major caudill and gay cooties.

I’ve received a ton of email in the last few days regarding Major Caudill, who seems to be popping up with that awesome essay of his all over the place again.  Thanks to all of you who keep sending me links and correcting attributions.

An observation:

–Virtually every instance of the essay popping up on some conservative or firearms board features the incorrect attribution.

–Virtually every instance also omits the word “gay” in the paragraph that talks about an armed gay guy being on the same footing as a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.

I’m rightly confused, I am.  If you think that the right to self-defense is a human right, and you don’t like the idea of a gay person exercising it, then it necessarily follows that you don’t think gays should be afforded the whole set of human rights.  If that’s the case, then please stay the fuck off my side.

If you don’t support the same freedoms for everyone, then you don’t support freedom.  Being in favor of freedom only for yourself and folks mostly like you is no virtue at all.  It requires no sacrifice, no tolerance, and no brainpower.  It will also cost you your pet freedoms sooner or later, once you find yourself as a member of the 49% whose cornflakes the other 51% vote themselves the right to pee on.

(Note: if your Internet nom-de-plume rhymes with Dusty Nantucket, you may refrain from commenting on this post. I’m aware of your position on teh gheys, their immoral ways, and my childish acceptance thereof.)

96 thoughts on “major caudill and gay cooties.

  1. […] An interesting omission. […]

  2. Al Terego says:

    I’m guessing here, but it’s likely more a matter of some misguided PC editing than an attitude that gays don’t have the same right to self defense as anyone else.

    Sometimes we read homophobia into situations where what really exists is a created phobia of a different kind, much like that surrounding anything that can remotely be considered racist.

    AT

    • Marko Kloos says:

      Why delete the word if you’re not uncomfortable with the idea? And if you’re uncomfortable with reading (or having others read) about a gay man defending himself, how can you be comfortable with an actual gay man doing so?

      I find it a bit annoying when people claim that just because someone deleted a reference to XYZ means they’re in any way biased against XYZ. Of course it does, otherwise they would have let the original sentence stand.

      If I had written about a Christian guy instead, and someone else had omitted the “Christian” from the pilfered narrative, would you consider that…what? Biased? Inconsequential? Misguided PC editing? Hostile toward religion? How about “black guy”? Or “Jewish guy”?

      • Dixie says:

        I’d consider it biased. Of course, it would also just be insult added to injury. Can these people not work Google?

    • I’d wager that the prominence of these changes has more to do with where they were made in the viral distribution of the essay than the preferences of any one distributor.

      • karrde says:

        We can’t ignore the possibility that most of the people pass it on as “some amazing article that was emailed to me about self-defense”.

      • karrde says:

        Err…to continue my thought, it is not obvious that ALL of the forwarders of the altered message thought that the word “gay” needed to be removed.

        I would suspect that most have no idea it might be altered from the original.

      • Tam says:

        I’d wager that the prominence of these changes has more to do with where they were made in the viral distribution of the essay than the preferences of any one distributor.

        This. Odds are good there’s a “Patient Zero” who copied the mis-attributed essay, didn’t like teh gay cooties, and therefore edited that line out before sending it out to all the buddies on his email list.

        I kinda picture a male version of Great Aunt Lurleen who, like a flesh-and-blood spambot, forwards all that glurgy crap about Princess Di’s ghost healing crippled children to all and sundry.

  3. Rusty P Bucket says:

    What are you afraid I’ll say, son?

    • Marko Kloos says:

      Nothing you haven’t said before, and quite frankly, your Jebediah-begat-Jedediah rants are boring the shit out of me. You don’t peddle revealed truth, or original thought, just all kinds of pathological phobias coated in a flimsy layer of Shake-‘N-Bake morality.

      • Rusty P Bucket says:

        Let’s have a little honesty around here.

        I have never tried to force my faith on anyone. Ain’t about to start neither.

        I would never physically attack queers either.

        My opposition to them is based on fact and common sense.

        • Marko Kloos says:

          Let’s have a little honesty around here.

          Your opposition to them is based on the fact that the idea of male gay sex grosses you out. You just found some convenient Scriptural justification for that dislike, that’s all.

          In fifty years, mainstream Christianity will have no problem at all with homosexuality, the role of religion in pushing homophobic laws will be retconned just like the slavery stuff, and the average Joe on the street will look at gay haters like people look at guys with white sheets over their heads these days.

        • og says:

          Marko: You’re having a battle of wits with an unarmed man. But keep it up, it’s fun to watch.

        • Rusty P Bucket says:

          In 50 years they will probably find a cure for homosexuality.

          I am grossed out by queers on the instinctive level actually. You are defending people that think the rectum is a sex organ, son. It should be intuitively obvious to normal people that if you are wiping chit off your dink after sex you are doing something wrong.

          Sorry for the graphics but you kids really need to think about what you are trying to rationalize.

        • og says:

          “In 50 years they will probably find a cure for homosexuality.”

