FA+
Shop
My take on banning the gun guy from AC...
15 years ago
I feel the urge to add my own $0.02
OK for those of you that don't already know. Uncle Kage recently banned a fur from his convention because he is one of those people that insists on having a firearm on himself (open carry) at all times. He was even arrested numerous times for brandishing said weapon, though no charges have ever stuck...he never actually broke the law it seems. This as well as some of the comments he and his buddies have made resulted in him being banned from AC. Now most of the pro gun furs have (sadly) sided with this guy and are crying foul at Kage. Most of them claiming that Kage is trying to push his political views on other people! The most commen battle cry is that he is banning someone "For doing something that is perfectly legal and his constitutional right!"
Ok, now its the rat man's turn...
If I ask you NOT bring bubble gum to my convention....and you brag about how you had some at the last convention you attended...and how you intend to keep bringing bubble gum to the conventions you attend....and you talk about how your going to bring some to my convention...and you post this were me and a lot of the other convention goes will see it....
Simply put this isnt about guns..its about commen sence and lack of respect.
It goes back to what 2 griffon was saying, if you do things that piss off the people in charge of an event...your gonna get banned from the event. The pro gun people are just a bit...trigger happy when it comes to gun rights. Its sad that they CAN'T figure this one out, it only adds fuel to the idea that gun nuts are nutters that love guns. Your rights and freedoms suffer far more damage from the abusers then they do from the detractors..
Seriously gun lovers (if any are still reading at this point) what in the world makes you think that walking around strapped all the time is going to get the fence sitters to side with you on the issue?? What in the world makes you think that attending the local town hall meeting with a rifle slung over your shoulder is going to make people think that your a responsible gun owner?
Just for context, I myself am a gun owner. I own a small collection of pistols, most of them antique black powder but a few modern ones as well. It is for this reason that I wish that the pro gun rights people....would shy away from the idiots that are listed above. Its the same logic that makes me want to see PETA go away...because I love animals. Same reason I want to see soulforce go away...because I'm pro gay rights..etc...etc...etc...
Think about it.
Oh and for trivia if Kage WAS just banning any fur that is a gun lover as some of the gunner furs have claimed....well.....I can think of atleast one or TWO that are gun lovers that don't seem to bother him too much.
I'm terriable I know.
OK for those of you that don't already know. Uncle Kage recently banned a fur from his convention because he is one of those people that insists on having a firearm on himself (open carry) at all times. He was even arrested numerous times for brandishing said weapon, though no charges have ever stuck...he never actually broke the law it seems. This as well as some of the comments he and his buddies have made resulted in him being banned from AC. Now most of the pro gun furs have (sadly) sided with this guy and are crying foul at Kage. Most of them claiming that Kage is trying to push his political views on other people! The most commen battle cry is that he is banning someone "For doing something that is perfectly legal and his constitutional right!"
Ok, now its the rat man's turn...
If I ask you NOT bring bubble gum to my convention....and you brag about how you had some at the last convention you attended...and how you intend to keep bringing bubble gum to the conventions you attend....and you talk about how your going to bring some to my convention...and you post this were me and a lot of the other convention goes will see it....
Simply put this isnt about guns..its about commen sence and lack of respect.
It goes back to what 2 griffon was saying, if you do things that piss off the people in charge of an event...your gonna get banned from the event. The pro gun people are just a bit...trigger happy when it comes to gun rights. Its sad that they CAN'T figure this one out, it only adds fuel to the idea that gun nuts are nutters that love guns. Your rights and freedoms suffer far more damage from the abusers then they do from the detractors..
Seriously gun lovers (if any are still reading at this point) what in the world makes you think that walking around strapped all the time is going to get the fence sitters to side with you on the issue?? What in the world makes you think that attending the local town hall meeting with a rifle slung over your shoulder is going to make people think that your a responsible gun owner?
Just for context, I myself am a gun owner. I own a small collection of pistols, most of them antique black powder but a few modern ones as well. It is for this reason that I wish that the pro gun rights people....would shy away from the idiots that are listed above. Its the same logic that makes me want to see PETA go away...because I love animals. Same reason I want to see soulforce go away...because I'm pro gay rights..etc...etc...etc...
Think about it.
Oh and for trivia if Kage WAS just banning any fur that is a gun lover as some of the gunner furs have claimed....well.....I can think of atleast one or TWO that are gun lovers that don't seem to bother him too much.
I'm terriable I know.
Seriously, of all the things to get bent about??
We have our fists. In some cases, they are deadly weapons in their own right. Just because we are allowed to have a weapon shouldn't make us viewed as any more dangerous. Those who do are merely being afraid of 'what if' situations.
From what I recall in Texas...if a guy tries to rob a store owner at gunpoint, you can rest assured that at least eight of the twelve individuals who are shopping there will have their guns drawn and pointed at said person for doing it. It's not about whether you have a gun, it's what you use it for. The ability to destroy is always the first thing people see. They tend to forget that such things are used to protect as well.
