Republicans Acknowledge the Undeniable Appeal of Gays with Guns

Clearly, the endtimes are upon us. Republican Sens. Tom Coburn (Okla.) and John Thune (S.D.) are offering eyeing the possibility of proposing* friendly amendments to the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

It's a peculiarly Republican way of playing nice, to be sure: Coburn and Thune are proposing the addition of an amendment promoting interstate concealed carry. From the Democratic perspective, it's sort of like when your cat brings you a dead mouse. Sure, you're grossed out, but maybe the cat meant it as a gesture of friendship—or at least an acknowledgement of your superior position in the pack (pride?).

From Reason's own Dave Weigel, in today's Washington Independent:

"Self-defense with a firearm is a valid and viable method of self-defense and protection," said Gwen Patton, a spokesperson for Pink Pistols. "Imagine that individuals follow you from a place known in the neighborhood as a GLBT gathering place. They follow you to your car, and when you try to open the door, they hold out pipes and yell—'Hey, faggot!' You pull out a concealed weapon that you have a license to carry. They say, 'He's got a gun!' They drop their pipes and run away. No shots were fired, but a beating was just averted."

And a little political handicapping of the strange alliance:

Supporters of concealed carry reciprocity are confident that it would be passed as part of a hate crimes bill, and not become a poison pill that kills the entire package. "Every Republican senator is on the record with a position on hate crimes legislation," said GOProud's [Jimmy] LaSilvia. "If this were to be attached, a vote for the bill could be explained as a vote for concealed carry. Gosh—what would happen when the Family Research Council realized that their people were voting for the 'gay bill.' It would put a bunch of people in a really weird position. It would be fun to watch."

More on gays and Republicans here.

*no amendment has been formally proposed.

Comments

[Colin]

I always say that the best thing about being a libertarian is that you don't have to choose between gays and guns. You can have gays and guns. Or even better yet, gays with guns.

[Warty]

This never gets old

[phalkor]

I'm confused; do I have to be gay to have a concealed weapon? How do they prove you are gay? Will this lead to a rash of homo-on-hetero violence?

I just made myself scared.

[Geena]

Hate crimes laws don't accomplish jack. The only thing that will diminish gay-bashings is DEAD BASHERS.

[Elemenope]

More on gays and Republicans here.

Apropos of nothing, but when I first glanced at this line I read "More gays on Republicans here."

[Syd]

I don't think I can go along with this one. It's one thing if a state allows concealed carry, but it sounds like this would allow concealed carry against the laws of the state. Surely this should be decided on the state level, not the national.

[Dee]

"Imagine that individuals follow you from a place known in the neighborhood as a GLBT gathering place."

Well under the current law you would be SOL on having the gun with you since in all likelyhood the GLBT gathering place referenced is some gay bar. As such it is illegal for even a licensed CC permit holder to enter these establishments with their guns. Unless of course we will now be making special allowances for gays to be allowed to carry anyplace they darn well please, that would be Fabulous!!!

[..]

Hate crimes laws don't accomplish jack. The only thing that will diminish gay-bashings is DEAD BASHERS.

Hate the bashers! They're an unprotected class!

[Abdul]

Anti-Gun-Control is one thing that polls very well for republicans at this time. Hence, they attached the US Parks Concealed carry amendment to the Credit Card "Reform" bill. But there's a danger that this going to be in every friggin' bill from now on.

The 2009 Government Take-over of Chrysler Act with a rider to require concealed carry holsters in every K-car.

The 2010 Telecommunciations Act, with rider to allow concealed carry everywhere cell phones are permitted.

Etc.

[John]

If I were gay I would value my safety and the right to carrry a weapon more than I would the right to marry. Good for them. I hope they all carry guns. The world will be a better place for it. And if they should happen to smoke some drunken fratboy looking to do some gay bashing, all the better.

[..]

Good for them. I hope they all carry guns.

I hope they all carry condoms.

[Jeff P]

Perhaps the gay gun-toting lifestyle will make dueling with pistols fashionable again.
Waistcoats, breeches, slapping someone with a glove, it's a perfect fit!

[Enough About Palin]

"It's one thing if a state allows concealed carry, but it sounds like this would allow concealed carry against the laws of the state. Surely this should be decided on the state level, not the national."

It's called enforcing the 2nd Ammendment from sea to shining sea.

[Kawliga]

The Trojan horse aspect is clear to see. But it's beyond perverse (pun intended) to splinter the 2nd amendment into special interest match sticks.
Oops. Forgot. That's how we do everything nowadays.

[ed]

Waistcoats, breeches, slapping someone with a glove

You neglected to mention assless chaps, Jeff.

[Scott]

Interstate concealed carry ... hmmm ... so if I'm a resident of Vermont, where anyone can carry a concealed weapon without a permit, does that mean I can drive down to NYC and go bar hopping in the West Village with a cute little Glock in my pocket and not suffer any consequences if the NYPD happens to find it on my person?

[R C Dean]

But there's a danger that this going to be in every friggin' bill from now on.

You say that like its a bad thing, Abdul.

Not sure, but I think this law has more to do with interstate validity of CCW licenses. If you license to operate a car is good in every state, why shouldn't your license to carry a gun? Cars are more dangerous, after all.

This topic always brings back fond memories of a gun show I went to in Minneapolis. It was the typical scene, but one of the tables was a Pink Pistols guy. Everyone was kind of edging past, but my buddy and I stopped to talk, and all of a sudden he had a crowd of people interested in what they were up to.

[Brandybuck]

Well under the current law you would be SOL on having the gun with you since in all likelyhood the GLBT gathering place referenced is some gay bar.

It's worse than that. In all likelihood the GLBT gathering place will be in some liberal city that will refuse to recognize conceal carry no matter what the SCOTUS says. Places like San Francisco, Berkeley and Washington D.C.

[HEART_2_THE_MAX]

My best friend is a gay male in a committed relationship. We are all in college and love to go to the nearby park to enjoy the weather on sunny days. I still remember an incident last year, there were about six of us at the park. We were on the swings and had decided to try the "spider" where one person sits on another's lap facing each other and you swing back and forth this way. We remembered doing it when we were younger and wanted to see if we still could. After I had tried this with my friend his boyfriend tried climbing on. After only swinging for about 15 seconds we were approached by a rough looking man whose breath smelled of alcohol. His words were "Hey, now I really don't have a problem with you guys [indicating my gay friends] but I just don't want my son to see two men doing things like that!" Not wanting to get into a fight we conceded and stopped, but were very hurt by his discrimination. He did not have a problem when I was the one swinging with my friend but as soon as it was two men...it was a problem. We wanted to handle the situation in a more assertive manner, however due to the circumstances of the confrontation we decided it was best to just let him be and head home. It was very disappointing that our day at the park was ruined by someone's naivete. I just hope that one day we will live in a world where sexual orientation is not an issue.

