M, I disagree. One sentencing guideline (among many) should be what effects the crime has on society. While all violence has negative social impacts, hate crimes have the additional effect of terrorizing communities of people. Therefore it's appropriate to punish them more severely.

But the republican's tactic is somewhat clever, one they used to help kill the D.C. "voting rights" bill in Congress. I'm trying to figure out what the democratic equivalent to that tactic would be. What could the democrats insert into any bill to absolutely guarantee its failure?

A concealed weapon is thought to deter crime because no one knows you have it. This, of course, does not work in all places or circumstances. If you're a gentrifying hipster in Shaw (congrats on your progressive choice of neighborhood!), you probably assume that the guy walking down the street does not have a gun (despite a lot of reasons to believe otherwise in the summer months, see the MPD 3rd District listserv).

But if you grew up in a state where carrying a sidearm or keeping a handgun in your glove compartment, for cultural reasons, is not uncommon (let's say, Oklahoma, where I spent some time), then you might assume a much greater likelihood that any given person is carrying a weapon. As a result, you might think twice before attacking anyone, because given a gun-toting culture and a concealed weapons law, there's a decent chance your victim is carrying and you don't won't know it 'til he shoots.

There are obviously good arguments against these laws, too (like, um, that the police also don't know who's packing heat). But that's the argument for it. See, it's not so hard giving the other side some thoughtful consideration, after all!

Gays need to carry big, gaudy rifles in the open if they want to deter hate crimes. I'm thinking of a phallis-shaped, pink and chrome "man cannon" here.