[Originally posted at www.larsonshow.com]
On Monday’s show I had a “steamed” caller, upset at me over my comments about the two Lesbians — one of which was not given a family discount — at Lava Hot Springs a few weeks ago.
The caller said the Constitution does not define a family. I also said the Constitution didn’t tell us what 2+2 equals. The point being that the Constitution doesn’t tell us a lot of things.
Anyway, apparently not a whole lot of people are too upset over the “discrimination” at Lava’s pool. Fewer than a dozen folks showed up to protest last Saturday, and I know why. It’s because nobody cares, because it’s not discrimination against anyone. It’s simply preference for traditional families. And, it’s the right of a business to have a preference for traditional families.
When I go into a restaurant and see that people over 65 get a discount, I could get a lesbian-like loud-and-proud attitude and run off whining to the local newspaper that age discrimination is going on. But I don’t. You know why? I’m not old enough to get the discount.
People in wheelchairs, or with diabetes, or who are deaf get better parking spaces. I’m not going to throw up an obscene gesture as I leave that place of business because I didn’t get that parking space. Why? Because I’m not deaf, nor am I in a wheelchair, and I don’t have diabetes.
Back when I was going to college there were plenty of scholarships available if I had been black, hispanic, a woman, or an environmentalist. I could have set a bad example to my kids by using off-color language at the scholarship office. But guess what… I didn’t. Why? Because I’m not black, hispanic, nor am I a woman or environmentalist.
There’s lots of “discrimination” going on, I guess, if you must call it that.
I find it interesting that the status of “family” is so coveted that any group of people who want to bond and congregate want to hijack the concept and claim it as their own. While I have no doubt that there are some similarities between a family, and a group of people who nurture, bond with, and care for each other — there’s no substitute for an attentive father, nurturing mother, and precious children.
Why fault the Lava Hot Springs pool for recognizing that?
To all those who feel discriminated against: Get over yourselves.
Popularity: 9%
Related posts:
It WAS all he had to say about it!
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 44 comments… read them below or add one }
Neal, nice post.
I applaud Lava Hot Springs for sticking to their principles and defending traditional marriage.
I must confess that I have never been to their establishment, but now I have more reason than ever to offer them my business.
Your comments on race and age are interesting. You should add some fule to the other post today concerning “reverse discrimination.”
Neal,
My comment is directed not towards the decision by Lava Hot Springs, but rather by your comments in the third paragraph. I quote: “The caller said the Constitution does not define a family. I also said the Constitution didn’t tell us what 2+2 equals. The point being that the Constitution doesn’t tell us a lot of things.”
I would be VERY interested in your answer to the question: “Who gets to decide when we look to the Constitution for what it DOES say and when we get to “interpret” the things like 2+2 that it doesn’t say but that we seemingly should already take for granted?
I am confident (please correct me if I’m wrong) you fully support the Second Ammendment. I am equally confident (again, corrections welcome) that you, like many on your side of the aisle, ignore the first seven words of that Ammendment.
I’ll also bet you lunch that you supported the constitutionality of California’s Prop 8, even though it is in no way supported by the Grand Old Document. Another example of the “2+2″ perspective?
For the record, I believe the Court acted correctly in the context of this particular case. But what I find of even more importance is how you (or anyone) can justify adhering to a “strict constructionist” ideal on the bench, except when a person points out that an ideal you agree with is NOT stated in the Constitution…then you are fine with the “2+2″ argument.
Where do you sit, big guy? Are you a constructionist? If so, let’s hear you support some meaningful gun reform.
If you’re not a constructionist and believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, apt for adjustment with the times, then leave the gays alone to their own “choices”, the way God intended when he put us here and let us and them deal with the consequences of our choices accordingly.
You can’t have it both ways, bubba. The Shrub is gone.
Is this the conservative bent I have come to know and loathe these past eight years, or am I misunderstanding something here?
Praying for the latter,
Dennis Jones
Idaho Falls
Not that I would ask for the discount, but if my boyfriend and I took our grandkids (my grandkids) to this establishment, do you think they would have been as quick to invalidate our “family” status? I have to wonder.
As a business owner, I do believe that it is up to the individual business to make these decisions, but they may want to post exactly who is going to be able to receive these discounts if it is that important to them to stand by that particular segment of their principles. My only gripe is that it was made such a big deal in front of the kids, who are probably just fine thinking that they are part of a family.
