As you may have noticed, we here at TTAG are big believers in individual rights. All of them. As we have said many times (in one way or another), we want to live to see that day that homosexual married couples defend their legal marijuana plantations with machine guns. Civil rights aren’t mutually exclusive — you actually can be pro-gun and pro gay marriage at the same time. Unless, apparently, you want to attend the Capitol City Pride Parade in Olympia Washington. In that case, event organizers will demand that you leave your evil (legally owned and carried) guns at home because they cause psychological damage to others . . .

From the video’s description:

On Saturday, June 20th of 2015, the organization Capital City pride took up residence in Downtown Olympia in the state of Washington. The posted video is a first hand look at how the organization claims to stand for equal rights for all, even saying so on many items of merchandise sold and given away all during the event.

A group of 4 community members tried to enter the public event going on with their assorted weapons and gear on their bodies. All of the weapons had loaded magazines and clear chambers. As the Second Amendments states, citizens of the United States right to bear arms shall not be infringed. As the group attempts to peaceably enter the event and partake in the festivities, the Capital City pride staff blocked the entrance and told the group of 4 to go away because they “Do not feel safe with people with guns around” even though they were there to support and defend the rights of the people.

This blatant act of discrimination should not be allowed. They cannot be taken seriously as an organization that is all for rights and equality if they block the entrance to a public area based on what a person is wearing, or what they look like. They are more willing to hate on somebody exercising their civil rights that are guaranteed by the constitution to further make sure that their own feelings aren’t hurt. This type of hypocritical behavior is a prime example as to why groups like these aren’t taken seriously.

Open carry can provoke this kind of intolerance from some people. And from the video it seems like this reaction was exactly what the group was hoping to achieve. It’s the firearms equivalent of chanting “We’re here, we’re queer, get over it!” An in-your-face approach to force acceptance. Not everyone will react positively to that strategy. So who’s on the wrong side of history here?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

263 COMMENTS

    • What’s jumped the shark is this notion that, in the real world, in the face of armed aggressors, a marginalized, fringe or minority group’s best defense isn’t an armed one.

      There’s a point where nonviolent admonishment being the only response is nothing but self sacrifice for zero gain.

      In the growing light of firearm stigmatization even at the cost of lives – which was so recently highlighted in S.C., – this is entirely relevant – even if some people “don’t wanna hear about the gays” and would rather read more boring ammo penetration tests than engage in the sometimes uncomfortable discourse around protecting our natural right to self defense.

      • “this is entirely relevant – even if some people “don’t wanna hear about the gays” and would rather read more boring ammo penetration tests than engage in the sometimes uncomfortable discourse around protecting our natural right to self defense.”

        http://i.imgur.com/8HhL3M5.gif

      • I would not say that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, more Conditional.
        If you don’t support my Right to Defend my life, then I don’t give a damn about ANY of your rights.

        f you don’t support my gun rights, then I will fight and vote and lobby against your gay rights and your same-sex marriage.

        Put in a simpler way, if you don’t support my Gun Rights, I don’t support your Gay rights.

        But even if you did support my gun rights, does not necessarily mean that I will support your gay rights.

        I

        • So… If you can’t have ONE of your rights, you’ll vote to take away another persons other rights?

          Did you ever think that the other person is doing the same thing? “Gosh if the government tells me I can’t wed the person I want (tax benefits and otherwise), then I’ll just vote to get rid of all other rights.”

        • Why do YOU care so much about what other people are doing in absence of you?

          I’ve never understood why people seem to care so much about fighting gay rights. If you’re not gay, why fight against it? it’s literally no loss to you. you don’t have to agree with it, but it will never affect you whether you agree with them or not, so why not let them have the same rights as everyone else (as they should have)?

        • While I do support your gun rights, that just sounds like petty schoolyard vengefulness.

      • I have an FB friend I knew from an all-male academy in the Bronx. He was a 6′ tall badass Irishman who loved big guns, fast cars and loud rock and roll. Now she’s a 6′ tall badass Irish chick in CA who still loves big guns, fast cars (builds them too) and loud rock and roll. WHAT changed? Nothing that matters to me I couldn’t care less.

        Nicki is a mover and shaker in CalGuns and the Pink Pistols. She rallied a lot of support to thwart the city of San Fran from shutting their ONLY legal gun shop a few years ago. Count you allies by their actions not lifestyles.

        Ray

        • Out standing. The hard lefties show their true colors.

          It kind of reminds me of a story told by a former Mass. State Trooper. Three punks tried to roll a gay Merchant Seaman in a Boston Park. He was 6’6″ and all male. Up shot of the story is that the punks were beaten to a pulp with one having his head stuffed into a urinal. As the Seaman was led away he said. “I may be queer but I’m no pansy.”

          I guess the TTAG want to leave their people unprotected and afraid.

    • I dunno about jumping the shark yet, but pushing the idea that if you favor 2nd Amendment rights therefore you should also be in line with the gay rights movement is definitely getting there.

      • He did NOT say that. He said they’re not mutually exclusive. Saying they aren’t mutually exclusive is not in any way saying that they’re conjoined.

      • What was implied is that people can do what they want in their own domicile so long as it doesn’t mess with anyone else.

        Not that you have to “support” anyone you don’t want to.

      • Please explain to me how TTAG explaining ITS viewpoint implies that YOU should agree with said viewpoint? After reading and re-reading the first few sentences – and the entire article – I still can’t make that connection. I don’t want to speak for Michelle, but I believe we’d both appreciate your clarification.

        • No, you’re right, I’m waiting for further clarification as well.

          He says it was “strongly implied” in the first few sentences. Strangely, I read “We here at TTAG”…”We want”, versus the “You should” or “You ought to” that NS must have seen.