          Pitiably, there will never be a cure for ignorance.

        • Linoge says:

          It should be intuitively obvious to normal people that if you are wiping chit off your dink after sex you are doing something wrong.

          You say that like it matters.

          It should be intuitively obvious to normal people that if you are consuming the burnt, superheated ashes of long-dead-and-dried plants while breathing you are doing something wrong.

          It should be intuitively obvious to normal people that if you have to pick yourself up off the floor after drinking rancid juices from grains you are doing something wrong.

          It should be intuitively obvious to normal people that if you have to limit people’s rights solely based off your own bigoted opinion you are doing something wrong.

          Now, you tell me which one of those was serious. I will give you a hint, since I am damn certain you are too thick to figure it out yourself – it is not the first two.

          Just as I support the rights of two adult human beings to do as they bloody well please in the privacy of their own bedrooms, I also support the rights of intolerant fuckwits like you to spout off whatever hateful, bullshit-ridden, specious garbage as they so desire, whenever they so desire. But darn it if we do not have the equal right to call out that vitriolic crap when we see it.

  4. Al T. says:

    Rusty, you are boring and stupid. Fear of your childish scribblings is no more an issue than being “scared” of stepping in dog crap.

    • Rusty P Bucket says:

      You guys aren’t fooling anyone. All you can do is attack me personally for my logical arguments. Marko has me down as a se lf rightous bible thumper. nice try son.

      No offense but The reason you get so angry and personal is that your arguments are chit. It figures, they were rammed down your throats by lefty teachers decades ago the same way christians tried to ram their BS down my throat as a child. I was smart enough to see that for what it was though, once I grew up.

      Fact is many young conservatives are as comfortable with faggitry as you guys are. It’s us old guys that don’t buy it. We watched the leftys shove homosexuality down your throats as children the same way you are watching them do it to your kids with global warming today. Like the global warmers, those people threw out science wholesale. They ignored and suppressed studies, evidence and events that contradicted them and ruthlessly attacked anyone that disagreed with them. They shamelessly ‘cooked’ studies of their own that supported them. Today you young ones do the same without even realizing it. The difference between you and the born-again christian zombie is merely the flavour of your faith.

      I personally believe that homosexuality is a mental illness. I break with the church, it is no more a ‘sin’ than any other mental diso rder. There is ample evidence to support that if you have the guts to look for it and see it for what it is. Mentally ill people should not have guns, but then again – nor should drug dealers.

      No, I am not on your side, gentlemen, and unfortunately I will oppose you when your morals ethics and common sense fail. I see little difference between your political correctness and the church at times. The BS is the same, the piles are merely different.

      • It is a fact that homophobes are mentally ill and are suffering from a sever case of envy because, as everyone knows, “teh gay sex” is better, hotter and far more satisfying.

        By saying that, of course, does not make it true. Any more than you saying that something is true or is a fact makes it so.

      • It is a fact that homophobes are mentally ill and are suffering from a sever case of envy because, as everyone knows, “teh gay sex” is better, hotter and far more satisfying.

        My saying that, of course, does not make it true. Any more than you saying that something is true or is a fact makes it so.

      • Ken says:

        Unfortunately for whom?

      • Madrocketscientist says:

        I personally believe that homosexuality is a mental illness.

        Except we don’t deny Civil Rights & Liberties to persons afflicted with mental illness unless they have proven themselves to be a danger to themselves or others.

        I would love to see the logical gymnastics to justify the denial of marriage based on mental illness.

        • Bill says:

          Unfortunately, we DO deny civil rights to people all the time, even when they don’t PROVE themselves to be a danger to themselves or others….Waiting for proof often means someone is dead. With mental illness we sometimes make pre-emptive decisions based on the history of similar people and their actions.

          As for the mention of sexuality in the context of crime….Why does it matter if it is a Catholic priest involved with molestation then? Or if it is a Baptist minister caught having sex for pay, or a Mormon polygamist? Each of those religions proscribes the activity, and yet the press sees some obvious need to identify the individual by that indicator, regardless of the fact that it may have nothing to do with the activity itself.

        • Tam says:

          Each of those religions proscribes the activity, and yet the press sees some obvious need to identify the individual by that indicator…

          Hypocrisy makes juicy gossip, and juicy gossip pulls in eyeballs, and eyeballs sell ads.

          Look, if the perv in the trenchcoat down on the corner is doing awful things with his willy, well, that’s just “dog bites man” and goes on page B-13, but if the perv in the trenchcoat on the corner doing awful things with his willy turns out to be Father Mulcahey, or Reverend Jones, or Mayor Quimby, or Sherriff Rodriguez, well, then we’re going above the fold on A-1.

      • Nate says:

        Do you know any gay people? I do. They’re generally happy, healthy, normal, well-adjusted people. They’re not scary, they’re not angry, and they’re not stupid or mentally challenged. At least, no more than you or I are. Have I met gay people that pissed the shit out of me? Sure. But the same goes for whites, blacks, greens, lawnmower repairmen, bookbinders, pipe organ fitters, democrats, republicans, and libertarians.

