >you admit you are completely ignorant of and have
    >no basis to argue about

    I’ve seen no heated discussion re: guns or the necessesity for gun control on the 30+ liberal forums I visit. This is a non-issue for most liberals (or at least, for most on-line liberals), or at most an issue of low importance relative to the many other pressing issues of the day.

    >You ask a question that insinuates that you think
    >that it isn’t an issue

    well, i know it isn’t an issue for me (or for most of the liberals I encoutner on-line… ๐Ÿ™‚ … apparently it’s a motiviating issue for you.

    >You refuse to actually read the answer to your
    >question

    i would like a concise 1 para answer to my question. 3 web-links (with no explanatory comment from you) looks like too much hard work. ๐Ÿ™‚

    >* what knowledge you do claim to have is
    >demostrably false (“not an issue of vital
    >importance”)

    you’d need to demonstrate that the views expressed on those web-links you supplied are representative of the views of liberals in general.

    >Am I on the right track there?

    i’d say you’re being a bit of a drama queen, frankly.

    >You want the one paragraph answer to the Clinton
    >question? He signed a bill that attempted to
    >create a firearm registry (which Nazi Germany,
    >Britain and Australia show is the first step to
    >confiscation),

    on face value, sounds like a good idea to me. i imagine such a registry would help enormously with law enforcement efforts. don’t you have your precious amendment to protect you from confiscation?

    >he oversaw at least two systematic and condoned
    >murders (Waco and Ruby Ridge) in pursuit of
    >disamament,

    i can’t take this seriously.

    >he signed specious bans on regular capacity
    >magazines and “scary looking” weapons,

    (specious, like a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in eleven states where gay marriage is already banned?)

    which impacted on you how? were these the bans that bush allowed to expire just recently? are you talking about automatic assault weapons with monstrous killing power?

    >and he oversaw the DOJ that argued that the 2nd
    >Amendment gave no protection to individuals.
    >
    >You want to know why it is “so important to have
    >an arsenal”? Because I am a Free Man.

    which means what?
    doesn’t the nra donate money to both parties?

  13. Aidan says:

    >* what knowledge you do claim to have is
    >demostrably false (“not an issue of vital
    >importance”)

    now be reasonable–I did qualify that statement with “as far as I can tell”. Who knows, maybe the numerous liberals I have interacted with over the past few years on on-line political forums are not representative of liberals in the us, in general, re: their attitudes re: guns.

  14. Aidan says:

    >Why don’t you tell Phelps how to give a reach
    >around!

    I have no idea what a “reach around” is.

  15. Phelps says:

    >You want the one paragraph answer to the Clinton
    >question? He signed a bill that attempted to
    >create a firearm registry (which Nazi Germany,
    >Britain and Australia show is the first step to
    >confiscation),

    on face value, sounds like a good idea to me. i imagine such a registry would help enormously with law enforcement efforts. don’t you have your precious amendment to protect you from confiscation?

    Do you actually think about the positions you hold, or do you just pick an opponent and then nay-say whatever he says?

    A ballistics registry has been created in Maryland
    for about $2.1MM. It has aided in the conviction of -zero- criminals. There are 220MM firearms in America, and 99% of them will never be used in a crime. Canada has a firearms registry, and, AFAIK, the only crimes it has aided in the conviction of are “failure to register a firearm.”

    The simple fact that cuts to the heart of all the liberal “take away the guns” plans is that criminals are already prohibited from buying and having guns, and it has never disarmed them. Criminals don’t buy guns from dealers. They don’t buy them from gunshows. They buy them from other criminals. Even in states that have complete bans, like Australia and Britain, criminals have no problems getting armed.

    >he oversaw at least two systematic and condoned
    >murders (Waco and Ruby Ridge) in pursuit of
    >disamament,

    i can’t take this seriously.

    That they happened or that they were murders? When FBI snipers shoot and kill an unarmed woman in her own house over the accusations of a paid informant, what do you call it? When FBI snipers (including the same sniper as the earlier killing) fire on people escaping a burning building — that the FBI set on fire — what do you call it?

