Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: The NRA Has a Stronghold On Congress">Previous Post
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: No Contradiction Between 2A Support and Background Checks">Next Post


“The consensus was that we needed to call out, shame, and demonize the gun lobby in the same way that ACT Up drew attention to drug makers that were doing nothing during the AIDS epidemic. Our approach had to be very theatrical, very public, very confrontational, and very embarrassing—calling out the bad actors, the people who were making this mass shooting environment possible.” – Tim Murphy in Armed queers don’t get bashed: Meet America’s loud, proud, and pro-gun LGBT movement [via]


Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: The NRA Has a Stronghold On Congress">Previous Post
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: No Contradiction Between 2A Support and Background Checks">Next Post


  1. Q: What stops a mass shooting?

    A: Killing the mass shooter.

    Therefore, a “mass shooting environment” is one in which the mass shooter cannot be killed before completing his or her goal.

    Preaching to the choir, I know.

    • My guess would be that he was formerly part of an organization against guns, but later saw the light and changed his ways. Notice he speaks about the organization in the past tense.

      • It took your comment and a second read to catch that. I was confused as well… The first time around I was trying to figure out how what he said would have the context of being pro-gun LGBT, and all I could guess was that he was suggesting that some gun makers weren’t proactive enough in arming gays. Which still doesn’t make sense, but whatever.
        Thanks for pointing it out.

      • The short paragraph for this post does not provide adequate attribution for the quoted statements. I had to read almost the entire source article to understand:
        (1) The organization Gays Against Guns promotes demonizing the “gun lobby”.
        (2) The organization Pink Pistols promotes firearm ownership for self-defense.

        • No, you just had to read basically ANY of the underlying article to understand it, as it’s clear and consistent throughout. But what if you did gave to read the entire article? That’s the foundation for the discussion!

          You’re whining because you didn’t do your assigned reading homework before coming to class and participating in the discussion? You simply read this quote and the title of the original article, which seemed contradictory, then you belched on the blog your cognitive dissonance. No wonder your posts are usually off target and underinformed.

          The original article focuses on various gay people’s response to violent crime. Some tooled up on their own. Some did so and joined a group of similarly motivated defenders. The quote above represents another approach, more typical and at odds with the the armed resistance option. Presenting a counterpoint is just part of good journalism.

        • Jonathan,

          Yes, you finally figured me out: I am an underinformed, ignorant, incoherent person who is incapable of advancing any worthwhile ideas. Thus you should categorically discount the substance of all of my comments, since stupid (that’s me), crazy (me too), or corrupt (got me there as well) people are unworthy of any consideration. (Reference Ben Shapiro describing this favorite tactic of Progressives.)

          I wish you the best of luck explaining to others how a person’s inalienable right to life and self-defense is actually subject to countless, arbitrary conditions.

          Meanwhile, I will stick to my stupid, crazy, and corrupt idea that human life is sacred and our right to life and self-defense is inalienable, period.

  2. That tactic has worked well in pushing successfully every other agenda of the liberal/regressives; except for convincing people that owning a gun cannot actually protect a person from the actions of evil men.

    And that really frightens the statist worshipers, because the final move to have complete control of all aspects of ones life can’t be fulfilled if the people can resist with firearms.

    • Also, consider that 2/3 of Americans think political correctness is detrimental to free speech according to recent polls. The SJW types can still routinely shout university administrators into submission, but the effectiveness of that tactic may be waning more generally.

      • But only for as long as the administrators of the various ‘authorities’ remain paralyzed by fear. The minute some of those ‘authorities’, wise up, wake up, and get some sanity back, the SJWs winning(up to this point) strategy of shutting up all vioces that disagree with them will begin to fail instantly. Because the fear will change from; fear of merely being accused, into ridicule of the baseless and insipid accusations of the retarded.
        Its already started with youtubers like Sargon(this week in stupid) and suchlike. A big focus now on censoring such voices, but at this point the censorship helps instead of hurts. There comes a point in propaganda when it ceases to reinforce the prevailing ignorance as desired, but instead sends those who would be lulled back into slumber by it, screaming in the other direction.
        That’s the point the major media is at now. They are unable to figure out why more of the same as what they have always done, now has the opposite effect. They are trapped by their own propaganda into now running themselves completely into the ground. They are in the process of showing just how irrelevant they really are…..

  3. The LGBT community should be welcomed to the gun community. Not just because they’re human beings who have every right to defend themselves, but because it would punch a huge hole in the partisan wall that would allow gun culture to flow into the “other side.”

    • My favorite LGS is owned by a gay man who is VERY active in the local gun community. He does a lot to break stereotypes in whatever way he can.

    • Ummm, no one has said that anyone, even from the LGBT community, cannot be part of any “gun community”. Every person, no matter race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, has the inalienable right to bear arms for self defense. Which would automatically make them part of the POTG.

