Why attack Sikhs?

Cyn. What the hell are you doing?

I really don't give a shit what gun owners believe. Lots of entities would like to be as undiluted and unrestricted as possible, that doesn't mean anything. I could believe that I should have the right to walk down the street naked and I don't imagine that means much to you or anyone who thinks that 'right' is appropriately curtailed. Why do gun owners think they are so special? So special in a modern era in which gay men and women still haven't achieved the same rights as the rest of us. The 'gun lobby' really needs to come up with a different, less spoiled brat way of clarifying itself. Stamping your feet and saying 'because I said so' is a really tiresome defense tactic. And, frankly, I'm really surprised to see you using it. I've come to expect more from you.

 

yeah

 

I suspect one reason why there is such strong opposition to hate crime laws among some on the right (not directed at cyn), but particularly religious conservatives and anti-government conservatives, is the concern over the spill-over effect on their own hate speech, which is constitutionally protected.

Every hate-based murder of a Muslim (or Sikh ignorantly perceived as a Muslim) or Jew or Black or Gay...draws attention to their bigotry...from the ignorant and irrational fear of Muslims infiltrating the govt or planning to impose Sharia law on the country, to the conspiracy theory that Jews are responsible for the ills of the White Man and are behind a one-world, socialist government to gays destroying the moral fiber of the country...all of which must be stopped to save the country from ruin.

 

Have you read or heard some of the anti-gay bigotry and ignorance spewed by James Dobson and Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council or Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association or the anti-Muslim bigotry and ignorance spewed by Pamela Geller of the Freedom Defense Initiative/Stop Islamization of America?

 

People have the right to have guns. Does that mean that anyone should have the right to own and carry any variety of as many guns as they like?
People have the right to get married. Some of us anyway. Does that mean we should have the right to marry anyone (including children) and as many people as we like?

Our rights are modified to fit the best interests of society all of the time. I am more than aware of what gun rights people think and why they think it.
My point from the very beginning this morning was simply to point out that their no-restrictions, no-compromise, no-way intractable (and largely successful) campaign seems, TO ME, irrational and is possibly on a path to collide (or collude) with American extremism in a dire and troubling way.

I'm still confused as to what the point of all this was. So I'm going back to pinterest now.

 

first off, it seems to me that cyn has a problem with the fact of a broader conservative ideology. he doesn't seem to register that conservatism in the states is not necessarily a matter of individual dispositions, as his might be. it's more than one thing, many of which are highly structured by an obvious and consistent ideological apparatus. perhaps this follows from some idea of free-thinking--which is also a frequent conservative meme, a function of the victimization trope, one that enables utterly reactionary positions to be defended as if they were some kind of heroic stand taken in the face of a largely imaginary onslaught of memes tending in some other direction. and it is the case, like it or not, that entirely subjective positions can merge with those outlined in meme space. this appears to me to be one of those situations.

take for another example the notion that somehow race and racism are not problems in the states. it is a recurrent conservative move to act as though this is the case and to say that, in some alternate universe, "we" are beyond all that. this is the basis for the ridiculous "logic" that lay behind the "reverse discrimination" thing, which is really yet another way for conservatives to posit their own victimization, just as the same kind of move was in the reconstruction period...in the face of the nature of conservative ideology in its noxious populist form, it's hard not to see this as disengenuous. but people argue it anyway. the extension of this same idea is the claim, typically made in a hit-and-run manner, that racism is only a problem when people mention that racism is a problem. this argument is one of those that's almost disarming in its stupidity. but it has some currency--note the use of the o.j. trial vintage phrase "the race card"...which has this strange effect in conservativeland of treating the introduction of racism as a problem as if it were a move in some game. so it's arbitrary, because "we" are beyond all that. but the only way in which conservatives are by all that is that they don't want to have to talk about it. and this for the reason redux noted above: talking about it draws attention to things that are not politically advantageous on the order of ignorance and bigotry and their routine use in mobilizing the conservative faithful. but--again---to see this you'd have to concede that there is such a thing as populist conservative ideology and that it has effects on a demographic, even if you do not see yourself as part of that demographic.

the gun rights issue---to argue against gun control on the grounds of inconvenience is like arguing against the right to strike because it might make you walk because the metro is shut down. it misses the point entirely. a strike presupposes effects. that's the idea. control of access and use of guns does as well. it's likely the case that restrictions on people going to gun clubs are a result of badly drawn law--but that's nothing remotely like an objection to gun control in general. it's an assertion of some sense of bourgeois privilege. there's usually a verb and a pronoun response that that.

