Previous Post
Next Post

Picture courtesy

An old question asks “How does the ACLU count to ten?”  The answer: “1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.”  And so it seems does every other organization that purports to be about protecting civil rights. To them, even though “all men are created equal,” all Amendments aren’t. They want to make sure that every underrepresented group gets every protection they’re entitled to, Constitutionally speaking — except those those the Second guarantees. So some of these groups are taking matters into their own hands. One result? Every homophobe’s worst nightmare: gays with guns . . .

LGBT gun groups have been around for years but they’re gaining credibility within the gay community after the cold-blooded murder of Mark Carson in New York City and similar hate crimes.  In “Gays with Guns: A Growing Subculture?” Shaun Knittel states “it would seem that the number of gays owning guns and being vocal about their Second Amendment rights is growing.”

“Big Gay Al” sums up this movement on his “Big Gay (Gun) Blog:

I have to wonder, if this [gay bashing in NYC] would be going on, IF NYC didn’t have such strict gun control laws.  Mayor Bloomberg would have everyone believe that only the police and the military need firearms.  Yet, Gays are getting pounded on more often now, than in the recent past.

Any time I’ve had a conversation with some anti-gun fanatic, and I ask them, “What should I do if I’m attacked?” their stock answer is, “Call the police.”  Like that’s gonna keep me from getting my brains bashed in.  I have to wonder, do they live in the “real” world, where the police usually show up AFTER the damage is done, or what.

I have a Michigan Concealed Pistol License, and I carry every day.  And even though, I can carry concealed, I’ve jumped on the Open Carry bandwagon, and you know what, no one has attacked me yet.  Now some might suggest it’s my size.  I stand 6 feet 2 inches tall, and I weigh about 270 pounds.  Yet others will suggest it’s the nickel plated .45 automatic pistol that I carry.  I like to think it’s my charming manner that keeps people friendly toward me.

In any event, everyone in the LGBT community should take a hint, protect yourself.  Do whatever you have to, to stay alive.

One of the biggest (and most vocal) pro-2A organizations in the LGBT community is Pink Pistols, which Knittel reports is now up to 60 chapters in 33 states. Their mission is stated clearly on their web site:

We teach queers to shoot. Then we teach others that we have done so. Armed queers don’t get bashed… You don’t have to be gay to join us, any more than you have to be Black to support civil rights, or be Jewish to support the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). We include members from the GLBT, Polyamarous, and BDSM communities, but you don’t need to be gay or have an alternative sexuality to join and shoot with us. We like to say that we are FOR the sexual minority community, but not exclusively OF it. We welcome anybody.

Gays with Guns isn’t a formal organization like Pink Pistols, but rather a web site with resources for promoting the Second Amendment rights and firearm ownership within the LGBT community. They include a link to Dean Garrison’s excellent essay “If they Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?” and a link to reddit’s list of DGU incidents.  From the web site:

Gays With Guns is not about classifying people as different –it’s about reaching out to a minority demographic who might not be viewed as pro 2nd Amendment. We believe the 2nd is vitally important to our nation, our civil liberties; self-defense and our peace of mind.

We, The People of the Gun, agree with you wholeheartedly and welcome you to the cause with open arms.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Good, we welcome every single peaceable citizen to the fold. Every demographic we break into is a major victory, it weakens the fake them vs us image the media tries to put forward.

  2. Margaret and I are armed. Even though we feel pretty safe, we want the additional protection a gun provides.

    Plus, they’re hella fun to shoot. 😉

    • Bekka –

      Love you sister… if you are in Houston I hope to run into you and Maggie at the pub of choice, and if we wind up at your place I would love to see you strip a .45. (rude dudes should leave now – I really mean I like gay chicks with guns… worse, I like gay guys with guns.) Everyone should be empowered. I grew up with guns, much later I learned that some of my favorite friends were gay, and I was glad to learn they were armed. If you are a target of violent, hateful discrimination… heavy caliber, center of mass, all that stuff.. explain it to the cops. At least in Houston, the cops will understand. If you are a potential target of hate crimes, especially because of the way you were made… get a gun (lots of guns) and learn to use them as a reflex. Just seen too many “should have had a gun” crimes against gay friends and neighbors.

      • Heavens, no. Not center of mass; that leaves the brain to continue to give the body orders whilst everything is shutting down. Too much possibility that the attacker will continue to attack even as they bleed out. No, I prefer a headshot. Take out the computer, everything stops then and there.

