Arrested for Taking a Picture

http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000396.shtml

Unbelievable.

>>1
lol, so much for being a free country...

>>2
The USA is still mostly free, especially compared to many other countries. 

Yeah, this is bad, but we are still more or less "free" here, I think. 

yay for police statism

>>1-4
The police are there to keep law, and you don't need to be filming them or anything anyway.  Quit whining.  The police suffer enough harassment from faggots like you. 

What the hell kind of name is Neffy

>>5
gb2 china

>>1
I agree, unbelievable.  Yet another damn good reason to support the libertarian party. 

fagets

>>9
IF YOU HAVE TO CALL PEOPLE FAGGOTS AT LEAST SPELL IT CORRECTLY, FAG.

ur a fagget

Hm... so they've finally solved an age-old problem...
Now you see a gang of cops beating some near-corpse on the ground, pull out a handicam and start shooting, and they come over and beat you until you're in the same pile as the other guy.

...either that, or they'll just summarily shoot back.

America is going to fall in to another Alien and Sedtion Act period

>>13
Hopefully it will get repealed like last time...

We've had gun control put over on us by the clinton administration , and with the exception of the assault weapons ban, I don't see any of that going away, or not much anyways, even with a republican majority in all areas of government.  It really seems to amount to:  if you don't want gun control, we have to keep the democrats from implimenting it in the first place - and that means that the republicans have to win every election until the dems realize their gun policy is too damn unpopular (they are starting to) and we won't support them until it changes. 

>>14 I still couldn't side with fifty million or so evangelicals, if I was an American.

>>13
Without an actual law to repeal, there is no recourse.

We stand accused by the President, arrested by the His voters, tried by FoxNews, convicted by secret evidence, and executed through the Watch List.

>>15
Evangelicals aren't that bad.  I am not religious, and I despise religion, but if it takes an army of evangelicals to keep the Socialists, the gun-grabbers, and the Statists out of office, it was well worth it to side with them. 

Evangelicals haven't really done squat to politics, outside of pressurizing people to be more pro-life and pro gun, which isn't a bad thing imo.  I suppose they have infringed on the rights of gay folks somewhat, but gay people are safer when they are legally able to defend themselves from gay bashers and keep and bear arms - something the evangelicals are often willing to defend.

>>17

Ok, so the difference between you and Evangelicals would be what, exactly? Oh right! None. Asking you for your opinion on evangelicals is like if someone asked you if you liked yourself. And everyone here knows you're a self-important ass/attention whore. Meglomania oozes out of you in the form of rancid dick cheese.

Do us all a favor and start posting under a name. ONE name. Something about you tells me you'd go as far as to repost again and again as anonymous. The opinions of your "characters" are complete and utter bunk shit maddness. Gays don't need to worry about their lives right now. That why we have the police and the federal law enforcement.

However, "the gay problem" is a cultural one- not political. Just like every sufferage or civil rights movement done by any other people of any race or creed in this country. To simply say: "gays should just buy guns" doesn't dissolve the social stigma of homosexuality and it completely illegitamizes their quest, however shallow it may seem to you, for equal rights for marriage, adoption or whatever the hell else.

>>18
"Ok, so the difference between you and Evangelicals would be what, exactly?"

I'm not an evangelical, would be the difference.

"And everyone here knows you're a self-important ass/attention whore. Meglomania oozes out of you in the form of rancid dick cheese.  Do us all a favor and start posting under a name. ONE name. Something about you tells me you'd go as far as to repost again and again as anonymous. The opinions of your "characters" are complete and utter bunk shit maddness."

Yay for personal attacks in political debates!

"Gays don't need to worry about their lives right now. That why we have the police and the federal law enforcement."

LOL.  Yeah, ok, so nobody needs the right or the ability to defend themselves - the government will handle it for them.  I'm sure that's a good chunk of the general message Hitler was telling the Jews before the big roundup.

"To simply say: "gays should just buy guns" doesn't dissolve the social stigma of homosexuality"

Not only did I not say 'gays should just buy guns', I didn't say doing so would dissolve the 'social stigma' of homosexuality.  On the other hand, it WILL help ensure their right to life, liberty, and property is protected just like everyone elses.

"and it completely illegitamizes their quest, however shallow it may seem to you, for equal rights for marriage, adoption or whatever the hell else."

I'm not against gays having equal rights for marriage, adoption, or 'whatever the hell else', nor do I think it is shallow.  The 2nd amendment is more important though. 

From the perspective of a gay person, tell me, which is more important, the ability to defend yourself from gay bashers, criminals, thugs, and/or any other would-be threats to your life, health, property, and general well being, or equal rights to marry or to adopt children?

>>18
"Gays don't need to worry about their lives right now."

"However, "the gay problem" is a cultural one- not political."

How dare you have the nerve to think you have some sort of moral superiority when you yourself are stigmatizing homosexuals. I hope you are a troll.

I'm not an evangelical, would be the difference."

