Previous Post
Next Post

Reader Aaron writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous Post
Next Post


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Jim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Oh, so you say:

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

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

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

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


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

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

    • Bingo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Hard to square that circle, for some.

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

      • Oh boy! Tell me more Mr. Peabody!

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

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

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

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

  3. Welcome to identity politics and collectivist bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Dasa Devildog,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Great ideas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      I support the 2nd Amendment, but….

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

          But even if it were a disorder, so what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Blinky,

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

        • I said the paper was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • @BlinkyPete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Welcome to Denial-Town! Population Billy Jean!

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

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

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


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

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

      • NSB,

        You’ve never heard of the book Heather Has Two Mommies? You’re going to deny the effort that has been made to normalize homosexuality? Seinfeld’s “Not that there’s anything wrong with that”, Will and Grace’s Karen Walker and Jack McFarland, and Modern Family’s Cameron and Mitchell are examples of the efforts to normalize homosexuality. Bret Easton Ellis discusses the efforts here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Aww, I’m blushing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  26. Excellent write up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

          —Robert A. Heinlein

      • You beat me to it.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  36. Why confuse the issue with a discussion of sexual orientation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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