Quote of the Day: A Question of Balance Edition

8246691

“It really does get to be difficult. We’re pulled in two directions. There are some Democrats that would be cheerful about taking the Second Amendment and repealing it and saying only police and military can have guns; there are Democrats that believe it. On the same token, there are Republicans who like guns generally and want to keep the Second Amendment and get rid of some limitations of it, but some of those Republicans would cheerfully watch us get stoned in the town square because we’re an abomination. Not every Republican believes that, and not every Democrat believes guns are evil, but it’s hard to find a balance between that.” – Gwen Patton in ‘The Gay Advocates of Gun Rights’ [at msn.com]

comments

  1. avatar Dark says:

    That picture is amazing.

    1. avatar CGinTX says:

      It’s a shame the speaker chose such over-the-top hyperbole as “cheerfully watch us get stoned in the town square”. So many people here will latch on to that as a way to dismiss this quote. I don’t believe there’s hardly any here in the US that want any gay person stoned. Had they instead kept the more realistic tone and said, “have us forced into ‘realignment therapy'” or just kept “consider us abominations” then this quote would be right on and captures well the problem for gays, and indeed many liberals of all stripes, who are tarred as “statists,” “libtards” or “collaborators.”

      1. avatar KevinMA says:

        CG, one would like to think it “over the top hyperbole”, however Scott Esk, GOP candidate for Oklahoma State rep pretty much sad that exact thing a few days ago: http://firebrandprogressives.org/oklahoma-tea-party-candidate-calls-for-homosexuals-to-be-stoned-to-death/

        We won’t be able to have nice things until the GOP starts respecting the separation of Church and State. The Christian Bible is not US law, The Constitution is.

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          Yes, CGinTexas, there IS a Bogeyman, and it’s the same type of Bogeyman that existed during the 1930s in Germany, except it has found a different ‘Other’ to hate and hasn’t adopted really nice uniforms yet. It is, sadly, a fact that certain Evangelicals, right up there with M*sl*ms and other Bronze-Age throwbacks, would gladly do the ‘Lake of Fire’-throwing bit in the 21st Century if they could get away with it, all in the name of archaic teachings from two or three thousand years ago, when men were unshaven, women were chattel, and children were occasionally thrown off cliffs for minor defects in packaging.

          It isn’t paranoia when people really ARE out to get you.

        2. avatar El Mac says:

          @KevinMA, some on the Left have advocated gun confiscation, death and the like for gun owners. You down with that?

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          John Your tinfoil hat is supposed to help prevent hyperventilation. Does help with clues though.

        4. avatar LC says:

          Exactly. Republican stupdity towards equal rights pretty much discredits them from any attempts to “moderate” themselves.

        5. avatar El Mac says:

          @LC, and Leftist “useful idiots” will pretty much guarantee them a spot in the gulag. Well done UI!

      2. avatar Sian says:

        You call it over the top, but I know people who would happily throw the first rock.

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          Of course; there will always be those pitiful souls eager to throw the first stone, and deflect scrutiny from themselves. That’s just human nature, so to pretend it can be overcome is just folly.

          Here’s my point of confusion; how can the people condemning blasphemers (it’s a definition in their faith; get over it) possibly argue for their victims to have parity of arms? You can’t be pro-gun and seek retribution on a group at the same time; on one of those points you must be posturing –most likely on the loudest proclamation, that you are fighting the most cognitive dissonance with.

          I argue that the very people so feared by homosexuals et. al. of being violent towards them are the very same ones pushing for gun control, or who would embrace it with open arms under the right circumstances. You can’t bring a stone to a gun fight and expect to come out on top, so somebody in that scenario isn’t serious about their intentions…

          TCB

          Gotta say, I think I’m about done with TTAG. The ads are completely out of control here, and the site is just this side of unusable. Even two tabs open locks the browser, and the autoplay ads can barely stay buffered. Late model machine, broadband connection –ain’t a problem on my end. I understand the need for ya’ll to make money for the site & yourselves, which is why I don’t block the ads. But now I can’t even use the website because of them.

        2. avatar Zach says:

          Sian – let me start by saying that I’m firmly in the camp of 2nd Amendment rights for any citizen of this nation (and any legal permanent resident), regardless of differences.

          I could make a big explanation here about positive rights (the government has to give you stuff) vs. negative rights (the government can’t take yer guns). Short answer – while I’m opposed to gay marriage (and I have my reasons, and they’re shockingly intelligent and well-considered), I’m 100% for gays with guns. Honestly, I’m not even sure I think the government should sanction MY marriage, let alone would I consider it a “right”. But all that is beside the point we’re talking about here.

          By all means tool up, and let’s agree on the things we can agree on. I’m not going to change my mind about gay marriage, and a lot of people are going to think I’m a homophobe and a bigot for it. But seriously, there aren’t a lot of people who want to literally stone gays, and for those few, I hope every gay person who has the desire to own a firearm exercises their rights and defends his or herself.

          I read an interesting article (probably linked here somewhere) about how the 2nd Amendment helped support the Civil Rights movement. It’s not quite the same thing here (I’m not going to get into the weeds about why), but it’s the same idea. Any minority ought to be taking advantage of the right of self-defense, and no country on earth protects that right better than ours.

      3. avatar dakiwi13 says:

        cgintx: in the many many many forums i belong to. there is a very large subset of individuals that do feel that gays are an abomination. and they have expressed it as so. furthermore there has been many occasions where they have discussed lynching, stoning, nuking, etc of said people and their lifestyles. so the quote is not at all out of context, nor unrealistic

    2. avatar Doug Knaus says:

      I’m pleased to be on the same side as the Pink Pistols.
      I support their right to marry. (I’m an old, white, straight, Libertarian-leaner, and I have no close LGBT relatives.)
      LGBTs have won nearly every court decision prohibiting same-sex marriage, often with unanimous verdicts. Gay marriage is here. You can accept it openly, or quietly. Or you can fight and fail, perhaps making enemies for 2A in the process.
      The Pink Pistols are our allies: Embrace them. If we don’t accept every ally, those 5-4 SCOTUS decisions are going to be 4-5.

      1. avatar MudPuppy says:

        Well put.

  2. avatar brentondadams says:

    Ive been out with Pink Pistols before. Once at a pride parade here in LA. The reception they get is overwhelmingly positive.

    Its not really my scene, but they do good work.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Ah, so it’s not the guns the anti’s hate, after all, but “us”

      Figures.

  3. avatar Izat says:

    When I am speaking to anti- 2A people about firearm rights, they try to pigeon hole me as a religious right wing nut job. My standard comeback is,”I want gay married couples to defend their Marijuana patches with “assault” weapons”. That kind of throws them off.

    1. avatar Amok! says:

      LOL. That is pithy. Way to foundationally F*** with their belief structure. Well done.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Consider that stolen.

    3. avatar MJJ says:

      Stealing. That. Too.

      1. avatar Art says:

        I use “machine guns” when I say the same thing
        and I add in homes

        “I want gay married couples to be able to defend their homes and Marijuana plants with machine guns”

        both sides normally want to stab me after that, lol

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          I actually like your post. Liberty is liberty and tyranny is tyranny, no matter which political spectrum is the topic of conversation.

    4. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Izat – One of my favorite retorts to the gun-grabbers is to say “Look, neither the Liberal-Progressive or the Conservative-Republican party will touch me with a 10 foot pole. My ideal candidate will be fine with me storing my weed in my locked gun safe.”

      That tends to deflate ’em.

    5. avatar whatever says:

      I also want gay married couples to defend their Marijuana patches with “assault” weapons. Good one Izat.

  4. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    My guess is the number of Democrats eager to repeal the Second Amendment far outweigh the number of Republicans who would advocate physically harming someone for their sexual behavior.

    The vast majority of Americans of all political ideologies have a “live and let live” attitude towards homosexuals. Joining two people of the same gender together and calling it “marriage” is really the great divide in American opinion.

    1. avatar brentondadams says:

      I agree with that. By your deed shall ye be known.

      You seen any ‘stoning gays to death’ ordinances up for debate lately? How about attempts to infringe on the Second Amendment? Hmmmmm…..

      1. avatar Garibaldi says:

        That was my thought exactly. I see all kinds of anti-2A rhetoric on the news and the people just accept it. But if I were to utter one word against homosexuals in my workplace I’d be sharply disciplined. There’s way more anti-2A sentiment out there than anti-gay sentiment.

        1. avatar ThomasR says:

          If you’re white, heterosexual, Christian, gun owning male; which I am; Then I am the one class of human being in America today which the mostly liberal/main stream press, academia, business and government is free to excoriate, outlaw, restrict, insult and make death threats against with impunity.

          Racism, bigotry, hate and intolerance is alive and well in America. and the liberal/progressives are some of the best practitioners. So much for “Multiculturalism and Tolerance”.

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          And in end; we are truly all the children of G-d; I’d risk my life to protect a confirmed atheist, abortion supporter, gun banning politician from a predator as I would my own blood family.

          Although I might hesitate a second if I found out they were a politician. (Just kidding)

        3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Agree

    2. avatar brentondadams says:

      Gun owners are the lefts last n*ggers. Throw gun toting gays into the mix and you start challenging the orthodoxy on both sides which is fine with me.

      My issue with gays, is so much of their public face is tied up with the same kind of cultural marxism that is killing this country faster than any gun. When you are supported by the left, you get mucked with the same pitch. The reverse it also true. Gun rights can be conflated with various non related right wing causes too. The right to keep and carry arms needs to be bi-partisan.

      The 2A doesn’t belong to some shit eating politico in DC. Its the peoples right. If that’s you, join us.

        1. avatar brentondadams says:

          And you sound kind of stupid.