You're their idealogical ally. That's actually worse.

LOL.  Yeah, ok, so nobody needs the right or the ability to defend themselves - the government will handle it for them.  I'm sure that's a good chunk of the general message Hitler was telling the Jews before the big roundup.

Fails for throwing Nazis into the mix, you fucking lose-slut. You're missing the point: The civil right movement of black wasn't because they were being killed in the streets NOR stripped of their arms. It was about voting, cultural bias and social stigma. The problem is: YOU SUPPORT THE DISCRIMINATION OF GAY FROM SOCIAL AND CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS. Telling gays to "just buy guns" is missing the point.

>>20

HUH? Repeat that please.

>>22
Anti-chan is a bigot and doesn't even realise it.

>>23

How was my comment bigoted, you fucking shitbrain? I used "The gay problem" in quotes to denote sarcasm.

Let me repeat my point: There is no physical war on homosexuals, just a cultural and social one. Just because a gay couple is able to purchase a gun doesn't mean they're able to purchase a marriage license or adopt a fucking kid.

If all you're saying is "Gays need guns", then you imply that they don't need any other rights because their top priority in AMERICA (not Islam) should be NOT DYING? THINK about what you're implying there, you dumb twat. Why don't you just admit that you want to kill all fags in the name of God, already?

Everyone sees through you. 

>>24
Everyone sees through me? What? I don't believe this... I feel like a piece of shit here, you're really driving me into the fucking ground here.. What am I supposed to say now? OH yes, there is a social and cultural war agaisnt me everyone hates me I need you??

You've proved one thing, there are extremists out there trying to exploit and skapegoat people just because they are homosexual.

>>25 "You've proved one thing, there are extremists out there trying to exploit and skapegoat people just because they are homosexual." And there are people who spell scapegoat 'skapegoat' yet when I look on my keyboard there is no k next to the c, or the a or the s. Good times. I really have no idea how you ar trying to defend yourself by calling him an extremist, and I too think it is hilarious how many Americans think you do enough by saying that fagbashers are evil, as if that washes their hands. Gays get attacked physically because people can attack them verbally and politically, in everyday life and in the media *and then get away with it*. That is the problem. Hate crimes are the leaves, non-secularism, gender roles, sub-par education and poor culture are the roots.

Oh, and anti-chan; keep your mouth clean of insults and the like. You don't have to stoop to the level of these pseudo-libertarian, precocious quasi-pundits.
"Indeed I see now that there are those who blablabla reject freedom in favor of shrill feminists and complaining gays and social justice is the end of meritocracy blabla I'm a big, grown-up, mature adult and I speak as if I'm in a pulpit."
Feminists are often like POTC II; lame, flaunty, quirky, shallow and repetitive
Anti-feminists are often like the ending of POTC II: degenerate, insidious, irritating and deeply unsettling hellspawn of the utmost magnitude.

>>26
Why are you desperate to make me feel as though everyone is against me? I will never be dependant on you, go fuck yourself.

>>27 I said; you don't have to stoop to their level. That was it. Dependent on me? Yeesh, how did you become the center of the universe?

>>28
Center of the universe?? All I am doing is having the nerve to defend myself and I am the center of the universe? Well I'm sorry for being and not being a model pawn who supports you unconditionally out of fear, but I am a free man and I have the right to say what I want about anything I want let alone debate issues which directly affect me.

Sure there are bigots and haters out there, but the last thing an oppressed minority needs is a fear mongerer trying to sucker them into a reactionary group. We don't need you, we need libertarians, people who don't buy into extremism, who don't bullshit, are not afraid of rational debate and have the balls to stick up for the constitution if it is threatenned.

You cannot fool me into thinking anyone who is not part of your cult-socialist group is a closet bigot, I am not afraid of bigots, if any bigots became a serious threat the last thing I would do is give up my HUMAN RIGHT to bear arms so I could come crying to you.

So there you have it, I've stood up for myself, if you patronise me again you'll look like an idiot.

>>29 You need something warm for your cramping rectum and tense throat? Rarely have I read a less potent and accurate rant. Reactionary group? Socialist? Cult? Fear? Gun-grabber? Fuck, I need to get a better PR communicé, or maybe just stop existing so that minds as brittle as Boemish crystal don't have to worry about snapping as soon as I express myself. "I am a free man and I have the right to say what I want..." Yeah, I really got chewed-out there. Would you like to stay up real late and only eat cereal tonight as well? Because you can do that too! The only slight of my character you seem to have exposed is that I can't express my views perfectly. Since you are such a good barometer of people I guess I need to jump off a cliff now.

>>25

You've proved one thing, there are extremists out there trying to exploit and skapegoat people just because they are homosexual.

Again: Explain how I did this. If you can't ======> that's failure. Sounds to me that the only defense you have is lying through your buck teeth. You are NOT gay. Just please.

