I’m a pretty big fan of irony and juxtaposition.  It doesn’t get any better than a pro-gun rally at the Ohio Statehouse during the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Weekend.

Guns Across America is doing just that in several state capitols tomorrow.


According to the Facebook event page for Ohio, the group’s intent is to have a peaceful demonstration to stop any and all future gun control legislation.

Because nothing says peaceful demonstration like walking around downtown Columbus with an assault weapon strapped to your back.

The organizers of the group are being very careful about public perception.  There are many calls to very closely follow the law regarding concealed carry and open carry, not park in covered parking lots, not bring any Hitler signs, and my personal favorite “be careful to prevent any accidental discharges”.  They also want people to not wear so much camo, because – you know – they’re not militant or anything.  They just want to carry around AR-15s.  Which begs the question:  If you’re walking around with an assault weapon strapped to your back will not wearing camouflage make you look any LESS militant?

The political optics for this couldn’t be worse.  In addition to “Guns Across America”, there is also “Gun Appreciation Day“, where gun supporters are told to show up at their local gun store, gun range, or gun show with a copy of the Constitution, their American Flags, and “Hands off my Guns” signs.

Great timing guys!

  • dmoore2222

    More death throws of the white chauvinist male, and increasingly defunct, demographic. And It’s another opportunity for repulicans to say and do stupid things. Can’t wait.

  • brnhut

    You meant throes. I know reasonable men and woman who carry weapons. That fact invalidates your position.

  • ekaneti

    Do you think only white men support the right to hear arms. Women are the fastest growing demographic for CCW permits.

  • brnhut

    I’m going. I come from a professional walk of life, and do not consider myself militant. This is a demonstration to counterpoint your very position — that all gun owners are second-class citizens with a complete disregard for life. What better weekend (not day, MLK day is Monday) to show that a small minority of lunatics do not an entire group make? Stereotype away while denigrating an inanimate object you do not wish to own, but explain why I shouldn’t protest a movement to make me a felon for something I already own with the sweep of an autopen? I’ll be one of many in clothes you wouldn’t give a second glance in your day-to-day errands — I think you would find reasonable, likable people on the other side of your position if you open yourself up to another opinion…

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    I’m open to other opinions on guns. If you read Plunderbund for any amount of time you will realize we are a mix of gun owners and non gun owners.

    I support a right to have guns, but realize there are limits to those rights. Carrying an AR-15 around while shopping or assembling to exercise your freedom of speech are cases where I think it not particularly helpful.

    I’m fully aware there are reasonable, likable people on the other side of the political spectrum. I just wish they’d keep the lunatics in check more often.

    I do think you seriously misconstrue what MLK stood for and how he did it.

  • brnhut

    I am responding to your article which is sans reasonable tone. I found your article because I searched for news regarding the event. You were hoping for a reaction with this content, and you received a reasonable one (much to your chagrin it appears). Backtracking or undercutting the content of your article in comments does not a reasonable article and full position make. If you have a position beyond this article, perhaps modifications should be made. Please explain how I misconstrue MLK’s positions? Putting words into a statement is not an argument.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    I’m not sure how you come to this conclusion. Your reasonable tone is appreciated and has been as far as I can tell returned. I write to inform, not provoke. Reaction is fine and I do like a lively comment section.

    I’ve not backtracked a bit. I think it’s politically tone deaf, self-defeating ultimately, to have a gun rally on the weekend that is dedicated to celebrating a man who not only preached non-violence but practiced it.

    I don’t need to remind you that he was shot and killed with a rifle, right?

    You misconstrue King’s positions by inferring that his struggle was about proving that a “minority of lunatics does not an entire group make”. It was nothing of the sort.

    Thus far your position that this is the perfect time to march down to the statehouse with semi-automatic assault weapons is not at all convincing.

    Obviously the organizers of this event are concerned about perception as they are asking people NOT to wear camo, etc.

    My position was, and remains that the timing of this event is both ironic and a sad juxtaposition against the backdrop of a celebration for an American Icon who used non-violence for social change. Your comments have done nothing to assert otherwise.

    It’s all there, black and white, clear as crystal. Good day, sir!

  • brnhut

    I too appreciate your sound tone in the comments section. Allow me to respond to before ending with a “good day” (you likely didn’t mean the suppressed expression, but that impressed upon me that you believe this comment to be complete and above response).

    I don’t know you Eric, and I am responding to you in frustration with what seems like constant vilification from the side opposite my position, and that is wrong of me. Let’s reorient.