    >he signed specious bans on regular capacity
    >magazines and “scary looking” weapons,

    (specious, like a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in eleven states where gay marriage is already banned?)

    which impacted on you how? were these the bans that bush allowed to expire just recently? are you talking about automatic assault weapons with monstrous killing power?

    Specious in that they really didn’t do anything to address safety in any sense, but were seen as a way to “ease the public into accepting a blanket ban”. It didn’t ban “automatic assault weapons with monstrous killing power.” Those have been banned in America for over 70 years (National Gun Act of 1932, modeled after the Nazi plan). It banned semi-automatic guns (functionally the same as deer rifles firing the exact same ammunition) with more than two cosmetic features that made them look scary, like pistol grips and bayonets.

    It isn’t the same as gay marriage ban. A firearms ban actually prevents someone from doing something. A gay marriage ban wouldn’t prevent anything. No one will be able to send SWAT teams out at 3am to bust into someone’s bedroom and arrest two women for “living in matrimony.” Gay marriage is about the recognition of a so-called right that has never before existed. It is a thin veil for government sanction of homosexuality, and the American public has, to date, totally rejected it.

    It is amusing in that all of the numbers showed that America would go for a civil union plan, until the militants pushed hard on the word “marriage” and poisoned the well.

  16. Aidan says:

    >>on face value, sounds like a good idea to me. i
    >>imagine such a registry would help enormously
    >>with law enforcement efforts. don’t you have your
    >>precious amendment to protect you from
    >>confiscation?
    >
    >Do you actually think about the positions you
    >hold, or do you just pick an opponent and then
    >nay-say whatever he says?

    You appear to have a problem parsing my sentences and accurately interpreting meaning. I said: “on face value…”, and expected you to fill me in on the ‘reasons’ why I was ‘wrong’. This is the second time. Try not to be such an asshole, I’m here (in this particular thread) to learn. ๐Ÿ™‚

    >A ballistics registry has been created in Maryland
    >for about $2.1MM. It has aided in the conviction
    >of -zero- criminals. There are 220MM firearms in
    >America, and 99% of them will never be used in a
    >crime. Canada has a firearms registry, and,
    >AFAIK, the only crimes it has aided in the
    >conviction of are “failure to register a firearm.”

    These poorly sketched examples you give don’t convince me that such a program would be useless. What the stated aim of registration in Canada & Maryland, by the way? What is “2.1MM”?

    Are cars, trucks, etc. required to be licensed in your country, by the way?

    >The simple fact that cuts to the heart of all the
    >liberal “take away the guns” plans is that

    you’ve moved from “firearm registration” to “liberals taking away the guns”.

    >criminals are already prohibited from buying and
    >having guns, and it has never disarmed them.
    >Criminals don’t buy guns from dealers. They don’t
    >buy them from gunshows. They buy them from other
    >criminals. Even in states that have complete
    >bans, like Australia and Britain, criminals have
    >no problems getting armed.

    are most murders committed by so-called criminals, or rather by relatives, friends, co-workers, etc?

    >That they happened or that they were murders?
    >When FBI snipers shoot and kill an unarmed woman
    >in her own house over the accusations of a paid
    >informant, what do you call it? When FBI snipers
    >(including the same sniper as the earlier
    >killing) fire on people escaping a burning
    >building — that the FBI set on fire — what do
    >you call it?

    I call it a conspiracy theory.
    I call it a botched job, a fuck-up, but not indicative of a sinister government plan to deprive all gun freaks of their toys.

    >Specious in that they really didn’t do anything >
    >to address safety in any sense, but were seen as
    >a way to “ease the public into accepting a
    >blanket ban”. It didn’t ban “automatic assault
    >weapons with monstrous killing power.” Those have
    >been banned in America for over 70 years
    >(National Gun Act of 1932, modeled after the Nazi
    >plan). It banned semi-automatic guns
    >(functionally the same as deer rifles firing the
    >exact same ammunition) with more than two
    >cosmetic features that made them look scary, like
    >pistol grips and bayonets.

    in other words, it was aimed at placating (shutting up) the small faction of folx under the Democratic umbrella who wanted gun control. It was a very minor offering, very limited in scope, preventing the majority of gun owners from becoming too terribly outraged. why are you making such a big deal out of it?

