Categories
homophobia hypocrisy irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever TROOOOLLLL?

Far-right blogger: If gays take away our guns, we’ll refuse to convict anyone of hate crimes

For some reason, gay people are unwilling to leave their personal safety in the hands of this guy
For some reason, gay people are unwilling to leave their personal safety in the hands of this guy

So the anonymous conservative blogger who runs the blog called, er, Anonymous Conservative, is upset that The Human Rights Campaign, an influential LGBT group, is calling for stricter gun laws in the wake of the Orlando massacre.

To Anonymous Conservative, calling for gun control rather than, well, Muslim control is evidence that gays are too illogical to ever be trusted to tell the truth. Or at least it’s a good excuse for AC to pretend that he thinks gays are too illogical to ever be trusted with the truth.

And if gays are this illogical, AC concludes, gun owners should never vote to convict anyone charged with hate crimes.

Dear reader, your immediate reaction to this leap in, er, logic may be the same as my immediate reaction:

plbbbb

So let’s try to make sense of AC’s rather novel argument. Near the start of his post on this subject, AC sets forth his thesis:

[I]f these gays want to try and attack the rights of gun owners, all gun owners need to point out is that if they begin to feel hostile to gays, and begin to see gays as too emotional and illogical, they might begin to not believe the testimony of gays in trials.

Huh. It sounds like these hypothetical gun owners are deciding to dismiss testimony from gays out of spite, not because they genuinely believe that gays are unreliable witnesses. But AC insists he’s sincere, though I’m pretty sure he’s not being sincere about that.

Personally now, I am quite confident that nothing a gay says could be believed, if they cannot come to terms with the fact that Islamic fundamentalism, and not a gun, was the cause of the Orlando shooting. I can’t help but realize how that realization of their illogicality would contaminate any testimony from any gay in a trial setting. I would even question whether any physical evidence was manufactured by an overly emotional gay, unable to deal with simple reality as it exists.

If all gun owners felt this way, AC concludes,

it would in effect jury-nullify all hate crimes laws, and possibly affect any trial involving a crime committed against a gay.

AC thinks this brilliant scheme would be easy as pie to pull off:

There are about 102 million gun owners out there (32% of all Americans), and all a defense attorney would need to do is find one to put on the jury of a man who beat a gay guy, stabbed a transgender, or murdered a transvestite. Did a transgender man use the girls locker room when a pee wee swim team was changing, and get beaten to a pulp? Don’t think the beater is going to get convicted on the word of the gay.

Yeah, it’s not like there would be other evidence or anything. Except maybe “the gay’s” physical injuries, bloodstains on the assailant’s clothes, an entire pee wee swim team’s worth of witnesses, surveillance camera footage of the beater fleeing the scene, or, wait, that does sound like a lot of evidence.

If gays think guns should be banned, then the gay’s testimony is meaningless, and I would assume any evidence had been fabricated in an overemotional meltdown.

Ah, yes, because gays have the ability to fabricate injuries, video footage, an entire locker room full of witnesses.

[I]f gays are this unable to perceive simple reality, I could probably never vote to convict in any such case. I suspect if I had been on the trial of the Orlando shooter tomorrow, I am not sure I would have been able to vote guilty, given the stories of a second shooter, the gay holding the door shut, and the fact that the shooter himself appears to have been gay.

Dude, you’re aware that the shooter is dead, right? Dead men aren’t generally tried for murder.

It would all have been too convoluted, I suspect. I would probably have let him walk out the door of the courtroom a free man, and I would have felt it was the only moral outcome, given my convictions regarding the gay’s inability to perceive simple realties such as Islamic radicalism, and the fact guns reduce crime when the law abiding have them.

I’m pretty sure it’s not “the gay” who is having trouble perceiving reality here.

The potential consequences against gays would admittedly be dangerous. Millions of people who want to commit crime might begin targeting gays specifically, knowing that they would be unlikely to be convicted, given how all it would take is one of the 102 million gun owners to land on their jury – and the lawyers of the perpetrator would undoubtedly be looking for gun owners to put on the jury.

Nice justice system you’ve got here, pity if something were to happen to it.

Also, dude, you do realize, don’t you, that prosecutors also get to screen jury members, and could veto anyone who seemed to believe any of the nonsense you’re peddling.