PLEASE. Please explain to me how gun ownership gets you the right to adoption and marriage. Explain how it keeps tyou from getting discriminated against on the job. Just explain that to me. Were you guys (gays) planning to shoot everyone who doesn't agree with you?

>>26
"And there are people who spell scapegoat 'skapegoat' yet when I look on my keyboard there is no k next to the c, or the a or the s. Good times."

Yeah, like you haven't ever misspelled things yourself.

"I really have no idea how you ar trying to defend"

Well, look at this, we already found an error in your spelling. That's a shame.

"That is the problem. Hate crimes are the leaves, non-secularism, gender roles, sub-par education and poor culture are the roots."

So you are going to attempt to legislate tolerance? Way to go.  Anyhow, I know plenty of religious people who don't hate gay people.

"Oh, and anti-chan; keep your mouth clean of insults and the like. You don't have to stoop to the level of these pseudo-libertarian, precocious quasi-pundits."

I see.  Like it wasn't the liberals who started the insulting, and have been doing it the most?

"Feminists are often like POTC II; lame, flaunty, quirky, shallow and repetitive
Anti-feminists are often like the ending of POTC II: degenerate, insidious, irritating and deeply unsettling hellspawn of the utmost magnitude."

Seems like we found another error in Xel's post.  What a shame. 

"From the perspective of a gay person, tell me, which is more important, the ability to defend yourself from gay bashers, criminals, thugs, and/or any other would-be threats to your life, health, property, and general well being, or equal rights to marry or to adopt children?"

OBVIOUSLY, the ability to marry and to adopt children, LOL! Gays never get assaulted in bathrooms, beat up, attacked, mugged, robbed murdered, raped, or violated! The government can protect them, just like it 'protected' the Jews.

>>31

"PLEASE. Please explain to me how gun ownership gets you the right to adoption and marriage."

It doesn't.  Gun ownership and self-defense rights is more important right than the right to marry and to adopt though.  The intelligent gay people realize that the democrats who want to take this right away are hurting the gay people more than helping them, as it is minorities like the gays who are in the most dire need of effective self-defense weapons that really need them the most. 
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2960

Also note the lessons of history:  what happens when a minority, or group of people is disarmed, and is forced to rely on the government for protection: 
http://www.innocentsbetrayed.com/
http://www.jpfo.net/u-nazideathcamps.htm
Similar, if not the exact same camps were used for homosexuals as well.  This lesson applies to all minorities, including homosexuals.  Any group that wishes to disarm minorities is obviously not their friend.

"Explain how it keeps tyou from getting discriminated against on the job."

It doesn't.  You can't legislate tolerance.  It is wrong to FORCE someone to pay someone else a given wage.  Wages should be left to the free-market.. and employment should be an entirely voluntary agreement between both parties.

"Just explain that to me. Were you guys (gays) planning to shoot everyone who doesn't agree with you?"

Are you dems planning to shoot or use physical force to force people's money out of them who don't wish for their tax money to fund stem cell research, or to pay for abortions?

What is more evil than forcing someone to use the product of their labor to support something they are diametrically opposed to? 

I wouldn't expect a Christian to pay for stem cell research that he thinks is the work of the devil, just like I wouldn't force an animal rights activist to fund animal research that he finds morally repulsive and cruel, or like I wouldn't force a homosexual man to fund things that go against his interests either.

"Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them."

 — George Santayana

>>34

Again: Gays don't care about guns. You can keep posting with your fake ass characters if you want, dude. No one is stupid enough to buy into your retarded depiction of homosexuals. Gun ownerhship and self-defense rights are more important, but get this: "THE DEMOCRATS"(tm) are no closer to stealing your precious guns than "The Republicans"(tm) are to banning abortions.

Why people keep arguing for/against things the AMERICAN government literally can't accomplish with an ideological straight face is beyond me! You keep arguing about guns and shit, and yet the REASON that gays are getting killed and beaten is BECUASE of people who still think that there should be an enforced cultural and social bias against homosexuals. NEWFLASH: MOST OF THESE PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR GUN OWNERSHIP AND AGAINST GAY RIGHTS.

This isn't fucking rocket science, you've guys have been looking for a way to spin gays in the republican direction and you're doing so at the cultural and social expense of homosexuals! It's really laughable that you'd continue to debate as if the government is conspiring to disarm gays and gays only. That is NOT the case and that is the ONLY reason a gay man has to ally with a camp of people who hate his/her lifestyle and spits on their ability to raise productive members of society.

The next holocaust isn't going to happen the way you think it is. We are not germany, we are not socialists, we don't have the attention span to endure another hitler.

Grow up, baby boomer piece of shit.

>>36
Gays care for guns. I'm gay and even a crossdresser, but happen to collect guns. Got something against that? There's plenty of pro-gun gays. Ever heard of Pink Pistols? Despite what you think homosexuals aren't homogenous, but as heterogenous as your average heterosexuals. To me gun and self-defense rights are far more important than gay marriage. I mean I can do without marriage(it's just formality anyway), but guns are my hobby and I sure would like to have right to defend me, my partner and our property.

