WelshPatricia1

“I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment. And I believe in the sanctity of life and I believe it begins at conception. I also have an abiding belief in my savior Jesus Christ. I also believe it is time for hard-working Log Cabin Republicans to be chartered into this organization.” – California Republican Party Secretary Patricia Welch, in California GOP recognizes gay faction of party [at KCRA.com.]

Recommended For You

245 Responses to Quote of the Day: Big Tent Edition

    • Too much noise being made about a group with a mental disorder, who constitute less than 2% of the population. Instead of entertaining these people, they should be getting the treatment they need, not validation that their mental disorder is ok.

      • Christians only make up 2% of the population? I wish, then we wouldn’t have politicians trying to pass laws about what clothes you wear, who you can have sex with, trying to prevent you from deciding if you want kids or not, etc.

        • I wished we didn’t have nutcases telling us repeatedly who they want to have sex with.

        • weird here I thought there weren’t laws about who may (if mutually decided) rub body parts on one another, but whether said choice is deserving as the same benefits as the traditional configuration that leads to a stable family + childeren -> increased economy.

          Hint: other than 1 man + 1 woman they don’t; therefore they aren’t equal and shouldn’t be treated that way.

        • So then straight couples that don’t produce children should be barred from marrying?

        • @Grindstone

          I think he’s just mad that he’s never found a woman desperate enough to want to “rub” with him.

        • @publius:

          Way to attack me rather than have a good arguement! just like the antigunners do! Also good job assuming I’m a dude you little assumer you! (although yeah I am)

          Rather than ignore your personal insult I’ll just say its dumb because

          1. I’m waiting for marriage
          2. I’m not looking to get married yet

          So congrats, your insult means nothing but does show your intolerance to other povs; so really you do argue quite like an anti-gunner. (ex you own guns you have small dick)

          @grind:

          Eh, the odds of a married couple not having kids seems smallish so I doubt the economic effect there is much. Also while a straight couple has the possibility of not producing childeren, whereas gays have no natural option of producing childeren.(of course genetic engineering/test tubes and stuff exists)

          Besides another arguement would be that selection (natural or otherwise) has wired it up so people pair in the form of 1 man + 1 woman (due to the childeren thing as above)…..

          Finally yeah other couplings can create offspring but iirc they don’t end up as well off as being raised by 1 mother + 1 father.

        • Eh, the odds of a married couple not having kids seems smallish so I doubt the economic effect there is much. Also while a straight couple has the possibility of not producing childeren, whereas gays have no natural option of producing childeren.(of course genetic engineering/test tubes and stuff exists)

          So then what’s the problem with gays since they’re such a minority? Why focus on them if reproduction is the main drive for keeping them from getting married yet giving people like me a pass? Other than religious bigotry (which has no place in government) of course.

          Besides another arguement would be that selection (natural or otherwise) has wired it up so people pair in the form of 1 man + 1 woman (due to the childeren thing as above)…..

          That same argument would validate multiple partner unions then, too. People are wired to mate (for the most part), period. Like I’ve said before, tradition used to be 1 man + multiple wives, too.

          Finally yeah other couplings can create offspring but iirc they don’t end up as well off as being raised by 1 mother + 1 father.

          Would not any stable home produce offspring that are better off? Besides, this brings us back to the point of “marriage is for raising children” yet the childless heteros marrying is still not a problem?

      • Factually incorrect. This can’t be debated. Though you are welcome to keep your incorrect beliefs and I will fight for you to keep them.

      • Jackasses who refuse to allow certain groups to participate in the political process ought to be aware that does not remove their right to vote, it just removes the likelihood they might vote for such brain-dead people’s candidates. Carry that far enough, and the entire party will eventually disappear. And possibly it should.

        How about this; Let GOD decide whether He produces more gay people or whether he should quit doing so! What a plan! Are you absolutely certain that he needs your help, needs you to exercise control over other people’s lives, to abuse other people’s freedoms, to make rules for them to live by? If your god is that much of a wimpy incompetent, why do you worship him?

        • Keep in mind that this is the same god who apparently is the inventor of liberty yet still produced a laundry list of arbitrary things that which do zero harm to others, are still “bad” and deserving of eternal torture.

        • Grindstone, it is almost as if those rules were made up by a bunch of bigoted, controlling men, rather than a god!

        • You are under the assumption that it is a generational issue. Same sex couples are despised throughout history for one reason, they cannot reproduce. If a society fails to grow constantly, and faster than the surrounding societies, it will decline and fall/be conquered. It is self preservation of the community at it’s most basic level. Love it or hate it, it is a universal truth, and no amount of legislation, sensitivity training, or reasoning will change it.

        • I’m right there with you, Grindstone. The sooner the bigoted Boomers die out, the sooner we can start fixing this country.

        • Rambeast – And yet approval for SSM is at an all-time high, including a majority of Americans. Further, where are the laws against the sterile getting married? Against those who are voluntarily childfree (such as yours truly)? Against the women who have passed menopause? And weren’t gays supposed to be a tiny, “insignificant’ minority? Finally, there are over 7 billion people in the world. I think we’ll be just fine if we stop banning gay people, who are disinclined to reproduce in the first place, from marrying.

          Basically, that argument holds exactly zero water.

        • How about we stop being mean to those wonderful boomers?! Like me! I always felt like two guys who dug each other left two extra women for me.

        • Aaron, the projection (or reading error) is yours. I said despised throughout history, not despised everywhere. I am merely stating the obvious based on historical fact. I have no dog in this fight, and could care less what consenting adults do with each other. I have friends and family that are non-hetero, and think no less of them for it.

          It seems there are too many here that react like children instead of wanting to discuss the issue properly. Getting overly emotional and hoping for the expedient death of people that do not believe as you do is no better than those calling for the deaths of gun owners, those of different faiths, or those that disagree with your point of view. It’s disgusting. If you feel so strongly about something, take the time and energy to put together a rational argument and run with it, but have some dignity and humility.

          If you let your emotions get the best of you, then you will find yourself becoming that which you hate. Intolerant, hateful, and wrong.

        • Rambeast, I’m not the one who wrote anything about wishing violence on others, or wishing a generation would wither away. Not sure why tou are directing your response about that to me.

        • Aaron, the first section of the comment was responding to you. The rest is to other comments before my response.

        • Rambeast, you might want to brush up on reading comprehension. There is a vast difference between “expedient death of people” and “wither away”. Deliberate misinterpretation of clear terms is a trait of the disarmament crowd.

        • I see little difference in wishing harm and celebrating demise. Neither is admirable or acceptable. Split hairs all you want, the result is the same.

        • Actually SSM, SSM isn’t a “modern” thought process, in the middle ages before the Catholic Church stepped in there were plenty of SSM throughout Europe. In North America, if a Two-Spirit individual married someone of the same gender, nothing was thought of it. In Roman Times, Homosexuality, while not exactly in the open was known of (It was ok to have homosexual sex, as long as you weren’t being penetrated). So do you want to continue on about how it’s been thought of as immoral throughout the ages???

      • I was just going to let this one go… But nope… Can’t do it.

        2%? Self-reported… Just like all those Former gun owners that had tragic boating accidents – self-reporting can’t be relied upon. Partly because of Attitudes like yours.

