Totally Awesome

These are totally awesome.  What we might get if we had a real major party based on liberty rather than two parties debating slightly different priorities for government coercion.  Via JD Tuccille

gay-rights-and-gun-rights-post   gay-rights-and-gun-rights-post-1

  • CTD

    The photo on the left is the work of the very talented Oleg Volk. He does a lot of gun porn/pro-2A stuff: http://olegvolk.net/blog/

  • ErikTheRed

    Anything advocating freedom that pisses off statists on the left and the right at the same time is a winner in my book.

  • LarryGross

    haven't kept up... what's the death toll of homophobes these days?

    ;-)

  • herdgadfly

    These ads are not about liberty - they are about unnatural sexual relationships. I am old and fat - but I got over that long time ago. When I was a kid, I was bullied by immature schoolmates. Now the immature adults committed to a homosexual lifestyle want better legal and social treatment than most heteros have ever experienced. That is not liberty.

  • marque2

    The first poster is nonsense. I do not dislike gays, but I personally think that there is no reason they should be granted formal marriage.

    The second one is nuts as well. Am I really a homophobe because I don't think gays should marry? And they are threatening to shoot me because of an idea I have that is open to legitimate debate?

    I can't believe you would post something so offensive, to free speech, offensive to rational people who just have a different point of view. Have you gone all leftist on us. These posters certainly don't reflect libertarian thought.

  • marque2

    It is definitely about having a greater set of rights than anyone else. I am not going to get into what is natural. If you choose to be gay that is fine, but that doesn't mean that they should be allowed married status.

    Also a note, what if I did up a poster threatening to shoot gay folks who wanted to get married - because I don't really support gay marriage. How well would that fly? Hmm, a double standard. You can threaten to shoot those who don't espouse a Politically Correct left wing viewpoint. Warren should become an adviser for the Obama campaign. They support restricting the rights of those with the incorrect point of view as well.

  • WajNurfEs

    "but I personally think that there is no reason they should be granted formal marriage"

    The notion that "formal marriage" is something government needs to define and grant disgusts me more than words can say. I don't know if you're a homophobe because you specifically think gays shouldn't marry, but you're something pretty nasty if you think the state should control marriage in general.

  • WajNurfEs

    Not about liberty? Are we using the same definition of liberty?

    You're taking the side of people who want to use the state to legitimize some sexual relationships and not others. Opposing them is definitely about liberty.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.slyfield Matthew Slyfield

    Indeed.

  • marque2

    Hmm it is interesting how all the hate seems to be coming from you.

  • cal_culus

    The Coyote party: Pro-gays, guns, and immigrants.

  • marque2

    Actually I was taking sides to prove a point. At this point I think the government has ruined marriage so much that it would be better to go back to the old days of private marriage. No point in trying to save government marriage from groups that are asking for rights just because they take pleasure in making a mockery of the institution. However since the state has a compelling interest in having kids, and having kids grow up in more traditional settings, there should be tax breaks based on the number of kids and how traditional you get raising them. There is a deficit of children in the country and Western world as it is.

  • http://www.facebook.com/matthew.slyfield Matthew Slyfield

    Perhaps a bit of too clever marketing by a gun shop in an area with a relatively high gay population?

  • a_random_guy

    @marque2:disqus /@herdgadfly:disqus 'all are totally missing the point. The first poster couldn't be any clearer: laws shouldn't be based on personal beliefs.

    There aren't many people who support both gay rights and gun rights. Many gun rights advocates are all for restricting the rights of gays. Many gay rights activists are all for restricting gun rights. Both groups are hypocrites of the first order.

    If you want your liberties, you need to grant equal liberties to people you may disagree with. What's hard to understand about that?

