We need your help!
GOProud is leading the effort to add a key gun rights measure to the Hate Crimes legislation pending in the US Senate. The Thune-Vitter Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment will empower individuals to lawfully prevent hate crimes before they happen.
Your help is critical to this effort. Call your Senators today – (202) 224-3121. Help Republicans force Democrats to allow a vote on Thune-Vitter as part of the debate over Hate Crimes legislation. VOTES ARE EXPECTED TODAY!
We can’t do this alone – we need your help. First, call your Senators! Then, click here to make a secure donation to aid this effort: GOProud‘s website.
Related: Two-thirds of state AGs have committed via an amicus brief to the re-affirmation of self-defense rights under the 2nd Amendment in response to the fairly recent decision, Heller, and a pending decision re. a similar Chicago case concerning local law vs. the Constitution.
Link for above ^.
Could someone educate me on this bill? As I understand it, individuals from states with concealed carry laws would have their permits acknowledged in other states with such laws. Why is this an issue for Congress? States already have the power to acknowledge out of state permits if they so choose. Or is this an attempt to force states without concealed carry laws to recognize permits from states that do? In that case, what is congress’ role here? If it’s a second amendment thing , then it is an issue for the courts. Otherwise it seems to be a congressional attempt to bypass federalism.
Thune is an extremely attractive man who comes from South Dakota where I grew up. So far, I’m on topic.
OK, now to off-topic. I wish there were a thread to discuss the decision of the Episcopal church to ordain gays and bless lifelong, monogamous unions. I think this is a big step forward for mainline churches. This is Dick Cheney’s church, after all.
Also, I’d like to discuss the new Harry Potter movie as a gay allegory. If I see it as about young people discovering that they are “different” and have powers that others don’t have, then I can relate to it as my experience of discovering my homosexuality. I also see that this discovery involves a choice: You can either go the dark way of Tom Riddle, which I associate with the meth/STD/multiple partners/subversive gay community route (aptly called Death Eaters in terms of my allegory), or you can dedicate your newfound identity to the light, as does Harry and his crew, seeking for ways to use their powers in positive, life-giving ways.
I think that gays need to realize that there is a dark way to be gay, that there are Tom Riddle-like gay leaders, and that not every homosexual act is a good thing. Learning to use your powers for the right reason and in the right context should be a lesson for us all.
Back to regular topic.
ash, quit hoggin’ all the acid.
On topic: Guns are neat.
Off-topic:
I’m not the only one to have this idea about Harry Potter. Here’s yet another in a series of ignored and unread links:
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02977459.htm
And a quote from that review:
“The Harry Potter books are, in a word, queer. As used today, “queer” means “homosexual,” but it has larger connotations too. The word also suggests a more generally deviant, nonconformist, renegade identity. In its oldest, original sense . . . queer means “deviating from the expected or normal; strange” or “odd or unconventional in behavior.” The Harry Potter books can be read as queer in the “gay” sense, but also in the broader sense.”
The fact that one is born “different” does not give you the right to do anything you want. Tom Riddle saw his “queerness” as a justification for all the evil he wanted to do since he believed that the rules didn’t apply to him; Harry Potter saw his “queerness” as a chance to explore new and creative ways to serve the good. This so clearly illustrates the difference between the Stonewall-gay-community and the traditional-marriage-gay community (which seems to be finding a home in the Episcopal Church), I can’t see how it would require psychedelic drugs to make the connection. I guess it takes a lot of chemicals to open up some peoples’ minds to new ideas.
Back to the topic.
Passing this on from a 9.12 e-exchange:
Federal CCW reciprocity Well, that’s a mouthful.
And it might even sound like a good idea.
If the Feds made every state honor the CCW licenses of every other state…
You could carry virtually everywhere, right?
Well, while we all desire the freedom to carry everywhere we go, and while none of us likes putting up with other states that won’t recognize our permits, this amendment is simply not what it appears to be.
Hear me out. I know some of our supporters like this idea, and I can understand that. But there’s more going on here than you may realize.
First of all, once you let federal bureaucrats control CCW permits for all 50 states, the same bureaucrats will control the content of those permits.
Understand this: Once you’ve handed the reins over to Washington to federalize CCWs nationwide, the gun grabbers would only need to amend this one piece of code to strip the whole nation of its gun rights — because that code determines the CCW rules of all 50 states.
And what’s the easiest place to start with such a broadly-written bill like this? Legislate by the least common denominator: Do you want to see New York-style CCW in your home state?
And those of you with New England-style rules who enjoy carrying in schools, restaurants, and bars: Do you want those liberties to disappear?
While it may not happen THIS YEAR, it will be a constant threat and a real danger every year.
In truth, this is exactly the opposite of what Montana did with its groundbreaking “Montana Made” legislation. Instead of telling the feds to get out of the firearm regulation business, national reciprocity invites them in. That’s not a good thing.
Second, if this bill passes, the feds will have a complete list of CCW holders for all 50 states. How else would they make the states enforce CCWs nationwide? Do you want the ATF to have a list of every CCW holder in America? I know I don’t.
This amendment is a question of power and regulation — and of stripping rights from states and giving them to the feds.
Finally, there is the problem that insider lobbyists want to attach this amendment to a bill at the top of the homosexual lobby’s priority list — H.R. 1913, the so-called Hate Crimes bill that some critics believe will empower federal agents to regulate speech deemed to be “violent.”
