Just so everyone is on the same page, every time someone proposes a law like firearm registration, they are, in fact, telling you that they want the government to kill you if you do not behave the way they want you to.

With that warm-and-fuzzy thought in mind, I would like to present to you this slightly-modified quote originally written by Ben Richards – you might remember the name from his… er… “colorful” Facebook profile (eyebleach warning). The below quote has been slightly modified (I replaced two adjacent words with two different adjacent words), but I contend that the original meaning of the comment remains unchanged:

wow what a total waste of time…if black people aren’t breaking the law, what are they trying to hide?

Again, the above quote has been slightly modified, but feel free to substitute “Jewish”, “Irish”, “homosexual”, “Muslim”, etc. as appropriate… or, returning more to the original quote itself, strike “black people” and replace with “dog owners” or “knife owners” or “greenhouse owners” or so forth.

Regardless, the point stands: the “nothing to hide” argument, while compelling, is a base fallacy when applied to every other sociopolitical group or entity throughout history – one need only look at pre-World-War-II Jews, and how their “nothing to hide” transformed into “no way to hide”. To turn the notion on its nose, would Ben be willing to invite the government into his life just because of his apparently… interesting… tastes in personal attire, and the potential extracurricular activities it might point to? Probably not. Then why should law-abiding American citizens be forced to add their name to yet another database somewhere simply because they choose to exercise numerous Constitutionally-protected rights by owning a certain inanimate piece of metal?

Cannot say as though I see a compelling reason, even looking beyond the fancy-pants Latin-ese name for why making something illegal for the gos-se and giggles of it is a bad idea.

Of course, the amusing thing about Ben’s original quote is that the very people who firearm registration supposedly is targeted against – criminals – are legally protected by the Fifth Amendment. So, if criminals cannot be forced to register their firearms, remind me what the point of this exercise was again?

In truth, Ben’s comments are born out of nothing more complicated or complex than basic bigotry – the irrational belief that firearms are intrinsically bad or evil, the equally baseless belief that all firearm owners either are criminals or will be soon, the narrow-minded belief that no good can come of firearms or their ownership, and the militant refusal to change his position no matter what evidence is provided countering it. This is the same kind of bigotry that has been applied to blacks, Jews, gypsies, and countless other groups in the past, and is just as disgusting now as it was then.

It rather says something when our opponents cannot come up with any better argument than ones that have repeatedly, and appropriately, failed in the past, does it not?

Today’s quote is one of the latter. 

Below is a slightly-modified quote from a certain Donna Davis; however, I have altered two words in the entire quote.  Only two.  You should be able to pick them out pretty easily, but, tell me, does my changing those two specific words appreciably alter the nature of her comment? 

There are too many blacks around already; we don’t need more, and in a public place like that, I’d like to feel safe if I’m going to the park. If there’s a black there, I don’t want to be there. 

Again, the above quote is not exactly what Donna Davis wrote, but I contend that the core message remains identical. 

By the same token, you could easily substitute “Jew”, “homosexual”, “Irishman”, “Gypsy”, and countless other groups, individuals, ethnicities, and cultures that have been discriminated against throughout history. 

So, tell me – if it is unacceptable to discriminate against “persons of color” in this particular fashion, then why is it acceptable to discriminate against law-abiding, repeatedly-background-checked, trained American citizens who just happen to be lawfully bearing arms?  On average, permitted firearm carriers are more-law-abiding than their “regular” fellow citizens, thus Donna’s entire position is one based on irrational fear and palpable hatred… both of which accurately describe the reasons that people of darker skin tones have been – and still are in places – so unjustly persecuted. 

But, hey, persecuting other people just because they choose to lawfully exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense and bearing arms?  That is A-OK! 

One would think we were past that point of all that animosity, no matter the target involved.  I guess one would be wrong. 

(By the same token, if Donna does not want to associate with firearm-carriers (or blacks, or Jews, or Irish, or whatever), that is her choice, and she is welcome to it.  She has no right, however, to dictate who other people should associate with, however…) 

(Courtesy of The View From North Central Idaho.) 

Unfortunately, rather than leave it at a comment like that, the various anti-rights cultists across the world started spooling up their spin engines before the first body had even completely cooled yet, and are currently falling all over themselves dancing in the blood of the murdered innocents, proclaiming how this incident is just “proof” that more countries need more “gun control” and that all “right-wing extremists” are just gun-happy murderers looking for an excuse to kill people. 

You do not believe me?  Well, we are going to take a brief departure from this category’s typical pattern – the below quote is completely and totally unedited, and I have provided a screencapture to prove it.  These are Fabio Periera’s actual words, as quoted from his Twitter account: 

This is a tragedy, both that 80 lives were lost & that right-wing gun nuts exist worldwide. http://ow.ly/1uTzSD #Oslo #GunControl

Again, those words are completely unedited.  Now, ignore for a second the specious stereotyping, shameful fearmongering, fallacious appeal to probability, and rather predictable ad hominem attack; instead, consider Fabio’s use of the word “exist”. 

He considers it “tragic” that people of a certain political belief “exist”. 

Note that he did not write that it is “tragic” that a person of a specific political belief murdered all those people (in fact, his phrasing “lives were lost” specifically distances himself from the very notion of murder by use of the passive voice); note that he did not write that it is “tragic” that a person chose, of his own free will, to murder almost a hundred other people…  No, to Fabio Periera, it is “tragic” that an entire demographic of the world “exists”, at all. 

So, if those people existing cause Fabio extreme distress or sorrow, what would make him happy?  Well, the thesaurus provides one single, solitary antonym to “exist”:  die. 

From his own words, we can conclude that it would bring Fabio great pleasure if all “right-wing gun nuts” were to die.  Why?  Just because they are “right-wing gun nuts”. 

If that is not bald-faced, unabashed, audacious bigotry and rampant intolerance, I do not know what is. 

Of course, the irony of the situation is that Fabio is a self-described “minority”.  I shall not take a guess as to his ethnic composition, but I can guarantee you that there exist a non-zero number of people who consider it a “tragedy” that he “exists” as well solely because of the color of his skin, and I can likewise guarantee you that he would regard those people with the utmost contempt and disdain. 

… Kind of like how I am regarding him now. 

