An extraordinary video contribution to the debate over marriage in Minnesota. The speaker is Republican state representative John Kriesel, who (as David Link recounted last year) took a prominent role in the Minnesota legislature’s debate last year on the marriage issue. Kriesel’s website begins with the following first line, from a Minneapolis Star-Tribune profile:
John Kriesel may be the only representative in the Minnesota Legislature who believes two men should be able to marry each other AND shoot someone who trespasses on their property.
Speaking of marriage and the military, Freedom to Marry and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network have collaborated on a highly effective video that concludes with the haunting question, “What if you lost the person you love… and you were the last to know?”
2 Comments for ““Stand up for freedom””
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… believes two men should be able to marry each other AND shoot someone who trespasses on their property …
While I applaud John Kriesel on his support of marriage equality, and strongly believe, of course, the two men who marry each other should have the right to treat their property as a free-fire zone, I’m not sure that I see the logical connection between the two …
But like most Wisconsinites, I think that Minnesotans are plain weird in lots of ways, so I don’t suppose it makes any difference.
Speaking of marriage and the military, Freedom to Marry and Servicemembers Legal Defense Network have collaborated on a highly effective video that concludes with the haunting question, “What if you lost the person you love… and you were the last to know?”
Which explains why House Republicans added a measure prohibiting marriage on military bases to the Defense Appropriations Bill. It all makes perfect sense if you live in an altered reality.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
I would welcome a 2nd Amendment that protected individual and state rights. No problem with that at all.
I grew up hunting and fishing and if a serious group existed for progressive, pro-2nd amendment types, I might join it. I do not really like the NRA.
The problem is that you get situations where say, a man with a gun may elect to stalk and shoot a teenager (armed with a candy bar) and then he (the shooter) and his supporters scream bloody murder at the idea that any sort of legal-personal responsibility ought to apply to the shooter.
Again, their has to be some level of rationality and personal responsibility involved so that if you kill an unarmed kid with a candy bar or some drunk guy walking home, who walked on your lawn, you actually have legal-personal responsibility for what you did.
So, I am pro-gun rights but also want to see some rationality and responsibility put onto gun owners.