 

The threat is far greater than race or religious based hate crimes but also gets to the growing far right anti-government movement, particularly since Obama's election.

Guys like the shooter at a Tennessee church, killing two and wounding seven, who wanted to kill every Democrat in Congress:

"There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state...."​

​

Or the guy in Florida, dishonorably discharged from the Marines, who shot and killed three police officers during a four-hour siege at his home. Friends said he was afraid the Obama administration would take his guns away.

Or, in a different vein, violent ideological attacks, not hate crimes, like the murder of an abortion doctor in a church in Kansas.

Since Obama took office, there have been nearly 20 extremist right-wing, anti-government, attacks and plots, including the killing of almost a dozen police officers in six separate attacks.

A new report released Wednesday by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START, showed that murders carried out by right-wing extremist groups (or individuals) have been on the rise recently—nearly doubling since the mid-2000s.

These -- racial/religious motivated, anti-government motivated, ideological motivated -- were all predicted in the 09 DHS report that was trashed by Republicans in Congress, the NRA, and conservative talking heads as an attack on real Americans standing up for their rights.

And I would suggest there is some level of (indirect) complicity resulting from this extremist rhetoric -- from the likes of Limbaughs and Becks and the screams of "socialists like Obama who hate American and are out to destroy our way of life" to the NRA's warning about "the secret plot to dismantle the Second Amendment" to the FRC/AMA shouts of "gays (and abortion) destroying American family values" to the Congressional witch hunt for Muslims infiltrating the government."

The first step towards addressing the growing threat of right wing extremism is acknowledging what might be contributing to the threat.

 

and if it weren't so apparent that liberals have next to no actual voice in the decision-making that shapes our society today, all this paranoia would be laughable.
--- merged: Aug 10, 2012 at 10:35 AM ---
that came out wrong. you know what I mean.

 

If we dont speak out and respond with legal remedies, how do we address the growing intolerance? What better way do you suggest then sending a clear message that acts of hateful violence that not only impact the victim but whose intent is to intimidate an entire class of citizens (race, religion, gender identity) will not be tolerated.

 

Well, then, we agree. On both points.
I certainly never thought of you as belonging to 'conservativeland.' I've always thought that you were kind of centrist. Which is why this discussion kind of confused me.

I am very clear how the gun set views any attempt at gun control. I've seen and heard it in action. And it's very clear what their stance is:

When it comes to 'gun control' laws, citizens who favor them (like myself) do not have the right of representation by our government or in our society.

 

How do you explain the huge, sweeping gun control legislation like 1934, 1986 and 1994 (sunset'd)? Obviously these were specific post-disaster kneejerks to save a reelection campaign, but some crying mother or traumatized community was there to help the process along with endless letter-writing campaigns, teary-eyed public appearances, the support of wealthy Hollywood stars and plenty of angry ranting. Brady'd. Handgun Control Inc'd. The thing that gets me is that those in the anti-gun arena act like there haven't been many, many local, state and federal laws enacted to restrict firearm ownership, storage, transportation and use. Gun laws in the US are like an M.C. Escher work... just look up state level AWB provisions, magazine capacity restrictions per state or the various laws for purchasing ammunition. Really, these passionate people are no different than the pro-gun nuts that talk about how they're losing their Jeebus-given right to buy a bazooka or how tyranny comes from civilian firearm restriction.

I am very clear how the anti-gun set views my incredibly moderate opinion on firearms. I've seen and heard it in action. It's very clear what their stance is:

"You own something that scares me. It isn't a reasonable hobby. I can't trust you. I don't want you to own guns because bad guys have guns."

I get that from people on TFP. They're quick to typecast me because I own firearms. They make jokes about how I would use them inappropriately.

Everybody's an extremist. And everybody's an asshole. And it's always like dropping a big magnet in a pile of iron filings.

Example:

You can't talk about self-defense because it's not something most people can handle. "Why would I ever have to defend myself?"

Spreekillers.ch

Oh, that.

/round 'n round we fap

...

Guns, as a problem, are easy to focus on and hard to solve. What else can we focus on that'll yield better results and preempt murderous nutjobs?