GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Sen. McCaskill Employs Anti-Gay Scare Tactics in Gun Debate

by

The anti-Second Amendment hysteria by Chuck Schumer was bad enough, but Sen. Claire McCaskill takes the cake:

Today, GOProud, the nation’s only organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, condemns U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) for comments she made after voting against the conceal carry amendment offered yesterday by U.S. Senator John Thune (R-SD). “Claire McCaskill should be ashamed of herself for using baseless, anti-gay scare tactics to justify her vote against the conceal carry amendment,” said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud.

In comments made after her vote against the 2nd amendment provision, McCaskill said, “this is a foot in the door that would require, for example, the laws in Vermont on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri.” (Audio of the McCaskill comments can be FOUND HERE.)

“McCaskill’s anti-gay rhetoric is not only shameful, it’s also a complete and total fallacy,” continued LaSalvia. “The conceal carry amendment wouldn’t have forced a single state to change its laws. Indeed, the amendment specifically spelled out that reciprocity would only be granted to individuals who met the requirements of the state they were traveling to.”

“We hope other gay groups will join us in condemning Senator McCaskill’s baseless, anti-gay scare tactics,” concluded LaSalvia.

We won’t hold our breath, will we GayPatriots?

UPDATE: Missouri gay-rights group blasts McCaskill…

In a statement defending her opposition to this bill, she [Sen. McCaskill] stated: “This is a foot in the door that would require, for example, the laws in Vermont on gay marriage to be enforced in Missouri.”

This is a problem. A state’s rights argument is valid in this situation, however it is inconceivable that an ally can support Hate Crimes legislation- which recognizes the LGBT community is a target of increased abuse, intolerance and aggressive force- but uses a touchstone issue for the community as a shield rather than stand alone on an anti-gun sentiment.

In a time when we have seen incredible strides on a state by state basis, we have turned a corner and will not tolerate being used as a shield.

…but the HRC and NGLTF have been silent to this anti-gay language from a leading Democrat US Senator.  Come to think of it, have any gay bloggers besides GayPatriot condemned McCaskill?

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  2. This is insane. I always tell my gay friends (none of whom are conservative) that if they are worried about gay-bashing they should be wildly in FAVOR of concealed carry.

    Nothing says: “leave me the hell alone and let me live my life” like the threat of force.

    Minority worried about racial discrimination? Concealed Carry!

    Woman worried about getting hassled, harassed, assaulted or worse? Concealed Carry!

    Liberal Whackjob worried about Karl Rove orchestrating a takeover of the US? Concealed Carry! 🙂

    Love your site Bruce!

  6. Well hang on and look how this has a new spin:

    McCaskill’s office issued the following statement Thursday to clarify her remarks: “In talking about my recent vote against the gun provision offered in the Senate, I wasn’t clear when I stated that my vote against that provision was because it came down to a states’ rights. I was expressing my frustration in that some who argue that states shouldn’t respect the laws, certificates, or permits from other states when it’s convenient, like with gay marriage, but then argue that they should when it’s convenient on another issue, like gun rights. They can’t have it both ways,” McCaskill said.

  8. I love the Dems daily backtracks.
    You couldn’t find any other example other than gay marriage, something tells me it’s because it’s foremost on your mind and you don’t want it in Missouri.

    My limited understanding of the bill is that carrying across state lines only applies to another state with concealed carry laws.

    So her example is all the stranger! If she’s going with gay marriage analogy than what it means is that a couple from New Hampshire can move to Mass and still be married. Then if they want to get divorced in Mass. they can because both state recognize gay marriage.

    She is twisting things and now is trying to wiggle out of it.

  9. Bruce: That depends upon what you are asking liberal groups/blogs to condemn. Gun rights or gay rights or both?

    Peter: Pams House Blend has already condemned the Senator’s remarks and The Advocate has comments on this up as well. This is one that will bring condemnation from both the left and the right as her remarks touch “third rails” on both sides. Now will this cost the Senator support in the next election from her liberal allies? Probably not. Then again, the President is stirring up a lot of discontent so who knows?

  10. I don’t dispute you caught Claire McCaskill in a blatant display of homophobia, but I still don’t see how conservatives can support this bill without being accused of hypocricy. If you read the bill GOPProud;s claim that this does not change any state’s existing law is blatantly false. The bill in essence says that any state with a concealed weapons law must bow to another states particular conceal weapon statute. These laws are all over the place, some far more restrictive than others. What I don’t understand is that conservatives have long argued that the federal govt. should not impose laws on states, but leave issues up to a democratically elected state govt.. Conservative support for this federal law is purely results driven and is impossible to reconcile with any real principle.

  11. I don’t have a problem with this bill’s failure (10th Amendment). The states recognize drivers licenses from other states for convenience. But a kid from a state that will issue a license to a 14 or 15 year old cannot expect that he can legally drive in a state with a minimum age of 16.

    McCaskill is a disgrace. I lived in the KC area back when she was elected, I was appalled at some of the firebombs that came out of her mouth during the campaign. I remember that she told a black congregation in St Louis that the government’s response to Katrina was lacking because GWB wanted to kill blacks.

    I sent her a letter stating that if she actually believed that then she’s far too stupid to serve in government and that if she was just making it up for votes then she was evil. I then asked her which of the two it was. No response of course.

  12. wow, a Democrat in Washington not supporting gays after all the votefor me rhetoric?

    She used you to get in office and then sticks it to you. Who’d didn’t see this one coming from a mile away? Why, most gays of course! who willingly will let Dems do it again and again but claim Repubs are the ones blocking them from rights. Much like Bamabi whinning that it’s Repubs blocking everything when his own party can pass things without a single republican vote. It isn’t lost on anyone

  13. Wasn’t Missouri one of the states where a DOMA amendment to the state constitution passed with greater than 80% of the vote?

    Claire, you open your mouth and remove all doubt – as most libtards do.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  14. It’s funny how one’s party changes one’s convictions.

    All of a sudden Dems are all for state’s rights when it comes to concealed carry. Just like Republicans are all for free choice in medical care unless abortion is involved.

  16. Brendan-

    It is pretty simply why GOProud supported the Thune Amendment. The right to bear arms is an actual right specified in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does trump state laws. And the Constitution says that all matters not spelled out by the Constitution shall be the domain of the States.

    Liberals have it all ass-backwards.

  17. 16: “It’s funny how one’s party changes one’s convictions. All of a sudden Dems are all for state’s rights when it comes to concealed carry. Just like Republicans are all for free choice in medical care unless abortion is involved.”

    Wrong, Tully. No one’s convictions changed here. McCaskill’s “convictions” are abortion on demand (with zero Constitutional authority to support it) and taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans (a right ensconced in the plain language of the Constitution). To these ends, an elitist bit*h like McCaskill can be expected to be dismissive of states’ rights for one purpose and an advocate for states’ rights for the other. This is to be expected from the representatives of a party that is so vile that it actually equates abortion with “medical care.”