        • Rebecca you must be a very very good shooter. I am not as confident and will continue to aim center of mass to ensure a hit. COM is a bigger target. Do not shoot to kill, shoot to stop the threat.
          Mostly, continue to carry.

  3. Nice. Glad to see TTAG recognizing another group that spoils the media’s stereotypes of who is a gun owner.

    I’m neither gay or in Michigan, but welcome to the community!

    • You have not watching the site long enough if you think this is the first article.

      Past TTAG post have focused on
      – LGBT gun owners
      – Jewish gun owners
      – Black gun owners
      – Hispanic gun owners with plenty of coverage on what is happening in Mexico
      – Women gun owners

      OFWG are not enough for the gun rights fight. The anti-gun groups believe it is only OFWG especially rednecks or edumacated types who only own guns.

      We need a gun owners quilt to show how diverse the group happens to be.

      I just hope the LBGT groups vote for their gun rights come election day.

  4. While I enjoy naked women way too much to worry about the other team, I heartily encourage all people to defend themselves, not rely on .gov to protect you.

  5. I met up with a couple dudes from the Pink Pistols at the range this weekend. Great guys, great taste in guns, and they were even nice enough to invite me over for their barbeque today. It was awesome. Not only was the food fantastic, but at least 2/3rds of the people there were carrying. And three quarters of them were carrying fabulously!
    It was funny, they all echoed kinda what I had been thinking all day, and that was that the 2nd Amendment should really be top of the list for gay activists. As one guy put it, “what the hell good is being able to get married if I get ‘hate-crimed’ to death in the church parking lot??”

  6. The gay community had a lot to do with nanny Bloomberg getting elected the first time.. So the complaint against him rings hollowly. Never the less I welcome them to the ranks of 2A defenders.

      • Google is your friend. Take a look at the groups that contributed to his first run for mayor and also who campaigned for him.

        • He ran a slick campaign. It’s likely that a lot of his past supporters, er, won’t.

  7. Awesome, good for them! Everyone deserves the right to protect themselves. I have always wondered why the 2A didn’t play a bigger role in their community.

    I wonder who fears them more? The progressive MSM or homophobes?

    My sick twisted humor found this part of his blog funny.

    Yet, Gays are getting pounded on more often now, than in the recent past.

    I thought, don’t they like getting pounded? Of course not meaning the physical abuse type of pounding. He probably could have chosen a better word.

  8. Things like this give me hope for this country. The more people take the “live and let live” attitude, the better off we’ll be. The desire to control every minute detail of the lives of others is fundamentally un-American.

  9. Some gays get the vapors at the mere thought of a gun. Some carry every day. In that way, they’re just like everyone else. And since “everyone else” is the demographic we need to persuade, I’m happy to have the Pink Pistols and others packing. But still — I’m sorry to say this — masses of gays will always vote Liberal Democrat, and they’re the very people who want to disarm everyone, facilitating gay-bashing. It’s a suicidal loop, and gays are stuck in it.

    Here’s a tip to our gay bothers and sisters. Instead of voting for those who pander to you while stripping your defenses, vote for people who will just leave you the fvck alone. You’ll be better off.

    • Until the politicians who generally honor the second amendment don’t pander to America’s Taliban, that won’t happen.

      We the People are better than swinging with hot-button issues. At least, I home We are.

    • Maybe if the GOP would stop being utterly homophobic they’d have a choice. As it is the Dems have gone hard left while the GOP has gone hard right. There really is no middle ground anymore.

      • I didn’t hear Mitt Romney say one anti-gay word. Get real. Being pro-traditional Christian marriage doesn’t automatically mean homophobe. What a bunch of nonsense.

        • >> Being pro-traditional Christian marriage doesn’t automatically mean homophobe.

          It does if you want to push that pro-traditional Christian marriage on the rest of the country. No-one is demanding that churches marry gays. The debate is solely about the secular, state-mandated definition of marriage, and that has nothing to do with churches (except that they’re actively trying to place themselves into the position to define what it should be).

        • int,

          Bullshit. Those who are pro gay marriage want you to be forced to accept their way of life. Any church that declines to marry them will be sued to death by the ACLU et all. The only thing currently stopping such things are the fact that gay marriage is not legally accepted. Some folks on either side will live and let live. Another couple will join the most conservative Christian church available and attempt to force that church to marry them just to prove a point.