As for the convention, and said banning: You want to bring a gun to the convention? Sure, go ahead. But if you're going to do that, one must also be aware of the responsibility and maturity required when that gun is being displayed out in the open. One cannot simply brandish a weapon and then expect to be free of consequence.
It's like martial arts: The reason we are able to rise to each and every new rank, is because one is supposed to have gained the mental discipline to use the techniques that are given; the higher the rank, the more complex, and sometimes deadly techniques can be learned. Without the resolve, maturity, and the discipline gained, those techniques would easily be used for maligned purposes.
I could rant further, but To boil it down: I agree with you, Tip.
I love your corelation to martial arts, its a brilliant and very well thought out way to look at it.
Every individual most take into account their life experiences to judge for themselves. To follow the masses on an opinion foolhardy, and nothing more than adding another number the the "Herd mentality" of most opinions that give rise in such occasions.
Through knowledge, we gain insight. Through insight, wisdom. The ability to use "Common sense" Is something we all possess, but few realize the true worth of it. In a situation like this, the individual could have taken a better path. Instead, they chose to ignore the potential use of said "Common sense" and decided to instead do what they think would get them the most points with other people.
If we cannot, as individuals, establish a baseline for what is right and what is fundamentally wrong, then we have little hope of ever securing a future that would be free of misguided actions.
This kind of reminds me back when I was in Grade 3 in err.. 1980...something.. and some kid brought his dad's shotgun in for show and tell.. It sounds similar to me..
"Look I'm a fur! I have a gun! Cool, huh?" - In both situations the situation was handled well.. the gun-nut fur was kicked out, the show and tell kid who brought his dad's shotgun into class was suspended and his shotgun confiscated...
And to make matters worse.. the shotgun he brought was loaded.. lol
What parent in the world leaves a loaded shotgun were a 3rd grader can get his paws on it?!?!?
Needless to say my hometown is very... err... small.. and redneck-y..
Its kinda why I can't wait to move to Toronto XD
Fact of the matter is he still can wear his gun outside of the con spaces as an open carry. But again I don't see how this is going to help ANY of his causes. Also if he is in a suit I think he might be bending the law to the point of breaking it. Think about it...a person with a loaded gun and a costume on were you can't see his face??? Maybe thats not against the law, but it should be.
The person in quesion has shown time and time again that he doesnt understand were its OK to carry a weapon. Both in terms of commen sence as well as rules of the convention. MAYBE if he had asked Kage beforehand about the weapon AND he didn't have arrests I can see the ban as being a bit harsh. But thats not how it happened.
It only adds more weight to the fact that this person doesnt have a grasp of what ISNT a good idea.
btw, I currently have two rifles, and a pump action 12 gauge shotgun, so anyone that thinks that I'm anti-firearms can sit on their fists and rotate for all I care. I'm pro-gun rights, but anti-stupidity.
Your awsome man, its great to see another person is with me on this one.
1. It freaks people the fuck out, because they think you might go bat-shit crazy and start shooting!
2. It gives the rest of us a bad rap, for the reason stated above.
Think of it like a penis. I love my penis, but I'm not about to whip it out in public for shits 'n giggles. There is a time and place for everything, and whipping it out in public for the hell of it doesn't qualify for either.
And thats not just gun rights ethier.
I think your penis example was better then my bubble gum one.
Even with a safety there is chance someone with bad intentions could take it right off his belt.
I guess thats the one upshot of all this. Lots of the people that are siding with this fur...have decided NOT to go to AC as some sort of protest.
Sheesh if thats all it takes to weed out (some) the nutters...we should have banned this years ago!
There is mad hatter crazy...
There is Charles Manson Crazy..
I'm part of the former
If you are brandishing a firearm in public view, be that in the general public or a crowded venue (in this case, a convention) then it could be considered a threat to peoples safety. Uncle Kage was most likely taking this situation seriously because we already have enough people out there who want furries dead (eg = 4CHAN and their whole "yiff in hell fur***s" slogan). Nothing could be worse then some headline "furry hater kills furries at convention" in the media which would defiantly cause all kinds of problems, maybe even permanent closure of convention.
Again I don't have to get into gun rights or personal saftey to find plenty of reasons to kick this clown.
I Flip Shit :3
Seriously, I do archery (not as scary, but still) and I would NEVER bring my compound hunting bow and a quiver full of arrows to a con. Hell you cant even do that at the PA Renaissance faire anymore! Also as a cosplayer, you can take bows, but if you string anything up and it looks like you can fire it, your thrown out. Fake guns must have the orange plastic 'toy' tip (nerf guns are often modded to look like real guns for cosplay) and be unable to fire even soft foam nerf projectiles. Now if they have these rules in places (aka, all anime/game cons) for toy guns, why the hell would they let a REAL gun into anthrocon?