Gang members, who need to kill somebody as an initiation might seek out gays as victims, thinking they would be a free kill, and sadly there would be nothing I could do about that.

Would these gang members flash their car lights at gay drivers to get them to pull their cars over?

Those prone to engage in violence against gays specifically because of homophobia might be emboldened, and gay attacks could increase precipitously, and obviously all of those gay attackers going free without any consequence would be unfortunate.

Nice justice system you’ve got here, pity if something were … oh wait, we did that already.

However gays do not seem to consider our safety when contemplating their actions. They are all too happy to try and make us and our families less safe by preventing us from getting the guns we want to protect them. So the idea that gays would be less safe due to our realization that gays are too emotional and cannot be trusted, would not be of concern to me. I would have to vote my conscience – every time – and I suspect most other gun owners would as well. 

And as an added bonus, this dumbass idea might bring about the collapse of civilization itself!

Once a group is, from a practical perspective, unable to appeal to the justice system for justice, it will not be long before the entire system’s foundation is in question. I suspect most politicians, rather than see this come to pass, would rather let everything cool off.

Perhaps this is the only path forward for the nation however – one step closer to Apocalypse.

Dude, why wait for the possible apocalypse? Seal yourself up in your doomsday bunker right now and avoid the rush!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

137 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

Re: jury nullification

It’s obviously not something judges are keen on; but when I was in the Old Bailey I had occasion to refer to this plaque a few times and recommend jurors take a look at it. It commemorates the right of juries to bring in any verdict they wish, regardless of the evidence. Obviously only works in worthy cases though (or fiddling tax returns).
comment image

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
4 years ago

SFHC: I once saw on my Facebook feed an article for “Mysterious temple discovered via radar in desert” illustrated by the temple from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

chesselwitt
chesselwitt
4 years ago

So this asshat thinks that every gun-owning person is going to go along with his brilliant plan? Nevermind that most gun owners support things like universal background checks and banning assault weapons. You know, the same thing he’s getting so worked up about the HRC supporting?

@Victorious Parasol

I dislike waking up in a country where Congress barely tries to keep people safe from being shot, but is very eager to keep women from controlling their reproduction, and to tell transfolk where they should pee.

Amen.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
4 years ago

@sunnysombera : if memory serve well, the temple from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a real temple, from an obscure but not totally unknown middle eastern civilisation.

pitshade
pitshade
4 years ago

For those trying to understand the US gun culture, the most important thing to understand, IMO, is that it is manufactured by right wing propaganda over the last few decades. Specifically, the idea that crime is rising when it isn’t, othering/demonization of minorities and the idea that extreme liberal (that is center right) are planning to throw out the Constitution and impose a dictatorship (for everone who isn’t them). Look at the Jade Helm conspiracy BS, Dearborn Michigan etc…

The US has always romanticized guns but since the 90s it has steadily gotten worse. There are people that I’ve worked with for years that suddenly now are caught up in it and it’s no use talking to them about it. They are so steeped in this miasma that it seems natural to them.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ sunnysombrera and ohlmann

Do you mean the ‘temple’ at Petra? (There’s some debate as to whether it was a temple or just a government building)

comment image

The civilisation(s?) responsible are pretty well understood. The place was a major trading hub so the society is a pretty eclectic mix over time with all sorts of influences.

Arctic Ape
Arctic Ape
4 years ago

Entirely unrelated but funny: I keep getting an ad for “20 rare historical photos declassified”… Illustrated by a Photoshop from the Russian Sleep Experiment creepypasta.

I’ve been lately getting “One Weird Food To Cure Joint Pain”, illustrated by adorable pink caecilian embryos coiled in their transparent eggs, apparently quite ready to hatch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caecilian

Possibly some stock photo library has mislabeled them as “weird fruit”. These miracle food ads typically show exotic fruits, the weirder the better, as long as you can recognize them as fruits.

Ledasmom
Ledasmom
4 years ago

I have been getting ads for herpes cures, illustrated by some horrible thing I can’t identify, but which is not herpes.

Dalillama
4 years ago

I regularly see one that talks about little known symptoms of heart attack, with an accompanying illustration of a severely ingrown toenail.