[Wade]

Gays with guns. Pink pistols. Homos with Heaters. I love it. The alliterative possibilities are endless.

[mediageek]

This is an excellent development.

[Enough About Palin]

"My best friend is a gay male in a committed relationship"

Fag hag.

Just kidding. I saw two gay males hugging and kissing in Atlanta's Piedmont Park (which I hear they fucked-up with a parking ramp, but I digress).

Anyway, I and my dog walked right up to them and said, "I don't mean to bug you (at which point they began to look nervous) but if more people were open like you two guys, this world would be a better place.

Then I kicked the shit out of them.*

* the last sentence is a lie ;-).

I would add that if everyone that indulges in the consumption of weed did so openly, the cops would have no choice but to say, it's outta our hands" Think The Quarter in NO during the Bayou Classic.

[Warty]

* the last sentence is a lie ;-).

What are you, some kind of fag?

[ChicagoTom]

If I were gay I would value my safety and the right to carrry a weapon more than I would the right to marry

Are gays denied the same right to own or carry guns that heterosexuals have ?

[neon]

information is very clear. good and understandable explanation. super-topics. Thank you for sharing a very nice web site.

[HEART_2_THE_MAX]

I agree with the openly smoking pot thing. I tell my friends all the time. You only draw attention if you act like you're doing something wrong.

So stop being such a sketchball and go for walk in the spark, smoking a jay, while holding hands with your gay lover, and packing heat.

I love this country.

[Wyatt]

Yeah. Let's arm 'em all! They can help clean up Dodge...starting with each other.

[Kawliga]

Really diggin' these "My best friend is gay..." stories. Snore.

[John Thacker]

But there's a danger that this going to be in every friggin' bill from now on.

I'm confused by your use of the world "danger."

[lukas]

[lukas]

Hell yeah?

[NeonCat]

My first thought was remembering a SNL sketch with John Larroquette, "Gay Communist Gun Club". They were gay, communists, and they loved guns. IIRC, the titles had John L and Phil Hartman walking in the woods, shotguns in the crooks of their arms, stopping to kiss?

Here is the link to the transcript. It's pretty funny, still.

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/88/88cgunclub.phtml

[R C Dean]

Are gays denied the same right to own or carry guns that heterosexuals have ?

The rights of gays to keep and bear arms are infringed to the same extent as the rights of any other citizen by the plethora of laws unconstitutionally infringing those rights.

Does that help?

[John]

"Are gays denied the same right to own or carry guns that heterosexuals have ?"

No. But in many major cities that have large gay populations, Chicago, San Fran, Washington, they are denied the right to carry a gun. More importantly, Dem politicians who claim to care about gays are the very ones denying them the right to defend themselves.

Dems say to gays "we will give you the right to marry (maybe sorta if it is not up to our President). But when some crazy drunk freak comes up to bash the shit out of you in the street, you just need to wait for the cops to get there. Don't worry though. We will have a big funeral for you and be sure to charge the guy with a hate crime."

[chimpy]

Don't worry though. We will have a big funeral for you and be sure to charge the guy with a hate crime

THATS THE SPIRIT!

[HeadTater]

I just hope that minority distinction is not the requirement for the right to carry. I, as a heterosexual white male, deserve the right to defend myself as well. Maybe I can play the Catholic card.

George Bush may hate black people. Well, Obama hates gay people (and just about any group that experiences violence and discrimination) because he wants to deny them the right to defend themselves from ignorant klan members. In fact, according to John Lott, the very people who benefit from concealed carry and less restrictive gun laws are minorities.

[Elemenope]

Well, it just goes to show that conservatives sell things to liberals stupidly. If it were effectively framed as "with a gun, women could kill their would-be rapist, and gays would not need to fear getting baseball batted to death" instead of the masturbatory "I'm a honkey and it's my right to own lots of guns...'cause!" they might actually change minds on the fence.

Know your audience.

[Rhywun]

if more people were open

Depends on how much shit one is willing to put up with. I've done the hand-holding thing many times in NYC without incident. In downtown Boston, on the other hand... my hand touched his accidentally and I swear not five seconds later a couple of club-swinging Southies came tooling by in their SUV to tell us what faggots we were. Man, that place is mean.

[Tony]

All I know is that if my boyfriend had kept his glock rather than selling it I'd probably be dead by now.

[Brandybuck]

I don't like to see two guys making out in a park. But I'm an equal opportunity bigot, as I don't like to see a hetero couple making out either. Keep your private stuff private.

Somehow when gays do it it's acceptable. Weird. If a guy and a gal are making out, you can tell them to "get a room" without being branded a hate freak. But say the exact same thing to a gay couple and you'll be sentenced to mandatory sensitivity training.

[Brandybuck]

p.s. I'm not talking about holding hands, I'm talking about licking the back of tonsils...

[NRA]

"I'm a honkey strawman and it's my right to own lots of guns...'cause!"

fixed

[Tony]

Brandybuck,

That one's easy. Miss Manners has ruled, and it's rude to express that level of affection in public, for anyone.

Holding hands is OK. When the day comes when gays can hold hands in the same public places straights can, I'll consider the problem solved.

[Enough About Palin]

"No. But in many major cities that have large gay populations, Chicago, San Fran, Washington, they are denied the right to carry a gun."

They can arm themselves in Minneapolis.

[Enough About Palin]

"Well, Obama hates gay people"

It's a Muslim thing. You wouldn't understand.

[Enough About Palin]

"All I know is that if my boyfriend had kept his glock rather than selling it I'd probably be dead by now."

So you're in an abusive relationship. That explains so many things now.

[Tony]

So you're in an abusive relationship. That explains so many things now.

I'm gay, of course I'm in an abusive relationship. Without the gun things are better though: I'm stronger and fitter.

[R C Dean]

All I know is that if my boyfriend had kept his glock rather than selling it I'd probably be dead by now.

Not if you had a Glock as well.

Or better taste in boyfriends.

Regardless, your lack of armament and common sense is no reason for restricting the rest of us to date as we wish, and arm ourselves accordingly. Nor will we libertarians restrict your right to date who you want, and take your chances.