I wasn’t there, so I don’t know exactly what happened, but I think kids have a hard enough time, and if they are happy and in a stable, loving home, they are in a family, and no one should tell them otherwise.
I’ve known many, many kids while I was growing up that were in the traditional “family”. Many were horribly abused, many were neglected, many had miserable childhoods. A traditional “family” is in no way a guarantee that children will be taken care of and there are many untraditional families that have happy, well adjusted kids. There is no “perfect” family.
As a divorced parent I don’t meet Lava’s definition of a family either. After all they defined family as husband + wife + kids. So I guess I can’t get the discount either since I’m missing the wife part. Not that Neil Larson is going to care about what the powers at Lava actually said.
The first 13 words of the 2nd amendment set the tone for the last 14. The last 14, if written alone, are meaningless.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I didn’t buy guns so I could sport shoot…but it’s certainly a bonus!
Marcus,
And not to get off the original topic but, this IS the perfect example of what I was talking about.
A strict constructionist, believing that the constitution should remain inviolate from interpretation with the changing times would indeed support the 2nd Ammendment as is and as ORIGINALLY intended, because in the late 1700’s we HAD A NEED for a well regulated militia. Thus, THOSE people should leave the gays and lesbians to their own, as there is nothing in the constitution which even remotely mentions the legality or illegality of same sex marriage.
Consequently, those who believe that, as there is no need today for a well regulated militia, but an overwhelming need for a reasonable control on the weapons we are allowed to own that make us the most murderous nation on earth, could equally argue that the constitution is a living document and could be re-interpreted, for the best interest of our citizens today. These people could then also, if they wished, make a case that, in the best interest of our society, the 9th Ammendment should be interpreted to mean that the “certain rights” mean the majority right to determine what coupling constitutes a legal and lawful marriage.
You are either for leaving the document as it was, or making it possible for reinterpretation.
But…you can’t have it both ways.
I like it how it is. I don’t care about whether queers get married or not. I don’t want the government to have any part in social issues – only people can truly overcome problems in this sector successfully.
If you don’t see a continued need for a well regulated militia, you are blind. You will certainly see it when the government crosses the line enough for people to stand up and take action instead of crying about problems through a megaphone. If the problem isn’t severe enough to fight for, stop blabbing on about it because it obviously doesn’t matter.
The founding fathers put these guidelines in place to protect future generations from a corrupt government that would undoubtedly be overstepping it’s bounds and oppressing the people of this country in the future. Just because we haven’t seen it yet doesn’t mean that a few years under our belt means we’re immune to it. To think that way is a mistake.
I agree, good comment.
Marcus,
First, let me say it is debate like this that makes our country truly unique and I appreciate your comments.
That said, let me address one specific comment you made…you said, “The founding fathers put these guidelines in place to protect future generations from a corrupt government that would undoubtedly be overstepping it’s bounds and oppressing the people of this country in the future.”
Not exactly accurate.
At the time, the “governement” that the Second Ammendment was written to protect our citizens from was the British government, who attempted to make gun ownership illegal to keep the colonists from defending themselves.
The guidelines that were “put in place to to protect future generations from a corrupt government” was our Republic…an electoral process of one person – one vote to ensure all citizens were fairly represented.
And that system worked very nicely last November (and in Congress during the 2006 midterms) when the most corrupt US government since the Nixon administration was sumarily kicked to the curb.
Furthermore, if the “well regulated militias” of which you speak did not believe that the Bush admin “crossed the line” enough for them to stand up and take action, what in Lord’s name will get them off the schneid?
To think that any attempt by a citizens militia could or ever will stand up militarily against our local, state or national governments for more than a couple of hours before being laughed back to their mountain cabin fortresses is not realistic. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to give us a peaceful solution to bad government, and as I stated a moment ago, recently it has been working just fine. I am certain it will again.
Really? It worked? Interesting.
I think it’s still going downhill.
The whole concept of citizens being able to bear arms so that they could stand against a corrupt government is laughable in todays world. When this notion was crafted back in the 1700’s your average citizen could actually arm themselves fairly evenly with the government but today the government could destroy you hundreds of different ways without you even seeing them. Its just one of the many parts of the constitution that no longer really has relevance in todays world and why it should be a living document.
You fail to realize that the technology is useless without men to run it.
Marcus,
Note that I didn’t say the system is fine or doesn’t still need work. Frankly, until the “money” aspect of the presidential and congressional is removed from th equation, the American political system will continue to be two sides of the same bad coin.