        So, what you miss, are the closet cases. Which could potentially include Me even. Still getting over YEARS of repression. If asked flat out – I don’t think I’d deny it. But let’s just say that I’m not necessarily out & proud. (One more things for me to work on I suppose)

        Now, if it’s only 2% can you answer this question:

        Why do straight guys watch so much gay porn?

        http://www.queerty.com/straight-men-are-a-lot-more-bisexual-than-people-think-20141025

        In any case – Ron White says it best:

    • This has everything and nothing to do with guns.

      Gay politicians are usually the enemies of gun rights, like Gordon Fox was before he got his office files taken away by the FBI.

      Since the GOP tends to favor expansion of gun rights, it’s safe to say that they’re “our” party. Isn’t it better to have a bigger party, than a smaller and more narrowminded party? Our country was built on the principle of being able to disagree.

      • I’m not sure what your point is. We read the comments to make sure we get things right, for S&Gs and to see if we missed something. When a commentator puts up a relevant link, we chase it. That’s how we roll.

        • I have emailed you in the past asking if you got an idea for an article from an actual story I sent you. You denied it saying that it was already lined up to go public before my similar story reached your inbox. I take you at your word. Hey whats hot is hot and it is very likely that ideas hit the scene simultaneously. I’m not saying you are running with my input without so much as a hat tip, but I was just trying offer an explanation as to why this story came out of the blue to those that questioned its relevance.

          Back to my perception of feeding ideas: within hours of referencing the M855 ammo ban story on FOX News’ Fox and Friends, you post the actual video I was referencing. I don’t have a problem with it and I am glad we are on the same train of thought. I just asked if anyone else felt like we feed the content on TTAG.

      • Michael,

        If you go to the time and trouble to post a comment and provide information or make a point, would you rather it was ignored. I’d take satisfaction that your posted comment garnered enough interest to generate follow-up and amplification for further discussion on TTAG.

        When I post comments or send an e-mail I see it as an opportunity to provide leads for relevant or interesting subject matter. If it goes up on the site, fine; if not, also fine. I don’t take it personally either way. And I’m not so naïve as to think others don’t have the same offerings to make to TTAG.

        • Is it satisfying that TTAG posts topics I have shown interest in? Absolutely. It is more satisfying knowing I was the source of inspiration for the subject matter. As it is I am left wondering if it was all just a coincidence.
          There has been a perceived pattern lately. Please don’t ask me to prove it. I am likely to spend the rest of the day linking to my posts and showing the corresponding article immediately following the comment and I don’t want to do that because it is a beautiful day here in GA and I want to go outside and shoot.
          Keep up the good work TTAG.

        • Shoot!

          I find it impressive that the TTAG crew gets through and runs with as many leads from their various sources including our e-mails and comments as they do, especially Farago. It often appears he gets little if any sleep and has no life outside of maintaining this site.

          Happy shooting, Michael.

        • My youngest son (the good one) is home from college. He’s the one in my videos. We went out back to shoot and ripped out 60 rounds of .223 using my new Diamondhead iron sights. They are sweet. The only time I missed, I wasn’t looking through the rear sight DOUGH!. We shot about 75 rounds of 9mm with the Glock. Today is the first day I have been able to shoot two handed since surgery to repair my torn supraspinatus tendon in my off hand shoulder. It’s 75 degrees and balmy here. Feels like 80. I still have the heat on in the house but when we came back inside, it was so much cooler in the house, it felt like air conditioning. Sorry for all you Midwest and Northeasterners.

      • Michael, Just so you know, this link came from a search that I run regularly to find news articles related to the second amendment. In fact, my work/life balance being what it is lately, I haven’t even had time to look at the CPAC article from Robert until I followed your link just now.

        I am hardly perfect, but I do try to offer credit where it is due.

        • I believe you. Just feels like lately I have been one step ahead. I think it has more to do with my extended time off healing from shoulder surgery. I suddenly have a little more free time than you guys do. Carry on.

    • Sounds like she just threw that out there to establish her bona fides, in support if her personal opinion. “I’m a pro-gun, normal American, and even I support embracing the Log Cabin crowd!” How nice. A little offensive, too.

      If chartering that group has some benefit and advances the CA GOP’s agenda, then make the case on its own merits, right out in the open. She shouldn’t try to manipulate emotions through mutual identification and subtle suggestion.

  1. Yes, I can see how this has to do with weapons. Thank you for this gay propaganda. I wasn’t getting enough on the non-weapon sites.

    • Stay classy. What’s next, a rant about how you wish restaurants could kick out “those damn niggers”?

      • I look forward to the Jew bashing. There is not enough Irish hate either. Come to think of it, women suck too.

        • Yes, being a minority in a minority sucks. I’m not sure whom has it worst – the Uncle Tom, the black cop or the gay black person.

        • Has a lot to do with religious influence. Large amounts of black communities tend to be Baptist.

        • Or Muslim. Or crazy stuff like NoI.

          Ironically, the latter often present homosexuality as a “white man’s perversion of nature”.

      • hooray for false equivalancy!

        You want an ar-15? you support massacers!

        (this has been a false equivalency)

      • I’m “racist” due to my expression of disapproval of the content of a post about homosexuals? Nice. Tell us: are you SPLC, CAGV, VPC, DHS or just plain old indoctrinated to imply “racist” against those with beliefs different from yours?

        • If you’re bigoted against who someone loves, why wouldn’t you be dumb enough to be a bigot about their skin color? Especially since racists and people who hate gays have a LOT of overlap between them, seeing how both are usually the toothless redneck variety.

  2. Think big picture guys and gals.

    It’s about bringing in more allies to the cause of gun rights. Many people are single issue voters regarding gay marriage rights and default vote democrat because of it. Similar to many of us who default to republican for gun rights. By making gay marriage a non-issue, many LGBT supporters who are also gun rights supporters might vote based on their next most important issue, gun rights.

    Both gun rights and gay marriage are about personal freedom to live as you wish. There are many libertarians who support gay rights just a little bit more than gun rights. This may also bring them further to the republican side as republicans start to support ALL social freedoms as opposed to only those social freedoms backed by a loud, but much smaller than the general moderate population, group of conservative christians.

      • One of the “few”? What are you smoking.

        We’re annoyed that this random story, without ANY CONTEXT, is being posted here. The author could have added a few paragraphs of commentary and opinion after the link as to its relevance to guns. You know, The Truth about Guns?

        But no, it’s just random crap.

        • Plenty of people have explained exactly why it’s relevant, because people like you who hate gays need to pull your head our of your ass and realize that the longer Republicans keep up the bigoted bullshit, the worse the future looks for gun owners.

    • I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why I should care, or why anybody should care, if two people of the same sex are legally recognized as being married (regardless of what you want to call it).

      • A few millennia of tradition that spans most cultures and religions and is rooted in basic biology falls kind of hard I guess. For me, I don’t think the government has any role in the marriage biz anyway.

        • If your trying to say bein anti-gay has been that prevalent in human history than you are in for a big surprise. Anti-paedophile has never even been that universal throughout human history.

        • Unless it is harming others, it really is nobody’s business. Who cares if it is rooted in tradition that has been around for thousands of years? That unto itself means nothing. Oppression of women has also been around for thousands of years, but that doesn’t make it right. Regarding basic biology, their biology is modified somewhat to make them attracted to the same sex. Unless it is some how affecting you, it should not be of concern to you.

