c Salon

When it comes to which amendments in the Bill of Rights modern liberals support, they’re highly selective. All rights are equal, but some are more equal than others. Especially when they involve scary guns, those inhuman baby murdering machines. Rachel Maddow froths at the mouth and claims the Constitution to be a living document when someone starts talking about gun rights, but as soon as the AP’s phone records get a peek from the FBI, she provides a full throated defense of the first amendment as-written, as if it were a commandment from God above. So naturally, now that a series of posters started springing up in Washington state comparing gun rights to some other personal liberties, the local hippy population is up in arms about the affront to their sensibilities. Salon.com picks up the party line . . .

A new campaign cropping up around Washington state is intended to strike a chord with gay and lesbian gun owners by comparing gun control to anti-LGBT discrimination.

The illustrated posters feature slogans like, “We won our right to marry, now it’s time to defend our right! And we sure as hell aren’t going to take shit from homophobes in the process!” and, “Some people dislike gays. Others dislike guns. We should not base our laws on personal dislikes.” […] The campaign’s origins remain something of a mystery.

I can’t remember where I read it, but there’s a brilliant breakdown of the classic modern lefty response to any argument. It starts with the liberal in question evaluating the status of the speaker; do they have the right background to make the claims they do? It doesn’t matter if what they’re saying is true, or factual, or effective, it only matters if they have the necessary bona fides. A dumb argument by the correct kind of person trumps a logical argument by the wrong type of person. Which is why Salon is so intent on looking at the origin of the poster campaign in question rather than its content.

As for the response to the new ads, I think this comment responding to the article sums up the beliefs of the readers pretty well:

Somebody posted a story on Facebook this morning about an old lady that was shot in the stomach by some guy on a golf course, shooting at squirrels. It really doesn’t matter what that old lady thought about gun control. The bullets don’t ask you whether you want to be part of the national massacre.

What gay people do doesn’t hurt me. It CAN’T hurt me. Even if I morally objected to it, it’s still not hurting me – maybe hurting my sensibilities, but that would be a choice I made, having my sensibilities hurt by something that has nothing to do with me.

Bullets do hurt me. I have a right to have a say so. I have a right not to be around nuts (or, as in so many cases, law abiding citizens) who are going to shoot me.

No, it’s not the same at all.

All gun owners are crazies who only want to shoot recklessly and kill everyone. That’s what they honestly believe. That law abiding citizens are going to shoot them. There’s no probability involved — it will happen. Gay people are nice and peaceful folks, but all gun owners are whack-job nutcases who are bound to go on murdering rampages. Therefore they don’t deserve the benefit of civil rights. Got it?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

134 COMMENTS

    • Exactly! “WE should not base our laws on personal dislkes”, I hope this message actually gets out and reaches some people in the target audience.

    • Good sir,

      This is what is generally referred to as a statement of irony. It is designed to demonstrate the incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result. In general, it is viewed as a humorous statement.

      Best regards (also intended as irony)

  4. There’s a lot of conservatives that are going to hate this ad. But if we expect the United States to stand for liberties, it means liberty for everyone. There are many democrats that hate the fact the government is attempting to restrict access to firearms for law abiding citizens. It’s time we embrace them in this fight.

    Democrats and Republicans disagree on many things, but the vast majority of us agree the constitution is designed to protect all of us from an overwhelming powerful government. Let’s fight together to keep the constitution in tact and knock this out of control government back down to size.

    • +100.

      It’s not a buffet of needs. It’s the bill of rights. Upholding the rights to which you are not favorably disposed is good medicine, a prophylactic against infringing the rest.

        • According to Loving v. Virginia, marriage may very well be a Constitutional right. The limits of Loving have yet to be tested. For example, if marriage is not exclusively between a man and a woman, why not plural marriage?

          FYI, I favor gay marriage, but I do not favor Federal involvement in any way, shape or form, pro or con.

        • “marriage” in this country, as in civil marriage not religious kind, is mostly about getting some tax breaks, employer benefits, and survivor rights to property (also, custody issues if you’ve adopted or had kids).

          If people can investigate what is going on in your bedroom, or your bloodstream, then they can assuredly investigate what is in your gun safe. Why do i care about any of that, and even more importantly, why is it the governments business?

        • True marriage freedom would return it to the churches and end the recent government entanglement.

          But..that would require tax reform, and that’s never gonna happen.