Everybody wins!

[MNG]

"Cars are more dangerous, after all."

What you mean is that more people are killed in car related events than in gun related events. That's not the same thing as what you said. Of course, there are many reasons why that is so apart from the inherent dangerousness of the two items. Guns are designed to be a weapon, cars pretty rarely so.

"Are gays denied the same right to own or carry guns that heterosexuals have"

No, it just so happens that this measure is being attached to a gay rights bill. The two have pretty much nothing to do with each other, it's a cheap parlimentary trick which, if they keep it up, frankly is going to start to give the gun rights movement a bad name. Gun rights has the edge right now in popular support, but overreaching will blow that kind of thing every time...Ask the Democratic Party (or any Party that wins power)

[MNG]

"All I know is that if my boyfriend had kept his glock rather than selling it I'd probably be dead by now.

Not if you had a Glock as well."

If his ex is a better shot than him, or simply got the drop on him?

[MNG]

"Somehow when gays do it it's acceptable.?"

Brandybuck, just out of curiosity, what color is the grass on the planet on which you live?

[John Thacker]

No, it just so happens that this measure is being attached to a gay rights bill.

Actually, MNG, I can certainly imagine that in states where the local sheriff has the right to deny carry permits without explaining his reasons, that gays might have their rights restricted compared to "shall issue" states. Or do you have no fear that a rural sheriff might treat gays (and blacks) differently? We know that in NYC it's always the rich and famous that can get gun permits.

[Tony]

You know, surprisingly I don't even know any lesbians who own or care about guns. This is really a non-issue in our community. Guns are things that kill people like us, not protect us.

[bigbigslacker]

All I know is that if my boyfriend had kept his glock rather than selling it I'd probably be dead by now.

I'm not seeing a problem there 🙂

Holding hands is OK. When the day comes when gays can hold hands in the same public places straights can, I'll consider the problem solved.

What's the problem again?

Just hackin on ya Tony (one of my favorite Unforgiven lines)

[Syd]

R C Dean | June 9, 2009, 5:43pm | #
All I know is that if my boyfriend had kept his glock rather than selling it I'd probably be dead by now.

Not if you had a Glock as well.

Then you could both be dead.

[ChicagoTom]

Dem politicians who claim to care about gays are the very ones denying them the right to defend themselves.

This is a very interesting line of attack.

I suppose one could also say that poor people, who Dems pretend to care about, also are being denied that right.

One could also say that minorities, who dems supposedly are concerned with, are being denied the right ....

But then one would be pretty disingenuous since the Dems believe (rightly or wrongly) that as a whole, the availability of guns creates a higher risk to all people, even after you factor in the ability to defend ones self.

And again..this isn't a gay issue. This is a gun rights issue. To pretend like gun rights should be more imporatnt that marriage rights in the gay community is pretty stupid. Gays aren't being denied any rights that EVERYONE ELSE IS ALSO being denied when it comes to guns. They are when it comes to marriage.

So maybe, in the struggle for equality, not being able to have your family recognized is a much bigger issue than whether or not you are forbidden from carrying a gun JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

[hmm]

always say that the best thing about being a libertarian is that you don't have to choose between gays and guns. You can have gays and guns. Or even better yet, gays with guns.

Or even better yet you can have stoned gays with guns. Hopefully not all at the same time, well at least the stoned and gun part.

[hmm]

The other group of people that should be armed 24/7 are anyone not white living in a low income area. A group of people ripe for abuse from just about everyone and nothing solves potential abuse like something designed by John Moses Browning. The white folks should have guns too. Ah hell everyone who wants to should be packin.

[MNG]

JT
What does this amendment call for? It doesn't sound like it allows citizen x of conceal carry state a to conceal carry his gun in non-conceal carry states. If that is so (and I could be wrong, I welcome anyone who knows wtf this bill calls for to make it clear to me), then I'm not sure your scenario makes sense...

[MNG]

Uhh, can I mention that whatever this bill calls for it would apply to gay bashers as well as gays? So it's about 99% retarded to attach this to this particular bill...

[Tony]

MNG,

My senator Tom Coburn is at least 99% retarded.

[MNG]

Coburn is one of the dumbest men in public life I've ever seen, and that is saying something. His debates with Carson are funnier than Incredibad. The OK City lesbian school girls stuff was probably the best, but the general level of stupid manifested itself in so many ways...In any other state Carson would have won with about 70% of the vote.

[Kawliga]

Arm gay males with 16" Buntline Specials. Colt can introduce a new 16" *untline Special for the lesbos to pack. Multi purpose firearms!

[MNG]

"It's a peculiarly Republican way of playing nice, to be sure: Coburn and Thune are proposing the addition of an amendment promoting interstate concealed carry. From the Democratic perspective, it's sort of like when your cat brings you a dead mouse."

Except it's not like that at all. The reason why the cat brings you the mouse is it likes you and wants it to have something good, the reason why this rider is being attached is because the proponents feel the bill will pass whether they oppose it or not and they are trying to get something that they like out of it.

[MNG]

Guns are a tough issue. I grew up in a hunting and sports shooting family, and I've always owned a gun for home protection. I've never been in a situation in which I felt I needed one, and like most gun owners, I've never used one in an anti-social way.

So I tend to think, what right does a person have to tell me I can't have the gun I own? Because I "might" do something wrong with it? WTF is that?

On the other hand, I understand that more armed people will likely lead to more people killed by gun-related events. It's just common sense that more people having guns, handling them, cleaning them, etc., will result in more accidental gun related injuries and deaths. And there are of course a certain % of the population who are stupid, mean and/or negligent. The more people that own firearms the higher the number of such people will fall into that group, and again you will get more gun-related deaths.

So it's a tough one, but I've never been able to get over that hurdle that the vast majority of gun owners derive positive things from them and will never do anything negative with them...I'm not sure that this creates a welfare gain that makes up for the certainly highe death/injury rate that comes with this, but this is one of those areas I guess my utilitarianism is less than perfect...

[The Angry Optimist]

It's such a "non-issue" in Tony's "community" (for which he is sole spokesman), that the Pink Pistols don't even exist!

Oh, wait...

[wingnutx]

If it were effectively framed as "with a gun, women could kill their would-be rapist, and gays would not need to fear getting baseball batted to death"

Oleg Volk is doing a good job of that.

