Pink gun (courtesy addictinginfo.org)

When I was in grade school, the worst thing someone could call you was “fag.” And boy did they ever. “You’re such a fag Farago. Hey Fag-rago.” The fact that I went to an all-boys school had a little something to do with it – but not as much as you’d think. In 1960’s America, even in “liberal” Northeast, homosexuals were regarded with contempt, disgust and discrimination. My mother would have none of it . . .

She was heavily involved in the Rhode Island arts community. She treated her gay friends and contacts with respect. Welcomed them into our home. My brothers and I accepted our parents’ homosexual friends as interesting and creative people. It was their intellect that mattered, not their sexual behavior or romantic habits. And yet . . .

I used the word “fag” as a slur against classmates, sometimes in jest, sometimes against effeminate classmates. I lived two realities: private respect for anyone regardless of their sexual orientation or skin color; and childish, peer-driven prejudice.

The two worlds collided in Key West. For the first time, I saw two men holding hands walking down the street. At that moment,, my view of gay rights changed. I saw homosexuals being homosexual. In public. Without fear or flamboyance. They were simply together. Nothing more, nothing less. They were . . . people. And at that moment, for the first time, I accepted them as such.

Later, I saw two gay men kissing. That was more difficult to assimilate. But not impossible. They weren’t making out – a behavior that I would have found uncomfortable if it had been a heterosexual couple going for it in public. They were kissing each other affectionately. Like I kissed my girlfriend. It was reassurance. Love.

Nothing else could have made gay rights real to me. I had to see it to understand it. And by understand I mean fully accept. And from that vacation onwards, I have never felt that gays are different from myself, at least not in ways that are important. It;’s the same transition anti-gunners can make when they see someone open carrying.

Their initial reaction is likely to be shock. Fear. Contempt. Disgust. As the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has shown time and time again with their loathsome anti-gun owner posts, many gun control advocates see gun owners as “the other.” The enemy within. It’s a deeply discriminatory, extremely dangerous perception. One that gives them moral certainty when they support laws that infringe upon Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

Anti-gun rights Americans can hold this prejudice because they know nothing of responsible gun owners. In the main, they live their lives in isolation from firearms and those who possess them. Even in pro-gun rights states, the only guns they “see” appear in sanitized entertainment or on the news, which invariably involve horrific acts of “gun violence.” Even then, they encounter the aftermath of that violence, not the gun itself.

When many (but certainly not all) gun control supporters see “normal” Americans going about their normal business openly carrying a firearm – shopping, eating, schmoozing, walking down the street – their opinion will change. It’s exposure therapy. wikipedia.org:

Exposure therapy is a technique in behavior therapy used to treat anxiety disorders. It involves the exposure of the patient to the feared object or context without any danger, in order to overcome their anxiety. Procedurally it is similar to the fear extinction paradigm in rodent work. Numerous studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in the treatment of anxiety disorders such as PTSD and specific phobias.

As a former hypnotist I can tell you that exposure therapy doesn’t always work. Sometimes you’ve got to go deeper into a patient’s subconscious to reprogram their stimulus -> response pattern to the phobic trigger (so to speak). The thing to keep in mind: not all gun control advocates are hoplophobes. Many of them have an aversion to guns, rather than adrenalin-inducing fear. They are not beyond help.

And help is what you give them when you open carry a firearm. By open carrying you’re helping them to rethink their views on guns and, more importantly, gun owners. At first, you are “the other.” But eventually you’re not. Eventually, you become part of the landscape. Eventually, people who rejected gun rights come to accept your decision to protect innocent life by force of arms. This doesn’t mean that they will join the pro-gun rights side or, God forbid, carry a gun. But tolerance and respect open the door to reasonable discussion.

Speaking of respect, I understand all the reasons not to open carry, from strategic concerns (the “shoot me first” conundrum) to not wanting to antagonize or scare fellow citizens. Anyone who can’t respect a gun owner’s decision to carry concealed doesn’t grasp the value of personal choice that underpins all our rights. But I implore those of you who value your gun rights to open carry (where legal) as a political statement that does more to protect your right to keep and bear arms than any other decision, save, perhaps, your actions in a voting booth.

