6 ms·

My opinion of Republican values regarding LGBT rights comes directly from spoken statements from sitting members of congress and state legislators. If Republica

My opinion of Republican values regarding LGBT rights comes directly from spoken statements from sitting members of congress and state legislators. If Republicans can point to actual legislators that say "no one should have guns", I'll listen. But typically I find that gun-control "debates" involve a nuanced "common-sense" gun control side and a "they want to disarm you and take your stuff" side. Which again, comes down to disinformation spreading among the right and preventing good-faith arguments for gun-control.

giantg2 4y ago
"Common-sense" is a highly opinionated phrase. I do sympathize that it's hard to find a good debate due to the misinformation or poor arguments on both sides. Without good debate it is tough to get a good view of the issue. Even then, there can be points that come down to philosophy or law around how the action can/should be implemented. And of course, there's very little nuance or compromise being investigated by either side. That said, which LGBT rights do you think they oppose? Do they oppose all rights or just "common sense regulations" (see where I'm going?)? What one person sees as a right, someone else might see as a privilege. Or what they see as reasonable regulation another might see as infringement. The sides have to convey their reasoning for why something is a right, or why they see it the way they do. It's supposed to be an effort to understand each other to make things work for both sides through compromise. There are a lot of vehement and downright ridiculous comments out there. Perhaps you see more of them on the LGBTQ issues. Perhaps gun owners notice them on gun issues. So perspective can matter. You have people like Beto O'Rourke saying they will confiscate certain arms. There the DNC committee member that said she thinks nobody should have a gun (Bonnie Schaefer). Many have declined to answer whether they believe if owning a gun is a right, including Hillary Clinton. If they can't answer the question, then people will think it's a bad sign. There are a lot from Feinstein that I'll put at the end. And this doesn't even cover all the misinformation (what was used in a specific crime, things that are already illegal), frivolous laws (a folding stock isn't making a difference), and wrong terminology (assault rifle, clip/mag, etc). It's hard to write intelligent legislation if the terms aren't used correctly or the subject isn't well understood. I assume you've seen the same on cis people writing LGBTQ laws. Many gun organizations have supported past restrictions. Maybe we could implement "universal" background checks by creating a free to use system that can be used for other types of checks as well and doesn't keep a record of what the check was for (maybe using a zero trust pattern or some one way hashing which industry/watch group oversight)? This would address the concerns the concerns of building registries or abuse of power while making a seller civilly liable if the person they sold to was prohibited. Why doesn't anyone in power suggest such a thing as a compromise? There are tons of options out there. "Common sense" has just become a marketing term by politicians on both sides to appeal to people without actually proving out their issue. I'll leave you with some quotes from Feinstein: “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993. “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995. "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms."
- breadbreadbread 4y ago
  > Associated Press, 18 November, 1993 I would argue that statements made 30 years ago are irrelevant to the current debate, considering that would also bring into discussion every opinion held by GOP operatives over that time period and boy that ain't pretty. Im generally opposed to equating LGBT issues to gun-control issues. This dichotomy was brought up by a previous comment and I dont really want to get bogged down in the issue. After all, one is an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of expression, and the other is an issue of "what do we do about this thing that is expressly designed to harm other humans". My personal views on gun control aren't really reflected by any sitting member in congress, and I will admit that a lot of debate on both sides are largely reactionary and you can take impassioned statements from either side out of context. Fine. I will still hold that the right will shut down at any nuanced discussion of the issue, which I see as the main problem. If the GOP took a principled but open-minded stance, you could negotiate down from the reactionary Dem position down to one that thinks critically about privacy as you suggest... but the GOP doesn't allow that discussion. > That said, which LGBT rights do you think they oppose? My right to self expression. My right to live a life of my choosing without fear of retaliation. My right to tell others about my existence. As evidenced by objections to bills that would enshrine my safety in finding employment and healthcare. As evidenced by politicians that equate my speech to pedophilia. Are my rights to safety and speech privileges given only to cis/straight people? What are the "common sense" regulations to me living my life? Do you see how I may not agree with the false equivalency of gun rights and lgbt rights?
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "I would argue that statements made 30 years ago are irrelevant to the current debate" You asked for a sitting representative. She's still there. I would guess her views haven't changed much but is just out of the spot light now. "Im generally opposed to equating LGBT issues to gun-control issues. This dichotomy was brought up by a previous comment and I dont really want to get bogged down in the issue. After all, one is an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of expression, and the other is an issue of "what do we do about this thing that is expressly designed to harm other humans"." I don't think they are closely related, but they are both strongly held beliefs and deal with rights. Some say the right to self defense is a natural human right and that guns are a tool in that context. It seems that by your statement you hold some rights above others (and don't even mention anything related to right on the other subject). Is this perhaps indicating that each side has a different perception? Also, guns have other purposes, they aren't all just for harming others. "I will still hold that the right will shut down at any nuanced discussion of the issue, which I see as the main problem. If the GOP took a principled but open-minded stance, you could negotiate down from the reactionary Dem position down to one that thinks critically about privacy as you suggest... but the GOP doesn't allow that discussion." Is it possible this is a standoff - that the GOP thinks they would have critical debate if only the other side proposed something they saw as reasonable first? Everyone wants to blame the other side, and I agree that it's just all reactionary at this point. But seeing the other side as the main problem might just be the reason we have such stalemate. "Do you see how I may not agree with the false equivalency of gun rights and lgbt rights?" I'm not saying they are equal, but they are similar in how rights and restrictions are imposed/violated in the name of common sense and reasonable things (as said by people with no experience on the issues). I'm not aware of anyone at the federal level trying to take away your Healthcare and safety rights (but maybe they aren't mainstream enough). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County On the fear and retaliation, I believe those would be federal hate crimes. Again, I don't know of any mainstream movement against that. The comments about pedophilia are terrible. I believe the bill only removes all sex related cirruculum material but doesn't impact personal expression.
cityofdelusion 4y ago
You may want to consider viewing things more neutrally. As someone who doesn't care about guns, your dishonest take on the gun control "debate" is obvious. If you are going to apply a silly caricature at least do it to both sides ("they want to take all your guns" vs "they don't care if children get shot at school"). A nuanced view of the actual debate is that one side believes the second amendment is absolute and the other believes that it allows for some restrictions similar to the free speech / "fire in a theater" situation. The posturing you see around this is just to rally votes, that is the meta-game. Too many Americans are unable to separate the rules of the game and the underlying issues at stake.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > A nuanced view of the actual debate is that one side believes the second amendment is absolute and the other believes that it allows for some restrictions similar to the free speech / "fire in a theater" situation. You presume that there is agreement among the first group that the First Amendment is not just as absolute as the Second. BTW, that "falsely yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" bit was actually a threadbare excuse to punish people for protesting the draft, something many would consider protected political speech. The hypothetical scenario is not very well reasoned, either, even ignoring the context. If anyone is hurt during the evacuation the fault lies with those who panicked and trampled them in their haste to escape, not the person who claimed there was a fire, regardless of whether that report was true or false. The most they could reasonably be held responsible for is the interruption of the show for an orderly evacuation.
- breadbreadbread 4y ago
  I don't think my description of right wing talking points is caricature. The right wing do see any reasonable reform as "taking our guns away", their side is the one that fails to see nuance. That absolutist, literalist read of the constitution is the side without nuance, categorically. My view of gun control is neutral, I want to protect the rights of citizens to stand against their government and I acknowledge that loose gun laws can lead to harm, direct or indirect. That is the most neutral position possible and sitting members of Congress would consider me far-left and fascist for it. The Right is seemingly allergic to nuance, incapable of digesting reasonable objection. How do you meet in the middle with that?

