The Bradys want me dead

Why do I say that? Because their desire to restrict legal gun ownership and carry into oblivion would leave me without a viable method of self-defense right now. If I were to be targeted for, just as an example, a gay bashing, without a firearm my two options would be to fight bare-handed against what would most likely be two or more assailants, or to try to run away (“giving them what they want” would not be an option in such a case, because what they want is me severely injured, crippled, or dead – and they don’t have to want me dead for it to happen anyway).

Right now, if I tried to run away from a week-old kitten I couldn’t do it. I suspect I wouldn’t make it more than half a dozen steps before ending up on the ground curled up in a little whimpering ball of pain and suffering. Trying to fight would be almost as bad, since my mobility is severely compromised and if you can’t maneuver during a fight, you’re going to lose.

So, without a gun, against 1 or more healthy assailants I am seriously disadvantaged, and probably would not survive any serious attack. With a gun, my odds are significantly better, and against the average assailant are tipped back in my favour.

But the anti-Rights cult wants to take that advantage away from me. Because a dead fag is apparently better than having a gay-basher get shot.


Previous Post
Leave a comment


  1. Overall, yes. I’d say that a dead faggot is better than than that faggot shooting a normal person. They’re both less than good though unless there are extenuating circumstances involving the faggot’s behavior.

    That being said, it still doesn’t change the fact that the Brady’s a are wrong and that both you faggots and those who seek to remove you from public consciousness in the only way you’ve left them have the right to be armed with firearms.

  2. Jonolan, are you kidding, or an idiot?

  3. Neither, Suz. The death of a non-normative and antisocial individual such as a faggot is always less damaging to a society than the death of a normal member of that society – unless there mitigating secondary factors. As I said though, it’s still a loss.

    Don’t blame me for the comparison since the poster was the one to originally make it.

    It’s also, as I also said, immaterial to the underlying issue of the 2nd Amendment. Jake has the right to be armed and, were his health suitable, to serve in the military. I do not have to approve of him, his lifestyle, or sexual choices to understand that. I do not, in fact, even have to believe that he, due to his homosexuality, is even sane since homosexual pathology doesn’t include symptomology that would make his possession of a firearm intrinsically dangerous to himself or society.

    • “The death of a non-normative and antisocial individual such as a faggot is always less damaging to a society than the death of a normal member of that society”

      I would say that someone who would willingly attempt to injure or kill a person who is not immediately and directly threatening bodily harm to them or to another, simply because they are offended by that person’s actions, beliefs, or lifestyle is not a “normal member of that society”, but is in fact a danger to that society’s ability to remain peaceful and stable – and is probably more dangerous in that sense than a peaceful but “non-normative and antisocial” person.

  4. Generally, Jake, I would actually agree with you. In the matter of homosexuals and responses to them I’m torn on the issue though.

    The unilateral declaration that it was non-insane and non-crazy was not done in conjunction with any shift in societal beliefs and left little recourse for those who do not want your kind parading around and demanding acceptance. Hence, I find “gay bashers” generally not a threat to society as a whole.

    On the other hand, resorting to such violence can be a sign of a greater antisocial problem on their part and it seems to me – just my anecdotal experiences – that the violence can be addictive and can spread to a wider variety of targets, destabilizing an area.

    But then, I’m the odd one in the world. I wouldn’t fight to defend you from these sorts, or them from you or your, but I would do what I could ensure that you were allowed to be armed in order to fight them yourself.

  5. “I find “gay bashers” generally not a threat to society as a whole.”
    Gay-bashers are a threat to individuals, usually law abiding individuals who are not a threat to anyone. As such, they ARE a threat to society. The minute they break a law, they are criminals. Gays are a biological minority, as are blacks and redheads. Period. Nobody has to “accept” any person they don’t want to, yet nobody has the right to violate the rights of others. The second amendment is one small part of a constitution that protects ALL of us, even the “different” ones. Seems to me that a supporter of the Constitution is the last person who would advocate valuing one life over another, based on ideology.

    Judging by your comment on my blog, for which I thank you, you’re clearly a compassionate person. Why would you withhold that compassion for an entire class of people, because they were born with traits you don’t share? I have to ask, how many gays do you personally know? How many of them are anti-social? I suspect your opinion of gays is based on a lack of knowledge about them – perhaps some “Christian” propaganda, taking the behavior of a small minority within the gay community, blowing it out of proportion, and claiming it represents all gays? Kind of like the “Bradys” and their ilk, portraying us gun owners as unbalanced ignorant hillbillies and anarchists.

    “The death of a non-normative and antisocial individual such as a faggot is always less damaging to a society than the death of a normal member of that society”

    This is true, except for “such as a faggot.” They are not anti-social, the anti social ones are those who would violate their rights.

  6. Yes, Suz. The constitution enumerates the small number of rights granted to all by the Creator. Within that scope I fully support any group that seeks to exercise those rights whether I agree with them or not.

    A related case in point. I know that having gays serve openly in the military is going to cause problems and get soldiers killed. I accept that as the cost of following the constitution because nowhere in the 2nd Amendment did the founders include the caveat, “…except for catamites and sodomites.” I’m actually still a little turked off that this argument wasn’t used to repeal DADT.

    On the other hand, when a small body of people go against the consistent will of the majority in an attempt to normalize what that majority finds abhorrent, tries to vilify any who disagree with them, and leaves the majority no legal recourse, I can’t bring myself to be outraged at the response.

    As for my compassion – I don’t have compassion for groups, only for individuals.

    As for knowing people – I know plenty, though more lesbians than gay men at a personal level. Some I get along with, some I don’t. Many hold attitudes that I think is the majority of problem with the gay community’s acceptance by normal people, some do not.

    Also and lastly, I’m not a Christian and there’s prohibition in my religion against homosexuality.

  7. TYPO – should have ended “[sic]…there’s no prohibition in my religion against homosexuality.”

  8. Funny you should mention DADT; I disagree with your prediction. My son is a Marine and when I asked him about it he say, “Yeah, we got over that a while ago.” These guys know they’ve been serving alongside gays for all of history. It’s no big deal to the vast majority of them. They aren’t so stupid that they don’t know who is and who isn’t. I think you’re also mistaken in what you believe gays want: most of them just want to be left alone, human rights intact, to live their lives, and they personally have no use for people who “find them abhorrent.”
    Groups are made up of individuals. It’s easier not to see them as such.

  9. Suz,

    I’m ex-Navy, served beside men I’m pretty sure were queer and didn’t care beyond being concerned about unit cohesion if they got caught, but base my prediction upon both the attitudes of some others and the historic precedent that was the racial integration of the services.

    There will be problems and, given what’s going on in the world, those problems will cost lives. I just don’t really care. One, the constitution trumps that consideration and two, like racial integration our servicemen will get past it.

    Don’t mistake my saying that there will be problems as my saying it will be a disaster.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: