Incendiary Image of the Day: Gay Marriage Edition

There is a significant overlap between American gun owners and social conservatives. Anti-gun pro-gay marriage liberals exploit this Venn vernacular to characterize all firearms owners as intolerant (i.e. uneducated) right wingers. It’s been my experience that the gun rights advocate subset of American gun owners are, in the main, libertarians. Which is why I find this image from buzzfeed.com so heartening. Did you notice the Winchester hat? Gays need guns for self-protection as much as anyone else in America. If not more. It’s good to see gays exercising their Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Isn’t it? [h/t JKP]

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

159 Responses to Incendiary Image of the Day: Gay Marriage Edition

  1. avatarSum yung guy says:

    Puts a smile on my face.

    • avatarWOW says:

      I know it’s lonely out there on the frontier, but a love affair between Jeremiah Johnson and Grizzly Adams is just too much for me to bear.

  2. If Gays and Minorities had embraced the Second Amendment, there would have been no need for marching in the streets demanding equality. The Second Amendment protects all.

    As a Community of Gun Owners, we need to welcome every single gun owner out there. We need to recognize everyone as a potential gun owner. If we don’t get them on our side… the anti-gunners get them.

    • avatarDazen Cloud says:

      I’ma minority minority minority, black male, pro gun, pro gay marriage, liberterian, you’d be surprised how many of us there are, some are even more minorities , who are all of the above, but still voted for obama

      • avatarDavid W. says:

        libertarian and voted for Obama?

        I do not comprehend.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          Same. I “threw my vote away” on Gary Johnson. It was rather liberating to actually vote for who I believed in, not the lesser of two evils.

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          +100
          Amen!!!
          Did the same thing myself and it felt great even tho I knew it was a throwaway vote!!!

        • avatarpat says:

          So many “conservatives” did not show up to vote thinking that Mitt was the same as socialist Barry (huh?) or threw their vote away on a less than one percent candidate (you throw support early on to your favorite candidate but in the end make your choice between the last two feasible people….like a grown up….in the general election).

        • avatarWLCE says:

          i “threw my vote away too”. :D

          i did the adult thing and voted for who i wanted into office instead of living off of the scraps of compromise.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          i do not comprehend either.

          that is just as bad as a libertarian voting for romney.

        • avatarLeo Atrox says:

          I’m with the field here. Libertarian-leaning guy who finally got to cast his vote for the Libertarian candidate (and glad to have one that was not against gay marriage too). I live in Illinois, so Mitt didn’t have a prayer of winning my electoral votes anyway. I had the liberty of voting my conscience without any worry that I could be handing Obama the office, ’cause he was going to win Illinois anyway.

      • avatarBrother Bear says:

        Mexican
        Pro-Gun
        Pro-Gay
        Pro-Legalized Pot
        Anti-Illegal Immigration
        Anti-National Health Care
        Pro-Death Penalty
        Anti-Obama

        It’s all about personal freedoms man.

        • avatardan says:

          +1 Brother bear, I’m in the EXACT same boat as you.

        • avatarKelly in GA says:

          Well, Brother Bear, I have the exact same punch list as you, but I’m white, so I think it means I’m racist. At least according to our opponents.

        • avatarbernard says:

          I’m pretty close, except I’m not Mexican, and I’m anti-anti-illegal-immigration. (Is that a thing?)

          I think if someone wants to come to our country bad enough to deal with all the trouble getting through and laying low then that sounds like a real American to me – someone who really wants to be here, unlike the people who threaten to move to Canada, etc.

          -b

    • avatarLeon says:

      I hear you. …….and agree fully!

  3. avatarPascal says:

    There is a pro-gun gay group whose site is pinkpistol.org

    I even saw one of there posters once and it said something like “Some people dislike gays, others dislike guns. We should not base our laws on personal dislikes.”

    Someone I used to work with was part of this group which near one of our old offices
    http://www.sacramentopinkpistols.org/index.html

  4. avatarSam Wright says:

    I like hot lesbians as much as the next guy (not pictured) , the more folk we can get packing heat, the more mainstream it will become.

  5. avatarDougieR says:

    Being pro-gun and pro-gay marriage are both pro-civil rights. Good for them.

    • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

      I don’t really get why 3.4% of the population receives so much attention.

      • avatarDrek says:

        Because they are finally getting something that has been denied to them? It’s kind of a big story.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          No, they’ve gotten a lot of attention in the several decades that I can remember. America is fascinated by gays. Just an observation, devoid of my own personal views.

        • avatarpat says:

          Uh, nothing was denied them. The definition of marriage (one man to one woman) is what some seem to desire to change by the alteration of a variable (one man to one man or one woman to one woman). Why not alter another variable in the equation (one woman to TWO men) for instance by changing the ‘one’ to ‘two’? Many seem to feel that marriage is the bringing together of the different genders to create and raise offspring with exposure to these different masculine and feminine traits.
          How can anybody say that a polygamous union where a man and two women can create babies and raise them with both genders present 24/7, though not as ideal as one man to one woman because of confusion to identity of biological mother, is inferior to two young dudes…gulp…’crossing swords’ (just opening pandoras box a bit)? Changing variables on a worldwide institution that has benefitted society for thousands of years is quite the slippery slope. Homosexuality is a negative biological trait for the individual organism (mother nature is a cold bitch) that would lead to extinction if flipped with heterosexuality.

        • avatarGreg Camp says:

          Pat, homosexuality appears in many species, and the fact that humans have been talking about it for millennia tells us that it’s a phenomenon that occurs in each generation.

          Marriage has benefits for the couple and for society. There are financial aspects that are made easier by being married, and family matters such as hospital visitation. We all benefit from stable relationships.

          Think about it this way. If gay marriage is legal across the country tomorrow, will you marry someone of the same sex? Do you see yourself being converted to doing so at some point in the future?