giantg2 4y ago

"Common-sense" is a highly opinionated phrase. I do sympathize that it's hard to find a good debate due to the misinformation or poor arguments on both sides. Without good debate it is tough to get a good view of the issue. Even then, there can be points that come down to philosophy or law around how the action can/should be implemented. And of course, there's very little nuance or compromise being investigated by either side. That said, which LGBT rights do you think they oppose? Do they oppose all rights or just "common sense regulations" (see where I'm going?)? What one person sees as a right, someone else might see as a privilege. Or what they see as reasonable regulation another might see as infringement. The sides have to convey their reasoning for why something is a right, or why they see it the way they do. It's supposed to be an effort to understand each other to make things work for both sides through compromise. There are a lot of vehement and downright ridiculous comments out there. Perhaps you see more of them on the LGBTQ issues. Perhaps gun owners notice them on gun issues. So perspective can matter. You have people like Beto O'Rourke saying they will confiscate certain arms. There the DNC committee member that said she thinks nobody should have a gun (Bonnie Schaefer). Many have declined to answer whether they believe if owning a gun is a right, including Hillary Clinton. If they can't answer the question, then people will think it's a bad sign. There are a lot from Feinstein that I'll put at the end. And this doesn't even cover all the misinformation (what was used in a specific crime, things that are already illegal), frivolous laws (a folding stock isn't making a difference), and wrong terminology (assault rifle, clip/mag, etc). It's hard to write intelligent legislation if the terms aren't used correctly or the subject isn't well understood. I assume you've seen the same on cis people writing LGBTQ laws. Many gun organizations have supported past restrictions. Maybe we could implement "universal" background checks by creating a free to use system that can be used for other types of checks as well and doesn't keep a record of what the check was for (maybe using a zero trust pattern or some one way hashing which industry/watch group oversight)? This would address the concerns the concerns of building registries or abuse of power while making a seller civilly liable if the person they sold to was prohibited. Why doesn't anyone in power suggest such a thing as a compromise? There are tons of options out there. "Common sense" has just become a marketing term by politicians on both sides to appeal to people without actually proving out their issue. I'll leave you with some quotes from Feinstein: “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993. “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995. "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms."