Saraphm
Saraphm
4 years ago

I suspect if I had been on the trial of the Orlando shooter tomorrow, I am not sure I would have been able to vote guilty,

This whole sentence is a hate crime on verb tenses and the English language. AC may be cis/het, but there is nothing normative about his grammar.

Verily Baroque
Verily Baroque
4 years ago

@Saraphm

I suspect if I had been on the trial of the Orlando shooter tomorrow, I am not sure I would have been able to vote guilty,

This whole sentence is a hate crime on verb tenses and the English language.

Unless he can prove beyond reasonable doubt that he is a time traveler…

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

Victorious Parasol | June 21, 2016 at 8:17 am
I dislike waking up in a country where Congress barely tries to keep people safe from being shot, but is very eager to keep women from controlling their reproduction, and to tell transfolk where they should pee.

I saw someone put it in a really interesting (and frightening) way: “It was over after Sandy Hook. The day we decided we cared more about our guns than children getting shot was the day that the gun debate in the USA was over.”

Imaginary Petal
Imaginary Petal
4 years ago

@Eleni

You say you’ve been “walking on eggshells” and “weighing every word a thousand times”, yet you failed to keep obvious ableist slurs out of your comment. You were not careful enough, then. We need to put more eggshells around you. You need the eggshells.

EDIT: That comment disappeared?

OoglyBoggles
OoglyBoggles
4 years ago

Well shit like expected the gun reform bill is rejected. I guess it is true, even a muslim bigot shooting up minorities wouldn’t make them change their mind.

dlouwe
dlouwe
4 years ago

@Eleni

Not wanting to cause offense is not the same as not causing offense. Try to care more about whether you’ve said something harmful than about whether or not people are telling you you’ve said something harmful.

Learning to communicate with respect and compassion is difficult because it’s not something that is enforced in everyday conversation. It takes effort. It takes time and practice before it becomes more natural. But just because you stop being around people who will call you out on your mistakes doesn’t mean you should stop trying.

edit: Looks like I replied to the same phantom comment as IP

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
4 years ago

Alan and Ohlmann: the article claimed it was a brand new discovery, so not the actual temple from the film. They just illustrated their piece wrong. 😛

Moggie
Moggie
4 years ago

PI:

I saw someone put it in a really interesting (and frightening) way: “It was over after Sandy Hook. The day we decided we cared more about our guns than children getting shot was the day that the gun debate in the USA was over.”

Did you see that bit in the Onion a few months before Sandy Hook?

NRA Sets 1,000 Killed In School Shooting As Amount It Would Take For Them To Reconsider Much Of Anything

Really dark, and pretty much on the nose.

Axecalibur
Axecalibur
4 years ago

@Eleni, if your still here. Long ass comment ahead:

We’re similar, believe it or not. I am a liberal user of many slurs. To tell you a secret, ‘b***h’ is one of my favorite words to use. I sprinkle it like a fuckin garnish over my speech. I know I shouldn’t, but I do it anyway. It’s a habit and not one I’ve done much to break. I’ve said this before repeatedly, I’m not a particularly good person. I also agree with you in personally caring more for intent than diction
How the fuck ever
I make the effort, what with the miracle of text, to refrain from that stuff whilst in this comment section. I don’t use slurs and I try to be careful about dealing with other people’s feelings
Read the room, yo. What you said didn’t “somehow” get you told off. You used a protected word (while putting “no offense” in there, implying you do realize you shouldn’t have used it). Then you said it was “weird” that others have a problem with certain words, cos you don’t care, so anyone who does care is, well, I’ll not use the word
Is that what you meant? I don’t think so. I don’t think you’re a bad person. And I did go in on you harder than necessary. But. You fucked up, you take your licks, you quit fucking up. That’s the game, trust me
I also spend a lot of time on comments. Nikki Bluth once asked for haircut advice, and it took me hours to write something I was comfortable sending. Taking the time should be something you do, cos you want it done right. If it just makes you anxious (genuine sympathies), then perhaps not commenting is best. I hope not. I meant what I said when I welcomed you (I’m pretty sure it was you). I’m happy to read your ramblings. Just be careful is all 🙂

ColeYote
ColeYote
4 years ago

God, I hate right-wing politics…

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

Moggie | June 21, 2016 at 4:46 pm
Did you see that bit in the Onion a few months before Sandy Hook?