    Public perception of gun rights activists is skewed in my opinion, largely due the amount of coverage that is given to extremists. What I take offense to in your article are the following suppressed premises contained:

    Organizers of the event are attempting to skew opinion by asking us to dress a certain way: I don’t think that’s the case. The issue is so volatile and coverage so skewed that a guideline must be made to ensure our opinion is regarded rather than our appearance (Content of character rather than appearance – a position I think King supported).

    It’s ironic that this demonstration is on MLK weekend because he did not support violence. That suppressed premise is that all gun rights supporters love violence. I disagree with that suppressed premise.

    Thank you for responding, I do feel better about your position, and feel like my opinion was respected from your comments.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    It was actually just a Willy Wonka reference I’m wont to make. 😉

    I see your underlying problem with my premise. I still contend if that’s the case, show up with signs and leave the guns at home. Most people see an AR-15 and immediately think violence. Same thing for camo, which was the point of telling folks not to wear it.

    Thanks for the comments. I do respect your position, though that may not have come out in my original post. I don’t want your guns, Obama doesn’t want your guns. I think what we all should want is to figure out how to prevent senseless tragedies at the hands of these weapons.

    I’m not sure if we can even have that conversation yet, but we need to.

  • brnhut

    Thank you, I will be there without my AR per this discussion. I want you to know this argument had an effect, I was previously planning on carrying it…so thanks!

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    So funny you would say that. I was just coming back here to let you know that you were right. I was being overly dismissive of a point of view – which happened to be yours. Political rhetoric has that effect on us I think. I also took a lot away from this discussion. Thanks for that.

    A true win in this debate is understanding one another, not “winning”. As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

    Again, thanks for engaging – especially in the way you did. It had an effect on me.

  • totenglocke

    “I support a right to have guns, but realize there are limits to those rights. ”

    You mean the part of the Second Amendment where it says “the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall be subject to whatever restrictions people who are against guns deem to be reasonable”? Oh wait, that’s not in there…it says “the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Huh.

    “I just wish they’d keep the lunatics in check more often.”

    Those “lunatics” you are referring to are 100% law abiding people. Just because you don’t like their opinion doesn’t make them a lunatic, it just makes you a jerk for calling them lunatics because you don’t like their personal opinions.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    1. No one is trying to take your guns, dude. Relax.

    2. The second amendment also says “well regulated”.

    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

  • totenglocke

    Yes, you are trying to take my guns by wanting to ban things purely because you find their cosmetic appearance to be “scary”. You have no grounds for banning them because they are “dangerous” since rifles of ANY sort are the LEAST used weapon when committing a murder. Per the FBI, only 2.75% of murders were committed using ANY type of rifle (scary looking or otherwise), yet almost 6% of murders were committed just by punching / kicking someone to death.

    If you bothered to do a bit of research, you’d know that in the 18th century the word “regulated” had nothing to do with government control – it meant “functioning”. Ergo, a well functioning militia (meaning the people of the US), being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    “I” am not trying to ban anyone from owning a rifle, nor is anyone else at Plunderbund as far as I know.
    The majority of our primary contributors have guns in their homes. Two of us, including myself, have CCW permits.
    I was actually at the rally downtown today.

    And while I agree with Eric that it was poorly timed, and also that walking around downtown openly carrying an AK-47 with your toddlers in tow is not the best way to prove to the world that you’re a responsible gun owner (or a responsible parent, for that matter) – I’ll admit the event only had a few weirdos dressed head-to-toe in Vietnam-era camouflage and only one Obama impersonator as far as I can tell.

    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

  • totenglocke

    “You” personally might not, but some of your friends (like the author of this post) are as well as many Democrats. When we’ve had multiple Democrat controlled state governments openly talk about confiscating guns, how can you seriously try to claim that no one wants to confiscate guns?

    Also, why are people so scared of open carrying? I don’t get the gun owners who are afraid of seeing another person carrying a gun.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    I’d love to see some examples of Ohio Democrats in state government threatening to take away guns.
    Former Governor Strickland, a Democrat, has an A rating from the NRA. Strickland voted AGAINST the assault weapons ban when he was in congress. And he signed a ton of pro-gun legislation while he was governor.
    Current Governor Kasich, a Republican, voted FOR the assault weapons ban, earning himself an F from the NRA.
    Oh – and the Buckeye Firearms Association endorsed Strickland over Kasich because of Kasich’s anti-gun votes in Congress.