There’s a group of gay gun owners called Pink Pistols. They claim to be “the world’s largest GLBT self-defense organization” but they’re not particularly well-organized. Pink Pistols is a welcome intersection of gun rights and gay rights. We have a lot to learn from the gay rights movement, in terms of tolerance and political strategy. I wonder if Pink Pistols’ members would be more likely to open carry than straight gun owners. I like to think so.

96 Responses to Random Thoughts About Open Carry and Gay Rights

  1. It has been my experience that when someone yells a gay slur at someone, it is meant as an insult to someone who is not actually gay. Not that it makes it okay. I’m just saying.

    • It’s actually ok. Anyone saying NO is just a stupid weakling who’s got nothing else worthy of respect, gay or straight

    • I remember when “gay” meant happy. I’ve noticed that the meaning of “gay” is still changing. Teens and twenty-somethings use the word to describe a thing or act that is useless or unfortunate, “that’s so gay,” and seemingly miss the connection.

      And now the term “queer,” which originally meant strange or odd, then became a slur, is now being used by LGBT as a self-descriptor.

    • If it exists even as a saying there is differentiation that is sought, and you are never going to change that. It’s a matter of equality. “Equality is the formula for sameness on either side of short, horizontal, parallel lines. It is, by
      itself, a formula that creates the same solution regardless of the direction of the calculation across
      it, and has its own Value apart from the things that are being equated.” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 109].
      If people describe anything in a negative connotation it is because they don’t want to be equated with it. [Sic] you can say you are ‘ok’ with anything LGBT, but if you are heterosexual, and looking for a desired mate of the opposite sex, you would not want to be confused with someone who is “gay”. That’s never going to change and no label of “bigotry” will ever stick to that.

      On the more important issue of gun-grabbers. No, they don’t have to be hopolophobes, but, as in the above example of the LGBT (except in the inverse) they are not afraid to be equated with all of the connotations except WHAT THEY REALLY ARE, and that is narcissistic control freaks, who form the gently sloping banks of the slippery slope that is Facism, Communism, Stateism, Socialism, (D)head a-holeism.

      (tangentially) I have a strict belief that stereotypes often begin out of ignorance, but persist because too many people live up to them. Here however, I believe the stereotypes that gun-grabbers use begin out of lying and persist because they are lying POS’s and it forwards their crooked road to either facism, or supporting their favorite facists.

    • This is the case for most insults – they start as slurs for some marginalized group, and then eventually get appropriated as a general insult. You don’t have to be black to be called a “nigger”, either, and a woman doesn’t need to be sexually promiscuous to be called a “whore”. But the implication in them remains the original – that you’re bad because you’re like a black person or a homosexual etc, who are inherently bad somehow.

  2. Back in the day our first day at boot camp the man with the smokey bear hat told us that if we wanted out of the military all we had to do was kiss the guy next to us. And if he liked it he was gone too.

    There simply was no tolerance for being gay. It was treated as a mental disorder or a crime.

    Being black or a woman was also not cool in my youth. But things have changed. The constitution is being respected across a broader spectrum, not just as a exclusive club for white guys.

  3. I am pretty openly gay in just about every respect, the only thing I avoid doing is shoving it in front of everybody and parading it around in the open and trying to draw attention to myself.

    Will that stop me from buying purple grip panels for my CZ or putting a rainbow unicorn sticker on my SR-762? Nah, I still like my own personal little charms and gay things like that. Nobody ever seems to care either, really, as far as I’ve noticed.. and I live in a super conservative state to boot. Never had a run in with the god-fearing types and I’ve had far more praise for being a fag with a gun than anything. Which is fine with me, really.

    I think it’s just a matter of moderation. I don’t parade around in leather assless chaps and thongs and other things that belong in the bedroom, hiding under the guise of muh gay rights to dress like a freak in public.. I guess the same can be said about those carrying around tacticool’d as f**k operationally operator rifles while all kitted out in the latest fashion trend from call of duty. It’s all about moderation.