          A charity Catholic non-profit adoption agency was shut down because they did not want to serve a gay couple. Instead of the couple moving on, they were given an ultimatum by the government to serve the gay couple or be shut down. They chose to shut themselves down. The same thing is happening again in Colorado and Illinois.

          If those who support gay marriage are so tolerant, why would they force adoption agencies to be shut down? Why wouldn’t they do the same thing to churches who would not marry them?

        • >> Bullshit. Those who are pro gay marriage want you to be forced to accept their way of life. Any church that declines to marry them will be sued to death by the ACLU et all. The only thing currently stopping such things are the fact that gay marriage is not legally accepted.

          Judging by the above, you have exactly zero knowledge about the actual position of ACLU on the subject, as well as what the Constitution says about this. Hint: separation of Church and state works both ways.

          >> A charity Catholic non-profit adoption agency was shut down because they did not want to serve a gay couple.

          They were sued in their capacity as an adoption agency, not as a church. Being religion-backed does not absolve you from rules and regulations that apply to everyone else in that area. A public store run by Nation of Islam cannot refuse to serve white customers, even though their religion claims that any such are the spawn of devil. This case is exactly the same. And, in any case, what does it have to do with gay marriage?

          >> If those who support gay marriage are so tolerant, why would they force adoption agencies to be shut down? Why wouldn’t they do the same thing to churches who would not marry them?

          I’ve yet to meet a gay person who wanted to be married in a church. But, in any case, churches are organizations with private membership, and as such are not subject to limitations applied to public services.

        • The government cannot wait to meddle in private organization affairs. The same politicians who want to prohibit private gun sales will gladly wrap their tentacles into private affairs.

    • >> But still — I’m sorry to say this — masses of gays will always vote Liberal Democrat

      They will only vote for that party for as long as that party is the only one that consistently makes their rights as gays one of the cornerstones of its platform. But there’s nothing precluding Republicans from embracing the same, and then they’d get a part of that vote proportional to the overall country-wide split.

      • One of the rights of gays is to be able to defend themselves. The Dems have no part in that.

        Gay people are going to have to decide whether or not they want to be able to walk tall, or die like mice.

        • There are pro-gun Dems, you know.

          And what good is a gun to a gay if his orientation is illegal, a felony punished by many years of prison as it was only two decades ago in many states? Is he going to use his handgun to resist the cops when they arrive?

      • And this is my problem with both parties, but espeically the Democrats: They pander to groups rights.

        Groups should not have “rights”, only individuals.

        Gay Marriage? great idea, let’s do it under the 14th amendment: Any laws that say relationships consisting of only 1 man and 1 women can be recognized for tax purposes, insurance requirements, whatever, is unconstitutional.

        • Groups have rights insofar as they consist of individuals who have rights. You can’t deny a group right without denying it to the individuals (or denying their right to form groups). The only difference between D and R party platforms on this subject is which rights they choose to deny, to groups and individuals alike.

          The real problem is that two parties is way too few, and it results in really weird amalgamations of party positions. There is really no rational reason as to why gun rights should be lumped together with pro-choice, or gay bashing with laissez-faire economic policies, or state-funded welfare with open doors policy on immigration. Ideally, there should be many more parties covering various combinations of points on this spectrum. In practice, though, you have to pick on the basis of which party happens to support the rights you consider more important without trampling on too many other rights.

          It’s a sucky choice to have, but that’s what it’ll be for as long as the current first-past-the-post electoral system remains in place – and it will remain because neither of the big parties want it to change, since it will disadvantage both of them.

        • My Point was that our mangled system here in the US has gone at most things the wrong way. As an example, this concept of special interests group defined by happenstance (gay/straight male/female African/European/whatever decent). I am putting forward the concept that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was not say “It’s not fair, we need add/carve out/mangle the law to fit this group”, rather it was to say “this law does not treat all individuals equally, it has to go”.

          As to the difference between D and R, you are correct. Personally, I hope and dream every day that the Republican party will go the Whig way and the Libertarian can step in (yeah, I know its futile, but I have to hang on to something to stomach the morning culling of news). If it were D and L, the fight would be about Baby, and not where to cut it.

        • I’m not libertarian personally (leaning left on economics), but I would welcome Libertarians in political discourse. There are many matters on which it would inject the much-needed safety.