      • That’s true.
        But if you were a homosexual man and you saw a pro-gun rights community filled with right-wing republicans and conservative Christians – the people who have opposed changing the definition of marriage, then you might be understandably uneasy about joining said community.

        • So if one has demonstrated that the central part of your life is “bad choices” and a degenerate lifestyle, you must always and ever after self-discriminate and reject association with normal Americans?

          I’m pretty sure if a queer were to attend most any Appleseed, meeting of constitutionalists, county Republican meeting, or Christian bible study group and eliminated PDA of degenerate behavior, NO ONE would care about sexual orientation. Just act like a normal human and leave it in the closet. Guess what, same as a normal male/female type.

          How would the people around you would know/discover your sexual orientation unless you found a need to hit them in the face with it? In a public group discussing marksmanship, Federalist 10, yard signs, or 1 Corinthians 9:15 why would you need to bring up what dysfunctional things you do with your pecker? No difference than a normal heterosexual. If you have the need to violate the normal social conventions of a civilized group, then you are the no class twit and deserve whatever reaction you receive.

        • Thank you. That was my point. I wasn’t referring to simply the ability of a gay person to purchase a gun, I was referring to a gay person being accepted by other people in the gun community, without being belittled or subjected to homophobic remarks (which is not uncommon) that would otherwise turn them off to gun culture.

        • Right wing Christian here. What gays need to understand, along with some RWC’s like me, is that all constitutional freedom loving people are welcome in the POTG “club”. We can agree to disagree about politics, religion, and sexual orientstion but we can all agree that self defense and the 2A is a universal human right. Focus on what we have in common and leave the differences behind. This is how we beat the anti’s.

        • By “changing the definition of marriage”, you really mean a whole host of things far beyond marriage itself. Summing up immense social change, imposing new obligations on others, and trampling on other people’s rights to religion, free expression and freedom of association as merely “changing the definition of marriage” is beyond disingenuous. It’s fraudulent.

          As for their supposedly feeling uncomfortable around peaceful, civilized people who happen to hold different political and religious views……well, good golly, Miss Molly! Guess it’s time for the gay mafia to start practicing some of that lovey dovey diversity B.S. they’ve been preaching, huh?

          Do they freak out when they go to the library and someone else is reading a book they don’t like? Ideas are ideas. Actions are actions. There’s a difference.

        • It’s got nothing to do with guns.

          ‘the people opposed to the changing of the definition of marriage’ ??? Your words, not mine, but exactly. Don’t change the definition of marriage.

          If you took a Venn Diagram with only one set (circle full) of People (and called it “ALL PEOPLE”) and took a 10% (if I’m being overly generous) crescent slice of the right hand side of that and called it “Non-Heterosexual People” (because I don’t want to be offended), and a 30% (if I’m being conservative) crescent shaped slice out of the far right hand side and called it “Married People”. The rest (60%) would be “Unmarried Hetero & Non-Hetero People”. Then you could say that [A (small fraction of) SQUIGGLY PENCIL-LINES WIDTH OF PEOPLE WITHIN THE] Non-Heterosexual People want the set of ALL PEOPLE to discriminate against ALL PEOPLE enough for there to be a set of people created called “Married People”, then they want to be included in the set of Married People, EVEN THOUGH (BY THE DEFINITION THAT CREATED THE SET OF “Married People”) MORE PEOPLE IN THE 60% EXCLUDED SET OF “Unmarried Hetero & Non-Hetero People” QUALIFY. And the set of “Married People” was not created by Society TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE. It arose from human interaction that blessed pairings of people (whose pairings blessed Society) THAT CHOSE TO EXCLUDE THEMSELVES, FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THEIR PAIR.

          That’s why you have hyphenated “gay-marriage”. The (perhaps sad for you) part of that is that will remain as long as the efforts of one group, in pursuing a desired mate, conflict with the goals of another. I can’t see the end of that one.
          No heterosexual will benefit in their efforts of finding a permanent mate from being confused (by another) of being homosexual, and vice-versa. So they have to ensure differentiation, and they HAVE TO DEMAND INEQUALITY in other’s discernment of them. Attempts at creating a “me too, we’re all alike” get 1000% push-back. And no label of bigotry will stick to that. You can double check the argument by inverting it. You have ZERO people out there attempting to equate their “heterosexual marriage” with that of a “gay” one. That is because what that marriage is, is immutable, and stands on its own. If homosexual marriage offered something “better”, then Society would be kicking its door down to get it, AND THAT IS JUST NOT SO !

          Funny how those pushing for “gay-marriage” aren’t pushing for it (those seeking those unions) to offer Society anything of intrinsic value, just that Society slap a label of approval as “equally valued”.