    As far as the word, “fag,” goes, I call my straight friends fags all the time and tell them to stop being homo. It’s just a word and anybody can rob it of power if they just recognize it as a word, instead of being beyond sensitive about it and taking utmost offense. I find many people are much more approachable around me if they feel they don’t have to tiptoe around stupid PC language when talking to me.. and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

    • Props for being awesome about living. I imagine most members of the LGBT community act similarly, but as you aptly phrased it, those who “parade around in leather assless chaps” not only annoy the rest of us, but also make for a great news story. And so a lot of Americans who might otherwise be ambivalent about the situation see them on the cover of the paper and assume that the entire community is like that.

      Also, just my two cents, purple panels on a CZ are cool no matter who you are.

      • Works this way too: …those who “parade around in urban areas in tactical clothing with long guns slung at low-ready or with shotguns” not only annoy the rest of us, but also make for a great news story. And so a lot of muggle-mericans who might otherwise be ambivalent about the situation see them on the cover of the paper and assume that the entire community is like that.

        Just because you CAN do something (legally) doesn’t mean you should do it.

        To some degree Open Carry Texas can be forgiven in this regard since they were making a point about open carry and the only firearms they were legally allowed to open carry in Texas were long guns. It’s the people who are out intentionally trolling for YouTube video interactions with LEOs that need to dial it back a bit.

    • So much awesome in this comment. I work with a few guys like this, and a black lesbian. They’re the people I have the most fun giving shit to, and the most fun taking shit from.

      Bottom line, people are people. We are all the same but have different preferences. That’s what makes each person an individual.

    • It’s funny, when using the word “fag” when growing up it had nothing to do with being gay, it was basically a substitute for “lame-ass”, or something like that. And calling someone or something “gay” had nothing to do with sexual orientation, either.

    • Emfourty Gasmask, I think you must be in the wrong place. This is the internet. Rational, logical statements and arguments will not be tolerated!

    • Couldn’t agree more. I’ve believed for a long time now words only have the power you personally give them. If you own it it doesn’t hurt you.

      I’d also refer people to the fags episode of South park for an idea of how the meaning of words can change or have multiple meanings.

  4. [The Pink Pistols are] certainly not recognized or funded by the NRA

    That’s only partially correct. According to the Pink Pistols website, the Pink Pistols group collaborates and works with with the NRA (and vice-versa) but cannot be an NRA affiliate because the PP does not have an elected Board and lacks certain other structural elements that the NRA requires. So the NRA does recognize the PP and actually seeks out the group’s counsel and support for litigation, lobbying etc.

  5. OK lets get something straight (no pun intended) “Gay Rights” are fiction. There are only “Rights”.

    That is all.

    • Wrong. If the baker has anything against me, he can refuse my business.

      If he has something against gays and refuses their business, he gets sued and fined.

      Gay rights are special rights for people who in this historical blink of time are politically fashionable. It’s a nasty, tragic precedent replacing inveterate principles with the latest fads. Just wait until something you identify with falls out of fashion. There go your rights.

      • What rights do they want that nobody else has? The opportunity to marry the person they love instead of somebody of the opposite sex? Because we can start going back to arranged marriages.

      • What rights do they want that nobody else has? The opportunity to marry the person they love instead of somebody of the opposite sex? Because we can start going back to arranged marriages.

      • >> If the baker has anything against me, he can refuse my business.

        Not really. If they refuse business because you’re white, Christian or heterosexual, the law protects you exactly the same. It’s just that it’s pretty hard to find a baker who’d do so.

        • I have been to black establishments were I was refused service simply for being white. But I don’t think that a prosecutor would have taken this issue, nor would I have been able to find a queue of pro bono lawyers to take the case.

        • So basically you didn’t even try to sue.

          And, of course, no-one is obligated to represent you pro bono in such a case. Private individuals do so because they deem some case or the other important, but you’re not entitled to such representation in civil matters (which is unfortunate).

    • Sorry, Mack. Gay rights are different.

      Every other “rights” movement simply asks for equal treatment, to have the same rights as everyone else, to sit in the front of the bus with the white folks.

      The gay rights movement demands rights that no one else wants. They demand changing the very definition of a concept that has existed in every religion and culture in the world for thousands of years. They don’t want equal treatment. They want the world to revolve around them.

