Gays willing to do what it takes/If gun owners were gay (merged threads)

[Braz]

Gays willing to do what it takes

I wish gun owners had this attitude,

San Fransisco, NY and now Oregon. Public officials are breaking the law and marrying homosexuals. They feel strongly and are willing to risk career and freedom in an outlaw effort to change public opinion.

It occurs to me there must be some Kalifornian officials willing to break the law and begin issuing CCW permits. Surely there's a few Oregon or NY public servants that would follow that lead. To say, enough is enough.

But we gun owners may not have the moral certainty to take this course. We may be afraid of losing our guns in a court battle. Or we might have a deep seated love of the rule of law that prevents us from such protests.

Whatever the reason, watch this movement (and that's what it is imo), and track their progress toward their goal. Perhaps someday soon a sheriff or other offical will follow this path of active protest in the resistance to CCW.

Molon Labe!

 

[Cosmoline]

Excellent point. The law abiding gun owners have perhaps been too law abiding and unwilling to engage in civil disobedience. The problem is that civil disobedience by gun owners involving the RKBA is just the sort of thing some of the alphabet soup types in DC would love to call "DOMESTIC TERRORISM." If two guys marry, they laugh at it. If two guys get CCW permits, they send in the JBT ninjas with orders to shoot to kill.

 

[braindead0]

civil servant civil disobediance..

Sometimes I wish that some city/county official would start ignoring all state and federal laws except those governing areas specifically allowed in the state/federal constitutions.. take the right to decide these issues back home where the people can actully have a say in the matter (instead of lobbyist and special interests).

 

[CleverNickname]

I thought Cali sheriffs were already the ones that issued CCW permits, so if some decided to start issuing a lot more I don't see where the 'law breaking' would be (?).

A better analogy would be if a sheriff started issuing assault weapon permits. IIRC, Cali state law only lets the state Justice dept. issue those, not sheriffs, similar to how the laws about who may marry who are at the state level, not the county/local level.

 

[fix]

DOMESTIC TERRORISM

There you have it...

 

[bountyhunter]

Public officials are breaking the law and marrying homosexuals.....It occurs to me there must be some Kalifornian officials willing to break the law and begin issuing CCW permits.

You miss the point.

kali officials (and Oregon's also) believe their state constitution prohibits discriminating against a specific segment of the population (ie, gays) with respect to law. Agree or not, that's the reason for what they are doing. Ergo, they are extending the rule of laws with respect to marriage to a segment previously denied. Agree or not, they believe it's a civil rights issue. History will decide if they were visionaries or fools that jumped on a bandwagon that got them voted out of office.

No officials in kali have any interest in liberalizing gun permits, and there is no "discrimination" aspect there. With the exception of Feinstein and a few others, most Kali counties refuse EVERYBODY the right to carry. No discrimination, everybody is screwed equally.

 

[Cosmoline]

No discrimination, everybody is screwed equally.

Um, what about all the Sillywood stars and their bodyguards? Seems like an EP voilation there. Besides, California law violates the US Second Amendment.

 

[Jim March]

No Sheriff or Police Chief has to break the law to issue CCWs.

We did have a case where a Chief decided to on a mass scale and was ACCUSED of lawbreaking...

 

[TechBrute]

The problem is that when you "civilly disobey" with your firearm, best case scenario it's a felony. Worst case is that they will pull the domestic terrorist BS on you (thanks Patriot Act) and you will loose all your defendants rights and possibly lose your citizenship in the US (although by then I'm sure you'll want to give it up voluntarily.)

 

[SIGarmed]

They are emoldened to break the California law because they are encouraged by the powers that be. Such is not the case for gunowners especially in a liberal city like San Francisco.

Apples to oranges.

 

[El Tejon]

SIG, not necessarily. The Homosexuals victories come by changing the culture. For example, look at the Larry v. Tejas decision. How can that be explained? No foundation in law or precedent for that moronic decision. The homosexuals won by changing the culture by controlling the "force multipliers", the media.

Gunowners need to make a through case study of the political and legal victories of the homosexuals. We need to organize and commit as they did.

 

[4v50 Gary]

A few years back...

The Chief of the town of Isleton in the Sacramento Delta did exactly that. He began issuing CCWs as a means to raise $ for their tiny town. Applicants flooded in and CCWs poured out. The then State Atty Gen looked into it and began intervening. Court was convened and it was held that the Chief was within his right. I'm not sure if he's still doing it but if he is, he's more quiet about it.

Now that's a Chief with heuvos!

 

[AimHigh]

The common denominator is the media. But, gays have an advantage there because the media is pro-gay and anti-gun. WE need more young people in the media so we can spread our message with the same bias the left does.

