Quote of the Day: All Are Welcome Edition

51bcf763b9281.preview-620

“Is not the Second Amendment sex blind? Color blind? What great evil would come from saying a partner of somebody in the military … is entitled to exercise their Second Amendment rights to carry a concealed weapon in this state?” – Nebraska State Sen. Paul Schumacher in ‘I think we just recognized gay marriage,’ lawmaker says after amendment to gun permit bill [at omaha.com]

comments

  1. avatar JWM says:

    Rights is rights.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Right to take part in marriage – the same way heterosexual couples do, not to do something else and demand it be equated. EQUAL works both ways, you can say that homosexual unions are equal but that does not make it so, nor can you demand that I equate myself with it.

      If 10% of the population is homosexual [I’m being generous]
      and 90% of the population is heterosexual
      and 30% of the heterosexual population is married
      Then a percentage of the 10% want the 90% to discriminate ENOUGH against the 100% of the population in order for there to be a ‘class’ of people called “married” that they then are demanding to be considered a part-of, when, in fact, the majority of the remaining population has a better chance of qualifying.

      There have always been gay people, Society does not hold homosexuality in the same regard, however, because it does not support Society [the reaching towards tomorrow and the creation of new members of Society] in the same way as those “married”. Married people demand exclusivity, because the loss of which has shown to require a greater outlay of violence to obtain and protect the same.

      Glomming on gay rights to gun-rights is a ruse, it is a pollution of both arguments.

      Nebraska’s Schumacher is a football-bat, as are those of like-mind. If you come from a blue state you may be part of the problem. If you have a (D) after your name, are a liberal, or a rino, the problem is part-of-you, and you are permanently damaged.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        “Right to take part in marriage – the same way heterosexual couples do, not to do something else and demand it be equated. EQUAL works both ways, you can say that homosexual unions are equal but that does not make it so, nor can you demand that I equate myself with it.”

        ^This. And you should have stopped there.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        Schumacher is “Non-Partisan” which is D-speak for cack-sacker.

        1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          Actually he is a Republican. At least that is how he ran for office, have not read enough about him to decide for myself.

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ok, sorry, only his NE website says he’s non-partisan, which means he has shame.

        3. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          Thanks for the gay slur. I can rest better tonight knowing you defended the sanctity of marriage AND the second amendment with homophobia appropriate to a junior high school classroom.

          News flash. Gay men and women can already get married in any state they want. The only difference is the recognition of the marriage by tax collectors and insurance companies.

          Of all my friends, the two most dedicated conservative republican voters also have the largest gun collections of all my friends. One is a straight male and the other is a gay woman. And they both stood up for me at my (straight) wedding.

          So grow up. They aren’t hurting anyone. And if the government can tell you who you can and can’t marry, then good luck trying to argue that they can’t decide what guns you can or can’t have.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          it’s not a gay slur, it IS equating him with something that (as you’ve proven you also find) is repulsive, and something YOU don’t want to be equated with. Funny that.

          The simple fact of the matter is that words and definitions mean things. Those things are as old as human nature and neither you, nor an a-hole in a black robe with a gavel, nor someone wanting the trappings of something that human history and human nature have chosen to favor (without actually performing that which society has chosen to favor) can change that.

          This is not a new phenomenon or new scenario. Your friends (if you haven’t made them up) are equal in all the ways that they are, and not in others, the same goes for you. You obviously are not wanting to equate yourself with me right now. Funny that.

          Grow up or don’t, you don’t get to decide how this “settles-out” I contend that it will as it has done so since before GOD allowed us to walk upright. I call these matters out, because, if you can’t wrap your mind around the logic of the truth of what IS, then you are less likely to be able to be a co-defendant with me in support of the 2nd Amendment.

          Plus, your saying that we can chuck this little bit of our “Societal Agreement” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas, R., 2012] without me needing to chuck the rest, you are worse off than just disagreeing about social norms because you don’t even understand why we have them.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You gave me a headache.

      4. avatar Grindstone says:

        I can’t wait for people like you to wither away.

      5. avatar JasonM says:

        you can say that homosexual unions are equal but that does not make it so, nor can you demand that I equate myself with it.

        If the you stating that is the state legislature, which wrote the statute defining marriage in the first place, then that does in fact make it so, where it is the equality before the law.
        And people can demand that you equate yourself with it, but cannot force you to do so.