The point I was trying to make had to do with the endless accounts of the Bush administration usurping the constitution and the Bill of Rights, or simply outright disreguard for the law, “because they said so”…not to mention getting us into a war that NEVER should have happened in the first place (Afghanistan, sure, as that is where the 911 planners have been holed up, but we had no reason HONEST to be in Iraq).
I stated that our Founding Fathers “gave us a peaceful solution to bad government”…our electoral process, and in this case it worked fine, expelling the corrupt administration.
And yes, I am certain that should the people feel that President Obama has not cleaned up enough of the Bush mess to their satisfaction, the system will work again.
The corrupt administration left because the time limit was up. He wasn’t up for re-election.
I still see the same crap going on =/. Our electoral process failed yet again.
Oh man…do you HONESTLY believe he’d have been re-elected?
I guess we can agree to disagree. But Bush AND the uber-conservative (national policy-wise) mindset are gone. I thin kif the electorate would have wanted those policies and attitude to continue, John and Ms. Palin would be in office…GOD HELP US!
And yes, the current admin is finding its share of potholes. However, given the mess they inherited, I’m going to give them more than four months before I pass judgement. Lord knows it took the Shrub longer than that to screw things up…
Happy Fourth my friend,
Dennis
Oh, I wasn’t saying that he would have been re-elected if he was up for it. Cabinet members change with every election, more drastically if an opposing party takes over, and I don’t believe, based on my experience, that any of the politicians camping DC from Clinton on (and I’m only saying Clinton because I was too young to pay attention to what Reagan and Bush Sr. were doing) were worth a damn.
Every president elected inherits a mess. I don’t blame Bush solely for the mess that Obama inherited, and neither should you. This mess has been snowballing for decades, and it continues to snowball with the newest not-worth-a-damn DC funky bunch.
Idaho has an official militia. It’s called the National Guard now, but was called the Idaho Militia until 1941, when all the state’s militia’s names were changed. The Idaho militia was formed while Idaho was still a Territory as a first move to Territorial status.
The mission of the National Guard remains the same as it was when it was called the Idaho Militia. They can be called up to fight in wars, but their primary mission is to help enforce the peace inside Idaho, and act in other matters, such as floods, where the Governor sees fit.
There are no prohibitions to to forming a private militia, but none are official, and any or all have to obey the same laws the rest of us obey.
The new militias that have started up this year are private. If one of these started a war inside Idaho, the National Guard, our only official militia, could be called up by the Governor in defense of our state. The Governor may also legally appeal to the Federal govt. for military assistance.
Exactly this happened in Idaho 100 years ago during the Silver Valley fighting, which resulted in the deaths of at least 20 people. The Idaho militia was sent in first to assist the local law enforcement, and when the militia was unable to control the violence, Gov. Steunenburg aske for Federal troops. They were provided, and came from Spokane. They also ended the fighting, and were sent back to Washington, leaving the militia to keep the peace in the Couer D’Alenes for almost another year.
At the same time, a private militia could offer help to Idaho in a time of war or distress, but it would be up to the Governor to decide whether or not to use them.
As for discrimination, the issue will be decided eventually.
It always is… the fact that Idaho Mormons can vote today is a good example of how legal discrimination can be changed by public opinion. Idaho was only admitted into the Union because it made a law prohibiting the Mormons to vote.
Wrong is wrong. Right is right.
What was right for the Mormons 90 years ago is still right today. Of all the groups who have been discriminated against, it seems to me that the Mormons would be the biggest supports of non-discrimination for all Americans.
They have tasted the bitterness of discrimination much more than any other group of white Americans, and have enjoyed the fruits of freedom of belief as much as any, white or not.
It’s sad that they have forgotten their own history and pain.
I think twelve people showing up for a protest isn’t a sign that no one cares. It is a sign that Lava Hot Springs (and eastern Idaho in general) are an incredibly scary place for gays and lesbians to live. Violence and discrimination are real there. No matter what sort of happy face the Chamber of Commerce wants to put on it, this sort of petty stinginess is the tip of a very ugly iceberg of discrimination that hurts real people. Eastern Idaho is a beautiful place – populated by a few nasty, hateful, violent bigots who in turn are surrounded by people who, like the person who posted this drivel, are complicit in that ugliness by not standing up to make sure people get treated fairly and can feel safe.
