if a hypothesis is wrong once

This is, at least nominally, a firearm-related weblog, but it is worth delving into politics every once in a while.

The topic of homosexual marriages has come up recently – understandable, given the associated Supreme Court case – and the usual useful idiots have crawled out of the woodwork proclaiming that we cousin-humping, gun-toting rednecks universally hate teh gayz.

Y’know, except not.

My position on homosexual marriage is quite simple:

First, adult human beings should be able to enter into whatever mutually agreeable (but not necessarily mutually-beneficial) contracts they so desire, and if the federal/state/local government is going to honor one such contract between two parties, it should honor all such contracts between two parties. That covers civil unions.

Second, if the official representative of any given religion – be it Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster – is willing and permitted by his religious authorities to perform whatever rites and rituals are necessary to religiously marry two consenting and legally-eligible individuals, then that is a matter between those three individuals, the aforementioned religious authorities, and their chosen god(s).

Neither my relationship with my significant other nor my religious faith are in any way threatened or affected by two other people exchanging vows or signing their names on the dotted line, regardless of whatever combination of Tab A and Slot B they might possess. If yours are, maybe that is more a problem with your relationships and faith and less a problem with other people’s decisions?

And I say all this as a firearm owner who regularly carries one of those firearms on his person and who will stand up and ardently defend all humans’ rights to self-defense, self-preservation, and ownership of private property.

So much for that stereotype.

it was going to happen eventually

Well, would you look at that – it would appear as though some enterprising young entrepreneurs scumbag burglars with an internet connection went and used The Journal News’ map of firearm owners to pick out their next target:

A White Plains residence pinpointed on a controversial handgun permit database was burglarized Saturday, and the burglars’ target was the homeowner’s gun safe.

At least two burglars broke into a home on Davis Avenue at 9:30 p.m. Saturday but were unsuccessful in an attempt to open the safe, which contained legally owned weapons, according to a law enforcement source. One suspect was taken into custody, the source said.

Why, no one could have predicted this could happen… absolutely no one.

*sigh* Assuming it does turn out that the criminals targeted that house specifically because they knew firearms would be present (and given the fact that they only attacked the gun safe, it would seem likely), and if we lived in a just world – and we do not – every single member of the editorial staff of The Journal News, along with its owners and publishers, should be up on charges for being accessories before the fact. But I am not going to hold my breath on that one.

There is precisely no good that has come or will come out of publishing the names of law-abiding firearm owners in any geographical area, but we now have a prime example of harm that can and has come from the same. Of course, that harm was always the point – in the past, bigots did not "out" Jews, homosexuals, Mormons, Catholics, Irish, gypsies, or any other persecuted, marginalized group in order to help their communities better understand and appreciate those groups. No, "outing" was always a tool of oppression, fear, and abuse, and this instance is no different than any of its historical analogues.

To anyone whose house was identified and conveniently mapped out by The Journal News, I would strongly recommend procuring a reliable, functional, monitored alarm system (we use Simplisafe; use "SAFENOW" as a checkout code for 5% off) and revisiting your home insurance to ensure everything is appropriately covered for its replacement value. I would likewise suggest banding together for the mother of all class-action lawsuits against The Journal News, but not being a lawyer I have no idea if your money would be well-spent in that pursuit.

I would ask when "gun control" extremists will stop using such underhanded, despicable tactics as outing firearm owners, but we both know the answer, and I guess it just goes to show how desperate they are getting.

wounded warrior project zumbos themselves

Well, since the Wounded Warrior Project does not want my money or any money from firearm owners or firearm-related corporations, I guess I will be donating more to Soldiers’ Angels in the future. 

Of course, if Leslie Coleman, the “public relations director” for WWP wants to explain how this sentence: 

WWP does not co-brand, create cause marketing campaigns or receive a percentage or a portion of proceeds from companies in which the product or message is sexual, political or religious in nature, or from alcohol or firearms companies.

… ,wherein she successfully alienates a not-insignificant fraction of their donors and supporters, is a good idea in any universe, I would be all ears. 

I will not be holding my breath, though. 

[ETA]  So I guess Playboy is not a company wherein the product or message is sexual in nature?  Is there any way that statement was not idiotic?  [/ETA]