 

[TechBrute]

Besides, California law violates the US Second Amendment.

That doesn't seem to have stopped them, or even slowed them down for that matter.

 

[Cactus]

Ergo, they are extending the rule of laws with respect to marriage to a segment previously denied.

You mean a gay man wasn't allowed to marry a woman? That's outrageous!

 

[Jeff Thomas]

bountyhunter, it is notable that something like 42 state constitutions have an RKBA provision, so in those states the analogy is very apt.

CA, however, is not one of those states, as I recall.

Frankly, there comes a time when decent people owe it to their society to break inhumane and unconsitutional laws, in nonviolent ways. And, when that time comes, those participating in such lawbreaking must recognize the downside.

At this time, I would say the RKBA is doing so well, I see little reason for such a thought. No kidding. It is a slow road back to freedom, but I do believe we are headed in the right direction, at least so far as the RKBA. But that can obviously change in a heartbeat / election.

Regards from TX

 

[Orthonym]

As a grumpy old bachelor, I do wonder

What's the big deal? Anybody heard of the "marriage strike" among hetero males?
Prudent men don't marry these days, and encourage other guys not to marry. See Fred Reed's several essays on the topic.www.fredoneverything.net. The way the laws are these days, one would have to be a lunatic (if male) to tie the knot.

As to doing the nasty/fun deed itself, well, you don't have to be married to do that; ordinary prudence has generally sufficed.

My own opinion:

Doing it with girls: Lotsa fun, seems absurd when I think about it.

Doing it with boys: Lotsa fun, seems even more absurd when I think about it.

I'm speaking hypothetically and theoretically here, of course. I do hope you all believe that I've never violated any of the several different multitudes of laws forbidding unauthorized rubbings of one person's mucous membranes against another's!


I saw a really sexy-looking bell pepper in the Publix the other night.

 

[Khornet]

Bounty,

I don't know re: Oregon, but Calif. recently passed a law forbidding homosexual marriage.

So the mayor was picking and choosing which law he'd obey, vote of the people be damned. If that stands, we are a nation of men, not laws.

 

[gunsmith]

lots of CA folks carry guns

regardless of the law.
it is not a felony to carry your pistol concealed in CA with no permit,if the pistol is registered under your name it is a misdemeanor.
only felony if not registered...
try not to get caught though!
the CLEO that was issuing to all non felons was "retired"
and they changed the law so that the CLEO of your county can be the only one to sign off

Braz is right though,we need to march in the streets and block the doorways....

 

[TimH]

If gun owners were gay...

OK that came out wrong. Sorry if this has already been dicussed I looked but didn't find a tread. With all tha hoopla going on in the country over gay marrage can you imagine if gun owners had the same determination? I mean the gay community has been laying the ground work for years to get what they want. They are a tenacious group. I think the main difference between them and gun owners is that they are fighting for rights and the gun owning community already has their right ( well kind of) and the gun owning community has become complacent. Any thoughts?

 

[Daedalus]

You also do not get sent to federal prison for getting a sham gay marriage in a courthouse. The homosexual movement in this country has had a decade or so of positive media and entertainment coverage. We have had two decades of negative media and entertainment coverage.

 

[hillbilly]

TimH, ask these folks.....


http://www.pinkpistols.com

 

[Mark Tyson]

Gun owners are just as organized as gays. The difference is that to guilt-ridden blissninnies gay people are an oppressed minority, while gun owners are violence-prone trogolytes. The problem is public perception. That's something we need to work on.

I should add: I mean politically active gun owners, not the "hunting" crowd.

 

[antsi]

---------quote--------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference is that to guilt-ridden blissninnies gay people are an oppressed minority, while gun owners are violence-prone trogolytes. The problem is public perception. That's something we need to work on.

I should add: I mean politically active gun owners, not the "hunting" crowd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I think the liberal/mush-head elites consider hunters to be just as troglodyte as any other kind of gun owner.

Right now, it is politically expedient to try and drive a wedge between "hunters and sportsmen" versus "gun nuts" who believe in crazy things like self-defense and the Bill of Rights. That's why we get photo ops of Kerry tromping around in a swamp with his media entourage and a shotgun.

The poor duck hunters who fall for this - "Oh, I can hunt ducks and still be politically correct! Dianne Feinstein will even let me keep my shotgun! Thanks, Mommy DiFi!" - are going to be in for a nasty shock should the anti's succeed.

Make no mistake, duck hunters: you're next on The List.

 

[pax]

I just merged two very, very similar threads.

Carry on.

pax