It was a scary place when I grew up there, and it feels more dangerous every time I go back. At nineteen, I was fired by the restaurant I worked at because the waitresses told my boss that she saw me kiss my boyfriend goodbye in the parking lot. I have been ‘fag bashed’ twice on trips home to visit my family in Idaho Falls (once for the high crime of dining at a restaurant with a group of friends who ‘looked queer’, whatever that means) and reports to the police, which included license plates and descriptions, were pretty much ignored.
Normally I would just let this irrational tripe pass because I have no hope that Idaho Falls can ever be made a nice, safe place for me to live. But now that Idaho Falls business owners are funding propositions in other states to try and make them into ugly little theocracies, someone needs to hold a mirror up to this city and ask if they really think they are qualified to cast stones at other people’s houses.
give me a break, gay guys are frightened of their own shadow & there is no more discrimination in this state then anywhere else in the country
it is obvious the law was put on the books back in a time when marriage meant a man and a woman, not two men or two women. I think its crazy these people making such a big deal about saving a couple of dollars. boohoo stop whining and move on
There shouldn’t be a law one way or the other, bottom line.
The sanctity of traditional marriage has been tarnished by the gay and lesbian community.
Yea, I’m sure the 50% divorce rate hasn’t done a thing to tarnish marriage.
I need to agree with Marcus on this one.
Legally speaking, ALL marriages are civil unions. What makes them “marriages” is a spiritual ceremony, usually held by a church or other organization.
Similarly, where the law has no place determining what is and is not a marriage (because their jurisdiction is over the legal or “civil” union portion of the bonding), NO church should have cause or opportunity to determine what is or is not considered a “marriage” EXCEPT IN CASES OF MEMBERS OF THEIR OWN FAITH. By that I mean, the LDS or Catholic church may not recognize a marriage between two of its members, but has no say regarding the union of two Episcopalians.
THE ANSWER: What should happen is that the Senate, the Congress and all 50 states should remove any and all laws forbidding or permitting “marriage” of any kind, and replace those laws with ammendments stating that ALL persons, gay, straight, bi, or transgendered, have the legal right to civil unions with all the responsibilities and benefits.
Then, if the gays and lesbians want to be “married”…start a church or join one that will recognize such a union.
Oh, and to annonymoose, who stated, and I quote:
“The sanctity of traditional marriage has been tarnished by the gay and lesbian community”…
with your 1st Amendment rights notwithstanding… SHUT UP!
I WAS happily married during the time when gays were allows to marry in California, and AM happily married now, even though there are several states which continue to allow such unions.
If your marriage has lost its sanctity, it’s NOT because gays and lesbians can marry. Maybe you should spend less time on here (or elsewhere) bemoaning others an opportunity to be happy and focus more on your own life. Just a thought…
The only governmental benefit to a marriage / civil union is the ability to file taxes jointly. I see no problem with that. I think everybody should have an easier time filing taxes.
Hell, if I wasn’t weary of the repercussions brought on by an oppressive government for not filing income tax info, I wouldn’t be filing out the forms in the first place.
Its so amusing how some of you get so bent out of shape over somebody elses opinion towards an issue. Why would you bother responding if you don’t agree with them? DJ? Seems to me they are just as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours. It’s called a blog. A forum where people express their opinions, views and so on. If you can’t handle opposing views, perhaps YOU should spend less time here complaining about others opinions. If we all thought and acted the same it would be a very boring world.
just a thought
Give me a break Marcus. There are many more benefits to marriage than just taxes. There are also a myriad of benefits related to inheritance, medical emergencies, health insurance, parental rights, and many many more. Some of these things are gradually being phased in for gay partners in some parts of the country but gradually doesn’t mean much to a loving gay couple who lives somewhere like Idaho where none of these things are happening yet or likely to happen anytime soon.
The government should either open up marriage to all pairs of consenting adults or get out of the marriage business altogether.
Now see, that’s what I don’t get. Why would they want kids? They don’t have a working set of organs necessary to procreate. If they wanted kids, they’d be interested in members of the opposite sex.
I can somewhat agree on the medical emergencies / health insurance front, but at this point it’s not a government issue. Also, I’ve added up the money that I’ve dumped into insurance over the past five years versus what has actually been used, and we’d be better off without it. I’m actually right next to dropping coverage. And when you really look at it, health benefits are going to be taken care of by the government in the not so distant future, so why is it a concern?
Inheritance isn’t a problem if you have a will. If you’re concerned about it, you should probably have one drafted.
Marriage is rewarding, I agree, but not because of any benefit received. That’s where the gay crowd has it wrong.
