With friends like this: Clayton Cramer attacks open carry

imported post

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m10d26-With-friends-like-this

My latest article takes aim at the distasteful remarks by Clayton Cramer in his latest shotgun news article about open carry and about gay rights.

Those of us in the gun rights community have had great success prosecuting the gun rights movement as a civil rights issue rather than one of Conservative vs Liberal. This has allowed us to successfully reach out to entirely new constituencies. After all, the millions and millions of proud gun owners across America come from every social, ethnic, religious and lifestyle group and we need to support the rights of every single one of them!

Please read the entire article and share it with your friends if you like it

imported post

Good article John. Glad to see you writing again. I have said this for awhile some of these gun owners who only want the right to bear arms in the way they choose to bear arms are really bigots.

imported post

Cramer committed much the same error that that 'Travel Guru' did regarding OC in Arizona. He must not get out much. These people who dwell in Myopia seem ignorantly unaware of what has been 'the norm' in many states since their creation.

imported post

Thank you, John. I really appreciate your sentiments.

Poor Clayton Cramer. He probably thinks gay folks want to kiss him. What a sad, pathetic little man.

imported post

Pro-gun people who think that as long as they stay in the closet no one will bother them, are truly living with their heads in the sand.

That's the attitude we saw in Texas when it came to OC: much fear mongering about how it would scare the anti-gun forces into restricting CC.

imported post

I have personally avoided being gay-bashed by the presentation of my weapon. While I am not a big fan of "hate crime" laws, we who are "other" get more than our share of - well, we get more than our share; and some of it is violent. While it is true that those who attack gays are likely to have problems in coming to terms with their own sexuality - and I do not say that they are by that fact alone gay and trying to cover it up, only that they are (gag me) "insecure" and trying to find their way in this world. I sympathize with them. No, really I do. In the summer of 1974 I met a guy I went to school with who had been one of my worst tormentors, IN A FREAkING GAY BAR!!

And he told me, tearfullly (I am not making this up), that he watched the reactions of his friends to the abuse he dealt me (this was in Dayton, Ohio in 1968) so as to guage whom he could trust with his "dirty lttle secret" Well, I forgave him and I to an extent understand.

What I cannot understand is why gays - and Blacks and Latinos and all manner of minorities - think that being "protected" by special "hate crimes" laws will render them safe. Those laws only take effect after one has - for example - been keel-hauled behind a pickup truck. What is the penalty? An extra five years in prison?? From what I am given to understand, after the first two years inside it becomes routine.

The gun says: I want to live. You want to live. you have a choice. Stick around, and you leave me with none.

If I may, I would like to dedicate this post to Paul M. McClure. Paul was a "beloved friend" who provided me with a home after I left the USAF in 1974. Sometime in the summer of (I think) 1987 Paul was walking back to his home when he was accosted by thugs who took his money and his life. The DC gun laws did not protect him. But possibly I cann thamk DC for the fact thatr Paul waS NOT SHOT.

HE WAS BEATEN TO DEATH AND BEYOND FRECOGNITION

Hey John. Tell Cramer I said he's an asshole. In so many words. Please.

imported post

oops

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

What I cannot understand is why gays - and Blacks and Latinos and all manner of minorities - think that being "protected" by special "hate crimes" laws will render them safe. Those laws only take effect after one has - for example - been keel-hauled behind a pickup truck. What is the penalty? An extra five years in prison??

Click to expand...

In the case of James Byrd's killers, two received the death penalty, and the third got life without parole.

I still cannot understand how that case became a cause célèbre for enhanced "hate crime" penalties.

imported post

Well, as someone who has open carried outside of two presidential events and almost always open carries in an urban or suburban environment, I am offended by the remarks of Mr. Cramer.

He obviously does not comprehend the damage that he does to the RKBA with such an article.

He harms us on two levels.

1) He reinforces negative stereotypes of gun owners as backward rednecked half wits by bashing gay and lesbian persons.

2) He drives a wedge into the RKBA crowd. The VCDL attitude when there is an attack on any part of the gun community is the NATO Response - that is an attack on one is an attack on all. It does not matter if it is a person abused by police for carrying a gun in Norfolk, a gun dealer being abused by Mayor Bloomberg or a politician who supports our gun rights, VCDL supports them all. We will not win this struggle if we are a house divided.