    >It isn’t the same as gay marriage ban. A firearms
    >ban actually prevents someone from doing
    >something. A gay marriage ban wouldn’t prevent
    >anything. No one will be able to send SWAT teams
    >out at 3am to bust into someone’s bedroom and
    >arrest two women for “living in matrimony.” Gay
    >marriage is about the recognition of a so-called
    >right that has never before existed. It is a thin
    >veil for government sanction of homosexuality,
    >and the American public has, to date, totally
    >rejected it.

    gay marriage is about the right to equal protection under the law. about a third of the American public support same-sex marriage; another third support civil unions for same-sex couples.

    >It is amusing in that all of the numbers showed
    >that America would go for a civil union plan,
    >until the militants pushed hard on the word
    >”marriage” and poisoned the well.

    where did you get this version of history? no-one pushed hard on the word marriage, the Massachucetts SC judged that civil unions were an illegal solution and asked the legislature to make changes that would allow same-sex couples to marry. that is what sparked the backlash off. But xian fundamentalists in your country were never willing to allow civil unions, either — hence their over-reaching federal marriage amendment, seeking to ban smae-sex civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. It’s only a matter of time before this issue hits the federal supreme court; then you will see same-sex marriage legalized nationwide. ๐Ÿ™‚

  17. Aidan says:

    so phelps, if I came on to you, flirted with you, would you shoot me with your gun?

  18. Phelps says:

    >A ballistics registry has been created in Maryland
    >for about $2.1MM. It has aided in the conviction
    >of -zero- criminals. There are 220MM firearms in
    >America, and 99% of them will never be used in a
    >crime. Canada has a firearms registry, and,
    >AFAIK, the only crimes it has aided in the
    >conviction of are “failure to register a firearm.”

    These poorly sketched examples you give don’t convince me that such a program would be useless. What the stated aim of registration in Canada & Maryland, by the way? What is “2.1MM”?

    2,100,000 Dollars. Real dollars, not Australian dollars.

    Are cars, trucks, etc. required to be licensed in your country, by the way?

    Yup. It is a tax collection scheme. It results in absolutely no safety improvements or crime prevention. It just pays for the roads.

    >criminals are already prohibited from buying and
    >having guns, and it has never disarmed them.
    >Criminals don’t buy guns from dealers. They don’t
    >buy them from gunshows. They buy them from other
    >criminals. Even in states that have complete
    >bans, like Australia and Britain, criminals have
    >no problems getting armed.

    are most murders committed by so-called criminals, or rather by relatives, friends, co-workers, etc?

    Criminals. Average people do not commit violent crimes. People who commit violent crimes generally have a long history of violence.

    Go here and scroll down to “Friends and Family”. Also see here (The first one is only a paragraph. I’m sure you can handle it. No one will laugh if you have to move your lips while you read it.)

    >That they happened or that they were murders?
    >When FBI snipers shoot and kill an unarmed woman
    >in her own house over the accusations of a paid
    >informant, what do you call it? When FBI snipers
    >(including the same sniper as the earlier
    >killing) fire on people escaping a burning
    >building — that the FBI set on fire — what do
    >you call it?

    I call it a conspiracy theory.
    I call it a botched job, a fuck-up, but not indicative of a sinister government plan to deprive all gun freaks of their toys.

    “Part of the plan?” No. Collateral damage? Absolutely. The point that the government became responsible is when they refused to prosecute the sniper for murder and therefore condoned the killing.

