With friends like this: Clayton Cramer attacks open carry

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by Carnes

I think he was suggesting that people that preach tolerance are frequently intolerant. People that say, "You have to be tollerant of different views and lifestyles," are the first people to scream in rage and completely freak out if someone says, "I hate fags."

If someone I know says something seriously bigoted or racist, that might have an impact on my appraisal of their decision making ability but I don't necessarily care otherwise. People have the right to be idiotically wrong, just as much as they have the right to do anything else.

I was thinking something similar, during an earlier reply. However, it was not really relevant to my point. But yes, I think folks freedom of association is exactly that.

My problem with Cramer, as I stated in other posts, is he wants to prop up is pet right by condemning others. I really think such a tactic is hurtful to gun owners. That's my beef with him. I have to admit homosexuality is something I consider "odd" and even a bit "creepy". But I frown on his apparent hang up with gays, and regular condemnation of same. To me, it's weird, and not something I want to condone, but I would not try to put homosexuals down. To each his own.

Originally Posted by Carnes

That being said, while I strongly disagree with the conclusions that Cramer drew, I'm not sure that labeling him as a 'gay basher' is appropriate. Could you point out the particular instance/s where Cramer crossed the line from offering an ignorant and offensive opinion, to attacking gays?

Cramer has, as others have pointed out, been pretty outspoken in regards to homosexuality for a long time. Google Clayton Cramer and homosexual or gay. Maybe we'll differ in opinion, but I see some bashing

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by Carnes

I'll go ahead and say that my drive for self-preservation is every bit as important as someone's drive for same-sex relationships. So, me having a gun is every bit as much a choice for me as it is the choice of another person to engage in relations with a person of the same gender.

That being said, I think that both signs should be perfectly acceptable on private property, and both should be completely unacceptable on public property.

I have to agree.

I know folks will strongly disagree, but freedom of association and freedom of property, to me, mean one should be able to bar anyone from their property. Including people of ethnic/sexual/religious persuasion.

In so far as the original topic, I think Cramer would be fine for excluding gay people from his property, but to try and associate gays and OC'ers as some sort of mutant subhumans is counterproductive to his proported cause. I think he could disagree with gay people and OCers without being of a position that drives people away from our common cause.

[MostlyHarmless]

Originally Posted by Bruce

... to prove there were actually married homosexual couples ...

This is the thing I actually don't understand about the entire debate of same sex marriage. One side seems to find it extremely important to call the thing "same sex marriage" and can't settle for "civil union" while the other side won't let them use the word "marriage" without a fight.

What both sides seem to ignore completely is that (most) languages evolve. The very word gay meant completely different things than homosexuals not too long ago. We either have to broaden the meaning of marriage or we have to find a new word (because for some reason civil union doesn't seem to work).

If the outcome of this is that I have to go to the Court House and exchange my marriage certificate for some other document because I don't belong to any church, fine. But for Pete's sake, get done with this hair splitting about what to call it.


Jan

ETA: Bruce, I realize your point was more towards the legal aspects of those ancient homosexual relationships. I was rather responding to the highlighted word "marriage", so this post isn't necessarily directed at you.

[Carnes]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Cramer has, as others have pointed out, been pretty outspoken in regards to homosexuality for a long time. Google Clayton Cramer and homosexual or gay. Maybe we'll differ in opinion, but I see some bashing

I'll take your word for it. This 'Cramer' person doesn't seem like someone that I want to waste time researching. But thanks for the clarification nonetheless.

Originally Posted by MostlyHarmless

This is the thing I actually don't understand about the entire debate of same sex marriage.

I agree that much of the heat seems to come from the terminology involved.

It would be an interesting to approach get government out of the business of regulating who can and cannot get married by coming to a conclusion that 'marriage' is a religious term, and that the government being involved in it violates the separation of church and state.

If the government did not recognize any marriage, it would be a non-issue. However, the government could still manage to execute the duties it thinks it is responsible for through civil union laws, and these laws should apply to any citizens that want to agree to participate in them together. Man and Wife get married? =Civil Union. Wife wants to have 3 husbands? =Civil Union. 10 dudes want to all be married to each other? =Civil Union.

It is not the place of the government to support the religious belief that marriage is even relevant, let alone that it be between only a man and a woman.

[Bruce]

The concept of marriage is ancient. it may have experienced changes ('evolved', or whatever) over the centuries, but it is basically the same in principal.

It used to mean something religious, something social and something legal to just about everyone. To some (to most, in fact), it still does.

Not to me, though.

I was married once. I'm not making that mistake twice.

I think the figures (in America) are somewhere around 50%. 50% of all marriages end in divorce inside, what is it now? A decade?

Homosexual people want to get married? I, personally, could care less.

However, check the numbers in the religions. I know it is passé to some, but a lot of people still believe in G-d. Just between the Muslims, the Hindus and the Catholic, we're talking about the overwhelming majority of the earth's population of humans that consider marriage a "sacred, religious" thing.

Why is government involved? Check that - why is the American government involved?

Heck if I know.

I would guess to promote a healthy growth in our country's population (as children are sometimes the result of marriage, ya know). They give tax "breaks" and other government related "incentives" to married couples, so the reason for the government's involvement in marriages to promote the "classic family" would make sense.