  6. Quite a stretch traveling from gay rights to open carry. As someone who sees open carry a mile away in Indiana(described as a “bad” state on HERE) I think you need to get out more RF. Maybe get away from the idea that Texas is the epicenter of the world-it ain’t. I have no problem with homosexual behavior either. AS a long-time antique/art dealer I’ve met many and done business with a bunch-even went to a Christmas party thrown by an old gay couple 4 years ago. But please don’t push the whole “marriage” thing and expect millions to agree with you. Similarly to GUN rights it merely rest on ONE vote from an unelected Supreme. Exposure therapy? Like holding hands with my black wife in public or carrying my brown sons when they were little? I guess-but I don’t give a rats azz if you approve or if someone is “offended”…like gay folks or open carry-I’ll defend me and mine to the death if you f##k with me. Say it loud-I’m armed and I’m proud! I’d love to open carry…

    • The marriage thing was pushed on everyone for decades, gay and straight. Frame it however you want, the fact is that being married entitled you to a slew of benefits provided and/or enforced by the state, from inheritance and taxation to adoption and visitation rights. It was inevitable that such an arrangement would be challenged on equal treatment ground. The only alternative to legalizing gay marriage was to remove state recognition (and all associated benefits) from regular marriage, but aside from a few libertarians, no-one seriously backed that.

  7. RF, you’ve got this target dead on the money. As a former bumblebee phobiac(don’t know the actual term), a REAL phobia that included adrenaline dumps at the mere sound of one, and a heartrate of 200 with the cold sweats and paralysis if one ever touched my clothing, I know the difference between the two. Lots of people have an aversion to bees, but that wasn’t me. Mine was a full on phobia. Exposure did absolutely nothing for it but bring on the panic, and as an outdoorsman, I had plenty of them.
    Most gun haters are NOT phobic. Most just don’t like them, or don’t feel comfortable around them, but few indeed ever experience a real panic around them. Discomfort does NOT make a phobia. The exposure of open carry will help these ones.
    If there is an actual gun phobiac around, the only real treatment is getting at the root of the problem, and reliving it with your adult brain along for the ride. Almost all phobias are rooted in early childhood, and the panic comes from the child’s part of the brain that doesn’t understand, but only reacts. If the brain can once see where the phobia first came from, it will usually vanish like a fog burning off in the sun. Naturally, that’s a lot easier said than done.

    • Interesting take. We toss around that term “hoplophobia”, in jest, as a taunt, but I doubt there are many people with such an authentic, visceral, irrational fear. Most, as you wrote, are more in the dislike/discomfort category, which is something different and demands a different approach.

      • There may not be many who are wholly hoplophobic, but they exist; and definitely in greater numbers where open-carry isn’t common (or allowed). It only takes one to make a panicked phone-call and potentially ruin someone’s life. I’ve personally run afoul of a true hoplophobe, and he did just that. For those like him, there is no amount of aversion therapy that will change their minds. As for those who simply hate or dislike guns, I doubt that much can be done to sway them either; similarly exposing a low information liberal to hard facts won’t cause them to vote Republican.

  8. I appreciate what you’re trying to do here, but I’m pretty certain the anti-gun libtards that I know personally will merely look on your equvalence of open carry with gay rights with scorn and derision. They wouldn’t give it one moment of consuderation.

    • You’re absolutely right — as a general rule, they won’t. To many of these people, “tolerance” is a virtue badge, and nothing more.

      Having earned it by supporting people their group has marked as oppressed/marginalized/underprivileged, they are then officially marked as tolerant, no matter what else they may do. For most of our liberal/progressive acquaintances, the badge is a source of easy comfort; as long as they’re tolerating the correct people, they don’t need to worry about anything else.

      For the more nasty-minded contingent, it’s a shield behind which they hide some truly repugnant prejudices.

    • As a once libertarian/progressive, now a baptized christian/libertarian.I can say that many of the progressive, “tolerant/multicultural” crowd are some of the most bigoted, hateful and intolerant people I’ve ever met, when it’s towards traditional American christian culture..

      I had an ex-progressive friend of almost twenty years that if I had come out as being gay, she would have welcomed me with open arms. But when I came out of the closet and started carrying an OC firearm, she told me I was no longer welcome in her home or as a friend.

