Gun Rights

Vice Writer Apparently Surprised that 'Gay' Is Not a Political Orientation

|

Well … nobody will make fun of it.
Credit: zombieite / photo on flickr

Obviously headlining a story "Meet the Gay Libertarian Gun Nuts" is designed to be deliberately inflammatory clickbait. So it goes at Vice (not a judgment, just an observation). But beyond the headline, writer Cecilia D'Anastasio is one of those folks who is amazed to discover that coming out of the closet doesn't include an application to register as a Democrat.

Starting with the tale of gay, libertarian gun rights advocate (and plaintiff) Tom Palmer, D'Anastasio discovers the world is a complicated place:

Palmer isn't the only gay pro-gun libertarian activist out there. In fact, there are thousands of LGBT individuals who are skeptical of the government and love shooting things—or are at least prepared to do so in self-defense. I wasn't aware of this subculture until I attended LibertyFest NYC—initially, I was taken aback when Marcel Fontaine, a speaker at the convention and creator of the "LGBT for Gun Rights" Facebook page told me that the "more guns, less crime" argument often referenced by opponents of gun control can apply to hate crimes, too. "Armed gays don't get bashed" is how they often put it. 

D'Anastasio is then surprised to find gay fans of Ron and Rand Paul, despite Ron's previous vote for the Defense of Marriage Act (reminder: Joe Biden voted for it, too, and it passed with veto-proof majorities). She also seems to think it's odd for gays to embrace the libertarian support for a free market that makes it legal to discriminate against them (she needs to read my primer on the philosophical consistency here).

But then she actually does her homework and notes the Libertarian Party's lengthy history of support for gays and lesbians going back to the 1970s, courageous (at the time) positions based on a coherent civil rights philosophy that the Democratic Party could only dream of claiming. She quotes several gay supporters for gun rights who state the obvious—if more gay people were armed, fewer folks would attempt to bash them. The piece ends with an attempt to get somebody to present a counterargument that gays shouldn't carry around guns, but, well, it doesn't seem to land. I trust libertarians to spot the pretty significant logical flaws:

Shelby Chestnut, a media spokesperson at the Anti-Violence Project, which targets LGBT community members, argues that guns are tools of hate crimes, not a way to prevent them. Citing the case of Cece McDonald, a transgender woman who was sent to jail after defending herself against a homophobic attack, Chestnut noted that carrying a gun can often subject LGBT people to even greater violence.

"We need to look at the systemic inequalities that are causing people to be victims of violence," she said. "The solution to that is definitely not creating violence to end violence."

Read the full piece here.

NEXT: South Carolina Pol Resigns Over Misconduct

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shelby Chestnut is a moron. Abject helplessness is not a winning survival strategy.

    -jcr

    1. “She was victimised by trans-bashers, and then by the state, and I support that.” -Shelby Chestnut

    2. I doubt all that much of homophobia is due to “systemic inequalities.”

      You dumb fuck.

  2. “(she needs to read my primer on the philosophical consistency here).”

    Please. Like she even understands either of those two words or how they might work together.

  3. (she needs to read my primer on the philosophical consitency here).

    What about spelling consistency?

      1. Joe’s law…

      2. Scott Shackford
        Associate Editor, Reason 24/7

        “Editor.”

        1. Associate *to* the Editor.

        2. We can’t all be Regis grads.

  4. In other news:

    FAKE SCANDAL

    Shreek will be here in just a moment to discredit this, right after he gets Obama’s cock out of his mouth.

    1. Maybe his wife’s hard drive crashed.

      1. What is that a euphemism for, I hate to ask?

    2. You damn racist conspiracy theorists — as if Obama is a top!

  5. Citing the case of Cece McDonald, a transgender woman who was sent to jail after defending herself against a homophobic attack, Chestnut noted that carrying a gun can often subject LGBT people to even greater violence.

    We shouldn’t allow LBGTQs to bear arms because the police may do violence unto them.

    Brilliant.

  6. So…*sigh*…is Vice becoming or already has become a more high-brow version of Slate?

    1. It has been going in the Deep Derp direction since 2007, which coincidentally is when (i think?) Shane Smith took total control and McInnes left.