Dennis and Marcus, I kinda dug where this thread was headed before it limped back into the gay marriage corner.
Dennis, you’re not looking at the issue seriously enough, you have a generally optimistic view of what can and will happen here, you’re confident that the government that the forefathers designed 230+ years ago will stand in perpetuity.
Marcus isn’t quite so optimistic, I can say this, I kinda know him. I can understand what he means when he says,
“The founding fathers put these guidelines in place to protect future generations from a corrupt government that would undoubtedly be overstepping it’s bounds and oppressing the people of this country in the future. Just because we haven’t seen it yet doesn’t mean that a few years under our belt means we’re immune to it. To think that way is a mistake.”
I’m not sure he realizes the basis of his feelings on the matter, but he probably knows what actions will be necessary if true government oppression were to begin here.
I think I realize the basis. I’ll try to keep it short.
Look at your history. Think about what it’s taken to make massive change in a country’s domestic policy. It sometimes took only one man to make the difference.
Uganda, Idi Amin took power in a military coup in 1971, and ran the most repressive regime in Africa for over 10 years. What would happen here if the joint chiefs performed a coup because they grew tired of the way the bureaucrats were ruining this country?
Germany. Hitler charismatically inflamed his country with anti-semitic, anti communist propaganda in the late 20’s and early 30’s until he became chancellor when he turned his charismatic talents towards the achievement of a single national party and his eventual dictatorship. We all know what happened next.
Now I’m not making a projection here, but another highly charismatic politician won the presidential election here in 2008. The first Black President, he enjoyed the backing of a number of minority groups that are becoming dissatisfied with his broken campaign promises at this point.
He’s also practically being given a free pass to most of the policies he’s presenting to Congress.
The Republican party still offers resistance but they continue to reel at the hits they’ve taken over the last two years.
Obama may turn out to be a genuinely all American guy and pull us out of the crap heap we’re in.
He may bungle us up so badly that his minority supporters go into revolt. How’s LA, Miami, NY, DC, Chicago, and Detroit in flames sound to you?
Or things could collapse and the joint chiefs could decide that a military solution would be the best way to fix things up.
In any event We The People would have to start taking things into our own hands if things went totally upside down, and we wouldn’t be able to do it the same way they did it in 1776. We would be talking a rapidly assembled broad scale network of domestic terrorists. Wouldn’t have to be para-militaries, just munitions, technical, and security knowledgeable people trying to save the country we’ve known all our lives.
I said I’d TRY to be short.
BTW, I see nothing wrong with the ferries getting married, it’s not like they’re going to breed and spread their seed all over the globe, and I think the business owners in Lava are stone age idiots for using this kind of bad judgment as an advertising campaign.
Points well made…and thanks. However, yes…
Let’s DO look at our history…
Y0o bring up Ida Amin and Hitler and you were dead on right about both of them.
However, a little closer to home, our last president and vice president:
1. Manufactured intel and lied about Iraq’s weapons and their part (or lack thereof) in 911 to get us into a war. Killed almost 1/2 times again the number of people who died that day.
2. Held secret meetings with oil execs to create the nation’s energy plan…which was a total disaster…to everyone EXCEPT the companies who drafted the plan, who, just by coincidence, were the highest campaign contributors to that party’s campaign.
3. Obfuscated the Constitution and secretly wiretapped Americans…and NOT just Americans talking to people in Iraq or to suspected terrorists, but also to other Americans right here at home.
All this and SO much more…and no one, none of the conservative, right-wing, God loves America, I’d die for the Constitution Republicans said a damned thing about it. However, the system worked because, even though President Bush was “termed out”, his party and the people who shared his beliefs were sumarily tossed out on their butts. And yes, if Obama doesn’t get results (but please, give him mor ethan 6 months…it took Bush that long to wreck it, but it’s ten times worse now than when he took office), then he’ll be out too.
Forgive me (and with no direct finger pointing at anyone), but I think that anyone who says they’ll stand up and fight for America against a government that betrays us…and didn’t do a thing when Bush was in office is a damned liar and the varacity and convictions of their word is about as reliable as the honesty factor of our last president.
I DO understand exactly where Marcus was coming from, and I respect his view point. However, in this day and age, to believe that for anyone, any group, regardless of their size and depth of their convictions, would last but a few hours in any type of a seizing of the government is foolhardy and naive.
The Founding Fathers were dealing with a different animal when the constitution was written. they wrote the 2nd Amendment becuase the BRITISH were keeping us from owning guns to protect ourselves AGAINST THE BRITISH. We needed a militia then.