And while I would sincerely love to say that Fabio’s bigotry was something of an exception, the truth is that it is not – one need only look at the archives of this category to observe how anti-rights cultists regard anyone who cherishes and defends their individual rights.  If their comments about firearm owners were made about any other social or political group, they would be immediately – and appropriately – castigated for their reprehensible behavior, but when they say these things about firearm owners, it is suddenly acceptable? 

I think not. 

[UPDATE]  Reasoned Discourse strikes again!  It would appear as though Fabio Periera took the coward’s route, and flushed the above tweet down a memory hole.  Unfortunately for him, the internet never forgets.  [/UPDATE]

Below is a quote from a recent USA Today Opinion column, however, this quote has been modified slightly.  I changed one solitary word and five words in a row, but I contend that the original thrust of the comment – the core of the author’s statement – remains identical no matter if you look at the original quote or my altered one. 

From a constitutional perspective, the Supreme Court may have gotten it right. But from a standpoint of public safety, lawmakers are getting it very wrong. A right to equal treatment for negroes should come with restraints that equally protect those who have no interest in seeing them.

I swear, sometimes posts in this category just write themselves.  Again, the above quote has been modified – follow the above link for the original. 

So what say you?  Does changing those six words for another six words appreciably change the inherent bigotry of the quote?  If so, how?  And, if so, why is it acceptable to discriminate against some Constitutionally-protected rights but not other Constitutionally-protected rights? 

Of course, the irony of the situation is that the author’s concerns are already addressed – you are under no Constitutional compulsion to own firearms if you do not want to.  You are under no state compulsion to own firearms if you do not want to.  And you are under no city or other municipality compulsion to own firearms if you do not want to (Kennesaw exempts for conscientious objectors, religious beliefs, paupers, felons, mentally/physically disabled, etc., and the author and those like him would fall under the first “out” easily.). 

On the other hand, the author is under a compulsion to respect my individual, Constitutionally-protected rights to self-defense, freedom of commerce, equal treatment under the law, ownership of private goods and products, and privacy.  He might not want to, but, frankly, that is his damned problem. 

After all, a whole lot of people did not want “negroes” to be integrated with white folks, but it was still the right thing to do. 

Usually such a question prompts a discussion of the abolition movement’s outsized political power – its resources, its tactics of threats and intimidation, and the commitment of its cadre of true believers. Indeed, in recent years, the slave control issue has become so dominated by the question of whether stronger slave laws can be enacted, that it has left little room to address the real issue – whether stronger slave laws should be enacted.

Again, the above quote has been modified, but in a small enough way that I contend that the root message remains the same.

So, tell me – is Henigan’s particular breed of intolerance and discrimination appropriate for this modern day and age, or would it be better suited for Pre-Civil War America? Or, perhaps, he and his bigoted notions are not acceptable in any time or place throughout history?

It is well past time for he and his narrow-minded ilk to join their predecessors – like the KKK, anti-semites, or Aryan Nations – in the wastebin of history, and I dare say, based on the way society is trending recently, that day may be coming. I wonder how it must feel for him to realize that his political power, societal impact, and support base are all dwindling on a daily basis?

Actually I’m pretty good with the diversity thing. I just have a problem with the black culture. No Don’t go gettin’ all hurt and feeling persecuted again, Darkie.

Again, the above blockquote is not a direct quote, but the original comment’s message was identical to this one. Rather than go into my usual multi-paragraph exposition on the finer details, I think I will simply allow the original comment that inspired the above blockquote to stand as a prime example of the bigotry, intolerance, and discrimination being fostered throughout the anti-rights community.

Bigots. Wastebin of history. Some assembly required.

At any rate, what we are really interested in is the end of Southern Beale’s latest “gunz r bad, mmmkay?” diatribe, wherein she wrote the below quote… except for one, and only one, word that I changed.

Tennessee is a nice place to live. Nashville is a nice city. One always hears that it’s “a great place to raise a family.” Bringing negroes into every school, church, restaurant, bar, park, etc. will change that spirit. And I don’t like it.

Again, to clarify, the above blockquote was lifted verbatim from Southern Beale’s webpage, except for one word, and one word only, that I changed – can you guess which one?

However, altering a scant 2.3% of the above sentence certainly does not distract from the bigotry, intolerance, and discrimination running rampant throughout it… but, then, I forget; that kind of behavior is lauded and celebrated – if not encouraged – by modern “liberals“/”progressives”. Silly me. Regardless, while SoBeale’s prejudice might have been acceptable on the plantations of the Prebellum South, and while narrow-minded comments like that might have even been approved of as late as the 1960s and 1970s, the simple truth is that she is gradually, but assuredly, relegating herself to the same wastebin of history currently being populated with racists, homophobes, mysoginists, and all the rest of those hateful individuals.

Given the vicious hatred SoBeale spews on a daily basis, she will be in good company.

As agreed by all nine Supreme Court Justices, the Second Amendment protects an individual, pre-existing, civil right, and given that there are now two Supreme Court cases clarifying what should have already been obvious, it is not going to be vanishing any time soon. Due to this cold, hard reality, there is absolutely no reason why discriminating against one Constitutionally-protected right (keeping and bearing arms) is acceptable, but discriminating against another (equal treatment under the law) is not. Likewise, gun ownership just keeps increasing, and the number of people with handgun carry permits (or their equivalents) continues to grow, and yet violent crime rate keep dropping, and there is still no correlation between gun ownership and firearm-related fatalities (which means there cannot be a causation).

Regardless of whether bigoted anti-rights nuts like SoBeale “like it” or not, my rights to keep and bear firearms are here to stay, and are even returning to the levels they should have enjoyed for all of the past 200+ years. Hoplophobes can either get used to that reality, or they can join their fellow racists, homophobes, and other discriminatory zealots as we appropriately “crush them and drive them into political extinction“. The choice is theirs.

1. This weblog.
2. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership
3. The Violence Policy Center.
4. Say Uncle.

On average, and according to whatever calculation algorithm(s) Quantcast uses, the visitors to the two pro-rights weblogs are better-paid and higher-educated than the visitors to the anti-rights sites. So much for that stereotype.

(To make this comparison entirely fair, I should have put two anti-rights weblogs up against the to pro-rights weblogs, however, none of the former I thought to check receive sufficient traffic for Quantcast to notice/track. Feel free to poke around for yourself, and see if you can find one.)