      They also got a bigger infusion of capital which probably twisted them hard away from their legacy ‘politically incorrect’ posture, to a ‘more fashion-conscious version of Salon’

  7. Wait a second! Homos are individuals like anybody else and not an indistinguishable collective that all think, vote, behave, and believe the same way?!?

    I have to sit down, this is all too much to take in. Oh wait, I am sitting down. I’d better play Borderlands then.

    1. Avoiding the subject? Seems a little homophobic to me…

      1. I’m not avoiding the subject! I just have these strange feelings that confuse me…

        1. There’s only one solution for this…

          1. Well, that and watching a musical or some episodes of Glee.

            1. I imagine you’ll probably be drinking a glass of wine for that, too. I’d speculate on what kind, but I only drink whisky or beer… or cider.

              STFU–cider is delicious!

              1. A mimosa, duh. I mean, it’s always brunch somewhere, right?

                Cider can be delicious…if it’s, say, a super dry Basque cider. That’s what you drink, right? Right?!?

                1. Uh… Right!
                  .

                  I’m really more of an “any port in a storm” type of cider drinker, but I won’t drink Woodchuck’s cider because it tastes like it’s been strained through an actual woodchuck. NTTAWWT

                  1. Woodchuck is grossly sweet. So it was probably strained through a diabetic woodchuck.

                    Lake Chelan Hard Cider isn’t bad. But you’d be hard pressed to get it outside of Washington and maybe Oregon.

                    1. Well, I am in Montana, so…maybe I could find it if I went hunting in the western part of the state. Strongbow makes a “gold” hard cider that I like.

                2. I thought in Spain that was called “Sidra”, and way-too-cool for ‘Cider’

                  I am reminded of this exchange

              2. I drink a lot of cider too. Crispin is my favorite.

                1. and I agree that Woodchuck is too sweet.

        2. Have you ever watched a gladiator movie?

          1. Yes. And I’ve seen a grown man naked. Now I just have to spend some time in a Turkish prison and I’m there!

            1. In the cockpit?

              1. Just like Kareem!

    2. Checking out the new BL tonight. Claptrap, right?

        1. But then I’d be perpetuating the rape culture in gaming. Better to be a nice, safe, snarky, asexual robot. Like Al Gore.

        2. I just started with Wilhelm. His dialogue is pretty hilarious.

    3. I find the left’s belief that they own identity groups incredibly arrogant, demeaning to those groups, and totally Machiavellian to boot.

      If I were in one of those groups, I’d tell them to fuck off, even if I agreed with the rest of their politics.

      1. it’s not just the left’s belief of ownership of identity groups, it’s their disbelief that anyone can function outside such a group. Independent thinking is heresy among the progs.

        1. You know, I think we’re due for a cultural change. Maybe I’ll really get my Re-Enlightenment.

      2. It’s because they’re sociopaths. Other people are not people, they are playthings, pawns, things that are only there to serve and amuse them. That is why they automatically collectivize people and think they own them. Because in their minds, they do.

        1. People aren’t people, economics isn’t economics, science isn’t science, reality isn’t reality.

          I’m sensing a pattern here.

          1. It’s called Bizarro world.

          2. Yes, it’s called sociopathy.

          3. yes, and you will also notice that those outside the hive are called deniers. Projection. Again.

    4. Nah. Come sit over here. I’ll take care of you until you recover.

      Didn’t you say some time back you are Italian?

      1. Yes, I am, but…hey, why are you taking me to your white van with the blacked out windows?

  8. Every single one of these lefty “meet the libertarian (member of stereotypically-leftist group)” articles boils down to “GET BACK ON THE PLANTATION!!!”

    1. I think statists get scared when their ‘constituents’ starting finding out they can take care of themselves

      1. Start*. No edit button around here?

  9. Thank Zod they don’t call the magazine Virtue.

    Really, why is it too much to expect that a write for a rag names Vice shouldn’t be surprised at something as prosaic as a libertarian* gay person?

    *(pro-2A is presumed)

  10. As somebody put it in the AM Links comments (too lazy to go check), “Help! The gays keep escaping from this prefab ideological box I’m trying to put them in!”