[John]

"And again..this isn't a gay issue. This is a gun rights issue. To pretend like gun rights should be more imporatnt that marriage rights in the gay community is pretty stupid. Gays aren't being denied any rights that EVERYONE ELSE IS ALSO being denied when it comes to guns. They are when it comes to marriage."

But you miss the point as usual. They need the guns more than the average person. I can go out for a night on the town with my wife and not have to worry about some violent group of homos beating me up. If I were, gay I would have to worry about some violent group of straights beating me up.

By your logic cancer patients would have no civil rights issue if the government banned chemo therapy. After all, everyone is denied the treatment equally right?

I didn't point this out above because I thought it was self evident. Come on you can't that stupid? Wake up!

[wingnutx]

"All I know is that if my boyfriend had kept his glock rather than selling it I'd probably be dead by now."

He sold all his pointy sticks and blunt objects, too?

[Brandybuck]

Brandybuck, just out of curiosity, what color is the grass on the planet on which you live?

It's green last I checked. I'm in the California Bay Area, so you are right in implying that my "planet" exists outside of reality.

[The Angry Optimist]

To pretend like gun rights should be more imporatnt that marriage rights in the gay community is pretty stupid. Gays aren't being denied any rights that EVERYONE ELSE IS ALSO being denied when it comes to guns.

Not to repeat this tired talking point, but gays aren't being denied marriage rights as they exist. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like straights do.

[Abdul]

R C Dean

Sorry for the late response, but I think the GOP's publicist is pushing this more than their heart and soul. That said, as the owner of CCP's in two states, bring it on. I'm really quite glad that the Democrats acknowledge this issue as loser for them, and many "Blue dog democrats" hate gun control as much as the next republican.

[wingnutx]

I'd love to get more gays to adopt the RKBA as an important issue, just help to deflate the crude stereotype of gun owners as homicidal, fundie rednecks. (I do have gay friends who shoot, but they are also pretty far from their respective stereotype)

Make RKBA cool with the gay community and you'll make it cool with a large swatch of the public that take their cues from them.

[Kawliga]

ChicagoTom:
And again..this isn't a gay issue. This is a gun rights issue.

You're damn right It's a second amendment issue.

Wingnutz: The NRA, SAF, & CCRKBA all happily admit gays, too. They can hunt, join gun clubs and purchase firearms like all law biding citizens. It's about GUNS not SEXUAL Preference.

[wingnutx]

The NRA, SAF, & CCRKBA all happily admit gays, too. They can hunt, join gun clubs and purchase firearms like all law biding citizens. It's about GUNS not SEXUAL Preference.

No wai.

[Tulpa]

They follow you to your car, and when you try to open the door, they hold out pipes and yell - 'Hey, faggot!' You pull out a concealed weapon that you have a license to carry.

You probably don't have a license to brandish it because someone calls you a faggot, though. That's massively against the law (unless in an open-carry state, I suppose). I understand Weigal's point, but it looks like his critical thinking skills are at about the same level as they were when he was here.

[The Angry Optimist]

If they're brandishing pipes, Tulpa, you do. Unless they're the other kind of "pipes"...

[MNG]

"but gays aren't being denied marriage rights as they exist"

Just like interracial couples weren't being denied marriage rights as they existed in Virginia and other states prior to Loving. Blacks were free to marry someone of the same race, just like whites were.

But we've been through this before...

[MNG]

"They need the guns more than the average person."

But not more than someone who would like to quickly kill a gay person.

The GOP's attempt to wed these two things is absurd, just admit it. It would enlarge the gun rights of the gay basher along with the gay victim, and guns can be used to kill both in self defense and in cold blooded murder.

[Elemenope]

"I'm a honkey strawman and it's my right to own lots of guns...'cause!"

fixed

Uh, no. The main thrust of Gun rights campaigning since time immemorial has been redneck pride, American as apple pie, I like me my guns in all shapes and sizes, and liberals are evil gun-grabbers just because they're evil. The "oh, BTW, gays and women and blacks could defend themselves against dickheads" has at best been a sideline throw-a-wrench-to-make-liberals-squirm argument, almost always in bad faith (since it was often the same people who were busy oppressing gays, blacks, and women).

I'm saying if they actually cared about convincing liberals; i.e. the people they actually have to convince (since conservatives already agree with them), they would reverse the emphasis of their arguments. The bumper stickers would be less the snide "gun control means using both hands" and more the playing-into-liberal-categories "don't be a victim anymore".

Are you in it to win, or in it "to be proud of your beliefs" and revel in your being oppressed? Me, I think if you care about gun rights, you should be in it to win, to convince the other side, not preach to the people who you've already won over.

[MNG]

"The "oh, BTW, gays and women and blacks could defend themselves against dickheads" has at best been a sideline throw-a-wrench-to-make-liberals-squirm argument, almost always in bad faith (since it was often the same people who were busy oppressing gays, blacks, and women)."

LMNOP, you have been on your game lately! Delightful...

[kwais]

Well, it just goes to show that conservatives sell things to liberals stupidly.

Amen to that.

Also Amen to Rhywun, pot is illegal and there is an income tax because the masses are terrorized by what the government does to the few that do dare to oppose the system.

By nature we are selfish.

[The Angry Optimist]

MNG - I'm aware of that, but you should realize that the argument I put forth about marriage rights and the argument the ChiTom put forth about gun rights are the same: kind of revealing about where the person may be coming from, but philosophically empty propositions.

I mean, John has a point: you can say that if we banned birth control, well, then no one would have access to birth control. But it would more adversely affect women rather than men, wouldn't it?

So, proclaiming vacuous statements like "well, it's not denying anybody rights especially" is a futile exercise, because generally that's what laws do.

[Tulpa]

If they're brandishing pipes, Tulpa, you do. Unless they're the other kind of "pipes"...

Oh...I get it. I didn't get the "hold out pipes" phrase.

The main thrust of Gun rights campaigning since time immemorial has been redneck pride, American as apple pie, I like me my guns in all shapes and sizes, and liberals are evil gun-grabbers just because they're evil.

That's an innovative response to a strawman accusation -- pile on more straw!

[Tulpa]

Elemenope, you need to talk to the folks on your side who call anyone who opposes abortion being legal "anti-choice" and anyone who opposes gay marriage "homophobic". They need some of your delightful strategy coaching.

[Elemenope]

That's an innovative response to a strawman accusation -- pile on more straw!

It's not straw if it's true. When's the last time you saw a bumper sticker which said "don't be a gay-bashing victim; buy a gun!" or some variation thereof? Most of the on-the-ground Kulturkampf on guns is at the level of the use-both-hands and "look, the 2nd amendment, bitches!" level of argumentation, which convinces precisely no one.

