Spotted on the Facebook page of the National Association for Gun Rights:
So if a sign restricts entry to a business or government building, by definition that's discrimination? I guess it's time for a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of would-be convenience store customers wearing no shirt and no shoes!
But seriously, I'm reminded of George Will's recent column on campus sexual assault. Will wrote that colleges and universities "make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges." That's an idea that right-wingers are obsessed with. It's ridiculous, of course, to argue that victim status "confers privileges" -- but people with a normal human sense of empathy do respond to stories of mistreatment, and that drives right-wingers nuts: all their money and skill at propaganda can't fully counteract ordinary citizens' legitimate sense of horror at, for instance, the murders of the civil rights era, or unpunished sexual assaults on campuses and in the military, or deaths in school shootings. No matter how much power conservatives have, they want the moral high ground, too -- even if, as on the issue of guns, they already have nearly all the power in most of the country. That's never enough for them. They want might to make right and they want you to think they're right morally. They want it all.
6 comments:
Maybe that's exactly it. From the conservative standpoint rapists are the Real Victims because they always get all the blame. Why, Jiminy Crickets, they could even get arrested!
So, these WATB's want their guns with them wherever they go, and for the rest of us to eat crow, too.
They think that they're the manliest men in history!
Why?
Because they demand the right to carry their weapons wherever they go!
You see, David didn't carry his slingshot everywhere he went - especially not to his "harem" - nor did Goliath, his sword.
A Roman foot-soldier didn't carry his Gladius with him when running chores for his Mrs.
Mongol's and Huns only carried their weapons when battling - not when going out with their families to the local Yak Shack for some burgers, fried grasses, and Yak-malteds.
And even our Minutemen were told that the didn't need to carry their flintlocks with them everywhere - they just needed access to them at a moment's notice.
And even in our Wild West, most towns didn't allow cowpokes to carry 'round thar shootin-arns - even if they wore white hats.
But our current manliest-men are the manliest-med of ALL TIME - because they demand the right to bear arms ALL OF THE TIME!
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh...
Jayzoos, weeps...
The funny thing is not that they're wrong (that's too obvious to be funny) but one of the ways in which they're wrong.
You see, there is no discrimination against gun wearers in the slightest. What there is, is a rule against the carrying of a gun. So, arguably there's a rule against gun carriers. But there's also a rule against carrying a pet, and a rule against traipsing into the business in the altogether. In fact, both of those are far more widely prohibited than is gun-bearing.
So, shouldn't you really put a post-it over the "gun" saying "pet"? It would still be wrong (I could own an entire menagerie and happily enter so long as none were with me, even as I could drive up to the front door in a rolling armory and enter so long as I left the hardware in the car), but interpreted as meant it would be closer to being correct.
These nuts who insist on carrying military style weapons into restaurants are hastening the day they fear the most. The day the government takes away their weapons.
So what happens when clinic escorts and even patients start packing heat to deter "gentle counseling"? Will their gun ownership and use be A-okay with right-wing gun/"pro-life" activists, or will these self-contradicting activists once again claim that they are the real victims?
Kathy,
Conservatives are ALWAYS the victims.
And if you don't think so, just ask one of 'em! :-)
Post a Comment