    >Specious in that they really didn’t do anything >
    >to address safety in any sense, but were seen as
    >a way to “ease the public into accepting a
    >blanket ban”. It didn’t ban “automatic assault
    >weapons with monstrous killing power.” Those have
    >been banned in America for over 70 years
    >(National Gun Act of 1932, modeled after the Nazi
    >plan). It banned semi-automatic guns
    >(functionally the same as deer rifles firing the
    >exact same ammunition) with more than two
    >cosmetic features that made them look scary, like
    >pistol grips and bayonets.

    in other words, it was aimed at placating (shutting up) the small faction of folx under the Democratic umbrella who wanted gun control. It was a very minor offering, very limited in scope, preventing the majority of gun owners from becoming too terribly outraged. why are you making such a big deal out of it?

    Because it was wrong.

    >It isn’t the same as gay marriage ban. A firearms
    >ban actually prevents someone from doing
    >something. A gay marriage ban wouldn’t prevent
    >anything. No one will be able to send SWAT teams
    >out at 3am to bust into someone’s bedroom and
    >arrest two women for “living in matrimony.” Gay
    >marriage is about the recognition of a so-called
    >right that has never before existed. It is a thin
    >veil for government sanction of homosexuality,
    >and the American public has, to date, totally
    >rejected it.

    gay marriage is about the right to equal protection under the law. about a third of the American public support same-sex marriage; another third support civil unions for same-sex couples.

    Two-thirds is “total rejection”. 66% > 33%. In American terms, this is a “supermajority” and is sufficient to pass pretty much any law (including a constitutional amendment. The mechanics are different — 3/4 of the states ratifying, yadda yadda — but a 66/33 split is the demographics you need to get 3/4 of the states.)

    >It is amusing in that all of the numbers showed
    >that America would go for a civil union plan,
    >until the militants pushed hard on the word
    >”marriage” and poisoned the well.

    where did you get this version of history? no-one pushed hard on the word marriage, the Massachucetts SC judged that civil unions were an illegal solution and asked the legislature to make changes that would allow same-sex couples to marry. that is what sparked the backlash off. But xian fundamentalists in your country were never willing to allow civil unions, either — hence their over-reaching federal marriage amendment, seeking to ban smae-sex civil unions as well as same-sex marriage. It’s only a matter of time before this issue hits the federal supreme court; then you will see same-sex marriage legalized nationwide. ๐Ÿ™‚

    I’m wondering where you got your version of reality. The SCOTUS isn’t stupid; if they wanted gay marriage to be the law of the land, the last thing they would do is a Roe type ruling that made it mandatory nationwide. What that would do is intensify the backlash and cause an amendment to be passed. I’m not sure if you are aware of it, but once a constitutional amendment is passed, the SCOTUS is absolutely, totally powerless to do anything about it. A new amendment must be ruled as superior to anything previous in the constitution, which would mean there are no longer any, say, 14th amendment arguments about it.

    Right now, a marriage amendment is dead in the water — not because people disagree with it, but because Americans are wary of amending our constitution without a clear and pressing need. Right now, with it being a state-by-state issue (and the full faith and credit issue not relevant yet) it isn’t a pressing issue. A SCOTUS ruling that imposed it would make it a pressing issue, and I would expect to see an amendment within three years banning same-sex marriage nationwide and annulling all gay marriages entered into in the process.

    In fact, it might go far enough that it would apply to people who simply called themselves husband and husband rather than just the issue of legal recognition. It would be the ultimate irony of the gay agenda succeeded in causing the state to gain the power of sending SWAT teams out at 3am to arrest people for “living in matrimony.”

  19. Mexigogue says:

    gay marriage is about the right to equal protection under the law. about a third of the American public support same-sex marriage; another third support civil unions for same-sex couples.

    I bet you, Aiden, that if you come to the United States and apply for a marriage license to marry a woman they will grant it. They won’t say “You’re not allowed to marry because you’re gay.” You can marry a woman just like a hetero man can marry a woman. So your equal protection argument is false. What’s more is that you know it.

  20. Phelps says:

    Actually, I think he would run into some problems with la’migra, but essentially you are right.

  21. guy in the UNLV jacket says:

    I like phelps “Whack a Mole” analogy with Adain. I wonder if he knows “Fantastic Dan”

  22. Aidan says:

    >>gay marriage is about the right to equal
    >>protection under the law. about a third of the
    >>American public support same-sex marriage;
    >>another third support civil unions for same-sex
    >>couples.

