Do the People of the Gun Need to Support Pro-Gun Gays More?

Reader Aaron writes:

I figured maybe you could use some perspective from an ever-so-rare gay conservative such as myself. I’ve been following and actively wanting to get more and more engaged with the whole gun control and pro-gun debate in a much greater capacity, but at the same time there are instances where I just can’t come to terms with the Left-Right of it all. I’ve owned firearms all my life.. And really, that’s only because I’ve had a distinct interest in classic arms. That interest evolved into handguns, and eventually competitive shooting and all that good, fun stuff that most sporting chaps enjoy. This whole time though, being openly gay has never been an issue til right after Newtown . . .

Suddenly, all my gay friends were ranting and raving about gun control and saying I’m not gay enough for supporting and owning firearms and that I should be setting the example for the rest of the country and be a perfect example of a ‘reformed’ gay man. I’ve never even heard of that. ‘Reformed’ gay man. It’s rather absurd to think that, despite being with my partner for roughly 7 years (with some time in between), that I’m not gay enough for the rest of the community as a whole because I have a very large interest in firearms and support my gun rights and my right to self defense.

I see the Constitution for what it is, and while there are some pieces of it that I don’t agree with, I understand that it all boils down to a moral issue that has nothing to do with the Constitution. I suppose being interested in the history of the world and proud to be an American, despite being part of a very disliked subculture has really affected my view on everything. And while I wish others would be more accepting of my homosexual side, it has never really been an issue with most people I’ve known.

Regardless, what I’m getting to is this: in my community, we are largely regarded as leftists who only vote Democrat. Admittedly, I have too. I wanted to be recognized and have my partnership recognized as legitimate. I wanted my partner to be able to share my bank account with me or be at my side if I am injured and in the hospital.

I wanted to be an equal person, yet at the same time I didn’t want to be very vocal about it. I didn’t want to be somehow elevated above the rest of the country for being gay, somehow being the ‘better’ and more ‘tolerant’ individual that the mainstream media has portrayed. And this is what bothers me about being a gay firearm owner.

I’m beginning to be elevated above the rest of gun owners because I am gay and refuse to toe the standard party line. More and more people are coming out of the woodwork, asking me if I’m going against my own party simply because I support the 2A, and accusing me of holding my guns more closely than I do my partner. This has lead me to believe that, as with all issues, this is simply becoming part of being gay, not just a gun owner.

It’s becoming more and more polarizing to boot. That somehow my opinion of gun control matters more than, say, Joe Whiteguy’s, because of my sexual orientation. And that because I speak out and against gun control that I’m somehow, ‘not gay enough.’  Ultimately, this leads me to believe in one thing..  The thing that I’ve been pondering for a long time, after getting all of my reactions from both sides of the playing field.

Are gays somehow the key to turning public opinion where guns are concerned? I’ve been curious about this for a long time. At my job, there are a number of people who have come to me, asking (despite there being five other employees who are gun owners) if they can go shooting with me. To teach them how to handle a firearm, whether it’s a handgun or a rifle. I always agree, and I’ve gotten plenty of my co-workers and even one very hoplophobic person to trust me and pick up my CZ 75 and have a go at it. At the end of the day they were having a blast with my AR15 and all my other “evil” firearms.

Despite all of this, I began to realise they were coming to me to teach them about firearms and help them get over their fear simply because I’m gay. I always ask, “Why didn’t you ask suchandsuch? He has firearms too.” And I always get the answer, “Well, I don’t know. You’re nicer and I trust you alot more with firearms than him.” To which I ask, “Oh, it’s because I’m gay, isn’t it?” with a little smirk and a playful laugh. And I always get the same answer, “Well, you seem more responsible because you’re gay.” That always floors me. Every time. It seems to me it always was about being gay, and never about the guns.

So, with all that said, is it in the pro-gun community’s interests to really start supporting the LGBT side? To prop them up and use their position to promote our side further? Is that something the NRA would see as acceptable? Would it even be acceptable to the gun community as a whole? I don’t know the answers, but I thought I’d share this with you as you guys seem to be reasonable. And you’re also my favorite gun-blog thingy. Figured I could give you guys my feelings on it, really.

comments

  1. avatar Chris says:

    I’d guess it’s the Fudd’s that don’t like gays with guns since it’s not a hunting or sporting cause.

    1. avatar Jim B says:

      First off you stupid illiterate it should be Fudds not Fudd’s. Learn the difference between possessive and plural before insulting people stupid. Next, why the hell do you think it is hunters that do not want gays in the gun community? Because you are a little gamer boy? Really, go fvck yourself you illiterate ignoramus. You anti-hunters make me sick.

      1. avatar Taylor Tx says:

        I am both a life long hunter and gamer (graduating from grad school soon to become a game developer) and that assumption is just as bad as this guy pigeon-holing hunters. I am most definitely a hay seed and a lot of these stereotypes are what seems to break up the gun community and 2A advocates into these seperate disparate groups.

        Here is a quote I saw on the Sage Dynamics facebook the other day:
        “Being American means supporting all rights, regardless of if you use them or not. Selective support; ardently opposing a right because you don’t feel its warranted is tantamount to supporting despotism. History has shown us that rights once attacked, will fall like dominoes.”

      2. avatar Leo338 says:

        So…. I guess you are a hunter? HAHA, chill out.

      3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        Why did my tampon comment get deleted? It wasn’t any worse than what Jimmy Boy said.

      4. avatar C says:

        What the sht are you on about, Jim?

      5. avatar Bret says:

        Jim B. Most hunters are not FUDDs. Hell not all FUDDS are hunters. It’s just a term for a group that thinks that guns should have stayed the same for the last 75 years or so, and have no tolerance for other views on the matter. Calling someone a FUDD is not attacking all hunter, nor are FUDDs a majority of hunters.

        1. avatar Jim B says:

          Well you have redefined the term on TTAG then. The only hunting most of the regular writers on TTAG have done is behind high fences, shooting animals at feeders. Then bragging about the 6 point bull elk they shot in Texas with their AR-15! Elk in Texas? What a joke! It’s a canned hunt! That isn’t hunting but they wouldn’t know the difference between hunting and shooting. The farmer that raised the animal should get a 4-H Blue Ribbon but shooting it isn’t hunting. Yeah, I know, you can’t understand that. It is impossible to explain the difference to non-hunters.

        2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          You seem cranky, Jim.

      6. avatar KCK says:

        Choose best answer
        A. Jim B has 1/2 pound trigger.
        B. Jim B’s got 1/2 pound trigger.
        C. Jim Bs got 1/2 pound trigger.
        D. Jim B is a jerk.

        1. avatar Jim B says:

          That’s real clever Little Boy. Repeat it a few more times.

        2. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          How about “JB is a jerkoff”?

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          Jim,

          You should crack open a crisp ice cold beer and quietly and calmly listen to the fizzing. Then after 30 seconds of watching the bubbles rise and the sweat build on the bottle take a big mouthful and swish it around in there for a bit and take it all in. Find a soft or relaxing chair and enjoy it. Close your eyes… relax all your muscles and say “goosefraba.”

        4. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Thanks Anon, that’s good advice, I think I will.

          Oh, you were talking to Jim? Well, the beer’s already open… no sense in wasting it.

        5. avatar Pat says:

          I think Jim needs a bong rip.

    2. avatar JSW says:

      Just wut the hell does sexual orientation gots to do with a friggin gun?
      And just wut the hell’s JimB’s furking problem? Need to get a life, JimB? Or ‘re you always cranky when you can’t get your crank?
      Sheesh- maybe you shuld reed your post and consider your lack of proper punctuashun before you knoch someone’s speelin’.

  2. avatar dook says:

    I don’t discriminate and neither does the 2nd Amendment.

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      +1 This. Right. Here.

      1. avatar styrgwillidar says:

        Amen. And if we establish recipricocity for marriage licenses (gay or straight) as a fundamntal right, then their should be recipricocity for concealed carry licenses as a fundamental right.

        I don’t hetero or homo where guns are concerned. I simply see other citizens.

        1. avatar Roscoe says:

          You don’t pander either, huh?

        2. avatar scottlac says:

          They why are they making the “gay” part an issue? Why can’t they simply be for gun rights like everyone else without raising secondary divisive issues?

        3. avatar JW says:

          Bingo!

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Amen to that. Guns for all who aren’t violent felons. Although violent felines will steal firearms, disarming the good guys certainly won’t help matters.

      1. avatar Dustin says:

        “JUST HAND OVER THE CAT NIP AND NOBODY GETS HURT!!!!”

      2. avatar Roscoe says:

        @ Accur81
        I’ve got felines in my household; fortunately they aren’t violent and show no interest in my firearms.
        :0

        1. avatar Pascal says:

          Oh, so you say:

          Kneading on you: You may think this is a sign of affection, but your cat is actually checking you internal organs for weaknesses

          Excessive shoveling of kitty litter: This is just practice for burying bodies

          Spontaneously running from the room: If you catch your cat sprinting from the room, this was just a failed ambush!

          You just wait, if it is not zombies it is kitty that is going to be after you Kitty is just trying to figure out how to get to your gun when your not home.

          🙂

        2. avatar Sid says:

          I trust my canines with guns. But they have both participated in Frontsite training courses. Or was that Frontline…? Anyway, my wife’s cat has a history of violence and mental instability. It would be irresponsible to trust that feline with a gun.

        3. avatar joe liberto says:

          yes to all of this lol

        4. avatar Pablo says:

          Pascal,

          You ripped off The Oatmeal
          http://theoatmeal.com/misc/frame/cat_kill

      3. avatar Accur81 says:

        Oops.

      4. avatar Rick says:

        LMAO rememberin my exwifes cat….that basterd.dont trust any of them..cats or ex’s

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          At least my cats didn’t vote for Obama. That is my line in the sand. I really don’t give a crap about anything else.

    3. avatar Jim R says:

      Bingo.

      IDGAF what you do in your bedroom or who you do it with (as long as all involved parties consent). It’s a non-issue for me.

      Just remember it’s not the conservatives trying to divide this nation into tribes to marginalize and conquer them.

    4. avatar Roscoe says:

      There may be many other open minded gay community members who are interested in learning about firearms and using them. Maybe they have not because they are held back by the community expectation that they be anti gun. Who wants to go against the flow and risk being ostracized especially in a VERY opinionated and often intolerant community? And Many communities are intolerant, not just LGBT.

      Your willingness to step out of the mold and offer another view to others with regard firearms, along with having a depth of experience using guns, gives others permission and an opportunity to do so too; to educate themselves and have some fun with less risk of ridicule.

      That’s a plus – plus as far as I’m concerned. The pro gun community, no matter what their orientation, must do everything possible to educate as many as possible about the truth and experience of firearm use and ownership. THAT is what will give pro gun 2A supporters more political leverage; an educated, interested body politic of likely voters.

      To me, it doesn’t matter what race, religion, creed or orientation. I want educated supporters who can see the realities for themselves, and see through the rhetoric. Period!

      1. avatar JustLeaveLawfulGunOwnersAlone says:

        +1

      2. avatar JW says:

        Well said!

    5. avatar sagebrushracer says:

      Nuff said. +1

    6. avatar John O. says:

      + 1. Civil rights belong to everybody, not just OFWGs like me.

    7. avatar Nora Craig says:

      Yea!

    8. avatar thesayUwaythat says:

      The constitution doesn’t (and shouldn’t) discriminate when it comes to the unalienable rights of all US citizens- equally applied, across the board. I believe that those that are most vulnerable to attack, should also exercise their 2A rights. I am a former liberal democrat, and more recently deposed from the republican party because of the erosion of my civil and constitutional rights. I began shooting, and carrying, after 50 years of believing I didn’t want or need to carry a firearm. Until I was victimized several times. I don’t plan on being victimized again. The BG is usually a gun control advocate as he doesn’t want any armed response when he carries out his business.