>>36
"Again: Gays don't care about guns."

And this is coming from the supposedly politically correct non-prejudice democrats?
http://www.pinkpistols.org/

"No one is stupid enough to buy into your retarded depiction of homosexuals."

How about your stereotypical depiction of homosexuals as a bunch of girly-men who are fearful of guns? I think your viewpoint is prejudice to say the least, and if I was gay, I would be quite offended.

"Gun ownerhship and self-defense rights are more important"

I guess we agree on /something/.

"but get this: "THE DEMOCRATS"(tm) are no closer to stealing your precious guns than "The Republicans"(tm) are to banning abortions."

Nearly every bit of guns/weapons control we have now would not be here were it not for the democratic party.

"NEWFLASH: MOST OF THESE PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR GUN OWNERSHIP AND AGAINST GAY RIGHTS."

Newsflash:  if the democrats ban a certain firearm or freedom, that loss of freedom effects everyone, including minorities such as homosexuals, for example.  These people are the ones with the most dire needs for personal protection.  Denying them this right does not seem to be in their interest.

"This isn't fucking rocket science, you've guys have been looking for a way to spin gays in the republican direction"

The republican party is obviously not looking for the support of homosexuals.  If they are, they are doing a terrible job of marketing this idea.  I would rather gays voted republican than democrat, yes, because I think the 2nd amendment is more important than the right to have a gay marriage - but I support gay rights myself.

The libertarians are a GREAT party, and I suggest voting for them as an alternative to the democratic party.  I can't see how anyone, homosexual or not, could vote for a party that would attempt to disarm them, render them completely defenseless and at the mercy of any random gay hater, thug, murderer, rapist, or any other general threat to their well being or property, and take away one of the most essential and natural human rights of all - that of self defense and weapons ownership, all in the name of preserving the right to marry or adopt children... especially as the significant human rights lost apply to everyone - including those minorities willing to sacrifice them in voting for the democratic party.  Moreover, without the right to weapons ownership, all the other rights, including those granted from the democrats would be undefendable.  Gun rights protect other rights.  The fact that the democrats are willing to infringe upon them, not only shows that they are clearly no friend of the minorities or the average man, but is very telling in and of itself.

"and you're doing so at the cultural and social expense of homosexuals!"

And you are trying to drag them in the direction of the democratic party - at the cultural and social expense of everyone, including the minorities in question.

"It's really laughable that you'd continue to debate as if the government is conspiring to disarm gays and gays only."

When people hold a general hate or dislike for a minority, rendering that minority defenseless is the last thing a friend of said minority would do.  If you don't believe that, just read up on your history.

"That is NOT the case and that is the ONLY reason a gay man has to ally with a camp of people who hate his/her lifestyle and spits on their ability to raise productive members of society."

I'm a libertarian-conservative, and I don't hate gays, look down upon them, or dislike their lifestyle. 

"The next holocaust isn't going to happen the way you think it is. We are not germany, we are not socialists, we don't have the attention span to endure another hitler."

America's attention span is, as you suggest, too short.  This makes another holocaust all the more likely to happen.  I'm not saying its likely, but gun control is just another part of the big picture that leads to genocide/democide/mass murder by government.  The historical link between the two is undeniable. 

"Grow up, baby boomer piece of shit."

Yay for personal attacks in political debate!

>>37
>>38

Well, according to literally hundreds of other gay rights groups- you are not only wrong, but you're a very, very, very small (and dumb) minority. Stop trying to sensationalize your little movement.

"And you are trying to drag them in the direction of the democratic party - at the cultural and social expense of everyone, including the minorities in question.

LOL? Are you sure you're talking about me and not somebody else? An actual democrat, perhaps? Get this: I'm not even registered to vote. (For this very, reason!) I don't agree with any politican that makes a grab for gun rights. But to say that gays should be concerned with guns first is basically the ideology of cowards and conformists.

Nearly every bit of guns/weapons control we have now would not be here were it not for the democratic party.

Yeah, but: So what? I mean, are you currectly having trouble getting a gun? I don't understand. You act as if our gun rights have already been stripped from us.

When people hold a general hate or dislike for a minority, rendering that minority defenseless is the last thing a friend of said minority would do.

Like I said: No one is trying to physically disarm gays of their guns. If we lose our gun rights, we ALL lose them and that's not good. I'm simply saying that gays shouldn't ally themselves with people who hate them and consider them social and cultural abominations

I'm a libertarian-conservative, and I don't hate gays, look down upon them, or dislike their lifestyle.

You are a minority.

Yay for personal attacks in political debate!

So you are a baby boomer. Thanks for clairifying that. Your persona (your stupidity) finally makes sense. ^_^

>>39
"Well, according to literally hundreds of other gay rights groups- you are not only wrong, but you're a very, very, very small (and dumb) minority. Stop trying to sensationalize your little movement."