          Live and let live is an excellent principle.

        • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

          +1000
          It is a great philosophy if people worldwide would adhere to it. Homosexuals, lesbians and others have been around since the dawn of time.
          People might be surprised how many “other than heterosexual” people are around them in the workplace etc on a daily basis.
          “Live and let live” should be everyone’s mantra!!! The only time it should be any different is if the someone you are letting live and do as they please is harming another human or causing loss of life!!

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          Pat, the “definition of marriage” as it stands today is pretty modern in terms in relation to human history. If we look at “tradition” as actual human history rather than neocon nostalgia we see that the most traditional form of family was one man and many women. Which I’m fine with, by the way.

        • avatarpat says:

          Gentlemen, There can be little doubt that homosexuality (which has been around for nearly as long as organisms have been sexually reproducing) is a condition probably caused by the interaction of hormones in utero on genes (you are born that way)…but, so are other biologically negative conditions. Even homosexuals would admit that the biological mother and father dynamic is superior when the creation and raising of children is considered. My whole issue was with the lumping of different things into one definition. If homosexuals were to call their union (garriage, homarriage, etc….) with all the same rights (minus first choice for adoption) I would not even be talking about it.

        • avatarBlinkyPete says:

          A, the old separate but equal ploy, huh Pat? It worked so well for the blacks, why not give it a try with the gays?

          Oh, and can you show me a source (outside of your own bigotry, that is) that defines homosexuality as a negative condition? I only ask because everything with a basis is science, medicine and psychology seems to disagree with you.

        • avatarpat says:

          The old calling someone whose opinion differs from yours a bigot, huh Pete? Straight or homosexual, its not working. Sexual reproduction seems to work best when…well…you mix the boys with the girls. Homosexuality is indeed a negative biological trait for the individual organism. If you switched the less than 1 percent of homosexuals with the 99 percent of heterosexual people, say 10,000 or so years ago, our species would have become extinct. Hardly a positive trait to pass on, genetically speaking.
          Common sense.

  6. avatarJoseph says:

    It doesn’t matter what sex, creed, color, or sexual orientation its the life we have and as in nature everyone has the right to protect themselves, property, and love ones. If we start forgetting that them we will be no better then cancer. We have started to grow tumors in the country but we can stop it but all of us need to work together. Blind acceptance of what is said, needs to be questioned, pro or anti anything…

  7. avatarJoe says:

    As a Libertarian, I believe all marriage decisions should be left to the people of individual states. As an individual who believes in traditional American values and culture, I have struggled with my acceptance of gay marriage and gays in general. Liberals may say I was simply bigoted or ignorant but my views towards homosexuality were rooted in natural law and my Christian upbringing. I consciously made my judgement based on reason and my understanding at the time. One day, I was watching a documentary that detailed a particular church’s decision to accept openly gay members and bless gay unions. A proponent of prominent stature within the church was speaking on the subject and there was an image of Jesus in a frame on the desk behind him seemingly staring right at me. I said to myself, “Does Jesus accept and love gay individuals just as he loves everyone else?” The only answer is, of course he does. From that day on I have come to realize that I do not have to understand homosexuality in order to accept it. If gays want marriage rights to make them happy, then I am all for it. To say gay marriage takes away the sanctity of heterosexual marriage or affects heterosexuals in any way is no different than Bob Costas saying owning a firearm can only lead to more bad than good. I think proponents of gay marriage and those of firearms ownership have a common goal, and that is freedom.

    • avatarDon says:

      I get what you are saying but I don’t think that a minority’s rights should be determined by some local popular vote. Since the rights and privileges that come with marriage are geographically universal in our country, then so should be the right to marry.

      Much in the same way, someone’s right to defend themselves shouldn’t be determined by some local popular vote. Self-defense is a geographically universal issue, and so the right to it should be as well.

      Leave things that change based on geography, like industry, environment, infrastructure, etc. to the states.

      • avatarJoe says:

        Since marriage is not defined in the Constitution, it is a 10th Amendment issue. Thus, marriage is up to the states.

        • avatarDon says:

          Some rights are self evident however. Marriage is one of them. I don’t think states should have any say over it.

      • avatarMark N. says:

        marriage rights are not geographically universal, not by a long shot. Texas, California and Louisiana are community property states, and the property rights of married persons are subsantially different than in “common law” states.
        MArriage may be celebrated religiously (or not), but it is in essence a civil union. It is the state, not the church,that is most interested in the ramifications of marriage, which always come down to property and inheritance rights, issues of responsibility for children, etc., matters in which the State has an overwhelming public interest. You cannot get married in most states without a marriage license. Community property states, for example, do not recognize “common law” marriages no matter how long you’ve lived together. In France, the only legally recognized marriage is the civil union (through contract) performed by the magistrate. If you want to have a religious ceremony after, that’s fine, but that religious cerempny has no legal significance.

    • avatargabba says:

      if you defer civil rights to “states rights” you’re not a libertarian.
      libertarianism is not anti federalism.

      • avatarJoe says:

        When did marriage become a civil right? Since you said so? You are right, Libertarianism is not anti-federalism. Libertarians are pro-Constitution. Since the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to wed, the matter is left up to the States or the people as explained in the 10th Amendment. Only Progressives believe that marriage is a civil right. All states have their own Constitution. My state has amended it’s Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Other states have decided to allow same-sex marriage. This is all fact. Don’t let your personal feelings get in the way of the truth.

        • avatarSteve in MA says:

          So if states start passing amendments banning interracial marriages again, that’s just dandy? The constitutions, Federal and State, are there to protect rights, not take them away.