  3. avatar Kirk says:

    It’s like you’ve been invited to dinner, but somehow ended up stealing the silver.

    Hard to square that circle, for some.

  4. avatar BlinkyPete says:

    Yes. Anti-gays are on the wrong side of history, and I don’t want to be.

    1. avatar Tom says:

      Actually, they’re not. You need to research how we’ve been hoodwinked into believing the whole gay narrative.

      1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        Oh boy! Tell me more Mr. Peabody!

        I believe in individual freedom. How have I been hoodwinked?

        1. avatar Carry.45 says:

          Think oldschool Greece and Rome. Man love everywhere.

        2. avatar Ross says:

          While I support the right/ability of gays to own guns I’m totally opposed to their political agenda.

        3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          I’m guessing that oldschool Greece and Rome are a lot like newschool Greece and Rome in that respect. At least that’s what I’ve heard. They are a furry bunch, those Greeks.

          The only Gay political agenda is equal rights. Anything else is a statist political agenda.

      2. avatar NSB says:

        You do great satire, I hope.

  5. avatar Michael B. says:

    Welcome to identity politics and collectivist bullshit.

    You’re a self-hating gay unless you support everything the far-left agitators want. Or you’re an Uncle Tom if you’re black and vote for someone with an R or an I next to their name.

    People who think like this are insane, hateful jackasses who you’re better off not knowing.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      True this. Or you’re anti-gun if you don’t believe BHO was directly behind Pearl Harbor.

      1. avatar Sid says:

        Early on, the first videos we had of Al Qaeda training camps had a quick clip of them shooting at a poster sized photo of the POTUS. What the “war for oil” crowd forgets is that the photo was of William Jefferson Clinton. Yet, W was responsible for causing the Arab world to hate us?

        1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Sure… I mean, it goes back much further than that. What we’re doing now with the Syrian rebels isn’t totally unlike what Reagan did with Iraq. The whole issue of picking sides in international issues is the problem, I think.

  6. avatar travis says:

    Interesting read. Especially the dilemma you face between voting for a pro gun canidate and a pro gay marriage candidate. Personally I support gay marriage, but I will always vote pro gun, simply because its a bigger issue to me. What I would say is that gay marriage will be legal in time, its inevitable, and all the anti gay marriage crusaders will look prettydumb. But if gun rights are taken, then the likelihood of getting them back is nil.

    1. avatar JMS says:

      There ARE both out there. I voted for a couple in November. Sure, you may have to “waste a vote” by going Libertarian, most likely, but there are very strongly Pro-2A candidates who also support gay marriage.

      1. avatar Michael B. says:

        That whole “wasted vote” thing is such bullshit. How often does one vote determine the outcome of an election, anyway?

        NRA members have more political influence, especially where it matters, than the average boob who just votes.

        1. avatar JMS says:

          Boiling it down to a single vote is oversimplifying it. The ‘problem’ exists when an election is very close D vs. R and a 3rd party candidate disproportionately draws votes away from one of those primary parties. Typically it’s an Independent attracting R votes at a 3-1 margin as they attract D votes. If they get 15,000 votes and the D only wins the election by 4,000 votes… it CAN matter. And it has mattered in the past, does matter now, and will determine elections again in the future.

          I’d rather we did runoff elections, where the top two candidates from the first election go to a runoff where they’re the only ones on the ballot. I think this would GREATLY help 3rd parties, as people would truly vote how they feel the first time around without worrying about costing the D or R, who they would support 2nd, a win.

          The idea of a “wasted vote” is not BS. If an election is going to be close, and you would MUCH rather see either the D or the R in office, you’re hurting things by going 3rd party. Not because of your ONE vote, but in the case where many people do the same thing you did… and they do… and it does swing elections.

          I feel MUCH better when I can vote my true opinion, which is typically Libertarian, but I usually choose R if it’s a close race. Lesser of two evils, most (but not all) of the time and, unfortunately, it really can come down to that.

        2. avatar SpuriusOne says:

          There are no wasted votes. If people would get away from the D vs R voting tactics and actually vote for the best candidate a funny thing might happen: The best candidate might actually get voted into office.

        3. avatar Curtis says:

          Voting libertarian is not completely “wasted” in any case — they (the party) often need to get a minimum percentage of votes to continue getting public campaign funding at the same level.

  7. avatar JMS says:

    ” is it in the pro-gun community’s interests to really start supporting the LGBT side? To prop them up and use their position to promote our side further? Is that something the NRA would see as acceptable? Would it even be acceptable to the gun community as a whole?”

    Yes. I fully believe so. Support it 100%. I think a lot of this community swings towards Libertarian — not “conservative” or Republican. A lot of (maybe most of) the Pro-2A types I know personally are fiscal conservative, small government, personal freedom types (socially liberal, in most ways — meaning if you aren’t hurting other people then do what you please). I consider myself to be, overall, conservative and I voted for gay marriage in California (rather, voted against the ban of it) and in Washington State, and was glad to see it stick the 2nd time around.

    BTW — I don’t see your situation as being different from African American gun owners or Jewish gun owners (like myself). These groups also get the exact same outrage, ‘turncoat’ and ‘traitor’ comments, etc… they are just expected to join in on the anti-gun, always vote Democrat party line. Colion Noir pointed out the extreme racism FROM THE LEFT that he received after becoming a commentator for the NRA. It was THE LEFT that started saying, “oh here’s a guy who doesn’t know anything and is having words put in his mouth by the NRA. They bought themselves a stupid black man Uncle Tom.” Holy crap that’s racist!!!! He’s black and, therefore, must be anti-gun and if he isn’t it’s not because he formed a separate opinion but because he is just a puppet to the white man? WOW …anyway, gays and Jews are getting it too….

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      I’m a Jewish gun owner and can relate to your own experiences with the general or common Jewish American attitude towards Jews who are pro-gun ownership. I agree it is changing (slowly) and for the better.

    2. avatar Jim says:

      I love sharing the JPFO gospel around the Shul. One thing I find truly disappointing though is the number of temples who insist on being GFZ. In my experience, only the orthodox temples have the decency to not buy into that garbage.

    3. avatar NYC2AZ says:

      You can say the same for pro-2A women too. My wife (also Libertarian) had an incident on her Facebook page after she posted (not shared) a couple of “AmidstTheNoise” youtube videos and her female friends started an absolute shit storm about how she shouldn’t have those views because they weren’t “motherly enough” and other such nonsense. She took it in stride and posted logical, and thought out reasons behind her beliefs (as you would expect a pro-2A person to do), only to be refuted with emotional hyperbole and challenges to her womanhood. What crap.

    4. avatar JMS says:

      The synagogue I went to from childhood and was Bar Mitzvah’d at is considered Conservative (religiously… Judaism is often broken down into Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox, for those who aren’t familiar), and is not a GFZ. Heck, our Rabbi concealed carried a snub-nose .38, which only a very few people knew about.

      Every service or event gets at least one police car parked out front, though, with a few officers acting as armed security and, for large events, they even sweep under the seats in the sanctuary with mirrors and dogs to check for bad things. The new building they built about 10 years ago has staggered, offset, small, bulletproof windows that look pretty cool from the outside but they actually serve the purpose of making it hard to shoot at someone who’s walking inside the building.

      Anyway… not sure what the point of saying all of that is. Just, maybe, pointing out that there are threats to certain minority groups and we shouldn’t just stick our heads in the sand. Nobody thinks it even slightly odd to have police present during events, but for some reason so many people think it’s just insane to do the same to protect schools. In the same sentence they will say that schools are a huge target for crazy people and then denigrate those who want to protect it in similar ways to how the synagogue is protected where I live.

      1. avatar Jim says:

        I believe all of the reform temples around us are GFZ. We used to have policemen out front at ours, but now that we have a new home, we only get unarmed rent-a-cops. Needless to say that the very low penalties for CCW despite posted signs in my state certainly play a role.

    5. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

      Yup Jewish.. Check..
      Grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area.. Check..
      Not gay, but don’t care…

      I do care, but the reality is, members of the LGBT community are perfect examples of why people need armed self defense. Don’t get me wrong there are lots of people who are pretty good defending themselves period, but it is not your OFWG syndrome. Similar to Mr. Noir, or folks at the JPFO. They don’t fit the mold. Women also help break the mold and that is what we as gun owners need to do. We should be handing out free guns and training to folks in Chicago. Once they become self protecting they will never give it up.

    6. avatar JaxD says:

      First generation Russian Jew here. Met very few Russian Jews who are anti gun. Most of he anti gun ones I’ve met came here right after the war. All are Dems, party line voters. Borderline communists.
      The 2nd is for all Americans. It does not care about your personal life, just to prolong it.

  8. avatar Aharon says:

    Dasa Devildog,

    Great post. I really enjoyed reading it and am proud to call you a fellow American gun owner. Sadly, communities of people can often be intolerant of members who hold non-majority group-think views or principles even when the position is not one that is the group’s allegedly primary priority ie gay rights vs. gun ownership rights. The sarcastic and labeling-type comments you’ve received were inappropriate to put it nicely.

    I think gays, women, and minorities are three key groups who can be strong levers in helping to shift or modify many anti-gun owners and neutral individuals to being more pro 2A.

    1. avatar darkstar says:

      Nice post. You hit the nail on the head with your comments about communities being intolerant etc. You ever notice how “tolerant” people are only tolerant when you agree with them?

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        Thank you and yes. I lived in San Francisco and the Bay Area for a long time. It was the most intolerant and judgmental place in America I have ever lived or visited. The overbearing and intolerant religions that dominant the area are Political Correctness and Radical Feminism.

        1. avatar darkstar says:

          Oh yeah, I visited SF several years ago (awesome place, food, scenic, etc, etc) and was nearly assaulted by a woman because I had the temerity to ask her if she needed help hauling a very large trashbin to the curb. She pretty much got all in my face screaming she didn’t need any fvcking help from some man….I tried to explain I would have asked ANYONE if they needed help…….but I think it only made her more pissed….still a really cool place to visit…..

  9. avatar Andrew Snyder says:

    As far as I can tell there are few requirements to being a part of the “People of the gun” crowd. Here they are as I see them anyways:

    1. Must support the second ammendment.
    2. Must support the second ammendment.
    3. Must be of the human species (necessary only to qualify for the people portion).
    4. Must support the right to keep and bear arms.

    That’s it. Woman, gay, lesbian, black, yellow, olive, skinny, young, or old fat white guy if you meet those requirements you are in. Sorry though, no dogs allowed.

  10. avatar M says:

    Personally, the fact that you are gay doesn’t not concern ME in the least; I am just glad you are a 2A supporter! However, on the political side, perhaps the non-“right wing” supporters, whomever they are, SHOULD be more actively recruited to support the 2A cause. Unfortunately, some conservative supporters may take offense with you being gay, which would completely dumbfound me as sexual orientation should never matter when we really need to focus on the real issue: the Second Amendment and the liberal gun grab

  11. avatar rosignol says:

    I don’t see anything in the 2nd Amendment regarding marriage or romantic inclinations. Gays have the exactly the same 2nd A rights as I do, and so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, I don’t give a damn what happens in their bedroom.

    While I do think that the big ‘winners’ on gay marriage will be divorce lawyers, I don’t see any reasons why divorce court should be exclusive to heterosexuals. Having both parties in a case be the same gender might even set some useful precedents in the long run.

    1. avatar Nora Craig says:

      Now that is a GREAT comment… the setting of precedents. Great! And needed as well. I’m a woman (obviously) BUT I think men get the short end of the stick. Courts ASSUME the woman is the better parent and boy is THAT not true!