          So… whatever.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        The progressive left HATES all thing that represents “traditional American values”. The AngloSaxon Christian work ethic, Judeo Christian traditions and morals, Capitalism, Peace thru Strength, Pull up by own bootstraps. All the made America the greatest nation on earth/in history

        Why? At it’s core all are contrary to the preaching of karl marx.

        The Constitution, in particular including the Second Amendment, stands in their way to utopia.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @neiowa, THIS!!!! Exactly!!! SPOT ON!

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I have the solution to that “great divide”, and its pretty easy. Remove all the government benefits given to those who are following a religious dictate by being “married”, so that it is a purely religious observation, and the question then is completely moot. As it is now, there are legal and financial benefits to undergoing a religious ritual (even if a ritual is not involved, such as in a JP wedding never mentioning religion) which cannot be obtained any other way, and many more that you would never think of trying to obtain until it is too late. The objection is largely because of the imagery, people thinking that preachers are to be forced to perform marriages that go against their beliefs. To my knowledge, that is not the case, the gays are looking for those benefits which everyone else gets from a single 15 minute ceremony. A JP or a Judge or a county clerk will do just fine, although if a preacher does not object, some would be happy to have a church service, they are as superstitious as the next guy.

      We could come up with another way to confer all those benefits, without the term “marriage”, in about a week.

      1. avatar Andy says:

        +1.

        As a libertarian I am aghast that the government is even in the “marriage business”, whether we’re talking traditional marriage or not.

        1. avatar Shire-man says:

          + a goddamn million.

          How going down to a bureaucrat and applying for a license to approve of your personal relationship as Kunta Kinte pleading “massa may I” does not instantly enrage everyone I’ll never understand.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        Actually, there’s a marriage tax. Two married wage earners will pay more taxes than if the two were single wage earners just living together.

        Sorry to contradict your narrative, but the tax laws at least favor single people.

        1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          Exactly.
          Again, this year we talked about divorce to pay less in taxes.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          There are, or at least there are perceived to be (wrongly, in many cases, I find) other “legal” benefits to “married” status, though. I agree that “marriage” of any stripe isn’t the business of the Feds at all. In flux on whether it is the business of state/local government lately.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          It depends on who earns what. Tax laws actually favor a traditional family, with one partner being the primary earner, and the other one either bringing a little on the side, or not working at all and staying at home with the kids. I’m about to get married soon with the latter arrangement, and that will save me literally several thousand dollars in yearly taxes.

        4. avatar Sian says:

          Yeah, it’s burdensome if both are solid wage earners, but if one is only part-time or stay-at-home, the benefits get significant.

      3. avatar Scot says:

        The concept of ‘marriage’ has existed around the world and pretty much throughout history. It hasn’t been limited to societies that follow the Bible. Marriage isn’t strictly a Western religious concept, as many appear to believe.

        That it has existed everywhere would seem to indicate that, at least in the past, there were good social reasons that benefited society for it to exist. Those reasons may or may not still exist, but since there is absolutely no serious discussion about the purpose to society of marriages (lots of discussion about the impact on the individuals involved, but why would society care about that?), it doesn’t seem like we’ll ever know.

        The most obvious areas where the state is involved (and in many states are involved even without a legal marriage) is in property ownership/division at death or divorce and dealing with child support.

        1. avatar Hobbitmom says:

          I would say that child rearing is the main social purpose of marriage. Cultures that don’t have marriage as we understand it, the kids are raised by their mom and an uncle or other male relative who fills the role of father. Property rights remain distinct (what’s his is his and what’s hers is hers — the guy may move in with her, but he doesn’t share ownership of her place), and both lines of descent and inheritance are matrilineal. A kid may inherit from his uncle who raised him, but he doesn’t inherit from his father or his father’s family.

          OTOH, the definition of marriage varies from culture to culture, and even within cultures. The Romans had marriage contracts that expired after a few years unless renewed, marriage contracts that were extremely difficult to get out of, and a number of variations in between. There’s been a slight move in that direction in the US; Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, and Louisiana offer the option of “covenant marriage,” which has more restrictions on divorce than the standard “no fault.” Gays are not the only ones who dislike the “one size fits all” definition currently imposed by the government.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    Why try to balance a position between statists on the left and statists on the right? It’s a waste of time and no matter what you lose.

    This country needs a massive display of civil disobedience. Like 200 million people just saying ‘effit’ to the politicians and their made up law.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I agree and believe that is the only way this fight won’t end in an ugly, painful mess.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Yeah man that’s the way. OCCUPY WALL STREET DUDE. Anarchy is the way and Bill Ayers is his prophet.

      (that’s sarcasm guys).

    3. avatar Rich Grise says:

      When, if ever, will people wake up and realize that the Libertarians have had the answer for DECADES now?

      Take The Quiz!

  6. avatar Steve Morandi says:

    I’m a Republican with no issues with the gay community. I believe everyone has the right to protect themselves, and some actually need it more than others

  7. avatar El Mac says:

    Seriously? I know of no Republican that gives one rip what you and your “partners” do to your bodies inside your own private bedroom. It’s only when you want to go public and jam it in our faces or infect our kids with that sickness that it becomes an issue.

    Decide for yourself what is important in life. Waving your CONTENT MODERATED around in public? Or excercising your Secomd Amendment right. I would rather you choose your Second Amendment. But if it’s the other, so be it. Just don’t ask me to give a shit.

    1. avatar gloomhound says:

      +1

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      So you are saying gays have to choose? You advocate government restricting a constitutional right to only those whose lifestyle satisfies your own personal sensibilities? Is it OK if people disagree with you, or will you suspend 1A for them, as well? Read what you wrote.

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @LarryinTx, yeah. Gays have to choose whether they want to act like jackasses and support a party that supports their jackassery or grow up, act like an adult and support a party that supports their God given rights. Pretty simple really. If you goal is public CONTENT MODERATED, well vote demosoviet. If your goal is owning and carrying a gun, support the Republicans.

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        Actually, I think the point of the quote here is that homosexuals think they have to choose. Which in the current political landscape is not entirely unreasonable.

    3. avatar MJJ says:

      We have gay brothers and sisters who are white, Republican, conservative and gun owners who would rather come out to this straight, black, Independent gun owner because their white, Republican conservatives colleagues think of them as a sickness.

      What’s wrong with that picture?

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @MJJ, I don’t know. You tell me. I wonder why they feel the need to come out and discuss their sexual proclivities to anyone. I mean really, who gives a rip?

        1. avatar MJJ says:

          It’s the fact that too many people, to this day, think of gays as sick. Abnormal. Unclean. Whatevertheywannacallit. So I can see why they want to step out and say they are proud of what and who they are. We black folks did the same thing back in the 60’s and 70’s, so I understand that. Eventually, we didn’t have to do that because the vast majority of people now accept us.

          It will take some time, but the same will happen for our gay brothers and sisters. Until then, they’ll speak out.

          And I don’t care that Robin Roberts is gay. She’ll always be a stone-cold fox to me. 🙂

        2. avatar El Mac says:

          @MJJ, dude, I could care less whether you are black, brown, pink, chartreues or chalk white. No one has any say how they are born. But sodomy is a lifestyle CHOICE. And as I’ve said, if that’s what rox your boat, go for it and all that comes with. Just don’t shove it in my face or force my kids into it by dragging that BS into their schools, etc.

          And don’t even begin to preach to me about it being a “civil right” compared to what blacks went through in the 60s. Not even.

        3. avatar Richard says:

          “Who gives a rip?”

          You do Dr. Goober.
          Or did you forget your hatred for this “sickness” that might “infect” you kids?

        4. avatar Another Robert says:

          @ MJJ: You know what, I don’t care that Robin Roberts is homosexual either. Most decent, thinking people don’t, I would say. So why does she feel compelled to announce it nationwide? Did some of her colleagues come out and announce they were heterosexual, and she felt like she had to keep up? Somehow I don’t think so. My problem isn’t people being homosexual, my problem is homosexuals invoking the government to force people to bake cakes for them or to punish people for not agreeing with them. I think the pic at the top of the article is a hoot, BTW

        5. avatar int19h says:

          You don’t need to “announce” yourself as a heterosexual – you are doing it every day through millions of small gestures, which everyone ignores because heterosexuality is the accepted norm. The problem for homosexuals is that if they do the same thing (e.g. kiss in public, something that hetero couples routinely do), they get attention and slurs – or even threats or physical assault in some cases.

          That’s why there’s that whole “coming out” thing. It’s a bold way to draw the line after years of living in a state where a single careless gesture can betray you to the world, and the world will lash out in response.

        6. avatar Sian says:

          @int19h +1billion

    4. avatar Richard says:

      You call something a “sickness” that can “infect” others, then claim to not care about it.
      You display contempt and loathing… then say you don’t care.

      By the way, your fear that your children can be “infected” kinda makes it sound like you think your kids will turn homosexual as soon as they have any contact with a homosexual. That says a lot about you.

      Homosexuality being contagious… someone call the CDC, Dr. Goober here has a theory!

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @Richard, nice try Tricky Dick.

        1. avatar Richard says:

          If you are intolerant against gay people, just say it. It’s OK.
          We are all intolerant towards one thing or another, and the world would be a better place if we all just admitted how we felt, and then debated the issues. Like me… I’m as intolerant of religions as you are homosexuality. Unlike you, I’ll actually debate the issue, and I almost always keep to polite terms.

          For the record, I’m not gay, and I actually view homosexuality as quite unnatural – though that doesn’t mean I think it is bad… I just think it is by definition unnatural. Millions of years of evolution gear homo-sapiens towards heterosexuality. That being said… I believe homosexuals are actually a positive influence on the world in some ways. Like not having any children. The Earth is full… We can’t support many more people.

    5. avatar Dev says:

      There are a whole lot of Republican politicians who decry homosexuality as an abomination and a sin, mainly to foster a political base. There are some truly detestable ones who actually believe the garbage they are saying.

