Previous Post
Next Post


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

Previous Post
Next Post


    • I’m riled. Speaking of belts, I love my belt from The Beltman out of Apex, NC. I could hang the family bible from it and a few copies from the Gideons. It’s just that sturdy.

        • I’ve found the best belt for carry to be one picked up from walmart for about 10 bucks. It’s a standard work man style belt, its leather but also backed by the material (cant think of what its called) thats used for most tool belts. Been using it to carry a multitude of different ways everyday for over two years now and its still in great shape.

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

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

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

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

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

        • @Grindstone

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

        • @publius:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Basically, that argument holds exactly zero water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        Why do straight guys watch so much gay porn?

        In any case – Ron White says it best:

    • This has everything and nothing to do with guns.

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

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

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

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

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

      • Michael,

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

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

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

        • Shoot!

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

          Happy shooting, Michael.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • Or Muslim. Or crazy stuff like NoI.

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

      • hooray for false equivalancy!

        You want an ar-15? you support massacers!

        (this has been a false equivalency)

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

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

  2. Think big picture guys and gals.

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

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

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

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

        But no, it’s just random crap.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Because banning SSM is a right denied and we should be concerned about any denied rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          J: So what then, is sodomy preferable?

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

          Because it sure sounds like her.

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

      Yippee! Somebody gets it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • First off, I haven’t been to college since I was enlisted. Second, how exactly am I wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • No, but you can out-Libertarian them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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