        • Didn’t say other cultures didn’t tolerate homosexuals. I was talking about marriage. Even the Romans and Greeks didn’t legally sanction same-sex unions the same way they did male-to-female marriages. And I didn’t say whether the tradition was bad or good. I’m just saying it’s been there for literally millennia–aside from the fact that, again, it is rooted in simple biology, why would anyone be surprised that the tradition dies hard?

        • Edit function disappeared– I was going to add that the reference to biology was in regard to the fact that it takes a male and a female to perform that essential species-preserving function of reproducing–get it? And also, pointing out that some of you apparently didn’t make it to the second sentence of my post.

        • Which tradition are we talking about? The tradition to marry as many wives as you can support? The tradition of having concubines? The tradition of raping slaves?

        • A “right denied” is an issue. Unfortunately, this SSM has conflated two unrelated issues.
          One is the issue of the use of the term “marriage” in our civil laws.
          The other is whether the rights / limitations in law applicable to those who are “married” can be denied based upon sex.
          Somehow, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims have gotten along OK regarding their concurrent use of the word “marriage” notwithstanding that there are different dogmas associated with this term among these (and other) sects. I don’t know how to explain this; nor do I think it is necessary to explain it. If a majority of religious people object to the use of a term – marriage – to a secular concept then a decent respect for this sensitivity ought to prevail in the law. That would easily be remedied by 51 State & DC acts and 1 Federal act to re-name “marriage” to some other term such as “civil union”. The texts of old acts would be cleaned-up to conform as they are amended for other reasons. Contemporary citations to the legal institution would use the new term.
          The second issue will take some effort. What are the rights and limitations under law associated with the institution newly named “civil union” or whatever? Most will not be contentious such as inheritance, filing joint tax returns and so forth. Laws on adoption might be contentious. At least the effort to determine how to deal with the contentious issues would be focused on something that could be argued about.
          The issue we ought to be worried about is whether any government can deny the features of the civil law to citizens based upon some sentiment. States once denied marriage licenses to inter-racial couples. This was found to be unconstitutional. That is, States are not granted absolute power to decide to whom to issue marriage licenses; there is a right found in the Federal Constitution to marry irrespective of issues of rate.
          Is there a right under the Federal constitution for couples to enjoy the advantages of filing joint tax returns irrespective of sex? I have a really hard time imagining a rationale against equal treatment in such a case. I’m open to the possibility that there is some activity – which doesn’t come to mind – where there could be a limitation based on sex. But it is that case that government must justify.
          Under our Constitution discrimination on the basis of sex is permissible; e.g., Congress can discriminate against females serving in the militia or armed forces. I’m perfectly content to leave this open Constitutionally. Nevertheless, we are increasingly skeptical of discrimination based on sex.

        • If a majority of religious people object to the use of a term – marriage – to a secular concept then a decent respect for this sensitivity ought to prevail in the law.

          So you’re basically saying that majority religious feelings should trump the rights of others? Hm, if only we had an amendment regarding that…

        • Mark, “marriage” is today totally defined by the government. If the religious want something reserved for religious ceremonies, THEY should adopt a different term, like maybe “holy nonsense” to replace marriage, stop performing government contract ceremonies, and pay taxes .. never mind, I got carried away. At any rate, if the only process which granted all the free stuff was not performed in churches, churches would be out of that business altogether rather quickly.

        • Or they could just call it marriage. With an understanding that what a marriage is, for religious purposes, is different between religions (which is already the case), and can also be different from the legal status.

        • Considering how it increases the instance of suicide among the recipients of the “treatment”, I suppose you could consider it does help make the gay go away…

        • This is actually not a joke, Grindstone. In Russia, they have recently shut down a grassroots-organized support group for gay teens under the recent “propaganda of homosexuality to minors” law. Here’s what they were charged with:

          “The supplied materials may cause children to develop a perception that being gay means being high-spirited, strong, confident, persistent, and have a feeling of dignity and self-esteem”.

          And here’s [my translation of] the discussion that took place in the court room, between the judge and a defendant (one of the organizers of the group):

          J: [quotes from the Internet discussion board of the support group] “If religion makes you feel unhappy and defective, aren’t you better off ditching it? You can change your religious view, but to change your sexual orientation is impossible. You don’t need a God that forbids you to love.” [reads the prosecution commentary from the case] “This comment encourages the child to reject God in favor of homosexual relations, which clearly violates the freedom of faith.”
          J: What can you say about this?

          D: This is a comment to a post made by a religious girl who was contemplating suicide. It had many comments, including some like this one. It does not infringe upon freedom of faith, since everyone has an individual right to practice their religion or not practice any. The main goal was to deter her from suicide.

          J: So in a choice between suicide and sodomy, you’re telling the teen to choose sodomy?

          D: If that is the choice and there are no other options, yes.

          J: But she made that choice already. She says that she considers it a horrible sin and cannot live with it.

          D: That is precisely why she was told to abandon her religion, if that religion pushes her towards suicide. Is suicide preferable?

          J: So what then, is sodomy preferable?

        • You sure that Russian judge wasn’t Oklahoma state rep Sally Kern (R)?

          Because it sure sounds like her.

    • “Both gun rights and gay marriage are about personal freedom to live as you wish”

      Yippee! Somebody gets it!

    • When they start getting thrown from the roof of tall buildings (see ISIS), which one is going to be more relevant?

  3. Gay marriage probably affects 2-3% of people on the ground. It’s been a huge political/cultural win for the left on the national stage. The right’s response was merely “Muh Bible” or “Muh States’ Rights.” I’m fully convinced that the right has lost the culture war. Which is a shame, because they have bigger guns they refuse to unholster.

    • yep. most people no longer care, but the religious conservatives sure get worked up into a lather over an issue that has passed them by already.

      • Exactly. Some of the best conservatives I know are gay and we’re pushing them and their votes/money away.

        When I first got into shooting, one of my buds told me “always make sure you have a couple they don’t know about.” Turned out to be good advice, from a gay dude no less!

        • Jonathan, My experience has been exactly opposite. I haven’t known huge numbers of gays, but those I have known have been universally hard workers and big earners, opposed the tax-and-spend liberal attitudes to a man, no exceptions. They have been split on guns, and universally think sexual orientation is nobody’s business. Casually throwing their money and their votes to the Dems is bordering on suicidal, and absolutely inexcusable.

        • My guess would be that the conservative ones are not the ones who go about throwing their sexual orientation in everyone’s face in the public square and then demanding, on pain of government-imposed sanctions, that everyone approve of their conduct. Keeping their private matters private makes them a lot less visible to the public at large.

        • I know lots of gay people that love to shoot guns. But our local Republicans have a fixation on crafting legislation that discriminates directly against them. Kind of hard for them to support a party that blatantly hates them.

        • Exactly. I know several gay men who own guns, but they consistently vote Democrat (despite hating most Democrat policies) specifically because of the Republican party’s hatred for gays.

  4. It’s beyond stupid to exclude them.
    Aren’t establishment Republican types always telling the libertarians among the party to get over themselves and vote for their establishment candidate?
    That whole “you’ll never agree 100%” tripe.

    But oh noes the gheys! Somehow the establishment is perfectly happy alienating them even if they agree with 90% of the party platform because of what they do in their personal lives.