      As long of politics is a career in this country and not simply a matter of civic duty we will have problems.

    6. avatar John in AK says:

      “Infect”?!

      C’mon, guy. It don’t WORK that way.

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @John in AK, yeah – INFECT. Brainwash, infect, whatever you want to call it.

        1. avatar Sian says:

          If you think it even works that way I don’t know what to say.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          To be fair, ever since it became hip to be gay in mass-media, the LGBT folks have grown their ranks enormously (by self-admission, not conversion obviously, lol) and now many of their prominent members enjoy dolling out the same self-assured derision and contempt for others as the people they so malign. Lots of thin-skins all around. If you think there is no brain-washing or propaganda component to the recent surge in sympathy for homosexual Americans in mass media, you are blind. It may be deserved sympathy (or rather, empathy may be deserved), but it is most certainly manufactured to a large extent.

        3. avatar El Mac says:

          @barnbwt, yep.

    7. avatar John in AK says:

      http://firebrandprogressives.org/oklahoma-tea-party-candidate-calls-for-homosexuals-to-be-stoned-to-death/

      This is SO good, I think that I’ll just keep posting it to respond to folks who say silly things.

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @John in AK, oh I stand corrected. There is one person in what? 330 million? Yep…wow.

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          So, if them ‘Gays’ were hanging about, trying to ‘infect’ YOUR progeny, you WOULDN”T want to have them stoned to death?

        2. avatar El Mac says:

          @John in AK, if that were the case sir, I suspect they would wish they were only getting stoned to death. Fuck with my underage kids, and you won’t believe what will happen to you my friend.

        3. avatar int19h says:

          It’s one person who was both sufficiently hateful to have such a thought in the first place, and sufficiently retarded to voice it in public to a large gathering, and sufficiently prominent that they were given that opportunity, and had mass media attention once they did it.

          For every guy like that, there are thousands more who think it secretly but don’t openly tell it (but vote for any “family values” measure and politician); or who think and speak it but they’re nobody so no-one cares.

        4. avatar El Mac says:

          @int19h, for every asshole that commits murder with a gun, there are thousands, nay…MILLIONS waiting in the wings to do the same thing. Ergo, let’s ban guns!

        5. avatar neiowa says:

          int19h – And for every one or two (El Mac) telling it like it is, there are millions of Americans how have figured out that the queers are a protected/favored class about they dare not speak. That failing to have your ( int19h’s) PC opinion in the workplace etc will result in PUNISHMENT.

    8. avatar LC says:

      “I know of no Republican that gives one rip what you and your “partners” do to your bodies inside your own private bedroom”

      You must be dingy, because they exist and spout their bullshit nearly everyday in local publications and on the radio.

      You can pretend ignoramouses dont exist, but that doesn’t mean they dont.

      “It’s only when you want to go public and jam it in our faces or infect our kids with that sickness that it becomes an issue. ”

      Ah, there’s your true colors. Well sorry to bust open your 18th century argument, but its not a “sickness” that is infectious. Freedom of expression. Ever hear of it?

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @LC, clearly you are brilliant!

  8. avatar the ruester says:

    I would be all for shooting at a group of people who were trying to stone someone to death, wouldn’t you? This isn’t Afghanistan.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m with you, but I might run away afterward to avoid persecution.

    2. avatar John in AK says:

      Even if it WAS Afghanistan, I’d be in favour of that. “Let he who wants the first 7.62mm bullet, cast the first stone.”

      Has a nice ring to it, don’t it?

  9. avatar John Boch says:

    “Republicans would cheerfully watch us get stoned in the town square because we’re an abomination. ”

    C’mon, dear. I know a lot of Republicans. I know a lot of conservatives.

    I don’t know any who want to see gays get stoned in the town square.

    I read with regularity, however, far-left Democrats who would see gun owners rounded up and imprisoned, interned and even executed for merely owning a gun.

    John

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @John Boch, excellent post. I sometimes want to tell these whiners to get over themselves already. No one really cares. If thats the way you want to roll then have at it. But move on and join life. Stop looking over your shoulder for the boogey man.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Agreed. Gun up and go about your business like a man. I can say the same on the subject of racism, sexism, etc. Take care yo own bidness and quit whining.

      2. avatar Sian says:

        No one cares unless they try to “infect” and “brainwash” your children, rite?

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Sian, yep. That’s right. Keep it to yourself and you are good to go. Touch my kids…and you won’t enjoy the result.

        2. avatar Jack Brown says:

          Well, not everyone is born gay, many are sucked into it.

        3. avatar Bill says:

          Who’s talking about “touching your kids,” El Mac? Where does that come from?

          A few comments ago, you were talking about “bringing it into the schools.” I think what you’re really saying is that you are one of those guys who would throw an unholy shit-fit if you discovered that the school library contained a book with gay characters.

          Is that right? Have I identified you correctly?

    2. avatar gloomhound says:

      +1 Well said!

    3. avatar MJJ says:

      We all need to stop thinking that only one side of any debate is more extreme than the correct side of the debate which we are on. Extremist are on both sides. Wearing blinders to see them on our side blinds us to the truth.

    4. avatar juliesa says:

      True, plus I often see progressives take the side of foreign cultures that actually do stone gays, and treat women like dirt. Republicans usually side with the enlightened western cultures, while progs are sympathetic to the ones that hang gays and do honor killings of girls who don’t obey men.

  10. avatar James says:

    I think the second part of the balancing acts shows why they should be the strongest supporter of gun rights. It’s hard to stone someone ready, equipped and willing to defend themselves. They’d also find more fellow gun owners willing to stand with them against the stoners.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Of all ages, races, genders, and sexual orientations.

  11. avatar Accur81 says:

    I’m extremely right wing, but have not ever advocated stoning the gay community with anything other than Marijuana. I believe CA considers any sort of “speaking out” against the gay community to be considered hate speech.

    I do wish there were more viable independents or independent-friendly Repblicans to vote for. Otherwise there’s those 5-6 pro-gun Democrats you could try to find and vote for. At any rate, the gay community is not far off from achieving whatever rights they want regardless of which politician is in office.

    As for me, I’m going to vote for small government, lower taxes, and more gun freedom whenever I get the chance. If that candidate doesn’t happen to support gay marriage or taxpayer funded abortions that’s find by me. I’m a little tired of the comments that some gay “martyrs” make like “they want to stone us” and “they want to legislate what we do in the bedroom.” That’s bullshit. Every gay man and woman is in at least one protected class. As a straight, white, lean man, I’m in no protected group whatsoever, and I manage just fine.

    Very cool poster, though.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      “At any rate, the gay community is not far off from achieving whatever rights they want regardless of which politician is in office.”

      Thats for sure! Even though the vast majority of states voted against legalizing gay marriage, judges simply overturn it. It seems like every week you hear about a judge overruling what the majority of the states voting population wanted.

      1. avatar Richard says:

        Majority rule does not trump rights.
        It is the judges position that homosexual individuals have the same rights as anyone else.

        1. avatar S.CROCK says:

          Seriously those judges would be/ could be/ are the judges that would overrule a majority ruling that the 2A covers your right to carry outside the home. (or any other 2A issue) Would they still be acting accordingly?

        2. avatar Richard says:

          I think we are having a problem here friend.
          I don’t believe you took what I said in the way it was meant.

          Rights are enumerated in the constitution.
          The constitution declares that all people are equal.

          Therefor, if one person can marry a consenting adult of their choice… Another person can marry a consenting adult of their choice.

          Here is a nifty parallel for you… Swap “equal right to marriage” with “right to keep and bear arms”.
          Unless you’re for taking guns from gays… it only seems logically consistent that you would support the right of one person to marry another of their choice.

        3. avatar neiowa says:

          Correct. Any biological male can marry (or even copulate) with any female who will have him. As for all eternity she gets to chose the time an place (you want to tilt at windmills fix that issue and you will find your statue erected in every park in the world).

          Same is true for the homosexual (whatever the theory of convenience). – born that way (so it’s a genetic mutation?), was recruited (no no that doesn’t happen) or wanted to join a protected class/be a hipster.

    2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      “…but have not ever advocated stoning the gay community with anything other than Marijuana.”

      I have to admit that I laughed out loud there.

  12. The right to self defense is for everyone, White, Black, Hispanic, LGBT, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. Whether or not I agree with gay marriage, unlawful immigration, or the 55 mph speed limit are totally different issues. There is a large difference between true Freedom and legalized forced you all have to get along because “we” say so freedom. As they say “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is on the menu, Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.”

  13. avatar Mark says:

    A salesman at one of my accounts is gay and also has a physical disability. It is severe enough now that he needs a motorized chair just to get around. He’s briefly made mention of being harassed at times in life. He’s the perfect example of why everyone needs to support his right to defend himself and way he sees fit. No clue how or if he chooses to do so but it is certainly should remain his right and his choice.

  14. avatar Dano says:

    How many people have been stoned, in the U.S. in the last decade? Now, how many people have had firearms confiscated when they’ve commit no crime.

    Then there are Libertarians, we don’t care what you do in your bedroom and who you’re doing it with. And, we love our firearms.

    1. avatar Sab says:

      I almost got beaten death with pipes in an alley for having the audacity to go to a gay bar.

      The only man that helped me then was Samuel Colt.

      Armed gays don’t get bashed. (To death.)

      1. avatar Richard says:

        Sorry to hear you went through that.
        I hope you made at least one of them bleed.

        I can’t believe how small minded and filled with hate so many people are. To actually ATTACK another human because he chose to enjoy himself in the way he saw fit… I have no problem with using capitol punishment for events like this.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Sab – *APPLAUSE*

        🙂

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          I second that emotion.

          Every Gay basher, every rapist, every randomly violent a**hole, should spend his last few agonized moments on this planet wondering why he can’t breathe right as the air he has left goes whistling out through those bloody holes in his chest.