Look, I know this pains alot of people, but when you are arguing with someone who does not agree with you about the existence/necessity of a certain right, often the only way to persuade is through consequentialist arguments. Show them the baneful consequences of denying the right, sure, but more persuasive is showing the positive social bonuses to recognizing and enforcing the right. Associate it with something that *they* already care about, like minority rights or rape prevention.

[MNG]

I dunno TAO, his point that since any restrictions on gun rights a gay person experiences is applied equally to a non-gay person but the same is not true for gays, and therefore the latter would be a more important issue to a gay person seems pretty straightforward and correct to me.

[Elemenope]

Tulpa, Abortion is a much, MUCH more difficult issue because the procedure at issue is considered by one group a right and by the other group murder. There is nearly no room for common ground, and no way to launch a consequentialist defense of abortion that would convince someone who believes it is murder that it is OK provisionally.

But you already know that, I hope.

[The Angry Optimist]

again, it's a matter of framing. As John said, it might be the case that gays need guns more, just like gays need gay marriage more.

Right now, marriage is applied equally to gays and straights, isn't it? So too with gun laws: any restrictions on marriage/guns applies equally across the board.

[MNG]

LMNOP
I think extreme pro-gun control folks use just such backfiring hyperbole, it's just that there are less extreme gun control people than there are extreme gun rights people. Gun control draws its strength usually from the fact that usually what the gun rights side is pushing for strikes people in the middle is extreme. But extreme gun control folks are no more willing to honestly try (or I sometimes think know how) to appeal to people who think differently...

[MNG]

"Right now, marriage is applied equally to gays and straights, isn't it? So too with gun laws: any restrictions on marriage/guns applies equally across the board."

I guess this is why you think a law prohibits both the poor and the rich "equally" from sleeping under bridges is a fair one...

[MNG]

To a gay person being able to marry someone of the opposite sex is virtually worthless, while to a straight person is the point of the whole thing.

Just like the prohibition on sleeping under bridges is no prob for the rich, but presents problems for the poor. But they apply "equally", kapiche?

But I imagine this would be a problem somewhat inherent in libertarian thought...

[The Angry Optimist]

It's "capisce" and I capisce just fine, thanks so much.

you may think it's a "bug" not a "feature" to advocate that laws apply equally to everybody, but I do not.

[zoltan]

Laws should not apply equally to everybody?

[The Angry Optimist]

well, hell, by that logic, any laws regarding boating can go out the window, because they disproportionately affect the wealthy.

[zoltan]

Apply, not affect.

[Tulpa]

Tulpa, Abortion is a much, MUCH more difficult issue because the procedure at issue is considered by one group a right and by the other group murder.

...and gun ownership is seen by one side as a right while the other side claims guns kill people. But I'm sure you'll come up with a rebuttal that shows liberals, unlike conservatives, are entirely justified when they insult the other side in the course of making their political statements.

[MNG]

Imagine two laws being passed:
1. No one can marry a white person.
2. No one can carry a firearm concealed.

Now, the first law applies equally, right? I (white guy) can't marry a white person, but neither can Kobe Bryant.

And me and Kobe are not allowed to carry a concealed weapon.

Now what kind of a fool would I be if repeal ofthe second were more important to me than the first?

"well, hell, by that logic, any laws regarding boating can go out the window, because they disproportionately affect the wealthy."

Like I said, you're probably not going to get it. A law banning boats would hurt the wealthy more than the poor just like a law banning sleeping under bridges would hit the poor more than the rich, but in the former case one group, advantaged, loses an advantage, while in the othe one group, disadvantaged, is further disadvantaged. Worse, a person needs shelter way more than a person needs a boat.

[kwais]

"Are gays denied the same right to own or carry guns that heterosexuals have"

I maintain that they are. And that so are blacks.

I maintain that drug laws and gun laws are by their nature discriminatory.

That they destroy the lives of minorities.
Gun laws remove the right to self defense, the laws enable increased crime which increases the powers of a police force usually not of the neighborhood that is the one being policed.

The result is the that the civilians are victimized by both the criminals and the police. Much like civilians in a war zone.

Probably not as big a problem with gays, because they can for a while pretend to not be gay. And they are usually from more affluent areas. Still, if there is discrimination of them by the public, there will be discrimination of them by a government that can.

And they like all members of a group that is potentially hated has a greater need for firearms.

[chimpy]

All I know is that if my boyfriend had kept his glock rather than selling it I'd probably be dead by now.

ROFFLES! TASTY ROFFLES!

why do you associated with abusive violent types? do you like the abuse? is that why you're here?

AW, ROFFLES

[MNG]

Actually, zoltan has hit much more eloquently than I. Marriage laws equally apply to gay and straight, but they sure don't equally affect both. Gun laws equally apply and affect gays and straights.

A law banning sleeping under bridges would apply equally to rich and poor but only affect the latter, while a law banning boats would apply equally to rich and poor while only affecting the former. I'd be against both such laws, but more against the first as shelter is much more fundamental to a poor person than a boat is to a rich one.

[Tulpa]

As far as bumper stickers go, you're misunderstanding the purpose of the things. No one with an IQ above room temperature in Celsius is going to be convinced to change sides by a bumper sticker. The things are there to identify you to others who agree with you.

Personally, I view them as idiot indicators, but that's just me.

[Tulpa]

Now what kind of a fool would I be if repeal ofthe second were more important to me than the first?

If you'd rather carry a concealed weapon than marry a white person, you wouldn't be a fool at all.

[MNG]

"And they like all members of a group that is potentially hated has a greater need for firearms."

But kwais, these laws don't put make it easier for the potentially hated group to be armed relative to the hating group. It would make the gay hater and the potential gay victim equally likely to better arm themselves, for murder or self defense, respectively, or the black hater and the potential black victim equally likely to better arm themselves.

[MNG]

Tulpa
I don't know what color you are, but are telling me that if your color alone were suddenly declared not able to marry you would care more about a ban on all colors carrying concealed weapons? Somehow I doubt that...

It's not just the value of marriage vs. the value of gun ownership, it's about being actively discriminated against.

[chimpy]

do more guns always equal more violence?

Maybe we need to accept that we can't and shouldn't ban guns but instead have legalized dueling.

[Elemenope]

I think extreme pro-gun control folks use just such backfiring hyperbole, it's just that there are less extreme gun control people than there are extreme gun rights people.