      • If the government is allowed to control something so personal as who we decide to wed, then what makes you think they’ll stop there?

        • The government controls what marriages it considers legitimate for its purposes. That’s what’s at issue. Probate, spousal privilege, power of attorney, hospital visitation, child custody, marriage dissolution procedures, including property disposition, and so on and so forth. There are governmental actions taken with consideration of marital status constantly. What gay people are asking for is the right to have their relationships included in those considerations. If a celebutant can meet a random stranger in Vegas and they can get married after knowing each other for 45 minutes, then why is that a more legitimate relationship that a couple that’s been committed to each other for 45 years?

      • I find it odd that him and that guy Paul went missing for the longest time, now they both come back out of no where. Was a better atmosphere when they were gone.

    • Wrong! Gay rights or gun rights, they’re Human Rights! Don’t dismiss a potential ally just because you’re not comfortable with their practices. Try to open your heart as well as your mind to the possibilities of a Gay/Straight Pro-Gun/Pro-Liberty movement!

    • There is a civil right to gay marriage? How about three gay people getting married–who are we to judge? How about marriage of siblings–modern reproductive medicine can sidestep the genetic problems. Father-daughter too. Where does is all stop? Not with two unrelated gays getting married, I can confidently say. [PETA may be able to protect other species, but don’t bet on it.]

      My guess is that Nick did not think his throwaway line through. He is merely parroting what the cool kids are saying.

      • Two men living together doing whatever with each other is none of my business. But it is not a marriage. Each has the same rights that I have and should be protected. But marriage is not something they can do because by definition it is between one man and one woman. Put an afro wig on Taylor Swift and she does not become Gladys Knight. A car with two missing wheels does not become a bicycle. You have to have chicken to make a chicken salad. Society defines marriage, individuals don’t. We set age restrictions on marriage. We do not allow incestual marriage. We don’t support forced marriage. What we do is simply define marriage and same sex couples do not fit the criteria. It is not anti gay to hold this position. I have friends and relatives who are gay and have attended a “wedding” between my wife’s cousin and her girlfriend. Gays as individuals are fine with me. I don’t like the “gay movement” because it is a leftist movement. They have a political agenda that involves more than the redefining of marriage.

      • How does the government have authority that anyone should seek their permission to marry? Do we live in a theocracy? Marriage is a private contract principally between consenting adults, often including the religious authority they personally choose to involve. I’m a straight man and I find it offensive that if/when I were to marry a woman I would be pressured to register my marriage with the government.

        I’m also not buying that consenting to two (or three!) adult homos seeking the benefits and protections of legal marriage for their committed relationship is going to lead to the legalization of parents marrying and raping their own children, as I hear from opponents of gay marriage envisioning a slippery slope. There’s no evidence of a nascent incestuous and pedophilic marriage movement waiting in the wings for gay marriage to win over the country. It certainly would have emerged by now, since gay marriage already has become the law of the land in most of the USA. I have a hard time imagining that in my lifetime incestuous marriage will become a popular social cause championed by the Democrats. Incest remains a strong universal taboo, no matter your political persuasion.

        • The only reason the government is involved with marriage is because there are different tax and health insurance criteria with both for married people. Ryan Anderson spells it out pretty clearly in a few talks. If you don’t care about tax or health insurance benefits you can “marry” anyone or anything or any multiple of anyones or anythings you want, but it will not be recognized by the government. Gay marriage does not fit the definition of marriage and has no proven societal benefit, although research is extremely limited at this point. If someone wants the benefits of marriage they have to have a marriage. I may want the benefits of an LLC, but if I don’t meet the requirements and never apply with the government I don’t get the benefits, no matter how much I call it a right.

      • >> There is a civil right to gay marriage? How about three gay people getting married–who are we to judge? How about marriage of siblings–modern reproductive medicine can sidestep the genetic problems. Father-daughter too. Where does is all stop? Not with two unrelated gays getting married, I can confidently say.

        Supposing that all of the above happens in practice (and everyone involved can and does give consent) – why should you care?

        • Because it is hijacking the definition of marriage. As a heterosexual, read normal, married man, I don’t want my union with my better half to be trivialized by a tiny group of alternative lifestyle activists. Just like if I were black and had fought against racism in the 1960s, I would be outraged at the gay political mob claiming what they are doing is just like the race struggles of that time. BULLSHIT!

          • If a group of gay men can so easily “trivialize” your marriage by calling their union a marriage as well, perhaps your marriage is just built on a very shaky ground? I’m heterosexual and married, and I don’t see how and why the way other people get married affects my marriage in the slightest.

            • It is the institution of marriage that is under attack, not mine personally. But I want to be part of that institution. I want it to be held in high regard that it deserves. The dismantling of this institution is unnecessary and harmful for societal norms going forward. To simplify the argument, we made marriage and we defined it so you can’t have it or change it’s meaning. Is it an exclusive club? Yes. It is ours and you don’t belong in it. Sorry. Start your own club.

              • >> But I want to be part of that institution. I want it to be held in high regard that it deserves.

                So you want to force other people to have a certain opinion of that institution, is that right?

                >> So simplify the argument, we made marriage and we defined it so you can’t have it or change it’s meaning. Is it an exclusive club? Yes. It is ours and you don’t belong in it.

                Who’s “we”?

              • Marriage has been many different things over the course of history. If you’re so into the roots, and you want marriage as it “always has been”, then you should also endorse common law marriage (historically, marriages were not registered by the states nor officiated by priests), polygamy, and child marriage (colonial marriage records have plenty of 10-12 year old girls as brides). Oh, and no miscegenation, that abomination has been banned for centuries until those liberal hippies legalized it a mere 60 years ago.