The overwhelming majority of Joan Peterson’s “arguments” are wholly and entirely dependent on the “Appeal to Popularity” logical fallacy. Observe:

You are disgraceful and your remarks are not appreciated nor are they in the mainstream of public thinking.

“And since your words are not in the mainstream of public thinking, you should stop writing them, abandon them, and start thinking like the mainstream of the public does.”

I know why the homicide rate is so high in the U.S.- guns. That is widely recognized in other countries. People I know who have lived abroad tell me that citizens in other countries are mystified by our gun culture here.

“And since all of those other countries think our murder rate is because of our firearm ownership, that simply must be the case, all evidence to the contrary.”

The general public would not use the term “tool”.

“Which means the use of the term ‘tool’ is wrong, and you are wrong, and you should stop spreading your wrongness… regardless of what the dictionary actually says.”

There’s something very bothersome about all you guys defending the sale of machine guns to the general public. It will not have support and is not defensible.

“Therefore it is wrong because it does not have support, you should stop with your defending because no one will agree with you, and I am right.”

My purpose here is to convince others of like mind to get active and join me in the cause to prevent gun injuries and deaths. Most specifically, what is needed is for people to contact their elected leaders to make it clear that they expect their representatives to act in the best interest of public safety for all.

“And if I get enough people to agree with me, I am obviously right, and all the facts in the world will not change that!”

Most people could care less about you guys and whether your ammunition can penetrate soft armor.

“My goal is to keep the American public ignorant, so I can continue to spread more misinformation and hysterical fear about armor-piercing ammunition, because everyone knows that if everyone is afraid of something, it is BAD!”

I don’t need to know everything there is to know about guns to form my opinions. There ate lots of experts to do that. You guys have forgotten that most of the public simply does not care about your copious gun facts.

“I like being ignorant, and I like everyone else being ignorant, because then we can all think the same thing, and it will be the right thing, because we all think it, and “the right people” will tell us what to think!”

And for some of you to defend machine guns is beyond the pale. That is way far out of thesonstre thinking. You will have no support for that one. I would drop that rhetoric if I were you. Not a popular position.

“Since ‘everyone’ is (supposedly) against the private ownership of fully-automatic firearms, you should stop even thinking about owning them yourself.”

… Every last one of those claims follows the exact formula spelled out as:

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

All of those statements eschew facts, realities, figures, truth, and logic; and instead rely entirely on support of the masses, emotion, and shame (“Everyone else believes this, why do you oppose it?”) in order to make their points. Ironically, due to this methodology Joan Peterson is no better than the men who would have continued to deny her the right to vote.

After all, everyone knew that giving women the right to vote was a bad idea, because they could not be trusted to handle that right responsibily or effectively.

Everyone knew that freeing the “negros” was an indefensible position, because “those people” were a lower species of subhumans, and thus they deserved to be enslaved and “helped”.

Everyone knew that the idea that the Earth orbited the Sun was an idea so far outside the mainstream of public thinking that it would get nowhere.

Everyone knew that it did not matter how tall or short an obelisk appeared, the popular position was that the world was flat, and that was that.

Everyone knew that no one should have gotten in Hitler’s way, since those dirty, rotten, money-grubbing Jews had it coming to them.

Everyone knew that trying to fly faster than the speed of sound was going to kill some poor fool.

Everyone knew that space travel was not worth it, since the Van Allen Belts were going to kill anyone crossing them.

Everyone knew that building a heavier-than-air flying machine was a waste of time, since God had decreed that only birds could fly.

(I should not have to specify this, but knowing that some halfwits will be inclined to quote me out of context, I do not hold any part of the above sentences to be true, and they are written for example purposes only.)

And yet in every single case of those “common sense” understandings, everyone was wrong, and those things were, in fact, the right thing to do. To steal a quote, imagine what everyone will “know” tomorrow.

I am not at all sorry to say this, Joan, but we will not be bullied into believing or supporting something which we know to be factually and demonstrably wrong. We will not be shamed into holding to something we can prove to be false. And it simply does not matter how many people say something should be a certain way – if they are wrong, they are wrong, and it is completely irrelevant how many they are.

There are such things in this world as “facts”, and they are demonstrable, they are provable, they are repeatable, and they are completely independent of public opinion or “mainstream thought”. It does not matter if every damned person on this planet once again believed that the Sun orbited the Earth – every last one of them would be wrong, regardless of their numbers, regardless of their vociferousness, regardless of their herd mentality. All it takes is one little equation, one little testable proof, one little demonstrable fact, and that horde of misguided witch-hunters are completely and totally irrelevant.

Oh, sure, masses of “common sense”, “mainstream” people can and have oppressed, controlled, and murdered hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent folks in order to try to suppress the truth, hide the facts, destroy the evidence… but those heady days of absolute, totalitarianistic control by self-righteous, bigoted individuals like Joan Peterson are long since dead and gone. You cannot stop the signal, and the signal goes everywhere… and it really does not matter how many people you guilt into disowning it. The signal will persevere.

The preponderance of Joan Peterson’s arguments rely on one logical fallacy after another after another after another. If her positions are so very powerful and compelling, why must she rely on fallacious logic to support them? Worse, her arguments mandate that you surrender original, individual thought, and fall in line with the masses.

Yeah. Because that has worked out so well in the past.

(It is worth noting, though completely irrelevant to the goal of this post, that Joan Peterson’s understanding of “mainstream thought” is completely wrong. Once you turn your attention to polling organizations not bought and paid for by the Brady Campaign, the Joyce Foundation, the Violence Policy Center, or any of their various subsidiaries, leeches, and hangers-on, you find that the American public is generally of the opinion that no further firearm-related laws are necessary, and this is consistent across the board. Faulty logic based on falsehoods is no way to convince people you are right, Joan.

It is also worth noting that Joan’s continued reliance on logical fallacies to support her opinion may not be her fault, in that she may have a mental defect preventing her from understanding that they are fallacious, and due to that inability, it is quite likely that there will never be peace between our people. Defect or not, though, the unceasing desire of people like Joan to control people like me is not exactly a peace-inducing sentiment either…)

In nearly four years of living in this state, I felt relatively safe.

Notice the use of the world “felt” – he may or may not have actually been safe, but he felt safe, and that is all that matters to him. Feelings. Assumptions. Whims. Was he safe? Was he not? Would he even know the difference? Would he care?