        • Bill says:

          Nate,

          I probably know far more gay people than most, I’m a medical provider at a facility with a large local homosexual population.

          That said, my response was not intended as a comment on my beliefs on their mental status, but on the fact that we deny civil rights all the time based on mental status, and that it has stood the courts scrutiny.

          In my contact with them, I see the same numbers of depressed, unhappy, poorly adjusted people as I do in the general population, which is what I would expect, though.

          From a medical standpoint, though, being mentally ill (I’m not saying that gays are, only that you point out they aren’t stupid or mentally challenged) has nothing to do with either of those situations. Lots of mentally ill people are brilliant, (John Forbes Nash of “Beautiful Mind” fame comes immediately to mind). Lots of gays are also brilliant. Being mentally ill does not preclude great intelligence, nor does be homosexual.

      • Kristopher says:

        Rusty … I suspect you are only about a half dozen stiff drinks away from some angry experimental butt-sex with some random guy met at a truckstop.

        You seem utterly fascinated by homosexuality. Why? Can you talk about anything else, like guns or such?

        Just go find a guy, and get it over with, already.

      • Tam says:

        Rusty,

        …your arguments are chit.

        Speaking of teh ghey, your annoying little Bowdlerization of the Anglo-Saxon vernacular for “feces” is queerer than a purse full of kittens.

        For fuck’s sake, type “shit” or type “crap”, will you?

  5. Itch says:

    I’ll have to go back and read the “offending lines” you’re speaking of. I’ve only read your gun civilization piece once, so this is just an observation to the conversation going on. Why does it matter what kind of person it was? Why does gay even matter when describing this situation? I have nothing against gays, and even have a few friends who are gay. Do we say a straight man did something when we talk about it in the news? I can certainly see when the situation actually involved the sexuality of a person, but why point it out if it’s not involved with the situation? What changes in the story when you start referring to gay people, or not referring to them? These are just food for thought, I’m not condemning or condoning it either way. I just find it odd that people need to point out someone’s homosexuality in a situation as if it means something different than saying a straight guy was doing the same thing…

    • Marko Kloos says:

      Itch,

      that particular paragraph in the essay was in reference to a self-defense scenario that is far more likely to involve a gay person than a straight one. Straight white folk don’t usually get singled out for a bashing just for their sexuality.

  6. Charels says:

    Directly related to the topic, here’s an old favorite of mine. A grassroots org of good people. The lapel pin offered is top quality regardless of the blurry picture.

    Love their tag line:

    “Pick on someone your own caliber”

    http://www.pinkpistols.org/

  7. The Other Jay says:

    Dear Marko:

    I’d suggest we go into “Active Ignore” mode now.

    Don From Nantucket can probably stand nearly anything but what he so deserves: None of our time.

    I don’t care what he believes. I don’t care what he says. I don’t care what/how many guns he owns. I certainly don’t care what he does in the privacy of his own home.

    I’ve actually read the Bible. The WHOLE Bible. I’ve studied it. I know what it means to me. I am living my life by the knowledge that “Libertarian Christian” is not an oxymoron.

    Ignore him.

    • Charels says:

      Ditto.

    • pax says:

      The Other Jay,

      Thank you. That’s what I was about to say too!

      Marko,

      It seems to me that Jeff the Baptist made a very good point. I suspect that the deletion of the word “gay” was done two years ago (by Naish, perhaps?), and most people forwarding the essay never laid eyes on the intact version to begin with.

      Incidentally, one of the reasons I am a Christian is because Christianity appears to best describe the state of humanity in this world: it starts with the premise that people are really fucked up. If you start with the premise that people are really good, then you’re going to spend a lot of time bitterly surprised at how people act.

      • Caleb says:

        Incidentally, one of the reasons I am a Christian is because Christianity appears to best describe the state of humanity in this world: it starts with the premise that people are really fucked up.

        Word.

  8. Hober Short says:

    Heh heh… “Dusty Nantucket”.

    Sounds like a pretty good name for a Southern Rock/Hair Metal band.

  9. Al T. says:

    As usual, agree with Pax. And TOJ.

  10. Tango says:

    I’m kinda jumpin in mid-conversation, but if I were writing an article, I’d omit the word ‘gay’ because a gay person is on the same equal footing as a straight person vs a carload of dudes with baseball bats. Give either one a gun, and they’re both equalized. Not sure sexual orientation has anything to do with it.

    For the record, I’m all for ‘Pink Pistols’ and the like. Not all conservatives are gay bashers or queer haters. Nothing wrong with what you folks do behind closed doors. Out in the open, abide by the same rules as the straight folks… that includes carry however you may and walk in peace until the wrong person tries to harm you that justifies a deadly force reaction!