  • Gil

    Do tell: in other countries before modern gun laws (e.g. Australia) there was generally no right to shoot someone except in sheer self-defense ("duty to retreat"). Hence one of the reasons crime hasn't taken off in said countries is simply crooks knew a home owner never really had the right to shoot them and even if they did then they'd get stuck with a huge amount of legal fees that would financially cripple most anyway (e.g. one guy around 1995 was found to be justified but faced legal fees of $25,000). So in the U.S.: how many can really use their guns in self-defense, especially in those that don't have a "stand your ground" mindset? Owning a gun in Australia before 1997 wasn't a big mark of freedom but a device that most likely screw you over if you actually used it.

  • a_random_guy

    Gil asks: "in the U.S.: how many can really use their guns in self-defense"

    In principle, most people. Almost all states have a "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" laws that allow you to defend yourself, with no "duty to retreat". That said, it still depends hugely on the local police and the prosecutor. If you shoot someone, even if it is completely obvious that it was in self-defense, you may still be arrested and charged, put on trial, and financially ruined in the process. If the police want to screw you, they can and will, and there is nothing you can do about it.

    What makes the situation worse is that the police themselves are immune to this: if an police officer shoots and kill someone, even if it is totally unjustified, the incident will simply be glossed over and forgotten.

  • LarryGross

    are there statistics for how many people have been charged and/or tried in self-defense situations?

    you often hear of those who shoot intruders and do not get charged but I seldom hear of people who defended themselves and got charged... although I'd admit that once you are charged, that you probably are in deep doo doo. I just haven't seen too many that have had that happen to them.

  • pegr

    Initial suspicions were validated by this thread. Heads are 'assploding.

    Come on, anti-gay, anti-gun folks! Keep mixing it up! This is assuming! :)

  • pegr

    AMUSING! (Damn...)

  • gblack

    I call myself a right wing liberatarian that is domestic policy should be libertarian and international policy should try to scare the !##$ out of rogue regimes on the international middle school playground. I support civil unions as having the same legal standing as marriages, but I do not support same sex marriage as long as there are public schools. Prager said something to the effect that indoctrinating schools will be using that against kids an an inappropriately young age which as an ex-Kulifornian I agree with. If you think people are against gays, look at the "Everything But Marriage Act."

    http://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources.php?NewsID=1928

  • dc

    in fact, cops abuse the hell out of it. of course not all cops, and some have integrity - but there are FAR too many bad apples in this bushel.

  • Jesse

    I'm not a fan of government deciding who is allowed to do what, among consenting adults, whether it be guns or issues of matrimony. However the second poster is a little troubling. We have the freedom of speech, not the right to not be offended. If someone speaks out against homosexuality and some homosexuals consider it "taking shit from homophobes", sorry but you are going to have to take it.

  • LarryGross

    Agree. If we are keeping track of how many homophobes have been harmed for their views vs how many gay people have been harmed because they are Gay - what's the score?

    of the two groups, which kind have better chance of being beaten up?

  • markm

    Here is why gays *need* the right to marry - if the government is going to have anything to say about marriage:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/21/texas-judge-says-lesbian-couple-cant-cohabitate-cites-morality-clause-in/?intcmp=obinsite

  • Eris Guy

    That’s easy: normals (whom you label “homophobes.”) have a better chance of being the victims of molestation, rape, censorship, intimidation, bullying, “hate speech” laws, et. al.

  • obloodyhell

    I think the biggest problem with regards to gays is that gays won't accept mere "tolerance". They want total and utter surrender to the point where you are obligated to support them in every way.

    The net result is that religious rights get trampled. I think the vast majority of Christians believe that there's not a lot of wiggle room in the Bible's description of (at least male) homosexuality as wrong and against God. THAT SAID, I also think a lot of them believe that, for the most part, that it is between them (the gays) and God.

    The key words usually ignored being "for the most part".

    There are times when the two rights come into conflict, and THEN is where the problems truly lie, because, as noted, the GLADs generally won't accept anything short of utter surrender to their viewpoint.