To paraphrase Hank, He is a goof with a printing press.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

I have personally avoided being gay-bashed by the presentation of my weapon. While I am not a big fan of "hate crime" laws, we who are "other" get more than our share of - well, we get more than our share; and some of it is violent. While it is true that those who attack gays are likely to have problems in coming to terms with their own sexuality - and I do not say that they are by that fact alone gay and trying to cover it up, only that they are (gag me) "insecure" and trying to find their way in this world. I sympathize with them. No, really I do. In the summer of 1974 I met a guy I went to school with who had been one of my worst tormentors, IN A FREAkING GAY BAR!!

And he told me, tearfullly (I am not making this up), that he watched the reactions of his friends to the abuse he dealt me (this was in Dayton, Ohio in 1968) so as to guage whom he could trust with his "dirty lttle secret" Well, I forgave him and I to an extent understand.

What I cannot understand is why gays - and Blacks and Latinos and all manner of minorities - think that being "protected" by special "hate crimes" laws will render them safe. Those laws only take effect after one has - for example - been keel-hauled behind a pickup truck. What is the penalty? An extra five years in prison?? From what I am given to understand, after the first two years inside it becomes routine.

The gun says: I want to live. You want to live. you have a choice. Stick around, and you leave me with none.

If I may, I would like to dedicate this post to Paul M. McClure. Paul was a "beloved friend" who provided me with a home after I left the USAF in 1974. Sometime in the summer of (I think) 1987 Paul was walking back to his home when he was accosted by thugs who took his money and his life. The DC gun laws did not protect him. But possibly I cann thamk DC for the fact thatr Paul waS NOT SHOT.

HE WAS BEATEN TO DEATH AND BEYOND FRECOGNITION

Hey John. Tell Cramer I said he's an @#$%. In so many words. Please.

Click to expand...

Great heart-felt post. I am sorry about your friend although I mustdisagree with the part about you saying 'possibly thank d.c. for him not being shot'. I firmly believe any criminal with a will, has a way to obtain a gun. No matter what law is in place. In no way should DC be thanked for the manner those criminals killed your friend. You may have been treading lightly when you said that, although the death of your friend is on the heads of DC.

imported post

I was being sarcastic. Paul certainly died a more painful death than a gunshot would have inflicted. What I meant was that all of DC's vaunted gun laws did not prevent this murder; that it is not firearms but a certain culture that incubates violence and that the presence of firearms in the hands of LACs chills that incubator right down. Paul was scared of firearms himself, but maybe a LAC could have broken up the attack before it was fatal. And if someone had told me then that DC would be even more of a hellhole today than it was I would have said it was not possible. I would have been wrong.

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

I was being sarcastic. Paul certainly died a more painful death than a gunshot would have inflicted. What I meant was that all of DC's vaunted gun laws did not prevent this murder; that it is not firearms but a certain culture that incubates violence and that the presence of firearms in the hands of LACs chills that incubator right down. Paul was scared of firearms himself, but maybe a LAC could have broken up the attack before it was fatal. And if someone had told me then that DC would be even more of a hellhole today than it was I would have said it was not possible. I would have been wrong.

Click to expand...

My apologies. Sometimes I can not see sarcasim in text very well. This issue relates to the rape in California. Many could have been afraid to stop those thugs, though with the allowance of a weapon to be carried, this can be stopped. Of course the rape was with a bunch of 15 years olds, I am applying this to other cases of robberies/beatings/shootings/rapes.

imported post

I, too have read much of Cramer's writings over the years and cheered him on. What on earth possessed him to write such a bone-headed set of articles??? I guess he has some animus toward gay people that no one ever knew about. What is in HIS closet? Does anyone here know Cramer or anyone who does? It would help us to know what his motivation is here so we can try counter his remarks more effectively.

On a tangential note, I read the "Armed Citizen" in the most recent NRA magazine, and came across their description of the famous Richmond store robbery in which an OPEN CARRIER of a Colt .45 peacemaker saved the day. Interestingly, they managed to avoid any comment about the man being a regular OC'er. An oversight? I think not.

We have a lot of edumacating to do ...



PS: Alexcabbie, let us know if Clayton shows up in any "uncharacteristic" places. :shock:

imported post

I would love to say that my primary objection to Cramer's comments centered around my objection to gay-bashing, and that my only standard for anyone has been whether or not they respect my rights, by which I mean, they make good neighbors, which many gay people, Muslim people, and other popularly bashed minorities obviously do.