I don't care if they think I am wrong.  Millions of people can say I'm wrong, and it wouldn't make it so.  I think homosexuals should be very concerned with the right to keep and bear arms, as well as the right to self-defense, as, from a homosexual individual's perspective, these things effect them and their group of people as well as everyone else. 

You also fail to address the fact that the democrats wish to disarm these minorities, and take away their right to self defense.  They are clearly not their friends.  The libertarian party is.

"LOL? Are you sure you're talking about me and not somebody else?"

Yep.

"I don't agree with any politican that makes a grab for gun rights."

Good.

"But to say that gays should be concerned with guns first is basically the ideology of cowards and conformists."

I don't agree.  Keep in mind, it isn't JUST guns, it is one of the most basic human rights of all - self defense.  To take a human right of the general populous away is to take the same rights from all the minorities as well.  As a homosexual, I would much rather have the right to keep and bear arms, and the right to defend myself, than the right to have a gay marriage. 

"Yeah, but: So what?"

So the fact that these rights of everyone have been slowly chipped away at over the years should lead one to the conclusion that people should stop supporting the democrats until they change - for the sake of everyone, including homosexual individuals.

"I mean, are you currectly having trouble getting a gun?"

Yes.  Fees, registration, restrictions, paperwork, taxes, and many guns are simply outright banned, or essentially banned (made hard enough to get that nobody but an extremely rich person can afford due to bans on sale of new weapons). 

Self-defense rights, while there have been significant gains in many states, are on the decline in the more liberal (insane) areas of the USA.  Many basic handguns are already banned or restricted in many states. 

"I don't understand. You act as if our gun rights have already been stripped from us."

..

When, in certain states, a burglar can sue his victim for tripping and hurting himself on his way off his victim's property, I'd say victim's rights are on the decline for that area, yes. 

I shudder to think what might happen if the democrats had full control of the government for the next handful of years, and complete ability to exercise power, and ram their agenda down everyone's throats.

"Like I said: No one is trying to physically disarm gays of their guns."

Not gays specifically, but they are trying to disarm the general population, which is something everyone, including homosexuals should be concerned with.

"If we lose our gun rights, we ALL lose them and that's not good."

Including gays, yes.

"I'm simply saying that gays shouldn't ally themselves with people who hate them and consider them social and cultural abominations"

I think who they should ally with should depend on a few things.  If they are willing to compromise, and they would rather have self defense rights, and the 2nd amendment, republican is the way to go.  If they'd rather have the right to have gay marriages, and to adopt children, and are willing to compromise on their 2nd amendment and self-defense rights, the dems are the way to go.

If they aren't willing to compromise on any of their freedoms, the libertarians are the way to go.

"You are a minority."

Maybe, but there are plenty of conservatives who lean libertarian in the USA.  Many just vote republican because they prefer that 'package deal' over the democratic 'package deal', and don't wish to risk a certain favored freedom by voting for the libertarian party rather than one of the main two parties.  I think there are quite a few libertarians who lean conservative, and many conservatives who lean libertarian.  The fact is, quite simply, they are willing to compromise and vote for one of the major parties.  This doesn't mean their group is not significantly influential. 

"So you are a baby boomer. Thanks for clairifying that. Your persona (your stupidity) finally makes sense. ^_^"

Yay for personal attacks in political debate!

If I was gay, I would prefer those who made it harder to get guns yet want to change the way the world views me as a human, to those who prefer to let this view change at a snails pace while allowing me to get some defense a little easier. You think that people care about marriage or that it is insignificant? It's because it is easier to lessen the humanity of people if they happen to lack certain liberties. I think that the DA-DT agreement is a concession to bullies and uneducated traitors to this nation, and I also think that too few of the right-wing crowd wants to change peoples minds about the gay population. We have official electees spreading lies about the homosexuality-pedophilia link, and there are many who don't even raise an eyebrow. If I was gay, I would not wait and see whether society would accept me fully, while clinging to a weapon and hoping for some change. I shouldn't have to. I can get guns anywhere in America save for San Fran, and I don't like fog so maybe someone can convince me that having to wait for a gun a little longer is worse than having to wait for my recognition as an American a little longer. The right to marry in church is not a symbol, it is a step.

Make no mistake I prefer the libertarians, but they place too much weight on the guns and I don't think that trusting the market or some other nebulous force to sort out homophobia is a good solution. They are ready to allow employers to segregate who they employ and I don't want that either. It's a surrender to those who betray America by categorizing people by irrelevant parameters.

>>39
37 here

Again stop generalizing, as a gay man I'm deeply offended by people like you who think gays as some unified "race" or "culture". There are manly gays, feminine gays, transvestite gays and what seems to be real news for you is that average gay man isn't really different from your average heterosexual man. All gay men share one thing and that is love of men and/or boys, but other than that they're all unique. Gay gun nuts maybe small minority, but so are "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" types they're just most vocal one. I don't vote either democrats or republicans, unless I have no choice. I vote libertarians, as sadly they're only party that truly cares about civil rights. Not enough people vote them though...