    >I bet you, Aiden,

    who is “Aiden”?

    >that if you come to the United States and apply >for a marriage license to marry a woman they will >grant it.

    Mexi, I am a gay man. Why would I want to enter into a civil marriage (i.e., a loving and voluntary union between two equal individual – recognised by the state) with a woman?

    >They won’t say “You’re not allowed to marry
    >because you’re gay.” You can marry a woman just
    >like a hetero man can marry a woman. So your
    >equal protection argument is false. What’s more
    >is that you know it.

    Mexi, was the ban on mixed-race marriages in the USA (prior to the 1967 SC ruling) wrong? Blacks had the same rights as whites. They could marry someone of the same race. No-one said, “You can’t marry because you are black”. Blacks could marry a black, just like whites could marry a white. Same rights for everyone. All perfectly acceptable, fair, just, etc., right????????????

    I’ll respond to phelps’ crap later.

    BTW why didn’t phelps answer my question? If I came onto him, flirted with him, etc., would he blow me away with his love gun?

  23. Aidan says:

    >I like phelps “Whack a Mole” analogy with Adain.
    >I wonder if he knows “Fantastic Dan”

    what r u idiots doing here?

    so you have known Mexi since you were both about 10 years old? that might explain the adolescent routine you have going with each other. or maybe you’ve watched too much south park.

  24. Phelps says:

    I didn’t respond because I thought it was just a crude double entendre. No, I doubt I would be very likely to shoot you. Queers have hit on me before and I didn’t shoot any of them, so unless there is an element that you didn’t add, no, I think history would hold.

    If you, say, hit on me and also pulled a knife and said you were going to rape me, then I would give you a sucking chest wound, but it wouldn’t be the flirting that did it.

  25. Aidan says:

    >So your equal protection argument is false.
    >What’s more is that you know it.

    that stupid amendment to your own state’s constitution will no doubt be over-turned on grounds of due process, it not only prevents gays from accessing marriage, but also from accessing civil unions, an unnecessary, unwarranted and not to mention unfair (as in, ‘unequal treatment’) intrusion into the affairs of gay citizens of Michigan, from your state government, serving no real purpose other than to send a signal that the current legislature disapproves of homosexuals and their relationships. Of course in the meantime thousands of gay families — many raising children — may lose their health insurance, and other so-called benefits. Shame on you, you selfish piece of shit. BTW I hope you don’t think ‘you’ (as in, the homophobes) are going to prevail. Time is on ‘our’ (i.e., queers’) side. Support for gay marriage is a middle of the road position for those under 30. The majority of resistance to this minor adjustment to the marriage institution comes from the old people, who are dying like flies thank christ. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Peru just legalized gay sex in their military, by the way.

  26. Phelps says:

    Wow. Gays in Peru’s military? Man, the way they kicked the shit out of… uh… ummm…

    What was the last war that Peru fought again?

  27. Aidan says:

    >If you, say, hit on me and also pulled a knife
    >and said you were going to rape me, then I would
    >give you a sucking chest wound, but it wouldn’t
    >be the flirting that did it.

    this is a common misunderstanding. gay people don’t want to rape ‘you’ (as in, straight men). we’re not aggressive that way. (well, most of us aren’t). we’d be happy just to give you a blow job. Or alternatively, just get on with our lives.

  28. Phelps says:

    Please try to keep up.

    You posited a situation (A).

    I answered in regard to (A) but, in order to give a complete answer, also pointed out that circumstances surrounding the answer (B) could change giving an opposite outcome (A+B)

    As far as “being agressive that way”, yes, most gays aren’t, but a disproportionate number are predatory.

  29. Aidan says:

    >Wow. Gays in Peru’s military? Man, the way they
    >kicked the shit out of… uh… ummm…
    >
    >What was the last war that Peru fought again?