    • How are they really being excluded, anyway? They don’t get to play in all the GOP games? So what? I’m not invited to GOP HQ, either, but I still vote for them, mostly. Conservative gays are largely a myth, like pro-gun liberals.

  5. Yes it is about bringing in more allies. It’s a reminder that you need to be for all rights, not just the ones you like. There is nothing worse than the “freedom for me but not for thee” crowd. That is the play book of the antis. We need to continue to turn their tactics around and use them against the antis. One way to do that is to be more inclusive.

  6. Dividing and recognizing people by classes and groups are the tactics of the Left and loser countries.
    Really.Tired.Of.It.

    • Yes. We could pretty much destroy the liberal movement if we’d just get a clue on a few, relatively minor issues.

    • And yet Republicans are masters of crafting legislation that targets a particular minority class…

        • First off, I haven’t been to college since I was enlisted. Second, how exactly am I wrong?
          newsok.com/gay-conversion-therapy-bill-clears-oklahoma-house-committee/article/5396127

  7. How is this gun related again? I think I’d rather read another one of Nick’s stupid articles on how guns on planes are really bad you guys, mmmkay?

  8. What’s to worry about? Are we so worried about the gay issue that we fear it’s contagious? Will we catch the gay bug if we bump into a gay at a Republican caucus or at the range?
    AFAIK, there is no gay gene we need to worry about; nor is gay-ness contagious. At most, we need to worry about 2% of the voters influencing an election. If our republic survives, I think it can cope with a 2% minority.
    What we ought to do is welcome the gays to our ranges and political tents. The Pink Pistols supported us with an amicus brief in Heller. They know a thing or two about how to advance a minority position in the court of public opinion.
    Imagine the cognitive dissonance Progressives suffer when hearing a gay guy argue for the 2A as in the case of Palmer v DC.

    • Yeah, antis don’t know how to attack a gay without risking being accused of gay bashing, so the antis simply pretend the gay pro-gun proponent is invisible, or if they are able launch some ad hominem ‘innuendos’.

    • You keep preaching ultra inclusivity as a means for increasing our numbers. What you don’t realize is that the GOP’s liberal-lite agenda is disaffecting more and more Americans who just stay home now and don’t vote. You can’t out-Democrat the Democrats.

      • Do you really think that’s why people don’t vote? I suspect more and more people are seeing all politics as the fraud and evil tool it has always been. Far as I know, being left alone to control one’s own life, leaving everyone else to do the same, has never been put to a vote…

        • Well, not in those terms, but it’s put to a vote all the time, in various different iterations. I fear you do have a point, tho, putting it to a vote in the form of voting between two different politicians doesn’t always seem to be very effective.

        • Obama had less support in 2012 than 2008. Romney had more Conservative support than McCain had in 08 who had more Conservative support than bush had in 04.
          The ones staying home and not voting are the moderates. They see half dozen of one and six of another so they don’t get motivated.
          We need a Conservative candidate that isn’t trying to pander to the middle. Democrats pander to the middle as well but the advantage goes to them because they promise a free lunch on the 1%.
          Republicans want:
          Energy independence by allowing oil companies to tap our resources here. Without government intrusion.
          Repeal of Obama care and replace it with the free market health insurance system and allow trans State commerce. Without government intrusion.
          Allow individuals to arm themselves. Without government intrusion.
          Reduce tax burden through a fair tax that reduces government intrusion.
          Deregulate the internet. Without government intrusion.
          Allow school choice which will reduce the rolls in public schools. The worst form of government intrusion.
          Allow small businesses to set their own pay rates. Without government intrusion.
          Allow banks to deny loans to unqualified borrowers thereby preventing foreclosure and housing bubbles. Without government intrusion.
          Allow non union people the right to work. Without government intrusion.
          About the only place Republicans do want government intrusion is in dealing with illegal immigrants and terrorists. That’s a few of the Federal Government’s actual limited responsibilities.

        • The majority of Republicans are the “tough on crime”, pro-drug war crowd. They also love warrantless wiretapping and other outgrowth of the police state so long as it can be justified by “terrorists”.

      • No, but you can out-Libertarian them.

        Or you can keep pandering to the increasingly small social conservative electorate and lose.

    • Everybody seems to be dismissing 2% of the vote as being insignificant. When was the last presidential election with a winning margin which would not have been defeated by the opposite side receiving an additional 2% of the total vote? We need to wake up!

      • Not to mention that the idea that it’s only gay people who are put-off by the anti-gay agenda is just narrow-minded at best.

  9. This is gun-related because the two major parties have strong pro-gun and anti-gun platforms. The bigger the pro-gun party gets, the better for us gun owners.

    • So for argument sake, lets say 100% of the gay community is pro gun. Now we include them in our ranks (whatever that means). How much of a bump in support of gun rights does that give us? I estimate that for every 10,000 letters in opposition of the M855 ban sent to the ATF, we would gain 1 more. Big flippin deal.

      I would rather spend time and energy recruiting blacks and women into the big tent. We gain in the millions rather that the hundreds that way.

      • I must have missed the part explaining how these are mutually exclusive. Why not just live and let live? You can ignore non-aggressive behavior you don’t agree with. It’s just accepting the fact that what others do is none of your business.

        Some “pro-gun” people are as guilty of bigotry as any other faction in this. The idea that rights are valid only for those who agree with them in everything is self defeating.

        • Homosexuality is a different issue than being of a certain race. I wish all gay people were Republican 100% pro Constitution. I know plenty who are. My point is why spend bandwidth promoting inclusion of such an insignificant group of lifestylers when we fall so short including women and blacks?
          5% more black and women voters on the side of conservatism swings this country around where 100% of the gay vote doesn’t even nudge it.

        • I prefer to see people as individuals, not parts of any group, and one never knows when one might be interested in learning a different point of view, regardless of what group they are in. Blacks, gays, women… what the heck, I’ll even talk to red neck hillbillies or green alien spacemen. 🙂

          So, YOU spend your money and bandwidth as you choose, of course. Don’t include me in your “we.”

        • You didn’t bring it up? That’s weird. I can go back to your original comment which says, paraphrased, that you don’t see any point to spending money or bandwidth attempting to reach gays, since they are such a small % of the population… and that “we” should spend it on reaching blacks and women instead…

          My “beef” is very small, actually. I am not a part of your “we.” 🙂

        • TTAG brought it up and the link I pasted was in response to another comment.
          If I never mention race, color, religion, sex, orientation, or ever have to read about it or see it on television the rest of my life, I would be happy as a clam. I don’t go out of my way to avoid people of difference but somehow they keep sticking their differences in my face.

        • I support any business’ right to go out of business however they choose. If we are using bakeries as the example, the government has no business even KNOWING who they are or are not selling cakes to. I will never again set foot in a Hobby Lobby, never mind how their self-righteous bigotry plays out. But it is none of the government’s business. But some here are advocating that we allow our personal prejudices to make us throw our firearm rights in the crapper, and that is simply stupid beyond belief.

        • My post above was not supposed to show up here, but significantly down the page. Don’t ask me how that works, I’m pretty sure it’s magic.

      • When Republicans stop gay-bashing, they also stop alienating those who support gay rights or are otherwise NOT anti-gay. It’s not just the actual gay people that may change their mind.

        • That’s the damn truth. Count me in that group. I am willing to discriminate brutally, against the intolerant, which seems to be the fundamental Christian wing of the Republican party.