        • I have to disagree with M11_9 that government has only “recently” been involved in marriage, and that it is a religious thing where the government should butt out. Fact is that marriage is and always has been a civil act in which the government, of whatever form, has a keen interest. Property rights, care of children, inheritance rights, all of these legal issues, are tied up in the marriage relationship. The sole involvement of religion was to sanctify and reinforce the relationship with the intent to make it lasting (its for the children), and this from time immemorial, in recognition of the inherent unfaithfulness of humans. Marriage has, among the nobility, been a predominantly political act.

        • Why is it the government’s responsibility to meddle, over and above its role as an impartial arbiter of contracts?

          Government control of marriage, like gun rights infringement, is fundamentally racist.

        • Who is asking? Who decides? The operative term would be CONSENTING ADULTS. Adults may not marry their pets, or their neighbors’ pets; similarly, they may not marry children. Anyone who would challenge this probably needs to be locked up for public safety purposes. These are generally agreed-upon limits.

          My issue has never been with gay marriage; like Gore Vidal, I question the sanity of gays who want to emulate the institutions of straight people. I thought they wanted to embrace their differences. HALF of all marriages today are finished within five years; what is it in this that gay Americans find attractive?

          I think the failures are clearly due to today’s folks’ unreasonable expectations regarding what marriage is, and what it is not. It ain’t always bliss, and people should know that, eyes wide-open, going into such unions. THEIR WILL BE BLOOD. Why is it that gays are so attracted to the institutions of straight people, anyway? Whenever Gore Vidal was asked if he supported gay marriage, he just rolled his eyes and looked as if he were looking for a place to throw up….

    • If the gun community embraced the gay community and we helped each other lobby we would all be a hell of a lot better off.

      • I have been saying this for some time. If Gays want NATIONAL recognition of their right to marry (even if the states disagree), then they need to get behind NATIONAL reciprocity rights, and vice versa.

        • Yeah, how about that? We will demonstrate and march for gay marriage if gays will joint our pro-2A efforts. DEAL?

      • I back gay rights. But I’m not going to do the embracing thing if you don’t mind.

        • I had a great time explaining to my coworkers why I was laughing so hard… Thanks for that. And +1

    • >> There’s a lot of conservatives that are going to hate this ad.

      Why? Are gay people not supposed to own guns? Please explain.

      • I think he is referring to christian conservatives, who are usually the people that come to mind with the term “conservative,” most of whom would certainly dislike this this add as most do not support gay marriage.

        I’ve been called a conservative (usually followed by derogatory term) by anti-gunners because I am firm supporter of gun rights and the right to defend yourself. When actually I’m very “liberal” on most everything else (gay marriage, war, drugs, health care, fiscal policy, workers rights, education, ect…). Its just all too convenient to group people together because they feel a certain way on a single issue.

    • There’s a lot of conservatives that are going to hate this ad.

      I don’t know what your idea of “conservative” is, but it is warped. I think homosexuality is a sin, but I don’t abuse ANYONE. I don’t support denying the protections of our constitution to ANYONE. A more accurate statement is that Liberals are going to hate this ad. As an UN-gay, Christian, extreme conservative, I don’t hate this ad.

    • I am very much a conservative politically as well as a very conservative Evangelical Christian. I read every comment at the Salon. I was horrified that given my stance on gay marriage, I was far more in favor of gay people having the ability to exercise their Constitutional rights and defend their lives than the pro-LGBT posters.

      I wish that groups of Americans that are ripe for abuse would tool up and deal with their wolves.

  5. Heh. A lot of arguments made by gun control supporters (e.g. “if you’re a gun owner, the blood of children on your hands”) are basically the equivalent of blaming gay folks for AIDS during the epidemic of the 1980s. I mentioned this once to an anti-gunner, and was promptly called a bigot homophobe for “bringing gay people into the discussion.”

    • Don’t want to rain on your day but AIDS, like any STD, is a behavioral based disease. The rapid spread of AIDs was a product of gay behavior not some random bolt out of the blue.

      • You’re missing the point. There was a distinct time in the early days of the epidemic when it was believed by many people that the disease was only transmittable between homosexuals, as well as the fact that many religious conservatives believed that the disease was a punishment handed down by God upon the gay community, and therefore blamed those groups for the existence of the disease. Even when it was discovered that the disease could be transmitted by heterosexuals (obviously), there was still a large amount of blame aimed towards the gay community. Still is today, especially in other parts of the world.