I agree about the first part (people on both sides advance chest-pounding idiotic arguments not calibrated to convince so much as tick off people not like them), but I am not so sure there are more gun-rights extremists than gun-control extremists. FWIW, I'm even having a hard time imagining what a gun-rights extremist would be like, practically speaking (they are for private nuclear arms?) My argument was more that the middle-of-the-road gun-rights people have adopted as a primary strategy arguments and methods that ought to be reserved to the retarded fringe, and that hurts the cause.

...and gun ownership is seen by one side as a right while the other side claims guns kill people.

I was giving you more credit than I ought. If you can't see the difference, particularly why one is an argument that can be overcome by appeal to consequences while the other is essentially intractable, then you're hopeless, and it was nice talking with you.

But I'm sure you'll come up with a rebuttal that shows liberals, unlike conservatives, are entirely justified when they insult the other side in the course of making their political statements.

As I said above to MNG, both sides appeal to their own side in argumentation and often do not aim to convince so much as puff themselves up. Liberals and conservatives, quite equally guilty, across many issues, in this way. My point only was that when it comes to guns, conservatives are the more readily idiotic in their actual approach. They fail to advance arguments that have a hope of convincing people who do not believe as they do, the only metric that matters in political arguments.

[MNG]

Now if a ban on all marrying white persons were passed along with a ban on white persons owning firearms, then you'd have a better point.

But me and TAO are talking about a ban that affects just gays in a fundamental area of life, and a ban that affects gays and non-gays equally in a fundamental way. To imagine that the latter would be seen as more egregious by a gay person is pretty incredible.

[MNG]

LMNOP
I think there is a bit of a difference.

Do you, or anyone, think extreme gun control proponents, are, well, mean-spirited? Not wrongheaded and naive, which I'd agree with readily, but mean people who enjoy seeing others harmed?

But if you got a bunch of extreme gun rights folks together you would get a fair amount (though probably not a majority) of mean, mean people. This is because guns are essentially weapons that destroy things. Unlike cars, which they are often compared to, they were originally and ultimately designed to be deadly weapons first and foremost (this is their value). Face it, a lot of people who are extreme about guns are so because they like shooting things (including living things) and seeing those things blow up and shatter. It's a bit more off-putting to the moderate than the person who would like to see every gun wiped out....

You ask what would an "extreme" pro-rights gun person look like...Well, I'll give you a story about that. My dad is not an intellectual, just an average hard working guy. His dad hunted and fished and so did he. He taught me how to fire various guns from an early age. He would have trouble wrapping his head around a gun control advocates calls for banning guns. But when Gov. Doug Wilder (I grew up in VA) pushed through a one-gun-a-month law in VA he thought opposition to that was crazy. Why in the world would you need to buy more than one gun a month? That's what I am talking about. Gun rights folks are pushing for carrying concealed weapons at colleges and churches while the biggest thing the other side is pushing are longer wait periods and gun show loopholes...There are more extreme voices on the gun rights side...

[chimpy]

MNG, what was the point of the argument? why does degree of offense matter? why can't gays marry and have concealed weapons? To argue that they are more interested in marrying than carrying weapons because straight couples can marry is kinda irrelevant.

republicans want to be thrown a bone with something so they push for this. I never thought people had to choose between a weapon license and going to their gay friend's wedding.

what a weird wild world

[kwais]

when you are arguing with someone who does not agree with you about the existence/necessity of a certain right, often the only way to persuade is through consequentialist arguments. Show them the baneful consequences of denying the right,

I suppose you are right at some point.

but we are also talking about a fundamental human right here. So, there is also validity in resisting when they come to take your arms, and changing the mind of those who advocate taking your rights by how expensive it is to them in terms of money and blood.

[MNG]

LMNOP
For clarification, what I was talking about is the person who sees the one-gun-a-month law as being some egregious wrong...For the record, I don't support the one-gun-a-month-law, but I recognize that it's pretty moderate stuff....

[MNG]

chimpy
I was responding to someone else. I think they should be able to do both. But I think not allowing gays to marry is a more fundamental violation of their rights than not allowing all of us to carry concealed firearms (I'm still not sure that's what this amendment does, does anyone know?)

kwais
I do think gun ownership is a fundamental right in the sense that for the vast majority of gun owners, they ain't hurting noone by exercising that right and for the most part things that don't bring some direct harm to others shoudl not be constrained (in an "On Liberty" way). Noone has a "right" to constrain your hobby that is not hurting anyone.

Other than that I think the only right to bear arms exists in that it is part of a fundamental right to defend yourself.

Combine these two and most gun control is defeated imo.

[The Angry Optimist]

in the former case one group, advantaged, loses an advantage, while in the othe one group, disadvantaged, is further disadvantaged. Worse, a person needs shelter way more than a person needs a boat.

is that how you think laws should be viewed? who gains "advantages" and "disadvantages"?

Hell, under a utilitarian calculus, I *could* canvass the neighborhood that's near the bridge, ask each person to tell me, on a level of 1-10, how much it upsets them to have vagabonds under bridges, combine their scores and determine that the law against bridge-sleeping has more utility than no law.

[kwias]

Imagine two laws being passed:
1. No one can marry a white person.
2. No one can carry a firearm concealed.

Now, the first law applies equally, right? I (white guy) can't marry a white person, but neither can Kobe Bryant.

EASY QUESTION;
The right to carry is way way more important than the ability to have the state sanction your relationship.

Hell,
3 No one can marry anyone

wouldn't be a big deal really. Far less important than the fundamental human right of self defense.

[Tulpa]

It's not just the value of marriage vs. the value of gun ownership, it's about being actively discriminated against.

Maybe I care more about being able to do the things I want to do rather than whether I'm allowed to do something I don't want to do. Either way, I don't think it's fair to call anyone who cares more about guns than marriage a fool.

[kwais]

kwais
I do think gun ownership is a fundamental right in the sense that for the vast majority of gun owners, they ain't hurting noone

MNG,

The fundamental human right of self defense is not "important to gun owners", it is a fundamental human right to *everyone*

Without it you are not a free human. You are in fact a slave.

You might be doing ok, and not feel like a slave, but really can you count on your overlords always being good?

I mean the Europeans have it good right? Has it always be good for them and will it always be? Specifically for unpopular minorities.

I mean I hate to godwin and all, but how could you not watch "Schindlers List" and not see the importance of the 2nd A?