Now, we have the armed forces and they are well armed and the 2nd Amendment needs to be addressed with regards to our needs today.
I hear ya DJ, and I feel your pain, but you’ve got to clue me in to one little thing. What are we supposed to do if the bad guys happen to be our own well armed military?
The last administrations betrayals of our country were horrendous, but as bad as they were they didn’t equal outright attacks on our populace. They didn’t create any problem we couldn’t overcome by waiting for the next election cycle to phase it out. So yes the system worked for us.
This conversation has nothing to do with only giving Obama 6 months to fix a broken economy. He was the closest and best example of a potential danger because he’s intelligent, adapts quickly and has become very powerful in a short time. Bush would have never been used as an example because on his best day he didn’t have the strength of character or charisma to pose any lasting threat to the country. It takes more than sneakiness and deceit to pull that off.
Nobody’s going to be fighting a government that betrays us man. But anyone who’s naive enough to think that our government is strong enough to withstand every possible scenario may find himself facing zombies, aliens, or giant insects by this time next year. Not even Obama can help us then.
In otherwords, I tire of this drivel.
I’ve said it before (in this thread I think) and I’ll say it again. If the scenario that I see going down continues, there won’t be anybody other than the stupid politicians and those vested in their success to man the guns. I have no doubt that the majority of our military forces won’t hesitate to decline orders if asked to fight within our borders for a cause they don’t believe in, whatever the penalty is stated to be.
Stop bringing up the prior administration. Nobody cares except for you, obviously. I find a march toward complete governmental control of the populace far more of a threat than a war without founding on a dumpy little country in the desert. The only reason that we’ve been there since 2003 and it looks like we’ll continue to be there for quite some time is because of the “rules of engagement” that have been followed during our occupation.
I can guarantee that if it came to it, we would best our government by circumventing these rules and traditions…exactly the same way that the revolutionary war was won. Had we continued to line up and go head on against the redcoats, we’d be part of the UK now.
Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t a fan of Bush either. This has been a long time coming, and can’t be placed on Obama’s shoulders alone. Our way of life is disintegrating. Our freedoms, our rights, are being swept away. Trust me, whether through the electoral process (I hope) or a revolt, it won’t continue.
Well, I do agree with the last couple of you on one thing at least…this thread has run its course.
Fact, the government is NOT heading towards a “control” of the populace. At worst, it is attempting to right itself from (sorry Marcus) the last admin debacle.
Now tell me kind sir, just what “freedoms and rights are you now without, or do you see being taken away from you?
The right to have the governement wiretap your phone calls inside this country without a court order (read:oversight)?
The right to be charged outrageous sums of money for energy at the behest of the energy profiteers by the second highest ranking member of the elected administration?
The right to have large corporations literally “pay” our elected officials to shape policy for their benefit with no thought about those of us not blessed with enough cash to buy our way in?
The right to have our President lie and cajole “the populace” for a war that was wholly unnecessary and cost the lives of more than 4,000 US soldiers.
Or the right for us, as a populace, to have stupid, unnecessary, lethal weapons taken out of the hands of ALL americans (and visitors to our country). Hey, if oy uneed an automatic firearm to protect your home, what you need is shooting lessons.
Marcus, I have tried with all my heart to remain polite in this thread, and I will continue. But it needs to be said man…
While I will always respect your opinion and your right to express it, the fact remains that, after hearing detailed, common sense rebuttal, if you remain of the belief that President Obama is sneakily trying to subvert the Constitution, or that any number of our citizens could take a miliraty stance against our leaders and do anything but be slaughtered, and if you believe that this will in fact, one day happen…
then the only fact that you have put before anyone on this thread is that you are more than just a few slices short of a full loaf.
Because none of that is going to happen. This is where you just have to have some faith IN the Constitution, the people it was written both by and for, and the millions of men who have laid down their life to defend over the 230+ years.
DJ, please get something straight in your mind. It’s really keeping you from focusing on the real point here.
This has NOTHING to do with President Obama. This has everything to do with the slippery slope that gets opened up when gun control laws are unleashed upon the land. Sure he’s being blamed for the ammo shortages and everything else that’s wrong with the sport shooting industry these days, but the gun control crazies have been around a lot longer than he has been.
They were pushing the Brady Bill when he was still smoking dope on the beach in Hawaii.
So no, Obama isn’t an evil demon who’s come to us with a twisted plan that will deliver absolute power to him by the end of his first term.