But really what irked me was the whiny bitchiness of being "offended." A free society is necessarily going to be a diverse one, and I, for one, enjoy having my own sensibilities confronted. Not at the time, obviously - but even in his example, would I possibly be uncomfortable in the presence of a gay demonstration such as the one he mentions?

Yeah, I would. But that is *my* problem. It is good for me to have that challenged. Cramer goes in the cowardly direction with this, whereby the thing for people carrying openly to do is to not offend the sensibilities of others, just as public displays of affection among homosexuals should be avoided because he has personal issues.

In point of fact, the whole concept of being offended by what other people do is the root of all manner of small tyrannies in this society - behind every attempt, for example, to censor either pornography or hate speech is some whiny little insect carping about how he is offended or made uncomfortable by the depiction or display of someone else's sensibilities, and therefore someone ought to intervene on his behalf.

My God, that's weak.

In any representative sampling of gun owners you will find belligerent rednecks, potentially insurrectionary anarchists (yeah, they're out there), god-fearing Christians, Neo-Nazis, atheist libertarians, gays, women, and racial minorities who have had their safety threatened just because of who they are, and so on.

I have fears. Many of them. But I have never had a fear of looking out across America and seeing how diverse we are. Should someone offend me, fine, I'm offended, but I sure as hell don't expect anyone to change their behavior because I have a problem with it. That's an issue for me to work on. Tread anywhere you want and however you like, just don't tread on me. The first part of this is as important as the last.

It would be worth it to live with city streets lined with electronics stores displaying TV sets in the windows showing hardcore gay pornography, neo-Nazi propaganda, religious programming, pagan blasphemy, Orwellian statist indoctrination, and any other example of the kind of thing that might offend someone, blaring in the faces of both ourselves and our children...

...if in exchange it meant we'd never have to accommodate the psychological and ideological tics of delicate little flowers who are always finding excuses to get someone (often the state*) to stomp on someone else's Constitutional Rights so they don't have their sensibilities offended. I will take the most obscene depictions of any sexual act you can imagine over a single drop of censorship any day of the week.

(*Inasmuch as almost anyone will state that quote about "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to defend it" or any other cheap platitudes with similar sentiments, the kind of people we have in office, the kind of laws they pass, and even what opinion polls show that in the safety of an anonymous vote, most people in this society will in fact line up in support of the state ramming their agenda down everyone else's throat.)

So yeah, we can make the point about homophobia and gay bashing, and that's legitimate, but my disgust for him as a human being - as a man - for being such a craven little geek about being offended, I have to admit, far outweighs it for me in terms of priority. It would almost be worth it to go gay and engage in obscene public acts just for the pleasure of offending him.

imported post

Sorry about picking your post to reply to but the D word is a good starting point to take on this issue.

" A free society is necessarily going to be a diverse one"

Diversity is one thing but Wrong is another. The D word gets thrown around way to much. Diversity does not come from the way someone dresses, or the way they look (ethnic background) or even someones behavior. It comes from understanding, and thought processes that consist of different ideas, rational debate, & commonsense.
A college campus that has a "diverse" mix of Chinese, or Africans, does technically make it an ethnically diverse campus it does however not make it any better than the next. It's academics! the free expression of speech & ideology.

Same goes for a "Free society" I do agree that simple minded and narrow minded can be good as well as bad, depending on the principals, standards, and morals of not only a "free society", but a civil one! I did not read the article because I do believe it is a coward way of expressing your opinion. Resorting to bashing, & rhetoric is less than civil. On the other hand it is bad/wrong what ever you like to call it. calling it "diverse" doesn't make it acceptable, if it's ok behavior than why do you need my approval, just be gay with a gun, you don't have to push it on me, I don/t run around wanting their approval that I am hetero!

In the last 20 years or so, the Homosexual community has organized and well for that matter, a movement to win public opinion by a campaign of desensitizing the populous by renaming their gay life style choice as gay rights/civil right!.
It's not civil it's not right! Civil rights are for everyone, believe it or not Homosexuals have all the same rights as I. Just because they get picked on because of their behavior does not mean they are not afforded the right to speech, religion, and guns. This desensitizing uses words like tolerant, diversity, open mindedness, consenting adults, and gay instead of queer, basically a kill them with kindness attitude.