              • Yes and I think we improved marriage. It took some arguing to make it happen and we are arguing again. Just understand, you are the one trying to change it now. Not me.

    • Agreed. I can exercise my right to keep and bear arms all day long and not involve, entangle or encumber anyone else whatsoever.

      Counterfeit marriage, aka so-called “gay marriage”, is not a right at all. It imposes an enormous set of burdens on other people and cannot simply be exercised in isolation. It’s the biggest fraud in decades, and a great many otherwise wise people have been hoodwinked into supporting it.

      • “It imposes an enormous set of burdens on other people and cannot simply be exercised in isolation.”

        Do tell how two strangers in a committed relationship getting married somehow effects you?

      • Care to elaborate? I don’t see how two men or two women deciding to marry imposes any undue burden on you or I. Simply saying that it does does not make it so.

        • In fact its quite the opposite. The absence of a Gay Right of Marriage inflicts such couples with many legal and financial burdens, the absence of which Hetero Married couples take for granted.

        • Absolutely it does, and I don’t understand how anyone that looks at this topic from a logical standpoint could dispute that. The only people that have a problem with gay and lesbian marriage seem to be the ones who can’t put their finger on exactly why they have a problem with it other than it makes them uncomfortable.

          • Great argument! Because you can use that one universally.

            The only people that have a problem with ISIS beheading Christians and gays, seem to be the ones who can’t put their finger on exactly why they have a problem with it other than it makes them uncomfortable.

              • The only reason why anything can be wrong is if it directly causes physical or economical harm to someone who did not consent to it. Murder obviously causes harm. What harm is caused by two gays marrying?

              • >> What about assisted suicide? That is consensual. But also wrong.

                What about it? It’s consensual, and therefore not wrong, obviously.

                What’s the difference between assisted suicide and regular kind? Do you also think the latter is always wrong? Do you want to criminalize it?

              • Suicide has not been illegal in any US state since 1990s. But are you saying that you support the laws that existed before that (some of which punished it by execution, no less)?

              • So you are cool with suicide? I have no use for you or talking to you any longer. It has been determined at this point who the compassionate one is. I take it you support abortion as well. We have nothing more to say. Good day.

              • I am not “in favor” of suicide or abortion, but, naturally, I support the right of any sane person to do with their body as they see fit – including suicide and abortion.

                It’s very telling, though, that you believe that you own other people’s lives to the point where you’d use the force of law and the power of state to force them to live even if they don’t want to, and punish them if they try to escape your clutches. So freedom-loving of you.

        • @Michael,

          Patently absurd comparison. The beheadees are opposed to it because it kills them. Other concerned people have a problem with it because it’s murder.

          Now, your issue with gay marriage compares to this HOW?

          It doesn’t, and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking at a third grade level in public.

    • LGBT people need firearms and training even more than heterosexuals. With the level of violence, ignorance, and hatred directed their way, LGBT people need an effective means to protect their lives in the threat of grave bodily harm or death.

      It does matter.

  3. … but it’s perfectly fine to adopt a symbol of the horrors of Nazi concentration camps as a symbol of the gay pride movement? No psychological harm there, none at all.

      • He means the pink triangle, which Nazis have used to identify homosexual inmates in their concentration camp.

        Then again, they have also used the Star of David to identify Jews. So what now, should they stop using it, too? The group itself using such a symbol, considering its history, is basically just a manifestation of defiance. “You tried to kill us all, yet here we are, and we’re not afraid to be open about it”.

  4. This is important. We need vocal minorities on our side, particularly in the news like this.

    I hope the irony makes large waves.

  5. “…So who’s on the wrong side of history here?”

    Without more specifics I am going to go with the group asking the people leave being in the wrong.

    If someone were to tell this group “we don’t want your kind here” there would be such howling and screaming. But when they say it to some other group its OK because we should respect their opinions and decisions.

    Not to oversimplify too much …. you are for rights or you are not. If you want to pick and choose which rights are OK and which aren’t then you can’t really complain when the decision winds up against your rights.

    • You can believe in whatever you want….as long as it coincides with what I do. Otherwise you are wrong and evil. And now that every single idiot has a voice through social media, we will use our collective bigotry (but not bigotry since we’re right and your wrong) to destroy your career and any hope for a peaceful future.

      • I am so going to steal that! I’ve got a couple of other conversations I am involved in currently that this would sum up perfectly!

  7. Man oh man. After seeing all the catholic-bashing a few posts back, I expect things are gonna get ugly in the comments here on this one, real quick.

    • Which Nick mentioned, are not necessarily conjoined notions.

      A lot of gay people carry. Maybe it’s just my part of the country, but I don’t know any who don’t.

      After being assaulted a few times, it’s no longer an academic issue.

    • I find the problematic underlying point of view is statism, liberal or conservative. I honestly believe that if statism was dropped from the equation, liberals and conservatives could live comfortably together in a free society.

      (I freely acknowledge progressives tend to be more anti-gun than those more towards the right. However, the extreme right typically embraces privilege in the place of actual exercise of the RKBA.)

  9. The “we have a right to feel safe” chant and the “you are carrying a weapon of death” statement were pathetic.

    • “we have a right to feel safe” No where is “feeling” protected under any law that I’m aware of, so candy pants woman who started that stupid chant only has the right to leave if she is uncomfortable. Forgive me, but i just want to smack anyone who says “I feel” What happened to “I think”?

    • “We’ll help you BE safe” and “We’re carring weapons of defense” would be an apt counter.

  10. I wish that the open carriers would have called the police so that we could see how they “interpreted” the law. Seems to me that a public parade permit in a public park makes everyone welcome; even if the KKK had come to join in, the law would have been on their side until and unless they started physically intimidating other people. Feeling uncomfortable is not grounds for a private individual to ban someone else from a public event. Had the police refused to enforce the open carriers’ rights, there would really have been grounds for a lawsuit. The hypocrisy is obvious but as Frank Masotti above said, this had everything to do with doctrinaire coastal liberalism and nothing to do with gays.