    /salute

  11. Jay G. says:

    Marko, FWIW I received copy of this from a friend of mine. I set him straight, linked him to your original post, sent him the picture of you at the Bloggershoot with the Major Caudill nametag, and asked that he reply to whoever sent him that e-mail and tell them the same thing.

    *sigh*

    Now if only I could write something worth plagiarizing…

    • pax says:

      Now if only I could write something worth plagiarizing…

      No foolin’. I’m jealous too. *sigh*

      What an awesome little essay this is, still fresh and meaningful three years after being penned. It speaks well for Marko’s writing ability that this thing is still being bounced all over the web.

  12. MarkHB says:

    “If you don’t support the same freedoms for everyone, then you don’t support freedom. ”

    The important things are often simple, aren’t they?

  13. Bill says:

    To me, the most amazing thing is that this short piece was written 3 years ago, and continues to have a life in these days of the interweb, where everyone has something to say!

    What a remarkably concise and effective argument it presents, regardless of disagreement over that tiny little section!

  14. Al Terego says:

    Marko: apologies for lighting the fuse then abandoning the firefight, such as it is, but having returned now from the inconvenience of real life responsibility and its attendant time consumption:

    First let me say that any alteration of an original work of art, whether by omission or addition, is a criminal act as much as the theft or intentional misattribution of the work itself. But your conclusions about the motives might be exactly wrong.

    “If I had written about a Christian guy instead, and someone else had omitted the “Christian” from the pilfered narrative, would you consider that…what? Biased? Inconsequential? Misguided PC editing? Hostile toward religion? How about “black guy”? Or “Jewish guy”?”

    No. You used the term “gay” as a literary sympathetic device, implying innocence but also inferring a rather insulting inability to defend oneself; not attributes automatically assigned to a “Christian”; quite the opposite, in fact. Christians are often portrayed by many -often portrayed by you in fact- as small-minded intolerant soldiers in an imagined holy war against all that is immoral and imperfect in the world. That incessant portrayal could of course be taken as its own brand of intolerance, but that’s not the point here.

    As to black people and Jews? Certainly they as groups have been victimized, but individually they don’t evoke the helplessness that you sought in your gay reference. So you singled out the gay to make your point (and quite well, I might add; this element aside, your essay is one of the best justifications of “the great equalizer” that I’ve seen). But I think it’s also likely that this triggered a hard-learned behavior in the dissemination of words and ideas, to wit: an almost obsessive cleansing of any reference that could be construed as bigoted or belittling to minority and/or “oppressed” groups.

    Is it absurd that the fear of being labeled a Bigot or a Racist could lead to the editing of another’s painstakingly created intellectual property? Yes, it is…but welcome to the real world of reverse racism and anti-bigotry. The compulsion to act as apologist for the wrongs and indiscretions of all who have gone before us, substituting our own guilty conscience for the actual voices of those for whom we purport to speak, threatens to paralyze the very openness and exchange of ideas that we seek to protect. That was the point of my initial comment; I believe that at whatever point in the chain of possession and forwarding this “cleansing” may have occurred, that the motive, far from the homophobia that you reflexively imply, was in fact intended to remove any reference that could be construed as insulting or belittling or bigoted or insensitive to that demographic. Political Correctness gone awry and amuck. Criminal, yes. Insidious, no.

    “Misguided PC editing.” That’s my take.

    AT

  15. Tirno says:

    Marko,

    Any chance you could put as the dedication (or in addition to) on your Great Mil/SciFi Novel the following:

    “To Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.), without whom, none of this makes sense.”

    Or something along those lines.

  16. Borepatch says:

    First, it’s just not right to label people “mentally ill” who are, quite frankly, perfectly normal. “Normal” meaning that they have the same spread of emotional issues (depression, etc) as the general population. The truly mentally ill are terribly vulnerable to exploitation, and need protection.

    The gay community, while subject to all sorts of discrimination, does not remotely resemble this.

    If you’re unsure about this, read posts like this, and then STFU about teh gay == mental illness.

    Second, be careful with that “stuff I don’t like” == mental illness, Scooter. The Gulag was filled with folks who were “clinically insane” because they dared to reject the preferred philosophy. Not nice. Not nice at all.

    I can accept people who take a literalist, the-bible-says-it-I-believe-it-that-settles-it point of view. I don’t agree, but as long as we all agree to disagree, we can go our separate ways.

    But what you’re doing comparing this to mental illness is wrong. I’d say that you’re being immoral, but likely your life – fortunately – has not been touched by mental illness in your family.

    So please STFU about it.

    Sorry for getting all cross at your place, Marko. I usually try to use more family friendly language.

    • Kristopher says:

      Borepatch: I still think rusty is bugnuts crazy … but I’m too much of a libertarian to support civil commitment for anyone.

      If you don’t commit a crime against someone, the state should just leave you alone, even if you are crazy.

    • urb0123 says:

      Rusty displays absolutely no love for gays. Why would anyone listen to someone who obviously does not love them, and may in fact hate them.