        • So let’s get that right, a gay person won’t join a dedicated group of conservatives and christians that defends the right of all people, regardless of race, religion, creed or sexual orientation, to defend thier lives from being assaulted, raped or murdererd by common street predators, or from being committed genocide against by predators in government; because those conservative christians believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

          Those same conservatives and christians also generally believe in eliminating GFZ’s , which would have allowed the LGBT community to defend itself in Orlando Pulse club from the Islamic fundumentalist from committing mass murder against thier community.

          Sorry, Curtiss in IL. I think any LGBT person would seriously need to examine thier priorities, if the question of whether marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman; keeps them from being a blood soaked victim bleeding out in some back alley or dance stage, or keeps them from being tortured and then beheaded on You-Tube by an Islamic fundumentalist.

        • And if you are a homosexual white male of European heritage, and you look around and you are being personally demonized by people you thought were on your side…

          You can’t put all people in the same box.

    • There are always exceptions, but as far as I can see, people of all sexual orientations ARE welcomed in the community of gun owners. I think that’s a reflection of changing views more generally, rather than gun owners in particular.

    • The gun community is first about individuality and personal responsibility. Anyone can join, because that’s just you doing your thing, and nobody can keep anyone else out.

      In the case of homosexuals, however, I expect you’ll find that, anomalies aside, the vast majority of them are liberals. They’ll use their new found love of guns to give themselves extra street cred when they vote democrat, who will promptly

      • ” Anyone can join, because that’s just you doing your thing, and nobody can keep anyone else out.”


        It’s beyond laughable how some folks use the phrase “join the gun community” like this is some kind of club you have to know the secret handshake to get into at meetings.

        Good grief, that’s lame.

        To “join the gun community,” all you have to do is own a gun, or at least NOT oppose the ownership of guns.

        What is with the “regulation mindset” that seems to promulgate this notion that use OFWG’s are standing at the gates keeping people out? That kind of thinking is directly the result of years of leftist/Statist indoctrination.

        The most strident anti-homosexual person on this blog or elsewhere would say homosexuals should not be legally allowed to own guns. They might gripe about their lifestyle, but crap. Folks gripe about everything.

        There is precisely NOTHING stopping any homosexual from “joining the gun community” except their OWN hoplophobia.

    • On a related note:
      Just sold a Remington R51 to a lesbian couple last night!
      They had a wonderful time trying out damn near everything in the cases before settling on the Remington and thanked me profusely for taking so much time to show them the gun, features, proper grips, stances, ammo… the whole nine yards.
      As they were leaving with their purchase, they remarked that they had been largely brushed off at other gun stores and hadn’t expected to find one that would treat them like, well, people.
      “Awesome,” I said to the more reluctantly gun-shy member of the pair, “when you come back we’ll work on picking another out for you next!”

  4. Thank you. That was my point. I wasn’t referring to simply the ability of a gay person to purchase a gun, I was referring to a gay person being accepted by other people in the gun community, without being belittled or subjected to homophobic remarks (which is not uncommon) that would otherwise turn them off to gun culture.

  5. “very theatrical, very public, very confrontational, and very embarrassing—calling out the bad actors, the people who were making this mass shooting environment possible.”

    Somehow I doubt they’ll take this tactic to the South side of Chicago and instead take it to the safest, whitest suburb they can find, the home of zero shooting, for their protests.

  6. He and those of his ilk are no better than “Jews for Resettlement to the East” or “Blacks for Lynching”.

    He might as well fly the ISIS flag and start pushing other gays off of buildings.

  7. The Murphy article started out fair and balanced and turned into an anti-self defense screed.

    And to be clear, the quote featured above was by an anti-gun GAGer, not the Pink Pistols. The PP is solidly, stalwartly pro-self defense.

  8. Luca Bridgman:

    Before then I was an extremely anti-gun person,” Bridgman says, but the experience changed his mind. “At that point, I made a decision. I could continue to live this way, obey the law, and call the police—or I could protect myself.”

    Spoken like someone who has ‘been there’ and learned something from the experience.

  9. Homosexuals are socialist progressive in their political orientation. They have always relied on government force to get what they wanted. Simply trying to persuade people to their way of thinking does not occur to them.
    Perhaps they don’t have the confidence to make their case.
    Having guns is the ultimate expression of independent and individual humanity. Today’s homosexuals believe in government dependency. They don’t believe in personal responsibility.

    Harvey Milk said he had a gun and everyone else should have one too. The Log Cabin Republicans rejected dependency on government for everyone not just themselves.

    The homosexual ACT UP group was based on Adolf Hitlers book Mien Kampf. The founders stated this in the Sacramento Bee in 1994.
    They are nazi homosexuals. Ernst Rohm the SA chief would be very proud of them.
    It was the SA that confiscated Jewish guns in Germany.

  10. “Homosexuals are socialist progressive in their political orientation.”

    Try this one: “Kentuckians are addicted to Oxycontin.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here