      I was told honestly by another progressive on a website that they are only tolerant of new immigrants and the foreign culture that they bring with them, not towards traditional American culture.

      I got flak from another progressive neighbor for flying an American flag in front of my house when I wasn’t there. He actually asked me to take it down when I wasn’t there. I didn’t, of course.

      Then there is the constant derision and derogatory statements towards those of us that do believe in a higher power as a christian.

      I see many progressives as the epitome of bigotry, intolerance and hatefulness. They are what Christians are supposed to be.

  9. Back in my Navy flying days, the standard sea tour was four years for the enlisted, a bit less for the officers. One would make about three, six month deployments during the tour, and any number of short detachments. That being said, the squadron was pretty much one big family, and everyone knew each other well. It was no secret who the gay boys and girls were, and as long as everyone was professional and mission oriented, nobody much gave a sh!t. What went on behind closed doors between consenting adults was certainly no business of mine. These days, however, it seems to be “In Your Face You Will Accept My Weirdness” all the time. And that won’t work.

  10. Went Catholic school for 12 yrs. rarely if ever heard a racial or gender slur, didn’t hear it at home either. Catholicism teaches marriage is between a man and a woman only, homosexual relationships are a sin, but so is sex before marriage, terminating pregnancy, birth control, divorce and a list of other infractions. Today lot of al la cart Catholics exercising common sense in how they apply those prohibitions. Have to agree only way to normalize carrying a handgun is to carry openly by legal responsible gun owners. Texas requires a CHL to exercise that option , so what? It’s a good start to continuing firearm freedom of choice in Texas and no more ninja’s scaring the “horses” or hopefully, state legislators.

  11. “homosexuals were regarded with contempt, disgust and discrimination.”

    I don’t care what anyone says, this is how it should be.

    I’m not saying anyone should be violent, but I certainly don’t think perverse behavior should be accepted in civil society.

      • Regarding rights and personal responsibility. All of our rights are derived from the most basic life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech is a personal liberty, right to bear arms is to ensure personal liberty, and to defend ones life. Our rights however do not expand beyond ourselves, and our property. This is why we have freedom but can’t do everything we want to at all times. A simple example you have a really nice car, it brings you a lot of joy, we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but no one has the right to steal your car, just because it will make them happy. We have a freedom of religion, but since our rights can’t extend beyond ourselves, we also have a freedom from religion. What ever your view of homosexuality is, it is your view but they have a right to there happiness, their right to that doesn’t effect yours. Some will say that homosexuality corrupts children or our nation. This is where personal responsibility comes into play if you believe homosexuality is wrong you have a responsibility to teach that to your children. But that is as far as it goes your rights do not expand beyond you, when you force your rights on others or the government forces other rights on you it is tyranny.

        • Allowing homosexuals to marry no more infringes on the liberties of others as allowing heterosexual couples to marry. And was the government tyrranical restricting the rights of slave owners when emancipation was enacted?

        • @ ihal

          I think you miss understand what I was saying, I was saying precisely that a homosexuals right to marry is exactly the same right and a homosexuals right. And if a person feels that homosexuality corrupts our nation it is up to that individual to steer there children away from that. It is not a homosexuals problem that some one doesn’t like it.

    • @ Skyler
      “I certainly don’t think”
      And you are entitled to your opinion Skyler.
      There is one single driving force that influences my tolerance for the alternate lifestyle that you are so repulsed by, and that is people have the RIGHT to be happy. If the warmth, love, companionship of another person makes a person happy, who in hell am I to make judgement? Live and let live.
      If it bothers a person that much, look the other way and STFU!!

      • It’s great that you bestow on someone the right to be “entitled to your opinion”. Did anyone ask for this meaningless libtard nonsense?

