As a member of a minority that has frequently been oppressed throughout history, often under the guise of “self-defense”, I mean most Western Countries including mine have had variants of the “gay panic” defense as either completely exculpatory or at the very least penalty reducing grounds in law and jurisprudence you can understand why that interpretation, much more so then that of the Hughes Court, which does fit in with the idiosyncrasies of American history makes me very leery.
Even if opposing the Hughes Court interpretation is a political third rail I would still oppose the Roberts one.
True, see idiosyncrasies of American history above as to why. In the modern era a ragtag militia violently opposing a modern armed to the teeth professional military is increasingly fraught anyway. There’s likely more success to be had in less violent subversive actions and the threat of violence then in actually committing it.
In any case it’s often not access to weapons that is the main problem, particularly since we can commonly 3d print them on hacked printers in the near future but lack of access to training (and often intel too) for those civilians plotting a violent insurrection. Which for the most part is a good thing.
Shooting one bigot just puts my life at even more risk, particularly since his next of kin could possibly invoke legitimate “gay panic” / “freedom of religion” or an “indigenous culture” bullshit defense to just bankrupt me in civil suits, in addition to inflaming more of his bigoted brethren and turning me or people like me into walking targets. I mean being able to defend yourself is nice enough, having to stare down a bigot each and every day at five o clock on the main street for a wild-west style duel of pistols is both extremely risky and would get annoying really fast as long as it doesn’t kill you.
I’m okay with taking a rain check on that if you are, I believe that is the colloqial expression in the US, no?
As for the article, I think that looking at it from the individual point of view someone like me having a gun provides at best a false sense of security. As honestly, gun or no gun I don’t think I could stop a well-trained determined person, like a marine officer, such as our own cascat if they were really intent on doing me harm.
Collectively and taking into account American culture, I agree it might help if LGBTQ people as a collective group were known to be armed to the teeth and willing and able to use those firearms.