I did not, thanks for linking it!

I’m a bit put off by them for all the smoke they’re blowing up Hillary Clinton’s ass (because their owners are backing her in the election), but they are a bit like a modern day Nostradamus.

But, then again, some of this is “water is wet” territory. Like violent homophobes refusing to give up their guns for “protection”, despite the fact they don’t live in a literal fucking war zone, just the imaginary one they’ve concocted.

Bob Dole
Bob Dole
4 years ago

Nobody else said it so I will for reference: remember Heartiste’s references to rabbits vs wolves, or Forney’s? AC is the blogger who formulated the whole thing. Any reference to r/K selection among humans in the alt-right that isn’t racial probably roots back to him.

Claire
Claire
4 years ago

Can someone please explain to me why an amendment that was added to the constitution more than 200 years ago can’t be, um, amended? Isn’t that the point of amendments? That they (in part) allow laws to be altered to include changes in a society’s moral standpoint?

I’m not being facetious, I’m just not from the USA and I’ve never been able to understand her peoples’ worship of firearms.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ Claire

There is obviously a procedure for amending the US constitution.

There are certain limitations, that wouldn’t apply in regard to the second amendment, but basically what would be required is first for the amendment to be proposed. That can be done either by a two thirds majority in both houses or by two thirds of the states voting for it.

Once tabled three fourths of the states must approve the amendment. That’s by equal, not proportional, representation (i.e. every state gets one vote). How each state decides how to vote would be down to their individual constitutions.

Hope that helps (I bet there’s one of those 1970s cartoons with the cool music that does the explanation better)

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

@Claire
Alan gave a great explanation for the procedure. The reason why that’s not going to happen any time soon is complex.

First, many Americans see owning weapons as a basic human right because it’s one of the earlier ammendments right next to freedom of speech, illegal search and seizure, and not being forced to testify against yourself. On top of that, we’re taught that the British held an oppressive rule over us that no one wanted, and they wouldn’t let us have guns so that was added to the Constitution to prevent a similarly oppressive rule (honestly, since I only ever learned any of this in grade school and we moved on to world and current day topics in middle school and high school, I’m not sure how accurate any of that is).

Add to that our current state of politicians being bought by lobbyists and the gun lobbyists having a ton of money to throw around, and even though the majority of citizens are for some kind of regulation*, we can’t even get bills about not letting suspected terrorist buy guns to pass.

*There already is a lot of regulation, but we can’t even close loopholes that allow people to get around the background checks and waiting periods. Not even in deep blue states like mine, where even some of my lefty friends were upset that a bill was proposed that would close the gun show loophole. There’s very little rational thought here in the US when it comes to guns.

Scildfreja
Scildfreja
4 years ago

Getting an amendment these days would likely take the states pushing it in, instead of it going through congress/the house. There … isn’t really much democracy left in the USA Federal government right now :s. As per the Princeton study, at the federal level it’s basically a proxy oligarchy.

But the state level isn’t! State level representatives are much less bound to corporate funding, since there are so many of them and they don’t need as much money to win. So, as it always seems to go – local politics is where the real work needs to happen. They’ve bought up your federal government, but the states are still democratic! Get in there and get to know your local representatives, and make your voice heard!

http://orig13.deviantart.net/0feb/f/2013/239/7/9/flutterleafs_by_themangopony-d6jy869.png

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
4 years ago

I saw this truly horrifying video a couple of months back, thought I’d post it here for those who haven’t seen it. I really didn’t realise, being British and all, how the Right have mixed up guns and religion.

God, Guns and the Gospel.

richardbillericay
richardbillericay
4 years ago

You’re not really free until you have the power of life and death over your neighbours, or better yet the whole neighbourhood. Ideally everyone who passed the background check could have their own tank (obviously you’d also need a driving license to use it on the highway), then families would be really safe. Obviously, if an ‘unstable loner’ who ‘kept himself to himself’ reduces half the town to rubble, it is just the price of freedom and not a reflection on the desirability of unrestricted tank ownership.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ Richard

Ideally everyone who passed the background check could have their own tank

Weirdly that used to be really easy under English gun laws.

It’s pretty simple to get a shotgun certificate. In the old days you didn’t have to register shotguns. Once you had your ticket you could just buy as many as you wanted with no checks.