    Speaking of gay and lesbian individuals nobly serving their country for little thanx, did you know that “nearly one in ten coupled lesbians aged 63-67 report they served in the Korean War, compared to less than one in 100 of other women. And, even in the ten years from 1990 to 2000, service rates among coupled lesbians aged 18-27 are more than three times higher than rates among other women. Lesbians also tend to serve longer than other women, the report says, noting that nearly 82 percent of coupled lesbians report serving more than two years, compared with 74 percent of other women.”

    http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/10/101904gayMilitary.htm

  30. Aidan says:

    >Please try to keep up.
    >
    >You posited a situation (A).
    >

    >I answered in regard to (A) but, in order to give
    >a complete answer, also pointed out that
    >circumstances surrounding the answer (B) could
    >change giving an opposite outcome (A+B)

    Yes, and then I changed the topic. It’s you who needs to “keep up”.

    >As far as “being agressive that way”, yes, most
    >gays aren’t, but a disproportionate number are
    >predatory.

    Predatory? What do you mean, exactly?

    (I do hope you aren’t going to tell me the men abusing male minors in the Catholic Church were “gay” men.)

  31. Aidan says:

    >we’d be happy just to give you a blow job.

    This was a ‘joke’. Actually, most gay people would prefer to get on with their private lives, in peace, and not have to deal with hostile heterosexuals. ‘we’ do not have plans to seduce you, or your children. but you knew that, right?

  32. Mexigogue says:

    Mexi, was the ban on mixed-race marriages in the USA (prior to the 1967 SC ruling) wrong? Blacks had the same rights as whites. They could marry someone of the same race. No-one said, “You can’t marry because you are black”. Blacks could marry a black, just like whites could marry a white. Same rights for everyone. All perfectly acceptable, fair, just, etc., right????????????

    If Phelps can marry Cosmic Siren but Ghandi from the “D” can’t because he’s black, then that is not equal protection under the law because Phelps can marry someone who Ghandi can’t. But if gay’s can’t marry in Texas that’s not a violation because Phelps doesn’t have a right to marry someone who you don’t. Neither one of you can marry a man. That is equal. A homoephobic law if you want to characterize it as such but you’re both equally protected.

  33. Aidan says:

    >if you come to the United States and apply for a
    >marriage license to marry a woman

    don’t worry, i’m not really planning to move to michigan. ๐Ÿ™‚

  34. Mexigogue says:

    Shame on you, you selfish piece of shit.

    Oh and Aidan, do stop calling me selfish as if that were something that would sting me. I regard selfishness as a virtue and everytime I get called that I get a woody!

  35. Aidan says:

    >If Phelps can marry Cosmic Siren but Ghandi from
    >the “D” can’t because he’s black, then that is
    >not equal protection under the law because Phelps
    >can marry someone who Ghandi can’t.

    If Phelps can marry Cosmic Siren but Rae (I’m assuming Rae is a girl) can’t because she’s female, then that is not equal protection under the law because Phelps can marry someone who Rae can’t.

    >But if gay’s can’t marry in Texas that’s not a
    >violation because Phelps doesn’t have a right to
    >marry someone who you don’t. Neither one of you
    >can marry a man. That is equal. A homoephobic law
    >if you want to characterize it as such but you’re
    >both equally protected.

    Yes, but Cosmic Siren has the legal option of marrying Phelps, but I am unable to marry Phelps, because I am a man. Cosmic Siren has the right to marry someone I don’t. She can marry a man, I can’t. That is not equal. ๐Ÿ™‚

    But going beyond these silly semantic games, don’t you think it is plain *unfair* when a gay person is legally denied access to their partner in hospital; when the assets of a desceased gay person (who dies intestate) automatically go to his hateful relatives instead of to his partner; when relatives get to make health decisions in a medical emergency, rahter than one’s partner; and so on. You CANNOT tell me that is “fair” and mean it. It is impossible to separate marriage from the 1000+ legal protections, responsibilities associated with it. The only solution, as I see it, is for gays to marry. It’s not going to be the end of the world. Gays have been marrying in Massachucets now for a year. (Thursday is the first year anniversary). It is a non-event. People don’t care. No-one is making a fuss. It is not in the news constantly. You don’t have “gay couples kissing” beamed into your living room every night on the news. Problem solved, issue forgotten for the majority of the population in that state.