Anti-rights nuts across the country employ “gun-free zones” to “feel” safe, and yet those feelings amount for naught – those “victim disarmament zones” are the sites of so many mass-shootings that it almost seems like criminals prefer unarmed victims. What a novel thought!

But through your willful delusions and self-imposed blinders, you “feel” safe, and reality be damned. Forgive me if I am unimpressed.

Then I saw my first OC (open carry) a month ago, and things went downhill.

This, short, incomplete sentence impressively encompasses the entirety of Alan’s problems, and we are only two sentences into our fisk.

Seeing the individual openly carrying did not cause things to go “downhill” for Alan.

The individual openly carrying did not cause things to go “downhill” for Alan.

His reaction to the individual openly carrying is what precipitated this whole groundward spiral, and yet, rather than accepting responsibility for that irrational reaction, Alan casts about for anyone or anything else to blame.

Why am I not surprised?

Open carry has been legal in Arizona for far longer than he has lived there, and if he does not possess the personal responsibility to be cognizant of his state’s laws (and I sincerely doubt he does), the fault is his, not ours. Hell, if he missed out on the entire “Constitutional Carry” debate that has been embroiling the state for the past year or so, he has his head more-firmly planted in the sand (or up his arse) than he would initially have us believe… and yet his immediate reaction to seeing the person lawfully open carrying was that of shock, amazement, and emotional distress.

Apparently, the left and right hemispheres of Alan’s brain are not on speaking terms.

After satirizing the incident using dramatic devices like exaggeration, hyperbole and caricature,…

Really? Is that what you call blatant intolerance, blind bigotry, and irrational hatred? Let us take another look at your words, only changing things up a little:

‘Sure enough, some corpulent 80-year-old f*ggot was standing in front of the donut peaches, packing a purse. Rainbow-colored body, tooled-leather straps, the whole bit. Not a drag queen, just some retired jerkoff who evidently wanted to enhance the perceived size of his schlong.’

Or how about…

‘Okay, back to Mr. Fourteenth-f___ing-Amendment: when I saw that n*gger in the grocery store, steam started shooting from my ears. I marched up to the front office and loudly demanded to see the manager. When he arrived, I was apoplectic: “If you’re gonna allow those people in your store, I’m not gonna shop here anymore.”’

Is that still “satirical”? Does that still count as a “caricature”? If so, why? If not, why not? Perhaps Alan would be good enough to answer my question of how discriminating against one right is any better than / different from discriminating against another right?

…I received death threats from people who didn’t understand the humor.

Ah, yes, the nebulous, undefined, unseen-by-anyone-but-you “death threats” that you did not repost for the world to see and judge for themselves (and, in fact, may have intentionally deleted), did not report to Open Salon, did not report to your local police department, did not report to the originator’s ISP, did not do a damned thing about?

What was that about “exaggeration, hyperbole”? Suffice to say, without actual evidence of an honest-to-God “death threat”, I have little to no reason to believe he ever received such a thing.

It’s fine if they don’t get it; my writing is not meant for every taste.

Too true – “Jump Jim Crow”-style humor went out of vogue a few decades ago. You might want to catch up.

But threating to kill the author because he mocked a nameless caricature? That seems a little excessive to me.

And what is a caricature, Alan? According to my handy-dandy dictionary, it is “a picture, description, etc., ludicrously exaggerating the peculiarities or defects of persons or things” – notice the emphasized portion.

Do not mince words – you were mocking, insulting, attacking, and demeaning all open carriers, and, arguably, all people who carry firearms, not only by attacking this supposed-caricature, but also by creating it in the first place. Here we go again with his apparent inability to take responsibility for his actions…

I was reminded of the Ayatollah’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie. My fellow countrymen were acting like Muslim extremists.

Ah, yes, as if he was not yanking the, “I’m a persecuted victim” chain hard enough already, let us pull out some specious analogy to some actual victim, while simultaneously throwing down a little stereotyping and racism to boot… ’cause, y’know, two (probably fictional, exaggerated) “death threats” from people who have almost unquestionably never murdered a single person in their lives is obviously equivalent to a public, open, and vociferous claim for a man’s head from an organization that has a tendency of delivering those on wooden platters.

On the other hand, let us re-examine what Alan’s reactions were to a person lawfully exercising their right to peacefully carry a firearm on their hip, in the open – by his own words, he flew into a hateful rage, he threw specious and assumptive accusations at a man who had broken no laws and was, in fact, simply minding his business, and he and his wife seemed to conspire to entrap, provoke, and murder the individual in question. Remind me again who is “acting like Muslim extremists”?

And speaking of that provocation, your wife said, “And if he tries to walk away, we will laugh at the size of his tiny shriveled-up fasz [Magyar: 'dick'].” You have unquestionably “walk(ed) away” from your very own words by deleting your previous posts on the topic – I have to wonder, is your wife currently pointing and laughing at you?

All those bloodthirsty people…

What “bloodthirsty” people? “All” two of the people who supposedly sent you “death threats”? Or are you taking the actions of those (possibly fictional) individuals and using them to extrapolate some grandiose stereotype about firearm carriers in general? Or, perhaps, are you referring to yourself, and your apparent desires to mow down an innocent, private, retired gentleman who is only concerned with his own safety and security?

Or are you committing the classic anti-rights nut logical fallacy and equating “violent and predatory” with “violent and protective“? This comment is made all the more ludicrously hypocritical with the soon-to-come revelation that you now own firearms… but, then, we already know how violent you can be, do we not?

…claimed to own guns for protecting their families and their homes, so obviously they don’t feel safe in Arizona.

Ah, but those claims are just so much hogwash, are they not? You just have to love the blatant innuendo oozing off Alan’s writing…

Regardless, there he goes again with “feelings”. Do criminals exist in Arizona, or do they not, Alan? Do those criminals prey on whatever victims they can come across, or do they not? Are people murdered, raped, assaulted, battered, robbed, mugged, and otherwise criminally attacked, or are they not? Those are the questions that address the facts of the matter, not some head-in-the-cloud, completely-irrelevant-to-reality “feelings” that you may or may not have; and the fact is that the world is inherently an unsafe place already, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

And once you can address those facts, you can start taking actions to actually be safe, not just “feel” it – being more aware of your surroundings, having plans on how to respond to certain situations, practicing those responses, learning or practicing how to remain calm in stressful circumstances, knowing what your limits are and how to work inside them, so on, and so forth.

