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:
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!
I hope nobody tries passing it off as satire.
It doesn’t work when Roosh tries it and it won’t work for this.
I love how quickly this fellow absolves the gun of any wrongdoing, though I wonder how he explains all the dead and wounded. I guess Islamic radicalism is so dangerous, it can puncture people as effectively as bullets. Gosh, I guess we no longer have to worry about Daesh buying weapons. We just need to make sure they no longer get any radical Islamic propaganda.
This weekend I was actually pleasantly surprised when my religious mother said that she and my dad were horrified by the utter lack of compassion many Christians and church leaders have shown towards the families/friends of those killed in the Orlando shooting not to mention the survivors. I know it doesn’t quite address everything, but it’s a start.
Of course a right wing dirtbag has no idea how Jury Nullification, courts, evidence, trials or, really, anything works.
If he did he wouldn’t be a raging homophobe and a right winger.
Why are they always so divorced from reality?
That’s a pretty flimsy excuse to justify one’s homicidal hatred of queer people.
C’mon scumbags, you can do better than that!
If AC thinks disagreeing somebody’s testimony is automatically meaningless because they disagree with him on a political issue, AC likely is the overemotional one. He really ought to take an introductory course in critical thinking before he serves on a jury. Or votes. Or attempts to cross a busy intersection by himself.
I love how this plan relies on millions of people acting passive-aggressively in co-ordination, all on the say-so of a literally anonymous blogger whose main claim to fame is probably being mocked on this site.
You can really tell these guys have never been real world activists.
https://youtu.be/dgSOCYhwLJ8
Clip from UHF
“Guns don’t kill people… I do”
Some of the later parts definitely seemed like they were being written with one hand.
You know if there’s one thing that you can count on in a totally compassionate and rational article, it’s heavy use of “gay” as a noun. /s
Seriously though, this is such a lazy attempt to justify fantasizing about violence against gay people that he didn’t even bother thinking about how this – or anything really – actually works.
Like, okay, let’s say we no longer accept testimony from gay people as a rule. How does that mean a free license to kill gay people? Do witnesses not exist?? Is he disregarding the testimony of the dead gay person??? But he’d still believe the dead straight person no problem????
So anyone who disagrees with Anonymous Conservative about the best way to reduce violent crime is incapable of perceiving reality to the point where one should have reasonable doubts about whether anything else they might say is a total fabrication, because that all follows totally logically? Ok then.
If a transgender man is using the girls’ locker room, I can only assume it’s due to regressive policies preventing him using the boys’ locker room. (I have no idea, on the other hand, what policies would have led to it being named the girls’, rather than women’s, locker room.) So anyone who has a problem with that might want to campaign for the right of transgender people to use the facilities which match the gender they identify as. Well, I suppose it could also be because he hasn’t started to transition yet and is still presenting as female, in which case no-one around him would know he was a man, transgender or otherwise, and the hypothetical beating would have to be for some entirely un-gender-related reason (or no reason at all, just an act of random violence). Or of course it could be that the author’s bigotry in not recognising transgender women as women is hampering their ability to communicate…
“Other than not concoct and promote a ridiculous scheme to encourage gun owners sitting on juries to return not guilty verdicts in cases with gay victims, of course, but I mean, apart from that, there’s really nothing I could do to stop this happening.”
I see. So, if we suppose for a moment that guns actually did make people safer, somehow this only works for heterosexuals: “gays” (and their families? or maybe they don’t have families?) are superbeings who can survive the kind of attacks that mere heterosexuals and their families need protecting from with guns, and just stand around laughing maniacally at their own immunity while all the bullets ricochet off them and knife blades turn to rubber? It couldn’t be that maybe those gay people who are in favour of gun control actually believe that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation and whether or not they have a family, will be safer with more restrictions on gun ownership, and don’t want to see anyone in your (or anyone else’s) family get hurt?
As someone who DOES like guns (I’m autistic and they’re a special interest of mine although I have limited experience with real ones), I also am in favor of gun control. I’d rather have limitations today than bannings tomorrow if that makes sense.
One thing I thought of is, what about having gun licenses to own, but shooting ranges are okay to go to with or without a licence?
As for the guy being quoted, he’s just like everyone else who thinks LGBTQA+ are less human, and who thinks that guns are inherently to be used violently and without regards to consequence.
I’ll take, “Thinly-veiled justifications for stupid crap I was gonna do anyway” for $500, Alex.