          Personally, if I had to pick a third party that most closely mirrors my beliefs, it would be the Modern Whigs.

        • That’s kind of my hope for the Republican party as well, Barbicane.

          I’m split on issues between the parties because of the aforementioned focus on special interest groups, and unless something changes I’ve decided to go single-issue-voter in coming elections.

          Having a party-backed Libertarian candidate (or anyone who supported individual rights and less government interference in the business of life) would be better a better option.

  10. Many of those who treat Leviticus as a salad bar, from which to pick and choose, are dismayed when others cherry pick the Constitution.

    Away with both, or at least with their power to legislate.

    If the political right would split up with the religious wrong, the political landscape would be a lot less hazardous to the Bill of Rights.

    • Russ,

      If you took the time you would find both the Old Testament and New Testament clearly spell out God’s view of GLBT actions. Gun ownership is not a left/right, gay/straight or Christian/secular issue, it’s a choice on the individual level.

  11. Ya know… I have to admit- I’m not gay. I don’t know if I have gay friends… I don’t ask what my co-workers orientations are… I don’t really “support” gays, in the sence that I don’t actively campaign for gays.
    Having said all that- I really don’t care what orientation someone is. If they find consensual love, good for them. I’m happy that they’re happy. As for being armed- I think every law abiding citizen should be able to choose for themselfs to go forth armed or not.
    I am very glad that someone is helping these targeted minority groups gain the skills and equipment to defend themselves.
    Hopefully the gun community at large can understand that if we help these citizens (strip all other tags away, what they do is their choice and non of our buisness), if we help these citizens an welcome them to the gun owning community we will have gained people who will help defend all of our rights, and as a bonus, we’ve helped someone who is likely to be targeted, have the opertunity to defend themselves, possibly saving a life.
    And there’s really no better thing, then helping to possibly save a life.

    • I agree. And I don’t see anything different on a daily basis. Contrary to the Progressive nonsense, nobody really gives a $hit about people’s love lives.

      • So DOMA, numerous state-level amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage, “don’t ask – don’t tell” etc were all just figments of our collective Progressive imagination?

    • +1. Glad to see gay groups helping more folk become wise gun owners. Its a public safety benefit to the larger society that they can defend themselves, and their rights.

      And serve as another example of how the typical Alinskyite “bitter clinger” slurs from the faux “uniter-in-chief” proves he and other progressives are in truth just power-hungry fascists who pretend to know whats best for everyone else.

  12. Excellent. I stand with any individual that stands shoulder to shoulder with me in defense of our God given rights.

  13. This is great. It’s also great to see the 2nd Amendment bringing more and more Americans together from unlikely backgrounds. A preacherman from Alabama, a lobstah man from Maine and a software junkie from Seattle may not agree on much, but if they can come together and accept each other in the name of the 2nd Amendment? We will be unstoppable.

  14. A citizen is a citizen. A Right is a Right. A Wrong is anything that tries to cancel either one of these Facts.

    Rack-it & Pack-it!

    Live or Die,
    Be Free!

  15. I wonder if “I’m gay” counts as a “good reason” in CA and Co.

    …Who am I kidding?

  16. Not really covering any new ground in saying that the traditionalist in me doesn’t quite approve, but the libertarian in me recognizes it’s none of my damned business and the realist in me understands that my approval isn’t necessary for anyone else to live their lives anyway, so the first guy’s outvoted.

    Welcome, Gays with Guns; there’s always room for more under the big tent of gun rights. Plus, I think “Bash this.” would be an awesome slogan for your group. But that’s just, like, my opinion, man.

  17. “Yet, Gays are getting pounded on more often now, than in the recent past.” I’m a little drunk but will restrain myself 🙂

    Think about it. Pistol packing pole smokers…and the ONLY reason I’m pissed at the the rug muchers is they lick more qiff than I do.

    Only in America….God bless America. Trigger control has no sexual orientation..

  18. Thats got to be a toughie for the libs, how to come down on a protected group whilst still supporting them, hahaha, I love it when a plan gets torn apart. Go get em Big Al, Randy

  19. I ran the Pink Pistols contingent in the Long Beach Pride Parade this year. Most of our people couldn’t make it, so it was a small group; 7 of us carrying a banner, some props, and a bunch of huge rainbow Gasden flags.