      Men get socked with lifetime alimony.. Why? Are women in general so inferior in intellect and skills they can’t make their OWN living? Bunk. Child support is fine. But women who divorce should GO TO WORK.
      .
      IMHO there would be a lot less gold-diggers running about if the woman didn’t automatically have an edge just because she is a she. That is sexual discrimination against men and I don’t support discrimination of ANY type.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Having heard that one in four women out earn their spouses, the Evangelicals were incensed, proclaiming that women were never intended to be providers. That ideology infects the courts in “common law” jurisdictions.

        1. avatar Nora Craig says:

          Amen to that. I rammed that glass ceiling with my head and shattered the heck out of it. The whole “poor helpless little woman” thing makes me gag.

          Who do those folk think were loading and firing the rifles to defend their MEN in the American west. A marriage is a partnership where both in harness have to pull their share of the load.

          Liberal feminists also make me gag. BTW I love getting flowers, having doors opened, and all the nice manners of respect. But.. tell me “You Can’t” because I’m a woman and I’ll spit in your eye.. LOL

          Boy could I tell sea stories from Navy days in 70’s. I kind of miss the times when you could just haul back and land a good right cross to the jaw. LOL

  12. avatar Evan says:

    I think government should get out of the marriage issue altogether. Why do we essentially have to get permission from a bunch of bureaucrats to be with the one’s we love. Outside of that, if you are for the rights of the individual, it is intellectually inconsistent if you are only for the individual rights you care about, and you are no different than the gun grabbers who pick and choose.

    1. avatar JMS says:

      Completely agree. Marriage is a religious thing and the gov’t shouldn’t have a darn thing to do with it. Any two people should be able to get that bundle of rights (tax benefits, legal protections, etc) that the gov’t gives when it recognizes your “marriage,” and the gov’t can call that whatever it wants. Except marriage. If you want the legal rights, you get the thing from the gov’t. If you want to be married, you have a ceremony that’s religious or secular or whatever you please — but it’s a ceremony and is symbolic and such, not legal.

      So my REAL answer when asked whether the government should recognize gay marriage is that, NO, the government shouldn’t recognize or perform ANY marriages! It should, however, give that bundle of rights to any two people who want it, with the same commitment and ramifications as currently applied to a marriage license.

      1. avatar Bruce B. says:

        Great ideas.

        Much of my family has traditional religious convictions about homosexuality. While I don’t agree, am very uncomfortable about the government telling them they MUST sanction gay marriage, or anything else that denies them their religious convictions. At the same time gay’s should not be discriminated against by denying them the rights of “traditional” couples.

        Love your suggestions. Never heard exactly that proposal before. Gives all parties the freedom to follow their convictions, without thew penalties.

        1. avatar gabba says:

          what do you think the government would force them to do exactly to “sanction gay marriage” or that would deny them their religious convictions?

      2. avatar Peter says:

        Marriage is also a social construct, and government generally caudifies social constructs. Marriage is what our society says it is. If the majority of people think it to be a man and a woman, well then there it is. If enough people think a marriage is between any two guys, there it is. If enough people think marriage is between a man and multiple wives, there it is. Change society and the government will follow to reflect that. Do it the other way around and you are asking for conflict.

        1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Yeah, and enough people want mandatory background checks and to ban firearms based on arbitrary features that’s totally cool too!

        2. avatar Peter says:

          What does your statement have to do with what I said? I don’t see a parallel.

        3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          “If the majority of people think it to be a man and a woman, well then there it is.”

        4. avatar Peter says:

          I’m talking about a society defining a social institution. What social institution are you referring to?

        5. avatar scottlac says:

          Peter, he’s talking abour your use of the word “majority”. That word is also used to vote away the 2A.

          I don’t think your argument is served by the logical fallacy of appealing to majority. The rightness of a point must be made on it’s own merits regardless of what the tyranny of the 51% decides.

        6. avatar Peter says:

          I don’t see that the two issues have anything to do with each other. The “majority” people wanting to ban firearms do not have the constitution on their side. Of course, they could work to change that. Social institutions on the other hand are determined by the society — the majority of the society. If social norms change then so, too, do the constructs. Two people have the natural right to consider themselves married, but society is not required to acknowledge that relationship as a socially accepted one. That’s what homosexuals are working hard at — making their behavior socially acceptable. If our country comes to the point where the majority of people believe it is, then the definition of marriage could be changed.

        7. avatar scottlac says:

          Peter, If something as basic as marriage is merely a social construct and not something much more fundamental then how can we say that the natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right of gun ownership and carry is not also subject to temporal social whims?

          The difference is that I am coming from an Objectivist view of issues similar to the Founders. You are coming from a Post-modern or Subjectivist view. Where majority rules (the same majority that watches DWTS and votes for Obama). Our fundamental rights should never be subject to the changing passions of that crowd.

          In your opinion, where to our “inalienable” rights come from?

  13. avatar Bill J. says:

    I support your 2A rights and I support your rights as an American. I do not support what’s been called the “gay agenda”. That would be same sex marriage and the normalization of the gay lifestyle in society through the public school system. You have the right to try to change society and I have the right to oppose it. I believe that any LGBT groups that come out as pro 2A will be marginalized by the media, it doesn’t fit the narrative.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      So… you support their rights as an American, but not their right to marry who they want?

      I support the 2nd Amendment, but….

      1. avatar Tom says:

        You’re ignoring the mental disorder aspect of homosexuality.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Homosexuality is not a mental disorder (at best you could argue that it’s a genetic one, but then you’d have to define ‘disorder’, which is a very subjective judgement – to many hoplophobes, liking guns is a mental disorder).

          But even if it were a disorder, so what?

        2. avatar CA.Ben says:

          minority ≠ disorder

        3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          So is the entire psychological community then, I guess. Homosexuality hasn’t been considered a disorder or mental illness for a long time, my friend.

          And regardless, who cares? Are you saying people with disorders can’t get married?

        4. avatar Tom says:

          I’m saying that your premise is based on bad information.
          http://narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf

        5. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Wow, that’s a terrific argument – a non-peer reviewed paper written by a guy who’s made a career our of trying to prove homosexuality is morally wrong (often using scripture as backup) published by a special interest group. Say, did you see the study the Violence Policy Center did? Turns out guns are pretty bad after all.

          If you look hard enough you’ll find a doctor or scientist that will stand behind almost any theory. The fact is that that all major and credible institutions, groups and organizations in the field of psychology determined that homosexuality does not meet the criteria of a mental disorder. The result is that preponderance of evidence and majority of experts in the field disagree with you.

          None of this matters of course. You can ignore the presence of all that evidence and insist gays are mentally ill, but it doesn’t matter. Since when is the behavior of the mentally ill legislated against? Do you want to create a law that says people with ADD must pay attention, OCD people need to cool out and autistic people need to laugh at my jokes (no one does, so that one’s probably not going to pass)?

          You’re viewing this based on your personal preferences, not logic.

        6. avatar Tom says:

          Blinky,

          You obviously didn’t read the paper, it describes how activist had the diagnosis removed from the DSM, and how the studies they used to justified are flawed.

        7. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          I said the paper was:

          1. Not peer reviewed
          2. Written by a guy who might be biased
          3. Published by a special interest group

          Was any of that inaccurate? Please answer these questions three, then you can move on to explaining why your position is even relevant: behavior associated with mental disorders is rarely illegal, and when it is it’s related to some other crime. So, even if you’re somehow right, you’re still wrong.

        8. avatar Bill says:

          BlinkyPete,
          It’s not that kind of paper, peer review is not relevant. It is properly footnoted.
          The paper discussed how up to 1973, homosexuality was listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Based mostly on the questionable research of Dr. Evelyn Hooker, and using tactics common to New Left causes, the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM, not based on scientific research, but by politicizing the process.

        9. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Oh, I didn’t realize it wasn’t that kind of paper. I’m glad it’s immune from outside analysis and criticism, but you’re still pretty far off from making a case for your point of view. In fact, let’s ignore the highly questionable validity of this paper for a moment and pretend it’s totally reliable.

          For at least the third time I ask – so what? Since when are mental disorders illegal?

      2. avatar Peter says:

        Is there a right to marry anyone you want? I’m not familiar with that. Marriage is a social, legal, and religious construct, and right now (and for at least a few years now) most in American society, most laws, and most religions see that as between a man and a woman.

        1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          There’s a fundamental right to pursue happiness, and there’s exactly nothing that says you can ban something simply because you think it’s icky or because something you paraphrased from a several thousand year old book.

        2. avatar John Doesky says:

          @BlinkyPete

          As Thomas Sowell would say of most leftists…you are engaging in “1st stage thinking”. You are for gay marriage because it makes you feel all high and mighty. It’s all about “LOVE” right? Well what happens when 3 (or 4 or 10) decide that they are in LOVE and want to marry? How about when two sisters want to marry? Or maybe three brothers? What reason do we have to deny their LOVE and HAPPINESS after you allow gay marriage?

          In matters like this, I as a Methodist turn to my Jewish “rabbi” for guidance…. Dennis Prager

          http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2012/10/30/why_a_good_person_can_vote_against_samesex_marriage/page/full

          http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=d9fb0980-9c95-48e8-a493-86b965c7d5ee&

        3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Um, nope, but I understand why weak minded people feel the need to project rather than form cogent arguments on their own. I believe that gays have the right to marry because it A) It doesn’t affect me in any ay and B) I believe the government has no authority to regulate free will. Perhaps the rest of the stuff is a little wishy washy, but sue me, I like siding with the oppressed. You know, like gun owners.

          To the rest of your dumb, rhetorical question – Oh, what, so anyone can have any gun they want? You’re saying you can have nukes, and prisoners can have machine guns? Oh, wait, we’re talking about gays. Oops. It’s funny how people like you, no matter what unspeakable evil you’re arguing against can never rest on their laurels. You have to elevate your opponent to some kind of monstrous straw man make it look like you have a point. “What? Two grown, consenting men want to marry? Well, next thing you know we’ll all be sailing around on giant floppy donkey dicks and gangbanging kittens. Is that what you want?”

        4. avatar doesky2 says:

          And its stupid idiots like you that refuse to think about the repercussions of “feel good” policies. There is yet another in an endless stream of leftist emotional based policies that will end in disaster. A broken black society, a broken educational system, a fiscally bankrupt nation, an art world that praises trash, and routine infanticide are all end products of polices that began with emotional based policies.

          Your statement ” It doesn’t affect me in any way” is quintessential narcissistic leftism. You don’t give a sheet because it doesn’t personally effect you TODAY and totally ignore how it will effect society in the LONG TERM. That is the definition of “first stage thinking”. You’re an idiot.

        5. avatar Matt in FL says:

          So help me, BP, I laughed out loud at the last sentence.

        6. avatar Peter says:

          I suppose I could refine my premise and can see where you are coming from — yes I believe people have the right to consider themselves married in their own mind (man-woman, same-sex, polygamy, common-law, woman-cat, whatever). However, everyone else has the right to either recognize that or not. Majority rule — there’s no framework in our national constitution that defines it in any way, so it is determined by the majority.

        7. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          All I hear is a baby crying, Doesky. You can’t be bothered to put your thoughts and feelings into a coherent set of arguments for your point of view, so instead you blame every bad thing you can think of on gays. Is our broken education system outdated? Nope, it’s the pillow-biters. Is our national debt the result of two parties that can’t balance a checkbook? Nope, it’s the damn dandies. Abortion? Total queer problem. Oh, and art too. Somehow that’s relevant to you.