But, hey, none of that matters if you feel safe, right?

Unfortunately, their attacks infected me with their fear. I now feel that *I* need to own a gun to protect *my* family and *my* home. From the gun nuts.

Bulldren. On all counts.

1. Alan again desperately tries to shift the blame and avoid responsibility.

2. Alan again allows his overwhelmingly driving force to be “feelings”, rather than thought, reason, or logic.

3. Alan again stereotypes a massive cross-section of the American public based on the supposed (and likely fictional) actions of two individuals.

Worse still, Alan seems to be of the fallacious belief that firearms are some kind of magical talisman that will automatically and mystically “protect his family and his home” simply by their presence – who wants to place bets on exactly how many times Alan goes to the range, takes training courses, reads up on lawful self-defense methods and proceedures, or does anything even remotely related to those kinds of topics? Just as his irrational fear at an openly-carried firearm is nothing more than modern-day totemism, so is his misplaced faith that a firearm’s presence will somehow protect his family… and that insistence on primal religions being equivalent to reality show just how little Alan actually understands about the topics of firearms, self-defense, or individual rights.

Oh, and, Alan, awareness that society can be and occasionally is a dangerous place is not equivalent to “fear”, and your martyr-tastic rantings and ravings would be significantly more credible if you could be bothered to learn the difference.

In other news, is anyone else somewhat bemused at how these supposed “death threats” were so very serious that Alan “need(ed)” to go out and buy a gun, but not serious enough for him to report them to the police? Ah, right, I keep forgetting… “exaggeration, hyperbole”…

Fear spreads like a virus. It’s a sad state of affairs. I want to feel safe again… but that bell can’t be unrung.

Actually, it can. Simply put, nothing has changed. Open carry was legal, is still legal, and people still do it. Carrying firearms was legal, is still legal, and people still do it. Criminals existed, still exist, and still prey on whatever victims they can. The saddest part of all of this is that Alan was probably almost certainly cognizant of all these simple facts, but his brain had simply shuffled them off into some dark crevice, never to be seriously considered or regarded… until some open carrier, minding his own business at some hoity-toity grocery store, had the unmitigated gall to unintentionally bump into Alan Baird’s tiny-assed bubble of reality.

And now poor Alan is cloak-rendingly, teeth-gnashingly emotionally distraught, without a safety binky in the whole wide world. As Captain Reynolds said, “What a whiner.”

Sorry, Alan, but from the very beginning of your pathetic little diatribe against open carriers, you came across as nothing more than a petty, abusive, overbearing schoolyard bully, and you have done absolutely nothing to change or improve that opinion, especially now that you are following remarkably similar tactics of trying to cover up your dirty work, undoubtedly blowing other people’s reactions out of proportions, and blaming anyone you can think of for what you did, of your own free will and volition. In short, and in closing, your original, inane posts, ongoing, pathetic “explanations”, and final, finger-pointing updates are “one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the internet is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.” (And, no, you reactionary nitwit, that is not a “death threat”.).

In closing, I think it might behoove you to get some psychiatric help. Work on your bigotry, your fear of firearms, your self-control issues, and your curious fixation on things penile. Also your hatred of your fellow man. If you don’t, you might end up strapping on a firearm and calling out an 80-year-old a**hole who might blow your penis off with his .45 in self-defense.

Trust me, I know some old guys who can SHOOT.

Seems to me that Alan Baird would be well-served by taking Kevin’s advice, but something tells me he will not – murderous, spiteful, bloodthirsty, irrational, violent thugs like Alan do not typically try to correct their behavior of their own volition.

They do, however, hide their pasts when they are called into account, which means we pro-rights activists could be wholly fabricating all these horrible things we are saying about Mr. Baird, just like he is almost unquestionably making up his “death threats” – after all, how are we, the audience, to verify his claims when he has deleted the comments in question? As such, in order to preserve the facts of the situation in question and the credibility of the pro-rights activists addressing Alan Baird’s unquestionable bigotry, I present you with the screencaptures from Alan’s account at Open Salon and his private (unlinked) webpage, as preserved by Google Cache (and requested by Weer’d Beard):

Click to enlarge, just be advised – the originals are… quite large, and the invective contained within them may not be suitable for some people.

Alan is going to have to live with what wrote for the rest of his life, despite his best efforts to the contrary – a fact that I am going to remind him of with this email, as soon as I publish this post:

Mr. Baird,

You recently published two articles at your personal weblog and your account at Open Salon, entitled “Shootout at the Grocery-Cart Corral” and “National Quick-Draw Contest”; however, it would appear as though both of those articles have been removed from both of those sources. This is unfortunate, and must be remedied – as such, I have taken it upon myself to ensure that your words are preserved for future generations to read, and have catpured screenshots of the posts in question here: http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/10/the-words-of-alan-baird-remembered.html. The internet is forever, Alan, and your bloodthirsty bigotry should eternally be held up as an example of what pro-rights activists are constantly fighting against, no matter the arena.

Thank you for your time,
Linoge.

(Please be advised: Any email sent to this address will be considered for publication at the above-linked webpage.)

I will, of course, post any response he cares to provide, but something tells me none will be forthcoming.

We were browsing through the peach aisle when my wife urgently pulled me aside: “Did you see that guy?”

“What guy?” I craned my neck to peek around behind her.

“Don’t look. He might shoot.”

“Whaaaat?!” That really captured my attention. Sure enough, some corpulent 80-year-old a**hole was standing in front of the donut peaches, packing a pistol. Rosewood-checkered grip, tooled-leather holster, the whole bit. Not a law enforcement guy, just some retired jerkoff who evidently wanted to enhance the perceived size of his schlong.

…we also find another prime example of Markley’s Law, which states:

The adage that any Internet discussion regarding firearm owners will eventually mention male genitalia.

In Alan C. Baird’s case, it took him all of a single post to abandon any semblance of reasonable discourse, and degenerate to the point of kindergarten playground tactics. Thank you for proving our points, Alan.

Amusingly, Alan is quite right, just not in the way he thinks – I am compensating… for the fact that my “schlong” cannot be used to beat down anyone who attacks my family or myself, and that my “schlong” cannot project small pieces of metal at hundreds of feet per second. Since Alan is so very concerned with the genitalia of folks who carry arms, maybe he can come up with a solution to those “shortcomings”? On the flip side, I wonder how his bigoted, intolerant mind handles women who carry firearms…?