  11. One issue: I thought the common definition of “gay bashing” was demeaning them verbally. So, to say you won’t be bashed if you’re armed implies you’re willing to brandish a deadly weapon in the face of humiliation, which is not cool in Horatiopia. I definitely sympathize with the “Don’t Fuck With Us, We’re Armed” sentiment, but hope I’m simply misreading.

    Now, literally BASHING people, gay or otherwise? Click. Boom.

    1. I’m fairly sure bashing involves more than mean words.

    2. One issue: I thought the common definition of “gay bashing” was demeaning them verbally.

      No. “Gay bashing” involves actual bashing.

    3. No Horatio “gay bashing” is the version of the “knock out” game that has gone on for decades against gay men, and usually involves broken bones, like this http://www.washingtonblade.com…..ate-crime/

      1. Bullshit, I double checked and my formatting was correct. Correct I tell you!

        link

      2. It got to mean verbal abuse via the usual SJW process of defining things down.

        Example: having drunken sex is now rape.

        1. It was originally “fag bashing”, and AFAICT that’s the term “bashing” as applied to put-downs of all kinds was derived, by broadening from the physical to the metaphoric. In other words, fag bashing preceded all other bashing, and it was the other bashing that became metaphoric and then spread back to the fag context.

  12. “We need to look at the systemic inequalities that are causing people to be victims of violence,” she said.

    yes, I’m sure that’s just what the victims’ families thought, too.

    1. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a socialist group (run by some people who are actually lovely people, personally — and who also make good money running such groups), has an annual “Creating Change” conference just along this concrete-bound, abstract thought impeded, “link the issues” approach, where victim cards are added up to see who can win the most points, and the role of the government in destroying lives through such institutions as failed and segregated state schools is totally evaded.

      1. I periodically debate which is worse: the true believers like this group you mention where people actually buy the bullshit, or the ones like the author who cannot see beyond identity politics.

        I’ll go with the former. At least the group is approaching from a good faith, if totally misguided and possibly suicidal, viewpoint. The latter are just wretched people.

    2. Exactly. I actually think the left wants to become victims.

      1. Victim status is extremely important to their worldview and political tactics, so that wouldn’t be all that surprising. Hence the defining down of “victim” and the advent of “microaggressions”, etc.

      2. But they don’t want to be real victims, because that’s painful and possibly disabling.

    3. I seem to recall the Soviets, Red Chinese, Khmer Rouge et al. doing a whole lot of work on that whole “systemic inequalities” shebang. Curiously though, I don’t recall them being too great on the “victims of violence” one.

      1. Are you kidding? Nobody has done more with victims of violence than commies!

        1. Lampshades, crematoria, landfills, fertilizer, mountains of skulls…they were really quite creative in doing things with victims of violence

  13. Palmer isn’t the only gay pro-gun libertarian activist out there.

    So what? He’s just a guy who likes to shoot his load.

    1. Oh – you know him personally then?

  14. “Citing the case of Cece McDonald, a transgender woman who was sent to jail after defending herself against a homophobic attack, Chestnut noted that carrying a gun can often subject LGBT people to even greater violence.”

    HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

    HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

    1. You can never underestimate the stupid with leftovers.

  15. D’Anastasio thinks that people prepared to shoot in self-defense is a “subculture”. I’m pretty sure it’s a majority.

    1. Lefty echo chambers tend to give progressives that impression.

  16. It astounds me that they can bash libertarians having absolutely no idea what the word even means.

    Libertarians…well…they’re just to the right of ultra-conservatives. They’s a “sub-culture.”

    derp

    1. And Tony always tells me progressives are so nuanced attuned to reality.

      1. Tony is just a pimp. He has little clue of what is going on.

        1. Tony is just a pimp. He never coulda outfought Lucy. But I didn’t know until this day, that it was Shreek all along.

    2. That kind of ignorance and their snobbish arrogance is what gets Proggies in trouble later, like in the case of GamerGate, for instance.

      WE, libertarians, KNOW our enemy, like we know ourselves (well, at least most of the time.) THEY have NO clue who we are or what exactly we stand for, and thus lump us together with what in their mind are unsavory characters, to smear us. They question our motives, in order to poison the well and thus avoid engagement.

      The sad thing for them is that this gross display of intellectual laziness betrays their own incompetence and lack of sophistication.