    I argue that, when it comes to, say, using a church as a place of marriage, that the church should be free to refuse to allow gays to be married there, and to do so without much, if any, grumbling from the gays. This is a case (one of few, I'd argue) where the right to be as you wish is trumped by the right to someone else's religious preferences.

    Another example is, if you run a bed-and-breakfast, and don't wish to cater to gays, then you should be free to state that openly without substantial ire on the part of gays. It's not like there aren't a kazillion other places to stay at that don't care. And that's different from being a corporate hotel with a manager who takes issue -- a bed-and-breakfast is a home-operated business, not a semi-public corporate location like a hotel.

    The first example above is hypothetical. But you can see, once a state allows gay marriage, that there are going to be gays who deliberately attempt to get married in a church JUST to thumb their noses at Christians who believe that their choices are wrong.

    The latter example, however, is NOT hypothetical. It actually happened. The owner apparently wasn't rude or obnoxious to the gay couple, she just felt it was her home and her religious rights should be paramount.

    From the above link:
    Refusing to let the couple book a room was solely based on their sexual orientation because the owner indicated that if they were married, she would not have allowed them to stay there, said their attorney, Peter Renn of Lambda Legal's Los Angeles office. She also would have a problem if they were an unmarried heterosexual couple, he said.
    All indications are is that she was not rude about it, and did not disparage them their choice:
    When she specified they would need one bed, the owner asked if they are lesbians. Cervelli responded truthfully and the owner said she was uncomfortable having lesbians in her house because of her religious views, the lawsuit said.

    What I find interesting here, of course, is how this is translated to liberal minds in the comments:
    Once again many who have religious beliefs feel its their duty to impose those beliefs on others.
    I'd say it's pretty clear who it is attempting to impose their belief onto others. It's not the B&B owner.
    and
    This woman goofed, then was nasty about it
    "Nasty"? Really? "Nasty", hmmm?
    and:

    "It's also wrong for a tax-exempt church to disallow the LGBT community because of their orientation. It's just plain wrong no matter how you look at it."
    Support for the former suggestion -- that allowing gay marriage will lead to lawsuits demanding churches allow gays to be married there.
    and
    I'm insulted the owner of the place thinks this is her land and that she decides what it needs.
    No, she thinks this HOME is her land, and she decides what's acceptable there. "That unconscionable BITCH!" :-/

    I rest my case. The problem here is that there are TWO sets of rights in conflict, and the rules need to be designed to deal with which one properly holds sway. For the most part, I'll grant that gays should win -- but this attitude of "cram it down their throats" is what engenders one HELL of a lot of opposition from a MUCH larger group. And that's a battle that the G&Ls are going to LOSE if they don't get their heads out of their asses and figure out that they are NOT in the majority here by a long shot. And they can't WIN it by guilting others, the way blacks could. Because there WAS nothing for the racists to stand on, it was a mindless prejudice, nothing else. The Bible, that's a bit more substantial.

  • obloodyhell

    See my comment above, it's relevant. I think there is a problem and it's not as simple as the gays, and many of their proponents, like to claim it.

    The problem here is that there is a SPECTRUM. It's not ON/OFF, TRUE/FALSE, RED/GREEN.

    There's no question that, when someone as brilliant as Alan Turing gets hounded to suicide by the social system, that's BAD.

    But that does not mean that the other extreme, "Hey, do whatever you want, where ever you want, whenever you want..." isn't just as BAD.

    There's a middle ground, and it behooves us all to point society towards figuring out where that is, and telling the extremist gays to go fuck themselves... (yes, the snarky joke is obvious.)

  • obloodyhell

    People do seem to be missing the point -- crime doesn't MATTER when it comes to the right to bear arms.

    It's a SIDE ISSUE.

    The right to bear arms is specifically about protection from an overreaching State apparatus, in particular, the Federal government.

    THIS IS NOT AT QUESTION. It is detailed out in Federalist #46, by James Madison.