      • People don’t have the RIGHT to BE happy, they have the right to PURSUE happiness in their own way. Two very different things. Just think about this. You, as do I, probably know a great many people who are never happy, and will likely never be. They derive some kind of pleasure from being unhappy, and see to it. But, this too, is A way to pursue it, and perhaps they will someday decide to STOP making themselves unhappy, whenever they decide they have punished themselves enough.
        A right has to be something one does for oneself, not something that others must do for you. This is why there can be no ‘right’ to housing, or health(sick?) care, to ‘feel’ safe, etc. Anything that someone else must provide is not a right, its a purchase, or a trade, or an ‘entitlement’, as in; I ‘feel’, ‘entitled’ to someone else’s goods or services. IOWs, nonsense! How can anyone else MAKE someone happy? Its simply not possible. That one MUST do that for theirself.
        I recommend some serious time reading the Constitution, and with a dictionary handy. It’s not hard, it just requires a little thought.

    • When you look to restrict the rights of other people, don’t be too surprised when they try to restrict your rights.

      Even if you don’t condone gay behavior, you should tolerate it. Tolerance doesn’t mean you have to like it, it just means you don’t go out of your way to repress or restrict it.

      That’s all I want for gun rights actually. You don’t have to like guns or gun owners, but that doesn’t mean you need to restrict or repress their views.

    • As a christian, I see the bible as a how to manual on building a strong culture based on one premise. That the main purpose of a society is to raise mature and responsible law abiding children in a safe environment. And the bible is about reinforcing societal norms that support this premise.

      That’s it. When a society forgets that, it collapses very quickly, historically speaking.

      That culture is only as strong as the family, the marriage between a man and a woman, and their committment to that idea. At this point, the fact that most gay relationships don’t have raising children as thier primary focus, is the least of our problems as a culture. Gays are about 2 to 3% of any population. It is the heterosexual men and women living outside of marriage (living in sin) or if they are married, 50% or more getting divorced at the first sign of problems breaking up the family that is the greater “sin”. And the greatest danger to us as a culture. If any group should be treated to our “judgement”, it should be this group, because it is they that will decide if we survive as a culture, not what small percentage of gay people end up doing.

      Western Europe already has reached this point as they are not having enough children to replace themselves.

      America would be in the same place, except for legal and illegal immigration of people from more “traditional” cultures that still see having large families as an imperative.

      In the end, this whole question of “alternative” life styles, (which usually means something other than marriage between a man and a woman with the focus of having children) and whether they are appropriate or not is moot.

      Because Mother Nature will not be denied and the only law that is of importance is called survival of the fittest. Those species(or human cultures) that prioritize the raising of mature and responsible children will survive, and those that don’t will go the way of the Dodo bird.

      • If I understand correctly you are against gay marriage because it is against the word of God, because they don’t enter into marriage with the goal of creating a family, because they can’t reproduce with eachother and our population will dwindle away. We live in a multi culture society, we need to accept that their beliefs will be different than ours (note this does not mean we need to coddle everyone either) but it does mean that our spiritual beliefs don’t write our laws. Secondly, some gay men will raise children, some will adopt, have a segregate mother(or donor), some like some heterosexual couples will choose not to have children either way it isn’t any ones business but their own. Having 2-5% of the population not producing will effect how many people are in the next generation but the average American family of 3.13 we are still at a net gain because 95% of the population will replace themselves with 1.565 people so with a reproducing population of 100, the next-generation will have 148 people in it.

        • I’m a libertarian. Government has no business deciding what happens between consenting adults.
          If someone wants to marry someone of the same sex, that’s their business.

          What happens between gay people, being such a small percentage of a total population, has no ultimate impact on the survivability of a culture.

          It is what happens between the 97% of the population that are heterosexual, and the decisions they make as to what their focus, their purpose, their reason for being, that decides if that culture prospers, or dies.

          Like I said, a culture that accepts that their purpose in life is to have a strong family, committed till death do they part, with the purpose of raising children to be law abiding, mature responsible adults will prosper; those cultures that do not have that focus will pass away into the dust of history. It is the law of the universe as shown to us in the bible. It does not take an “inspired” word to see this is the lesson in what is happening in the population demographics in Western Europe today, or the projections of what will happen if this cultural decision not to have enough children to replace themselves does not change..

    • Finally, some common sense. Gay sex kills about the same number of people in the US as guns (excluding suicide), with millions dead worldwide. The spread of disease is a good reason to discriminate against those whose behavior is so self-destructive.

      And, oh, if you think those powerful enough to redefine marriage are not coming to get your guns next, you are seriously mistaken. Wow, I thought the POTG had more common sense.