        • avatarJoe says:

          The 14th Amendment, as least as interpreted by the Supreme Court, prohibits States from granting or denying rights and privileges on the basis of race. So the interracial marriage thing is already settled. The debate is whether or not sexual orientation and gay marriage is a choice, and so not protected under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. All this aside, my original post was pro gay marriage, but I accept the fact that some people are uncomfortable with it. The federal government should not be in the business of marriage and as a Constitutionalist I do not see anyway it can be. I also do not see marriage as protected under the Constitution as it is written. It is my belief that gay marriage should be decided by the people or the States but realistically, the fate of gay marriage will likely be decided by the judicial branch.

        • avatarSteve in MA says:

          The Ninth amendment states that just because a right is not listed, does not mean it does not exist, nor that the government can deprive the people of the right. It is also there so that if one group of people is given a right, the others are as well. Two adults consenting to marriage sounds like a right to me, hetero or otherwise

        • avatarpat says:

          People confuse the demanding of tolerance (which all men should have) with acceptance (that can only occur in the human heart). Beware the changing of variables to an ancient worldwide societal institution.

        • avatarSteve in MA says:

          Pat, they’re not asking for acceptance, they’re on the pursuit for happiness.

        • avatarpat says:

          I believe this is all about acceptance. Having the variables changed on an ancient societal institution (one woman and one man) changes the definition.
          If homosexual unions were called ‘garriage’ or ‘homarriage’ or whatever, with the same rights, minus equal adoption picking, this would not be much of an issue. Many feel that homosexuality is a negative biological predisposition that is not equal to heterosexual marriage with regards to the creation and raising of children for society….hence the institution.

    • avatarCurzen says:

      if you were a libertarian you’d not advocate for marriages being licensed by any government, neither federal nor state.

      • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

        “Libertarian” is just a useful label to self-apply for a lot of people who think the government should only do what they want it to, and not do what they don’t want. The problem is if all those people ever sat down they wouldn’t be able to agree on a single thing – which is why it’s a bit of a joke to anybody with more than two brain cells.

        I can actually respect somebody who wants anarchy, they are idiotic, but at least it is a coherent political system. Libertarians are just dreamers though, their goal is an unattainable fantasy.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          smaller government is a fantasy?

          now that is pretty sad.

          i love the revisionist descriptions of libertarian.

        • avatarnonnamous says:

          Maybe they can’t agree on a single thing, but they won’t be forcing their views on others.

        • avatarJoe says:

          If Libertarians ran this government and could not agree on a single thing, it would be the best way possible to ensure Liberty for all individuals. Compromise in government is the precursor to tyranny. Also, I do not know of any Libertarians who believe government should only do what they want it to do. Libertarians believe natural law and inalienable rights transcend personal beliefs.

      • avatarGreg Camp says:

        I’d like to see the government give civil unions to every couple. “Marriage,” in the sense that the government is involved, is about property and insurance and taxes. Divide up the business. Let the government deal with the secular aspects, and leave marriage entirely to private organizations.

      • avatarJoe says:

        If I were an Anarchist I would not. Since I live in America that was founded with a Constitution, I know that marriage can be regulated by the states. Would I support an amendment to my state’s Constitution that stripped the unicameral of it’s ability to regulate marriage? Of course I would. But I am not going to force my views on other states which is a textbook libertarian point-of-view.

      • avatarKris says:

        Hit the nail on the head. The problem here is not who is sleeping with who, but rather, why the hell is it the governments business. “Libertarian” means voting for whomever is most likely to leave me the hell alone.

        Pro-gun concealed weapons instructor
        Anti-death penalty

        Now that’s a minority position

        • avatarrosignol says:

          Nah.

          That combination tells me the issue isn’t the death penalty, but who is in charge of carrying it out.

    • avatarCigr says:

      If marriage decisions were left up to individual states, it would still be illegal for mixed race couples to marry in places like Mississippi.

    • avatarpat says:

      How about three dudes who ‘love’ each other and want to get married? A brother and a sister? I mean, who are you to say who can and cannot love one another? The ancient worldwide insitution has served society pretty well for thousands of years. The one woman to one man design seems to be the natural and logical ideal for society regarding the creation and raising of children with both the primary parents being of different genders (men and women are equal but quite different and as such complementary…to the beneifit of the children).

      • avatarDon says:

        Sounds like someone has been reading NOM talking points. Polygamy has traditionally been an institution oppressive to women. Essentially rich and powerful men collecting sex objects. Until gender equality is achieved in culture, we can’t as a society handle polygamy. Not to say that some people can’t though.

        Marriage has traditionally been an institution of labor and resources exchange and politics. Love or god had little to do with it. Women were sex objects and children factories. Polygamy is more the norm than the exception in traditional marriage. It’s good we are evolving to more civilized concepts of marriage.

        • avatarpat says:

          I am no fan of polygamy and only point it out because of the hypocricy of omitting it while allowing homosexual marriage because polygamous unions make more natural sense (can create offspring and raise them with primary 24/7 exposure to the different genders). The societal institution of marriage (a man to a woman) is the ideal for the creation and raising of offspring.

        • avatarCurzen says:

          and just because someone else can marry heterosexual couples will stop marrying and having children?

        • avatarpat says:

          Huh? Point is, dont call it the same thing.

      • avatarJoseph says:

        First, let me identify myself:
        White
        Middle-aged
        Natural-born U.S. Citizen
        CCP Holder and firearms advocate
        Transmale
        Pro-Obama
        Pro marriage between any two (or more) adults who love each other.
        Pro legalizing marijuana
        Voted for Libertarians about 50% of elections, and always for non-Presidential positions.
        Christian

        Now that I have been properly pigeon-holed, let me address your remark:
        Abraham, father of the entire Judeo-Christian culture, married Sarah–his biological half-sister, and then pimped her out to Pharoah for financial gain. Read the story carefully. So if that is the “ancient institution” you are favoring, I’ll pass.