      Proggies fancy themselves smart and worldly, but they’re in fact quite insular and stupid. They’re the true Ugly American.

  17. She also seems to think it’s odd for gays to embrace the libertarian support for a free market that makes it legal to discriminate against them

    Maybe because they prefer the free market to overbearing nannyism that destroys their chance of becoming better off.

    Shelby Chestnut, a media spokesperson at the Anti-Violence Project, which targets LGBT community members, argues that guns are tools of hate crimes

    When it comes to hate crimes, it seems the defining instrument is whatever it is politically convenient for you to hate and not what happens to cause harm, like fists or steel-toed boots, or a speeding car.

    1. Maybe because they prefer the free market to overbearing nannyism that destroys their chance of becoming better off.

      And maybe they also remember that a lot more effective and dangerous anti-gay stuff out there had law behind it.

      A truly free market would let someone refuse service to gays, yes.

      But a libertarian state wouldn’t do any of the nasty things the non-libertarian ones have over the years.

      1. They are smart enough to understand that freedom of association is a 2-way street.

      2. excellnt ! that way youc an have a bigotedso ciety without getting youre own hands dirty. who said libetarians were stupid?

        1. You prefer your bigotry institutionalized, I see.

        2. who said libetarians were stupid?

          Just some raving moron with an inability to spell or punctuate.

  18. “We need to look at the systemic inequalities that are causing people to be victims of violence,” she said.”

    And what would those “systemic inequalities” be?

    1. Victims are unarmed.

    2. I’m gonna go with Climate Change.

  19. “We need to look at the systemic inequalities that are causing people to be victims of violence,” she said. “The solution to that is definitely not creating violence to end violence.”

    “One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure ? and in some cases I have ? that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”–Jeff Cooper

    1. Since you quoted him, what do you think of the Cooper Scout rifle configuration? I’m not too crazy about short-barreled center fires and the site setup looks strange.

      1. For a quick-pointing, decently accurate gun the setup works fairly well. Short barreled rifles actually tend to be more accurate than rifles with longer barrels because a shorter barrel is stiffer, and hence less prone to POI shifts. You lose a bit of velocity but for .308 Win and shorter cartridges it actually isn’t a whole lot.

        My one concern about it is the balance. Having the scope way out in front shifts the balance towards the muzzle a bit; I’d prefer rifles have the balance right around the action.

      2. Yeah. I kind of agree, though I’m no expert by any means. I really like the appearance of the Ruger Guncite Scout fwiw.

      3. I like the idea, but as I’ve read from others, it seems to be a solution in search of a problem. I’d rather have a PTR-91 for about the same money.

  20. “We need to look at the systemic inequalities that are causing people to be victims of violence,” she said.

    Because rich people don’t commit crimes? I don’t understand her logic.

    Maybe because there isn’t one.

    1. You see OldMexican, if gayz were treated equally, or in other words, a highly protected class, then mean preachers wouldn’t be allowed to lament the sin of homosexuality, christian bakers would be forced to bake gay cakes, and so on. To have it otherwise is treating the gay unequally.

  21. So that lady thinks violence to defend yourself from aggression is wrong? Or does she just not like people using guns?

    1. If a crime of gay hate was committed against her, you can rest assured she would be the first to call for the heavily armed police to open a can of whoop ass on the offender.

      1. Because police are sacred, apolitical, altruistic moral defenders of the citizenry. That’s why whenever Dunphy’s on here he always asks what he can do to better serve us and NEVER devolves into pathetic delusions of grandeur driven by narcissism and low accountability.

  22. What’s most hilarious about the patronizing Lefty “we own the gay” attitude is how oblivious they are to the fact that they’re doing it.

    They sound like the racists who insist, “but blacks were so much *happier* as Slaves!

  23. If you find the “gay libertarian gun enthusiast” identity perplexing, you’re not alone.

    But maybe you should be. Particularly if you think “solidarity in sexual orientation” is actually a thing.

  24. Obviously headlining a story “Meet the Gay Libertarian Gun Nuts” is designed to be deliberately inflammatory clickbait.

    You guys do know that Bill Maher is the executive producer of the Vice tv series?

  25. “We need to look at the systemic inequalities that are causing people to be victims of violence,” she said. “The solution to that is definitely not creating violence to end violence.”