        • So, Larry, your intolerance is just a better grade than someone else’s intolerance? And I don’t really consider it gay-bashing to say that the government has no business telling me who I have to bake cakes for, do you, Grindstone? That’s a real question, not a rhetorical one.

      • We’re not even talking about “spending time and energy” on recruiting gays here. We’re talking about STOPPING to spend time and energy to tell them to go away because they’re disgusting abominations.

        • I’ve never lifted a finger in opposition to homosexuality. Ignoring them takes absolutely zero effort. I don’t understand that being the definition of hate or intolerance. You people need to read a dictionary.

        • Have you read the article?

          We’re talking here about the recognition of a gay group within GOP. What is easier: just nod and tell them to go ahead, or repeatedly telling them that they should go away?

        • I don’t recognize them as a group. I recognize them as Conservatives. And as long as they vote for the most Conservative Party then I have no issue with them. If you don’t tell me your gay, then how can I discriminate? I don’t need to know who you bed down with and I don’t support laws against it. But put to a vote if I want the institution of marriage extended to same sex couple, I vote no. It’s not because I don’t accept, don’t tolerate, or hate gays. It is just because I respect traditional marriage.
          Here’s a good one for you. My company is in the Fortune top 100. We are so politically correct that I think we invented PC. We offer benefits to domestic partners as long as they are the same sex. Heterosexual partners that share children are not allowed to get these benefits unless they are married.

        • >> It’s not because I don’t accept, don’t tolerate, or hate gays. It is just because I respect traditional marriage.

          “I respect traditional marriage” (alternatively, “I respect family values”, or a few other shibboleths) is basically a roundabout way of saying “I think gays are icky and don’t want to treat them as equal” without actually saying that. There’s simply no rational basis for being anti-gay marriage, at all. Whenever people start talking about it, always, without exception, it boils down to homophobia in the end, either cultural or religious.

          >> Heterosexual partners that share children are not allowed to get these benefits unless they are married.

          It’s a bad policy, if true. Though the badness be somewhat mitigated if your company is in a state which doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage, so for heterosexual couples marriage is always a choice, while for homosexual ones the best they can have is evidence-based (i.e. show evidence of shared living) domestic partnership. Nevertheless, they should offer the same benefits to either couples.

        • Man-man is not equal to man-woman.
          As individuals, we all have the same individual rights.
          Marriage has boundaries, rules, a clear definition.
          Which one of the bill of rights do you think Conservatives are barring a homosexual from participating in?

        • We’re talking about the law and other matters of government here specifically

          If man-man is not equal to man-woman before the law, then it follows that a man is not equal to a woman before the law – i.e. you’re not just homophobic, but also sexist.

        • No it doesn’t work that way. Men and women are equal under the law but not equal under nature. Each man and each woman has inalienable rights. Marriage existed as a natural union that became recognized under the law as it benefited society. If you want to start twisting logic around to meet your agenda then I can argue that a man has the right to have a woman bear his consensually conceived child.

        • >> I don’t recognize them as a group. I recognize them as Conservatives.

          This isn’t about your recognition of them. This is about GOP as a party. It already does have a number of other “interest groups”, so to speak. Explicitly rejecting this one on the basis of what it represents – which is what the party has been doing for a long time – is what requires effort, and is explicitly anti-gay.

        • justa question: what kind of traditional marriage do you respect?

          ‘Cause old testament traditional marriage was chock full ‘o multiple wives, concubines, and sex slaves. I mean, I’m down with all that traditional multiple wives and concubines and sheeit, ‘cepting I don’t have the energy or funds for it.

        • I have to also note that Muslim fundies’ notion of marriage and related things (up to 5 wives per guy, and unlimited concubines, but the latter must be slaves; having sex with a girl is okay as soon as she had her period; woman is subservient to man in every aspect of family life) is much, much closer to traditional marriage as practiced pretty much everywhere before Christianity, and if you remove the polygamy part, also to what was practiced in Europe after Christianity.

          Heck, marriage record books from American colonies have a bunch of records of marriages of 10- and 11-year old girls. And no, the husband’s name was not Muhammad.

        • I could be down with all that muslim polygamy, concubines, beheading infidels, and immolating appstates sheet, ‘cepting I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t eat pork and drink God’s gift of the water of life.

        • “It is just because I respect traditional marriage.”

          Gee, I guess I didn’t copy enough so I can remember the subject. You were explaining why you oppose interracial marriages, right? Or why you support a man’s right to beat a wife who is “uppity”? To conceive children with his daughters, as per the Old Testament? I’m sure it was something like that.

  10. Writing 101: If the reader can’t clearly figure out the topic within the first few sentences you failed.

  11. Well, I was thinking that the relationship between this article and guns was–shall I say “only apparent in the broadest sense”, or shall I just say “tenuous”? But I do find it interesting, gun-rights-wise, that the first “true conservative” disclaimer out of her mouth was support for the 2nd Amendment. It’s almost like support for the 2A is the best indicator of support for individual rights in general. Now where have I heard that before???

  12. I think if I were to find an article on one of the conservative websites bashing gays or gay marriage and change a few words around so they were bashing guns and gun owners, people around here would be outraged at the ‘progressive, liberal drivel’ they were being shown. Consenting adults can do what they want. Period. That includes owning guns. That includes having gay sex.

    Conservatives SHOULD believe in small government. That means less government interference on the range. And less government interference in the bedroom.

    • agreed. some folks say they want less govern,ent intrusion and yet atbthe same time want to use the government tomforce their religious morality on others.

      hypocrisy is a bi-partisan sport.

  13. uh, guns? I don’t care what vagitarians and poofs do in their private lives. And God doesn’t hate sinners, so why would he hate gays. I’d vote for a poof or bulldyke 2nd amendment supporter over a straight nanny-stater any day. So anyway, how about GUNS??

    • ” And God doesn’t hate sinners, so why would he hate gays”

      Right! In fact, if he did not actually LOVE them, why did he create them?

      • it seems inpossible for some Christians to believe that God did not create humans in their current form, despite the evidence that humans evolved. And yet somehow gays just sprang up. Also despite evidence that there is a genetic component to it, that the “gay” gene in populations makes females generally more fertile but sometimes results in, well, gays.

  14. There is no room in the gun culture for traditional values. Killing babies and gerbils in your anus are what we need. Oh and more Satanic rituals at the NRA annual meeting !

    • sure, there is room for traditional values. who said otherwise?

      i practice traitional values in my personal life. i just don’t care what other grownups do in their personal lives.

      • Say hello to the dead babies ! Whoopie !! Chop them up and flush them down the toilet !!! Its everyone’s right !!! Who cares if the gerbils don’t survive? They are just so sexy !!!

        • TommyKnocker, when the drugs wear off and you re-read that word-salad, stream-of-consciousness blather you posted, you might just be embarassed.

    • Ever been to a Satanic ritual? It’s pretty much no different than a bunch of nerds playing D&D. Except that it scares you. Of course, I’d bet that D&D scares you too…

    • >> Killing babies and gerbils in your anus are what we need.

      For the record, I’m firmly opposed to killing babies, gerbils, or anything else in one’s anus. It’s unsanitary.

      >> Oh and more Satanic rituals at the NRA annual meeting !

      Satanists are predominantly pro-gun, so why not?