    • avatarPaul W says:

      Libertarians should not be OK with the government screwing people, regardless of which level of government is doing the screwing.

      If you favor states rights, rather than people’s rights, that makes you a federalist.

      If you favor personal liberty with minimal interference from the government, then you’re a libertarian.

  8. avatarThomas Paine says:

    Dad?

  9. avatarDon says:

    Some people are afraid of guns. Some people are afraid of gays. Some people are afraid of the notion of a >6000 year old earth which isn’t the center of the universe… gasp! No one’s freedoms should be restricted based on some insecure moron’s irrational fears or willful ignorance of facts and statistics (whichever comes first).

    -D

    • avatarpat says:

      Are you afraid of two men and one woman getting married into polygamous bliss? Got ya! I mean, there is no difference between men and women, right. Two men are just one more father, right. I love my brother. Who are you to say I cannot ‘marry’ him. You and your irrational fears.

      • avatarPaul W says:

        I know it’s a trap but…
        my ideal world view would have the state not being involved in marriage at all; no state sanctioned marriages. All marriages being church recognized and the state not caring.

        IF however the state does get involved in this, I want it open to any combination of consenting adults.

        • avatarpat says:

          Well, sadly, you are probably right about the state no longer sanctioning marriages and it only being recognized by the church. I am sure the evil ACLU is getting their lawsuits ready to remove the tax exempt status of the church if they do not welcome the sodomites.

  10. avatarStant says:

    Why is the Government in the Marriage business in the first place? Civil Unions for all.

    But on the other hand Gay Marriage is not spelled out in the Constitution is it?

    • avatarDon says:

      Nor is the right to hetero-marriage, or the right to procreate, or the right to die, or the right to travel, or the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, or the right to form a political party, or even an explicit definition of the right to vote (since there is no explicit definition of “People” or how they “select” their representation).

      The founding fathers were your average clever, practical guys with common sense, and they probably assumed that WE would be on average clever, practical, and use common sense too, therefore the constitution doesn’t explicitly mention a lot of obvious rights.

    • avatarpat says:

      Sadly, the government must now get out of the marriage business. It was a plus for society to bring the genders together in an institution that would beneifit the creation and raising of a child to his biological parents so the child would see 24/7 the unique gifts each gender (masculine and feminine) offered. These new definitions are clearly NOT ideal, so marriage should be left to the church with civil unions remaining.

      • avatarDon says:

        By that logic adoption is not ideal. If the biological parents are drug addicts or irresponsible and the adopted parents are not then it is more than ideal. People regardless of gender embody both “masculine and feminine” traits. And the real world just isn’t on your side, given that completely normal children have been raised by loving same sex couples forever.

        What you are doing isn’t proving that gay marriage is bad, you are contortions to rationalize that what you do and what you are comfortable with is the only right and healthy way. Takers a step back and look at how insecure you’d have to be to do that?

        • avatarpat says:

          I am not against adoption (though it is generally less than ideal compared to the biological parents primarily raising their children). There have been and are many instances of homosexual couples raising children and I am certainly not against that either. You can see the natural pecking order in terms of best to worst adoption choices, cant you. All else being equal, homosexual couples are best raising unwanted and special needs children while heterosexual couples get first pick. A woman ‘with masculine traits’ is still no man. Children act completely differently around men than they do women, and visa versa. Men and womens minds and bodies are wired completely differently…while complementing one another. Aint nature amazing. A ‘mother’ or ‘father’ figure is not remotely the same.

  11. avatarAnotherMatt says:

    Gay gun owner here. It’s unfortunate so many of my community side with gun grabbing politicians, but the only other option a lot of the time is to side with a republican who is actively working to strip our rights.

    If we were known to be armed as a community, I bet violence against us would sharply decline.

    As an aside, one of the big reasons this is my favorite gun site is because of the lack of insane anti-gay/black/minority vitriol that other sites seem to attract.

    • avatarJames St. John says:

      Vote Libertarian. gun and gay friendly.

    • avatarOHgunner says:

      “If we were known to be armed as a community, I bet violence against us would sharply decline.”

      The same can be said for all “communities”. A gun doesn’t care who’s wielding it, gay/straight/black/white/criminal/law abiding, ect, all are afforded equal protection. That’s why an attack on gun rights is an attack on civil rights. Too bad the ACLU et al. will never take that stance.

    • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

      +100. Welcome to the club!! Enjoy and be happy!!!!

  12. avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

    “it’s been my experience that the gun rights advocate subset of American gun owners are, in the main, libertarians”

    Without knowing what proportion of gun owners this ephemeral “advocate subset” consists of that’s pretty meaningless. I’m sure that the gay rights advocates of the Klan were jolly decent people too, there just weren’t that many of them.

    These enlightened “advocates” can be as progressive as they like, but they aren’t the ones steering the ship. How many gun owners voted for a Republican in recent elections, even if he was anti gay, because they would rather die than vote dem or “waste their vote” (the mating call of the retard) on a third party? Many? Most? How many gun owners happily voted for Mitt, who is staunchly anti gay and anti woman? Who literally believes that a man translated the word of God out of a hat? Many? Most?

    No one drop of rain thinks it causes the flood, you may be the world’s most ethical and humanitarian gun owner, but you’re still in the same boat as a hell of a lot of scum – a fact that is all too apparent when posts containing (very) thinly veiled racism appear here. You ran a successful board about cars, and one about guns – which had more of a problem with race hate and bigotry? No matter how high you build your ivory tower, at the end of the day reality bites – there will never be enough progressive gun owners to bring the majority of regressive gun owners into line, because true progressives have gone beyond the desire to walk around armed entirely anyway.