[Tulpa]

If you can't see the difference, particularly why one is an argument that can be overcome by appeal to consequences while the other is essentially intractable, then you're hopeless, and it was nice talking with you.

Gun rights advocates have been putting forth consequentialist arguments for decades -- your earlier caricature of gun rights supporters notwithstanding -- yet the people on the gun control side persist in their positions. I think you're overestimating the degree to which people (on both sides, admittedly) are open to changing their position on this issue.

[Elemenope]

So, there is also validity in resisting when they come to take your arms, and changing the mind of those who advocate taking your rights by how expensive it is to them in terms of money and blood.

Absolutely. My point was a matter of emphasis. The first recourse for persuasion should not be arguments which, by dint of their nature, are inherently unpersuasive. To argue in a more effective manner does not undercut the execution and defense of the right in other contexts.

For clarification, what I was talking about is the person who sees the one-gun-a-month law as being some egregious wrong...For the record, I don't support the one-gun-a-month-law, but I recognize that it's pretty moderate stuff....

That would put me somewhere close to extreme, I guess. While I don't think the law is *egregiously* wrong, I would definitely argue it is wrong (i.e. not simply wrongheaded or naive, but actively harmful). What could restricting the quantity of arms being purchased per month actually accomplish? Does having five guns instead of two make it easier to engage in baleful gun-related activities? Or if it does in some odd way, are we to believe that people who would do bad things with guns are unfamiliar with the concept of patience?

To infringe on a right to no good purpose (while spending money on enforcement and actually butting into people's business) is wrong and should be rigorously opposed, and the extent of the wrong (its 'moderation', if you will) I don't think should much mitigate that response.

[Tulpa]

MNG, considering your patting Elemenope on the back at 7:57 for his/her very uncharitable characterization (some would even call it a strawman) of gun rights proponents, you're going to have a hard time convincing us that you're on our side.

[kwais]

But kwais, these laws don't put make it easier for the potentially hated group to be armed relative to the hating group. It would make the gay hater and the potential gay victim equally likely to better arm themselves, for murder or self defense, respectively, or the black hater and the potential black victim equally likely to better arm themselves.

As evidenced in varying degrees in:
Serbia/Bosnia
Nazi Germany
Communist Russia
The USA

Gun laws always affect the weak and the minorities more.

Srsly, you can see that right?
In the same way that the 1st protects speech we don't like, and the religions that are not the big religion.

[crimethink]

MNG,

You could apply the same argument to gay marriage vs. freedom of speech. ie, if you have to choose between opposing

(a) a law forbidding everyone from marrying white people

and

(b) a law forbidding anyone from criticizing the government

would you more strongly oppose (a) because it affects you more than other people, and thus discriminates against your race?

[crimethink]

Actually, I think that resembles the cosmotarian pecking order pretty closely. No liberty is more important than gay marriage, it would seem.

[Elemenope]

I think you're overestimating the degree to which people (on both sides, admittedly) are open to changing their position on this issue.

Both my parents, my uncle and my cousin (lifelong democrats, all) have all over the course of the past twenty-five years shifted away from gun control, primarily for consequentialist reasons. Before I was a libertarian, back in my liberal days, I still found the consequentialist argument persuasive enough to switch sides.

In contrast, I know nobody who has, in the time I have known them, switched sides on the question of abortion. Not one friend, not one family member.

I never said it would be easy or that conversions would happen overnight. But I do know from first-hand and second-hand experience that those arguments can be persuasive. I also know from such experience that abortion is different from gun control because of the lack of a possible argument to consequences that could possibly overwhelm the original position of the actors.

And, no, the appeal to consequences is an argument that has been quite submerged in the overall gun debate. It quickly, in my experience, runs quickly to the safe familiar territory of the 2nd amendment, something which if you don't already believe in as being an individual right applying to the states, are useless at persuading. Most of the advertisements and soundbites and bumper-stickers and TV blowhards and so forth are tooled toward that manner of argument, and the discussion about what politicians ought to do/not do in the area is also dominated by such.

This bill amendment is interesting precisely because it is a seldom-used approach. That's why it's news, i.e. noteworthy.

[Elemenope]

MNG, considering your patting Elemenope on the back at 7:57 for his/her very uncharitable characterization (some would even call it a strawman) of gun rights proponents, you're going to have a hard time convincing us that you're on our side.

Tulpa, considering that both MNG and I *are* on your side (both of us oppose gun control, though me perhaps a wee bit more strenuously than him), you might want to calibrate your understanding of what we are saying to "friendly criticism" rather than "fire-breathing gun-control nut tryin' to, most deviously, take yer guns through the power of arguments on teh Internets.".

[chimpy]

No. This is a feminist site whose purpose it to further feminist dialogue in a progressive manner. If you aren't contributing to that end - if you're derailing a thread, making personal attacks or trolling - we will erase your comments and possibly ban you from the site.

[Tulpa]

Before I was a libertarian, back in my liberal days, I still found the consequentialist argument persuasive enough to switch sides.

Amazing, especially since gun rights supporters never make those arguments in your world.

[Elemenope]

Amazing, especially since gun rights supporters never make those arguments in your world.

No, as in one day someone intelligent whose head wasn't filled with the latest NRA talking points actually talked with me one day, wherein he made a consequentialist argument that persuaded me (after I checked his evidence).

Never saw such an argument on TV or by prominent gun rights advocates or in any other context. My point is not that all people who want gun rights to be respected are people who are bad at arguing and never use consequentialist arguments. My point is that those who lead the movement (NRA, GOP, etc.) and their prominent spokespeople de-emphasize them and emphasize arguments in their place which are not persuasive, to the detriment of the movement in general.

Get it? If all there were were people who made idiotic arguments from POVs that I didn't already believe, I'd probably still be a gun-control loving liberal. It is because some people don't simply repeat the standard talking points that people actually get persuaded.

I mean, you tell me, if it were a normal tactic of the movement, why hasn't an amendment like this been proposed before? Why is it interesting and newsworthy?

[Henry Bowman]

Well under the current law you would be SOL on having the gun with you since in all likelyhood the GLBT gathering place referenced is some gay bar. As such it is illegal for even a licensed CC permit holder to enter these establishments with their guns.

The laws of what, where? State laws differ. Every state from New York eastward allows guns in all-out bars, never mind pissant "restaurants that serve alcohol." Heck, many gun clubs have bars in Massachusetts!

What you mean is that more people are killed in car related events than in gun related events. That's not the same thing as what you said. Of course, there are many reasons why that is so apart from the inherent dangerousness of the two items. Guns are designed to be a weapon, cars pretty rarely so.