        • No, you are missing the point by following the politically correct talking points. In the developed world AIDs is primarily a gay disease. It spread to intravenous drug users and surgical patients through shared needles and blood transfusions. The expected “breakout” to the rest the population never occurred because the sexual practices of heterosexuals are not conducive to spreading the disease. That is an epidemiological fact no amount of political correctness can counter.

        • oh I see. you didn’t like my original comparison because you are part of the “blame gays for AIDS group.” okay, got it now.

        • You are acting like a gun grabber when confronted with the facts. I am putting the responsibility for contracting a behaviorally transmitted disease on those who behave in a manner that causes you to get the disease. When a heterosexual contracts herpes, gonorrhea or syphilis we correctly blame them for their behavior. It is only political correctness that causes you to absolve gay men who contracts AIDS from their behavior. Being politically correct always makes you look foolish.

        • tdiinva:
          no, i think you are missing the point. the early days of the epidemic blamed “gays” and people like Falwell said it was a plague sent by god, it did not blame their their behavior (i.e. lack of safe sex practices). Many conservatives thought only gay people could get it (neglecting the fact that anyone could contract it through unsafe sex).

          Straight people can get it through unsafe sex as with other diseases. You are correct in that you can prevent AIDS through safe sex. Please practice safe sex and safe shooting.

        • Jeff,

          Dont forget that this, in a phrase coined brilliantly by Limbaugh, is the first virus to be granted full civil rights status.

        • dwb:

          While it is true that anybody can get AIDS through unsafe sex practices the fact is the gay male sexual practices have a higher probablity of spreading the disease. Promiscuous hetrosexuals, i.e., “escorts” who are not intravenous drug users have a much lower rates of infection than gay men. Since the pathway for spread of AIDS makes its more likely that the receiver of fluids will contract the disease you would expect that this population would have relatively high rates infections but they don’t. It is very rare for a non-intravenous drug using escort to have AIDS. The population with the lowest AIDS infection rate? Gay women. It isn’t about being gay, it is about behaviors that make the transmission of the disease easier.

          I don’t see anybody bemoaning hetrosexuals contracting STDs and I don’t see why we should give extra support to gay men who contract STDs.

        • OMG tdiinva… The epidemic was started by eating tainted monkey meat, and didn’t just happen because someone was gay. The truth of the matter (as in factual, as in you can research it) is that it hit the gay community especially hard since most gays in the 80s were afraid to self identify, or even talk about the disease out of fear of being ostracized (which they had every reason to fear).. It isn’t the result of them being gay, it was fear of people hurting/shunning them for their sexual preferences… A fear that you seem to reinforce. That the virus seems to be easier to transfer via a certain type of intercourse is unproven at best…

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS#Transmission_from_non-humans_to_humans

        • OMG ripvw32 you are quoting Wikipedia for a policially charged topic. Here is the definitive documentary study of the epidemic.

          “And the Band Played On” by San Francisco based Journalist Randy Shilts. It is the story of first denial and then the exploitation of AIDS by gay activists for the purpose of gaining sympathy from the general populaton.

          Shilts was gay and was ostracised for his idenfication of the promiscuous gay culture that spread the disease. Shilts died of AIDS in 1994. I suggest you consult fact based publications instead of Wikipedia.

      • “You are acting like a gun grabber when confronted with the facts. ”

        Wait a second here. You’re essentially assigning blame to the gay community for the outbreak of AIDS, by claiming that a small number of irresponsible individuals represent the whole group by their actions.

        This sounds eerily familiar to the gun-grabber’s argument.

        Which one sounds more like them at this point? I’m suggesting that we don’t hold the gay community responsible for AIDS, but rather hold the individuals who choose not to practice safe sex.

        This has gotten way out of scope here.. I suspect we won’t agree.

      • Final word to my critics. If you haven’t read Shilts you don’t know squat about the subject.

  7. One should be carefully when drawing moral equivalencies. The Bill of Rights guarantees the Right (some say responsibility) to keep and bear arms. I don’t see how a direct case can be made concerning sexual preference.

    • The Ninth and Tenth Amendments guarantee rights not mentioned. But those two are ignored by most lovers of big government, no matter which team they play for, Blue or Red.