    The only way the government has any right to reject your rights is to demonstrate that you have somehow abrogated your RESPONSIBILITY to use those rights in a socially effective way... like committing a crime. Or to be in some manner sufficiently "non compos mentis" such that they are allowed to act to protect you, and others, from you.

  • obloodyhell

    See above comments by me.

    Your claim is both presumptuous and simplistic.

  • obloodyhell

    }}} The notion that "formal marriage" is something government needs to define and grant disgusts me more than words can say.

    OK, dumbass, here's the SIMPLE answer:

    Marriage is a CONTRACT. It provides certain privileges, rights, and social expectations -- not just upon YOU and your PARTNER, but upon OTHERS in society.

    AS a result, it's incredibly fucking OBVIOUS that it's a part of The State's powers. They operate the COURTS, so defining the CONTRACTS is certainly their JOB. If you form a contract with person 'x' for them to do 'y' in return for reward 'z', the courts are there to see to it that both of you hold up your ends of the bargain, or that the one who failed to do so is punished, and their "victim" rewarded. That's what CONTRACTS are all about. They are CLEARLY inside the purview of The State.

    Does The State have any business telling people what to do in their own home?

    FUCK NO.

    Does The State have an obligation to delineate and define the Social Contract of Marriage in terms of how SOCIETY is expected to respond to acknowledged gays OUTSIDE the home?

    FUCKING-A **DUH**.

    When you get "formally married", you are creating a CONTRACT and asking for SPECIFIC SOCIETAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of that CONTRACT.
    Businesses are expected to treat your SO as a spouse, heir, and dependent, as required and applicable.
    Businesses that deal with you as a consumer have OTHER obligations (see B&B story above).

    You don't want government commenting about your freaking sex life? Then KEEP IT IN THE FUCKING BED.

    When you sought a marriage contract, you brought it OUT of the bedroom and into the SOCIAL SPHERE.

    Idiot.

  • obloodyhell

    No, that's an argument against the government having any say in noncontractual cohabitation arrangements. It doesn't argue in favor of another freaking contract being forced onto people just to cohabitate. That's just ludicrous, and it supports government intervention in arenas where it should have no say at all -- the bedroom...

  • JW

    Nothing brings the fascist out of someone faster than do Teh Gheys. Just how does a contract that you aren't a party to force you to act in a certain way? I know that I'm not bound by any contract that you've signed.

    A contract is just that: an agreement between 2 or more parties. A contract grants you no special powers, beyond to what is agreed upon by the parties covered by it. A contract, as far as the state is concerned, is something to be enforced equally to the terms of the contract, regardless of the parties involved and equal to all other contracts of that type. That's it.

    It doesn't give you magic powers to force anyone outside of your contract to behave in a certain way. That's at odds with the views of the modern polity, who believe that coercion is the answer to societal inequities, but that's not what's at hand.

  • TiminKuwait

    George Zimmerman comes to mind.

  • ToddO

    The basic social contract that is (heterosexual) marriage came about because the child-bearing and child-rearing family unit is the universal, basic social unit. To say that this model has been wildly successful is an understatement. To extend the legal definition of marriage such that the formative partners are something besides paired heterosexuals defies logic. To use the power of the state to force me and others opposed to this variety of logic defiance to acknowledge any homosexual pairings as somehow legitimate is true "fascism". No it is not homophobic. Being born without the sexual attraction required to inspire human reproduction is biologically dysfunctional. We should be researching on how to minimize or eliminate this biological dysfunction as we do with all others, not changing our social contracts to accommodate it.

    Short of that, the only acceptable intermediate solution is to get the state out of the marriage licensing business altogether. That seems more likely to happen but still is implausible.

  • LarryGross

    what does child-bearing have to do with govt? are you saying that govt is determined by those who believe that child-rearing is "right" and not having children is "wrong"?