    • Depends on the parade, I guess. I help put on one of the biggest, and my goodness, the paperwork! It starts months in advance. We have very strict rules for entries, even though it’s held on public city streets with help from the police and the National Guard.

      • In Ohio, as long as we are individuals enjoying the public park and not organized counter-demonstrators, we can’t be denied entry upon, and free movement about, the public space. A long time friend of mine was a local Ohio prosecutor and lost a case over a similar issue a few years back. (IIRC, the case went up through courts, perhaps even to the Ohio Supreme Court.) Even in DC, when the police were trying to back us away from the Whitehouse fence where we later stacked barricades from the monuments, we told the officers that we were just citizens enjoying DC and weren’t going to leave that public space. Since we didn’t have a “leader” (their term) and didn’t claim to be a protest at that point, there was nothing they could really do.

  11. We need more gays, blacks, et al to do this gun rights stuff. Can’t say that they’re homophobic or racist or *insert bullshit here*

    Help to bring everyone into the light.

      • agreed…but the ppl in the video or the organizers of the event need to be aware that this action is 1) alienating a growing portion of their core membership by making assumptions about gun-rights opinions; 2) alienating the non-members that support all enumerated rights regardless of their personal views about the event’s purpose; 3) and also the primarily 2A supporters that would have supported them had they not selectively excluded the 2A in their call for equality.

      • Agreed. But all week long. Or maybe all month long.

        As the Pink Pistols say “Armed LGBTs don’t get bashed!”

    • I hope the open carriers are able to meet with and build some trust with the the event organizers over the following year so they can better take part next time.

  12. “So who’s on the wrong side of history here?”

    Well they have open carry in Texas now so you do the math.

  13. I love the whole, “support my rights to do as I want, but not to do as you want” mentality. A lot of that going on all around. These folks needed to be treated as those who kicked them out wanted to be treated. That whole “Golden Rule” thing and all. No room to complain about your rights being trampled on when you are trampling others rights at the same time. As a believer in absolutism for the second amendment, I also support ALL marriage. Just leave people be, and they will leave you be in return.

    • “Just leave people be, and they will leave you be in return.”

      A wonderful ideal, but unfortunately not the way things seem to work out. “Live and let live” is one of my guiding philosophies, and yet there’s no shortage of people who want to tell me exactly how to live my life.

  14. I’d love to see the video of Capital City pride staff telling the cops they needed to leave due to the psychological harm they were wantonly inflicting on the people simply trying to enjoy the event. Logic tells us this must have happened because they “Do not feel safe with people with guns around” and cops obviously have guns.

  15. TTAG and many of its readers have a very VERY strong libertarian bias when it comes to individual rights but remember these people who demanded the open carriers leave ascribe to certain schools of left and far-left thinking in which the right to bear arms is seen not as a moral good and personal right but a grave evil. The LGBT movement like it or no is heavily entrenched in the far-left and radical schools of thought that frown on private ownership of arms. Left wing and far-left wing statist elements have strongly co-opted or have been fundamental elements of the LGBT rights movement since day one. LGBT 2nd amendment advocates face a fierce uphill battle in their own community against ideas that are deeply entrenched and certain power brokers do not want changed.

    I’ve met a fair number of anrarcho-queer and anarcho-femenist elements whose philosophy one would think would lend its self to armed self defense are very much against it.

    • +1
      My best friend from college is a gay libertarian. He has told me fellow gays often criticize him for essentially “not being gay enough” because he doesn’t vote Democrat or believe in “gimme gimme free sh!t” economic socialism. This mentality has infected virtually every popular movement since the 60’s and it’s damn sad.

      • Radicalism (the political ideology) and other radical-left schools of thought have been the bread and butter of the LGBT movement across the globe and many proponents of those movements view those schools of thought as the only vehicles in which a truly equal and egalitarian society can be born.

      • Yeah, his friends just haven’t been jumped and beaten yet. Or at least in a serious situation where the that was there. In academic cocoons it’s easy to be an idealist. Same if you just, through luck, haven’t run into the dirt and violent side of humanity.

        Utopic idealism is nice and fluffy, while it works — until it doesn’t.

        I know a guy who swears that he’d be able to diffuse a home invasion by telling them to “take whatever they want” and “maybe be a listening ear to their plight of poverty”, and that he would basically be able to depend on the hidden kind heart of a misunderstood criminal. (He also didn’t lock his door because he thinks it’s “un neighborly”.

        All I can say is — hope that works out for ya bud, my experiences have made me a bit less trusting.

        He won’t learn until life shows him. For some idealists, that’s what it takes, as a wake-up call.

        And sometimes they don’t survive the wake-up call.

        Oh well.

        • It depends some will view acts of violence against them as the need for stronger collective (read: government) defense against criminal activity. In fact I would hazard to say most would argue along this line and would call for greater and greater disarmament of the population.

          I come from a completely different school of thought on armed defense and civil liberty than most TTAG readers and having spent time with thinkers on both extremes and everything in between I don’t buy into either the absolutist collective or absolutist individualist approach to civil liberties and their relation to armed self defense and ownership of arms.

    • There’s nothing inherently left-wing about LGBT. It’s just that most people don’t really go beyond mainstream party politics, and between the two major parties, it is the right-wing one that has been consistently anti-gay for the past two decades or so.

        • If you want to be “pro-family”, spend more time with yours. It has nothing to do with politics. Whenever “family values” are trotted out in public, it is always about suppressing something that the person in question finds objectionable, be it LGBT, abortion, sex ed etc. Back in the day, “family values” were similarly used in anti-miscegenation movement.