Think people, just think about it. It would cause nothing but panic. Guns do NOT belong at cons.
If you are a pro gun person...why do you wanna buddy up to this guy?
I'm 100% with Kage on this one as well.
My cell phone went off as I was walking into his show....
I don't agree with all of his opinions but this choice is one that he has my full support.
I don't have a problem with no weapons at CONS.. Seriously, what that guy did was stupid and he'd better be glad WWE wasn't in town because I heard on Knotcast they were just coming into the hotel as it was wrapping up one year and one of the guest was Big Show.
If I was a gun toting loud mouth I would gladly not bring my weapon to ANY CON after seeing Big Show in a bad mood
A lot of people in America I find, tend to misinterpret what a Constitution is, what it is intended for and its scope. A constitution is merely a living instrument that defines the relationship between the government and the citizens of a country. Put simply, it limits the powers of the government. It is not something you can flash in a private citizen's or private body's face ifthey don't conform to what you want.
The Constitution in its purest form is not intended to apply between private citizens. However it is for that reason why there was so much racial, religious, gender and sexual discrimination in America in the 60's and 70's.
America has answered that problem (much of it at least) by enacting anti-discrimination legislature for many institutions like schools, businesses and other places which are wide enough to be deemed "public". In regards to all Constitutions, the language of the Constitution falls to be construed not in a narrow and legalistic way but broadly and purposively so as to give effect to its spirirt. However, this doesn't apply to all things like furry conventions, the Boy Scouts or certain clubs.
Upon a construction of the facts, Kage's convention is not broad enough to be deemed "public" and so he can technically call the shots, especially if its regarding something as hazardous as a firearm. If that fur stills wants to brandish a fiearm, he has every right to form his own convention.
However, if the said fur wishes to sue for breach of his constitutional rights, he may fail because of what I outlined above. But, there is a very slight chance he could get damages against Kage for distress and humiliation.
In the event that the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the anti-discrimination legislature (which my country doesn't have) fails to cover a certain thing, the Courts have tended to interpret the word "public" as anything catering to the citizenry at large.
All in all, the American Courts would likely to follow the decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, where the Supreme Court has affirmed that as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards.
I dunno if you knew that or not but its true.
Thus its against the law of the land to allow them to discriminate against the people (athesits, gays) that they do.
Its not a matter of public over private..its a matter of the BSA wanting to have the benifits of both without the penalties of both. I have no idea why the courts ruled in favor of the scouts but hey....popular opnion doesnt mean right!
The Supreme Court in that case held that the lower court's decision unconstitutionally violated the rights of BSA, specifically the freedom of association, which allows a private organization to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." The court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message", and allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.
This case relied heavily on the earlier decision in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984). In that decision the Supreme Court said: "Consequently, we have long understood as implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." This right, the Roberts decision continues, is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas. Government actions that may unconstitutionally burden this freedom may take many forms, one of which is "intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association" like a "regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire." Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, "freedom of association ... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate."
It's perhaps the same reason why various religions haven't had their tax exempt status revoked for preaching against homosexuality. It would technically infringe their right to freedom of speech and association.
The Government usually has to strike a balance between the rights of minorities and the democratic rights of the majority.
Also, the Courts have to take into the consideration the kind of precedent the outcome would set for future claims. The majority probably feared that if they ruled in favour of Dale, then it would lead to a whole slew of cases that would bog down the Courts; like women and atheists suing the Freemasonry for not letting them join, disabled people suing organizations that offer certain activities like "walkabout" or rock climbing, or even people suing completely private organizations which receive no government funding (like some schools) because they refused to admit them.
As for the question as to whether or not the BSA would be considered "public" from receiving government funds, I think it would depend on just how much public funds they receive and how much the government does not want to interfere the internal character of BSA.
Simply put this isnt a balance its an absurd double standard.
As far as I'm concerned the Church's that are politically active should indeed loose there tax exempt status. Thats not infringing on there free speech...its called playing the game by the rules.
Its simple the BSA (or anyone else) should not be allowed to pull the "privae club!!" card when they want to exclude people...and then claim to be public when they want money.
Just curious..
It is a former British colony having gained Independence on November 30th, 1966.
Barbados also played an unseen, but important part in the founding and development of America.
Personally, if it were up to me (me being the President of the United States) I would make a list of organisations like that that discriminate on the grounds on sexual orientation, and revoke their tax-exempt status and public funding. I'd isolate them like how the international community isolated Ian Smith after he established the apartheid state of Rhodesia.
Carrying a gun will not make you any safer than a fucking knife.
Knowing how to diffuse a situation is far more valuable in any confrontation.
And yes, lack of respect is something that will get your ass handed to you by another person faster than anything else.
Dumbasses.
I mean seriously when was the last time I SIDED with the good ol' boys??