>>41
Why choose from two evils? Yet another reason to vote libertarians. They're for both gay and gun rights.

>>41
"If I was gay, I would prefer those who made it harder to get guns yet want to change the way the world views me as a human, to those who prefer to let this view change at a snails pace while allowing me to get some defense a little easier."

It isn't just 'a little harder to get guns'.  If you'd like a snapshot of what 'might be' if the republicans weren't there, just take a look at England.  Its ridiculous.  Sorry, it isn't a choice between '3 day waiting period, and no gay marriage,' and '5 day waiting period, and gay marriage.' 

"You think that people care about marriage or that it is insignificant?"

I think they care, but I think it is far less significant than the 2nd amendment of the U.S. constitution, and a natural inalienable human right that all humans are supposedly endowed with.  Anyhow, which is more important should be left up to the voter.

"It's because it is easier to lessen the humanity of people if they happen to lack certain liberties."

Sure.  So the solution is to put everyone on equal footing, minus a very essential human liberty (thus lessening the humanity of the nation as a whole), vs. lessening the humanity of a small sect of the population in a /single aspect/ while at the same time granting the entire population (including that segment) more liberty making them more human...?

I think the libertarians are best, but I'd take the repubs over the dems in a heartbeat, considering this.

"and I also think that too few of the right-wing crowd wants to change peoples minds about the gay population."

What does them wanting to change people's mind about anything have to do with anything? People can think whatever they want as far as I'm concerned, so long as they don't infringe on the liberty of others. 

"We have official electees spreading lies about the homosexuality-pedophilia link, and there are many who don't even raise an eyebrow."

I do.  But I raise my eyebrow higher when official electees spread lies about the 2nd amendment and the constitution.

"If I was gay, I would not wait and see whether society would accept me fully, while clinging to a weapon and hoping for some change."

So what is your solution? Legislate tolerance? That doesn't work.  Libertarian is a much better alternative than the democratic party.

"I shouldn't have to. I can get guns anywhere in America save for San Fran,"

Gun rights in the USA are far worse off than you think.  Many entire classes of firearms are essentially illegal now, or made so expensive due to totally pointless regulations, that nobody could afford one without selling off a lot of their assets, or else if they are a pretty rich person to begin with that has money to throw around.  The laws are geared against your average guy, not the rich folks.  I guess you wouldn't care about the weapons laws if you had a few million dollars or more to throw around though. 

"and I don't like fog so maybe someone can convince me that having to wait for a gun a little longer is worse than having to wait for my recognition as an American a little longer. The right to marry in church is not a symbol, it is a step."

Gun rights are quite a bit worse off than you think.  It isn't just a matter of waiting a bit longer.

"Make no mistake I prefer the libertarians, but they place too much weight on the guns"

No they don't.  Libertarians are generally pro-freedom, and they don't focus on any single freedom over another, to speak of.  What do you mean by this?

"and I don't think that trusting the market or some other nebulous force to sort out homophobia is a good solution."

So you think trusting the government is a better solution?

..

The market sorts out discrimination in its own way.  To the degree that one discriminates in a free market, is to the extent that he gets punished.  I'd be happy to explain this in a more in-depth manner if you'd like.

"They are ready to allow employers to segregate who they employ and I don't want that either."

Whose business is it? Employment and hiring should be an entirely voluntary activity.  What do you want, government guns and bayonets to help you legislate tolerance?

"It's a surrender to those who betray America by categorizing people by irrelevant parameters."

America's heart consists of freedom, liberty, and the right to life, not of regulation of the market.  The proper function of the government is to protect these things, not to regulate the market.  The free market punishes prejudice in its own way, anyhow.

All of it true, I guess. My issue is not what liberty you hold the most important, because I believe thinking Americans shouldn't have to do this. But I would like to know what type of legislation we are talking about. Assault weapons? Do we need those? Although crime rose with Clinton's ban so I guess this is difficult. Democrats are better with the economy...
I'm not trying to legislate tolerance either, but the right wing does everything it can to keep cultural change out of the picture as well. Homophobia is a result of gender roles and anti-secularism, and I want a party that sorts that out. I'm not at all happy to stick with the democrats, and I am actually actively trying to make them more libertarian, for their sake and for ours. I do think that the libertarians have lost a lot of oomph as of late, and I can not allow pragmatists and evangelicals to gain a foothold because of guns. I actually own one myself but I just don't value it that much. I could very well be wrong and I am aware I should not be comfortable with voting democrat in November, but I will nonetheless.
Right now I'm more worried about China, the war on terror and the economy, and the current zeitgeist of the republicans shows that they are not up for it. Bush got reelected because people thought he needed more time. Time's up.

Thanks for everyone on my side, even though this is some dumb forum full of trolls these 2 really made me feel quite depressed...