  15. What I found was that the stop button on the advertisement was disabled. I’ve not seen that before. Also I have my flash player auto-play setting turned off. Looks like the ad people have found a way around that. That being said the gist of the article was indeed designed to generate controversy for those of us who follow Jesus Christ. But then again it IS California, land of the “fruits and nuts”.

    • Is Jesus Christ on record saying anything at all about gays?

      I recall other parts of the bible saying fire and brimstone tyoe of stuff about gays. I recall one of the apostles writing something long after Jesus was gone. I don’t recall reading Jesus himself saying anything on the topic. I do recall Jesus saying in reference to a woman about to be stoned for a sexual sin, “let him without sin throw the first stone”.

      • Actually He is on record. You do recall the provision where He said, “You will not lie with a man as with a woman. That is an abomination”, don’t you? His Father said that. Jesus being consubstantial with the Father, part of the Triune God, the statement is properly attributed to Him. Nice try though.

        • I’m pretty certain that the 613 laws in the old testament were only binding on those they were issued to. Jesus goes on in the New Testament to speak rather ambiguously about both fulfilling the law with a new covenent and yet not relaxing the old law. He clearly overturned some specific old testament laws.

          Jesus never addressed the issue of gays in his speeches, except possibly in the part where he says some men are born as eunuchs, which was a term for gays according to some writers.

          it seems like quite a stretch for some “Christians” to put so much weight on one specific old testament law when they accept that so many old testament laws don’t apply. smells like rationalizing preconceived notions by cherry picking evidence.

        • Are the laws of the OT still valid or are they not? If they are, then I hope you’re not wearing blended fabrics or eating shellfish.

        • You need to spend more time reading the New Testament. Had you done so, you would have read the part where Jesus says that it is not what goes into a man. He, being God, can make those decisions. You folks cannot win this arguement over scripture. There is NO situation in life that has not already been addressed in the Bible.

        • @ Grindstone: The New Testament has plenty to say about homosexual conduct, and truthfully, it isn’t approving. Oddly enough, it also addresses eating shellfish and wearing certain clothes (in short, it says you don’t have to worry about that now).

        • But surely Jesus also had some portion from the little girl daddy raped, didn’t he?

        • It is telling that Mike Crognal ignores the point that Jesus didn’t address homosexuality in his response by saying God in the old testament did. Well, if the old testament is the final word on religion, then we don’t need to listen to what Jesus actually says in the new testament. And Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, Paul did.

          I for one did read the New Testament (long ago), in which Jesus ambiguously fulfills the old testament law, overturning parts of it such as dietary restrictions. The religious catechisms are really squirrelly on this part, because the authorities of the churches want to maintain their rules, so they revert to saying stuff such as “natural law” is still in effect.

          So does the old law on that subject stand or not? And if it does stand, who does it apply to? Because the old testament law only applied to Israelites.

          Don’t patronize others with a sophomoric statement about the scriptures. you don’t even have a clue what the original scriptures said, unless you can read Aramaic and Greek, and also read all of the apocrypha.

        • NT does address homosexuality, yes, but you won’t find Jesus himself saying anything about it. All the parts that say it’s icky come from Paul.

          I also don’t recall Jesus saying anything along the lines of, “all those OT laws are still valid, except for shellfish“.

      • They always want to leave out the rest of the story–the part where Jesus tells the woman, “Since everyone else has sinned, what you did was just fine, keep doing it”–oh, wait, that isn’t what He said, is it?

        • That is what he said, but the men who recorded his sayings refused to write it down, preferring to leave room for intolerant men to rant and rave about things which are not their business.

  16. Government has no business being involved in marriage. Nor determining gun rights or denying those rights unless they are actually in Prison.

    As for what is sinful, violating the laws of G-D? That’s not a secret or hidden. Just read the New Testament.

    Sex out side of marriage, adultery, divorce except in a few limited circumstances, same sex relstionships, etc. Should government make laws making any of these actions against the law? Of course not.

    In the end, if you need a law of man to stop you from acting outside the laws of G-d, then you are in the end a slave to your selfish ego, not a responsible adult that understands that actions have consequences, to not just to yourself, but your people and your culture. Which is why we are in very bad straights since all of these laws and more are now routinely violated, even celebrated.

    This is why as a baptized christian, I am a libertarian. You will either freely surrender your limited and lonely ego to the will of the I Am so that you can be truly free, or you will continue being a slave to your base desires that will in the end, not only debase your soul, by will debase your people and destroy your culture.

    • I agree for the most part ThomasR…I just don’t care to exclude happy folk from the repubicans. Or having guns-which is what this blog should be about. You and I understand that sin is a reproach to any people. I also don’t subdivide sin and evil-no mortal,venial or unforgivable sins(except dying without Jesus). Besides this is just clickbait…

      • I agree Former Water Walker. If someone believes in the second amendment and the un-infringed right to carry a firearm to defend themselves and others from the depredations of predators, whether human or animal, come one and all.

        The problem that I see is that republicans and democrats both want to regulate human behavior by the force of law that should be left to personal choice. It’s all about freedom of choice. G-d gave us the gift of freedom of choice. So when human beings decide to remove freedom of choice between two consenting adults by the force of human law, to me, they are in violation the most important of G-d’s laws.

        Now the other aspect of that freedom of choice is what series of laws do people choose to follow. G-d’s laws which if followed, by free choice of the individual, that builds a strong society, or one based on human desires and the ego, which in the end, destroys cultures.

        There is a reason societies collapse into a dark age. We are seeing it now, to me it is obvious. What built our American culture was following, in as imperfect way as we did, God’s laws. Now that we have rejected G-d’s laws for license to act on any desire, no matter how base, and call it :”freedom”, we are seeing the end result.

        The mass slaughter of the unborn. The growth of one parent families that encourage lawlessness, drug use and a criminal sub-culture responsible for most of our violent crime. The advent of couples no longer having enough children to replace themselves which in a very short amount of time will cause the collapse of our society.

        I am simply sharing what I believe without any attempt to force or use coercion in making anyone follow my belief.

        They are free, to listen with an open mind to what I share, or not.

        • and yet religious societies collapse, too. and they thought they were following God’s laws. Rapa Nui, for example. Or maybe you will claim they were the wrong religion. How about the collapse of much of Europe during the plagued – did they bring than on themselves through ungodliness, or because they didn’t have any understanding of the germ theory of disease and animal vectors?

        • Many hunter gatherer cultures have maintained a continuity for thousands of years that never heard of the Christ or Yaweh.

          Yet the comon theme through most that I have read of is an individual commitment to higher power, a commitment to personal responsibility to the culture once they become an adult which includes being a warrior to defend that culture from enemies and which includes marriage with the intent to raise children.

          Very similar to early Greek culture, Roman culture and American culture. Even in the Greek culture where same sex relationships were the norm for men, they still were expected to get married and raise a family with a woman.

          When these “old fashioned” expectations fall away from the common cultural acceptance, the culture falls into chaos and tyranny.

          Most of the accepted behaviors that the liberal/progressives accept as “freedom”; not believing in a higher power, ;sex outside of marriage, not getting married and having a family, not being a warrior for ones culture would be looked at as an abomination by most hunter/gatherer cultures.

        • Humans are not dying at a pace to keep the population under control any more. If we continue having babies at the ridiculous rates of the past, overpopulation will end up destroying the planet. The population of the world has more than doubled in my lifetime! How many MILLENIA do you suppose the human race can survive at that rate? Or do you think some invisible outer-space magician is going to solve that problem for us?