      • 1. The “danger” of gay sex comes from unprotected promiscuity, not from it being homosexual in nature.

        2. The various tax benefits from a state-recognized marriage is not a Constitutional right.

  12. Key West was the first time a row of pole smokers physically eyeballed my junk. So I started to understand how women felt when men harassed them with cat calls.
    I was about as anti gay as they get. Even voted for prop 8. Then a segment on NPR changed my mind. A gay ghost writer for Jerry Falwell relayed how the church would gin up the congregation talking about fags and the contributions roll in. The host asked another question, can’t recall what it was but the writer gave a long pause before answering in a careful measured way. That a Christian organization abanding core principles in the quest for coin was they moment I fully accepted gays, what they endure and how they are often rejected by family, society and among their tribe. I’m not in the forefront of gay rights but I do signal they need not fear me or people I associate with.

    Perhaps no other public issue, in such a short span collectively has done a 180 in the minds of citizens than gay rights. To parallel the acceptance of gays and open carry is appropriate in getting a generation to accept citizens rights to arm themselves. As for myself I will not open carry, not because CA denies it, but being a fan of OODA I see no reason to give an adversary an advantage to his decision making process.

  13. I do not care what religion, race, sexual orientation, gender, or whatever descriptor a person has. If a person respects my freedoms, I respect their freedoms. What I do despise is lies and secret agendas, which seems to have become the norm for the Progressive movement.

    • Yep. This, exactly.

      To me, the bright dividing line is drawn between people who respect the right of others to make their own free choices and those who would take freedom away from whatever group they don’t like at the moment. This is why progressives are the enemy: everything they do is aimed at forcing everyone else to do what *they* want.

      When one person points a gun at you and says “do what I want or else,” we call that person a criminal; if that same person uses deceit or trickery against you instead, then he’s a thief and a blackguard. When a huge mass of people does virtually the same thing, they’re called progressives.

    • I’ll one up you here. Even if a person does not respect my freedom, I still respect theirs. I don’t respect them, but the freedoms they’re entitled to are not owned by them, and deserve respect per se, regardless of their associations. A right can either be respected in and of itself, or, if you start getting selective about it, it ceases to be a right.

      For example, I hate neo-Nazis with a passion, but ACLU was absolutely in the right when they defended their right to free speech in Skokie. In doing so, they ultimately defended that right for all of us.

  14. “Gay folks aren’t deviants or pedophiles, gun folks aren’t bullies or murders. You’re just having an emotional reaction of disgust and its wrong…. stop it.”

    I use that one a lot with friends and family.

  15. Gun control is anti-sodomy laws for leftists.

    I see EXACTLY the same behaviors in the gun control cult that I see in anti-gay cults like the Westboro Baptist “church”.

    They’re both looking for ways to stomp a jackbooted foot onto the face of somebody “different”. It’s not about gays or guns, it’s about CONTROL and their domination fantasies.

  16. I feel the same way about my neo-Nazi beliefs. Nazism has been so insanely demonized by the Jews that control the media, the entertainment industry, and academia. If we were to start openly displaying our Nazi symbols with pride, then people would start to realize that we Nazis are just like them.

    Thanks for the inspiring words of encouragement, Robert. May your family, friends, and rabbi smoke tons of dank kush while openly carrying AR-15s at your next local gay pride parade.

    • If we were to start openly displaying our Nazi symbols with pride, then people would start to realize that we Nazis are just like them.
      I think Patton said something about the Nazis being like the Democrats.

      • Actually, he was looking back on the Weimar republic and claiming most people who joined the Nazi party thought they were just joining a political party, like people in the US would join the Democrats or the Republicans.

        He certainly wasn’t comparing the NSDAP itself to the Democrats (if you’re trying to say something like “Patton said Dems might as well be Nazis” then you’re full of it), but comparing the motivation of many of its members, originally, to that of many members of BOTH parties here. Those motivations turned out to be based on false beliefs, and the NSDAP was, unbeknownst to those people, a monstrous institution that they lent strength to.

        • And, don’t forget, the party they were joining was called the “German Socialist Worker’s Party”. The nickname “Nazi” was given later on, shortened from “Ashkenazi”, for the large numbers of that faith at the top levels of the party.