        As far as the state is concerned, marriage is a legal contract between two parties that provides each party some legal rights: sharing in property, medical decision making, inheritance, etc.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Nope, Society created “Marriage” long before any legislature started putting a crotch in its loincloths. Government believes it can regulate it but Marriage will slough-off the dust of it and continue long after.

          Homosexuals are not a ‘new’ thing either, and Society has already blessed it with whatever value it has garnered.
          It is a matter of equality. If it was-equal it would not have to ask for equality. If it was somehow equal or better than heterosexual marriage, we would be asking the other way and that is just not so, and no label of bigotry will ever stick to that.

          “Equality is, by argument, however, taken in whole-parts, and the push-back is 100%.
          Thereby, when the question of equality is raised, and the one side not found to be wholly equal
          (equal in all parts), then the ‘unequal’ party is rejected as wholly unequal [2].
          Take for example the case of equality in terms and treatment of homosexual union and
          marriage. For these to be equated [equitable] marriage has to become, or is “asked” to become,
          equal to homosexual union. This is proven to be true when viewing the arrow [direction] of
          logical conclusion. There is an unequal agenda among groups of individuals to make
          homosexual unions equal to marriage. It cannot be equated in the other direction. There is no
          similar agenda to have marriage equated to homosexual unions. This is because marriage is a
          thing that is defined and valued unto itself, devoid of external compromise without degradation
          of societal agreement.
          Again, equal treatment can be asked for, yet it cannot be exempt from the bias of personal
          definition of equality. Inversely, inequality does not stem from marriage, or from the parties that
          enter into it. Inequality is not a projected state.
          Marriage, as an example, is extremely unique in its absolute nature of the substance of its
          shared Value. Regardless of where the nature of that value is rooted; it is undeniable that
          heterosexual marriage is a multiply-compounding force in the furtherance of society and the
          notion of tomorrow. It does so in both confining combative members of society to a mutual pair,
          creating and prolonging by definition the stability of other similar pairs. It too is a foundation, in
          the byproduct of its pairing, of the creation of other causes for tomorrow (new members of
          society), and the societies that further the bridging towards it.
          Marriage then, or the ability to “Marry”, as Termed by Society, is not a state that is
          withheld from the other parties. The parties to homosexual union are equally entitled to take part
          in the valued thing that is marriage; and, if the circumstances are equal than the Term applies [3]
          As the example of Marriage clearly shows, too, equality between ‘things’ is equal in
          importance to the ‘equality’ in the names of ‘things’; in terms. Definition is paramount, but the
          labeled term, the name of the definition, must have Sovereignty [4] as well or else the sought
          after position will displace in name to another position indicating inequality in the former,
          without, necessarily, the loss of either shared or individual Value.
          An example of this can be found as a sub-argument within the homosexual movement.
          Members of the set of individual people included within the set of homosexuals have
          been labeled with any number of derogatory terms. However the majority of these terms are
          rooted in terms that previously carried the most innocuous of connotations in an effort by the
          ‘set’ of non- homosexuals to describe or discuss something that was to otherwise be avoided (of
          negative Value). Or the terms were used by the ‘set’ of homosexuals to describe or discuss
          themselves, or homosexuality, in such a way as to avoid the negative terms that they had been
          labeled with by Society. Or they were terms used by, or in an effort by, Society (Societies) in
          general to subtly indicate something that is otherwise unacceptable.” [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, pg 112]

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          He is talking about America, not marriage in the human culture as a whole/historically. You really don’t want to kick over the can of worms that is “marriage” as defined by past human societies, that is some sh*t that is damned hard to scrape off, especially when discussing expanding government’s role in regulating interpersonal relations between individuals. What our friends across the Pond would call a sticky wicket, indeed.

        3. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          Joe… “If it was-equal it would not have to ask for equality.”

          Tell that to the slaves captured in Africa and brought to America. Tell that to 30 million sex slaves. Tell that to the Jews. Tell it to the original tea party participants rioting for representation.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          You tell them. Martin Luther King and Moses already did, if they believed them (and they should) you would have to cite a different example.

          You obviously don’t want to be equated to me right now, what if I demand it?

          Hold yourself out as the equal that you are.

          I don’t look for my equals and demand that they make me their equal.

          I look for those with better qualities and attempt to make myself equal to them.

          Equal is equal and anything else isn’t further, inequality is not a projected state.

