Presented Without Comment

1. What a surprise that Mike Vanderboegh is engaging in anti-gay flame-baiting. I've already given them the what for on it.

   Given the numerous amounts of gay and lesbian plaintiffs, including Guy Montague Doe (of Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority), Tom Palmer (of Parker v. DC and Palmer v. DC), Deanna Sykes (of Sykes v. McGinness, now Richards v. Prieto) and myself (Peterson v. Garcia), I would suggest that "without comment" is purely an invitation for your commenters to ridicule gays and lesbians, who you can count among some of your greatest supporters and probably the single largest group that needs self defensive tools.

   Not cool.

2. @Gray: The reason I presented it without comment is because with all the scandal surrounding the agency, it comes across as a pathetic attempt to curry favor as well as a desperate measure to portray some level of normalcy at ATF HQ.

   I would have thought the same if ATF announced a celebration of Black History Month or White Irish Catholic Month or Straight WASP Month. It is a weak attempt to deflect attention as best they can from their agency's troubles.

   Having an anti-gun Democrat present the program serves to just make it worse IMHO. I happen to agree with you that the gay community should be the biggest supporters of gun rights as, unfortunately, they need to have the means of self-defense as much or more than most.

   Insofar as it being an attempt on my part to throw red meat to bigots, you are mistaken. Moreover, unlike a lot of other blogs, I don't have an active corps of commentators.

3. I can certainly understand where Mr. Peterson is coming from, although, to be honest, when I read "without any comment" I just took it at that. No comment.

   It's usually what I say to a lot of people when they inquire about my political beliefs or pry too hard on me about concealed carry (unless I really know them) – I say "no comment" or "don't know what to say."

4. Insofar as it being an attempt on my part to throw red meat to bigots, you are mistaken. Moreover, unlike a lot of other blogs, I don't have an active corps of commentators

   My apologies. I will, however, direct more of my fire towards the SSI. Gems like this:

   But WTF does any of this have to do with alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives? Are they trying to tell me if fudgepackers drink too much alcohol and smoke too much tobacco, they might be inclined to shove something else up their ass like a stick of dynamite or a rifle?
   ARGH! (That's heterosexual pirate talk for ARGH!)

   is why people are some of us are turned off from the SSI folk. They thrive on being politically incorrect, which is perfectly within their 1A right. However some folk can see something like what SSI was doing as dog whistle politics.

5. Gray:

   I am sorry if you have witnessed gay-bashing on any of the various gun sites. I don't read SSI, so I am out of the loop on that.

   And let me say that I fully support equal rights for all, including gays, lesbians, transexuals, etc.

   But to me you sound a little overly-jumpy on this issue. The point of this post is … WTF is the ATF doing supporting a gay pride parade? I see no connection to their mission. They are a federal law enforcement group, funded by fed tax revenue. We must demand they stick to their business. As much as I support gay rights … I am bewildered by the thought of the ATF sponsoring a gay rights event.

   I suspect it would be worth your while to learn to separate your issues … separate advocating gun rights from advocating gay rights. I suspect your efforts might be more effective that way … and I suspect your blood pressure levels will drop.

Comments are closed.