    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

  • totenglocke

    When did I mention Ohio? I said “multiple Democrat controlled state governments”. I know for certain that Connecticut and New York have both mentioned confiscations. I believe Maryland has mentioned something about it as well

    Kasich may have voted for a ban previously, but as Governor he’s been very pro-gun. After the incident in Newtown many liberals urged him to not sign HB 495 into law and he responded by telling them that he wouldn’t delay it and signed it the next day.

    I’m still not sure why you’re mentioning Ohio though when I was explicitly referring to state governments with a Democrat governor and Democrat majority in both houses, such as NY.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    I mention Ohio because we are an Ohio-focused political blog and this story was about an Ohio event.

    Also worth mentioning: Ohio is not New York.

    But even in NY State, the loudest voice for gun control is NYC Mayor Bloomberg, who was elected as a Republican. And any laws that will get passed must get passed the Republican-controlled State Senate.

    I’d be interested to see any actual evidence you have of someone in Ohio or any state calling for confiscating guns.

    Even the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban didn’t confiscate weapons or even BAN them. It just affected weapons manufactured for the ten year period defined in the bill.

    The most likely thing we’ll see coming out of the recent round of calls for more gun regulation will be additional background checks, not bans on guns.

    And I’m all for that.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    The author of this post is also not trying to take your guns.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    brnhut is the one who used the term lunatic. i just responded to it. there are lunatics among the gun culture set. if you aren’t even able to acknowledge this then I don’t think we can continue having a dialogue here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.cenotti.3 Jason Cenotti

    The ar-15 is the epitome of the second amendment. That weapon is the compromise instead of an actual assault weapon. That is the gun (along with its multi shaped cousins) that is under attack. So why should rifle owners hide. Why not bring it out so people can see they are not weapons of mass destruction. Its time gun owners get galvanized and proactive before we are reduced to .22 caliber derringers attached to 40 lb weights. I voted Democrat the last few elections and this attack has pushed me far to the right because I believe in the bill of rights and the ability to defend my family with more than 7 bullets.

  • http://www.facebook.com/stephen.beard.509 Stephen Beard

    brnhut, you are certainly correct that not all gun-owners are second-class citizens and so forth, but it is not a stereotype to say that you and your co-protestors are taking the mantle of victim because the President and his crew want to restrict access to such things as high capacity magazines and assault style weapons. Yes, yes, I know that many guns are of the semi-automatic type and that banning such weapons as the AR-15 is just a ridiculous gesture. I also know there are reasonable and likable people on either side of this position, but the obvious claim that gun control laws make victims of gun owners, which is the unstated point of this event, makes your claims absurd. Do you want to appear as a victim? If not, stay home.

  • brnhut

    Legislating that I must put myself at a disadvantage against criminals who will choose the best weapon available regardless of laws makes me a victim to both them and the law. I do not think my claim is absurd.

  • SkippingDog

    And what better way to show that you’re not lunatics than by walking around the center of a city with your AR-15 or SKS during the MLK weekend festivities? Nothing says peaceful demonstration like a bunch of people with firearms….

    When you finally do have a lot of strict regulations imposed at the state and federal level on all firearms, you can look back and ask yourselves if this kind of in your face nonsense led to your defeat.

  • http://twitter.com/johnpdeever johnpdeever

    Maybe not you, brnhut, but others have claimed that a gun rally on the MLK holiday weekend (why split hairs about the exact day?) honors the values King fought for. To which Jon Stewart replied, “Dr. King would be pro-gun, just as surely as Jesus would be pro-nail.”

  • brnhut

    I had no idea Jon could speak for MLK, but I’m sure Martin would argue that the movement he fought for was bigger than just him. The value that gun owners should not be vilified for our position in sweeping statements is one position I think he would support — but I cannot speak for the man.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    You should study King more. You’ll find it is more complicated than you may know – I know I did. Early King had armed guards outside of his home and applied for a concealed carry permit because of threats on his life. He was denied the permit and ultimately convinced by Bayard Rustin that he had to abandon that tactic if he was going to truly follow the Gandhian way. He did and it worked.

  • brnhut

    I was not aware of that, thank you for this research. I now know that I would disagree with MLK’s position in regard to defensive use of force. I do believe he would not consider forcing people to take his position.

  • ekaneti

    So you disagree with the right to self defense.