Do we need assault weapons to defend our homes from the average neighborhood burglar, sexual predator, or psycho? No way. For that matter, how many of the people on this blog have ever had to confront one of the above in their homes?
But we live in a microcosm here, Idaho Falls isn’t part of the real world when it comes to what can happen when a group of people decides that it’s time to take matters into their own hands. It can be gangs, racial groups, whatever.
25 to 30 people walking toward your house with bricks, 2×4’s, and Molotov cocktails makes you wish you had an assault weapon for home protection.
Tell me the truth, if you were in the position where that 25 or 30 angry people armed with bricks, 2×4’s, and Molotov Cocktails and looking for anybody to strike out at, was headed toward your house, wouldn’t you like to have an assault weapon in your hands to give them second thoughts before they start hurling the projectiles that no gun control law will get rid of? An unfired AK makes a better show of force than an unfired shotgun or handgun.
It’s just common sense, keep the gate to the slippery slope closed and locked.
That’s why I called this drivel last night. With all the smoke screens and agendas that get thrown in the air it’s as impossible to understand what’s meant by the term “home defense,” as it is to explain what I mean about government overthrow aka military coup or whatever means it might happen by. But certainly not by the populace. For the most part you’ll find we’re all happy with the way things work, but we’re all getting signs that things might be changing for the worse and it’s not like any of us (Obama included) has the juice to stop the downward spiral.
So now isn’t the time to make changes in the document that has enabled us to stand for these 230+ years. Softening the 2nd amendment softens our ability to defend not only our homes, but our country as well.
Untwisted…
I fully agree with your assertion about this NOT being about Obama. I was merely referencing a comment made earlier.
That said, I also fully agree that we do NOT need an automatic weapon to defend our homes from preditors. The Justice Deptarment AND FBI both agree there are far more safe, effective, AND cost friendly ways to keep intruders at bay.
So, as I said before (and as law enforcement agrees) why not just make them illegal to own and manufacture in the US, make stiff penalties for violating these laws and then ENFORCE THEM?
You seem to look at this as a “softening” of the Second Amendment. I choose to see it rather as a reasonable reinterpretation of the Amendment FOR OUR TIMES.
In 2008, there were a little over 36,000 gun related deaths in the US, most involving crime, not ONE by the hand (or gun) of someone trying to defend their home by an intruder (www.fbi.gov). Similarly, there were less than 2 dozen in Great Britain, Canada, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Finland, Holland, Norway, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland…COMBINED.
Please address this point, as I am very interested in your comments on it.
Finally, because I believe in my country, it’s people and the principles on which we were founded. Therefore, I also believe we will never need to defend ourselves against our own government. I would suggest that, if you do not have a similar confidence and belief in your nation and its electerd representitives, maybe you might want to try somewhere else, but you and i both know this is the best place going. Just have a little faith in it…
Do you honestly think the majority of folks that use their guns for a criminal purpose purchase their guns legally? Do you honestly think that prohibiting firearms will reduce gun crime?
You keep thinking I am against Obama more than I was against Bush and Clinton. I’m not. We’ve been on the decline for quite some time.
You asked me to mention what liberties are being / have been taken from me.
No choice in the health care garbage – Take the government program and pay out the ass in taxes, or keep your program and pay out the ass in taxes.
Gun ownership rights – Assault rifles (any weapon with a fully automatic firing mode, usually with a semi-auto selector and sometimes a burst switch) have already been regulated heavily. Why go after “assault weapons”? Have you ever shot an AR-15 manufactured for civilians? The one I shot was chambered for .223 and was semi-auto. They’re essentially low-caliber hunting rifles and target guns.
Bailouts – Failure is acceptable. Let it happen. We’ll be better off. Punishment for success (regulation), no failing business left behind. Thank you for the debt that my kids get to pay back Bush and Obama
Further Taxation without Representation
Registration of Ammunition – http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/are_states_going_to_require_serial_numbers.html (ignore the intro email garbage)
The Cyber Security Act – http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/cybersecurity-act
The requirement that my children receive a federally approved education. No matter what my situation is, my kids will be exceeding federal education requirements, but it’s the principal of the deal that matters.
No child left behind.
Welfare
Essentially, anything that the government takes on other than defense of the people living in this nation is a violation of our freedom and liberty. Shove off, we don’t need your help.
Also, I’d dig it if you posted up a direct link to your gun death results – I don’t feel like combing the FBI’s likely unintuitive website.