          Too graphic? Too bad.

  15. avatar Bg says:

    THANK YOU!!! IT’S NOT ABOUT PARTY LINES! IT’S ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT! THE PARTIES ARE WHY WE ARE STILL AS A COUNTRY DIVIDED. WELL THAT AND RACISM. WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER AS A ONE PEOPLE, BLACK, WHITE, ASIAN,CHRISTIAN,MUSLIM, ETC IF WE TRULY WANT THIS COUNTRY TO PROSPER

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, as long as you understand the Muslims will still want to kill everyone else…

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @LarryinTx, exactly right.

      2. avatar MJJ says:

        A glittering generality.

        Again, it’s the extremists that want that, not all Muslims.

      3. avatar Richard says:

        Not really, most people just want to have a stable job, food on the table, and possibly a family.
        Your average person isn’t all that concerned with others.

        I find it hilarious that you think a dirt poor shepherd isolated in the mountains actually cares, or even knows about “everyone else”.

        Of course, I have no great admiration for their religion, it’s kept them in (and often returned them to) the pre-industrial era…. But the world around… your average people just don’t give a shit.

    2. avatar neiowa says:

      Sorry guy that’s just sophomoric BS from someone who obviously has not paid attendion/read/studied or been involved in the political system. If you don’t like our Constitutional Republic with our two party system decide on what you want to replace it with.

      If included in that is doing away with the 1st you’re going have a real world shootin program on your hands that will make “The Late Unpleasantness” look trivial. Unfortunately it appears this is the road we are on.

      If you want to do way with the strong two party system you better show a system that works. That would NOT include the BS British “parliamentary system” a cesspool of fail though widely copied.

      The problem we have in the US today is our “strong two party” system is broken. The babyboomer pothead (libtards) took over the Dem Party. The RINOs run the Republican Party.

      “Leaders” of the dem party are over “educated” marxists who have no useful life experience (like a real job) that would qualify them to run a donut stand. They believe big gov’t will solve things (and keep them in power).

      The “leaders” of the RINOs are pansies and that by going along with the libtards (mostly) while talking conservative they can play the mainstream media (libtards) and the country. Some have actually have REAL world experience that qualifies them for executive positions. They believe big gov’t will solve things (and keep them in power).

      The moral – Kill All The Lawyers

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @neiowa, you are a breath of fresh air here sir. Thank you.

  16. avatar pocono shooting says:

    I tend to side with Republicans for business and gun rights issues. They need to drop their war against Gays. For one thing it is bad for business. When a gay couple comes inyo my business I welcome them and take their money. I tell them to come back soon too.

    1. avatar Jack Brown says:

      Drop the war that you’ve imagined? How is that possible?

    2. avatar El Mac says:

      @pocono shooting, there is no “war against gays”. Total bullshit.

    3. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

      There is no republican war against gays, just like there is no republican war on women. They are both made up by the democrats to get moderates on their side. If you take a look at the GOP platform and bills they wish to pass and have passed- you’ll find there is no anti gay or anti women agenda. There are a few republican politicians that speak their personal opinion on the matters and then get hounded by the media for it as “evidence”. Meanwhile over the past 60 years democrats have repetitively passed or attempted to pass illegal, unconstitutional, anti human rights, anti self defense gun laws.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Not only well said, but absolutely, 100% correct. Does that make it +2? Only possible exception is that “60 years”, I’m pretty sure 1934 is farther back than that.

        1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          That is true so more like 80 years. I was thinking of Johnsons great society anti gun movement originally, but FDR’s NFA was definitely the father of all this.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          Sodomy laws criminalizing consensual private gay sex were repealed or rendered ineffective across the country in… 2003. And even then conservatives fought that tooth and nail. For example, the favorite of the local crowd, justice Antonin Scalia said then:

          “Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. So imbued is the Court with the law profession’s anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously “mainstream”; that in most States what the Court calls “discrimination” against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal.”

          And to remind, which states were these that still had such laws on their books, and tried to enforce them, in the 21st century? Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Michigan, Utah and Virginia. See any pattern here?

        3. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          But those laws were not enforced. Show me one example where a man or woman was tried and sentenced for conducting a homosexual act in the last 60 years. In the latter half of the 20th, and early 21st centuries, those laws essentially amounted up to the “no sex until marriage” laws from the 1800s that were still on the books in some cities/states till today, that everyone forgot about. Or even the law the Army had, that you could only have sex with your wife in one position, the missionary position, which if I’m not mistaken, is still on the books from the 1700s. Does that law actually get enforced? Hell no, it was forgotten about as soon as it was written.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          Are you kidding me? The whole reason why Lawrence v. Texas made it to SCOTUS (which overturned that law) is because it was enforced (the accused were fined).

          And yes, it was enforced to a much more significant extent, including lengthy prison terms, within the last 60 years. Even looking at Texas alone, you will find many cases. For example, in Bue v. State of Texas (1963), two prison inmates got 15 years each (the maximum penalty) under the Texas sodomy law. Or, say, Everette v. State of Texas (1971) – two years for consensual “sodomy” in private.

          But why stop there? Arrests are violations of one’s freedom in and of itself. In Texas alone, 451 arrests on the charges of sodomy were made from 1963 to 1969.

          It’s not just Texas, either. In Michigan, in 1967, a lesbian pair was arrested after other campers reported them for “suspicious activity” while inside the tent. In People v. Livermore, the court affirmed a penalty of 1.5 to 5 years in prison for one of the defendants. And in another case involving prisoners, in 1980, Michigan sentenced two males found to be engaging in consensual sex to 90 additional days each, again specifically under its sodomy law. In Massey v. State, a man went to prison for consensual sex with another man in 1983.

          Or take Louisiana. As late as 1984, State v. Williams sentenced a man to 4 years of hard labor for “solicitation of sodomy” (the other guy was an undercover police officer).

          In reality, there are literally thousands of arrests and hundreds of convictions over consensual same-sex activity under sodomy laws all across the country, going all the way into late 80s, and quite possibly early 90s. It’s hard to account for all of them, because it’s much easier to find records of those cases which were contested and made it to at least the state supreme court; but many more were not. The punishments, also, were not just fines but prison time, and most states in fact mandated some minimum for the latter in their laws, so being convicted would inevitably translate to prison.

          By the way, heterosexual sodomy laws (against oral and anal sex, even between married partners) were also actively enforced in the same time period.

      2. avatar LC says:

        “There is no republican war against gays”

        Horseshit, in a word.

        Why is it that states are spending millions of dollars of taxpayers’ dollars to fight the federal rulings overturning the bans on same sex marriage?

        Why was there a collection of states that outright banned same sex marriage or equal rights of the LGBT community?

        “just like there is no republican war on women”

        Again, more horseshit.

        Take the recent supreme court ruling about the coverage of birth control.
        Take a look at the efforts against planned parenthood

        Own up to the shit republicans, or else you will never get my fvcking vote you authoritarian bible lickers.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @LC, ahhh…..there it is….a Leftist authoritarian troll.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          LC – stop drinking and/or tokin before you go on line.

        3. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          Uh huh…because not forcing others to pay for your own freely available birth control is considered “a War”.

          I care not to delve further down that rabbit hole.

  17. avatar Skyler says:

    There is not any responsible or serious person in this country that advocates stoning homosexuals. Resisting special legal treatment for homosexuals is not the same as advocating stoning.

    1. avatar Sab says:

      Special rights? Its the same rights you have, but I guess back in the 60’s those uppity niggers wanted them some special rights too and they got lynched plenty.

      1. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

        To be fair, the Klan and all those preforming lynchings were Democrats. And by the 60s, lynchings had really died out, due to the FBI clamping down on the Klan, and actually throwing Klan members in jail for it. And the reporting on it by the media. By the 60s the Klan couldn’t preform high profile lynchings anymore and had to resort to regular old murder on the side of the road in Mississippi. That murder in particular was the major death blow to the Klan, because when they shot those three kids, two of them were white, one was black, and the American people lost their shit over it. The FBI nailed all those involved, and the Klan began its decline into obscurity. By that that time the media and federal government involvement had really taken its toll on the Klan and the mass “lynchings” everyone seems to talk about all the time were actually events that took place much farther back, during the 1930s on back to the civil war.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @BOS, once again, solid post brother.

        2. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

          Thanks. Much of history is lost in opinion these days, even in the most professional educational settings. Its rather terrifying.

      2. avatar Jack Brown says:

        “some of those Republicans would cheerfully watch us get stoned in the town square because we’re an abomination.” Which Republicans are those? Fred Phelps? Who ran for office as a Democrat repeatedly and was invited to both Clinton inaugurations by VP Al Gore? Doesn’t seem like much of a Republican.

      3. avatar Another Robert says:

        Well, as a heterosexual I’m not entirely certain that I can go to New Mexico or Colorado and have the state government force photographers to take my picture in a wedding tux. I don’t really want them to, I just don’t think that other folks ought to be able to do so either. And I don’t think I could get the state governments there to fine someone or kick them out of a state school or otherwise sanction them for saying mean things about me. I don’t want them to, I just don’t think that other folks should be able to either.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m pretty sure you will find that all the segments of the muslim religion advocate stoning gays.

      1. avatar Richard says:

        Right!
        The muslim religious toilet pa- err religious texts do indeed support the the killing of many people for many reasons.

        However.
        So does the bible.

        The difference between the two?
        Most westernized nations are slightly too educated to truly take 3,000 year old bronze age mythology too seriously. Or at least seriously enough to act upon it. We mainly use it as a coping mechanism for death, and the fear of death.

        Bad men do bad things, good men do bad things… It takes religion for a good man to do a bad thing.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Richard, whew! Now that we got that cleared up!