      I want to be honest here, I’m not perfect; I hate and distrust some gays. The ones I hate and distrust are the ones who try to force me into accepting homosexuality. They try to indoctrinate children at schools, use the courts to punish pastors for refusing to wed them, try to force religious orphanages to adopt out to them, etc. It is patently wrong and evil to force anyone to do anything.

      Then there are the other gays, the ones that I don’t see as different from myself. I’m a sex addict, and therefore mentally ill. I see homosexuality as simply another facet of the same illness I have.

      I am grateful I haven’t taken the homosexual route; bigoted society is less hateful of me than it is of gays. I can appreciate that many homosexuals have to hide part of the core of themselves away since I have to do the same. Even if they think homosexuality is wrong, they can’t be open about themselves with others and end up locked away from the rest of the world, very much alone. I have a very close friend who is homosexual, and I am the only one who knows. He is very lonely and isolated and it hurts to see.

      To summarize, I believe homosexuality is part of a mental illness, and I don’t believe such out of animosity toward homosexuals.

  17. MedicMatthew says:

    This comment thread has once again proven that Marko, Tam, Borepatch, et. al. are made of win and awesome for laying down the smack that I of course am unfit to render considering that I apparently suffer from a mental illness known as Teh Gay.

    And to think, I was under the impression that homosexuality had been removed from the DSM decades ago, but then again, I’m just a big ol’ queer so what do I know.

  18. mike w. says:

    You are defending people that think the rectum is a sex organ, son.

    There are women who think that too, so it’s not just limited to “teh gays! oh noes!”

    People with a different sexual orientation are no less deserving of the right to defend themselves than myself or anyone else. The fact that you don’t like what they do in the bedroom doesn’t negate the fact that they are human beings with an inherent right to self-defense.

  19. Borepatch says:

    If anyone cares, I elaborated (at some length) on why Rusty is simply wrong that gays are mentally ill.

  20. Al Terego says:

    Matthew: your comment in praise of Marko’s absence of bigotry (towards gays at least) is understandable and appropriate, but it also fairly drips with facetiousness and irony…

    “…the smack that I of course am unfit to render…but then again, I’m just a big ol’ queer so what do I know.”

    Which begs the question: do you really feel that you need third parties to speak for you and arbitrarily assume the role of your protector?

    Do you find it mildly insulting that in the focus sentence of Marko’s original essay “The gun…puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.” gays are lumped with petite women and octogenarians as to implied helplessness?

    While his intention was clearly to enforce the notion of firearms as the great equalizer of our time, much as fire was to early man, the effect of that as well as his speaking for you in this post and thread and you tongue-in-cheek abdicating that responsibility to him, could certainly be seen as one more instance of the Great White Male as the mythical and mystical superhero around which the world revolves, at once assuming responsibility for the well-being of all of the noble innocents and self-loathing that he is not one of them. Hmm, sounds a bit like some recent movie or other, doesn’t it? That particular irony does seem lost on some.

    But back to my original point; that it is likely that the gay reference was removed so as to avoid any semblance of derogation…

    I don’t know what is worse; dumbasses like the Rusty Fucket who think their own definition of love is the one and only and would enforce that by statute if they could, PC’ers so obsessed with not offending anybody anytime that they’re afraid to call a gay a gay or a spade a spade…or self-appointed saviors of those that they deem to be downtrodden and deserving of -no, desperate for- their intervention with the harsh vagaries of the world. On reflection, I think the latter.

    And on the subject of love and who can have it and feel it and express it: there is a young fairly unknown singer who my daughter discovered and introduced to my wife and me by the name of Brandi Carlile. If you can give a listen to this and not come away convinced that it is the very heart and soul of love…then you just don’t know what love is. And that voice…

    Oh, and by the way? She’s gay. Enjoy “The Story”…and crank it up!

    AT

    • pax says:

      AT,

      Matthew Shepard.

      KJ

      • Caleb says:

        It would be nice if you would stop saying exactly what I’m thinking BEFORE I can get around to typing it so I can look like the witty cool kid. 🙂

    • Tam says:

      Do you find it mildly insulting that in the focus sentence of Marko’s original essay “The gun…puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.” gays are lumped with petite women and octogenarians as to implied helplessness?

      Contrary to Hollywood, Chuck Norris is due for an ass-whuppin’ if a carload of youngsters with baseball bats desides to go Beard-Bashin’.

    • Jake says:

      Do you find it mildly insulting that in the focus sentence of Marko’s original essay […] gays are lumped with petite women and octogenarians as to implied helplessness?

      As a gay man myself, no, I don’t. Because the scenario he uses there, a single gay guy being attacked by a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats, actually happens, and it happens because the victim is gay. It is a scenario that that many gay men consider a real possibility. It is one of several reasons I got my concealed handgun permit.

      I don’t think of myself as weak or helpless, or someone who needs a protector, but I know that I couldn’t stop a car full of guys with baseball bats if they wanted to rough me up for being a “fag” – and gay bashings have a nasty tendency to turn deadly, even if there was no killing intent to start with.