Hey, like I've said - I could care less who wants to marry whom. Unfortunately, I'm not the guy you gotta convince. It's the overwhelming number of religious-type people in our country; the ones who believe it is a sacred, blessed union ordained by G-d.

Same-sex marriage? It's 'sticky' is what it is.

Before I left New York, I lived and worked in the Hamptons on Long Island year round. There is (or was a decade ago) a *very* large homosexual 'community' there. I know because I worked for some of the people in that community. I went to a "private" party once (with a professional client) that was... well, lets just say that out of the 2,000 or so people there (including Elton John), I think I was probably one of the two or three heterosexual people in attendance.

There are *huge* pockets of homosexuals in America. And, trust me, some of them are very wealthy and very powerful. However, they are still just a tiny minority when compared to the number of heterosexuals - let alone the religious heterosexuals.

Same-sex marriage will be an up-hill battle for a looong time. I'm not sayin' it's right or wrong, just sayin' the obvious.

What does any of this have to do with Open Carry again?
.

[Deanimator]

Originally Posted by Carnes

I'll take your word for it. This 'Cramer' person doesn't seem like someone that I want to waste time researching. But thanks for the clarification nonetheless.

I GUARANTEE you that Clayton's had an axe to grind with gays for a VERY long time. I saw it the better part of twenty years ago in usenet talk.politics.guns. I found it pointless at the time and told him so. It seemed to make little impression on him. As I recall, it arose out of some sort of interaction he had with a gay man at some point. It reminds me of the attitudes of my father's generation. If somebody wronged you, it wasn't that individual, but that individual and whatever ethnic or religious group to which he belonged. I didn't "get it" then, don't now and don't ever want to.

Again, in spite of this pointless and puzzling obsession, he did a simply fantastic job of putting Michael Belliles through a very deserved woodchipper. Few people seem to remember him, but he was a VERY dangerous enemy of the 2nd Amendment who concocted an intricate framework of doctored evidence and pure fiction to "prove" that there was NO tradition of private firearms ownership in the United States. Through a lot of hard work, Clayton proved not only that the thesis wasn't true, but that Belliles had engaged in a pattern of academic fraud and outright lies in order to present it. Belliles was caught in a series of cascading lies, and by multiple colleagues and institutions. Belliles's invented from whole cloth "theory" was utterly destroyed and his academic career with it.

It's a shame that apparently Clayton still can't tell what's important and what's not.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Carnes

That being said, I think that both signs should be perfectly acceptable on private property, and both should be completely unacceptable on public property.

i agree.

but, i would do my best to avoid private property that had either sign.

as i am intolerant of such intolerance.

[CRZ]

Wow. Heck of a thread.

There's a lot of charged speech, and I think GunLawyer commented on this when he posted regarding analogy - I think that Cramer's tendency to comment on his personal beliefs toward the gay lifestyle make it all to easy to miss the point of his message here.

And while I don't want to sound like a GL001 sycophant, I think he raised an important point of this early on - inflammatory comparisons aside, there are certainly many people that feel uncomfortable about guns.

I've regularly seen the discussions on this forum that refer to "sheeple", conjuring images of willingly ignorant masses that want to run from any perceived danger, even if the object of their fear could protect them.

Some of these people can be enlightened. Some of these people could vote in our favor if we bring them along the right way. Others will inevitably go the other direction.

So the real point of the discussion is not about gays, (although I understand that Cramer was trying to voice a parallel in his mind that immediately hit a repellant note within most of the folks reading here), it's about trying to fuel a discussion on what the smartest route is to approaching the masses to develop a more tolerant society on the subject of gun rights.

Adamant OC'ers here have their reasons to believe they are on the one true path, and although it came across as accusatory, synergy's comments have some validity in that the gun community appears to have extreme factions forming in this regard.

I've rambled quite a bit here, but I guess my main point is that there is a religious-like zeal to the sides that tend to debate the issue on this forum. Either you are for OC and it's the only way to protect everyone's gun rights or you may as well be 'sheeple'. To me, the problem with Cramer's article is that it's all about the emotional hotbuttons and not enough about the need for the gun community to start opening legitimate, open-minded (on all sides) strategic discourse about the best means to get John Q. Public to lean more sympathetic to our cause.

[Bruce]

Originally Posted by CRZ

To me, the problem with Cramer's article is that it's all about the emotional hotbuttons and not enough about the need for the gun community to start opening legitimate, open-minded (on all sides) strategic discourse about the best means to get John Q. Public to lean more sympathetic to our cause.

Um... What cause?

More to the point: What cause is "our cause" (in this thread)?
.

[mythaeus]

Where I see the parallel between gay and OC is this: where would gay rights be right now without gay rights activism? Activism works in parts because of the very reason people despise it - it draws attention to the issue. We can argue the means, methods, and the ranges in between and the varying levels of "disgust", but we cannot ignore the effectiveness when the activity is on the "more extreme". Even in the gay community, there are disagreements and similar sentiments on how far to take the issue. What I have problems with is that those who criticize activism are now the very ones who are able to exercise the very rights resulting from such activism, whether or not they choose to.

To me OC, gay rights, or anything else along this line is collectively an issue of much higher significance: the right of and an individual to make and exercise choices at will. The more the government and/or society take away choices, the less freedom we will be able to enjoy. Enough take-aways and what little left will soon no doubt disappear.

Al