            • I’ve got nothing against it. But you’re also attacking other people’s marriages to make you feel more secure in yours for some mysterious reason, and that I have a problem with.

              The only way gay marriage is an attack on your family values is when your house is stormed by gay assault troopers who force you or your kid to marry someone of the same sex under gunpoint. If and when that happens, I’ll wholeheartedly support your resistance to such a travesty in defense of your family values 🙂

              • I assume you are a man. It doesn’t matter. You could be a woman and I make the same point. There is a movement in this country to do away with that identity. Same with marriage. Marriage was an identity that meant a man and a woman joined to make a family. That Identity is being changed. That is the problem DOMA supporters have with it. Let us keep our identity and our dignity.

              • >> Marriage was an identity that meant a man and a woman joined to make a family. That Identity is being changed. That is the problem DOMA supporters have with it. Let us keep our identity and our dignity.

                The only ones who can keep or lose the identity of your marriage is you and your spouse. The opinions of other people should be utterly irrelevant to that, if your marriage has any meaning whatsoever.

              • Oh, I do. I also know the difference between an oppressive society and a polite society. The latter is the one that keeps its collective nose out of its members’ consensual activities.

    • I never understood why a tenet of feminist theory wasn’t acknowledging that a threat of force is the only way to back up your assertion of rights. Who is more likely to be successfully on holding onto their rights, a feminist to claims they are equal or a feminist who claims they are equal and will kill you if your try to make them otherwise?

  16. I am trying to think of what rhymes with Nick that would show my utter contempt for this position. The idea that rights equate morality or even expediency is misguided at best and delusional at worst.

    Should Luke Pruitt have defended himself with a firearm when government goons put a stop to his alternative lifestyle?
    http://fox59.com/2013/07/01/fishers-man-arrested-on-bestiality-child-exploitation-charges/
    Who are you to say that he was wrong? See where this type of thinking leads? It leads to a society without morals and every man doing what’s right in his own eyes.
    If this is truly TTAGays position, it’s a sad state of affairs.

    • Um, children can’t be consenting adults. Big difference there.

      Even disregarding that red herring, since when is TTAG an “echo a complete party manifesto” blog, versus a gun rights blog?

      You really want TTAG to say “… except for the gay queers” every time they reaffirm that everyone has a natural and constitutionally protected right to self defense?

      • I don’t know if anyone disagrees with their natural and constitutional right to self-defense. But many might disagree with the casual blurring of natural and civil rights, especially when the recognition of the latter has been (in many cases) judicially imposed with questionable legal justification, i.e. twisting the 14th Amendment to mean whatever a particular judge wants it to mean. Again, I question why whether or not gay marriage should be a recognized civil right is important at with regards to the 2nd Amendment. As an aside, the irony of the whole affair the article speaks of isn’t lost to me though. Too bad it turned out like that.

        • Grindstone, you’re being disingenuous about the Loving decision, so I’ve provided the full quote — “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. ” It’s obvious that procreation between man and woman was the origin for why this right was regarded fundamental, and similarly obvious why the quote doesn’t apply to same sex marriage, which can’t be described as necessary to our “very existence and survival”.

        • It’s obvious that procreation between man and woman was the origin for why this right was regarded fundamental, and similarly obvious why the quote doesn’t apply to same sex marriage. Try again

          Ah, so then the infertile, sterile, menopausal, and voluntarily child-free should also be barred from marriage?

        • “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival.”

          So you’re saying that marriage, being fundamental to our very existence and survival, is one of the basic civil rights of man?

          Well… To that I say, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          The antis play the qualification semantics game at us.

          Just because a given marriage doesn’t fulfill the prefatory clause, it doesn’t nullify the operative clause just because you’d like it to in order to further your argument in this particular case.

          In the decision it comes second, yes, but its gives a reason, to the operative clause. It doesn’t exist to limit it. It exists to give it credence and exemplifies the rationale.

          The idea that it limits marrages to furtherance of the species is drawn as interpretive conclusion. And would be bad news for infertile couples.

          • Destroy the family and you destroy society. By your standard, the black community should be thriving with all the ‘freedoms’ from convention that they have attained. Their high abortion rate, single mothers, out-of-wedlock births, and absentee fathers. But it’s not so, is it?

        • I don’t think that follows, especially because several of those issues are impossible to immediately know, can be treated, etc. A gay relationship on the other hand is inherently not essential to “existence and survival”. But it’s irrelevant — I was pointing out that you half quoted a decision to give your opinion more weight, but the reason for why a straight interracial marriage was described as a fundamental civil right in Loving is that such unions have a quality that is inherently absent in a gay marriage.

        • Destroy the family and you destroy society.

          How is not barring gays from getting married destroying families and society?

          I don’t think that follows, especially because several of those issues are impossible to immediately know, can be treated, etc. A gay relationship on the other hand is inherently not essential to “existence and survival”.

          I see this is hard for you to directly address. I’ll make it easier on you: what about the voluntarily childfree? Their marriage will not involve raising children at any point. Should it also be barred?

          But it’s irrelevant — I was pointing out that you half quoted a decision to give your opinion more weight, but the reason for why a straight interracial marriage was described as a fundamental civil right in Loving is that such unions have a quality that is inherently absent in a gay marriage.

          And you’re using that “quality” to invalidate marriage as a right. That quality is also absent in childfree marriages. Yet we still “allow” them. Further, nothing in that quote states that marriage is only a right because of procreation.

        • Grindstone, gays have never been barred from marriage. This issue has been framed in lies from the start.

          The fact is that marriage is fundamentally a union between two people of the opposite sex. Gays have always been welcome to participate in it, but being gay tends to cause one to choose not to.