          We need to start adopting policies to discourage fertility, and the first step is a government which is neutral to the subject.

        • ya lost my support on that one, Larry. we need to encourage SMART, RESPONSIBLE people to have children. our current system encourages deadbeats to crank ’em out in litters, while the brilliant professional mom is too busy to keep up with the “gimmedats”.

  17. This gay gun advocate and NRA member gets awful sick of narrow minded morons like tom spouting his antigay bullshit. I will go out on a limb here and say I probably do more fighting for gun rights than any “gift of God to women” ever will. In this fight to regain our rights we need anyone that can help out…and who cares if they like to decorate? Keep contacting your reps guys and gals!

    • The Taliban and AQ are not just active in the desert countries. We got them here. Only they identify themselves as christians here.

    • John, as a straight old fart, let me say you are welcome in my NRA, you’re welcome in my political party, you’re welcome to live in my neighborhood, and you’re welcome to stand beside me at the voting booth. If I went to church, you would be welcome there, too! Intolerant people just infuriate me.

    • +1000 John.

      And BTW: Sex preference is largely a function of the timing of pre-natal hormonal events. Time the events one way and you get alternate sex preference, time them another way and you get same-sex preference. Being gay is no more or less a lifestyle choice than being straight is. Sociobiologists argue that sex-preference is influenced by population genetics. Mother nature chooses some people to like girls and others to like boys.

      • I’ve always figured that people who say sexual orientation is a choice have to consciously decide to be straight…

    • “In this fight to regain our rights we need anyone that can help out…and who cares if they like to decorate?”

      *APPLAUSE*

      Rejecting the LGBT community is nothing short of political suicide.

      And stupid, to boot.

      WAKE THE FVCK UP, PEOPLE!

  18. Republicans can either grow up and actually move towards smaller government, or they can move further and further to the extreme right and use a bronze-age book as a basis to limit people’s freedom. In addition to their other, non-religious motivations to limit freedom, of course.

    • Redefining marriage is inviting more government intrusion. Leaving marriage alone is not asking for more government intrusion. Your argument against Conservatives is flawed based on this fact.

      • Or, it will be as soon as marriage is “redefined” to include access to zero governmental benefits. Zero. Until then, it must be available to anyone subject to the US Tax Code.

        • I don’t see where a tax break for heterosexual married couples is any different than a tax break for a business that is needed in a certain area. They both help the community. I don’t see the benefit of homosexuals. That’s not intolerance. That is just lack of support. Big difference.

        • So then do you support revoking tax breaks for the sterile, the childfree, and the menopausal, or basically any couple that fails to reproduce?

        • Or, conversely, revoking all laws benefiting any married couples, gay, straight, polygamy, childless or not, to be replaced with laws benefitting couples of some other description, say “blessed by the government” couples, which status cannot be bestowed by, or related to, any church or belief, or lack thereof.

      • Redefining it from what? One man + many wives? One man + wives + concubines? One man + wives + slavegirls?

        My marriage is secular and childfree. In fact, the only difference between my marriage and a gay marriage is our heterosexuality. Should we be barred from marriage as well?

        • So it’s currently ONLY the current definition that matters? Why is that, when it was supposed to be “traditional”? And why can’t a free society accept the marriage of consenting adults?

        • Moslems can have 4 wives. In America, our tax code, etc. only recognizes one. So it’s safe to say that our tradition of marriage recognizes unions of only 2 people. Any argument defining what the sexes of those 2 have to be is discrimination on the basis of sex. Although legal AFAIK (the ERA never passed), very much not PC.

        • well, that tears it. what with no tax breaks for the other 3 wives, no alcohol, and no pork, I’m rescinding my application for admittance!

  19. So………How many people dissolved their union after having their last child, a vasectomy, or entered menopause?

    • I don’t get it. Why would you do that? I’ve been married 48 years, last child 35 years ago, had a vasectomy 30 years ago, wife entered menopause 20 years ago, and I’m asking, why would you do that? What is your post supposed to mean?

      • Aimed at those saying gay marriage is wrong based on biology. Once you’re done breeding, or no longer can, why stay married?

      • I think he’s referring to marriages that are no longer supporting children, you know, the linchpin to the anti-SSM argument.

      • Where is the Gay trail of tears?
        Which fountain is designated “Heterosexual Only”?
        How many gays were enslaved for their sexual orientation?
        When did we amend the Constitution to allow gays the right to vote?
        What schools were segregated keeping gays out of the same schools with heteros?
        What would you describe as a Gay Holocaust?

        Forgive me for not shedding a tear for the plight of the homosexual.

        • You have to be kidding me. Especially with the last question. Or do you seriously not know why pink triangle is an LGBT symbol? Then educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_triangle

          As for the rest of it, given that homosexuality was punished by lengthy prison sentences in most states until 1970s or so (and in some states, up to 1990s in practice, and the laws on the books survived all the way until SCOTUS struck them down as unconstitutional)… well, being in prison is not all that different from being enslaved, it denies one the right to vote, and effectively segregates them from the rest of society. Does that answer your question?

          Oh yes, and the last time someone, somewhere was jailed and fined specifically for homosexual sex in the USA? That’s 2003, in Texas, the case (Lawrence v. Texas) that went all the way to SCOTUS which overturned the law.

        • Well Hitler was an asshole. He Imprisoned people just for living in Poland.
          I’m still not convinced that gays have suffered here in the US nearly as much as other groups. If I was a black man, I would be pissed off every time a gay rights group claimed the same suffering as blacks.

        • I contest that homosexuals have been discriminated against due to the color of their skin rather than their actions. A wise black man said “I can’t look at you and see if you are gay. But you know I am black.”
          It was the gay groups that compared themselves to the civil rights struggles of blacks. I call bullshit.
          Gays have every right that all Americans have. Defense of marriage need not even mention homosexuality. Two heterosexual women does not constitute a legal marriage. As long as Marriage is allowed or denied equally across all races, religions and sexual orientations, and narrowly defined as it is between one man and one woman, it is not unjustly discriminatory.

        • >> As long as Marriage is allowed or denied equally across all races, religions and sexual orientations, and narrowly defined as it is between one man and one woman, it is not unjustly discriminatory.

          Ugh. You have just repeated, almost word for word, the “separate but equal” doctrine. You know, the one that said that separate black and white seats on a bus, or water fountains, are legal, on the grounds that if they provide equal accommodation, segregation is not an issue.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal

          It was also used, ironically, to uphold the laws against miscegenation, on the grounds that interracial marriage was denied equally to whites and blacks, with all punishments etc the same for both.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama

        • Conservatives are not homophobic for wanting marriage to remain between a man an a woman just as they are not racist for opposing amnesty for illegal aliens.
          It has everything to do with what legal marriage is and what legal citizenship is. In other words, Conservatives refuse to recognize marriage based on the sex of the partners, not the sexuality. They also refuse to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants not based on race or nationality but on failure to follow the laws of this country.

        • >> Conservatives are not homophobic for wanting marriage to remain between a man an a woman just as they are not racist for opposing amnesty for illegal aliens.

          You are comparing apples and oranges here. Let me compare apples and apples.