      • I don’t understand why the government needs to take one position or another with regard to sexuality. To me, it seems like homosexuals are only using the brutish force of the government to promote a lifestyle that is very counter-cultural.

        • Since when is getting legally married and raising a family “counter-cultural”?

        • @optimist

          Promoting gay marriage which has never been promoted in the previous 3 millenniums is counter to every culture that has existed in that time. I’d define that as “counter culture”.

          Of coarse to the narcissists today, we’re so much smarter then everyone that lived before us. Uh huh.

  8. Don’t tell newsom theres going to be a purse inspection, they will be all up in, stay with me now, arms. Gun rights are in the constitution, specifically listed, most of the other so called rights need to be interpreted, Randy

  9. As we all know, Progressives support the Bill of Right only when it is convenient. they are happy to use the IRS to attack those groups who use the 1st amendment to oppose them. They attack gun owners, yet they walk around with armed security guards. Heck, Senator Feinstein (D) has a CWP even though she is against common serfs like us for having one.

    • So called “Conservatives” are just as bad. The 4th and 5th Amendments have been gutted in the War on (some) Drugs, usually by “law abiding conservatives”.

      • To be fair, the WoD is a pretty bipartisan affair – even President Choom seems to be escalating it.

        • But “D”-voters hope their guy doesn’t really mean it when he makes fun of weed users. They hope its just pandering to the center, like previous opposition to gay rights in the Clinton-era.

        • Then it’s a funny pander, because while most conservatives and centrists (other than those with libertarian tendencies) likely support the WoD, they aren’t particuarly passionate about it. It’s not a pander that will flip votes.

          Now there is another constituency that is VERY invested in the WoD – government workers, inc. those at places like the FBI, DEA etc. And Obama LOVES government workers.

  10. Why not support both? Why would two completely unrelated things be one-or-the-other?

    Rights for everyone!

  11. Bullets do hurt me. I have a right to have a say so. I have a right not to be around nuts (or, as in so many cases, law abiding citizens) who are going to shoot me.

    An entitlement mentality. It’s one thing to want something e.g. not to be around “nuts.” It’s another thing to imply that it is everyone else’s responsibility to make it so.

    • Or that one has a right to any random thing they come up with. No one really has a right not to be around “nuts”, or to feel “safe”. That’s really all subjective and open to interpretation, anyways.

  12. While this isnt new I guess the attention is?
    Pink Pistols has been around for a very long time. “Armed gays dont get bashed.”
    I’ll never understand why abused and disenfranchised minorities would ever align themselves with the disarmament crowd.

    • Minorities around here do not vote to get their guns taken, they vote other issues & gun grabbing is just a nice side benefit,lol. In my neighborhood I’ll bet 90 percent are armed(white & black) & that includes felons, Randy

      • Absolutely, the bills are pitched as non threatening and the people just like obamao in 2008 saying “we DONT want your guns” who are running for office, just sneak right in.

        Colorado for example, got legalization only to become the most western slave state.

    • The choice in my area is typically between some religious nutjob who is violently anti-gay who supports the 2A, or someone who is in full support of LGBT rights and wants to take everyone’s guns away.

      It’s bad either way, you just have to pick the least bad.

  14. This is one of the great contradictions of most liberals (not all). They’re selective in the rights they support. Nothing was more evident of this when I saw Rob Reiner being interviewed outside of the SCOTUS last month by CNN. For those who don’t know, Reiner is a proponent of marriage equality and was part of a group who filed a lawsuit against the State of California regarding Proposition 8. His argument for gay marriage was identical to ours for gun rights. He even cited a constitutional argument for it. I’m no constitutional scholar, but I’m fairly certain that there is no direct reference to marriage equality in it, but there is a direct reference to the RKBA. What if our Constitution’s Bill of Rights said something to the effect of, “…the right of any two people to marry, shall not be infringed”? Would opponents seek to first ban same-sex couples from marrying citing the Constitution as a “living document”? Then, after a skewed research report comes out regarding interracial marriage and high divorce rates, would opponents seek to ban interracial marriage? This is what happens with the left and gun rights. It is the ultimate hypocrisy.

    VIDEO DELETED

  15. I’m personally against gay marriage. Unless both chicks are hot…
    Was that my outside voice?

  16. I think it is a stereotype from the ’60s that hippies are not into guns. I’ve seen hippie chicks in Portland buying shotguns and snubbies. Hippies that live in the PNW who grow marijuana own ARs.