  • brnhut

    You misread my remark. I argue MLK chose to reason instead of using defensive force. Reasoning only works with reasonable people, and defensive force should be used for all others.

  • totenglocke

    Gun rights are a civil rights issue. How can you not think that the right to defend yourself (whether it is from a drugged up criminal or a corrupt government trying to oppress you) is a civil right?

  • http://www.facebook.com/dfissell1 Donald Fissell

    1. it is peaceful if no shots are fired. 2. MLK did believe in guns for self defenses. and he supported the NRA effort to help arm the black so they could protect them self from the KKK a left-wing group started by the democrat party

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    So many problems here. 1. Would you say that a New Black Panther Party poll watcher with a machine gun is a peaceful act so long as no shots were fired? I’d argue it’s militant and I wouldn’t support it. It’s disingenuous to argue it’s peaceful when the underlying tone is to flaunt an ability to carry around devices that were designed to kill people.

    2. Yes and no. There was a time when many in the civil rights movement did have weapons for self protection. The King home was famously guarded after it was bombed. Some called it an arsenal. Later, he gave this up, knowing that no amount of weaponry could keep him safe. See my earlier references to this change of heart in my other comment. I’d love to see some kind of citation for your claim that MLK supported the NRA in order to arm blacks.

    Last problem with your statement is the over-simplistic claim that the KKK was a “left-wing group started by the democrat party”. Firstly, it ignores any historical context that the democrats who started the KKK were conservatives. Yesterday’s Ds and Rs are a far cry from today’s. Not your father’s [party], as it were. The Klan were against Republicans at the time, who were in fact quite liberal. So one could say the modern day Republican Party (very conservative) are descendants of the old Southern Democrat Party.

  • Jor Dough

    The notion of a bunch of gun-nuts parading around downtown Columbus with variants of weapons derived from the military M-16 is entirely laughable maybe dangerous. Sounds like an armed version of the Doo-Dah parade without the wit and humor. Accidental discharges – indeed

    Wearing “camo” – what stupidity in that what are they hiding from to feel the need to camouflage themselves.

    Betcha a very high percentage – upwards of 90, of these stylish gun-fops never carried a real assault weapon in combat or wore camouflage in combat in service to this nation.

    If you never carried a “AR” M-16 based weapon in war and are prancing around downtown in your you warrior costumes, you are nothing more than a poseur pretending with a faux army gun to claim what you inherently lack. Most men gave up playing army in grade school. Those who served in combat know what it means to carry and use a lethal weapon.

    If you want to parade around in camo and carry a real weapon of war – join up and learn to use combat skills to kill terrorists and defend this nation.

  • brnhut

    I think a lot of people going would agree with you. The goal of the demonstration per the page is to show that the majority of gun owners are reasonable people from all walks of life. The guideline for the demonstration is to ensure the goal is met…you are taking a guideline and attempting to point out that the majority of gun-owners are militant, camo-wearing idiots who will be firing off our weapons into the air to make our point. I suggest you go to the demonstration and speak with us before settling on that opinion.

  • ekaneti

    “””Betcha a very high percentage – upwards of 90, of these stylish gun-fops never carried a real assault weapon in combat or wore camouflage in combat in service to this nation””. AND what’s your point? Constitutional right apply only those who served in combat. Moron

  • Jor Dough

    From my perspective that would be a terrific idea.

    For the record, there is no U.S. Constitutional “right” to vote. Voting rights and procedures are largely a matter of state laws and rules. Since you don’t know what you are blabbering about perhaps your right to vote should be suspended. Maybe you can get a grade-school teacher to read the U.S. Constitution to you. There are some big words in it you might not understand.

    Anyway, I never suggested what you brought up and only pointed out what phonies the gun-fops with their “camo” and big bad faux army guns are, for the most part, weak-minded fellas with huge inferiority complexes who try to compensate for their inefficiencies by buying and brandishing a big gun to compensate for what Mother Nature did not give them.

  • Phillip Reed

    I wonder what would happen if members of the Black Panther Party were to show up with weapons, like they often did in the 1960s.


  • http://twitter.com/daingel Domenica Iacovone

    Are they also being sponsored by a Nationalist group like the Gun Appreciation Day Group was?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.cenotti.3 Jason Cenotti

    I went and no one sponsored me. In fact groups were formed from youtube pages to create this. Many small groups had different ideas like gun appreciation day. Regular people laid out money for the permit and porta potties in NY. It worked out well we all through a couple bucks to help pay for it. All this in just a couple of days. I drove for hours to be there. A lot of people did. I met quite a few that didnt even own guns showing support. Nutnfancy on Youtube, and guns across america. On facebook.