          The fact is that this movement had never been about equal rights, but about changing the definition of marriage to something it has never been, and quite frankly never will be, regardless of any laws or court rulings.

          I’m all for same sex unions and the property sharing and next of kin rights that would go with it, but let’s not reduce ourselves to lying to ourselves that it is fundamentally the same as marriage.

          It is different. That can not be denied rationally.

    • Whenever someone compares homosexuality to pedophilia and beasiality, it just demonstrates to me that the person doesn’t understand what “consent” means.

      • Loving v Virginia, wasn’t that the anti-miscegenation case?

        I can only imagine the hue and cry then if they dared defend themselves.

        The police forced their way into the Lovings’ home in the middle of the night, to tear apart and arrest two consensual people in a marriage who were harming no one.

        I wonder how many “Just comply with the prevailing majority” people would change their minds today if something like that were to happen again.

        • The same arguments used against anti-miscegenation laws are being used today. It’s absolutely disgusting. Nearly everything bigots use against gay marriage could apply to my straight, interracial marriage. These assholes proclaim freedom while holding a gun in one hand, yet want to trample the rights of others while holding a bible in the other.

        • C’mon; no one’s kicking down a door anywhere on two folks’ intimacy because they claim to be married. Anti-sodomy laws are all gone, per the Loving decision I assume, and the issue now is clerical and religious. Where the federal court can get off dictating what is and what shall be to a church is beyond my understanding, but somewhere along the way centuries back our government meshed ‘civil unions’ with official church-sanctioned mergers, and now the knot cannot be easily untied. A ‘just’ solution, equitable to all, with malice to none, would be to strike all marriage classifications and preferential treatment from government policy, and leave the pronouncement solely to churches’ discretion, and the benefits of recognition to communities. Your marriage will remain a ‘marriage’ in the eyes of certain churches and people, as it will no matter what the courts rule in the coming weeks, but the distinction will no longer matter as a public policy issue.

          But that’s not what is being sought; what is being sought is federally-enforced parity with a status bestowed by an entity that is not supposed to be subject to government policy preferences. Forced recognition by those with an opposed viewpoint of a couple’s (or group’s) status. Just how frequently are we forced –by way of legal action– to hold a person in such a way directly contradicting our own beliefs? It is a very rare occurrence in this country, and for a very good reason. In fact, this legal authority did not exist at all until the 14th amendment (of innumerable unintended consequences) because the potential for abuse in pursuit of ‘equality under the law’ is so obvious.

        • >> C’mon; no one’s kicking down a door anywhere on two folks’ intimacy because they claim to be married. Anti-sodomy laws are all gone, per the Loving decision I assume

          Sodomy laws were on the books and actually enforced as late as 2003, when SCOTUS struck them down in Lawrence v. Texas. They still remain on the books in several states, even though inoperative, and some of those states still teach that “homosexual conduct” is unlawful and punishable by state law.

          >> somewhere along the way centuries back our government meshed ‘civil unions’ with official church-sanctioned mergers

          Historically, marriage was actually neither government- nor church-regulated (yes, even for Christians). Basically, so long as two people lived as man and wife, and announced such to the world, they would be considered married – there were no special rites, the church would simply recognize such cohabitation as marriage. We still have the vestigial remains of that in form of common-law marriage in some countries and US states.

          This was actually a part of the canon law, and it was only in the 13th century that Catholic Church had decreed that unwitnessed and non-sanctified marriages are unadvisable, and they were only banned outright in the 16th century. As far as governments go, UK only abolished non-officiated marriages in 1753.

          Curiously, in the USA it was the other way around – Puritans didn’t condone church marriage, considering it a late and unnecessary Catholic innovation (quite accurately, apparently), but didn’t particularly like common law marriage, either. So in those colonies where they were the ruling majority, they instituted marriage by civil magistrates. From there it spread to other colonies, and by 1700 pretty much all of them had laws mandating such.

          >> Where the federal court can get off dictating what is and what shall be to a church is beyond my understanding

          They cannot and aren’t doing that. The entire same-sex marriage discussion is solely about state recognition of marriage. What the churches recognize for lithurgical purposes is up to them.

    • “It leads to a society without morals and every man doing what’s right in his own eyes.”

      As long as he isn’t hurting or infringing upon the rights of others, every man should be able to do whatever he wants. Drugs, sex, guns, religion…whatever. If done with other, consenting folks that’s a-okay by me also. Your slippery slope doesn’t exist in my world, as the line in my world is drawn at liberties that infringe on others’ liberties. Anything & everything that doesn’t is fair game.

      Quote bombing:

      “Government should allow persons to engage in whatever conduct they want to, no matter how deviant or abnormal it may be, so long as:
      (a) they know what they are doing,
      (b) they consent to it, and
      (c) no one — at least no one other than the participants — is harmed by it.”
      — Hugo Adam Bedau

      “Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.”
      — William Allen White

      “You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.”
      — Clarence S. Darrow

      “The busybodies have begun to infect American society with a nasty intolerance — a zeal to police the private lives of others and hammer them into standard forms — A Nation of Finger Pointers.”
      — Lance Morrow

      “The real “haves” are they who can acquire freedom, self-confidence, and even riches without depriving others of them. They acquire all of these by developing and applying their potentialities. On the other hand, the real “have nots” are they who cannot have aught except by depriving others of it. They can feel free only by diminishing the freedom of others, self-confident by spreading fear and dependence among others, and rich by making others poor.”
      — Eric Hoffer

      • “As long as he isn’t hurting or infringing upon the rights of others, every man should be able to do whatever he wants.”
        What about the clear and obvious federal bias toward those who choose to remain single? No bennies or tax breaks, there. Should the a later suit, after the hard won victory by gays of the ‘marriage with benefits’ seek to strike down the entire complex of laws, classifications, and rules the federal government holds for those with ‘married’ status? After all, the next suit is guaranteed to be polygamy, since 2 is just a number and 3+ are as well, why not 1 along with them?