breadbreadbread 4y ago
> Associated Press, 18 November, 1993 I would argue that statements made 30 years ago are irrelevant to the current debate, considering that would also bring into discussion every opinion held by GOP operatives over that time period and boy that ain't pretty. Im generally opposed to equating LGBT issues to gun-control issues. This dichotomy was brought up by a previous comment and I dont really want to get bogged down in the issue. After all, one is an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of expression, and the other is an issue of "what do we do about this thing that is expressly designed to harm other humans". My personal views on gun control aren't really reflected by any sitting member in congress, and I will admit that a lot of debate on both sides are largely reactionary and you can take impassioned statements from either side out of context. Fine. I will still hold that the right will shut down at any nuanced discussion of the issue, which I see as the main problem. If the GOP took a principled but open-minded stance, you could negotiate down from the reactionary Dem position down to one that thinks critically about privacy as you suggest... but the GOP doesn't allow that discussion. > That said, which LGBT rights do you think they oppose? My right to self expression. My right to live a life of my choosing without fear of retaliation. My right to tell others about my existence. As evidenced by objections to bills that would enshrine my safety in finding employment and healthcare. As evidenced by politicians that equate my speech to pedophilia. Are my rights to safety and speech privileges given only to cis/straight people? What are the "common sense" regulations to me living my life? Do you see how I may not agree with the false equivalency of gun rights and lgbt rights?
- giantg2 4y ago
  "I would argue that statements made 30 years ago are irrelevant to the current debate" You asked for a sitting representative. She's still there. I would guess her views haven't changed much but is just out of the spot light now. "Im generally opposed to equating LGBT issues to gun-control issues. This dichotomy was brought up by a previous comment and I dont really want to get bogged down in the issue. After all, one is an issue of bodily autonomy and freedom of expression, and the other is an issue of "what do we do about this thing that is expressly designed to harm other humans"." I don't think they are closely related, but they are both strongly held beliefs and deal with rights. Some say the right to self defense is a natural human right and that guns are a tool in that context. It seems that by your statement you hold some rights above others (and don't even mention anything related to right on the other subject). Is this perhaps indicating that each side has a different perception? Also, guns have other purposes, they aren't all just for harming others. "I will still hold that the right will shut down at any nuanced discussion of the issue, which I see as the main problem. If the GOP took a principled but open-minded stance, you could negotiate down from the reactionary Dem position down to one that thinks critically about privacy as you suggest... but the GOP doesn't allow that discussion." Is it possible this is a standoff - that the GOP thinks they would have critical debate if only the other side proposed something they saw as reasonable first? Everyone wants to blame the other side, and I agree that it's just all reactionary at this point. But seeing the other side as the main problem might just be the reason we have such stalemate. "Do you see how I may not agree with the false equivalency of gun rights and lgbt rights?" I'm not saying they are equal, but they are similar in how rights and restrictions are imposed/violated in the name of common sense and reasonable things (as said by people with no experience on the issues). I'm not aware of anyone at the federal level trying to take away your Healthcare and safety rights (but maybe they aren't mainstream enough). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County On the fear and retaliation, I believe those would be federal hate crimes. Again, I don't know of any mainstream movement against that. The comments about pedophilia are terrible. I believe the bill only removes all sex related cirruculum material but doesn't impact personal expression.

cityofdelusion 4y ago

You may want to consider viewing things more neutrally. As someone who doesn't care about guns, your dishonest take on the gun control "debate" is obvious. If you are going to apply a silly caricature at least do it to both sides ("they want to take all your guns" vs "they don't care if children get shot at school"). A nuanced view of the actual debate is that one side believes the second amendment is absolute and the other believes that it allows for some restrictions similar to the free speech / "fire in a theater" situation. The posturing you see around this is just to rally votes, that is the meta-game. Too many Americans are unable to separate the rules of the game and the underlying issues at stake.

nybble41 4y ago
> A nuanced view of the actual debate is that one side believes the second amendment is absolute and the other believes that it allows for some restrictions similar to the free speech / "fire in a theater" situation. You presume that there is agreement among the first group that the First Amendment is not just as absolute as the Second. BTW, that "falsely yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" bit was actually a threadbare excuse to punish people for protesting the draft, something many would consider protected political speech. The hypothetical scenario is not very well reasoned, either, even ignoring the context. If anyone is hurt during the evacuation the fault lies with those who panicked and trampled them in their haste to escape, not the person who claimed there was a fire, regardless of whether that report was true or false. The most they could reasonably be held responsible for is the interruption of the show for an orderly evacuation.
breadbreadbread 4y ago
I don't think my description of right wing talking points is caricature. The right wing do see any reasonable reform as "taking our guns away", their side is the one that fails to see nuance. That absolutist, literalist read of the constitution is the side without nuance, categorically. My view of gun control is neutral, I want to protect the rights of citizens to stand against their government and I acknowledge that loose gun laws can lead to harm, direct or indirect. That is the most neutral position possible and sitting members of Congress would consider me far-left and fascist for it. The Right is seemingly allergic to nuance, incapable of digesting reasonable objection. How do you meet in the middle with that?