    It's not like we have a shortage of kids on earth nor in the US. In fact a huge part of our entitlements are taxes collected from everyone including those who do not have kids - to pay for kids - many whose own parents do not provide for financially.

    have we not encouraged an irresponsible attitude towards child-rearing when so many now have kids they cannot afford and expect others to pay for?

  • JW

    "The basic social contract..."
    Do you have a copy of this contract? I don't recall signing anything.

    "To extend the legal definition of marriage such that the formative partners are something besides paired heterosexuals defies logic."
    I don't think that's logic that you're using.

    " To use the power of the state to force me and others opposed to this variety of logic defiance to acknowledge any homosexual pairings..."
    There's your logical extension. This is the state forcing you, the state with very expansive powers that you have granted them with your vote for other powers that you like, not anyone who looks at this as a matter of equal rights. Rights don't give you power to force anyone into servitude over that right. That's the modern coercive state in action, the state that conservatives and liberals, alike, support.

    "Short of that, the only acceptable intermediate solution is to get the state out of the marriage licensing business altogether."
    On this, we agree 100%.

  • JW

    "We should be researching on how to minimize or eliminate this biological dysfunction as we do with all others..."

    Ah, good old jackbooted authoritarianism. How you doin'? I'm certain that anyone who doesn't want to share in your **cough** cure, will be given an all expense paid trip to the dsyfunction camps.

  • LarryGross

    does that include changing the tax code so that married folks don't get a different deal on taxes than non-married or same-sex married?

    that's a big issue, no?

  • JW

    "does that include changing the tax code so that married folks don't get a different deal on taxes than non-married or same-sex married?"

    By changing, do you mean scrapping the tax code altogether? Beyond that, I'm not interested in nor care about re-arranging the deck chairs.

    Is there any valid reason to use the tax code for social engineering or political punishments?

  • LarryGross

    making the tax code the same for everyone - no special exemptions according to your marital status? that's would not be social engineering, right?

  • JW

    "making the tax code the same for everyone - no special exemptions according to your marital status? that's would not be social engineering, right?"

    Treating everyone equally? Where would that get us?

  • LarryGross

    jeeze.. I thought that would be a "good" thing... ;-0

    I think the current tax code - because it favors certain behaviors - incentivizes those behaviors and none more so that being married or having kids.

    if you took away all the tax breaks associated with these two things - you could lower the tax rate for everyone... marriage and child bearing are hugely incentivized and in a way huge wealth transfers.

  • JW

    "if you took away all the tax breaks associated with these two things - you could lower the tax rate for everyone... marriage and child bearing are hugely incentivized and in a way huge wealth transfers."

    By George I think you've got it. ;-)

    Just think of how feckless we could make the IRS, if we took away 98% of it's ability to meddle (and by that dint, the proglodytes and neo-so-so-cons too), by scrapping the tax code and replacing it with a zero-exemption flat tax.

  • LarryGross

    well..not the IRS - the US code... that they administer... you know once exemptions and deductions are justified - no matter the reasons - even the most of the would-be moral reasons, it becomes a slippery slope where each person has their own favorite "moral" reason... right?

  • JW

    " right?"

    Yep.

  • ToddO

    Man you are the master of illogical attribution. Jackbooted authoritarianism? Puh-lease. Are you doing denying that if we better understood the science of sexual attraction we would all be better off? Or are you denying that heterosexuality is not a categorical imperative for continuation of our species?

  • JW

    "Or are you denying that heterosexuality is not a categorical imperative for continuation of our species?"

    Let me put it in terms that you'll understand: It's none of your business who anyone chooses to fuck, or marry, or not.

    To be honest, I'm not sure I have any interest in your particular species continuing. Be that as it may, I have *zero* responsibility to society in propagating any spawn and you have *zero* say in it otherwise. Are you suggesting that breeding become mandatory?

    What are you going to do about those awful hetero DINKs and their selfish denial of your rich heritage of continuity?