  17. Good God, is this the level of professionalism required to get a column at one of these rags? They can’t do a basis internet search to clarify who this American “Oleg Volk” is? Nice work Oleg! I thought those photos looked like his shots.

    • Mr. Volk has several RKBA posters on his website that I think are accessible to liberal thinkers. For example, a pregnant woman with a pistol, and the caption “Can’t run. Shouldn’t have to.” And one featuring a wheelchair-bound man carrying (I forget the caption). Perhaps as many of us TTAG readers as possible should emulate this campaign in Washington. Print out the pictures/captions that you think would resonate with middle-of-the-road voters in your community, and start posting and leaving them around. What do you think? Worth a try?

  18. As a pro-2a gay, this is what I have been saying all along. When I joined the RKBA fight, I saw the connection very early on. Civil rights are civil rights. I have seen a good amount of the same insults and rhetoric hurled at gun owners that I have heard toward gays, and as many of the same logical/constitutional arguments in defense. What business does anyone have telling me how to live my own life, if it in no way affects them. Whether its walking down the street holding hands with my partner, carrying a concealed weapon, or both.

    • Optimist Prime, you have my support. But in the name of all that’s decent, holy or cool (whatever your thing may be), keep the Feds out of marriage, or your “friend” today will be your worst nightmare tomorrow.

      The Feds should never regulate marriage. Ever. It’s none of its goddam business. And that includes DOMA, which is yet another Federal overreach.

      • Duly noted, although I never said anything about marriage :). You make an interesting point, and I don’t disagree, but let me put it this way – the Feds (States) shouldn’t regulate CCW either, but there it is. I live in Chicago, IL. Everyone on TTAG is very familiar with the current RKBA fight here. Would it make sense for us to be fighting to abolish ALL CCW laws nationwide, rather than fighting for a good carry bill that brings us in line with the rest of the US?

        • OP, I’m with you. Con Carry is the end game. But we have a loooong way to go before we get there.

          Our first mission is to get the Feds out of the gun regulation business. The Feds have no police power, only the power to regulate commerce. While the definition of commerce might cover the first sale of a gun shipped interstate, how can in cover in-state resale or in-state ownership?

  19. totally agree with this. if the Constitution is good enough to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority on gay marriage and civil rights, then its good enough to protect law abiding citizen’s 2nd amendment rights as well.

  20. Interesting points, but gay marriage is not a weapon I can use to defend my life. Not so with Glock, Smith and Wesson, Ruger, etc.

      • It’s not? Why’d the founding fathers bother to draft them up if they weren’t meant to be used?

  21. To paraphrase; “When they came for the guns, I said nothing- I did not own one; When they came for the smokers- I said nothing I do not smoke; When they came for the sodas- I said nothing I do not drink them; When they came for red meat- I said nothing I do not eat it; When they came for my freedom- I spoke up, but it was too late, they took it and me.” If the LGBT groups are so upset with this ad campaign… perhaps they could compare it to the one they ran to get their “rights.” Maybe, just maybe they can recall the quote about learning from history or repeating it. If they do not they can add “When they came for the Jews- I said nothing I am not Jewish; When they came for the Wiccans- I said nothing I am not pagan; When they came for the Catholics- I said nothing I am not Catholic; When they came for the gays- there was no one left to speak for me.”

  22. I can see the fire and brimstone falling, did we not just have a twister in OK. look for more tornados /hurricanes/tsunamis/earthquakes , fact is we have seen nothing yet!Also look for a iron curtain (communism) to descend on Amerika !!

  23. Nice charm bracelet. I think it’s upside down though.
    Me noticing her jewelry doesn’t make me gay, not that there’s anything wrong with that…..

    There is one significant difference, we choose to be people of the gun. The only people that choose to be gay are those that are secretly bi, but choose their gay side over their straight side. I know, I’m being facetious, sorta.

  24. I’ve always used this logic. It almost makes their heads blow when you drop it on them.

    I always mention that they sound as bad as those that say gays cause hurricanes and will lead to men marrying toasters and whatnot. Blows their statist minds.

    • Gives my morning ritual with the office cofffee pot a whole new twist… thanks a lot!

  25. This ad is just needlessly offensive and irrational. Sure, I am sure there are gun grabbers and people who “don’t like gays” (whatever that means) that are acting, not on reason, but personal emotional response.