  18. avatar Jack Brown says:

    So not applauding every little thing the homosexual does and praising it as if it were a retarded puppy is wanting to “cheerfully watch [them] get stoned in the town square”? Sounds like useless crybabies crying.

    1. avatar Richard says:

      I’m pro gun, pro gay, pro choice, pro freedom FROM religion, ect.
      Basically I think everyone should do as they wish as long as there is no physical, or monetary damage to another.

      So, while I may support equal rights for homosexual individuals… I’m 100% with you on the clapping and cheering at the retarded puppy.

      ANY form of “I’m ____ and I’m ____” pisses me off.

      WHO you are no effect on the message you support. It’s like an inverse of the standard “ad hominem”.

      I’m a mom and I think ____
      Wait, why should I listen to you because you can give birth? Is the issue about giving birth, or raising children?
      No?
      Then kindly leave your motherhood out of the issue.

  19. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Is Gwen talking about Saudi Arabia or Iran? I didn’t know either one of them had a Second Amendment.

  20. avatar tdiinva says:

    For every Democrat who supports the Second Amendment there are 10 who would look the other way if they saw a Muslim mob stoning a gay couple

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Whereas for every Republican who (actually) supports the second amendment, there is only one who would look the other way.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        For every Paulbot who would look away there are 10 opponents of gay marriage who would come to their aid.

        I see you have been brainwashed

  21. avatar Andy says:

    I’m a regular reader of TTAG and a strong 2A supporter. I have never voted for a Dem. in my life and likely never will. For the record, I am married and straight, and also self-employed.

    That said, the tendency of some “conservatives” to take their disapproval of homosexuality and/or gay marriage into a “hate” sphere, is a complete turn-off.
    e.g. commenter above: ” infect our kids with that sickness ”

    Here’s a hint to the Republican Party — and other “conservative” organizations and businesses — younger folks (Millenials) don’t even consider homosexuality to be an “issue” anymore — whether you like it or not, gay marriage will soon be legal in all 50 states — with approval near 75% among my age cohort, fighting “against” homosexuality is just plan stupid for any organization that wants broad societal support 10 or 20 years hence. The ship has sailed, whether you realize it or not.

    And to the commenter above who doesn’t want homosexuals to ” infect our kids with that sickness ” — that’s how I feel about YOU — I wouldn’t want my kids exposed to your hate. You DID inspire me though — I emailed the Pink Pistols national organization and asked them how I can donate.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @Andy, hey, glad I helped you out bro. And the Pinksters.

      1. avatar Andy says:

        I’m decidedly not your “bro”. Though, I realize you used the term just to be cute and/or disrespectful.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Andy, ahh….but you are, even if you don’t want to be bro. Love ain’t always a two way street.

        2. avatar Raphael Moore says:

          Unfortunately, there is no cure for stupid. Let ElMac be. He enjoys writing garbage.

        3. avatar El Mac says:

          @Raphael Moore, really. Hmmm….

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Andy, you need to work on your sense of humor.

      2. avatar Richard says:

        Yeah, I’m hoping you don’t infect anyone with your sickness either.

        Small minded hatred and intolerance against peaceful people who have done you no harm is the hallmark of a low functioning brain.

        Here’s hoping that there are fewer people like you in the future, to vote for underfunding schools to fight wars of aggression, or to campaign for “teaching both sides” in science class.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Richard, I don’t hate anyone bro. I leave that to cretins like yourself.

        2. avatar Richard says:

          Oh look, you used a big word.

          Call me what you will… that is far from important.
          There is nothing wrong with feeling how you feel.

          But it’s clear you have a fairly strong dislike of homosexuality.
          I just find it hilarious that you deny it, after calling it a “sickness” capable of “infecting” you children.

        3. avatar El Mac says:

          @Richard, homosexuality as spread by the Leftist media, the Academia, Hollyweird, the godvernment and the MTV apparatchiks IS an infection. The act of homosexuality is a sin, the forced acceptance of it as being “normal” and “pretty” is the infection.

        4. avatar LC says:

          “The act of homosexuality is a sin”

          According to your christian superstitution it is.

          The rest of us have grown up and have given up trying to control people. (pompus, arrogant asshat)

        5. avatar El Mac says:

          @LC, you can’t even control your own potty mouth.

        6. avatar Richard says:

          Hey El Mac,
          I get your point. There does seem to be this over celebration of all things gay.
          It’s annoying. As another poster pointed out… people applaud every achievement or action from the gay community like clapping at a retarded puppy.

          I understand, and even sympathize with your annoyance at this.

          However… no part of the bible says that sex before or outside of marriage is OK.
          In fact, it is VERY clear that such a thing is a sin. If I recall correctly, the bible says that all sins are equally bad. Sooooo, you to be consistent with your own beliefs… do you have the same distaste for people who have sex outside of marriage?

          I wonder why Jesus didn’t condemn Mary as being “infected” with a “sickness”.

          Furthermore, any intelligent religious person knows that laws based upon religious doctrine are a bad idea… because unless your religion happens to be the majority in said area, you can be a victim of such laws.

        7. avatar El Mac says:

          @Richard, I never once said there shouldn’t be a law against homos getting in on in the poopers or whatever they want to do. Not once. I’ll repeat what I said: I don’t appreciate it when they shove it in our faces (the retarded puppy syndrome) and I don’t appreciate it when they try and “normalize” it and make it a part of the school curriculum.

        8. avatar neiowa says:

          Richard – show me an “underfunded school” or one that teaches “both sides” in science class.

          For every “underfunded” I’ll give you a 100 mismanaged (as using resources to teach BS PC nonsense).

          Aggresive Wars – I just HATE it when a war gets all aggressive. Can’t we all get along?

        9. avatar Richard says:

          @ Elmac
          I owe you an apology then friend.
          I agree 100% with just saying how you feel about things.

          I think the world would be a FAR better place if all people stopped trying to force others to do things, and just say how they felt.

          To that order I will completely agree that this whole “woo hoo, look how gay and proud I am” subculture is distasteful.

          I have that same distaste for the extreme subcultures of pretty much all groups. Be it religious groups, sexual orientation groups, fringe nut job artists offending for the purpose of offending just to exercise free speech, ect.

          Anyone trying to force their way on others is pretty disgusting to me.
          So, once again… I’m sorry. It seems I may have just butted heads with you over some wording… even if I agree with you completely in spirit.

        10. avatar El Mac says:

          @Richard, thank you amigo. Sometimes the internet doesn’t allow for the clearest of meanings to get across. At any rate, no harm, no foul and no worries!

        11. avatar Richard says:

          @ neiowa

          show me an “underfunded school”
          I graduated from an underfunded high school, and before that I attended an underfunded middle school, all in the same building.
          There were not enough books to go around, many programs were cut, the building was in poor condition (countless buckets every time it rained, and they even went to a 4 day school week to save money.

          As far as a school that teaches both sides, I’m not aware of any, but I know that many people and politicians want to do such a thing. Or at least make a big fuss over it. Religion is not science. You can’t explain science with the bible, and you can’t explain the bible with science. I’d say it’s best to just leave it at that. Religion and science do not mix well, they are corrosive to each other.

          For every “underfunded” I’ll give you a 100 mismanaged (as using resources to teach BS PC nonsense).

          I’m right here with you on this issue… except for your disbelief that schools are underfunded.
          The mismanagement of our schools is nothing short of criminal. Many other nations have far higher functioning education systems. We should learn from them.

          Aggresive Wars – I just HATE it when a war gets all aggressive. Can’t we all get along?

          If you’re going to debate me, please learn to actually comprehend what I say before you try to quote me.
          Wars of aggression =/= “aggresive” wars. A war of aggression is to BE the aggressor in a war.
          I think we should use our military for defense, not use it to kick the bee hive over and over.

        12. avatar Kyle says:

          We do use our military for defense. If you believe someone has a gun pointed at you and they have a history of killing people, and you thus pre-emptively attack them, that is not an act of aggression, it is one of defense. You don’t wait for them to shoot you. Also, public education is funded by property taxes, not the federal government. That is why schools in poor neighborhoods are underfunded. The military is federally funded.

        13. avatar int19h says:

          Can you give a single example of a war waged by the USA in the past 50 years that involved a pre-emptive attack on the country that was about to attack USA?

        14. avatar Kyle says:

          Almost all major military conflicts the U.S. has been involved in since the end of WWII have been for checking communism, which was a major threat, to checking aggressors and other threats, ranging from the Korean War (contain communism), the Vietnam War (contain communism), Gulf War (Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait), Afghanistan (going after the terrorists responsible for 9/11), to the Iraq War (belief Hussein had WMDs and was a major threat). There has been no major military conflict involving the U.S. that was any “war of aggression” during that time period.

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      Both the Reaon and Pew polls show your generation overwhelmingly in favor of the nanny state so I wouldn’t get carried away on how enlightened Generation Null is.

      1. avatar Richard says:

        Generation Null eh?
        Who are the ones that supported the bankrupting of this nation to the tunes of patriotic cuntry music while waving flags around after 9/11?

        Want to make a phone call, send a text, write a letter, use a cell phone in any way, use a credit card, or have gps in your car without being spied on?
        Tough shit bub. We’re in ‘merica and we gon catch us some terrists, screw the bill of rights.

        Say what you will. The security state is worse than the nanny state. The constitution was raped and left on the side of the road to die in the early 2000’s, and it SURE wasn’t “generation null” who was doing the voting back then was it?

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Richard. Did the gubment knock down the twin towers?

          Rest assured we are not going to be able to afford this “nanny state” AND the “big brother state” for very long.

        2. avatar Richard says:

          @ neiowa

          You’re really an intellectual heavyweight aren’t you friend?
          Did I say anything about some conspiracy by our government to destroy the twin towers?
          I can’t find where I did. So… It seems like you’re trying to do a strawman against a point I didn’t even make. Is there even a fancy latin fallacy name for such a stupid argument?