          This isn’t about emotion or “first stage thinking”. It’s about liberty and freedom, and the other side of the argument, your side, is a baseless forecast of darkness and doom inspired by nothing but your own prejudices. Folks like you have been predicting societal collapse based on changes like this since the begging of this country, from the switch to a colonial monarchy to democracy, to the freeing of the slaves, to women’s rights, the end of prohibition, the end of segregation all the way to (ready for this?) the shall-issue revolution. Remember how the anti’s were prophesying the end of the world – modern society replaced with a new wild west, all because folks could carry guns if they wanted to? Well, that’s you now. Congratulations. You’re an idiot.

          Peter, no one’s forcing you to recognize anything. You can define marriage however you want – it’s not a proprietary word. The issue is the government’s current policy of either banning gay marriage or of “separate but equal”. That’s institutional bigotry, and it’s not okay.

    2. avatar int19h says:

      You don’t have the moral right to deny other people rights that other citizens enjoy on the basis of their sexual orientation, which is what anti-same-sex-marriage is. There is a slew of legal benefits associated with marriage in our society, and gays are presently excluded from all of them because they can’t legally marry, even though the nature of their relationship is exactly the same as any couple without children or with adopted children (and those couples enjoy all those benefits).

      1. avatar Peter says:

        No moral right? And if I see the act as immoral how does that work? Gays are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is what our society says is a marriage. If you don’t like it, change society. As Bill J says, you are free to change society just as others are free to oppose that change.

      2. avatar Tom says:

        So if my sexual orientation is pedophilia, you’re good with that?

        1. avatar Carry.45 says:

          I said good man. I misunderstood. How dare you compare being gay with being a pedophile. You are religious trash. Good luck with that hate.

        2. avatar Tom says:

          I’m not making the comparison, pro gay psychologists like John De Cecco are.

        3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          What a pathetic excuse for an argument.

        4. avatar JMS says:

          Children cannot consent. Attempts to connect ‘homosexual behavior’ between two consenting adults to pedophilia or bestiality are ridiculous on their face for this important reason. There is no victim in a consensual, adult, sexual relationship. Nor is a gay relationship illegal or a mixed-gender relationship illegal, whereas pedophilia is (because, again, a child cannot consent and is therefore a victim).

          And AGAIN, even if you believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder, that does NOT mean homosexuals do not have the exact same 2nd Amendment rights as anybody else. Mental disorders that make a person violent or dangerous, sure, and those folks are already prohibited parties. A “mental disorder” that makes you physically attracted to members of the same sex? Who cares. Maybe 95% of the adult population prefers the color blue to the color green. I prefer green. Do I have a mental disorder? If so, does it mean I can’t own firearms? I see this as having the same relevance as being gay or straight to being protected under the 2nd Amendment.

        5. avatar jwm says:

          Tom, that’s a variation of the same tired argument the gun grabbers use. If we let you have an assualt rifle, what next, a nuke?

          Pedophiles aren’t gay or straight, they’re predators.

        6. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Well said JWM.

      3. avatar Nora Craig says:

        int19h.. That is not true. Civil Union couples have many of the same CIVIL benefits of married couples in our state. I think there are still some rights that need extending, but on the whole the idea is to extend equal PARTNERSHIP rights regardless of sexual orientation.
        .
        We could END this whole darn debate by removing the word “marriage” from our civil contract law vocabulary and use “Domestic Partnership” instead. Sex is irrelevant, partnership, the merging of estates to be one fiscal entity is what a partnership is all about.
        .
        Why can’t two widowed sisters become a Domestic Partnership. Or two widowed men who don’t want to Marry again. Why can’t any two people form a PERMANENT domestic partnership relationship that has NOTHING to do with sex acts at all.
        .
        I’d suggest pre-numptual type documents be required for ANY type of Domestic Partnership. Ie: You can’t marry/unite until you define what happens when you split up in contract form. No prenup = no union, marriage or otherwise. Save HUGE amounts of $$$ in divorce courts.. LOL

    3. avatar Peter says:

      Well said

    4. avatar NSB says:

      Welcome to Denial-Town! Population Billy Jean!

      You think the author is trying to change society? You, sir, need more history lessons. Do you think being gay is something new & ‘cool’? Or have human beings always had gays among them? Have nearly every animal species on earth had gays among them? The answer, for anybody willing to do the research, is clear: Yes. Being gay is part of the natural order. A small part & percentage, but a part nonetheless.

      “Normalization of the gay lifestyle in society through the public school system,”….. Really? You, sir, were born many years too late. I have difficulty being civil to people who speak as you do.

      However you try to suppress the truth, I hope you know, deep down in your heart, that every single day you and your ilk are losing ground, losing the battle against reality. You have every right to your opinions, of course, as do we all. We also have the right to pursue happiness, and the way you attempt to deny others that right tells me more than enough about you. Enjoy your echo chamber, and good luck with your denial.

      Pitiful.

      1. avatar Bill J. says:

        I Thank you and my ilk thanks you for granting us the right to our opinion.

        1. avatar Carry.45 says:

          It’s your type that made me stop going to church. When my son is old enough to comprehend the bible, I’ll have him read it for an hour every Sunday morning and let him take from it what he will.

        2. avatar Bill J. says:

          Carry 45….by people of my type do you mean people who don’t agree with you?

      2. avatar Bill says:

        NSB, gloat while you still can. Just like Nazism and Communism, Progressivism will fall.

      3. avatar Pat says:

        NSB,

        You’ve never heard of the book Heather Has Two Mommies? You’re going to deny the effort that has been made to normalize homosexuality? Seinfeld’s “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”, Will and Grace’s Karen Walker and Jack McFarland, and Modern Family’s Cameron and Mitchell are examples of the efforts to normalize homosexuality. Bret Easton Ellis discusses the efforts here:
        http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2013/05/13/bret-easton-ellis-gay-men-magical-elves

        1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Sigh. So what? I think that’s more a sign in shifting cultural attitudes than anything else.

          Why don’t you spend less time worrying about this and more time re-normalizing firearms. I love bringing anti’s shooting. Nothing converts like an MP5 in .22

        2. avatar Pat says:

          So what, that’s your response? When “cultural attitudes” are being shifted on a misleading premise, whether on guns or homosexuality, the shift must be resisted.

        3. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Mmmkay Pat… so the cultural shift away from slavery or segregation was a bad thing in your mind?

  14. avatar Billy Wardlaw says:

    I am a Pro-2A conservative, but i am an atheist, pro-choice, and pro-gay marriage (lets call it pro-personal liberty). While I know that plight is not the same, it runs parallel to your experience. The solution was Libertarian. If you want to just be gay and pro-gun, the world has to quit being R v. D, or you are just going to continue being part of your own problem.

    1. avatar CA.Ben says:

      I am in the exact same boat as you Billy.

    2. avatar Irideducs says:

      Yep. The more freedoms we protect for individuals the more chaotic the society – but the better the society. Get government out of everything that they don’t absolutely need to be in and let people choose for themselves. The government should be protecting rights, life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. People pursue happiness in a myriad of ways and as long as you swinging your fist doesn’t strike my nose I shouldn’t care, or be able to stop you from pursuing your happiness. This includes gays, guns, grass, and a bunch of things that don’t start with g. The protectors of the 2nd amendment (us) need to be working to protect all rights. That is why the ACLU sometimes pisses me off because they should be at the forefront of protecting the 2nd as well as they protect other rights instead of counting to ten as 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. But I will support anyone who advances and protects freedom and responsible individual liberty. We all should.

    3. avatar JustLeaveLawfulGunOwnersAlone says:

      +1

    4. avatar Nora Craig says:

      Yea Libertarians.. Live and Let Live.

    5. avatar Nate says:

      I voted Libertarian in the last election because it was the only choice I could make with a clean conscience.

  15. avatar Matt in FL says:

    Ah, your “friends” are using the No true Scotsman on you. How nice. I’d find new friends.

    I don’t know them, but I think those “gay friends [who] were ranting and raving about gun control and saying I’m not gay enough for supporting and owning firearms” don’t really care about gun control. Many of them, anyway. I truly believe that it’s an issue of “supporting the Democrats because they support us.” I would suspect that, like the population as a whole, only for a small percentage of them is gun control actually a hot-button issue. For another, larger group, they have some feelings (either way), but it’s not a “core issue” for them. And then for a bunch, they just don’t care. But when it comes to Republicans, I’d bet a lot of them have the “if they’re for it, I’m agin’ it” attitude, and since Republicans are against gun control, the gay community is for it.

    Should we support pro-gun gays more? No. Because I don’t want to know you’re gay. I don’t care if you’re gay. I’ve never had a sex-related conversation at a gun range or gun store (beyond pointing out a cute girl to my friend), because it’s just not relevant to me. For all I know, every single person I’ve ever shot next to at a range could have been gay. It makes no difference. One has nothing to do with the other. We should support pro-gun gays people more. If they happen to be gay, fine, but I’m indifferent to it beyond the “proving that it’s not all white men” angle.

    As far as “holding my guns more closely than I do my partner,” that’s a determination that you have to make for yourself. I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative, and I’m clearly anti-Civilian Disarmament. So I have to prioritize. So do you. I don’t envy you your decision, because while I dislike the Republicans position on abortion, it’s not something that directly affects me, so it’s easy for me to prioritize my 2A feelings over my Roe v. Wade feelings. I don’t have anyone that thinks I am an abomination (maybe one ex-girlfriend). I can see how it would be much harder for you.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. I’ve seen that somewhere recently…

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        All you have to do is visit this blog a couple times a day.

    2. avatar CA.Ben says:

      RF, get this guy writing for you. Seriously.

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Aww, I’m blushing.

        He has offered, and I assume the offer stands, but my mind just doesn’t work that way. I would not work well “on assignment.” But if I come up with something I feel passionate enough about to write a formal post, I’ll send it in.

        1. avatar CA.Ben says:

          Definitely send in your stuff, I’d love to read a full article from you Matt.

  16. avatar Amo says:

    I think this is a great example of how politicos from both sides have split us as a country. Gun rights should never have been a left or right issue. I’m not even sure when that happened, but it’s become a major voting issue, as has gay rights. I would assume the reason most homosexual Americans are against the 2nd Amendment is due to the political parties telling them they need to be. It’s a fat white guy Bubba club, no others need apply. Black, brown, gay or female you have to vote to the left. It makes no sense to me.
    We as a community need to change that and embrace everyone or lose more of our constitutional rights.

  17. avatar Jim says:

    Have most of the curious new shooters who approached you been women? Given the way they phrase it (the emphasis on you being responsible), I would guess that they are. I would argue that getting women, LGBT folks, and communities of color involved in the shooting sports is the single most important thing we can do to preserve our 2A rights. The NRA has started treating women as equals, and they have made some strides in their recent PR efforts. Getting the broadest and most diverse swath of the general population to have a personal stake in this fight is the best way to ensure that it becomes a non-issue in the future.

    P.S. I would also like to thank you for sharing the wonders of the CZ 75 with all of those folks as well. The Czechs improved on Mr. Browning’s design to create the finest 9mm I have ever laid my hands on. It is my favorite.

    1. It would be three women and two men 🙂 One is actually my coworker (Who is also gay, go figure. I got a two for one on that one.. Him and his boyfriend), the other a supernerd programmer who was simply scared of firearms because he never understood them 🙂

      Edit: I’ve got three CZ’s myself. I’m quite simply addicted to them 🙂

      1. avatar Jim says:

        I wish I could say I have that many converts under my belt. My wife and two good friends is all I can account for. I suppose my children will also count later on. Keep up the good work!

    2. avatar JMS says:

      +1. Multiple CZ family here.