    • avatarDon says:

      “there will never be enough progressive gun owners to bring the majority of regressive gun owners into line, because true progressives have gone beyond the desire to walk around armed entirely anyway”

      I really think this is changing with gun culture 3.0. You have a lot of skeptical and educated 20-30 somethings living in crappy crime ridden places trying to get by in a new world where the US isn’t the only world power with a decent industrial capability (like in the time since WWII when all of the industry in Europe and Japan was bombed into the stone age, Russia was without an entire generation of male workers and broke, and China and India were more focused on just getting everyone fed properly). In today’s world of unprecedented global competition, doing for yourself and not being able to rest for decades on the laurels of past generations while the rest of the world gets up to speed is necessary for our survival. All of this combined with a barely adapting political system makes individual responsibility more self-evident than ever before.

      • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

        I do agree with what you’re saying to a point, if you dropped me in the middle of Detroit after dark and asked me to walk a couple of miles I’d rather have a gun than not, but I still think that’s an edge case in the grand scheme of things. Also, the need for the gun can be reduced by other means, more police patrols, better streetlighting, etc.

        If the principle argument for keeping gun carry legal (I am fine with home ownership) is because the US is going all Mad Max then we’re in far more trouble than more people carrying guns can ever sort out anyway.

        • avatargreat unknown says:

          “…more police patrols, better streetlighting, etc.” At a time when police patrols are being cut [if not completely eliminated] and street-lighting severely curtailed. If that’s called Mad Max, well then, here we are. And I’m not interested in trying to sort it out. I’m interested in surviving.

          BTW, there was an execution in broad daylight in a crowded area of midtown Manhattan today. Of course, this being New York, the killer calmly got into a waiting escape vehicle and left the scene. Nothing anyone could do to stop him.
          http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/man_shot_in_head_in_broad_daylight_5lOmcRkgAkYeO3fIFNuXxO

        • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

          So what are you saying great unknown – that if you had been there with your gun you would have attempted a citizens arrest? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

          And also could you tell us who the victim in this case was? An old lady on her way to donate to the local orphanage? Or some scumbag gang member?

        • avatarJaxD says:

          You forgot midnight basketball.

        • avatarDon says:

          I can’t control where a streetlight is, where a police patrol is, or whether or not a criminal threat has the sense or sanity to even consider such things… but I can control whether or not I have a weapon for protection, and I can control the level of my training with it, and my thoughtfulness of the implications of using it, good and bad.

          That’s the sort of the issue, count on what you actually have control over yourself. Besides, what do all the extra cops do when the’re aren’t things to respond to? Write tickets so they can pay their own wages.

        • avatarJoe says:

          Haha, streetlights will reduce the need for armed self defense. Good one. Just like a “no guns” sign will prevent a psychopath from shooting up a Batman movie.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “waste their vote” (the mating call of the retard) on a third party? ”

      hahahahhaha! +1

      • avatarpat says:

        So true. I am all for support of a lesser known or supported candidate early on. But, as GROWNUPS in a national election, we are faced with a choice that, while not our ideal pick, is the one that gives us more of what we originally wanted than the other.

        • avatarDon says:

          That’s not being a grownup, that’s being a slave to the parties. The number of votes third parties get sends a message to the parties and force them to pay attention to those platforms. It forces them to work for your vote. If you aren’t willing do vote third party they know they literally don’t have to do much for you. All they have to do is be marginally better than the next guy. In fact, when you vote for the lesser evil you give them incentive to be as close to the other guy as possible without crossing the line. Sort of backwards.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          “So true.”

          note remotely. research the term, “hegelian dialectic”.

          “I am all for support of a lesser known or supported candidate early on.”

          …then you ditch during a national election for the scraps the elite throws at you. nice.

          “But, as GROWNUPS in a national election, we are faced with a choice that, while not our ideal pick, is the one that gives us more of what we originally wanted than the other.”

          LOL thats the problem. there was not “one” that gave you more than what you originally wanted. he was just as bad as the other guy. any pro-gun person that voted for romney is a damned fool and ive pointed this out several times over the past month.

          just curious; what does your vote cost you? mine costs enough to write on a ballot who i want in office. very minimal cost. certainly cheap compared to those that came before me that put everything on the line so i can pick who i want in office. its not like our forefathers warned us against two party systems….

        • avatarpat says:

          Winning (and losing) elections have consequences. This country is a two party system that can only be altered from within. NO candidate gives us EVERYTHING we want. So what, you dont vote or stand in a corner like some spoiled stupid child when you dont get everything you want. Having fringe favorites early and supporting them is fine, but what does that have to do with the general election. Elections have real outcomes. If I dont have my favorite candidate (say Chris Christie, for instance) as one of the two party candidates at the end I what, write his effing name in rather than maybe getting most of what I care about (nobody gets everything they want so they make the best choice for the country).

    • avatarGreg Camp says:

      There will never be enough progressive (whatever that means) gun owners? More and more people are buying guns every day. They can’t all belong to a group that you don’t like.

      The best thing to do is to separate gun ownership from a political side. Guns shouldn’t be a left/right thing. Good gun ownership is about exercising rights, and that’s something that a vast majority of Americans can support.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      If you’re part of the human race you’re in the same boat as a lot of scum, Mr. Strawman. It’s not smart to judge groups by their worst members. In fact it’s a rather ignorant, nasty thing that’s awfully close to stereotyping. You know, that thing that racists and other bigots tend to do?

      As for “true progressives” going beyond the the desire to walk around armed? Oh really? I’m so glad they’ve appointed you their spokesman since you enjoy using fallacious arguments. We’ll add “No True Scotsman” to that list.

  13. avatarirock350 says:

    I stopped shooting at a range by myself because the owner was outspoken about being anti-gay. Every time they called a cease fire on the range they played a message advertising the different benefits the newly remolded range had to offer. On of them was a discount to couple, but they made a point of stating only heterosexual couples, not gay couple would get the benefit. So i asked them about it, and he said that he owned the range, and he made the rules. I agreed, and said that I would no longer be shooting at his range. I told him is was people like him that do more harm than good when it comes to the second amendment.