I feel like a modern-day Diogenes with his lamp, looking for a consistent man amongst the anti-rights nuts… and while the Internet provides one hell of a lot of wattage, I am not making a whole lot of progress.

And, honestly, that is my single largest complaint about the anti-rights nuts I have had the misfortune of stumbling across – not a damned one of them can remain consistent logically, rationally, argumentively, morally, or pretty much any other way. Consider the below statements – each side of a sentence is a condensed summary of a position I have seen taken by the same anti-rights nut, who invariably never seems to quite grasp that he or she just contradicted him/herself at the most basic of levels:

I support a woman’s right to choose… except when it comes to choosing how she will defend herself, and with what tools.

Victims are never responsible for being victimized… unless they are gun owners, in which case anything bad that happens to them is their fault.

Removing people’s rights based on some capricious list is bad… except when we have licensing and registration of all gun owners, because people on that list are going to be denied anywise.

We are liberals… but not in any way that any definition would indicate.

We do not want to ban guns… except for “assault weapons”, and high-powered sniper rifles, and easily concealable pistols, and “Saturday Night Specials”, and…

Criminals do not obey laws that enforce gun-free zones, stop murder, or prevent them from owning firearms… but we should pass more laws that make those things even more illegal.

You should never use force against another person… unless you can get the government to use force on your behalf, in which case I have no problems employing a proxy.

We should passs more laws to keep firearms out of the hands of the law-abiding… but enforcing the current laws to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals is just a cop-out dodge.

I support civil rights… except the right to self-defense, or, really, anything to do with icky guns.

Guns cause crime… unless they are in the hands of the police, in which case they are obviously a force for good.

Guns cause crime… but cameras do not cause child pornography, spoons do not cause obesity, cars do not cause drunk drivers (but alcohol might)…

We want compromise… but we are not going to give you anything in return.

[Further additions inspired by Bob S.:]

We just want to have a meaningful discussion… except when you start destroying our arguments, then we will delete any comments we do not like.

All gun owners are responsible for any crimes committed by any other people in possession of firearms… but child pornography is not the fault of all computer owners, drunk drivers are not the fault of all car owners, meth is not the fault of all pseudophedrine users…

Gun laws are effective if they save just one life… but lives saved by guns do not matter.

Guns never save lives… except in the hands of the police and the military.

All of these inherently contradictory positions have, individually, been held by one or more anti-rights nuts in the past… and yet they do not see the inherent disconnect between the two sides of the statements.

Honestly, I do not much care if those hoplophobes lie, are incapable of determining fact from fiction, cannot do simple math, cannot understand basic English, or fall short in the countless other fashions that they do… but I do wish they could keep their own positions straight from one moment to the next. A person who cannot generate a consistent argument has no argument, and there is little to no point in engaging him in a debate – he will simply contradict himself whenever and wherever necessary… as anti-rights nuts already do.

Buy CFLs, or we will violently murder your children.

Stop driving your car, or we will violently murder you.

Use a train instead of flying, or we will violently murder people you know.

And we will not show the slightest bit of emotion about it.

But, hey, “no pressure”.

In a not-at-all-surprising move, when the disgusting and literally-murderous creators of this particular film, some group called “10:10″ (who shall remain linkless for obvious reasons), got called on the carpet for this vicious and threatening video, they claimed it was all a joke, that it was only meant in jest, that we obviously were not getting it, and that they would take the video down immediately (read: “hide the accidental exposure of their honest desires from the eyes of others”). Remind you of anyone?

Unfortunately for them, though, the internet is the internet, and it just happens to view censorship, even self-imposed censorship, as damage, and route around it – for example, Traction Control has a downloadable *.wmv file of the repulsive clip, assuming the above video ever mysteriously disappears (a file I would be more than willing to host myself, should his server load become excessive).

However, now that these bloodthirsty ideologues have allowed their thin mask of civilization to slip, we can start to fully comprehend just how warped and disturbing the cult of anthropogenic global warming has become – they are past the point of debate, they are past the point of presenting their arguments and allowing you to make up your mind, they are past the point of listening to contradicting opinions and facts, they are past the point of being reasonable members of society. Now, either you agree with the AGW cultists, and you do what they tell you to, or you must die, and it is as simple as that.

Sorry, folks, but now I am going to go out of my way to increase my carbon footprint on the 10th – maybe a few runs of the Tail of the Dragon with my 4.8L V8 somewhere near the redline, followed by an hour at the range, all the while leaving the all the lights on in my house with the heat set to 78. How does that sound to you violent thugs?

And people question why I and others like me see the need to own, carry, and practice with firearms? Using force to silence dissent is not exactly a new tactic for the AGW cultists, and killing those who would dissent is merely that same idea taken to its logical, and bloody, conclusion.

When the only thing you have left to bring to the table is raw, naked, unprovoked violence, you have officially lost the debate, not only because it is patently obvious that your position is too weak to permit opposing voices, but also because some people will not go gently into that good night. If the ecoterrorist cultists want to start killing people rather that “just” destroying people’s property, I can guarantee that it will eventually prove to be an outstanding way to reduce their own carbon footprint… to zero.

No pressure.

(More here, here, here, and here.)

“Senator Van Drew, for whatever reason, is kowtowing to the pro-gun forces of darkness who want to turn this country into an armed society,” said Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ.

“Army of darkness”? Really?? I mean, did you honestly intend for those words to sneak out of your mouth, Bryan, or were they just the result of a momentary delusional episode? If the former, Good God, that is just stupid. Law-abiding firearm owners and carriers, seeking to protect and preserve their naturally-granted, Constitutionally-guaranteed individual rights, are now somehow equivalent to evil, maleficent supernatural beings intent on murdering, maiming, and otherwise maligning?

You really should put down the crack pipe periodically, Bryan, especially right before an interview…

Still, I am perverse enough to take the intended epithet and wear it proudly as a nom de guerre… Forces of Darkness – extinguishing the light of bigotry everywhere. Forces of Darkness – criminals, not citizens, should fear the shadows. Forces of Darkness – “evil black rifles” are our specialty. Forces of Darkness – snuffing out criminals, if we have to. Forces of Darkness – we have cookies… and guns.