  18. avatar e says:

    Quite honestly, there are issues, stances, and movements in the LGBT world that I am never going to agree with, but if there was ever a group that should be armed to the teeth….ALWAYS, it should be everyone in that community. Few groups in today’s society, if any, are more heavily persecuted. I consider any gun loving man to be my brother.

    1. avatar Nora Craig says:

      +1

  19. avatar SkyMan77 says:

    “fun stuff that most sporting chaps enjoy”>>>> For some reason I can’t get the Village People out of my head now… 🙂

  20. avatar AnotherMatt says:

    I have similar experiences with my gay friends. Most I have taken to the range come away at least no longer violently afraid/against firearms. Many end up getting something of their own.

    But the insane liberalism is probably the reason most of my friends are straight.

  21. avatar Greg Camp says:

    It’s a sad commentary on the state of affairs that you have to wonder if you’re gay enough. You are who you are. I don’t care where on the Kinsey scale you fall. If you’re a decent human being who’s just making his way in the world without harming innocent people, you’re good in my book. (And no, being gay or in a gay relationship isn’t harming anyone.)

    Politically, I’m all over the map. I want a balanced budget, though I do want programs that work–NASA of the glory years, I’m talking to you–and I’m willing to pay for those. When it comes to things like drugs, gay marriage, guns, and so forth, my position is do what you want and extend me the same courtesy.

    We need a much stronger live-and-let-live party in this country, one that will act as a brake to all the control freaks of every kind.

    1. avatar JustLeaveLawfulGunOwnersAlone says:

      +1

  22. avatar Kirk says:

    By the way, I’ve described the irony that it will be CONSERVATIVE justices that rule in favor of Gay Marriage. Who agrees with me? The late Justice Robert Bork: http://guardamerican.com/index.php/blog/35-politics/484-what-is-the-law

    Not a popular position in SF’s dining circuit.

  23. avatar DB says:

    Your friends are not thinking clearly and independently, they are having their identities defined for them by the politically-minded elite. Why does being gay necessitate a hatred of guns? Well, the same reason that being black necessitates a love of labor unionism and support for abortion – because the Political Left owns those issues and owns your group or “community”. You’re gay? The Left thinks they own you and they hate guns ergo you must hate guns. Pretty simple.

    Of course, that is crude reductionism and why our two party system of politics appears to be breaking down. There are gays who like guns, blacks who hate gay-marriage, sick geezers that hate Medicare, business people that hate free trade, evangelicals that prefer global isolationism. But the media and the political elite want us all thinking and voting in our little boxes. And your friends are neatly tucked into their boxes. Good for you for rejecting that.

    I wish the gun community and the gay community could be closer and work together, because ultimately we are both talking about freedom. Maybe you should start the partnership by asking your friends if they actually feel that way or are towing the line to identify with the group. Start changing minds yourself.

  24. Thank you, TTAG, for posting this 🙂 I am very glad there is a lot of support and understanding for my position amongst the mess, and there have been a few other comments that have helped me consider things even further.

    1. avatar Nate says:

      Thank you for writing it.

  25. avatar Anon in CT says:

    FWIW, soon after my younger brother came out of the closet, a lot of his views on totally unrelated political topics took a pretty violent swing to the left. I just assumed that it’s a combination of where he lives, the who he now socializes with, the media he now reads and the “coalition” politics of major political parties (you support my gay marriage and I’ll support you gun bans). I don’t really know if those are his views or if he just feels the need to parrot.

  26. avatar gej88 says:

    I’m against the whole right/left BS. Conservatives claim to be against political correctness until the fundies are offended by the Log Cabin Republicans being allowed in CPAC, the left claims to be for “diversity and open mindedness” until the Blue Steel Democrats show up. Don’t get me started on the left’s anti Mormon bigotry.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      +1

  27. avatar DisThunder says:

    I think the short answer that question is “Yes!”, but I also think the truth is that most pro-2A guys probably don’t have an issue with gay rights in the first place.

  28. avatar Aragron says:

    Never gave much thought to the matter of who owns firearms as long as they are by law allowed to own them.

  29. avatar Tim U says:

    Excellent write up.

    And yes, I feel that we DO need to stand up for LGBT gun owners. We need to establish to the nation’s populace that firearm owners is NOT a right vs left, or conservative vs liberal, position.

    Identity politics are trying to slant all pro-gun folks as OFWGs, and every gay person as far left hippies bent on destruction of the 2A. Neither stereotype is true, and I feel that if the gay crowd is to understand or accept the pro-2A crowd, we should make the first move towards peace rather than force them to. Any non-gun owners in their ranks won’t care unless we step forward to help them first. And frankly, we could use as many pro-2A people in the nation as we can possibly get to put a stop to the gun grabbers.

    I don’t care if you’re homo, hetero, or a eunuch. If you support the Second Amendment and guns, we’ve got that in common, and I want you standing up to the politicians with your letters/emails/faxes/phone calls to support OUR right to keep and bear arms.

  30. avatar Toasty says:

    This. Also, we should be openly advocating for legalization of marijuanna and such as well. The VAST MAJORITY of gun crime is tied gang violence, and gangs make their money doing what? Peddling illegal drugs because their inflated black market prices. Gotta nip this one in the bud. We got the NFA cause of the crime caused by the prohibition and the Brady Act because of the crack wars in the 80’s. People respond emotionally to things they see, take away all that crime and the bloodyshirt wavers will have nothing to point to while holding a puppy and playing sad music in the background and asking “Why don’t you care about the children?”

    1. avatar Nora Craig says:

      Amen… can anyone say “Frank Nitty & Elliot Ness”.. Prohibition revisited.. Gee.. same result.. gang warfare with innocents in the firing line.. Wow.. and people are surprised???? History=repeating.

  31. avatar JoshuaS says:

    You guys livc too much on the internet, where the libertarian fringe is more prevalent.

    The majority of 2a supporters are conservatives, still. Not all, by a long shot. I am willing to cooperate with those who disagree with me and leave aside differences and focus say on the 2a when 2A issues come up. But I am not going to link disparate issues.

    I would vote for an anti-gun politician before I voted for a pro-abort or a pro-“gay marriage” (gay marriage is like square circle, it is gibber jabber, not something that exists or could exists…unlike statists, I don’t think the state defines or creates the nistitution of marriage). Note, I wouldn’t be happy that the candidate was anti-2A, but life comes before liberty, e.g. Cannot have liberty if you are dead. I suspect many 2A supporters would act the same way.

    By linking gays with guns and trying to tie their arguments together, you are alienations a majority of the voting populace that already supports the 2A.

    1. avatar CA.Ben says:

      If the state doesn’t define or create marriage, then what authority does it have to restrict marriage to certain groups of people?

      1. avatar Nora Craig says:

        The “STATE” actually has no right under the constitution, but if you go back and look at the history of Utah, ie: polygamy and state hood, you’ll see The fed’s TOOK the right at that point to legally define “marriage” and restrict all other forms but monogamy.
        .
        That is the great underlying fear or concern… if there is a recognized non-traditional “marriage” then by the same legal argument polygamy can’t be denied or made illegal either.
        .
        Now any group of folk can live with each other now and as consenting adults do whatever they please. They can even create a corporate entity that holds all group resources in ownership if they like in ANY contractual form.

        BUT when you get into legally defining same, attempting to codify “valid” relationship in statute, that’s where things get very complicated. As always, when government get’s involved.. LOL

    2. avatar Hal J. says:

      I would vote for an anti-gun politician before I voted for a pro-abort or a pro-”gay marriage”

      So if a politician wants to confiscate your firearms, but at the same time votes to keep two women from marrying each other, he has your vote?

      Sickening.

      1. avatar Leo338 says:

        +1 I also don’t understand his claim of not having liberty if you are dead. So stopping same sex couples from getting married is considered liberty?

        1. avatar Hal J. says:

          “Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

          —Robert A. Heinlein

      2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        You beat me to it.

        It’s funny, Josh, that refer to anyone but yourself as a statist. That’s what you are. You’re a neocon. Pure and simple. You aren’t a friend of liberty, you’re a friend of control.

    3. avatar Tim U says:

      If you felt that strongly about all those positions, don’t vote for any of them.

      Period.

      I will not vote for an anti-gun candidate, no matter what his/her alternatives are. I may vote 3rd party or non-vote, but I will not support anyone anti-2A.

      Barring some unforeseen action between now and then, I will vote to re-elect my state level Congresswomen because when we needed her most, she stood with us on 2A in spite of her political party pushing a gun grab. She also happened to vote in favor of gay marriage in MN.

      I may think that marriage has no place in the government because it is a religious and societal custom and thus should be dealt with in the community/house of worship, but the government needs to deliver EQUAL rights, and I will accept this as a compromise or step towards what I think is ideal (government butting out of it entirely).

  32. avatar Ben says:

    As a Libertarian I don’t care if they’re gay, straight, yellow, green, male, or female. The Constitution says the rights are what they are. Placing qualifiers on things are what has split this nation into this pointless Left-Right bullshit fight in the first place.

  33. avatar James1000 says:

    Definitely a perspective that I haven’t given much thought to. Thats probably because I could care less about ones sexual orientation. However, I think you make an intersting point about propping up those in the LGBT community that are pro 2A. In short, this fight could use all the help we can get. Perhaps by getting the NRA and our community to do exactly as you suggest, we could win over hearts and minds of those that are anti gun.

  34. avatar LJM says:

    I think this article hits at an important theme, create a big tent of Pro-2A folks where socio/political/economic factors make it majority view whoever is in charge.

    I’m as pro-2A as the next guy here, but I would classify myself as a Democrat. I don’t support everything on the Democratic platform, but I do on a majority. Call me a blue-dog if you will. But having a person like myself “in the tent” gives the Second Amendment a clear majority on the issue. We may disagree on other issues I find VERY important… equal rights, health care, collective bargaining, when/how we go to war… etc. But I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone here when it comes to the right to protect myelf, my family with the weapon I choose where ever danger presents itself.

    I live in Illinois and was brought up in a Democratic, Union household downstate. And today I’m happy my state became a little more free today.

  35. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Its all about freedom. Your freedom to your sexual orientation and to marry the partner of your choice, and the freedom of all of us to own and enjoy guns.

    That said, the 2A movement definitely needs to embrace and promote gay gun owners. A homosexual gun owner shatters the “paranoid redneck” myth the media flogs day in day out.

    Even more so, it is sad to note that even in tolerant places like NYC, gays are still attacked and killed simply for being who they are. If that’s not an argument for defensive concealed carry, I don’t know what is.

    I would love to see a gay rights group sue the New York City over its inane permit issue policies. The media and leftist political classes’ head would explode.

    So, yes. We need to support you, and you need to support us.

  36. avatar Shire-man says:

    People interested in liberty for themselves need to support liberty for others.

  37. avatar Xbonesrider says:

    I sometimes do see gay and lesbian couples at my local shooting range. I am overjoyed to see them there. I think its great that gays are getting in to shooting. It can only help our cause.

  38. avatar Ralph says:

    Dasa Devildog, your sexual orientation is no concern of mine. However, I care intensely about your Second Amendment orientation. As far as that’s concerned, I stand with you. We should all stand with you.

    And if your peeps don’t think you’re gay enough, join the Pink Pistols. They don’t have a gay-o-meter and will embrace you.

    1. avatar Rosen Otter says:

      Indeed we don’t. We don’t ask, and nobody has to tell. We get folks coming to our shoots who aren’t particularly interested in gaylesbitrans politics – they just like to shoot!

  39. avatar William says:

    You betcha, Gay People of the Gun! And thanks for all your rabid pro-gun cause support. Because you HAVE supported gun causes, right? All along, and will continue to, right?

    Thanks for your support. You can count on me. Just not with the marriage thing, because I think straight people getting married is a bad idea!