  2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    So, you can only carry a gun if you are married? What, precisely, does a carry rights bill have to do with marriage? Or sexual orientation? I don’t see the connection.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Me either. This completely confused me.

      But…here’s a good solution to ALL of it: Get the &^%$ government out of ALL these issues….who can carry a gun and all the other stuff.

      Statism begats nothing else but more statism. THAT is the fundamental problem here…not gay marriage or the Right to Bear Arms.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Yea, seems like an end run around RKBA, use this to confuse the issue and voters then strike it down and implement more restrictions on weapons and their possession. The typical sh*t lawyerscum are always doing.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Agreed wholeheartedly. Think how many levels of stupid there are, here! First, the concept that NE can somehow require a person to have the govt’s blessing before carrying the means to defend himself, and then restricting the availability of that blessing to “residents”, and finally introducing sexual identity into the bargain, presumably only manly-men can defend themselves, girly-men need not apply. The incredible arrogance!

      3. avatar JasonM says:

        That’s the best solution to gay marriage.
        I think the main reason the religious folks oppose it is that they don’t want the state telling their religion what to do.
        If we returned marriage to its former status as a religious/social decision, the groups that oppose it wouldn’t have to take part in it. And if we made the legal status domestic partnership apply to every “married” couple, it would allow couples to have the legal protection they want, while allowing the religions to maintain their independence from the government.

        Incidentally, we have marriage licenses in this country for the same reason we have gun control: racism. The original marriage laws were to keep blacks and whites from marrying.

        1. avatar Jeremy B. says:

          That is a provocative statement, which explains quite a bit! Can you cite any sources for that so I can do some research on that?

    2. avatar the ruester says:

      It is a waiver for the waiting period of a new resident to apply for a permit. Non military new residents must wait 180 days to apply, while military and their spouses may apply immediately.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        Make the waiting period 14 days for everyone and problem solved. Bringing sexual orientation and marital status into it is a bad idea all the way around.

        1. avatar SC0utdoors says:

          Not quite.

          Remove the state from the equation completely on both issues. The state has ZERO business infringing on my second amendment rights and has no legal authority defined in the constitution to delay or impede my exercising that right with a permit process or waiting period. Nor should the state be involved in a social contract (read MARRIAGE) between two consenting meat nuzzlers, it’s their fruity business not mine, yours, or anyone else’s.

        2. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          @SC0utdoors. I am all for getting government out of marriage entirely. As for weapons, the states have been dabbling in the issue since the founding and it is one helluva knot to be untangled.

        3. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “As for weapons, the states have been dabbling in the issue since the founding and it is one helluva knot to be untangled.”

          So, we have a goal, then. Good. It’s nice to have a goal…keeps focus.

          Someone else will have to come up with the slogan, though. The best I can do is “Untangle the Statist Knot” which lacks a catchy pizazz.

        4. avatar 2hotel9 says:

          We need us an old fashioned Ad Man to come up with a jingle!

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Waiting period should be 15 minutes, and issuance automatic, license invisible, everybody has one.

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, a strong supporter of allowing Nebraska same-sex couples to marry, voted against the bill because he opposes pro-gun legislation. But he voted for the Schumacher amendment.

    Eventually these contrarian totalitarians will figure it out or die off.

  4. avatar Noishkel says:

    When you get right down to it it’s only the leftist that are trying to paint the second amendment as a cause for OWGs and no one else. Anyone that believes that should look into a group called the ‘Pink Pistols’.

    Hell… here’s a video of one of these groups. I happen to know the guy with the beard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCCMvsMytiM

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      A family member was recently asking me some questions about firearms and carrying. I gave him the few minute introductory lesson. The topic “who carries” came up, and I mentioned Pink Pistols.

      He was amazed.

      Himself being outside the stereotypical OFWG group, it simply shattered his preconceived, programmed understanding regarding “who is armed.” His amazement was a positive one, and hopefully, he has taken the opportunity since to research not only that particular group but Carry in general.

      1. avatar 2hotel9 says:

        You should also mention the numbers of wheelchair bound people who carry. That one always boggles people’s minds!

  5. avatar 2hotel9 says:

    As for a waiting period, if you pass a background check to purchase a weapon in less than an hour why do you have to wait 180 days, or any days, to apply for a permit? Are sheriff’s offices not allowed to use telephones? Blocked from accessing NICS? Is this a money grab and nothing more? This seems nothing more than a backdoor method of denying citizens their rights, plain and simple. Oh, and a sweet little scam for stealing money from said citizens.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      I think in this case it’s a ‘waiting period’ to establish residency.