        • I don’t think the government should have anything to do with “marriage” at all in the first place.

          …for the record, joint filing began in 1948 to increase the tax burden on married couples by discouraging or preventing income splitting, which couples did to be taxed at a lower effective rate (instead of the household declaring $50k and being taxed at 25%, each spouse would declare $25k and get taxed at 15%…or whatever the percentages would actually be…but the effect was couples paid less in taxes and it was single folks complaining of the unfair incentive for marriage that created joint filing).

          • >> …for the record, joint filing began in 1948 to increase the tax burden on married couples by discouraging or preventing income splitting, which couples did to be taxed at a lower effective rate (instead of the household declaring $50k and being taxed at 25%, each spouse would declare $25k and get taxed at 15%…or whatever the percentages would actually be…but the effect was couples paid less in taxes and it was single folks complaining of the unfair incentive for marriage that created joint filing).

            That only works when spouses earn roughly equal amounts, which was certainly not at all common back in the day. Remember that joint filing also readjusts the brackets such that you get taxed lower for the same amount earned jointly than you would for that amount earned separately. So in a typical family of that day, where the husband would be the earner and wife would stay at home or work at a significantly lower-paid job, filing separately would result in more taxes being paid (as it is today in the same situation).

    • This was some group organizing and staging an event to make their personal opinion known and show their discontent with public opinion, policy or laws.

      Freedom of speech being utilized as intended.

      It is easy to support someone expressing your own POV but the Speech that needs to be defended and protected the most, under any and all circumstances, is the one that you disagree with the most.
      It could be the KKK, CAIR, or the WBC, just as well as this Gay-Rights group, I will always back their right to free speech.
      Irrelevant of what their protest was about. The groups protest being based on asking for rights to be applied equally to them as well, while denying the certain rights to their own supporters, that is why I find their behavior hypocritical.

      Nothing to do with morality or personal POVs….I certainly didn’t take the post as such.

      I would expect Nick to point out the same bullshit reaction from any other group that is protesting for equality by means of the 1A but at the same time denying other rights at the same time.

  17. There is so much fail in your first sentence Nick. Typos aside pro-gun and pro-gay will both wondering why Marijuana farms and machine guns have found their way into a post. Are you trying to fuel the gestapo blog-o-spheres. Zero f@#KS are given about their opinions but damn bud, no more glenfiddich before bed.

  19. Psychological Harm?! From the mere sight of a few guns?! These gay people sure are pansies. LOL

    I’m sorry, but someone had to say it. Bet some of you were thinking it.

    • Yeah. Brandish while saying that to a few armed gays and see how that works out for you. Something something Samuel Colt.

      A few administrators wet their pants. BFD. I’m taking the third option, that they were simply wrong that participants would be “psychologically harmed”.

      I feel it would have worked to destigmatize guns among that crowd instead. Which is exactly what antis are afraid of.

      • Brandish while saying that to a few armed gays and see how that works out for you. Something something Samuel Colt.

        He’s talking about unarmed hoplophobes, so that’s not really a response.

        That having been said I agree with the major points you’ve made elsewhere in this thread. I’d love to see gays, minorities and women carry much more than they do already.

        • OK, you’re right. He did say “These gay people”, and I probably read it hastily as “Gay people”. And in this case — with these gay people shown in the video — he is correct.

        • These gays are contemptible. Gays, in general, are not; certainly not the open carriers.

    • Makes sense.

      Hardcore lesbians are afraid of penises, and see the gun as a symbol of “men”, while half the gay men are “bottoms” and not very masculine, so it makes sense all those people would be afraid of a Big Black Firearm. 😉

    • “Psychological Harm?! From the mere sight of a few guns?”

      Odd, this comes from a guy who uses an avatar of gun pointed at a defenseless (and cute) kitten?

      #KittenLivesMatter

      🙂

  20. “we want to live to see that day that homosexual married couples defend their legal marijuana plantations with machine guns”

    So much better than “I have a dream”.

  22. There is so much irony here! For starters:

    1. They FEEL their safety is being threatened by guns, even though it’s not, and therefore want to prohibit guns. Just like some people FEEL their freedom of religion is being threatened by gay marriage, even though it’s not, and therefore want to prohibit gay marriage.

    2. They say “it is our place to keep ourselves safe”, while denying themselves the tools to do so, and trusting that the same government they believe is not acknowledging their rights, will protect their rights when they are threatened.

  23. Homosexuals are anti civil rights when it comes to guns. If you have a problem with this statement than ask a homosexual if he or she will vote for a open homosexual who is anti gun or will they vote for a pro second amendment christian.
    San Francisco California is a disarmed city. As are Oakland and Richmond and most of the bay area. Homosexuals are quite proud of the political power they have. They boasts about it. The five or ten members of the pink pistols need to work a lot harder within their own population, just as black gun owners need to work on theirs.

    As far the gay pride parade goes, I thought you had the freedom to not associate with people. Back in early 1990’s this was a big part of the libertarian mantra. I guess times have changed now it is ok to use government force to put groups together.

    • “Homosexuals are anti civil rights when it comes to guns. ”

      Well, it’s good to know that *someone* has interviewed all of them. Good on you.

      ” If you have a problem with this statement than ask a homosexual if he or she will vote for a open homosexual who is anti gun or will they vote for a pro second amendment christian.”

      Does me working rather long hours to help evict and recall several anti-gun Colorado senators and replace them with arguably Christian pro-2A people count?