    The crowd of thousands was overwhelmingly supportive, waving and screaming and cheering their heads off.

    Not bad for 7 people, 4 of which (inc. me) were straight. 😉

  20. Hi, I am a gay gun owner!

    really though, as shocking as it is to Liberals that the gay gun owners like myself don’t support their agenda or share their views.. I was always confused as to why us fags are slowly being held up on a pedestal. Seems like more and more media organizations are making a big deal about gay gun owners and to me its like.. Is it really about the guns? Or is it about being gay?

    • They don’t know how to handle you, and their coverage shows their confusion. The media has a love affair with gays and gay rights, but they abhor guns. They quite literally don’t know what to do, because they can’t figure out how to put their standard negative slant on the guns without some of it splashing onto you, and they can’t let that happen.

      • I’m surprised by this because in the media’s eyes if you’re a gun owner you’re also a POS… Gay or straight.

        • The MSM hasn’t even begun to mention gay gun owners, because it would completely break every stereotype they’ve built into the system that promotes their agenda. Look at what happened to Collin Noir.. He apparently wasn’t black enough. If I ever get popular with gun rights, I’d probably not be gay enough (Despite being with my partner since I was 17)

          Anything to discredit their opponents, really.

  21. Anybody here with a southern accent should read the opening line of the Pink Pistols out loud. Its just really funny to here.

  22. I’m glad the response here is overwhelmingly positive. The right to self defense is a HUMAN right, period. So IMO all other arguments are moot. I may disagree with your politics, religion etc., but I can never rightfully deny that you have a right to effectively defend yourself.

    As a firearms and concealed carry instructor I’m always looking to reach out to anyone and everyone who wishes to be prepared if trouble finds them. Minorities of any kind need to know that the vast majority of gun owners are more than willing to help them prepare.

  23. I hope that gays who value their Second Amendment rights (as it is written in the Bill of Rights) will become one-issue voters.

    • This is probably the toughest choice for me, really.. But I’ve decidedly and consistantly voted Libertarian in hopes that they can make a breakthrough and become the new centrist party. They support gun rights as well as gay rights.

      • I don’t see how Libertarians can be the centrist party with their economic platform – I mean, they’re right of the Republicans on that.

        We really need two more parties – the social libertarian version of both Dems (left-leaning on economics), and libertarians proper (right-leaning on economics).

        • It’s tough to say either or, but I think a third party needs to step in so we can rope in the far left and the far right and bring ourselves back to the middle.

  24. I welcome any and all groups and individuals to the gun lobby. My “wishful thinking” would be that rather than convert gays to vote anything but hard left, but to rather have enough passionate voters calling and bombarding EVERY office, from hard left to hard right, to protect 2A rights.

    All but the most anti-gun of anti-gunners will shut up and vote the correct way on gun rights if they know their voter base/their continued employment depends on it.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if nobody from any side of the political spectrum was trying to ban guns?

    I know, it’s a dream that will likely never happen. But you have to start somewhere….

  25. I’ve heard of some of these such organizations, including Pink Pistols here in Houston; but I have to say I’m not really a fan of the idea. I think it’s great that individuals are making smart decisions about their personal safety and security and exercising the Second Amendment rights. I also do see some benefit in demythologizing the ridiculous over-the-top caricatures of gun owners which the gun grabbers promiscuously propagate.

    Nevertheless, I find distasteful in general the endless enmeshing of one’s race, class, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and so forth with unrelated concepts like nationality, occupation, politics, and vocations in some stilted, hyphenated self-identifying label. It isn’t the Glock Straight Sport Shooting Foundation, after all. It’s just guns and fun and open to everyone. So why must irrelevant aspects of people’s lives be hamhandedly strapped on to the hobby?

    • Ordinarily, I’d agree. But seeing how stubbornly the news and entertainment media try to stereotype all gun owners as old, white, racist, homophobic rednecks who want children to die in mass shootings, I’m for anything that pushes back against their bullshit. Racial and sexual minorities need to stand up and be counted to show John Q. Public how wrong the Piers Morgans and Michael Moores of the world are.

  26. what would be your view if sensible immigrants started to carry guns to defend themselves from hate crimes?

    • Do you mean “sensible” as in “legal”? Most states already allow immigrants to carry, and some do (though it does irk some right-wingers, who don’t seem to comprehend the meaning of “people” in 2A).

Comments are closed.