  40. avatar applebutter says:

    Why confuse the issue with a discussion of sexual orientation?

    I’m pretty sure homosexuals are subject to tyrannical government.

  41. avatar Steve Case says:

    Wow. Sooo many comments, most of them thought provoking. I thank TTAG for putting it out there so I can think about it. I love this blog.

  42. avatar RKflorida says:

    I’m not gay, do I get anything extra? Then neither should someone who is gay. No more, no less. Be polite, be helpful, be courteous. That should do it. Don’t ask me to agree with the choices you have made. Just shoot and enjoy. And please, please shut up about your gayness or not gayness or whatever.

    1. avatar Nora Craig says:

      Dasa Devildog asked advice about getting his community involved in 2A more actively. The FACT his community is the Gay community means he can’t really ask his question without naming the community, now can he.
      .
      He want to know if his being gay also means WE the 2a folk would not accept his folk. So far I see a resounding level of support for him within the 2a fighters. Proud of my peers for that.

      There is no reason if we can talk about our spouses and kids that HE should not be able to talk about his partner, friends, and family.

    2. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

      RK be telling it like it is. I don’t push my straightness on you. Stop pushing your gayness on me. Just get the current Progressives out of office.

      1. avatar Carry.45 says:

        One thing I’m having a hard time with is this:
        Mitt Romney was the governor of MA. One of the worst states for gun rights. He didn’t try to further his own constituents’ gun rights. Why do we think he’d help the country. In my opinion he could have been just as bad as Obama.

        1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Amen. People get lost in the party and ignore the candidate and his record. Romney made the AWB permanent for MA residents. What makes anyone thing he would have stood up to the anti’s in the wake of Newtown is beyond me.

  43. avatar Wassim Absood says:

    We need to support greater human freedom, period. Whether it is your life partner, your body, or your means of defense, the right to chose is yours. Any government, organization, or individual who disagrees ought not consider me on their side.

  44. avatar Tom says:

    I am not for gay rights, but at the same time we should embrace gays who support the Second Amendment and for that matter those who support constitutional governance. Our freedoms are at stake and the issue of who and what you choose to share a bed with isnt that important in the light of current events. I would vote for a gay conservative or libertarian over any RINO Republican or Democrat.

    1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Then don’t expect them to be for your rights 🙂

      It’s amazing what the argument “I respect your rights, why don’t you respect mine?” can do.

  45. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I think it is a bad idea to link any behavior, sub-culture, or identity with our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Our unalienable right stands alone and applies to everyone.

    And since it is a universal right that applies to everyone, we should gladly accept support from everyone.

    1. avatar Nora Craig says:

      That means you wouldn’t support my Grannies Love Gun’s group? We’re a sub-culture.. You saying we shouldn’t wear our “I’m A Gun Tot’n Granny” shirts? LOL

  46. avatar Pascal says:

    People have accused Colion Noir for not being “Black” because he supports 2a rights. I am sure there are Jews who do not believe that you are not Jewish enough if you like guns and 2a. Same for the Gay community, your not Gay enough (whatever that means) if you support 2a gun rights. The Catholic Churches here in CT believe they can do gun control from Sunday Sermon. When I was called at home because my tithe envelop was empty, I explained that is what they will get every Sunday if they continue to talk gun control at the sermon, I was told “How can you be Catholic?”

    This is all Borg thinking…to be part of a [enter-group-name-here] Borg, you must talk like us, think like us and do as we say, for we are Borg.

    Independent thinking and critical thinking are slowly being eroded away and in its place is politically correct “group think”. Lemmings is what we are creating in society.

    The belief is that you can ostracize people into believing a certain way. And, in many ways it is a powerful social way to force people to comply. Look at a past story about Brazil where the like to tell men they have a small pee pee if they like guns. It takes serious guts to go against the flow and not be a lemming. It is sooooo much easier to be a follower versus a leader or simply following your own path. (e.g. See Facebook)

    This is why I hate progressive big government. — Please, leave me alone! Take your collective thinking and put where the sun does not shine!

    Stay out of my bedroom and keep away from my gun safe because if something goes bump in the night, your not the one to get up to see what it is, you will only be there to put me in a body bag.

    I support leaving people alone to be themselves. That means supporting Gay Marriage and Gay Rights at the same time I vote Republican because I am fiscally conservative and HATE government spending on failed projects.

    If it means that Gays lead the fight for gun rights, then God bless you because you are fighting for all of our self defense. Nobody can take away who you are, but if they take away your guns, someone you don’t know can take away your life.

  47. avatar mediocrates says:

    “accusing me of holding my guns more closely than I do my partner”

    that’s the part of the “sub-culture” I can do without… the drama (queens).

    No, I’m not going to support the LBGT side of the 2A. I’m going to support OUR side.

  48. avatar Amanathia says:

    Absolutely. Gays, minorities (and minority may actually mean “white” in some areas, gasp), poor, rich, educated, non-educated, women, men, elderly, whatever. Should all enjoy ALL of the constitution.

    /Pro gun, pro gay marriage (well, really I’m pro the federal gov not having anything to do w/marriage, but whatever), straight guy.

    And if you are religious (which I am), you should want the federal gov AS FAR AWAY from anything religious as possible. ANYTHING they get involved in gets mucked up. Even if you personally think gays are “ebil ebil sodomites all gonna burn in hell foreva!” or something (I think those with that view are retards, but just saying), you should still be pro-gay rights. Because soon as the gov starts justifying laws based on one particular religion, in this day and age, oh man. Good luck.

    1. avatar MAC][ says:

      Totally agree there – just because one has a personal view, regardless of what that view is, does not mean that one should push for government legislation to force that view! Gov’t should stay out of religion, morals, etc. and focus on defending liberties…not repressing them.

  49. avatar MAC][ says:

    Hey, good post. It’s think that it can be pretty tough in what is functionally a two-party system. We have two ‘big’ electoral choices in most cases, and those two parties want to have all the answers. You can’t have just two parties realistically identifying with and representing what is a far more diverse group of constituents. As one who is philosophically aligned with a libertarian mindset, I find myself agreeing with conservatives on financial issues, liberals with ‘moral’ issues and it’s relation to government, and they can both get it wrong or right sometimes with issues of individual freedom.

    Sorry to hear about your friends trying to stereotype you. Even minority groups do that to themselves. Good to hear that you don’t feel like you have to follow any labels! I agree with other posts that the 2nd Amendment (along with the other Bill of Rights Amendments) doesn’t discriminate, and neither should folks IMHO. There’s nothing about being gay that would seem to logically lead to an opinion one way or the other about gun rights or rights in general. Blacks have the same stereotyping going on all the time where peers in their own minority group will label them as “more” or “less” black depending on their viewpoints…just seems odd.

    Oh, and if it makes you feel any better, don’t listen to those friends about not being gay enough, I’m sure you’re “plenty gay”! 😛

    1. avatar Nora Craig says:

      Nothing wrong with the 2 party system that can’t be corrected if the PEOPLE get off asses and vote. 2 Party is no more just 2 than the NFL only has two teams. In the NFL teams play in playoff’s to see which TWO wind up on the field at Super Bowl time.

      In politics, the primaries provide the Play-Off’s, where all the teams get to enter their candidates into the competition. There was the Hillery & Obama teams.. Obama team advanced to the field. There was Romney, Newt, R.Paul, Santorum, Bachman, Gary…. and Romney advanced to the Super Bowl.

      The 2 party system, with it’s play-off’s, lets the people select who hits the Super Bowl of politics, POTUS. Conservatives, moderates, libertarians, whatever are teams that make up the big tent of the GOP.. Though Libertarians can swing both ways at times based on personal liberty (social) issues.

  50. avatar james says:

    First and foremost, you have a right, an obligation, to defend yourself. It is not a “man right”, it is not a “god right”, it is not a “government right”, it is a human right. If rabbits could handle a gun, they would have them.

  51. avatar Nora Craig says:

    Dan… I’d be happy to talk with you for HOURS. I’m straight as an arrow but have no problem with you being you as you choose. PLEASE do not take those who may be less than kind as indicative of the Tea Party or Gun Owners as a whole.

    The simple answer to your question is YES.. I think you should get into, organize (whatever) a Gay Gun Right’s group and TEACH your folk. Not only about guns, but about the fact that those who are working to defend the constitution come from everywhere, different other interest groups, and cross all those lines.
    .
    As for you wanting to FEEL your relationship is legitimate.. you should not base how you feel about yourself on what others might approve or disapprove of. Your life, so you choose your own way. If you are happy in your relationship then the hell with what other folk think… You let that bother you and you’ll never find happiness because no mater what you do or are, there are folk out there who’ll disaprove.. Always.

    Happiness comes from within. I’m from Jersey. We have Civil Unions and no one has a problem with that. A marriage is a domestic partnership contract in it’s simplistic form. A Civil Union is a domestic partnership contract as well. Where the big problem comes in is utilization of the WORD “Marriage” which has religious significance and is biblically defined as the union of a man and a woman.
    .
    The WORD Marriage belongs to the religious community and it’s not really within the purview of the government to redefine biblical terminology. The Government may extend domestic partnership contract benefits equally to both marriage and civil union.. but the word marriage is where the Gay community crosses the line wanting something that does not belong to them.. Not theirs to tinker with.
    .
    I so wish the Gay community would come up with a word they like if Civil Union is not good enough. The whole debate is stupid to me.. A tiger has stripes. A lion does not. No matter how much a tiger just WANTS to be called a Lion, they simply are not a lion, by definition..
    .
    The gay community seems to think that using the word MARRIAGE has some magic meaning and see acceptance from others who disapprove of your life style. Why not just call it Garriage.. LOL “We’re Garried”. Duck the whole darn debate and get on with YOUR life.. Find happiness.
    .
    Stop worrying so much what others think. Just be you. Don’t seek some magic approval thing.. Your community is at risk from violence. Help them learn to defend themselves. And I’ll tell ya true… you want to march with a Gays 4 Guns group (and it’s close enough) I’ll come march right next to ya and I won’t give a HOOT who doesn’t like it. (grin)..

    1. I sent the email, I believe Dan is the editor x)

      Edit: On a side note, thank you very much for your support.

      1. avatar Nora Craig says:

        I noticed that later (oops).. You just be you, dear. Screw those who don’t like it. And, PLEASE teach your folk to NOT fall for the political propaganda that all GOP hate you. That is a crock of horse pucky (quoting Col. Potter) they use to keep you voting democrat.

        As an individual they are screwing you royal in your rights as an American, not only 2A, but health care, etc. Meanwhile, these lib’s who PROFESS to care for minorities are engaging in Black Genocide (gogol that phrase) and keeping minority kids trapped in prison schools in the GHETTOs.

        They deny these kids an education and STEAL their lives, their futures, their dreams. They keep them ENSLAVED in the cycle of poverty… on PURPOSE!
        .
        Teach, dear, teach.. Teach the truth about how all they profess to serve and love they are intentionally try to destroy. They are USING your community as a political distraction. Don’t be a tool… Be you.

        1. I really love to teach new things to people, and promote actual tolerance, but as with all things you can only teach the people that wish to learn. It is truly difficult to be in my position at times, knowing that even on this website I’ve garnished a good amount of ire and bile amongst fellow gun owners. But at the same time, I really have to look at what is important and what is superficial, and what the future holds. The reality is, I will eventually get my equality. I personally don’t care what it’s called.. Marriage, Domestic Partnership.. Whatever else they wanna call it. I just want my equality, and for the hate to stop, so everybody can focus on whats important instead of silly moral issues and political correctedness. Both sides are guilty of double standards and it is quite apparent in the end that neither are correct.