Wow, then cars are really broken... because they kill more people by accident than guns kill by accident plus on purpose. And not just raw numbers, but rates as well (deaths per car or gun).

it's a cheap parlimentary trick which, if they keep it up, frankly is going to start to give the gun rights movement a bad name.

A "bad name?" Wow, that would be a brand-new cross to bear. Gun rights advocates have been the "new niggers" since 1964. We no longer care what you think of us.

[MNG]

"The fundamental human right of self defense is not "important to gun owners", it is a fundamental human right to *everyone*"

kwais-I agree, I didn't mean to imply that only gun owners have this right (I thought I said as much by saying it was fundamental). What I meant is that "the right to bear arms" by itself is not fundamental, but in that it is intertwined with the right to defend oneself it is.

"Hell, under a utilitarian calculus, I *could* canvass the neighborhood that's near the bridge, ask each person to tell me, on a level of 1-10, how much it upsets them to have vagabonds under bridges, combine their scores and determine that the law against bridge-sleeping has more utility than no law."

I guess you could, if you were what is often called a "preference" utilitarian, which I am not. Ronald Dworkin has a good discussion of the problems and limits to such a view in Taking Rights Seriously.

"MNG, considering your patting Elemenope on the back at 7:57 for his/her very uncharitable characterization (some would even call it a strawman) of gun rights proponents"

LMNOP was just pointing out that gun rights proponents have, as an empirical matter, made these arguments in a very suspect way. I agree. As to my position on gun rights, I explained that in detail upthread.

"No liberty is more important than gay marriage, it would seem."

No, I was saying that to a gay person (which I'm not, not that it matters) the gay marriage issue would, and should, be more important than a general concealed carry law, since the gay marriage ban singles out their class for stigma and discrimination. As to your example, I think it a very good one, but I think I would still find a ban on all whites marrying as more egregious as a ban on government criticism. The first stigmatizes and discriminates against people like me specifically, and denies us a fundamental right, while the latter only denies me a fundamental right.

"We no longer care what you think of us."

That's a stupid political stance to take. Politics works by convincing others unless you assume that you will just somehow have enough faithful to outvote them. Good luck with that attitude.

[MNG]

"Wow, then cars are really broken... because they kill more people by accident than guns kill by accident plus on purpose."

How stupid is this? Compare the sheer amounts of use cars get in this country to guns. Even a gun nut spends more time driving his car than actually shooting his gun.

[Bill]

"Well under the current law you would be SOL on having the gun with you since in all likelyhood the GLBT gathering place referenced is some gay bar. As such it is illegal for even a licensed CC permit holder to enter these establishments with their guns."

Depends entirely on the particular state. In Virginia, for example, while you cannot carry conceled in establishments with an ABC "on premises" license, even with a CCH permit, open carry is legal - by anyone, no permit required. Also, certain categories of people are allowed carry concealed anywhere without a permit. So a gay commonwealth's attorney or assistance commonwealth's attorney can legally carry concealed, even in a bar. Don't presume the prohibitions in your state are the same everywhere.

"You probably don't have a license to brandish it because someone calls you a faggot, though. That's massively against the law (unless in an open-carry state, I suppose)"

Again, depends on the state. Most state laws provide exceptions for reasonable self-defense. A common misconception I have encountered is people thinking that any time anyone sees your gun it's "brandishing". Not so. Brandishing is "displaying" the weapon in threatening manner or with intent to intimidate. E.g., the robber pulls back his coat to let you see his pistola in his waistband, or a guy in a bar parking lot waves his gun around while he's threating you. Although displaying your gun against attacking thugs technically could be considered "brandishing," because you're displaying your gun with the intent to intimidate, if you're doing it in reasonable fear of a violent attack, you're acting in self-defense. In Virginia, at least, the state law expressly provides an exception to the rule against brandishing for self-defense.

[Fluffy]

It would make the gay hater and the potential gay victim equally likely to better arm themselves, for murder or self defense, respectively, or the black hater and the potential black victim equally likely to better arm themselves.

This is true, but most gay bashing is not about murder. Most gay bashing is about a bunch of bigots entertaining themselves by beating someone up. Most gay bashing exists on the emotional level of high school bullying - a bunch of assholes decide to taunt, and then physically assault, a single gay person or perhaps a pair of gay people.

Gun rights favor the victim of this type of crime much more than they favor the perpetrator, because six drunk assholes looking to entertain themselves by whaling on a gay guy will look for different entertainment if they think they'll get shot for their trouble. Gay bashing mobs fundamentally aren't lynch mobs - they aren't seeking out escalation to the point of death for one side, and if there's a substantial risk of escalation to the point of death, they won't do it.

[JB]

I fucking hate 'hate crimes' and I fucking hate those who propose 'hate crimes' legislation.

[Bill]

What about a "love crime"?

My parents used to tell me they were beating me because they loved me.

O.K., I made that part up. They never told me they loved me.

[Geena]

To say that Tony doesn't speak for "the gay community" is putting it mildly. My partner and I both have guns, and quite gladly so.

If Matthew Shephard had had a gun, odds are he'd be alive today, and his attackers would be moldering in the ground, where they belong.

Oh, and Tony? Guns only kill "people like us" when the other guy is the only one with a gun.

[Geena]

Oh, and I take great umbrage with the term "gun-rights movement." The right to bear arms is the fundamental, default setting for this country; it is those who seek to restrict this right who are advancing the alien, anti-Constitutional position.

[Eka Medya]

Web Tasar?m

[Web Tasar?m]

nice article, I thank the hard work. I'm still waiting for your posts ...

[Otomasyon]

Thanks for the post

[e?anj?r]

thanks

[mit e?anj?r]

thank you

[e?anj?r?m]

thanks

[plakal? e?anj?rler]

thanks

[ekin e?anj?r]

thank you

[e?anj?r?]

thanks

[plakal? e?anj?rler]

thank you

[Otomasyon]

thank you

[Birlik Otomasyon]

Otomasyon Sistemleri
H?z Kontrol Sistemleri

[Birlik Otomasyon]

Gergi Kontrol Sistemleri
Kenar Kontrol Sistemleri

[Arasta E?anj?r]

That is great
Thanx

[Arasta Esanjor]

That is ok

[Kenar Kontrol]

great thank you

[sondaj]

thanks

[promosyon]

information is very clear. good and understandable explanation. super-topics. Thank you for sharing a very nice web site.