          For what it’s worth, I do not think that our government destroyed the twin towers.
          I also think it doesn’t really matter if they did or did not.

          You get an A+ in missing the point.
          The point is that after 9/11 the government has spend billions on security theater. It hasn’t made anyone safer, it hasn’t stopped any attacks, but it has destroyed our civil rights. In fact… much of the push against gun ownership comes from this whole anti terror security first BS.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        +1

        This is why I insist that the restoration of individual Liberty and our republic has to happen in this generation. I anticipate an even more dramatic rise in the nanny state and almost complete loss of personal freedom if restoration fails or is incomplete. We live in interesting times.

        1. avatar Richard says:

          The one thing that keeps me hopeful is the internet.
          It’s the greatest anti bullshit device ever created.

  22. avatar BobS says:

    When a court struck down California’s Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on same sex marriages, every courthouse in the state started issuing gay marriage licenses at 8:00 the next morning.

    When a court struck down California’s “good cause” requirement for may-issue carry licenses, almost all of those courthouses decided to wait and see whether they’d be further forced to comply.

    Which right is enumerated in the US Constitution? Which right saves lives? Which right remains under attack from every direction?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Both rights are enumerated in the Constitution. One is called the right to Keep and Bear Arms. The other is called Liberty.

    2. avatar Richard says:

      Sad to see it treated this way.
      I agree 100%.

      The thing is… these people think they are the arbiters of our rights. They think that just because they are afraid to be the guy who approves the permit to the one crazy in a million who kills someone with his gun… that they have the power to deny our rights.

      They aren’t rights if they can be denied.
      Honestly… I think a pro gun group should make a major move against the 2nd amendment.
      Sounds counter intuitive, but it would get the ball rolling. Fast.
      It’s not a right. It’s not being treated like one. It’s time to go for broke.

  23. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    There was a time, in my rambunctious youth when I was the leader of the pack in gay bashing. Time went on and as maturity set in, I learned to live and let live. As the tick-tock continued, I actually met and befriended both gays and lesbians and came to discover that although their sexual preferences were different from my own, there were in fact many other truisms of life which we shared. One of the things where I frequently found commonality was the realization that the boys in blue cannot PROTECT you from crime. While they do/may show up after the call to 911 (one’s mileage may vary on this), that does little to nothing to prevent the criminals from victimizing you. The situation is more than likely to work out differently if a person, gay or straight is armed and trained when one comes face to face with the evil ones.

  24. avatar 45acp says:

    Characterizing republicans as wanting to see gays stoned in the town square is hyperbole. The left needs to stop throwing out these wild generalizations. Just because some republicans don’t support gay marriage doesn’t mean that they would harm a gay person.

    Otherwise, welcome to the way of the gun. You are welcome here, no matter what your orientation is.

    1. avatar Andy says:

      > You are welcome here, no matter what your orientation is.

      That seems to be true in increasing numbers. It still seems there’s a bit of vitriol-filled speech from certain elements of the PPOTG, though hopefully that is decreasing over time. The vitriol against gays is certainly uncommon among my age cohort (under 35), which bodes well for the future, in my point of view.

      Certainly all citizens have a right to free speech and freedom of religion. As well as freedom of association. Thus, even if my political beliefs overlap greatly with another person’s, if that person comes off like the village idiot (or just as a hateful jerk), a natural reaction is to distance oneself from that person. Let’s be realistic — such people do damage a political movement by association. The more that PPOTG come off as friendly, professional, and mature, will do wonders to convincing people on the fence, to come over to our side of the fence.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Andy – PPOG

        Huh? Purple People Of The Gun?

  25. avatar Tim says:

    Me. I’m your balance. I believe that the role of government is to guarantee rights, not restrict. That goes for all rights, including the right to marry whomever you want, and the right to choose what’s best for your body. Access to fundamental human rights should not be dependant on the values of a political party.

  26. avatar Andy says:

    @LarryinTX

    “Andy, you need to work on your sense of humor.”

    I don’t believe so. “CONTENT MODERATED” or whatever the phrase was, isn’t funny to me in the context of belittling a minority segment of the population.

    I’d suggest you work on your own sense of humor, thx!

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @Andy, while not necessarily funny to you, it is an accurate description at what goes on a some of the annual “Pride” marches. Sad but true. But….”shhhhhhhhh, lets not talk about that now…..” right????

      1. avatar bigfinger76 says:

        You’re mighty vocal for someone who “doesn’t care”. Why do you keep bringing up phalluses?

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @bigfinger76, well brother, you would have to ask the people that keep bringing it up to me and wanting a response.

  27. avatar Jumbie says:

    When a conservative says, “We don’t want to stone gays, we just want reasonable limits on them pushing their agenda in public and we want to protect traditional marriage,” what a gay person interprets that as is trickery. We think, “well sure, you can’t get away with stoning us NOW, but you’d like to, and you’re going to try turning back the freedoms we already have to move things in that direction.”

    Consider a parallel:

    When a liberal says, “We don’t want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, we just want reasonable limits on who can carry guns in public and we want to protect lives,” what a gun owner interprets that as is trickery. The gun owners think, ‘well sure, you can’t get away with overturning the 2nd amendment NOW, but you’d like to, and you’re going to try turning back the freedoms we already have to move things in that direction.”

    Now, is EVERYONE who opposes gay marriage or concealed carry out to gut gay rights or gun rights entirely? Probably not, but it’s easy to understand the gay opposition to Republicans when you consider the gun voters’ opposition to Democrats based on what Democrats MIGHT do if they had their way.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      I don’t know anyone who says they want reasonable restrictions on gay rights. I do know people who say that they don’t what gay people parading around saying that they are gay as loud as they can. But if those people actually loudly voiced their opinions then they would automatically be accused of committing hate crimes.

      1. avatar bigfinger76 says:

        No they wouldn’t. More hyperbole.

      2. avatar LC says:

        Why do you care if they “parade around and show how gay they are”? thats freedom of speech and expression.

        “I don’t know anyone who says they want reasonable restrictions on gay rights”

        hahaha, that is hilarious how some republicans, utterly embarrassed by the primeval thinking of their compatriots, throw their head under a blanket of sand and pretend they dont exist.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @LC, and its real funny how the Leftist Gay Mafia think they rule the roost and have this deep desire to force their brand of sickness on the majority of the world.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          You obviously have never read it so here is the First Amendment

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          SPEECH was to ensure POLITICAL writings and discussions would not be restricted.

  28. avatar J says:

    The likelihood of bills banning and confiscating firearms far outweighs the likelihood bills enabling the stoning of LGBT individuals. Gwen Patton should take note. Fight the fight which exists, not the one which is only in the mind of one or two outliers.

    There is a Democrat who believed that Guam may flip over if too many people live there. That doesn’t mean much, legislatively (other than his constituents are not doing their job). Guam tipping over is not a real issue.

    1. avatar juliesa says:

      What’s scary is that the Guam guy is a huge improvement over his physically violent lunatic predecessor, Cynthia McKinney.

  29. avatar juliesa says:

    Just for the record, I’ve voted 100% Republican since 2004 (after the Dem sheriff I voted for got kicked out for corruption) and will never again vote for any Dem for the rest of my life. I don’t give a crap about anyone’s sex life except my spouse’s, and the less I have to hear about private parts in politics, the better I like it. Sex turns primary elections into tedious messes, because candidates have to appeal to their bases on reproductive organ issues, which bore the shit out of me.

    I’ve always been a fan of the Pink Pistols. Gays and other minorities, as well as women, need to realize which party is the one trying to restrict their ability to protect themselves from attacks.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Hear! hear! I like the way you think Julie.

    2. avatar J says:

      For a time I lived in California. Election season always brought non-stop scare ads by insanely funded Dems which told of the reproductive right dangers posed by their opponents. Even if the race was for dog catcher.

      Somehow, this tactic had traction with the party faithful. Meanwhile, California was run into the ground.

  30. avatar jdb says:

    I’ve just got to say it: Sodomy isn’t an “abomination” because some “old fashioned” Republicans call it that. That’s what God calls it.
    “Lev_20:13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. ”

    Back in the 70’s my Dad, a medical student, spoke out about the dangers (AIDS was not yet known) of the homosexual lifestyle. He was SHREDDED by the gay activists in his college town for offering a medical warning. But you know what? All those activists are dead now because of AIDS.
    I think calling the homosexual lifestyle “gay” is some of the worst false-advertising – it has such a high death rate. That would be like calling parachuting without a parachute “a fun adrenaline rush” – yeah, maybe, but for how long? And it depends on how you define “fun”.

    If there was a hobby that had the same kind of dangers, death rates, medical complications and costs, etc the government would be ALL OVER IT trying to shut it down (drug war, anyone?). But not sodomy – it’s irrationally protected and celebrated, even as thousands and thousands die of HIV/AIDS.
    God tells us how to understand sodomy: it’s bad for you and He doesn’t want it encouraged – in fact he wants it discouraged through the threat of capital punishment. But the world mocks God and celebrates the deathstyle of sodomy. Go figure.

    1. avatar Dev says:

      The bible also says that slavery is ok, especially when it’s women. Should we bring slavery back? Do you think that is the right way to live?

      Exodus 21: 7-11 – 7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.

      Exodus 21:20-21 – When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

      1 Peter 2:18-25 – 18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

      I can find a lot more, but that would be boring. The truth is that the bible was written thousands of years ago by MEN. The basic idea of religion, any religion, is to live a good life and to be good to those around you. The message has sadly been corrupted by the men who had figured out, throughout our history, that they can achieve power and control over other men by using religion.