    There are also those who aren’t, again on both issues. Gay marriage is condemned by many gays even, e.g. And support of it is often a form of statism, something libertarians seem to blind themselves too. See, from my mind, the state doesn’t have the power to define marriage, it pre-exists the state. And I don’t believe in gay marriage any more than square circles. And to legally recognize non-reality? “If parliament should pass a law saying the earth is flat, shall it make it flat if it be round?” I am not talking about regulating personal actions, or outlawing sodomy, I am talking about the statist assumption that the state defines reality. Or the equally flawed individualist assumption that the individual does.

  26. This is a real tough call for me. I do not oppose gay marriege. I believe it, like owning a gun, is a civil right that cannot be denied by the state. We also have the issue of plural marriege. My wife is a mormon, I am not. My wife has brought up the issue of a second wife for me. My wife is turned off by the thought of gay marriege but she’s beginning to at least warm to supporting the idea as a way to re introduce plural marriege to America.

    My biggest problem with gay marriege is the lack of reciprecol support amongst gays for my 2a rights. Rachel Maddow is a good case. A gay woman with a national audience and she won’t support 2a rights and speaks against them.

    Do I vote in favor of gay marriege even though the leading lights of the gay community will not support my rights?

    The last time the issue of gay marriege came in front of voters in California I voted against it out of a sense of anger for the lack of support for my 2a rights. It was not an easy choice to make, but I felt I had to make a statement.

    • They’re not yours or my rights. They belong to EVERYONE. To deny someone their rights because others of their kind disagree with you is selfish and vindictive.

      I don’t seek to limit people’s freedom of religion because they’re against me. I fully support their right to believe what they want.

      Second amendment restrictions are wrong.
      First amendment restrictions are wrong.
      Fourteenth Amendment restrictions are wrong.

      As a gun owning gay it infuriates me to no end to hear that argument.

      • AM, the 800 pound gorilla in the room is the desire for me, a straight gun owner to support gay maariage when the talking heads of the gay movement are trying to take my gun owning rights away from me.

        Do I do the noble thing and lose my gun rights while supporting the rights of those engaged in taking my rights?

        What’s the answer here?

        • >> Do I do the noble thing and lose my gun rights while supporting the rights of those engaged in taking my rights?

          Your losing or not losing your gun rights is not connected to them losing or not losing their rights in any way. And you were not voting on candidates (where the logic of “I’m voting for their rights and against mine” at least makes sense), but rather on a single very specific issue. The only reason to vote against it is out of spite. It’s not even a meaningful political statement, it’s just increasing overall misery for the sake of everyone’s rights being trampled “equally”.

    • @jwm, let’s not confuse the right of gays to do what they want among themselves on the one hand and gay marriage on the other. Any law that says gays can’t boink each other is an outrage. But while I fully support gay marriage, marriage itself has been a state-chartered legal relationship (similar to a corporation or LLC) for almost as long as there have been governments.

      In the US, marriage is controlled by the states, not by the feds. So while I think that Kali’s Prop 8 was wrong to do, I don’t think that it’s unconstitutional. States are allowed to decide who can be married. For example, in some states that includes first cousins; in others, they are excluded. Why? Are first cousins in some states less likely to pass on bad genes?

      In some states people cannot be married without parental consent until they’re 18; in other states, younger. Why? Are the kids in the younger states more mature?

      In no states are plural marriages of three or more people recognized. Why not? Is there something magical in the number two?

      On the other hand, the Federal DOMA is patently unconstitutional in that it infringes on powers that have always been the domain of the states.

      • I guess what I’m getting at is I want to see a show of support from the talking heads that support gay rights for my rights to own and carry a gun. For that statement of support I will gladly vote in support of gay rights.

        • You will never get it from the talking heads of the gay rights movement. Just as we will not see an endorsement of gay rights from the prominent talking heads of the pro-gun movement. They are both entrenched political figures with a party platform to pander to.

          No, any collaboration on this will have to be grassroots. And one part of it would, ideally, be throwing those talking heads out, on both sides of the fence.

  27. stole this quote but:

    In a free society, homesexuals can not only be married, they can defend their marijuana fields with fully automatic weapons.