      It’s kind of like how if you move to a state to attend college, you have to live there some period of time before you get the “In State” tuition (or used to…I don’t know how these things work anymore).

      So, I think it’s less about the gun itself and more a general residency thing.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        RKBA applies to every person in every state, what makes them think a residency requirement makes any sense? Many states will let anyone, from any state, contribute money through their CCL programs.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          I don’t disagree with you on that; just merely saying this is not a 180 day “waiting period” to purchase a gun per se.

          If we had national wide true Constitutional Carry, this whole residency “residency” and “permitting” thing would be moot.

      2. avatar Publius S says:

        Correct. In-state residency confers certain privileges, the use of highways, community facilities, tax credits from federal tax, the right to carry according to state law, in this case,
        and many states reduce that time period for the military in respect for their service, and the short time they are stationed there, for that individual is there at the direction of the military.

        Do state laws governing 2A rights apply or are they superceded by federal law?
        Thats the big debate in general, under way now at SCOTUS and DC level.

        Conflating 2A rights with the right to marry is at best, irrelevant- thats like linking 2A rights to abortion, or religious organizations exemptions from taxes, etc. Apples and oranges.

        And most important, and what the scheming gun-grabbers or the ignoramus’ on the right who is trying to equate them to support some other agenda, is falling into the same trap is this –
        2A rights are not up for judicial activism, or social memes that some push to advocate for judicial activism.

        2A rights are already a given, and enshrined in the BoR. And that is the truth that is being reinforced in recent SCOTUS cases, and at the federal level, and recognized by an increasingly informed citizenry, nationwide.

        I think its because the gun-grabbers know they are losing, and they would like nothing better than for the POTG to get into a circular firing squad and be distracted from the focus needed to finish the long patient effort underway to rationalize gun laws, nationwide, like the right to carry outside the home.

        Step by step we go. Keep Calm and Stay the Course.

        .

  6. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    This 180 day waiting period is supposed to be to ‘establish residency’ in the state. Does that mean that you can’t get a NE drivers license until you’ve lived in the state for 180 days? Can you vote if you’ve only lived in NE for 179 days on election day? The waiting period is a ridiculous requirement and an infringement on the rights of new residents of the state. (Yes, I know, requiring a permit in the first place is an infringement on their rights, but baby steps here.)

    As far as gay marriage, why should you have to ask the state for permission and pay a fee to the state to get married?

  7. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Stupid politicians…
    I hate to say it like that (since I’m a politician), but good Lord! They have a stupid 180 waiting period for new residents to apply for a carry permit. What purpose does that serve? Why does it matter how long someone has lived in the state? They could have just gotten rid of the waiting period all together and they would have avoided this unfortunate detour into the world of same-sex marriage.

    Stupid politicians.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Doing away with the license makes even more sense!

  8. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I don’t see why Nebraska should apply special privileges to military personnel or their spouses, regardless whom those spouses may be. If there’s a compelling state interest in mandating that someone reside in Nebraska for 180 to establish residency prior to making application for a concealed carry license, then that should apply to everyone. No more special carveouts for special people! Good grief, now it’s spouses, of whatever sort, too? Why this unceasing drive to create special classes of people all the time?

    The only possible, slight, tincture of redeeming feature of such obsession with class creation, is that eventually, so many people will qualify for a special status, that everybody qualifies for a special status. Then such special status that allows one the right to keep and bear the arms of their choice is no longer special, but rather, just normal.

    Really, though, there should be no minimum residency requirements and no licenses at all. The right to keep and bear arms itself resides within all Americans. Where the American himself resides, or for how long, is entirely immaterial.

  9. avatar Pieslapper says:

    Awesome combover!

  10. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Whut? Or is this only clever clickbait? Either way you got me…

  11. avatar Publius S says:

    +1 to RF for bringing this up, and pointing out that gun rights are a civil right.

    As others have pointed out, 2A rights are not up for debate, on any moral basis as to how or why or who, for as our Founders wisely pointed out- 2A rights are not “granted” by any state, but a god-given natural right to self defense for self, and for the citizens as a whole against the possibility of state tyrrany.

    TTAG has long been a diverse place, because most here understand that 2A rights are like other civil rights- they are color, sex, and race blind.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email