The problem with this whole desensitizing is what we have today, and that is intolerance of a person who disagrees with this behavior. Now I understand he was quite crass about his way of doing it but, offended or not that is my problem, but I do have the same right to openly disagree, as they think they have a right to openly exhibit their life style. To be criticized for that by being called intolerant is the Hipocracy of this whole debate of free society. You are criticized by both Gays as "closed minded", and criticized by the appeasers as "intolerant" if you even hint that you disagree with the gay life style... which by the way is a life style same as drug users, and gang bangers...It's wrong in every way. I don't see society accepting of these people snorting coke in the city streets or gangs fighting other gangs, I mean after all their all consenting adults.
While I like to think we live in a free society (diverse) freedom is not free, with it come responsibility, and respect toward others rights, and opinions. In private what you do is your business, but in public, we as a civil society lay down standards, and values...I don't care if your hetero, or homo, if I am in a park with my child I don't particularly want my kid to see two teens groping and sucking face, let alone two homosexuals.
As far as morals go I do have a problem with this behavior, it all boils down to right & wrong. If your definition of a free society boils down to tolerance of everything than this is when civil societies break down, then all behavior can be accepted. For instance if two consenting adult (males) having sex can be acceptable, then you have to accept two consenting adults (father & daughter). as acceptable behavior. I don't think any one will agree that is diversity! but maybe in another twenty years..., the way we are going who knows?


I know we need as many people on our side as possible, but I am not selling my morals down river to gain support for something that I already have!

Remember your rights were granted by God, and guarantee by George

I apologize if I offended anyone :what:, with my bad English, & writing skills. I admit I am no writer, but I do love to write, that's all that matters right?

imported post

I don't know this guy Cramer at all, nor have I been following his "case," but if heis anti-gay, I have no problem with that whatsoever. I'm anti-gay, too. 100% against.

To hell with the perverts and the liberal "embrace diversity" crap.

-- John D.

P.S. This post is just "for the record" as I suspect most everyone here is pro-gay. Consequently,there is no point in "debating" the issue as it would be futile...I just wanted to post a lone contrary "anti" opinion in a sea of "pros." And I sure won't join in bashing Cramer for any anti-gay statements he made. In fact, he probablydidn't go far enough.

imported post

cloudcroft wrote:

I don't know this guy Cramer at all, nor have I been following his "case," but if heis anti-gay, I have no problem with that whatsoever. I'm anti-gay, too. 100% against.

To hell with the perverts and the liberal "embrace diversity" crap.

-- John D.

P.S. This post is just "for the record" as I suspect most everyone here is pro-gay. Consequently,there is no point in "debating" the issue as it would be futile...I just wanted to post a lone contrary "anti" opinion in a sea of "pros." And I sure won't join in bashing Cramer for any anti-gay statements he made. In fact, he probablydidn't go far enough.

Click to expand...

Not a matter of pro- or anti-gay. It's a matter of pro-law-abiding people vs anti-law-abiding people. Do law-abiding gays harm you, or anyone? Do law-abiding gun owners harm you, or anyone? No to both gays and gun owners? Why should those who are not harming anyone be persecuted to death?

Maybe it's just an odd case of self-hate. Self-hate of the law-abiding person.

imported post

Some conservatives, that are conservative of memories, may remember sodomy and homosexuality as sinful and illegal.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Some conservatives, that are conservative of memories, may remember sodomy and homosexuality as sinful and illegal.

Click to expand...

Some liberals might say the same about self-defense. But they've both been around forever.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman, +1.

I was born before Pearl Harbor was attacked, so I have some pretty good memories of "the way things used to be." My parents both came from very small rural towns, andone of my earliest memories is of one of my uncles there carrying openly.

I remember an American History class in Jr. High School where we studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and we were actually taught that the 2nd Amendment meant we (grownups, not us young kids) had the right to have guns. In the intervening 57 years, nothing has made me change my opinion.

Back then (you're right), certain behavior was considered sinful and illegal. Through the years the illegality aspect has changed. But (yes, I'll use the "D" word) my disgust for it has not changed. I have had a couple offairly close acquaintances over the years who were homosexual, and I surely did not bash them.Nor do Icondone bashing people having that lifestyle. But I may choose to keep as aloof from them as circumstances permit.

I think Cramer made a mistaketyingpeople openly flaunting their homosexuality to those who carry openly. To me, arming myselfis a God-given right. The other behavior is not.

Conservative85 & Cloudcroft, +1