  28. Marriage, historically speaking, has been more of a business proposal between two families than a coupling of two individuals. Think Dowries, land exchanges, familial growth and expansion. From this perspective, the government does have a significant part to play when the business proposal and all the resulting exchanges of material wealth occur, to step in and oversee negotiations of amicable division of accrued wealth in the absence of a contract outlining ownership shares. It is much like any business partnership where two parties come together, draft a contract, then move to dissolve that contract. The biggest difference is that the only contract involved in marriage is one identifying the existence of the partnership (marriage license, for the taxes, and maybe the children!tm) but not necessarily how assets are to be divided once the partnership is dissolved. If the government did not have this role, too many lawyers would go hungry. If it saves just one… Nope. Just can’t reach that low for sarcasm.

    • Lets see:
      “the government does have a significant part to play when the business proposal and all the resulting exchanges of material wealth occur, to step in and oversee negotiations of amicable division of accrued wealth in the absence of a contract outlining ownership shares”

      … that’s a fancy way of stating: “the people running the kleptocracy want their cut, (even though it’s none of their damned buisness) and they can back it with force”

  29. Id of though the homo’s would be wearing barrier protection rather than running off to grab tools of The Man.

  30. It’s too bad that a person’s sexual orientation defines them. If that’s what you like in the bedroom then so be it, but to have to be classified as a different group of people is beyond me. Last I checked we were all created male and female. That’s where it should end.

    At least she has her Eotech on the right way.

  31. I know some will not like this but gay people were always viewed as a security risk , same as drug users , their medical condition list them as someone that can be used or turned because of this , same as gays in military, combat etc is not the place to be burning about sex (that becomes their only control factor etc.)same for drug users . That is why all the world knows this and has viewed it the same in all history…Sin is sin ……….the Creator of all says you are in revolt, and your life will not go well for you or society…. YES THEIR is TRUTH…and God or even me does not hate you … We want the best for all…

    • Gay people were historically viewed as a “security risk” simply because being gay was illegal, so the threat of outing someone who’s gay was a very effective form of blackmail. It doesn’t work when it’s not illegal anymore.

      And as for the religious angle, keep it to your church. US is a secular republic with a wall of separation between church and state, and its laws should not be rooted in religious mores.

      • It’s now about some church group, or personal views ,,, TRUTH is TRUTH, all answer to God , You are a rebel against all CREATION, all HISTORY, All MEDICAL learning,and I feel so sorry as you are already living in HELL… REPENT and turn around… A sick person needs help!

    • Gay people don’t “always burn about sex” any more than straight people do. Stereotypes are bad (You’d think that, being a member of an absurdly stereotyped group, i.e. a gun enthusiast, that would be obvious). Being gay isn’t even close to being a drug addict. It’s just a sexual orientation (one that would be precisely the same as being straight socially, were it not for centuries of persecution, legal and religious both).

      And as others have said, that religious angle doesn’t belong in any discussion of government policy.

  32. Keep the Democrats out of my wallet and the Republicans out of my bedroom and I’ll be free. Free to defend myself, to sleep with whom I choose, to ingest what I see fit into my body, to spend what I earn…free. I hope I live to see the day.

  33. Some people baffle me. No death penalty but pro abortion? I would gladly give up the death of a criminal for the life of an innocent child. All or nothing. I am very conservative but the article makes a good point. We can’t criticize so much.

  34. I was wondering when this kind of comparison was going to come up. Where I live it’s easier to declare you’re gay than it is to declare that you’re a gun owner. The former is practically a fashion statement. Declaring the latter puts you at risk for derision and vilification. Not much different than being gay in a gay-unfriendly area.

  35. Actually, the first amendment does not protect the press from an inquisitive justice system. I just guarantees their right to print what they like without censorship.

    Kind of like the second amendment doesn’t protect you from the justice system if you hold up a liquor store. It just guarantees your right to keep and bear arms. If you hold up a liquor store, it’s the hold-up that is supposed to be the basis of any prosecution, rather than the means.

    The press is open to investigation after the fact if they do something abusive of the rights of others.

  36. Being both pro-gun and pro-gay rights, this ad made me laugh for several straight minutes. Going to share this with some pro-gay anti-gun rights people I know… They’re normally fairly reasonable, this might even turn on a few lightbulbs!

    P.S. I’ve never actually argued the position, so I don’t know if they’re casual “well I heard guns were bad” people, or dyed in the wool kool-aid drinkers.

Comments are closed.