        2. avatar Nora Craig says:

          EM.. don’t hold your breath waiting for “hate to stop”. Think instead of the Bell Curve.. There will always be haters, always have been always will be. Just like we can’t stop murder, rape, child abuse, etc.. Always there are that percentage who will be destructive.

          But.. there is also the other side of the coin. You already have acceptance. And your folk could gain civil equality all OVER if you’d push for Civil Unions and lay off the religious vocabulary word marriage.

          The gay movement shoots self in footsie over a word. Now seeing as that makes no strategic sense at all, I’d say it’s intentionally inflammatory rhetoric is targeted at political divisiveness instead of coming to calm civil solution.

          I’d be willing to bet real money that a conservative gay initiative to stabilize civil union rights would be highly successful. Waving red capes in front of religious bulls by attacking the core of their faith is dumb IF the objective is peaceful resolution.

        3. Nora, you’ve made the most sense out of everything I’ve ever read on the internet, period. All I ask for is EQUALITY. It doesn’t have to be Marriage.. Marriage is just a freakin’ word. A WORD. A word that somehow gets the whole entire country bent out of shape and it’s absolutey rediculous that the LGBT community doesn’t understand that if they just changed -that word- to something else, and kept all the same benefits as Marriage, then we’d be good as gold.

        4. avatar Nora Craig says:

          That IS the point. As long as the Gay community keeps wanting to redefine the WORD marriage ya got a fight on your hands. Dump the word, duck the fight, go for civil union benefits equality. Take the whole “separate of church and state out of it”.

          Look, either one of two things is “reality” in the Gay leadership, they area either dumb as fence posts when it comes to strategy, or they delight in pissing other people off.

          I do know my Mamma always said “you catch more bees with honey”. If they’d lay off the “in your face” approach, you’d advance much quicker.

          Folk gotta use logic instead of emotion.. stop rising to the bait when someone pushes your emotional buttons. Mamma taught me that one re: playing on the sand lot. “Don’t bite the hook. Loose your temper and you loose, period. “

  52. avatar juliesa says:

    I always vote Republican, but that’s only because of gun rights and fiscal issues. I don’t give a crap about what people do with their private parts and don’t want to hear about it. I’m so happy in my marriage that I wish that same happiness on anyone else who wants to be married.

    Personally, I welcome the idea of having gays be more of a public face for the gun rights movement than they are now. I donated to Pink Pistols years ago (they don’t seem too active now from what I can tell). It’s bizarre that many of the “identity groups” who would really benefit from being armed are so vehemently against it.

    1. avatar Pablo says:

      You’re joking, right? Republicans fiscally conservative? Did you miss the 2001-2006 spending spree, when they controlled Congress and the Presidency?

  53. avatar JustLeaveLawfulGunOwnersAlone says:

    Thank you for posting this and to the author, thank you for sharing it with us.
    As atheist, immigrant, pro choice, pro-gay, pro-gun, our quasi two party system is a struggle every election. Every time I choose not to be a single issue voter, it has come to bite me in the butt. Until there is at least some sort of election reform, I can’t with good conscious not vote pro-gun. As it is the last resort to defend the rest of our rights.

    To sum it up:

    no gov’t in my gun-safe
    no gov’t in my bedroom
    no gov’t in my doctors office
    no gov’t in my (non)faith
    no gov’t in my body
    no gov’t in what involves only me, myself and I.

    gov’t can deal with rails, roads and bridges
    gov’t can deal with convicted criminals
    gov’t can deal with emergency services
    gov’t can deal with natural disasters
    gov’t can deal with other countries
    gov’t can deal with taxes
    gov’t should deal with stuff I can’t deal with due to shear scale or size.

    1. avatar Hal J. says:

      I’ll see your Dennis Prager and raise you a Robert Heinlein.

      http://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        “A generation which ignores history has no past — and no future”

        If you are implying that history happens to include 3,000+ years of man+woman commitments to society then I agree.

        1. avatar Hal J. says:

          I’m afraid you’re reading something into the quote that isn’t there. Here are a few more relevant quotes from the greatest science fiction writer of all time (IMHO, of course):

          One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.

          Of all the strange “crimes” that human beings have legislated out of nothing, “blasphemy”is the most amazing — with “obscenity” and “indecent exposure” fighting it out for second and third place.

          Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful —just stupid.)

        2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          Doesky, you understand that if we look at human society as a historical whole the 1 man and 1 woman version of marriage would not be traditional, right? Monogamous marriage didn’t likely develop until about twenty thousand years ago, and likely didn’t become “the norm” until a thousand years ago, and that doesn’t even apply to all cultures. The most common form of marriage in human history is one man and several women.

          As usual, the facts jibe severely with your loose interpretations.

  54. avatar Kyle says:

    Your civil liberties are all important. The libertarian party reconciles your conflict by supporting all your rights not just the ones that cater to either the right or left. There is a 3rd path.

    1. I wish that 3rd path was more viable! Maybe in the future we can finally have a balanced 3rd party for once.

      1. avatar Nora Craig says:

        Go read my post on the function of primaries. When WE who are the real centrists (Libertarians) get off butts and seek the primary nomination in BOTH parties… then we can begin to get back to something rational verses all this divisiveness.

  55. avatar ArmedMage says:

    Good article, as a bisexual and a gun-owning libertarian (registered Republican) I understand Aaron’s dilemma. It’s sad how the mainstream LGBT community claims to promote tolerance yet the moment you step out of the Democrats’ party line you are viciously attacked and have your sexual orientation questioned. I’ve received more flak from the liberal LGBT community over my conservative leanings than I have from conservative gun owners over my sexual orientation.

    The leftists are terrified of groups like JPFO and Pink Pistols because a big part of their strategy is to convince minorities that guns are only for OFWGs and that they have to vote Democrat to protect their rights, and having more people who are gay/black/female who own guns and support gun rights throws a wrench into that whole façade. Fortunately it seems more bridges are being built between the pro-2A gay community and gun rights community, and that the anti-gay rights movement in the GOP is on the decline, so I’m optimistic that things are starting to change for the better for gay gun owners.

  56. avatar Leo338 says:

    Is that something the NRA would see as acceptable? Would it even be acceptable to the gun community as a whole?

    I would hope the NRA would accept this, I don’t see why not. It better be acceptable to the gun community as a whole. If there are people that oppose it then they shouldn’t be considered as part of the community. The right to self-defense applies to everyone, regardless of race, sexual preference, or political views. I also think there should be more of an effort made to make gay gun owners feel welcomed. They shouldn’t have to question or wonder if they would be accepted.

    I wonder if the person that told him he isn’t gay enough is also gay himself? I have noticed a lot of these accusations come from radical white progressives. They believe it’s their job to speak up for everyone and tell you how other group’s feel. For example I recently had a white progressive accuse me of being racist and that I was not a real Hispanic because I support the second amendment and I don’t support illegal immigration. What the ????

    1. avatar Peter says:

      As others have said, what does homosexual behavior have to do with the right to own a firearm? The NRA is a group that supports firearm safety and advocacy.

  57. avatar BHirsh says:

    Re: Title

    Yes, but only as far as their individual rights are concerned. Never, ever to approve of any efforts to “normalize” their abberant sexual preferences and behavior.

  58. avatar ensitue says:

    I only trust those who are exactly like myself and even then I don’t completely trust them

    1. avatar BHirsh says:

      ESPECIALLY those who thumb their noses at the Grand Architect of the Universe.

      1. avatar BlinkyPete says:

        Totally. The all-being that constructed the universe, up from the sub-atomic level, all it’s structures and inhabitants is deeply concerned about butt-sex. That makes perfect sense to me.

        1. avatar BHirsh says:

          Read the disclaimer about all warranties being void if the product isn’t used as intended by the designer.

        2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          How exactly do you know what the designer intends? Sounds like you’re about telling the Almighty about his business as much as you’re about telling other folks about theirs.

  59. avatar Don says:

    People of the gun should support pro gun anybody more.

  60. avatar Dex says:

    I’m a chapter coordinator in the Pink Pistols. Over the years, I have taught a LOT of novice shooters, who came to a PinkShoot in order to learn in a somewhat Bubba-free environment.

    1. I wish the Phoenix Pink Pistols were more active, myself!

    2. avatar BlinkyPete says:

      Which chapter? I wish they were more active in NH. I have one gay buddy who shoots, and while his other political leanings are a little too left for me I do feel the PP are a shining beacon for libertarian values, tolerance and self reliance.

  61. avatar Bill J. says:

    Just for fun let’s ask the same question a little differently.
    Should Pro Gun gays support….oh let’s say Rick Santorum (because he’s pro 2A).
    Same premise for some “people of the gun”, that is should I support a lifestyle I disagree with because they are pro gun? Assplosion starts in 3 2 1…………..

    1. avatar K says:

      Should you support a lifestyle you disagree with because they are pro gun? Of course not. I support gays’ right to own firearms, but I don’t support their “right” to marriage, even though they may own firearms.

  62. avatar jwm says:

    This whole thread, and more like it on TTAG, remind me of that scene from Blazing Saddles. Okay, we’ll except the rest of them but I draw the line at the Irish.

    Haters got to hate. Having said that I know that it’s time to change a wrong I committed before. The next time gay marriage rights come up for election in California I will vote in favor. And if the gay community can see their way clear to supporting 2a rights great. If not, I’ve still done what was right.

  63. avatar doesky2 says:

    Do you how tired I am of the LBGT crowd screaming “stay out of my bedroom” and then shoving their bedroom preferences in my face like I give a flying F how they get their jollies. Why does it seem that a majority of LGBT’s define their essence on the basis of how they plug up with others? The heteros who do that are considered idiots, hoes, skanks, azzholes, and jerks. It’s F’ing BORING to listen to! Grow up!

  64. ‘Regardless, what I’m getting to is this: in my community, we are largely regarded as leftists who only vote Democrat. Admittedly, I have too. I wanted to be recognized and have my partnership recognized as legitimate. I wanted my partner to be able to share my bank account with me or be at my side if I am injured and in the hospital.’

    To be fair, it was the majority Democrat party that nearly got the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell derailed back in 2010, through political manipulations. It had the votes to pass as a single issue item, but the majority Dems tried to railroad it through along with a budgetary bill the minority Reps opposed.

    Likewise, dozens of Dems have come out against the federal DOMA, but the majority Dems have not put it on the agenda for the Senate. Instead, they want to punt the issue to the Supreme Court.

    I’m not defending the Reps as being great supporters of gay rights, I’m just saying that the Dems are completely cynical about it.

  65. avatar Federale says:

    The real question is what homosexuals have done for the Second Amendment or the Constitution as a whole. As a group, homosexuals are opposed to the Constitution and the freedoms is guarantees, such the right to own and use firearms, and the right to free speech, religious freedom and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

    Homosexuals openly support the Demoncrat Party, they are part of its base. Homosexuals openly oppose freedom of religion and speech by supporting laws fraudulently named “hate crimes.” Homosexual groups openly oppose the right to keep and bear arms as well. No major homosexual public figure or politician support the 2nd Amendment.

    Homosexual groups are intimately involved in attacks on 2nd Amendment supporters and are the cadre and core of the Demoncrat Party. Every attack on freedom, whether economic freedom or political freedom are led by homosexuals, especially in Hollywood and the media.

    The answer the is that when homosexuals start supporting the Constitution, then we can discuss supporting the minuscule numbers of homosexuals who aren’t trying to take away my guns, silence my speech, or imposing their values on the people of this nation.

    Homosexuals are a mere 3% of the population. And at the core, their sexual behavior is a crime against natural law and God’s revealed law. There is a natural right to self and collective defense, but there is no right to un-natural sexual practices.