Of course, we could combine all of the silly sobriquets various anti-rights nuts have tried to saddle law-abiding firearm-owners with, and end up with People of the Triangle of Darkness – it does not exactly roll off the tongue, but it does have a nice ring to it.

Not to be outdone, even by himself, though, Bryan continues in his interview by making it clear how much of a blithering idiot he is:

Do we want to be standing in line at a grocery store, at a movie theater, sitting next to someone in a church or anywhere else not knowing whether that person is legally carrying a handgun?

Pop quiz, Bry – which is worse: someone legally carrying a firearm, or someone illegally carrying a firearm? I will give you a hint – the correct answer is not the first option. Furthermore, why are you so wrapped around the axel about people legally carrying guns, when people are already illegally carrying guns in New Jersey? Misplaced priorities much?

The funny thing is that there is an easy solution to Bryan’s pants-wetting hysteria – mandate open carry in New Jersey. Something tells me that is not exactly what he meant, though.

The funny thing is that if you look at folks like RobertaX (from whom I found the above test), Joe Huffman, and Eric Shelton, and, I would wager, Kevin Baker, Tam, David Hardy, and others, I am on the lower side of the gunblogger distribution curve.

So, for those halfwits out there who keep making cute little cracks about mandating an IQ/general intelligence test for firearm ownership, what was the minimum score you were considering to be “passing”? Or were you just being an intolerant twit and stereotyping all firearm owners as drunken, retarded, incompetent rednecks?

Really, though, do not bother responding – you and I both already know the answer.

As something of a joke, Robb put up a post looking at how the First Amendment would be treated by Mayor Daley’s new laws and regulations concerning the Second, including registration of word processors, required journalism training in order to exercise the rights protected by the First Amendment, limitations to only one functional word processor per home, bans on thesauruses and dictionaries without proper documentation, and so forth. The list more than documented the sheer lunacy of treating one Constitutionally-protected right so radically different from any other Constitutionally-protected right, and called into question how people would react if similar restrictions were placed on the First Amendment, but what was UBU52′s reaction to this hypothetical?

As a person with a journalism degree and city newspaper experience, I don’t feel those restrictions are onorous at all. In fact, I think those rules would cut down the amount of “blog blather” masquerading as “journalism.”

Unfortunately, the list is missing the restriction “Those without a journalism degree and city newspaper experience may not post on the internet.” That’s critical.

Anyway, it’s a great idea! Let’s see if we can turn those rules into laws!

*blink*

*blinkblink*

Well, you have to give the woman credit for consistency.

And for those looking to leap to her defense, UBU52 has responded to the same comment thread at least two more times since posting that, after numerous people expressed surprise, outrage, and indignation at her words, and she has never once clarified that they were meant as a “joke”. We can only, therefore, assume that she is dead serious in her intentions and desires, and, speaking as a previous journalist, seeks to arbitrarily, whimsically, and capriciously deny you your rights, as protected by the First Amendment.

Really, this should be no surprise – after all, UBU52 has expressed a repeated, consistent, and fervent desire to arbitrarily, whimsically, and capriciously deny you your rights, as protected by the Second Amendment… and if you are against any one of the first ten Amendments, it is fair to say that you have absolutely no respect for any of them.

As I said over at Robb’s, really, we should be thanking UBU52 for her apparent honesty. Singlehandedly, she gave a lot of weight to the theories we pro-rights activists have concerning anti-rights nuts, and, likewise, her admission explains a great deal about how and why she reacts the way she does (namecalling, fingers-in-her-ears, ad hominem attacks, and feigned indignation) when people point out that not only is she wrong, she is dead wrong. Additionally, it would appear as though she has provided us something approximating an answer to my little question – there is no difference between discriminating against one right versus discriminating against another right, which was exactly my point all along. She, and anti-rights nuts like her, discriminates equally, and with equivalent malice aforethought.

The funny thing, at least to me? Over six months ago, I wrote a similar post to Robb’s specifically highlighting UBU52 and the bigotry inherent in her words… a post that, in retrospect, is far more accurate than I ever could have imagined at the time, apparently.

So while you are a spineless coward who relies on personal attacks rather than answering simple, direct questions, UBU52, I do sincerely appreciate your honesty. Once again, anti-rights nuts like you do far more damage to your own causes than we pro-rights activists could ever hope to accomplish ourselves.

You can read Weer’d's reactions to UBU52′s seemingly incessant bigotry here.

But what if… hmmm… what if…. ahhhh… there was some way to cost the NRA something each time they “threatened to file a lawsuit” …. Maybe something that was beyond the law…. hmmm…

Let’s say a European was contracted to “ice” some of their high ranking officers, or even better, hit ‘em where it hurts… their families.. I wonder what would happen if we woke up tomorrow and saw this “just out of random” headline, Christopher Cox, 11250 Waples Mill Road , Fairfax, Virginia, was killed by unknown gunman… Walking out to get his mail, he never returned. Family found him dead by bullet to back of head”. If you are resourceful enough, you can guess exactly where the gunmen hid while waiting for his arrival….

This musing over the assassination of American citizens came as a response to the news that the NRA was challenging the Delaware Housing Authority’s ban against firearms on their property… because, you know, killing people is a mature, reasonable, and rational response to a private organization looking to ensure and protect Americans’ rights.

And that is all this argument boils down to – the protection of rights. If this were a private apartment complex, my response would be something approximating, “They can put whatever they want on the contract, and if people sign it, then more power to the lot of them,” but it is not, and it is not. This is a governmentally-run living facility, and, as such, is subject to the full and complete weight of every governmental restriction in existance, from the Constitution all the way down – including the Second Amendment, and, coincidentally, Delaware’s own constitution.

But kavips will have none of that. He would sooner murder those who would seek to protect Americans’ rights, and threaten their families, rather than actually allow those rights to be recognized. Why? Out of some misguided belief that “no guns allowed” signs actually stop criminals.

Yeah. That is working out so well.

Then kavips goes on to explain that he does not want firearms in the Delaware Housing Authority’s properties because “someone who wants to kill you” could have them and do bad things to others living there. You mean “someone” like a certain individual who wrote an entire post contemplating putting a hit out on another American citizen?

Methinks he needs to spend some time in front of a mirror.

So every time an anti-rights nut goes off the deep end after you pointed out the distinct probability that he and his ilk are simply projecting their own shortcomings onto the American population as a whole, you need only mutely point at the example afforded by “kavips”, and let his words speak for themselves.