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        I will gladly confess that I am Darned to Heck for eating shrimp, rounding the corners of my head, sleeping with unclean women, and doing several other things that are on the Bibilical Naughty List. See how many you’ve done just to find out how deeply embedded in the pit you’ll be with them Gays. Extra credit for sending your children to be sacrificed to Molek:

        1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)

        2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)

        3. Eating fat (3:17)

        4. Eating blood (3:17)

        5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)

        6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)

        7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)

        8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)

        9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)

        10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)

        11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)

        12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)

        13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)

        14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)

        15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)

        16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)

        17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)

        18. Eating – or touching the carcass of – eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)

        19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)

        20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)

        21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)

        22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)

        23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)

        24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)

        25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)

        26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)

        27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)

        28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)

        29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)

        30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)

        31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)

        32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)

        33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)

        34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17)

        35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)

        36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)

        37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)

        38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)

        39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)

        40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)

        41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)

        42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)

        43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)

        44. Stealing (19:11)

        45. Lying (19:11)

        46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)

        47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)

        48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)

        49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)

        50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)

        51. Spreading slander (19:16)

        52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)

        53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)

        54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)

        55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19)

        56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)

        57. Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)

        58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)

        59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)

        60. Trimming your beard (19:27)

        61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)

        62. Getting tattoos (19:28)

        63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)

        64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)

        65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)

        66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34)

        67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)

        68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)

        69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)

        70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)

        71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)

        72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)

        73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)

        74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)

        75. Selling land permanently (25:23)

        76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)

        Well, there you have it–pretty comprehensive list, what?

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Yikes! Busted on #34.

          In my defense tho, I didn’t find out until well after…

        2. avatar Jack Brown says:

          Take it up with the Israelites, those are their laws.

        3. avatar Sian says:

          ok, ok, ok,

          38

          DAMMIT.

        4. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

          I guess I am pretty much F*cked…………..well so be it.
          I got better/bigger things to worry about
          Back to my brewski.

        5. avatar neiowa says:

          You two need to start hating the Jews (if you don’t already).

          You two ministers are also going to LOVE sharia.

      2. avatar Jack Brown says:

        You know who else thought slavery was okay way back when? EVERY-FRAKKING-BODY! You know who finally began movements to put an end to it? Christians. You’re welcome.

        1. avatar El Mac says:

          @Jack Brown. Correct, white Christians at that.

    2. avatar El Mac says:

      @jdb, too true!

    3. avatar LC says:

      So I take it you follow the book o Leviticus word per word?

      no?

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @LC, yo Romper Room Leftist….you need to study up a bit more.

  31. avatar Bobby says:

    Gay marriage was legalized here in Maryland. Didn’t affect me one bit. Sb281 AWB did though. Maybe it’s a generational gap. I’m 28 and can’t think of one friend who gives a rat’s behind about two dudes or two chicks getting married. Plenty of the same friends that love their ARs as i do. The future looks like it could be more and more libertarian and I’m glad for that. I want big brother minding his own damn business about who marries who and which tool i have in my home to protect myself, my family and my liberty.

  32. avatar S.CROCK says:

    Why does every pro gay person use the terms “hate, haters, or hate crime?” Especially among the pro gun people on this page it is so annoying! Just because someone opposes something doesn’t mean they are automatically hating. (Sometime anti gay people are definitely hating, but most are not hating.) Always adding haters is on par with the anti gunners always adding baby eating NRA members or something totally not true.

  33. avatar Ralph says:

    The problem with gay people is that confuse hate-filled knuckle-draggers like El Crap with real Republicans, conservatives, libertarians or 2A supporters. He is none of those things. He’s just a pathetic little man trying to make a lot of “noise” so people will think he’s big.

    1. avatar bigfinger76 says:

      And that’s “the problem with gay people”? I think it’s a problem of the right, if the only voices heard are from people like ElCrap. We need to make it impossible to so easily generalize.

      1. avatar Jack Brown says:

        There’s the praising of retarded puppies I mentioned earlier. Everyday every person must proclaim loudly how great and wonderful the homosexual is just by its very existence, how this world would crumble away to dust without same sex attraction. Praised be the Sodomites, praised be the catamites, praised be the sapphos! Or else The Haters win!

    2. avatar El Mac says:

      @Ralph, spoken like the true hater you are bud.

  34. avatar Excedrine says:

    Aside from the utter, indefensible lie that Republicans would like to see gays stoned in the town square, that’s a damn good quote and perfectly crystallizes the fight over the Second Amendment. Everyone is welcomed into our fold, without hesitation and without distinction, and that’s because it doesn’t matter who or what your worship, who you want to marry, where you come from, or who you are: you have the same inalienable right to keep and bear arms as anybody else.

    Love the poster, too. “Gay, not limp-wristed.” Classic!

  35. avatar MrVigs says:

    It’s really sad that being gay has to define a person so ultimately. I know many gays personally and professionally. Usually it’s part of the intro – Hi I’m so and so and I’m gay. Good for you but I really don’t care. Are you a good person? Do you contribute to society? Do you care about this country and vote accordingly? That’s more important than what you do in the bedroom to me.

    I don’t agree with the “sickness” comments above but I will say that a line has been crossed when homosexual driven content is forced into the public school curriculum for exposure to my children, but they can’t sing Christmas carols. Where’s the F’n tolerance the Dems spew? As far as marriage goes – I here a lot about the incentives married couples get that gay couples can’t get. Well work on changing the laws to receive those benefits without being married. You don’t have to change marriage laws. Call it something other than marriage like a social union or something. Marriage has a greater and deaper meaning to many of us and we’re ticked off that so many people want to bastardize that meaning and cheapen the experience just so they can have these tax breaks. Good grief. Basically what I’m saying is that marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony between a man and a woman in which they are joined as one under God. If you don’t like that tradition then start your own. Just don’t call it marriage because it’s not.

    As far as the Pink Pistols goes – great poster, keep up the good fight. Everybody has the RKBA and be responsible for themselves no matter what color the grips are on your 1911.

    1. avatar Sab says:

      Its sad how much being straight defines you – but isn’t that is part of the problem? Nobody ever thinks about being heterosexual, they only think about homosexuality as if it isn’t as legitimate and valid an orientation. “Keep it in the bedroom, perverts! We don’t go around crowing about it and shoving it in your faces!” Except heterosexual conduct is everywhere, almost every movie has the romantic subplot where the guy gets the girl, hetero-couples kiss all the time, media and culture is saturated with the hetero ideal. That seems just fine, until the library gets a new book with a gay couple and kids in it being a happy family and then WATCH OUT! That there is some nasty homosexual content that is being FORCED on your kids and INDOCTRINATING them into thinking that being gay is as normal as being straight. OH NO! What if your kids grow up and DON’T think its okay to beat some queer to death with 2x4s and pipes?

      Parents, don’t let your kids grow up to be gay bashers.

      (I, and other armed homosexuals will shoot them.)

    2. avatar bigfinger76 says:

      Apparently, only about half of married people see it as “sacred”.
      If your main concern is preserving the “sanctity of marriage”, why not advocate for banning divorce?

      1. avatar Jack Brown says:

        You fall for every little thing that affirms your prejudices don’t you? That myth comes from one year in which there were twice as many marriages as there were divorces. Can you stack the boxes properly to reach the banana of why that doesn’t actually mean half of all marriages end in divorce?

    3. avatar int19h says:

      So a pagan marriage with jumping over the bonfire and all is not marriage either, then?

      Anyway, if you Christians wanted to keep the word for yourself so bad, you should have trademarked it. Look at Scientology as an example.

  36. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    These people have a massive martyr mentality, seeing schemes in every shadow and monsters around every corner. It’s only because they relish playing the pretend victim that they spin this inane menace melodrama.

    And what is this difficult balance mentioned? Milllions upon millions of liberals actually do vote, fund, and agitate an every opportunity for the most savage infringements on the RKBA. Actual infringements take place daily via violence or the threat of force, all as a matter of official government policy. Meanwhile, you’d be hard pressed to find more than a handful of kooks to declare their desire, let alone take action, to stone homosexuals to death.

    This is a classic debating fallacy whereby two vastly outsized elements are equated. It can be employed to minimize the perceived prominence of something or to exaggerate it, depending upon the specific comparison made. It’s a deceptive technique intended to muddy the debate and attract sympathy.

  37. avatar former water walker says:

    OK. CLICK BAIT. Everyone should be armed who legally can. If you vote for politicians who want you disarmed you’re an a##hole. Whatever…

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      I can live with that. Too simple for most, though. And you’ve offended all of the a**holes, who can be a rather sensitive bunch.

  38. avatar KevinMA says:

    Absolutely not El Mac. I’m very staunch on the 2nd Amendment, and I would like to see some prosecution of those who made death threats against Wayne LaPierre et.al. However I also believe strongly in the establishment clause and the separation of Church and State. Can I not be both?

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @KevinMA, of course you can be both.

  39. avatar rlc2 says:

    I’d vote for Cheng in a heartbeat.

    Chris, there are two VERY needed replacements for US Senators, right in your hometown…if not this go round, in 4 years, when its even more obvious. And I believe there is a State Senate Seat waiting to be filled by a smart, hard working, man of integrity, in an Asian heavy district that is undoubtedly mortified by what Uncle Leland has done…

    Good luck. Post your campaign page so we can donate, when ready.

  40. avatar Morgan Gatorsee says:

    I wrote a monster wall of text but I deleted a bunch to highlight the important stuff

    First, I am not a religious person in the slightest, I am however a TRADITIONAL father.

    Second, I don’t care if your gay, I have 2 cousins that are both gay and if they broke down with a flat I would drop everything to give them a hand. My youngest daughter at 10 is a beefcake, dirtbike riding, gun shooting, football throwing, knocking boys on their butt kind of girl that family jokes if I don’t put some estrogen in her life just might end up gay too…and if that happened I’d love her all the same.