  14. avatarJaysonWD says:

    This is my first post, but I’ve been reading TTAG for years. As a gay gun owner, when I saw the picture I was wondering what the response would be and I’m so happy to see the libertarian bent by TTAG respondents :-)

    Equating 2nd amendment rights with the right to marry is perfect.

    Oh, and heterosexual marriage isn’t mentioned in the Constitution either (along with the air force, etc.)

    Now I’m glad I’m a TTAG reader!

    • avatarAdam L. says:

      No matter what the Supreme Court hears or rules it’s not going to effect my marriage in any fashion. Marriage as an institution is thousands of years old and obviously predates our Constitution. It’s a voluntary agreement between two people and their Creator and the government shouldn’t be involved at all.

    • avatarpat says:

      Nor is polygamous marriage. Why redefine one part of the societal institution known as marriage (one man to one woman) to one man to one man or one woman to one woman while saying the altering of another variable in the equation (changing the number instead of the gender) is wrong.

      • avatarMichael B. says:

        It’s not wrong. Polygamy is fine with me as long as there’s no coercion or minors involved.

      • avatarDon says:

        You are slippery sloping down a straw man. You realize what a formal logical fallacy is?

        • avatarpat says:

          Someone against polygamy who is for homo marriage is being hypocritical. Leave the traditional definition (a man and a woman) as the societal ideal, for common senses sake.

    • avatarKris says:

      Who keeps letting gays into our discussion thread?

      J/K ;-)

  15. avatarTXDadoo says:

    Hell. Yes. Nothing incendiary about that image at all.

  16. avatarChris Dumm says:

    This post, along with all of your thoughtful comments, is a moving and powerful antidote to the ‘racist redneck doomsday cultist’ narrative that anti-gun groups disseminate through network news. Thank you.

    • avatarDon says:

      I love to see the silent majority come out and refute that loud minority of bigoted cultists too. It’s the best thing for gun rights when gun people are known to be normal and diverse.

  17. avatarg says:

    More reason to like TTAG… a reasonable discussion of the rights of individuals to own guns of course applies to the rights on individuals to choose whom they can marry.

    I’m not gay, but I equate anti-gay laws to the same racist laws that barred Blacks/Asians/Latinos from marrying Whites. Being a part of a multi-ethnic family, where many of my relatives are interracial couples, I completely support the rights of our fellow gay citizens to marry.

  18. avatarRalph says:

    It’s pretty simple, isn’t it? People should have the legal right to do what they want if it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Gays should be able to marry if that’s what they want to do. I just don’t understand why they would.

    Half of first marriages, 2/3 of second marriages and almost 3/4 of third marriages end in divorce. Gay people are good people, but they’re not going to do any better than their hetero brothers and sisters. But, whatever, I wish them luck.

    • avatarGreg Camp says:

      A friend of mine once said that gays should have to suffer through the divorce process just like the rest of us.

      • avatarCarlosT says:

        Actually, divorce is one of the most important reasons to have marriage in the first place. Sounds weird, right? But suppose you were in a relationship with someone for 25 years, which then broke down. If you’re married, there’s a process to resolve the property, legal, and other issues involved in dissolving the relationship. With divorce, there’s a place to start, routes to take, options to choose from, which at least gives some structure to a painful process. That structure is especially important to the side of the relationship with fewer resources.

    • avatarpat says:

      Most people who get married (for the first time) stay married. The famous 50% divorce rate is wrong because it counts people like Liz Taylor EIGHT times instead of once. What about three women to one man? Brother and sister? Messing with an ancient worldwide institution has its dangers, does it not?

      • avatarGreg Camp says:

        How about the worldwide and ancient institutions of slavery and subjugation of women? There are things that need to be messed with.

        • avatarpat says:

          Well, yes. This was regarding the institution of MARRIAGE (though after seeing some of my friends marriages and how their wives treated them….I can see how you would lump it in with slavery-tongue in cheek).

  19. avatarJames says:

    Personally, I could care less about what two people do in their personal lives. Live and let live.

  20. avatarMatt in FL says:

    I saw this picture the other day, and the comment below made me smile…

    “Winchester, Harley Davidson, GMC, camo, flannel and LOVE! just 7 of the 1000 words this picture represents!”

  21. avatarTRUTHY says:

    Well, since the overwhelming amount of readers of this blog are RepubliCONs (yes, Libertarians and Independents are RepubliCONs), this article makes no sense. RepubliCONs will never back gay marriage, any more than they would back ANYTHING that remotely helps the common working person. The only thing that matters is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and plenty of it.

    Liberal
    AR15 owner
    Liberal
    Glock owner
    Liberal
    M&P owner
    Liberal
    1911 owner
    Liberal
    Care about common people, that’s why I can’t be CONservative or a RepubliCON.

    It is a misconception that liberals don’t like guns, made up by the NRA and co-conspirators the RepubliCON party to make $$$$.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      “Libertarians and Independents are RepubliCONs”

      sorry, ill disagree with you strongly.

      as both, that is pretty insulting ;)

    • avatarMerits says:

      Libs have no corner on caring. Anyone can care for those in need with their own time or money. Advocation of theft of others possessions is not compassion for anyone, it’s power seeking and controlling behavior. Would you think it caring for Farago to ‘ask’ you to pay your fair share by giving me your Glock? After all, I don’t have one, and you have numerous firearms.

    • Ah, good to see the Democratic Underground contingent is represented here, too.