Yes. Radical Muslim fanatics who would kill/attack/otherwise silence those who would dare to draw likenesses of their pedophile founder can kiss my hairy, white, Christian ass.

(First two images courtesy of Chris Muir.)

So let us see how his words measure up, hm?

No reasonable person would dispute that walking into a retail store openly carrying a firearm is highly disruptive conduct which is virtually certain to create a disturbance.

Note the underhanded jab in the very opening statement, in that if you disagree with Judge Adelman, you are obviously not “reasonable”. Obviously, there are a lot of “unreasonable” people in Knoxville, Tennessee, Atlanta, Georgia, and northern Georgia and Eastern Tennessee in general, because I have openly carried my Walther PPS in a fairly obvious holster in countless commercial establishments and public locations in both those cities since October of last year, and I have never once observed a resulting “disturbance”. In fact, I would go so far as to wager that nearly the majority of fellow customers and employees were completely oblivious to the fact that I was armed, or that they simply did not care. So much for “virtually certain”.

This is so because when employees and shoppers in retail stores see a person carrying a lethal weapon, they are likely to be frightened and possibly even panicky.

I cannot speak, with 100% accuracy, as to the emotional condition of anyone else, but I have never once witnessed anything even approximating fear or panic from those around me when I am openly carrying. In fact, the manager of a store we frequently visit went so far as to ask what it was I was carrying (not something someone would do if they were in a panic), and while I was in the restroom of a Steak and Shake, I actually had a Canuckistan subject ask me about the legalities of openly carrying a real firearm in the States (again, not something someone would do if they were mere moments from involuntarily releiving themselves).

To be certain, I have observed surprise from those around me (specifically, the Canadian was quite surprised, but more at me not already being in handcuffs), but surprise does not equate to fear. So, unlike Judge Adelman, I will not attempt to extrapolate, based on effectively no information at all, what another person’s emotional response to stimuli will be, but I will say that if people are “likely to be frightened” around a lawfully-carried firearm, there are a lot of folks out here in Appalachia I would not want to play poker with.

However, a question: does Judge Adelman, in his infinite wisdom, honestly believe people will fly into a blind panic at the sight of a police officer? Why, or why not?

Many employees and shoppers are likely to think that the person with the gun is either deranged or about to commit a felony or both.

Much like the emotional state of those around me, I am in no position to determine what other people are thinking – I wonder what basis Judge Adelman has to make that determination? Obviously those are not the only two outcomes possible from someone openly carrying a firearm – thousands of law-abiding Americans do so every day, and go out of their way to avoid breaking a law. Are all of those people deranged?

For that matter, do deranged individuals, or individuals who are about to commit a crime, spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for a firearm, and then hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for the holster it goes in? For that matter, how many criminals actually use holsters?

And is the judge honestly trying to say that people see someone openly carrying while they push a buggy full of groceries, and possibly even a kid, through a grocery store and immediately jump to the conclusion of, “ZOMG, they are going to shoot up the place!” Really? What a low and disappointing opinion Judge Adelman must have of the American citizens around him, including police officers, given that they likely openly carry firearms on a daily basis, wherever their official duties may take them… I wonder if the Wisconsin law enforcement departments are aware of what one of their state’s district judges thinks of them?

Further, it is almost certain that someone will call the police.

“Almost certain”, eh? I have openly carried in WalMarts, Targets, more gas stations than I can or would care to remember, Trader Joe’s, Bliss, Krogers, Blockbusters, Big Lots, Home Depots, Lowes, car dealerships, fast food joints, and who-knows-what-else stores, establishments, and locations in Tennessee and Georgia. I cannot definitively state that no police were called in any of those incidents, but if they were, either their response time was greater than 30-90 minutes, or the callers were rightly told that an average citizen carrying a firearm in a holster is no problem whatsoever.

Or, you know, no one called the police at the sight of a law-abiding citizen peacefully carrying a firerarm in a legal and acceptable manner. That could be it too.

And when police respond to a “man with a gun” call, they have no idea what the armed individual’s intentions are.

Is the armed individual shooting anyone? No. Is the armed individual pointing his firearm at anyone? No. Does the armed individual actually have his firearm out? No. Is the firearm tucked in the waistand of his so-baggy-they-are-about-to-fall-off-his-ass pants without a retention device to be seen? No. Actually, I would say those observations, doable in about 5 seconds, will give you a very good idea of what a person’s intentions are, at least for the moment.

As Lyle said when he stole my comment idea, every last one of us is capable of being a criminal, which leaves the police in the interesting predicament of never knowing anyone’s intentions completely and absolutely. But something tells me that is not what Judge Adelman meant.

The volatility in such a situation could easily lead to someone being seriously injured or killed.

What is volatile about one armed individual talking to another armed individual, when both individuals’ firearms are in their respective holsters? Is it volatile for police officers from different jurisdictions to talk to one another while on duty? Is it volatile for military members from different units in a war zone to talk to one another? Would serious injuries or death result from those conversations?

So why, then, should those risks exist when a police officer is stopping a lawfully-armed citizen to discuss a “man with a gun” phone call that may never have happened? History has proven, time and time again, that those who lawfully carry firearms for the purpose of self-defense are typically more-law-abiding than average citizens, if only because they understand that breaking the law may, and probably will, deny them the ability to adequately defend themselves and their families in the future. As such, someone lawfully carrying a firearm in a peaceful manner is not exactly likely to haul off and shoot a police officer, even if the officer in question is reponding to the unlikely “man with a gun” phone call in full-on assault mode.

As such, where is the “volatility in such a situation”?

It honestly amazes me that a Federal District Court Judge would issue a judgement so heavily based upon nothing more than his own personal fears, insecurities, opinions, baseless extrapolations, and fallacious assumptions. It should not surprise me, given that Lynn presides over a state wherein concealed carry is strictly forbidden, and open carry is effectively only honored on your own land, or while hunting, but it still disappoints me that someone sho unable to look past his own bigotry was able to rise to such a lofty position (an appointed position, granted, and one he was placed in by President Bill, but still).

While we pro-rights activists are unquestionably winning in a lot of areas and states, we still have a considerable amount of work ahead of us in the future…

(Courtesy of Neanderpundit and SnarkyBytes.)