    And finally, It really comes down to the fact I don’t throw my sex life around for people to judge and then for me to counter with “EMBRACE IT”. I am a gun guy, a truck guy, a science guy, an outdoors guy, a working guy, a father…. but once thing I have never felt like talking about is my sex life. My sex life doesn’t define me, it is not really a talking point or a characterization of who I am. If being gay is the highlight of who YOU are… your probably not the kind of person I want sitting at my poker table.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @Morgan Gatorsee, THIS. Thank you.

  41. avatar Ralph says:

    Man, if you think that gay people are in your face, try spending some time around vegans.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      How do you find the vegan in the room?

      You don’t have to, they’ll tell you.

  42. avatar BigDinVT says:

    “Gay Advocates of Gun Rights”. The acronym would be GAGR.

    Dude, that’s just wrong.

  43. avatar Martin B says:

    Just don’t point that thing in my direction, limp wristed or not.

  44. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    My problem isn’t people being homosexual, my problem is homosexuals invoking the government to force people to bake cakes for them or to punish people for not agreeing with them. My whole problem with the ” Gay Rights” movement exactly.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @Indiana Tom, B-I-N-G-O!!!

  45. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    “For the record, I’m not gay, and I actually view homosexuality as quite unnatural – though that doesn’t mean I think it is bad… I just think it is by definition unnatural. Millions of years of evolution gear homo-sapiens towards heterosexuality.” Homosexuality does tend to enact “Evolution in Action” and the culling of the gene pool.

    1. avatar Guapo says:

      Problem with that biology lesson, Indiana Tom, is that homosexuality goes as far back into human history as we can see, and homosexuality even can be found in our primate cousins. If homosexuality was “unnatural,” then surely natural selection would have eliminated it by now.

  46. avatar former water walker says:

    troll nation today. Lots of “new” names I see. For the record I think every gal should have a gun. Please don’t quote the old testament as an example of New Testament Christian belief. Or thoroughly infuriate every believer with your “bronze age diatribe”. Painting all of us OFWG as intolerant imbeciles gets old too. I don’t follow all the stereotypes with my beautiful black wife of 25years either. And as a 20year antique & art dealer I’ve dealt with MANY gay people without bashing anybody. Just don’t ask me to approve of your lifestyle. I don’t expect everyone to approve of my black wife or caramel colored sons. Get on with your life.

    1. avatar John in AK says:

      I do feel badly that you took the ‘Bronze Age’ comment as being anti-Christian; I think that most Christians don’t accept the Good Old Days of the Old Testatment as any kind of example upon which to model their lives in the 21st Century–clearly, it’s the teachings of that new guy that they follow, vis. turning the other cheek, and loving their neighbours, and believing in the ultimate forgiveness of sin as offered and guaranteed by the Sacrifice of the Son.
      I, too, do not ‘accept’ as normal the homosexual way of life; However, in no way do I think that I even have the RIGHT to ‘accept’ or not accept it–it is NONE of my business, as it doesn’t harm me or mine. I think that most true Christians believe the same. I must point out, though, that your own way of living, just a few short years ago, could’ve resulted in your being tried for miscegenation, and possibly jailed or even executed along with your life partner. Consider yourself fortunate that you live in our time. Gay people should consider that same fact, looking at some of the postings above yours.

      When people are slow to adapt, sometimes the Law has to adapt for them.

      1. avatar El Mac says:

        @John in AK, nor is sodomy any of my business. And I just wish the homos would stop making it my business. We would all get along just fine.

      2. avatar Former Water Walker says:

        Slow to adapt? God hasn’t changed. I don’t give a damn what abunch of southern rednecks had as “law” prior to 1967. Calling my wife a life partner makes me wonder why YOU used such a loaded gay term Those slave owners sure had a good time creating a whole bunch of half white slave children too. the whole world is about to be plunged into some real dire times. Centered on a tiny country named Israel-resurrected after some 2500 years. Foretold by bronze age prophets( and iron age too). I don’t think you would know a “true” Christian if you think anything goes. Jesus said”Go and sin no more”. As I said before I get along very well with gay people. And I think gay folks should be armed. It is shocking to me how quickly this country has gone to H##l. Guns or lack thereof will be the least of your worries.

        1. avatar John in AK says:

          OK, I tried to make peace, but you’re not having any of it. Enjoy.

  47. avatar New Chris says:

    Neither side cares about your rights. They patronize to different voting blocks to win and keep power.

    You are nothing more to them than an inconvenient hurdle.

  48. avatar Guapo says:

    I like to have sex with other men, exclusively. Is that OK with ya’ll? Cuz if not, kiss my ass.

    Besides being queer, I’m a NRA life member.

    I’m also 6’6″ so I have never needed to take much shit from bigots, at least since early adolescence. Most bigots are sissies and don’t go looking for fights with anyone in their weight class.

    Most guys I meet don’t have any idea I’m gay. I dress like a farm laborer (in fact I was a farm laborer for several years) and I drive a beat up Silverado pickup. That doesn’t fit the stereotype, I guess, so I’m sort of “under cover” in the shooting community.

    I’ve got to tell you fellas that I find a disproportionate number of bigots on the shooting range, and that sucks for a number of reasons. First, it supports the stereotype of a stupid, closed-minded gun owner. Second, younger guys and girls – who are much less bigoted than my generation – get turned off to shooting sports because they can’t stand to be around certain old fools who feel better about themselves only by putting down others. And third, it forces me to stop what I’m doing, confront the speaker and ask what he has against me and other gay folk. When I do that, I never have my gun on me, and I don’t show the slightest concern whether or not he has his.

    When confronted, the typical bigot will turn pink (ironic?). He will stutter and try to apologize for being a jackass. Only once did I have to wait for a shooter to come off the range to knock his teeth out. It was more fun than shooting, though, if I’m honest with you.

    1. avatar El Mac says:

      @Guapo, you must be very proud of yourself.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I typically try to stay out of these types of discussions. People who know me, gay and straight, know my views and we get along well enough. This isn’t really a subject that lends itself to written communication alone. It’s better discussed in person with all of the subtle cues of communication, IMHO. I am not a democrat, republican, or an NRA member. However, a couple of things did stand out to me in you comment.

      And third, it forces me to stop what I’m doing, confront the speaker and ask what he has against me and other gay folk. When I do that, I never have my gun on me, and I don’t show the slightest concern whether or not he has his.

      Why would you disarm?

      When confronted, the typical bigot will turn pink (ironic?). He will stutter and try to apologize for being a jackass. Only once did I have to wait for a shooter to come off the range to knock his teeth out. It was more fun than shooting, though, if I’m honest with you.

      Do you not support their right to disagree or even hate? Is intimidation and violence appropriate in these situations or are you merely describing the actions of a bully and possible criminal; i.e. you? After all…

      I’m also 6’6″ so I have never needed to take much shit from bigots, at least since early adolescence. Most bigots are sissies and don’t go looking for fights with anyone in their weight class.

      … which leads me to understand that there is usually a disparity of force in your favor. You don’t state that they in any way threatened you so, at first blush, it reads like you are picking fights.

      I’m not singling your comment out but yours just stood out as somewhat alarming in the way that I understood your words.

      1. avatar Bill says:

        I had some of the same thoughts, John, but having witnessed (and even having participated in, I’m ashamed to admit) some anti-gay bullying in high school, decades ago, I can imagine why Guapo carries around a lot of anger towards bigots. The rhyme, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” rings lame and false when you consider teen suicides resulting from relentless bullying.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          As I read his comment, he was engaging in this activity in adulthood as well. That would be potentially criminal behavior.

  49. avatar Micah Rubin says:

    Stone-throwing Scott Esk lost the Republican primary for Oklahoma State House District 91. He received 231 (probably family members) of 4,456 votes (5%). So, cut the crap. No way does he represent the GOP.

    It makes me angry that the religious right has co-opted the Tea Party. I was onboard with “taxed enough already” and less government. I’m a fiscal conservative that (currently) votes republican. Nobody I know cares who you sleep with or marry! We do, however, discriminate against lying, liberal, anti-2a, gun-grabbing morons…..and pompous, condescending, gasbags who use terms like hillbilly and redneck in a derogatory manner.

    Who couldn’t love that (Pink Pistols) trademark? Brilliant.

    1. avatar John G. says:

      So you enjoy discriminating against liberal people just because they are “”liberal”? Guess that means that I, and the vast majority in this nation that don’t identify with being far right, should feel free to discriminate against people like you. No wonder you are touchy about being called a hillbilly and a redneck.

      I was born in Kentucky – where we have genuine hillbillies – and people like you are an embarrassment to other Americans.

      1. avatar Micah Rubin says:

        Hold on there, John G. Where in the hell did you get I “ENJOY (enjoy??) discriminating against liberal people JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE liberal”??? LOL I didn’t say I discriminate against “ALL” liberals–only the lying, anti-2a, gun-grabbing liberals! Furthermore, I said I’m a “fiscal” conservative (look it up if you have to), and I “currently vote” republican. You go on to label me as “being far right”? Based on what? Wanting a platform WITHOUT a religious agenda? Wanting lower taxes and less government?

        The first time I ever voted, it was for Jimmy Carter, and I voted for Bill Clinton TWICE. I worked for Paul Simon’s campaign in Illinois, for cryin’ out loud. Now, I DO have an RV on Kentucky Lake, where they call me Miss Micah, but I drive there once a month from St. Louis, Missouri, where I’ve lived for 25 years. So, unless being friends with some truly, lovely people from Kentucky makes me a hillbilly and/or a redneck, nobody told me.

        You (and the vast majority of crazy town) are free to discriminate against whomever you please. But the fact is, I don’t have a damn thing to be “touchy” about, because people like me ARE the VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, you dolt.

  50. avatar Michael says:

    I know several Lesbians that are pro gun and very Conservative. I also have democrat friend that is pro gun. We should not generalize.

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