    • avatarnonnamous says:

      not sure if troll or srs

    • avatarAharon says:

      Read the comments under this posting and recognize that you are ignorantly stereotyping the readers of this blog. Your first sentence is illogical. The first part is an incorrect assumption of a fact and the second does not follow it logically even if the fist part was factual. Truthy, you have just blown a hole into your own foot.

    • avatarDon says:

      Libertarians and independents aren’t republicans. Have you ever heard of left-libertarianism or a technocrat?

    • avatarpat says:

      Somebody is a little wet behind the ears and is spending a little too much time on the internet reading ‘fringe’ imfo.

  22. avatarGyufygy says:

    Hahaha, that picture is awesome.

    I have honestly surprised by the number of people on here who lean right, or conservative, or what have you, and are pro-gay marriage. Actually been quite an education in how diverse Republicans and/or Libertarians can be in their views. Amazing how that becomes noticeable when you stop assuming Rush, O’Reilly, Robertson, and Beck speak for everyone who ever voted Republican, even once.

  23. avatarshawmutt says:

    Once again, atheist liberal who believes the Constitution is the law of the land. My wife, liberal who hated guns but now has no problem with me conceal carrying and loves going to the range. Best friends are a liberal couple who also strongly believe in the Constitution.

    It seems like rich liberals, the Bloombergs, the Clintons, etc. want to control firearms and just about everything else. The “normal” liberals may surprise you.

  24. avatarNorm Walker says:

    I was happy to introduce one of my gay coworkers to the world of firearms. She is a natural shot and took to it like a duck to water. I think minority groups are some of the most important groups to get into the firearms. While I am most at risk for my wallet many of these openly homosexual individuals do need to fear for their own safety solely based on who they choose to have sex with. I think it is sad and unfortunate.

  25. avatarBob says:

    I oppose the whole idea of government providing special privileges based on marital status. I have chosen to remain unmarried, and the government discriminates against me in several ways. Is that fair? Why should I pay a larger share of taxes than a married person with children, when I actually cost the government less with no children.

    Treat everyone the same, without respect for their marital status.

  26. avatarDerryM says:

    I do not describe myself by any political/social label. I prefer to look at political/social issues on their own merits and as an interactive whole. I hope for the day when the words of The Declaration of Independence are true for all People. “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all People (there, fixed that for you Founders) are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creation (fixed that one, too) with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If the issue satisfies that criteria, then I am good with it because it pretty much says it all.

    I am pro-Rights, and the enumerated, or implied, details matter less to me because if you are pro-Rights, you can easily discern what fits and what doesn’t.

  27. avatarGreg Camp says:

    This is a question of rights. Any government that has the authority to tell two adults what they’re allowed to do with their lives has the power to run every aspect of everyone’s life.

    I respect the right of a fundamentalist to say that a gay union is a sin. That person doesn’t have to acknowledge the relationship. But the important things here are whether one partner can visit the other in the hospital, whether one partner will inherit the marriage property without having to pay extra taxes, whether one partner is recognizes as a parent if the other partner dies–that sort of thing. The purity of a religion won’t be damaged by giving gay couples the same rights as straight couples.

    It all comes down to this: If you can’t honestly give a reason why you need to interfere in the life of someone else, you should back off and say, have a nice day.

  28. avatarإبليس says:

    Wasn’t not getting married a big selling point for homosexuality? Why ruin a good thing?

  29. avatarEd Rogers says:

    Republicans are supposed to believe the least amount of government governs best – I believe government should stay out of religious matters and vice versa. Civil unions aren’t religious, therefore the Supreme Court should be able to rule on them…marriage (as a religious institution), I don’t think so. Same thing with abortions, let the individuals and their families make the decisions. It’s nobody’s business what your sexual orientation is – unless you make it so.

    Regardless – more gun owners (regardless of color, religion, gender, orientation, etc.) is a good thing…

  30. avatarAharon says:

    Why is government even in the marriage business in the first place?
    Shouldn’t government be kept limited to maybe registering a civil union business contract between two people who want to be considered a united couple?
    Should every aspiring couple first be required to have a civil union prior to an optional marriage ceremony conducted by a religious organization?

    I think many of the marriage and divorce problems currently going on in America will alleviate if government gets out of the picture and stops injecting itself into the relationship as an active partner.

    The Family/Divorce Courts are biased in favor of the wife against the husband. How are the government courts going to handle gays and lesbians divorcing?

  31. avatarSteve says:

    Gay marriage is fine with me. If gay people want to enter into a marriage then they should have the exact same legal status as anyone else.

    Whether or not you approve or disapprove of someone’s marriage is irrelevant. Rights are Rights. I could point to many hetero marriages that never should have happened….yet my opinion means exactly squat.

    The notion that if someone is conservative they oppose gay marriage is a fading myth. And good riddance to it.

  32. avatarAharon says:

    Why is government even in the marriage business in the first place?
    Shouldn’t government be kept limited to maybe registering a civil union business contract between two people who want to be considered a united couple?
    Should every aspiring couple first be required to have a civil union prior to an optional marriage ceremony conducted by a religious organization?

    I think many of the marriage and divorce problems currently going on in America will alleviate if government gets out of the picture and stops injecting itself into the relationship as an active partner.

    • avatarDon says:

      I think governments have been in the marriage business because marriage is usually in the social interest. In theory it’s like the buddy system, someone is responsible to cover you if you are out of commission so you don’t drag on society. Social partnerships add a bit of robustness to society in that way. Same thing with child rearing. Two parents generally provides an amount of attention that reduces the probability of the kid becoming a net negative for society. Not too romantic, maybe a bit utilitarian, but that’s why I think governments have always provided incentives for marriage.

      • avatarAharon says:

        Agreed that ‘ideally’ marriages are in the social interests yet I’m not keen about government injecting itself to run the project. Agree also with your take about two parents providing a better home for kids than the single parent thingy. I’m no expert yet it seems like today’s government is taking away some of those incentives to marry and/or providing more incentives to divorce well at least an incentive for women with the way the courts work (or don’t work).