      So, no. I don’t find it insulting at all. Just realistic.

      • Al Terego says:

        Thanks for your response, Jake…and for further reinforcing my point…which is, as has been so well said: “the same freedoms for everyone”.

        “…I know that I couldn’t stop a car full of guys with baseball bats if they wanted to rough me up for being…”

        For being what? Gay? Black? Small? Old? Fat? Sexy? Homeless? Rich? American? Hispanic? Middle-aged middle-class white guy? Bearded badass (thanks, Tam)? Or just for being?

        We’re all somebody’s target demographic, Jake. But with Marko’s “Civilization” on our side (or in our pocket), we don’t have to depend on some third party to single us out for some kind of arbitrary protected-species list, or to tell us who our enemies are. You’ll know ’em when you meet ’em, Jake. We ALL will.

        Ya’ll (that’s flyover for you ALL) be careful out there.

        AT

        • Mulligan says:

          target demographic is pretty much interchangeable .. the constant is the criminal bully mindset of the mob.

    • LabRat says:

      It’s not about implied helplessness, it’s about implied target profile. Small women and the physically infirm may be chosen due to being easier targets, but they’re all disproportionately chosen as targets.

      Muggers usually don’t take along a pack of friends to make sure their target is subdued. Gay-bashers do.

      • Al Terego says:

        Got stats for that, ‘Rat? Or is it a matter of inordinate coverage…”Man Bites Man” and all that? Seems to me that “gay-bashing” is in fact a pretty miniscule percentile of overall violent attacks.

        Regardless, their victimization is more worthy of concern than all those other target demographics how exactly?

        • LabRat says:

          When exactly did your objection go from “you’re implying gay people are helpless” to “you’re not being proportionately representative”?

          I don’t particularly think the statistics matter that much; I’d be making the same argument on behalf of midgets if that’d been what had been omitted from the original. It was a quick, dashed-off list of people to whom self-defense against a physically capable attacker or attackers may be particularly more relevant- if Marko picked people who traditionally have liberal sympathy, it only tends to underscore his wider point that gun rights aren’t just something relevant to white rednecks.

          You don’t have to exclude everybody else when you include with a quick list of examples- but a later exclusion is worth comment.

        • Al Terego says:

          I didn’t bring up representative proportions, you did…”they’re all disproportionately chosen as targets.” I merely questioned your methodology.

          “It was a quick dashed-off list”?

          No f’n way. That piece was crafted and nuanced to the finest detail; why would we think those examples were randomly random? You got one thing exactly right, though…as I said before, a “later exclusion” or any other alteration is worth not only comment but outrage; what’s Marko’s is Marko’s (well, his and the Colonel’s), and he owns it. It’s his broad and insulting presumption of the motives for the edit that is in question.

          AT

        • Marko Kloos says:

          LabRat is on the money. It was dashed off quickly. Since it was a blog post, the entire essay is a first draft, basically. I wrote it in one sitting in the space of 20 minutes and hit the “post” button.

        • Tam says:

          Got stats for that…? Or is it a matter of…

          …eyewitness experience of living in Midtown ATL for many years and driving acquaintances to Grady?

          Sorry, Al, but we’re reaching an impasse on this one. I see where you’re coming from, but I believe we are just going to disagree.

        • Al Terego says:

          Bet that ain’t all those eyes witnessed in that fine place…all anecdotal of course. But:

          “I believe we are just going to disagree.”

          Agreed.

        • Al Terego says:

          Shit, make that “the Major’s”. Didn’t mean to give the plagiarizing bastard a promotion. AT

        • Al Terego says:

          “…the entire essay is a first draft, basically. I wrote it in one sitting in the space of 20 minutes and hit the “post” button.”

          Wow. That makes it the more impressive. And considering its near-viral success, could be a message there as to future writings; eff the whole writer “process” of drafts and edits, just get it out there. Might go ahead and copyright “Major Caudill” as your pen name though.

          And that being the case, maybe the title and gist of this post was spur of the moment too. Maybe your desire to embrace rights, equality, and the tools of their enforcement caused you to damn like-minded others based on your own set of prejudices without thought, and without a shred of proof.

  21. SD says:

    Here’s what I’ve learned from today’s discussion:

    If you disagree with homosexuality on religious grounds you are an evil preachy Christian and a member of the KKK.

    Gays are mentally ill. ………. Seriously?

    In 50 years the Christian Church will be hosting gay pride parades and we should all bring our kids. Ok, I added that last part.

    Homosexuality can be cured. Yeah, maybe we can cure stupid too.

    If you don’t agree with homosexuality then you want to be a homosexual. That makes no sense. It’s like saying if you don’t agree with Democrats then you want to be one. Sorry, no chance.

    The rectum may or may not be a sex organ. Ewww

    Never, ever, under any fricken circumstances substitute another word for a REAL cussword.🙂

    Good stuff.