H.R. 1913 criminalizes speech and makes your personal beliefs a federal matter. I doubt it would pass without a good dose of political chicanery.
And that’s why gay rights groups are trying to buy off some pro-gun elected officials (many of whom publicly oppose H.R. 1913) with this clever amendment nonsense in a crooked ploy to pass a bad bill that wouldn’t go anywhere without their support.
Here’s how it works:
Those who want to control private speech have prostituted insider gun lobbyists to divide opposition to H.R. 1913 by hoodwinking gun owners into jumping on board.
Now those who would ordinarily want to protect free speech and keep the federal government from regulating thought are being pressured to support an ostensibly “pro-gun” bill…that’s not pro-gun at all.
And worse, those who are pushing this amendment have successfully hidden its true nature from so many pro-gun voters who are telling their Senators to vote for it.
Read Luke’s blog here to read more about this controversial move, and don’t be afraid to join the conversation by leaving a comment.
In liberty,
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
And in this book/movie, the queers are all pairing up with members of the opposite sex: Ginny and Dean, Ron and Lavender, Ginny and Harry, Ron and Hermione, Remus and Tonks, Bill and Fleur — even Merope Gaunt and Tom Riddle Sr. and no one is expressing any homosexual anything of any sort. How queer! Wait! Maybe Ginny represents homosexual males since she gets around so much! OR! Romilda Vane represents homosexual men cus shes always trying to get Harry to take drugs! Or maybe Harry slipping Ron the bezoar is a metaphor for slippin him the you know what!
OR maybe the book was written by a heterosexual woman with a husband and several children, who didnt write anything about anyone being gay and probably has very little interest in the topic.
The books have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality. I havent seen the new movie yet, but it would be a gross violation of the source material if they did. I know its hard to believe, but believe it or not, not everything in the universe is focused on homosexuality.
As for the hate crimes legislation, I’d be more impressed if GOProud were opposing the legislation to begin with, rather than trying to tack on an amendment that will only serve to make 2nd amendment supporters support an unconstitutional law.
On topic: Guns. Wow.
Off-topic: So, you didn’t follow the link, did you, American Elephant? You might want to look up “allegory.” Also, don’t forget that Dumbledore is “family.” The point is, discovering you are a wizard in a Muggle world is AKIN to discovering you are homosexual in a straight world. The struggle to find one’s identity as a wizard is LIKE struggling to find one’s identity as a man with homosexual feelings. We face SIMILAR choices in that we can either use our “queerness” as an excuse for doing whatever we want (Tom Riddle) or as a gift to help us find creative and life-giving ways to express our love (Harry Potter).
Back to the topic.
Older quote Ash: Sometimes a cigar, is just a cigar.
It’s sad we’re even having this discussion. Disarming a populace is means to the end of controlling said populace. I don’t even have a decent gun collection and I know this.
I’m not sure why this would be a Federal matter, sounds like something belonging to the purview of the States. I also do not see why this has anything to do with proposed hate crimes legislation beyond a political stunt. If this has any merit by all means keep pursuing it and helping us to understand why it may be needed but I’m not fond of these 11th-hour tricks. The Dems do this kind of stuff too much for my taste anyways…
This seems like a reasonable amendment, but is it necessary? What happens today when someone with a concealed carry permit travels to another state?
The connection to hate crimes and gay rights is most spurious, though.
It’s not unlike the hate crimes towards the Mudbloods perpetrated by the Death Eaters. Should the Mudbloods give up their wands?
While interstate CCW reciprocity’s a nice concept, what about us US citizens who live in states that don’t have CCW? We can’t can’t carry in our own state nor anywhere out-of-state under this proposal. I guess some are more equal than others when it comes to the Second Amendment….
In New Jersey, I have to beg permission to purchase a handgun each-time from my local police chief even after an exhaustive background-check that can take months. And he doesn’t even NEED a reason to turn me down.
#5 – “ash, quit hoggin’ all the acid.”
Project much, boob?
Regards,
Peter H.
Ash,
What you don’t understand about allegories is that they are created by the writer, not the reader. Injecting YOUR intent into a text where the writer had no such intent is just… embarrassing.
Sorry for taking the bait.
I guess I am not seeing the necessity of this amendment. Or is it just pre-emptive?
Every time I see support for the Thune-Vitter amendment, I see some statement affirming that this will act as a deterrent to criminals. Exactly where is any data that backs up this statement? If someone is going to any length possible to obtain a gun, then they are probably someone who has nothing to lose and therefore, why would they be bothered if they though someone else had a gun?
Frankly, I think this logic would work only on criminals who are using something else other than a gun and if we lived a country where the overwhelming majority of people carried guns at all times.
If someone is going to any length possible to obtain a gun, then they are probably someone who has nothing to lose and therefore, why would they be bothered if they though someone else had a gun?
Ladies and gentlemen, the miracle of liberal-dominated public education; we have a person who insists that banning guns will stop criminals because criminals are sensible people who fear the law, but who insists that allowing other people to carry guns will not because criminals are desperate people who fear nothing.
Kevin, I hope you’re black or Latino; otherwise, you aren’t protected from being an idiot by quotas.
“Kevin, I hope you’re black or Latino; otherwise, you aren’t protected from being an idiot by quotas.”
@ North Dallas Thirty – assuming you’re not either, what’s your excuse?