Oh, please, like these assholes serve on juries.
http://66.media.tumblr.com/031fa49a2a016c57ef0e22defbae654d/tumblr_o1eyox6IIU1u5mdgro8_400.gif
This paragraph right here? There’s many, many things wrong with it, and shows just how little this person even understands LGBT+ people. I mean, for some reason, transgender and transv*st*te are two different things to them? One is the proper term and one is a slur, dude. And, unfortunately, a lot of bills are trying to put trans men in women’s locker rooms so this guy doesn’t understand what “transgender men” means. Even if it isn’t charged as a hate crime, it would still be at least assault if the courts and jury completely disregard the dude’s gender.
They probably think transgender men is just another word for trans women because, you know, trans men are just butch lesbians or some cis nonsense and don’t exist.
And, over all, gay sure as hell isn’t an umbrella term for this cis turd to throw around, but I’m also pretty sure they only think cis men can be gay and think trans women are just men in drag, so, I mean, this is just complete cishet poppycock.
I mean, yeah, hate is born out of ignorance but you can at least TRY to LEARN what you’re hating about so people don’t just shake their heads at your utter lack of knowledge of the subject.
Also, all the other stuff is nonsense, too.
As ever with these posts, I just think where do you start? I found a funny site the other day. Spell Check A Racist. These kind of posters can be fairly similar. He managed to spell some quite big words though.
@Handsome Jack
Is transv*st*te far enough down the euphemism treadmill that it’s considered a slur now? Like I’m aware that there has been a lot of problems around its usage for basically ever, but last time I did some research into it, it seemed that there were some people who do use it to self-identify. Would love to hear if you have any further insight on it; it seems to be a divisive term to say the least.
I thought transvestism was related to wearing clothes not considered normative to your gender
@ Dlouwe & handsome jack
Is this a US thing? Over here the word doesn’t seem to have any negative connotations. It’s a term lots of people use to self identify. Eddie Izzard and Grayson Perry being two notable examples.
“Self-identify”, right there. It’s like using “queer” or “f*gg*t”, people who identify as queer can use the word queer, people who identify as a transv*st*te get to use the word transv*st*te, it’s not a blanket term, and definitely not to be used by cis people wily nily.
EDIT:
What clothes are considered not normal for people’s genders? Pants, skirts? What is this, the 1950s when vaginas were allergic to pants? Obviously this is only targeted towards trans women.
They can call themselves whatever they want, but, you know, not all trans people are Eddie Izzard or Grayson Perry.
Three things.
One, the HRC does not actually speak for every gay person. It makes no sense to make a judgement about the reasoning ability of every single gay person based on a single policy position of theirs. Not every gay person is an HRC member and not every HRC member is gay. I’m straight and I give them money whenever I’m canvassed by one of them. Does that mean that all straight people are irrational too?
Two, I don’t think this guy knows how hate crimes work. If a straight person murdered a gay person, they would be – assuming the evidence is sufficient – prosecuted for the murder. They may or may not also be charged with a hate crime. Again, depends on the evidence. If they were charged and convicted with a hate crime, the sentence would be increased but if they were not convicted of a hate crime, they wouldn’t be off the hook for the murder itself.
Three,
I thought right wingers wanted trans men to use female locker rooms and bath rooms because they’re AFAB? I suspect this lovely fellow is so ignorant that he doesn’t know any of the terms. A trans woman = a man in a dress in his mind. Therefore a trans woman, being a man (due to the penis) who identifies as trans would be a “transgender man.”
This is someone who thinks of himself as being a rational human being.
http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/mal-speechless.gif
The title of this post is such a nonsensical mish mash of right-wing asshole talking points I almost thought it was a parody, not an actual thing an actual human being believes. It’s like some sort of fucked up right wing mad libs. He might as well have said “women shouldn’t vote, because illegal immigrants are transgendering our jobs.”
Well, shucks. Handsome Jack ninja’d me on a lot of points.
I did also have one more thing to point out though. This idea Anonymous Conservative has is not exactly fresh and original. Paul Elam and his fans decided they would never vote guilty if they were on the jury of a rape trial. Even if they were certain a defendant did it. Assholes gonna asshole. Luckily not everyone selected for jury duty is actually put on a jury.
Hi all trans and other LGBTQ people. I’m in fairly desperate need of a reply in the Bigots Swarm thread. Sorry to bother. 🙂
@Handsome Jack
That’s legit.
@Viscaria
“We need to build a wall to stop gay refugees from giving our guns abortions!”