>>30
So all of a sudden you weren't trying to bullshit me? What am I supposed to think of this then?

"Gays don't need to worry about their lives right now."

"However, "the gay problem" is a cultural one- not political."

" Gays get attacked physically because people can attack them verbally and politically, in everyday life and in the media *and then get away with it*. "

"There is no physical war on homosexuals, just a cultural and social one."

I've heard it all before.

EVERYONE'S CULTURE IS BIGOTTED AGAINST YOU
EVERYONE IS PART OF AN ANTI-GAY SOCIETY
EVERYONE IS SUBCONSCIOUSLY PROGRAMMED TO HURT YOU
EVERYONE IS OUT TO GET YOU
EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER HURT YOU HAS DONE IT BECAUSE YOU ARE GAY
EVERYONE EXCEPT US THAT IS!

I really do not need to be patronised, what I need are millions of freedom-loving gun-owning americans who see me as a fellow human being and I have that.

>>31
>>36
So I'm not gay because I believe in the 2nd amendment? That's rich! It's also bigotted and patronising, but you have convinced yourself you can never be bigotted, so I guess there was no point in me pointing that out. Oh and I have the right to marry and adopt, in large part due to my right to bear arms and another large part due to those millions of libertarians I keep talking about.

"I'm simply saying that gays shouldn't ally themselves with people who hate them and consider them social and cultural abominations."
WAAH WAAH WAAH EVERYONE HATES YOU, WE ARE YOUR ONLY HOPE

Seriously this is ridiculous now, you are not even bullying me any more, give it a break.

>>41
" We have official electees spreading lies about the homosexuality-pedophilia link, and there are many who don't even raise an eyebrow."

There is a good reason to change cultural attitudes, but fear-mongerring isn't one of them and most people don't believe everything they read and soak up bullshit. Why must I relinquish one of my human rights out of fear? I don't fear bigots and I don't need you. Besides you don't want me to vote democrat since it would inspire me to start spreading my opinions amongst other democract voters as I express my discontent with the policies of the democrat party that I disagree with.

>>44
There are many intricacies concerning egalitarianism which can all be solved by increasing economic freedom and reducing immigration. Businesses which discriminate based on race instead of merit will automatically lose out as they will be giving superior employees to their competitors. This incentive is lessenned when the skills needed for the job decrease and do not exist in state socialist institutions. We need to increase economic freedom to the point where socialist institutions, such as education and welfare, are only used when absolutely necessary so that the public can concentrate it's democratic power on law enforcement and the military.

To solve the problem that those in the unskilled labour market can be discriminated against with negligible loss of income to the employers, we need to prevent unskilled labourers from working in the country. As a result the cost of unskilled labour will rise, we won't need welfare and the shortage of unskilled labour will increase the incentive for employers not to discriminate.

>>46 Yeah, sure you make sense. But I don't think that we should rely solely on liberating everything. A measure of a society is not how free the people are. The real measure is how much freedom they can tolerate. The problem with America is that people, on thle left and right equally, consider the liberties of others to be harmful to their interests. Live and let live. But homophobia has complex, cultural causes and the right needs to get better on this.

>>47
Stupid. You can force people to obey the law, but you can't force them to change their opinion, you can only PERSUADE people to change their opinion. For some reason you believe the opposite, that you must persuade people to obey the law and that they must be forced to change their opinion. That's not going to work, if it would work I would support it, but unfortunately it goes against reality, so I can't, sorry.

Some people don't listen to reason, yes, I am quite aware of that... However I doubt subliminal messages and psychological conditionning is going to change their opinion as they get enough of that from whatever propoganda has convinced them to be a homophobe. The ONLY way to defeat illogic is with logic, for instance by crushing people in debate and making them look like idiots as I have done with you.

>>48 You are inferring whatever prejudices you have against people who don't share your views perfectly. Anybody can crush a strawman with logic. You think I want some monitoring and active molding of people's minds just to prevent gaybashing? I want to see what increases cocietal problems and what decrease them, and go for what experience and past knowledge can do for us. 

>>49
Ok?
Are you going to tell us what you want to do?

"I want to see what increases cocietal problems and what decrease them, and go for what experience and past knowledge can do for us." This here is what I'm gonna do. I'm 17, for satan's sake. I promise everything I do and vote for will be based on facts. Just because it's "feminism" doesn't mean it's good for me. I won't let the status quo be enough though.

>>51
Yes.. And how will you do that?

>>52 Read fucking books.

>>53
Right...

Ok Xel, let's look at this situation logically. Homophobia is illogical and irrational, so homophobes must not be thinking things through. You believe popular culture and insidious propoganda convinces people to become homophobes and since you can alter popular culture through popular movements, you wish to direct efforts towards alterring it. How do you want to change popular culture? Admit what changes in popular culture were engineered by liberals.