    *shrug*

    Maybe Shelby Chestnut is a pacifist.

  26. BAD GAYS, how dare you have political opinions outside of those that only started to support you when it was politically beneficial!

  27. What explains the overwhelming Democratic voting habits of gay and lesbian voters (in most elections around 65-70% In NYC or SF I would imagine that it would be closer to 90% and the balance being Green Party )?

    1. What explains the Democratic voting habits of anyone??

      I suspect empty campaign promises and naivety.

      1. Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

        1. Slow down there, cowboy.

          1. Those who rob Paul to pay Tony can always count on the support of Tony.

            1. Tony, by his own admission, lives in a gated community. I suspect robbing Tony to pay Paul. would net a better result.

              1. I thought he lived in a high rise?

                We once talked about how he looked down on the ‘poor’ with such great sympathy and condescension

    2. Probably the fact that the republican party has a long history of denouncing the immorality of homosexuality and trying to ban gay marriage?

      If you’re trolling under the assumption that libertarians are supposed to defend SoCons, you’re fishing in the wrong pond.

      1. Probably the fact that the republican party has a long history of denouncing the immorality of homosexuality and trying to ban gay marriage?

        This.

        Many of the other issues are just fluff. But when the other party attempts to make illegal or demoralize the core of who you are, you’re going to vote Democrat.

      2. There is apparently this Libertarian party that my fellow gay voters could be voting for? Is there data that they vote for the Libertarians in any greater percentages that the rest of the voting public?

        There is probably a portion of the gay Democratic voting base that would vote GOP if there was a change in its biases on gay issues, but I dont think it significant.

        As Jews and African Americans will always be Democratic voters, I think Gay and Lesbian voters will always be Democratic.

        It is more than just be “anti-GOP” but what exactly I am not entirely certain.

        1. As Jews and African Americans will always be Democratic voters, I think Gay and Lesbian voters will always be Democratic.

          HAHAHAHAHAHA. Are you seriously arguing that there’s some sort of ingrown racial reason that black people vote Democrat? What, does skin pigment force you to vote D?

          That’s astonishingly racist.

          1. What, does skin pigment force you to vote D?

            Do you deny that social pressure discourages many blacks from doing well in school?

            Why not a similar social pressure to vote D?

            culture != race

        2. None of this will probably make any sense to most libertarians. Most libertarians probably don’t vote at all — Libertarian or otherwise. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that more people who identify as gay vote Libertarian than people who identify as libertarian.

          In any case, I’m curious what goes through the head of a gay person who is choosing between the Libertarian and Democratic parties. Is that person choosing between freedom of association for everyone, or is he in favor of using the force of law to make people respect him? Is that really a hard choice?

          1. Is that person choosing between freedom of association for everyone, or is he in favor of using the force of law to make people respect him? Is that really a hard choice?

            Depends on if you have any principles beyond ‘might makes right’.

        3. “Not a Libertarian|10.23.14 @ 7:40PM|#

          There is apparently this Libertarian party that my fellow gay voters could be voting for?”

          So you were just trolling so you could express your snotty astonishment that gay libertarians exist?

          You’re showing how ‘open minded’ you are. Bravo (golf clap)

    3. I know quite a few gays and lesbians in the SF bay area that could conceivably vote Republican if not for the socon issues. I mean, they own businesses too and have to do basic tax, accounting, and regulatory compliance.

      1. It really makes very little difference. Republican or Democrat — either way, it’s a vote for statism.

  28. Why is there no video of the Gay Communist Gun Club in this article?

  29. Seargent at arms Kevin Vickers gets standing ovation from Parliament

    Defend Parliament with a gun while wearing a badge: get a standing ovation and become a national hero.

    Defend yourself with a gun while not wearing a badge: they lock you in a cage and throw away the key.

    Way to be civilized, Canada.

  30. Couldn’t the gay libertarians (kochtopussies) go non-lethal, like a Taser, if it was sufficiently phallic? That would reduce the amount of violence involved.

    1. Could you restate that in a more patronizing and insulting way so that minorities fully appreciate you only care for them if they’re voting for your party?

  31. If you’d trolling under the assumption that Libertarians are suppose to pander to gays, you’re full of shit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.