          “Conservatives are not homophobic for wanting marriage to remain between a man an a woman, just as they are not racist for wanting marriage to remain between two people of the same race.”

          Which was totally true back in the 60s, in fact; the conservatives of the day were Southern Democrats, but the rhetoric was exactly the same otherwise. They also cited “family values” and such, and prophesied that interracial marriages would be ruinous for everyone involved. They also used the whole “this is evil socialist anti-morality” argument that’s used against same-sex marriage today (just look at the “butt sex” guy’s comment here).

          Heck, google for some photos from that period. You could literally substitute “race mixing” with “gay marriage” on many of the signs, and it would look like a typical social conservative rally on the subject today.
          http://s51.photobucket.com/user/Chino_Blanco/media/Integration-Protest.jpg.html

  20. So THAT’s what the Log Cabin Republicans are on about. I really need to brush up on my political factions.

    More power to ’em, I say. The bigger the Republican tent gets, the smaller the Democrat tent gets. It’d be better if both tents got smaller and we had a viable constitutional/libertarian national party, but in the meantime I’ll settle for anything that hurts the Democratic party.

  21. hard working politicians? can she be any more naive? oh wait, she’s anti-gun, the very embodiment of naiveness.

    • First sentence in the quote: “I’m a firm believer in the Second Amendment.” Not even a “but” after it. 😉

  22. If you want to discuss a hot political topic that actually intersects with gun rights, how about War on Drugs (yes, again). Here’s some recent food for thought:

    http://www.thestranger.com/features/feature/2015/02/25/21816756/a-stunning-overreach-from-the-dea-is-playing-out-in-eastern-washington

    “During both raids, officers found multiple guns the family says were for hunting and protection. (After all, they live in the middle of nowhere.) A rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol found near the marijuana are now the crux of the government’s case. That’s because, for all the supposed leeway the Feds have given states like Washington in pursuing their legalization experiments, weapons near drug operations are a “bright red line.” Those were the words used by Michael Ormsby, the US Attorney for Eastern Washington, when I interviewed him about this issue last year. (He declined to talk specifically about this case.) The existence of the guns allows the Feds to portray the family as drug traffickers—scheming cartel operators armed with guns to protect their cash crop.”

    Granted, this ended better than I assumed it would
    http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/03/03/21823767/eastern-washington-medical-marijuana-growers-acquitted-on-four-of-five-federal-charges

  23. The question is do homosexuals support the 2nd amendment? I think the answer is no. It was homosexual democrat party politicians who have worked to take away the civil rights of California citizens. The pink pistols are less than one percent of an already minority population group. Butt sex is more important than individual firearms ownership. This is how butt sex socialist think.
    When a racially integrated homosexual couple had their open carry event at a star bucks in Richmond California the gay democrats made it illegal to even open carry an unloaded firearm. The butt sex gun confiscation crowd is the enemy of civil rights.

    • The question is, do the heterosexuals support women suffrage?

      The question is, do white people support the prohibition of slavery?

      The question is, do Christians support freedom of speech?

      The question is, do you realize how retarded your question is? If not, let me give you a clue: about as bad as all the ones above.

    • The question is do homosexuals support the 2nd amendment? I think the answer is no.

      Is this satire? You couldn’t possibly be this naive. This sort of logic is typically reserved for the antis.

      • You are willfully ignorant.

        http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/california-lawmakers-pass-series-of-gun-control-bills/
        -The Assembly passed AB500 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, which requires gun owners to safely store their firearms when someone who lives in the home is prohibited from owning a weapon because of mental illness or a criminal record-
        -The bill also allows for a seven-day extension on the current 10-day waiting period for weapons purchases if the state Department of Justice needs the extra time to complete a background check and requires dealers to notify the justice department when the buyer has taken possession.-
        -“All components of this bill will keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them and ensure our registry system and background checks are working,” Ammiano said on the floor-

  24. She would even be welcomed in my CHURCH..AMERICA needs to get back to the basics of AMERICA..as UNCLE TED N. has said tons of times, GOD,FAMILY,COUNTRY. CONSTITUTION and harvesting PLENTY OF WILD GAME. I DO LOVE the way he puts things in PERSPECTIVE…

  25. California’s problem is the homosexual democrat party Politian’s greed for more and more power over the individual. These racist white homosexuals are only interested in one thing, denying people their civil rights. Tom Ammiano the former policer officer and admitted homosexual turned Politian wrote a bill that jerry brown signed into California law making everyone wait longer to get their permission slip to get a firearm in California.
    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/05/29/california-lawmakers-pass-series-of-gun-control-bills/
    -The Assembly passed AB500 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, which requires gun owners to safely store their firearms when someone who lives in the home is prohibited from owning a weapon because of mental illness or a criminal record-
    -The bill also allows for a seven-day extension on the current 10-day waiting period for weapons purchases if the state Department of Justice needs the extra time to complete a background check and requires dealers to notify the justice department when the buyer has taken possession.-
    -“All components of this bill will keep firearms out of the hands of people who should not have them and ensure our registry system and background checks are working,” Ammiano said on the floor-
    Now a white homosexual man writes a law so a woman being stalked has to wait up to 7 more days for a gun. I was told white liberals believed in choice? This powerful evil white homosexual man will cause many innocent people to be killed or injured because they will not be able to get a gun when they need it the most. And how many homosexuals voted for him just because he was a homosexual? To most homosexuals it’s about acting out in public. It is not about the civil right to possess and bear arms. It is interesting to me that socialist are working to make drugs legal and arms illegal. Washington state and Colorado made pot legal then made guns more difficult to get. Also it seems making homosexual marriage legal is more important than the defending the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. Marriage is not in the constitution the right to keep and bear arms is.

    When a racially integrated homosexual male couple held an open carry event with their children at a Richmond star bucks the reaction by democrat state officials was to ban the open carry of loaded weapons in the state. The morally fit Pink Pistols have been kicked out of gay pride parades. Immoral homosexuals do not support civil rights. Gun rights are civil rights.
    http://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/save-the-pink-pistols/Content?oid=2264667
    Did the homosexual community come out of the closet to support this display of freedom and US constitutional rights? No they did not.
    California has had many displays of free speech using weapons. That is what openly carrying a weapon is. And most socialist do not like it. Many people say Ronald Regan was a racist when he signed the Mulford Act because a group of gun toting black men walked into the capitol building. Openly carrying a firearm in public is free speech. The black panthers were right to protest the local government of Oakland trying to disarm them. I don’t care if Watts burned a few years earlier. Have we not learned from history? Now the democrats have done the same thing and taken away the civil rights of California gun owners.

    http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Handgun-law-riles-activists-they-ll-carry-rifles-2326194.php

    I think white homosexuals in California are afraid of colored people with guns. That’s why they want to restrict guns as much as possible.
    After Katrina the black New Orleans police chief ordered the confiscation of all privately held firearms. He was following the orders of the first female white democrat governor. Now a white homosexual man writes a law so a woman being stalked has to wait up to 7 more days for a gun. I was told white liberals believed in choice? This powerful evil white homosexual man Representative Tom Ammiano will cause many innocent people to be killed or injured because they will not be able to get a gun when they need it the most. And how many homosexuals voted for him just because he was a homosexual? Or like the blacks and self-hating white socialists who voted for a black man for president just because he is black. Will the California republican party give up on the 2nd amendment just to get some votes?

Leave a Reply

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