  22. ASM826 says:

    I am willing to believe that most, if not all of the people forwarding your essay don’t know that the essay is falsely attributed to Major Caudill and also don’t know that it has been edited. That makes them relatively innocent in this.

    The person with the problem is the originator that took your work, edited it, and sent it out under a false name.

    On the primary of topic of gays, gay sex, and the reaction of people that are offended by gays and gay sex, it has been well covered by Borepatch, Tam and Marko, and I would only like to add myself nodding in agreement with them.

  23. Windy Wilson says:

    Actually I think the important lesson from today’s discussion is, “If you don’t support the same freedoms for everyone, then you don’t support freedom ”

  24. MarkHB says:

    Also “some people will continue to hang around the party making unpleasant smells long after it’s been made obvious they’re not actually wanted.”

    Marko, you’re a lot politer than I am. I’d have invited certain bigoted, linguistically-cowardly types to leave already. Oh, wait – you *DID* invite the oxidised urinal to not drone on with his incessant bile. And he pissed through the letter box repeatedly anyway.

    What an exemplar of all that’s good and right about his position, right there. That’ll larn me to listen to my elders and betters.

  25. The Other Jay says:

    Can we now go back to interesting topics, such as: firearms, keyboards, SF, Marko sliding off the super-roof?

    Really bored now.

  26. Außenseiter says:

    It’s tells a lot about how stupid and gullible humans are that a relatively harmless subculture like gays used to be or still is persecuted in various ways, while a parasitic sub-species of mankind that has been making life miserable for them for tens of thousands of year is left alone, or even thrives, for their traits are highly advantageous in certain enviroments, such as law or finance.

  27. Shootin' Buddy says:

    “If you think that the right to self-defense is a human right, and you don’t like the idea of a gay person exercising it, then it necessarily follows that you don’t think gays should be afforded the whole set of human rights. ”

    So, you can use your Jedi powers to ascertain why a copycat e-mail dropped the word “gay”? You can use the power of your mind to delve into the motives of people you have not met and can render speculation fact?

    I had no idea you had become a federal judge.

    Congrats on your new position, your honor.

  28. urb0123 says:

    Hi Marko,

    I recieved the “Major’s” version of your article in my inbox a day or so ago and found my way here via the Cornered Cat.

    I hadn’t noticed the gay reference until I found this article and went back and sure enough it was missing in the email.

    My initial take on it was that you must have put the gay reference in to emphasize the disparity of power, as if you were reiterating the stereotype that gays are “limp wristed weaklings”.

    Of course I don’t know for sure, but it very easily could have been dropped for reasons of political correctness out of fear that including it would offend gays.

    Ross

  29. Shootin' Buddy says:

    Yes, while I am not a federal judge, I do have the super power of smugness–I am more rational than thou–and the ability to turn speculation into fact.

    It is clear that the reference to gay people in the original was reinforcing a negative stereotype, homosexuals are victims and weak, and is easily construed as an attack on all homosexuals.

    Those who copy the original are deleting this attack are doing so not to offend homosexuals.

    • Tam says:

      Obviously.

      The statistical majority of people who forward posts that they find on internet gun forums are, after all, very concerned that the gay community not be libeled…

      • Al Terego says:

        While a *special* minority who are also regulars on those gun boards but hold themselves high above the rest, apparently have no problem at all libeling everyone else there.

        • Tam says:

          There’s this thing called “Occam’s Razor”. Oddly, the definition for it and for “libel” overlap hardly at all.

      • Shootin' Buddy says:

        We are the Only Ones that can determine the motives of you cousin-humping hilljacks via the Priesthood of Rational Smugness.

        • Tam says:

          I’ll remember that, the next time the term “milsurp” comes up in conversation. :p

        • Shootin' Buddy says:

          Pffft, that’s my Internet Face when I pronounce “milsurp”.

          We Only Ones are allowed to be bigoted in order to preach The Word of Rational Smugness Tolerance to you cousin-humping hilljacks.

          As an Only One I can treat homosexuals as weak and in need of the protection that Rational Smugness provides, but don’t let me even suspect that you cousin-humping hilljacks are deleting any reference to my vassals as I will get all Rationally Smugly up in here and banish you, cast out and banish you forever, from the side of Rational Smugity!

          I am the Only One.

        • Jake says:

          “I am the Only One.”

          There can be Only One!

  30. Tam says:

    While a *special* minority…

    Oh, and you’re good and goddam right I’m a special minority.

    Since when did we become the land of Bubba Lenin, where the words “intellectual”, “literate”, and “elite” have all become terms of derision instead of goals toward which we aspire?

    How come on the internet, gun boards included (and even especially), I have to put up with the lowest common denominator “it aint a speling conntest!” bullshit? When I call somebody on their bullshit prejudices on what pink gun to buy for their little woman, or some bullshit racist remark, or comments on who should be allowed to sleep with who, I get treated to post after post of pretzel-bending illogic telling me I’m duped by the politically correct police.