    • Carsickplatypus, I welcome you to embrace the courage of your convictions. Please openly display the symbols of your beliefs and encourage like minded individuals to do so.
      There is a reason you hide. The cowardice displayed in your behavior matches the cowardice of your ideology.

  17. I recognize individual rights, but not homosexual group rights. I do not recognize special female group or black group rights either.
    I do not think it is the government’s business to prescribe appropriate sexual behaviour between consenting parties.
    I do think that individuals should not be forced to associate or do business with other individuals.

  18. “Patton attracted controversy as military governor when it was noted that several former Nazi Party members continued to hold political posts in the region. When responding to the press about the subject, Patton repeatedly compared Nazis to Democrats and Republicans in noting that most of the people with experience in infrastructure management had been compelled to join the party in the war, causing negative press stateside and angering Eisenhower.”

  19. My uncle is a homosexual. His husband doesn’t go anywhere without his beretta on his hip.

    I get along better with my homosexual uncles’ husband. And not just cause he’s a gun owner. It’s because he’s a good human being. That’s more important than anything.

    The gun ownership and carrying is him demonstrating intelligence to protect those he loves.

  20. Concealed carry is of no use to me, I don’t carry a purse. Besides, Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution, concealed carry can be banned.

    http://CaliforniaRightToCarry.org

    “[A] right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

    “In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right…Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2809

    “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251…” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2816

    “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons…” Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 US 275 – Supreme Court (1897) at 282.

    “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications…and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search…the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) at 2792.

    “The policy underlying the prohibition against concealed weapons is based on the protection of those persons who may come into contact with a weapon bearer. If a weapon is not concealed, one may take notice of the weapon and its owner and govern oneself accordingly, but no such opportunity for cautious behavior or self-preservation exists for one encountering the bearer of a concealed weapon. In light of this policy, the question whether a particular weapon was concealed should be considered from the point of view of one approaching the location of the weapon, and the intent of the defendant as to concealment should not be considered, since a defendant’s innocent intent does not make a concealed weapon any more visible.” People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal. App. 4th 1364 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. (2012) at 1371.

    “But the majority implicitly, and appropriately, rejects that suggestion by broadly approving a set of laws — prohibitions on concealed weapons…” Heller dissent at 2851

    “We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.” McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) at 3050.

    Notice that Open Carry is the “Second Amendment right recognized in Heller which applies to all states and local governments. Heller made it perfectly clear that concealed carry is not a right. Anyone who reads Heller or McDonald as recognizing a right to carry concealed weapons in public should not be allowed anywhere near a concealable weapon.

  21. Meh, from a Christian pov being gay is a sin, but so is promiscuity(Can you be a Christian while cheating on your wife? Or stealing from your boss?) and obviously atheism (sorry farrago) so…. As long as you don’t infringe my rights and I don’t infringe yours we can live in peace.

    Sure my beliefs are such that you may end in hell unless you accept Christ’s payment for your sins (we all have sinned after all), but also that God gave you free will; and I will say as such.

    In turn you may find my beliefs as nutty as I find yours and you feel free to say it as well.

    Freedom is cool like that

  22. If my state ever got Open Carry, I think I would like to carry a pink pistol just like the one pictured here. Then the question would be “Why is your gun pink?” instead of why you are carrying. You have already gotten past the first barrier to talking with people intelligently simply by carrying a pink gun.

    Unfortunately, I live in New Jersey, so we will never get Open Carry.

  23. Homosexuals may like their guns but they are in bed with the Democrats. As long as they keep voting with the Democrats they should have no voice in the 2nd Amendment debate. When you support those that wish to strip us of our God Given Rights, you are no better than the enemy.

    • I’m a little late to this one, but that’s the unfortunate truth. Here in Dallas, there have been a string of assaults/muggings in a predominately gay neighborhood. The leaders of that community keep crying to the police department to “do something”. If only they would start arming themselves, I bet it wouldn’t take long for them to stop being targeted. But, by and large, they won’t, because I’m sure the community is anti-gun. The criminals know that, therefore, they are easy targets.

Leave a Reply

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