In English law a shotgun is any smooth-bore firearm with a barrel length over 24 inches (you can probably guess where this is heading).

Lots of tanks have smooth-bore barrels and they’re certainly over two feet long. Quite a few people bought old tanks that still had working guns.

(Shotgun ammo though has to have at least five ‘pellets’ so to buy a tank shell you’d need a firearms ticket and they can restrict what ammo you can purchase)

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
4 years ago

It’s my understanding that the 2nd amendment represents a compromise. Some of the founders wanted a standing army during peacetime and some did not. Having an armed citizen militia was a way to meet in the middle so that’s what was put in the constitution. I’m no expert in early American history so I could be wrong but that’s what I remember hearing or reading somewhere. It wasn’t necessarily the intent to say all individuals can have any weapon they want, it’s all in how the courts interpret it.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

Courts often talk about “the intent of the legislature” but it’s recognised that there really isn’t such a thing. The drafters of the Constitution were not all of one mind. Like most bits of legislation the Constitution is just the words the majority could live with. Then it is up to the courts to try to find an objective single meaning (as you say, theoretically courts don’t ‘make’ law they just ‘interpret’ it)

Incidentally, that’s one of the reasons it’s a general rule that courts can’t look at the record of the debate leading up to the passing of laws. It’s to stop someone at the last minute saying “so this means we can all have assault rifles yeah?” and that becoming the definitive meaning.

(The most obvious compromise in your constitution is having a bicameral legislature. Originally everyone agreed on a single house, but then the big states wanted proportional representation and the little states wanted equal representation, so you got one of each)

Claire
Claire
4 years ago

Wow, thanks, that clears up a lot! Still, it amazes me that basically anyone can go out and buy an assault weapon, (practically) no questions asked. I mean, a lot of pro-gun people like to shout about defending themselves but what would you need a semi- or automatic weapon to defend yourself against? The zombie apocalypse?

maistrechat
4 years ago

Incidentally, that’s one of the reasons it’s a general rule that courts can’t look at the record of the debate leading up to the passing of laws.

This actually happens all the time at the state level here (at least in Illinois). That kind of research is one of the main draws at my workplace.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

@ maistrechat

Oh wow, so you have to trawl through all the transcripts of your state legislature?

kupo
kupo
4 years ago

A trans person was attacked after a benefit held for the victims of the Pulse shooting in Seattle recently.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/06/24/24258701/this-is-not-an-isolated-incident-says-victim-of-anti-trans-attack

There are so many things that upset me about this. It’s pride week. They were in one of the LGBT+ friendliest neighborhoods in the country. That neighborhood is becoming more and more gentrified and the queer community is being pushed out. We don’t even have a good enough healthcare system in place to cover their injuries.

It’s just shit. Everything is shit.

JoaquinRL3
JoaquinRL3
4 years ago

US, the only country were people demand LESS rights. It’s really mind boggling to see how little some US value their freedom. Does any of you have any knowledge of history? does anyone here know how many countries owe their existence to firearms? do you really believe that you live in a fantasy world filled with ice cream?

It is ironic that right wingers want more (and more powerfull) weapons in the hand of individuals, yet they are the nazis (nevermind that nazi germany and every totalitarian regime had stric gun control for anyone outside their ranks). Meanwhile the “liberals” want to give all the power and weapons to the “big daddy” goverment, because that worked SO WELL in the history of mankind.

weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
weirwoodtreehugger: communist bonobo
4 years ago

Looks like necro troll doesn’t realize that many democracies have gun control and are still democracies.

Also, I’m not going to waste time doing homework for a necro troll, but I’m pretty sure that the Nazis only had strict gun control for Jewish people but relaxed gun control laws for Christian Germans. What does that even have to do with background checks for gun purchases?

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
4 years ago

The tragedy of Jo Cox MP proved one thing, even in a country which has strict firearm regulations, if somebody wants to shoot someone they will get a gun and do it, licence or not. Where Tom Mair got his gun from, who knows? Probably a farm or even a museum. Did his lack of a formal gun licence prevent him from killing? No, of course not. Government intervention will not stop those who wish to procure a gun for illegal purposes from procuring one. Maybe from the Dark Web or somewhere like that?