    Hey, fuck that, you know? There’s people getting duped by Harvard leftists out there, and then there are the people getting duped by listening to a lightweight like Coulter or Beck. I may not be Buckley’s fellow traveller, but neither of those two half-price fascists is worthy to wash his jockstrap. “Conservatism” in this country has become the refuge of the anti-intellectual, and it goddam dismays me.

    And I’m truly sorry about uncorking like this, but it had to come out or I was going to explode.

    Anyhow, I’m all done with this thread.

    • Tam says:

      Sigh.

      I should have gone and smoked a cigarette rather than poking my fingers clean through the keyboard while I was still seeing red…

      Think twice, post once, as Rich always admonished.

      • Al Terego says:

        It was pretty good, actually, and I can’t say I disagree with any of it…although I might add that pus-filled Limbaugh to your short list of self-appointed mouthpieces for conservatism.

        Thing is though, and back to the annoying, insulting, and unsupported conclusion to which Marko jumped in his post, there just is no data to support that a “statistical majority” of gunnie types, or conservatives in general for that matter, are the blathering bigots implicit in his post or your comments.

        My own opinion is based only on anecdotal evidence just as yours is, but we reached different conclusions based on…what? Geography? Prior mindset? Depth of experience? Doesn’t matter, really…innocent until proven guilty is a pretty good general rule, and when dealing with such a broad and disparate group who may share but one “common denominator”, damning them all for the perceived sins of some is just wrong…and to use your term, libelous.

        Marko’s post was right on one point (which actually seemed like just a pretext to make his others); his outstanding essay is sacrosanct, and nobody has the right to alter it regardless of their motives. But he was wrong on three:

        – His cocksure conclusion that the original deletion was based in bigotry or hatred of gays could be right or wrong but there is no proof one way or the other.

        – His assignation of that bigotry, if that is indeed what it was, to all who forwarded it in its edited form.

        -And finally, setting himself up as apologist for all those backward gun-gropin’ cousin humpers who in his mind had wronged one of his special protected classes of people who, as far as I know, never asked for his apology or for that matter his labeling of them as a protected class in the first place. It’s not being duped by the PC police that presents the greatest danger, but rather becoming them.

        I know you and I agreed days ago to agree to disagree, and I’m no ‘Buddy Booster, but when the boy’s right he’s right. And while his comment was a bit garbled, I got his point and agreed with it, and felt the need to offer support, such as it is.

        Oh, and do me a favor…whenever you and I exchange opinions, I’d appreciate the unadulterated version, vitriol and all, because even when I disagree, which ain’t that often, I find your hot-off-the-frontal-lobe ideas and the expression of them just beautiful…screw Rich.

        • MarkHB says:

          Geez, *you’re* insulted and offended?

          Aside from altering the scenario so it’s not a *gay* man being persued by a superior force, the essay was unchanged. The only thing that was excised was that the persued party loves the cock. Whilst owning one.

          As a relative outsider – not merely from a prolonged period of time overseas, but also as one who’s largely nauseated by mainstream media (dainty little flower-petal that I am), it does seem to me that the right wing of US politics has kind of a beef on gays, lesbians and other noncompliant lifestyle choices. To point out that the person plagiarizing this piece also edited it to uphold their party line, personal prejudices or simply to make it more palatable to their audience seems like something to get angry about, alright. But not at the person who wrote the fucking thing.

          I don’t follow your reasoning *at all*.

  31. Boat Guy says:

    Sorta surprised at Tam’s characterization of Ann Coulter as a “lightweight”. She (Ann) may be a lot of things; vitriolic being one of them, ascerbic and even offensive come to mind, but after reading many of her books, I wouldn’t describe her as a lightweight. I wouldn’t necessarily use her editorship at Michigan Law Review as a refutation, but again “lightweight” seems a bit off the mark…

  32. Scott says:

    “If you don’t support the same freedoms for everyone, then you don’t support freedom. Being in favor of freedom only for yourself and folks mostly like you is no virtue at all. It requires no sacrifice, no tolerance, and no brainpower. It will also cost you your pet freedoms sooner or later, once you find yourself as a member of the 49% whose cornflakes the other 51% vote themselves the right to pee on.”

    Unfortunately, you just covered the vast majority of “conservatives”, “Republicans”, “Tea Partiers”, lots of Arizonans, Joe Arpaio, etc….and I dare say, the VAST majority of cops, oh wait, my mistake, “Law Enforcement Officers”.
    There aint too many cops left these days.

  33. DirtCrashr says:

    Just received the GUNS & CIVILIZATION bit, “by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)” — from CalGuns (http://calgunlaws.com/index.php/che-talk/881.html).
    It’s posted an attorney who (maybe) should know better about attribution – but probably just has been misled as much as anyone else.
    He’s on our side fighting the good fight so go easy:
    http://www.michelandassociates.com/

Comments are closed.