    Homosexual marriage, what the writer is comparing to the rights that our Founding Fathers understood came from God, did not include homosexual behavior. To them it was a crime against the natural law and God’s revealed law. To claim that homosexual marriage is a right given to man from God and nature is false, shameful, and not true.

    But in any event, come back when homosexuals as a group discover the whole Constitution, not the one tiny part that really isn’t there, and start defending that part that is in writing, like the 2nd Amendment. After you prove your adherence, we can discuss whatever they want. But because homosexuals as individuals and as a group are a little late to the Constitution party, you can understand that you have little credibility. Basically, prove your chops, then we can talk.

    I have the feeling that all these homosexuals who claim to be pro-2nd Amendment are just infiltrators with their own agenda of destroying the culture our Founders gave us, and, like the Saul Alinskys of the world, are just playing us for suckers.

    1. It’s this precise attitude / stance that the media wants from you. You’re not helping by taking this stance at all, especially from somebody that wishes to help out. Close-mindedness is what is sinking the ship to begin with.

      1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

        What part of Federale’s post did you not understand. I’m not whining about my sex life, why am I having to hear about yours? Keep your personal life personal, because I don’t care. Just because you are gay doesn’t make you special.

        1. I never said I was special. I never -wanted- to be special. I never asked to be special, it was the GBLT community leaders that screamed about being special. It’s the media that made me special. It’s the refusal to fall in line with my own stereotypes that apparently makes me special, too, when I never asked for it. -I- wanted to be equal.

          If you’re so inclined to be so homophobic and offensive and close minded you might as well give up your gun rights now, because until you break out of that 100 year old paradigm we’re not going to win with people like you around empowering the Liberal attitude and giving numerous amounts of ammunition to the anti-gun side by further pidgeon-holing gun owners into OFWG hell. It’s plain and simple. You can have all the hate you want, but realise that in your hate you’re still not doing anything to help, and only hurting the cause in the end.

        2. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Sorry Aaron, but I don’t hate. I just understand anatomy and physiology of the human body. When the rectum magically becomes an Entrance rather than an Exit, we can talk. You mistake my not giving a $hit for hate. Big difference.

        3. @Joke & Dagger, I take it you have a very frail understanding of what I’m trying to say as you’ve completely ignored the first half of what I said to begin with.

        4. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          And you are missing what I am saying. Let me try it a different way. Go live your life. Be happy. Leave everybody else free to live their own lives. Happily. In other words: STFU and stop whining like a child.

        5. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          You call me homophobic, I call you an Attention Whore.

        6. It’s your political deal-break you are throwing away without realising it, when you try to suppress something that has the chance to destroy the other sides’ accusations and stereotypes.

        7. avatar Nora Craig says:

          EM.. “A man convinced against his will is of his own opinion still”. Be content 2a supporters of any ilk are more than acceptable to the MAJORITY…

        8. avatar BlinkyPete says:

          ” STFU and stop whining like a child.”

          Oh man… if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black I don’t know what is.

        9. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Blinker, my own personal “gotta have the last word” stalker.

    2. avatar Hal J. says:

      “God’s revealed law”?

      Go ahead, pull the other one.

    3. avatar ArmedMage says:

      So do you feel the same about blacks and Hispanics? That every one of them that stands for Constitutional freedom is not legitimate because of the views that the majority of their demographic may hold?

      This is the exact same divide and conquer tactic that the author of the article talks about, only you’re an example of how it works on the far right. Same collectivist bullcrap that degrades the individual by focusing on the demographic they are born into rather than the kind of person they are.

      If you don’t like gays because your religion tells you to then I don’t care, that’s your 1st Amendment right and you can shout it from the mountaintops for all I care. But you have no right to impose your religious beliefs on others who want no part of it. America is not and was never meant to be a theocracy, if that’s what you want feel free to move to Iran, they share your same kind of thinking after all.

      1. This pretty much sums up my point, yes.

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Something to think about: just because I am morally against homosexuality doesn’t mean I’m homophobic.

          What I certainly am is attentionwhoreophobic.

      2. avatar Pat says:

        “So do you feel the same about blacks and Hispanics?” Ah the old straw man argument that replaces race with a mental disorder.

        1. avatar ArmedMage says:

          Just following his line of thinking to its logical conclusion.

          Even if you could make the case that homosexuality is a choice or a “mental disorder”, it’s still a demographic with many different individuals that can’t be painted with a wide brush.

  66. avatar ZM 1306 says:

    I am against “Same-sex Marriage” because “most” religions are against it and forcing them is wrong. So I think that “civil unions” should be allowed for the gay community. That way gays can get the stupid government benefits and legal benefits.

    My personal opinion of gay tendencies is that it is wrong. Some contribute it to mental disorder/defect or genetic fault. I do believe it is an error in the human, more moral and sociological than physiological or psychological. The reason for sex is to simply produce offspring, any other sexual activity for any other reason is wrong.

    I believe it is a choice, not the urge but the action. People will point to animals of the same gender having sex as a defense to the action people act upon. That however is not an excuse. Being human offers a unique and complicated way to experience life. Being beings of will, the ability to choose, we can override natural instinct. I wonder if homosexuality is a natural way for nature to control population. The result of a homosexual couple is -2 to the population.

    This is being compared to marriage as if there is no other reason for the system to exist and no repercussions for other choices. Humanity is dangerously inbred as is. Marriage is to provide structure so that people can know to whom they are related so they can avoid inappropriate relationships. There should be no sex before nor after marriage to keep the family tree in order.

    This was much longer but I was unable to present it in a manner that I was content with. Homosexuality should not be illegal but it should not be socially accepted either. We have bigger problems to work on like the social acceptance of people sleeping around and having kids without a proper family structure.

  67. avatar gjv200 says:

    Aaron-

    I’ve been a lurker here for a while, and this is the first time I’ve been compelled to post. This is really a fantastic post you’ve written, and I applaud all the thoughts you share, and important questions you bring up. Sincerely.

    I’m also really proud of you for standing tall amongst the ranks of an oppressed minority when it comes to gun rights. No, not gays….Brits.

    “Realise”??? That spelling choice pulled you right out of the closet. 😉

    Congrats on starting a really thoughtful discussion…

    1. What’s funny is that I am hispanic, actually. I grew up in the UK, however, due to the ‘ol military and what have you, so I tend to talk and type a bit like the Brits lol. I always get called out on it though, it’s pretty amusing 🙂

  68. avatar JW says:

    I am very happy to see this discussion here at TTAG. The boisterous variety of perspectives here (under a mostly civil discussion) gives me hope for our democracy.

    On the matter at hand, I have always tried to help my gay and lesbian friends understand why 2a is important to all citizens. Helping spread this understanding is exactly the subtle shift in culture that is needed to protect all of our rights. I still think Voltaire said it best (I think the Framers of the Constitution realized it was better to be armed when following Voltaire’s advice).

    I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.
    Voltaire

  69. avatar IdahoPete says:

    The NRA and many of us OFWGs don’t really care what color, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or whatever other Balkanization category people put themselves into. Our sole criteria of membership in the “gun culture” has been, for years, whether or not you support Americans’ civil rights under the Second Amendment. If you own guns and enjoy using them in a lawful manner, you are welcome to every range I have ever helped establish and run.

    My question for the LBGT community: How much have you done, in your political personas, to support my 2nd Amendment rights over the last 50 years? What I have generally seen over those years from the gay political interest groups has been hostility towards gun owners. We tend to get stereotyped as “right-wing bigots”, simply because we are vocal in support of the 2nd Amendment.

    My years of experience with the political process on both sides of the aisle has led me to be a member of the LUTHA Party. Leave Us the Hell Alone. That’s all I ask of the gummint and the state media anymore, even though I realize such a request is anathema to the statists running this country.

    1. The real question to ask at this time is what can the LGBT community do for the 2nd Amendment in the face of rampant Liberalism and Main Stream Media bashing and labeling? The MSM can’t and refuses to acknowledge minority gun owners, and the LGBT has one of the most powerful voices amongst them. Why isn’t the NRA taking advantage? Imagine how many more silent voices that are starting to question their party lines would be willing to step over if they simply saw every main stereotype and paradigm gun owners have been shoved into simply destroyed by a small select subculture. This is where I am getting at.. It’s called a tactical advantage.

      1. avatar Nora Craig says:

        EM. Most main-stream groups will stay away from even mentioning fringe group, even when the fringe are on their side. If said fringe group has high media visibility they’ll avoid mention to avoid the negative repercussions.

        It’s inevitable that should the NRA come out and say something that the liberals would be all over them and find a way to spin it negatively. This is simply marketing strategy stuff. It’s best policy to stay on noncontroversial middle ground when broad appeal is the objective. Don’t take it personal.

        You are not “normal” mainstream. Normal being a mathematical concept, ie: percentage. Don’t take that personal either. Lots of folk fall outside normal ranges on the Bell Curve for this or that..

        I’m not “normal” either, though in a different way than you. ADHD, a smiggen OCD, dyslexic, nerdy as hell, 100% dead serious all the time in a land of loonies (my view) who think Funniest Home Video’s is actually funny?

        You think being gay is awkward, try not getting jokes and having zero “small talk” at parties. Try being the ethical one in corporate land.. LOL That’s kind of like being a Nun in a whore house.. LOL It made “them” very uncomfortable to have me around.

        Equality? What’s that? I’ve never experienced it in my whole life.. SO WHAT! I’m me, I’m not the norm, God made me, HE loves me.. So… you learn to shrug it off after you realize that normalcy is really a myth anyway. Just a math formula.

        Don’t LOOK for acceptance from others. You’ll wind up like Diogenes, the Greek guy with lamp searching for one honest man, and waste your life. Just seek self fulfillment being the best you can be and making some type of positive contribution to your “tribe”.

        BTW.. I’d be pleased if you friended me on Face Book and we could wander into the realms of the philosophy on “my tribe” theory. (grin)..

        1. My name is the same on facebook if ya wanna find me :3 I’m sure itll be alot easier to find “Emfourty Gasmask” XD

  70. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

    Think about this one: just because I am morally against a homosexual lifestyle doesn’t me I am homophobic.

    1. avatar Hal J. says:

      me I am homophobic

      Typo, or Freudian slip? 🙂

      1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

        Typo!!! 🙂 Seriously. 🙂

  71. avatar K says:

    I’m against gay marriage (not a right) but pro gays with guns (definitely a right). They’re people too ya know.

  72. avatar Jane Doe says:

    It’s funny these “Christians” who keep clamoring on about 1 man and 1 women conveniently ignore people like Charlemagne with his 10 wives and concubines. It’s even funnier when you realize most of these posters probably wouldn’t even be christian if it wasn’t for him forcibly Christianizing every francisca throwing savage tribe he conqured.

    1. avatar K says:

      Wow. I’m now counting seconds until Godwin’s law puts on an appearance.

      1. avatar Jane Doe says:

        Maybe the middle ages was opposite land. Where Christians have more then one wife and “France” invades “Germany”

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Sorry Jane, but I am who I am without knowing who Charlamagne was. I’m just a simple a$$ dude.

  73. avatar Vera Denise says:

    It doesn’t really get interesting until you’re a Pro 2A, gun loving, transgender lesbian girl…

  74. avatar revjen45 says:

    Good on ya Aaron. Don’t allow other people to define you. Continue to support what you know is right.
    Re: homophobia
    As an OFWG let me point out that the Bible says that judgement is the Divine Father’s job, not Man’s. When I am fit to judge other people He will take a vacation and leave in charge. This has not happened, and I don’t expect it to. As long as we act like the bigoted clods the Left would like to paint us as being we will lose the support of people would have otherwise been our allies.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email