« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
03/25/2008
State lawmaker: Who needs protections when you have bullets?
We're not going to fully reveal the identity of who sent this to us, as they have not yet confirmed our request to go on record. However, just know that this person is an elected state lawmaker, and the subject is non-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation (which said lawmaker is working to repeal):
Our response:
(1st paragraph) Moot point -- your religious beliefs are already protected from discrimination. And if the bias you feel left you jobless, unable to rent an apartment, or the subject of a targeted crime, you would surely utilize your protections!
(2nd paragraph) No, not all groups deserve protection -- justifiable need qualifies a group as a "protected class." And anti-gay/trans bias has more than justified the need for LGBT-centric protections!
(3rd paragraph) Are you kidding me right now? Your answer for eliminating bias is to arm yourself?! Well sorry, esteemed conservative legislator, but this website views an overabundance of guns as being part of the problem, not the solution. And we find it extremely disturbing and irresponsbile to suggest that instead of changing hearts and minds, we should put a bullet in the same!
(Entirety of conveyed ideas) Why must you "pro-life" conservatives be so hostile to protecting everyone's life from verifiable threats?!?!
Your thoughts
I am frightened, Sweden here I come.
Posted by: Eric | Mar 25, 2008 12:42:45 PM
I hate these people that think we should do away with Affirmative Action and protected groups because "we've advanced where we treat everyone the same", because that's not at all true. Everyone is not on the same playing field in this country, and people are fools if they think everyone is.
Of course, if someone who was being attacked in a hate crime scenario had a weapon and used it, the victim would become the bad guy. There are people that ALREADY say "they brought it on themselves," so I can only imagine throwing arms into the mix would turn into "these homosexuals are clearly demented, perverted killers. They are worse than terrorists and will bring an end to this civilization, like all those before."
Give me a break.
Posted by: Steve | Mar 25, 2008 1:00:15 PM
Perfect Jeremy, succinct and to the point. Can you tell us if this person is east or west of Mississippi R?
Posted by: Orion45 | Mar 25, 2008 1:40:18 PM
Hey, I'm all for arming the gays, but unless your correspondent is willing to introduce a bill relinquishing the various civil rights protections he enjoys (e.g., for his religion), then he's just a hypocrite bigot with a double standard.
Posted by: | Mar 25, 2008 2:02:23 PM
Anon: I think you might be confused -- the message (the blue text) is an email we received from a state lawmaker. We are responding to it
Also, nobody said it's a male.
Posted by: | Mar 25, 2008 2:05:18 PM
There are some problems with your response.
(1st paragraph)"...if the bias you feel left you jobless, unable to rent an apartment, or the subject of a targeted crime, you would surely utilize your protections!"
You shouldn't be so sure. Your lawmaker pen-pal stated he was against "statutorily creating classes of victims." It would make sense for him to oppose hate-crime laws, and he might just let discrimination in hiring and housing go. Walter Williams has said if he went into a restaurant and was told they didn't serve black people, he would simply put on his hat and leave. Your correspondent may feel the same.
(3rd paragraph)"Your answer for eliminating bias is to arm yourself?!"
No. The lawmaker doesn't care about eliminating bias: "we cannot legislate away all people's prejudices." The recommendation of weaponry was only for the "real threats."
(3rd paragraph)"... this website views an overabundance of guns as being part of the problem, not the solution."
You would, being a dyed-in-the-wool leftie. Guns and prejudices have nothing to do with one another.
Are country actually has both an overabundance and an underabundance of guns. There are too many guns in the hands of criminals and not enough in the hands of decent, law-abiding people.
Posted by: David | Mar 25, 2008 3:38:14 PM
Ah, David the "tyrant stopper". Good to see you're back.
(a) Nobody said it was a he.
(b) I will actually semi-give you the first point. He/she MIGHT feel this way, but judging from what I already know,. I don't think so. However, I will agree that I should have said "you would LIKELY utilize your protections!"
(c) I disagree that he/she doesn't care about eliminating bias. Hopefully we all strive to do so, and with comments like leading by example to as to make others soften their stance, he/she indicates a desire to remedy the problem.
(d) The real threats are attached to the bias and should not be disconnected.
(e) You are right that you will never get to me to agree that more guns in ever the answer. It's just not the way I have ever seen the world.
Posted by: | Mar 25, 2008 3:50:53 PM
Ok, is anyone else wondering if the situation occurred where someone read that statement, then sucessfully defended themselves from a perception of a "frighteningly real threat" using a gun, could the lawmaker who issued the statement then be sued on the basis that he incited the violence?
Posted by: Rabid Poodle | Mar 25, 2008 3:51:16 PM
Defending oneself is not necessarily the same as violence. I think the Pink Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty made a pretty compelling argument as to why individuals should retain the right to bear arms. And there is some truth to their slogan, "Armed gays don't get bashed".
I don't have a gun, myself. But I don't rule out getting one at some point, depending on the circumstances.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Mar 25, 2008 9:34:13 PM
I sorta-kinda agree with this email, as I'm pro-NRA and encourage all gay people to sign up for Pink Pistols.
Posted by: Scott | Mar 26, 2008 7:13:08 AM
I challenge all who believe that LGBT individuals do not need or deserve "special rights" to give up the "special rights" they themselves have. You know, the ones that protect them from discrimination based on their religion, race, ethnicity, etc. I'm willing to bet there will be no takers.
Posted by: Buffy | Mar 26, 2008 8:12:23 PM
I'm glad you're pleased to have me back. I don't deserve to be called "tyrant stopper" as I haven't stopped any of them yet. I will, however, continue to try.
(a)When the sex of a person is unknown or immaterial the masculine pronoun is used.
(b)I can only judge your lawmaker by the e-mail you posted.
(c)Your correspondent may care about eliminating bias, but his message indicates he doesn't see the law as a tool for doing so.
(d) Of course real threats would be attached to bias, but the recommendation of being armed was for dealing with the threats themselves, not the underlying bias.
(e) More guns are not an answer to irrational prejudices. More guns in the hands of decent, law-abiding people, however, is a way of lowering the overall crime rate.
Posted by: David | Mar 27, 2008 1:46:48 PM
Then 'tyrant-stopper hopeful', it is.
And no, in my world, we don't use the male pronoun by default.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 27, 2008 1:50:54 PM
Your world? What world is that?
The rule I stated has been the rule forever -- or was until very recently. The excuse for changing, that the rule is sexist, is one I find quite silly.
All during my education from kindergarten to high school this was the rule I was taught. I shall continue to use it, whether we are living on the same planet or not.
Posted by: David | Mar 27, 2008 8:30:13 PM
Fair enough -- nobody said you have to change your pronoun usage, my friend. I, however, will abstain from defaulting to "he" and will continue to use a vague "they" or "this person" or "he/she" or some other way of identifying. I see no rational reason for one to automatically assume the masculine (or the feminine, for that matter).
We live in the same world, David, we just see it quite differently. Take care.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 27, 2008 11:25:00 PM
comments powered by Disqus