  36. Aidan says:

    >do stop calling me selfish… everytime I get
    >called that I get a woody!

    interesting to know

  37. Aidan says:

    >Yes, but Cosmic Siren has the legal option of
    >marrying Phelps, but I am unable to marry Phelps,
    >because I am a man. Cosmic Siren has the right to
    >marry someone I don’t. She can marry a man, I
    >can’t. That is not equal. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Of course, a child, or a goat, or Phelp’s sister, cannot marry Phelps either; however there are plausible, rational reasons for these particular discriminations, which arguably over-ride considerations of equality (issues of consent, for example). I don’t think there is a plausible, rational reason why a man shouldn’t be able to marry a man. The only reason believeable, plausible, rational justification against it is that a majority of people oppose it. That isn’t reason enough, in my opinion, to over-ride fundamental constitutional considerations of equality.

  38. Aidan says:

    >>Shame on you, you selfish piece of shit.

    sorry about that horrible comment. i am trying to be less obnoxious on-line but appear to be still having occasional lapses.

  39. Phelps says:

    I don’t see any “problems” listed by you that wouldn’t be covered by a durable power of attorney. There are already mechanisms in place that will take care of all those issues in one document.

    And by predatory, I mean that gays make up about 1-2% of the population, but 33% of the child molestors. And if you don’t think someone who has sexual relations with men are gay, then what, pray tell is your definition? Does it depend on what the definition of “is” is?

  40. Mexigogue says:

    sorry about that horrible comment. i am trying to be less obnoxious on-line but appear to be still having occasional lapses.

    Actually I don’t let comments like that bother me anymore because I don’t want to get rattled out of my normal mode of arguing. I see it as throwing elbows in basketball. If I get mad and let it affect my game, then my opponent has gained an advantage over me.

  41. Phelps says:

    I learned a long time ago that the only time they are really effective is when they get a rise of your opponent or when they are really witty and entertaining. Simply being crude generally backfires.

  42. skh says:

    Dang. You guys got sucker-punched by Aidan. He is a one issue wonder who engages conversation (not necessarily intelligent conversation, mind you) on one topic solely in the interest of instigating a conversation on his gayness. Probably to soothe his self-loathing, but I am not a psychotherapist so I can’t say for sure.

    Aidan, it is wonderfully heartwarming that people from third-world countries care deeply enough about our domestic issues to voice their opinions on those matters. Fortunately, liberal brainstems from jerkwater wannabe banana republics have no say in what we do here in the greatest country on earth. I, personally, have nothing against gay people. But you go past the point of being simply a gay man…you are an ignorant gay advocate. Just as I would have no interest in conversing with a heterosexual man about his or my own female conquests–or even the pursuit thereof–I have no interest in having a lively debate with an obssessed gay guy who tries to shunt every topic into a “Why do you hate us?” bitchfest. You want to blather on about your gayness? Get your own blog or go join those liberal ‘stems whom you so warmly regard.

    Liberals want to deny the right of US citizens to possess firearms. FETE.

  43. “If Phelps can marry Cosmic Siren but Rae (I’m assuming Rae is a girl) can’t because she’s female, then that is not equal protection under the law because Phelps can marry someone who Rae can’t.”

    If Phelps can marry Julie Roberts but Eric Roberts can’t because Julia is his sister, then it’s a violation of equal protection laws because Phelps can marry someone Eric can’t.

    It’s also unfair that large men with guns chase me away when I peek in Julia’s windows.

  44. shep says:

    Isn’t this related to the phenomenon of people who slip on the ice suing the people who own the property, or the company that provides them the coffee when they burn themselves? It is a mis-assignation, perhaps a form of animism, where the item or thing becomes like a human to the defective mindset. This would seem to be related to the criminal way of thinking, where the criminal is never guilty in his mind about his own crime, and is described by them in the passive voice: “some dude got killed.”