Our “electrd” representatives aren’t representing the will of the people; rather their own fattening wallet. What about AIG, GM, Chrysler screamed “WILL OF THE PEOPLE”? I certainly didn’t see it.
DJ, I couldn’t help but notice that you failed to answer my question. Answer it please.
You’ve cited a source for your numbers. How about a specific URL for the source, something as general as http://www.fbi.gov leaves the majority of the searching up to me, and after all, the posting of statistics does imply that you’ve done the research. It’s customary to include a full URL when quoting such statistics.
Your stats are also unclear. There were less than 2 dozen WHAT’S in Great Britain, Canada, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Finland, Holland, Norway, Austria, Sweden and Switzerland…COMBINED
In the searches I have done I found that over 50% of the reported gun deaths in our country are suicides. Suicide by gun is recorded as an illegal gun death and usually isn’t performed with an assault weapon.
You can defend your home with a firearm without firing it. It’s all about a show of force. Be prepared to fire, but only fire if you must, and shoot to kill so the hit will count. If you shoot to detain for police your home defense doesn’t count with the FBI. It doesn’t surprise me to find home defense killing numbers to be low. As far as the need for an assault weapon in home defense please reread my last post. It’s a valid need.
You’ve missed my biggest point again. Idi Amin lead a coup to overthrow Ugandas governing body. Adolph Hitler was imprisoned in 1923 following a failed coup but after being released came back to politicize himself into chancellorship and eventual Furher.
In neither of these situations did the citizenry of the affected countries have to deal with the government they started out with. Their original government had been overthrown.
I don’t believe we’ll ever have to defend ourselves against the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches of our government either. They are institutions of great principal, but history has shown that other great countries have been brought down in the past and we have many enemies in the world.
Now is not the time to weaken any of our defenses, by making a reasonable reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment which may or may not suit the reality of our times.
And I wouldn’t dream of leaving here, I love paying for my own medical insurance.
Interesting. I actually agree with Untwisteds comment 35. Well said sir.
Thanks AppleJack. That’s quite a coincidence you know because as I was penning that post, I frequently stopped, touched my quill to my temple and wondered aloud, “what would AppleJack say?”
Does anyone moderate this stuff? I believe this thread was regarding the lesbian couple who were denied a family discount at Lava Hot Springs. A gun rights discussion isn’t even tangentally related to this.
While I am all for a robust debate on gun rights, perhaps it would be best pursued in it’s own article if the intent of the posters to sincerely debate gun rights. This protracted thread is either people being very inconsiderate of this forum and conversation people are trying to hold, or is this a tactic to bury a subject they don’t want to see discussed.
Well Bob, there really isn’t a bunch of moderation on this board except the occasional wrist slap for profanity,and the topic did get a lot of play here before it drifted as frequently happens on these boards. However, if you’re really interested in discussing the application of moralistic pigheadedness that was exhibited by the owners of Lava’s pool, I’d be happy to oblige you.
Oh and thanks a bunch, it’s been my life long goal to be labeled as inconsiderate by a lurker on a two bit message board.
I don’t believe I was calling you inconsiderate, although posting an extended thread off topic, according to the rules of this forum, isn’t appropriate and doing so is an act of inconsideration. I wouldn’t have pointed it out except that it is getting very hard to follow the conversation I am interested in because of having to scroll through an extended thread on gun control, which is partially the fault of an interface that doesn’t separate out the threads. I am sure you are nice as pie.
Now, to wrest the topic back onto the rails, I think the problem expressed by the incident at Lava Hot Springs is one of simply treating fellow humans with a modicum of compassion and decency. Do these women have a family that look like what the proprietors would have it look like? Perhaps not. Does Lava Hot Springs offer a family discount to help families afford to spend time with their children, and if so does denying the discount punish the kids more than anyone? Probably. If we were talking about a family of another religious faith whose marriage practices the owners didn’t approve of were denied the discount would anyone be calling it anything except bigotry? I don’t think so.
Now, it may be within their rights to judge that a family with two women as the parents is not a family for purposes of their discount. It is also mean spirited, cheap, and judgmental. And as I pointed out earlier, it fits a pattern of ugly behavior that I have found all over Eastern Idaho. To hear people who describe themselves as loving and christian defending the business is mystifying.
See, most of us don’t care about discussing such a petty topic. It happened, cope. All the talk in the world isn’t going to do shit for the lesbian couple and the kids they were toting around.