        • avatarDon says:

          It’s all still shaking out. A lot of men still don’t see women as equals. A lot if women still don’t see themselves as equals. People are sensitive to this and some women will game that sensitivity to their selfish advantage. Likewise some men see it as their right to commit crimes against women and get away with it too. When everyone gets over all of that things will be better. Providing an incentive for marriage which is less in value than the net interest to society but is still compelling is good policy and can be win-win economically.

        • avatarAharon says:

          Don,

          You’ve lost me with your last post. I do not put women up on a pedestal and worship them. IMO, many women wrongly see men as the enemy and imo many naive men do not realize they are seen by modern womyn as disposable commodities. I think many womyn have ‘progressed’ to the point of seeing themselves as superior to men and most women expect special class status. In modern society sexist views go both ways. I see the two sexes as complements to each other and not as equals. Some men and some women see it as their right to commit crimes against the other and to get away with it.

        • avatarDon says:

          Yeah, that’s pretty much what I was saying. Women game the sensitivity to gender inequality to actually maliciously go after men in court in an unfair way sometimes. Equality is equality, female chauvinism as you describe is not. When “equality” people like myself say equality we don’t mean “the same”, we mean equal privilege, consideration, etc.

  33. avatarKendahl says:

    Any government that has the authority to tell two adults what they’re allowed to do with their lives has the power to run every aspect of everyone’s life.” Both liberals and conservatives want to do this. (Left wing and right wing are more accurate names.) The only differences between them are the details of the policies they want to impose.

    If you can’t honestly give a reason why you need to interfere in the life of someone else, you should back off …… That’s the libertarian position. Unfortunately, both liberals and conservatives are convinced in their own minds that they have ample justification for interference.

    In addition to gun rights, I am in favor of gay marriage and women’s choice about abortion. However, as a heterosexual with a vasectomy married to a woman past menopause, neither gay marriange nor abortion affect me. A politician’s position on gun rights does affect me. Therefore, I will hold my nose and support one who favors gun rights at the expense of the other issues. If you want me to support a politician who backs gay marriage and abortion, find one who backs gun rights, too.

  34. avatarIvanTheTerrible(Shot) says:

    I was looking something else up on here and clicked on this article with a slight cringe, hoping that I wouldn’t have to stop reading this site’s great articles because of bigotry. I’m happy to see the true “live and let live” colors of this site, and I have to say that I’m giving the Libertarian party another look. All that political stuff aside, this site and its content are the best gun reviews I’ve found so far with regards to their detail, clarity, *spelling*, and brevity. Keep up the good work!

  35. avatarPantera Vazquez says:

    20 years ago I felt that 2 guys making out was somehow a personal threat to me, so living in NYC I would go out to beat up fags. Why? Hell if I know. I was young, dumb and full of hate. But people grow up, and many of us mature. Some continue hating that which is not in any way a threat to them. Someone explain to me how it is that two people of the same sex who choose to join their lives or bodies somehow threaten your family or mine. I find it hard to accept that any straight marriage is going to suffer because of Gay weddings. “Well Dianne, I gotta divorce ya now cuz’ Jim n Bubba are boyfriends” Call it civil union, call it marriage-at the end of the day it is the same thing, a couple united.

  36. avatarBobby says:

    We have gay rights in Maryland, waiting for the courts to give us our CCW rights back. I’d love for us to live up to the “free state” monicker. It seems like gays should be even more concerned with gun rights as they are unfairly targeted by bigoted knuckle draggers. Gun rights, gay rights and freedom!

  37. avatarEthanB says:

    That image puts a new spin on “OFWG”.

  38. avatarJoe Grine says:

    I’m not sure why government is entangled in the issue of marriage at all. I see it as a failed social institution. I say end it completely – make it strictly a matter of relgion and private contract. Nobody takes it seriously any more anyway. I think the only reason it still exists is because women want to have one day where they get to wear a white dress and be the center of attention.

    • avatarjwm says:

      My wife calls it “princess for a day”. Maybe it’s time to make marriege a civil union, regardless of genders or numbers wanting to marry. Set property and child care issues in the civil contract and be done with it.

      • avatarpat says:

        Sadly, that is what it should now be. let the church handle marriage (at least until the evil ACLU sues under removal of tax exempt status). The ACLU should be destroyed….by any and all means necessary.

  39. avatarKeeFC says:

    I’m part black, pro-gun, pro-hunting, pro-gay marriage. This picture makes me happy beyond words. Bring your gay relatives and friends shooting. Show them they can protect themselves. It’s hard to bash someone with a CCW. Sometimes as gun owners we forget WE are the minority and should support other minorities getting rights, maybe we’ll gain an ally or two fight with us for ours.

  40. avatarChad says:

    Bottom line, is that as a trainer, ex, LEO and gay man, I will teach and bring all those that are willing to learn into the gun culture. Liberals are gun owners too, they are just “in the closet”. I think the biggest thing you can do is take someone shooting.

    Some of my best friends, never understood, why after leaving law enforcement, I still carried a gun. Even after I started my own training company, my best friend, a liberal, never understood, why I carried a gun in a movie theater. After the whack job killed so many people in Colorado, he now gets it. He has chosen to not carry himself, but he feels safer if he and I go places, including movies, because he knows I am armed. He has been to the range with me and he enjoys shooting occasionally. He hasn’t made the decision to buy his own gun yet. But, I think thats coming to.

    Bottom line, I may be an anomaly, a gay Republican. I don’t have to like your politics, but if I bring you into being a proud gun owner, maybe they can change their Democratic party from the inside. By having liberal gun owners stand up for the 2nd amendment is how we defeat, the bans and bills that hurt law abiding gun owners.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.