  • http://twitter.com/daingel Domenica Iacovone

    Good thing you weren’t at the one in Ohio where one gun shop owner accidently shot his business partner then. Congrats

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bill-Renz/100000623267680 Bill Renz

    How about this…I’ll put my guns down when the Government puts theres down. dose it’s job of protecting the USA from other countries and terrorist groups. And fulfill there oath to defend the Constitution

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.cenotti.3 Jason Cenotti

    LOL thats my motto. “you first”. They spend fortunes militarizing the police. Homeland security has an enormous budget. Telling us we are under imminent threat from an ominous hidden enemy. Oh by the way what do you need those guns for? lol a tightrope walk. be scared but not enough to defend yourself

  • Ry Sullivan

    Your a moron. A) No one is bringing their assualt rifles to the state capitals because you are not allowed (in most states) to open carry such weapons and concealing it would be harder. B) How come when pro 2nd amendment citizens rally, we are tone deaf but you make no mention of the anti constitution rallies scheduled on Monday… Martin Luther King DAY. People have the right to assemble which is also in the constitution (which you most likely never read) and if we sit back quiet, more of our rights will be stripped. I thank you for the 90 seconds it took you to write this terrible article; thankfully we now have the internet because otherwise, I would have never been able to read your 5th grade level writing abilities.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    Well, my friend. Looks like the moron is on the other foot because photographic evidence proves that they did.

    I’m not familiar with an anti-Constitution rally on Monday. Can you send a link?

    I’ve not only read it, but even capitalize it when I write about it.

    I checked on the Intertube and the article is 9th grade level. So there.

  • http://plunderbund.com Joseph

    That was a very polite response, Eric, especially considering he attacked your writing ability with a comment that started with a misspelled word.

    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

  • Ry Sullivan

    I was writing to the author idiot. The universe is not Ericocentric

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    I AM the author. Idiot.

  • http://twitter.com/intrfirst ][

    Some attack site linking to this article just decided to try to out you.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    Be tough to do because I’m not gay.

  • http://twitter.com/intrfirst ][

    No, they’re trying to get your identity so that they can step up personal attacks – site going by the initials F.R.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    yeah. i was kidding. i saw it. not the first time i’ve been freeped.

  • ekaneti

    Tone deaf? Didn’t realize they had to have majority support. Guess what Rosa Parks was gone deaf as well, but she was right.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    Clearly they don’t have majority support as there were only 700 or so. Rosa Parks what?

  • totenglocke

    “Because nothing says peaceful demonstration like walking around downtown Columbus with an assault weapon strapped to your back.”

    Yes, because peacefully walking around while carrying an inanimate object is SUCH a threat. This site is a joke. If you’ve never noticed in your life, the majority of Ohioans are very much in favor of the Constitution and especially the Second Amendment. If that offends your delicate sensibilities, then perhaps you should consider moving to a less Constitution friendly state such as New York? I hear they just instated yet more punishments for law abiding gun owners while still doing nothing about criminals – it sounds exactly like the type of place that you’d enjoy.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    There’s “right” and then there’s “right”. Just because you can doesn’t always mean you should.

  • totenglocke

    That’s a correct statement, but irrelevant to the issue at hand. You claimed that they were violent and threatening people by peacefully assembling while holding inanimate objects.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    Incorrect. I said militant. I never said violent of threatening. I still contend they could protest and exercise freedom of speech and assembly without firearms.

    Again, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

  • totenglocke

    No, in a comment to another person, you clearly said that they were being violent by carrying firearms.

    ” I still contend they could protest and exercise freedom of speech and assembly without firearms.”

    Yes, they could, but it wouldn’t show that groups of people can go about in public with firearms without anyone being hurt. Also, notice how the police didn’t try to intimidate anyone at these rallies? Any time unarmed people are protesting, they usually get harassed and threatened (sometimes assaulted even) by the police – yet the police left these people alone.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    Still incorrect. How you could turn that comment into me clearly saying they were “being violent by carrying firearms” speaks to an inability to understand plain English. I never said they were threatening people either. Some may FEEL threatened (and rightly so).

    I’ve been to several rallies and protests at and in the statehouse and never saw threatening behavior by police toward unarmed civilians.