I believe that people choose what popular culture to watch, think about and produce and that even if you change popular culture it will not convince homophobes to stop being homophobes and will not stop people becomming homophobes. My approach is less patronising to homosexuals. I don't want every single gay person on television to be portrayed as superior and wonderful, I don't want gays on chat shows to be lauded, loved  and flaterred constantly, I want them to be criticised, I want there to be gays who are assholes, bad gay guys, just not all the time, I want gays to be portrayed normally without any stupid bullshit.

>>54 Hey, I can't object and I think I agree with you 100% I prefer Val Kilmer's char in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang to the sitcom variety. Do you remember the fucking maniacs who threw a shitfit about that neutrally portrayed lesbian couple on the kids show, or how they wanted to tear down that show with the priest whose son came out as bi (I think)? These are the fuckers we should watch out for, and since there is no pledge to christianity in the founding documents there is no reason against secularism or better education about sexuality in schools. I don't want any lauding or making gays more exotic, in fact I protest it, but I believe that if people can isolate their kids from the truth about people, then they do so with an intent to lie to them. Sure, children will be more controlled by their parents than by school, but if we can sow seeds of doubt towards homophobic lying it is a step. Allowing gays to marry is another step.

>>45
"All of it true, I guess. My issue is not what liberty you hold the most important, because I believe thinking Americans shouldn't have to do this."

Based on this, I think you might want to check these guys out, if you haven't already.
http://www.lp.org/
http://www.self-gov.org/
http://www.cato.org/

"But I would like to know what type of legislation we are talking about. Assault weapons? Do we need those?"

Yes, for many reasons.  This isn't the only anti-gun legislation given us by the democrats.  Keep in mind that just about every bit of anti-gun legislation we have now, wouldn't be here were it not for the democrats.  There are several pages to the below article, so keep an eye out for the 'next' and 'previous' buttons at the bottom, so you can read on.
http://www.awbansunset.com/whyown.html

Of course, this article doesn't mention what is possibly the most important reason these weapons shouldn't be banned.
http://www.jpfo.org/ib-orders.htm

"I'm not at all happy to stick with the democrats, and I am actually actively trying to make them more libertarian, for their sake and for ours."

If you agree to give them your vote in spite of the glaring inconsistencies between their political stands and libertarianism, I can guarantee they will never change.  Threatening them with defeat at the polls if they don't change - and then acting on those threats when you vote (in voting for someone other than them) is the means of getting them to change. 

"I actually own one myself but I just don't value it that much."

http://www.jpfo.org/ib-orders.htm
You should see Innocents Betrayed.

"I could very well be wrong and I am aware I should not be comfortable with voting democrat in November, but I will nonetheless."

Again, this isn't the way to change the democrats into becoming more libertarian.  If the democrats know you will give them your vote regardless of the problems you see in them, they are far less likely to change.  To make them change, you must punish them at the polls. 

Clinton rightly blamed the massive losses in the House of Reps.  by the democrats in 1994 on the Gun Rights movement and the NRA.  Subsequently, we notice the democrats have tried to make themselves /look/ more pro-gun.  If the pressure is kept on against anti-gun candidates, I predict they will change on this issue.  Making a 'protest-vote' for the libertarians in the next several elections rather than the democrats, if you are a democrat who wants them to change on this issue, is surely a step in the right direction.

"Bush got reelected because people thought he needed more time. Time's up."

Bush can't run for presidential office again.  There's no reason to vote democratic in the next election because of Bush - I can assure you he won't be the president again.  He is only allowed two terms, unless I am horribly mistaken.

>>46
"There are many intricacies concerning egalitarianism which can all be solved by increasing economic freedom and reducing immigration."

If I am interpreting this properly in that you are for stronger immigration controls, I wholeheartedly agree and 2nd this idea.  I just hope it is done in such a way that doesn't infringe upon constitutional liberties, or privacy.  Putting troops on the border would work.  National ID cards are a big no thx if you ask me.

"Businesses which discriminate based on race instead of merit will automatically lose out as they will be giving superior employees to their competitors."

"We need to increase economic freedom to the point where socialist institutions, such as education and welfare, are only used when absolutely necessary so that the public can concentrate it's democratic power on law enforcement and the military."

I absolutely agree.  Also, legalizing drugs and reducing the number of victimless crimes would allow the police forces to track down truly dangerous criminals, such as rapists, murderers, and thugs, rather than busting pot smokers enjoying a blunt in their basements.  Wasteful bureaucracy and government such as the gun registry should be abolished.  It is expensive, and we can't afford that money right now - we are in massive debt.

"To solve the problem that those in the unskilled labour market can be discriminated against with negligible loss of income to the employers, we need to prevent unskilled labourers from working in the country."

I agree with you on immigration, more or less... I think.  Tighter controls - but lets not sacrifice the constitution to get them.  I say no National ID or government programs - just put the troops on the border where they should be. 

"As a result the cost of unskilled labour will rise, we won't need welfare and the shortage of unskilled labour will increase the incentive for employers not to discriminate."

This all sounds good.  Seconded..:)