    Bottom line I never claimed what you said I claimed. I’m glad the Cbus rally was without incident and still think their points could be made without carrying. Unless, of course, their main point of protest is to be able to have an AR strapped to their back at all times walking around in public – then it might be relevant.

  • http://twitter.com/CindyBP CindyBP

    First it is not actually his birthday, it’s a three day weekend.

    Second you wouldn’t know an assault gun from chocolate cake.

    Third, why would there be hitler signs, he was in favor of gun confiscation just like democrats/liberals/the president/pol pot/mao/stalin/lenin/mossulini.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    First, there were events relative to MLK all weekend.

    Second, I would indeed know the difference and I said assault rifle, not gun. I’ve fired them as well as various other weapons up to and including an M1A1.

    Third, I mention Hitler signs because organizers of the event (not me) mentioned them in telling participants not to bring any.

  • Wrench Moran

    MLK advocated for civil rights for African American. How is that any different than gun owners advocating their second amendment rights?

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    Look up the difference between civil rights and political rights and come back.

  • cargosquid

    Please, explain how the rights of African Americans DON’T include 2nd Amendment rights.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    Learn English first and then I’ll explain it fully to you. You obviously didn’t do what I asked Wrench Moran to do.

  • cargosquid

    Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples’ physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, status as a member of the uniformed services, sexual orientation, or gender identity;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.

    Political rights include natural justice (procedural fairness) in law, such as the rights of the accused, including the right to a fair trial; due process; the right to seek redress or a legal remedy; and rights of participation in civil society and politics such as freedom of association, the right to assemble, the right to petition, the right of self-defense, and the right to vote.

    Here ya go. Now…. since MLK advocated for BOTH for African Americans, you can get off of your high horse.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    You looked it up and you still don’t see. Hilarious. You first tried to equate the struggle for civil rights under King with the protests about rights that haven’t even been taken away today. There is no equivalence.

    You see the difference yet?

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    For the record, I did not use the term “lunatic”. brnhut did.

    So I take it you have your gun out and accessible while fully loaded in your home Sfc? That would make it much more dangerous to you or someone in your home. It is certainly your choice to do so and that right is supported here as well as in the US Constitution. Nobody wants your guns.

    Kids as props. You mean something like this? http://www.politicususa.com/remember-bush-children-political-props-veto-stem-cell-research.html

  • http://www.plunderbund.com/ Brian

    “Timing”? Big events like this open policy windows. People want the problem of these shootings addressed. The NRA even suggested a policy change. *Everybody* does this; look at all the security state changes that came after 9/11. Or hell, look at our policy of exploiting unrest around the world to force capitalistic change on various countries (Poland, Chile, for example).

  • brnhut

    We appear to start from two very different viewpoints on the nature of humanity. It appears from your quote that you choose to believe humanity’s nature is basically good, and simply discussing issues will bring people to a common understanding and mutually beneficial arrangement in regard to profit, property, and justice. While discussion should be a first choice, my belief is that humanity is basically rooted in selfishness and self-interest and there are some people with whom you cannot reason. Those cases need to be deterred from destroying others’ wealth and family, and the ultimate deterrent is a threat against life. I choose to keep a weapon as a last resort against evil people, and choose the type of weapon because I should have the advantage against evil men. Not the other way around. This conclusion causes me to bristle against attempts to remove my defensive means and advantage against evil, because I believe my choice a logical one. Removing my defense because we are starting from different worldviews is immoral.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    I like this. Sounds reasonable enough to me. I also disagree with your underlying view of humanity. That said, your choice to defend yourself in the way you do under certain limits (well regulated and such) is fine with me.

    Here’s the rub though. This same attitude of “to each his own” is seldom taken on the right when it comes to other rights that seem obvious to those with an opposing worldview. Gay marriage. Abortion. Et cetera…

    If I concede to you your point, is same returned to me? We, of course, also have to consider the general welfare as this was an underlying basis for the US Constitution to begin with.

    I do like the way you’ve put this and I’m persuaded by it.

  • brnhut

    Agreement from logical progression on one subject does not assure agreement on other subjects! Perhaps we’ll meet again…

  • cargosquid

    MLK was a proud Republican gun owner.

  • http://www.plunderbund.com Eric

    No. Please read the thread fully before commenting. This has been covered relative to gun ownership/use.

    MLK as a Republican is a tired old line used by current wingnuts to mitigate their crazy. It’s simply untrue to call Dr. King a Republican and it completely ignores historical context as I’ve pointed out before in this comment thread.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!