      Or are you just gonna tell me your POV overrides reality.

      “As far the gay pride parade goes, I thought you had the freedom to not associate with people. Back in early 1990’s this was a big part of the libertarian mantra. I guess times have changed now it is ok to use government force to put groups together.”

      Yeah. Like at water fountains, lunch counters, and on busses, I guess. I’m not a Shriner, 4H or Rotary, and I don’t get bent out of shape over their parades.

      That said, the KKK marches yearly here in Denver. I do not like them. I fully agree that they have a right to do so.

      • As I have observed you and other writers stay away from homosexuals who have written anti civil rights gun laws and disarmed large regions of the United States. Just as white democrats stood on the necks of black people open Homosexual elected leaders step on the necks of the citizens of California and other places making them waiting longer to get a gun. They will confiscate legal private property for flimsiest of reasons.

      • It was Tom Ammiano the open homosexual law maker who wrote the bill that jerry brown signed into law making everyone wait up to ten days longer to get a firearm. I wonder how many women have been raped because they could not get a gun when they needed it?

        I wonder how many have been killed or beaten because they were told by a white homosexual man they had to wait up to ten additional days to get a gun for self- defense. That question is not important to this white homosexual man.

        This white homosexual man, Tom Ammiano is stepping on the necks of people holding them down. Crushing their chances for self- defense. I’m sure he supports good satisfying homosexual sex. I know he does not support the civil right to own, possess, and purchase a gun or as many firearms you can buy in one day. Nor does he support a person buying as much ammunition as can you afford and find to purchase. Since his and other homosexual anti gun policies have caused prices to sky rocket, bullets are hard to come by. I understand you can get plenty of virbrating bullets in san francisco.

        Having said this I glad at least one homosexual put herself on the line and got my home county of Sacramento California easier procedures to get a CCW. It is too bad the homosexuals in San Francisco think you don’t have a civil right to own a gun and carry it.
        https://www.revealnews.org/article/want-to-carry-a-concealed-gun-live-in-sacramento-not-san-francisco/

        “When Jones was running for sheriff in 2010, few residents were allowed to carry concealed handguns in California’s capital. That changed when two gun rights groups and Deanna Sykes, a firearms instructor with the gay shooting club Pink Pistols, brought a lawsuit against the county. Armed with a powerful lawyer who won the last two guns cases heard by the Supreme Court, they argued that the sheriff’s permitting policy violated the Second Amendment.”
        You say you helped elect pro Second Amendment Christian Politian’s in Colorado. As a gun owner I’m grateful for your work.

        On the other hand here is another anti civil rights homosexual this time a white lesbian. You would think a lesbian would be concerned about an innocent black woman’s right to kill her potential rapist, but it seems it is not very important for this lesbian white woman.

        http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=11801

        “We’re pretty confident that Kelly Cassidy, the lesbian representative, never lobbied a soul for the gay marriage bill. No sir. She’s just as clean and pure as the wind-driven snow.”
        “Anyway, she and some other anti-gunners in Illinois got hold of an arrest report where Illinois Conservation Police ticketed Vandermyde for failing to case up a crossbow he had onboard an ATV he was driving around on private land last year.”

        You do know most of the 400 to 500 people killed in Chicago are black people? You do know most of the sex crimes are committed against black women, right? Perhaps black on black crime is not a concern for white homosexuals. Kelly Cassidy supports good sex lesbian. Just like Tom Ammiano she is not a supporter of gun civil rights and the natural right to self- defense.

        Also it seems homosexuals are so concerned about the sexual activities in the bed room but not the self- defense activities in the bed room. They want to regulate and use and the threat of government force to control bedroom firearms activity. Homosexuals want to regulate gun storage in the bed room, as has happened in the homosexual controlled city government of San Francisco. But they do not want sex toy use and storage regulated.

        http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/ninth-circuit-upholds-san-francisco-gun-storage-law/#

        Homosexuals are just like the white citizens council of the past. They are a powerful group of white people who have great gay sex while at the same time stepping on the necks of people holding them down. And deny them their civil rights to firearms and self-defense.

        • Um, are you actually trying to insinuate that “because a guy who did a contemptible thing was gay”, then therefore “all people who are gay support that contemptible thing?”

          That’s really weak. Not to mention completely incorrect.

          Yes. There are anti-2A gay people. There are also a whole lot of anti-2A straight people, and anti-2A Irish people, and anti-2A plumbers.

          None of those forward relations makle reversing the conclusion accurate.

      • Your weak response to the points I made is not surprising. Homosexuals have used their newly gained political power to oppress other people. They are not the freedom lovers they say they are.

        Is this revenge for not being able to kiss a person in public? You deny other citizens their civil rights to firearms, free speech, freedom to worship as they please in their church’s safe from attack by people who hate them for who they are.

        Yes homosexuals have attacked churches spraying them with racist graffiti. Invaded and terrorized the peaceful people there. Even the homosexual leadership has admitted to adopting the tactics of Adolf Hitler. I will send you the links so you can read for yourself, if you have the courage.

        Or you may already know this and like it.

        • Yep, homosexuals have disrupted church services here in Lansing, MI, standing up during the sermon, unfurling banners, throwing glitter and confetti everywhere, chanted and yelled, and pranced around. They have issues.

    • Freedom to associate or not doesn’t mean that one private group can prevent someone from entering and remaining in the public space. They were free to not associate but they were not at liberty to prevent freedom of travel and restrict movement in the public areas because they didn’t like POTG.

  24. That video was like a bunch of poodles and pit bulls arguing about who just made the biggest heap of shit.

  25. I used to live in Portland, Oregon. I learned rather quickly that many of these “gay rights” events have nothing to do with gay rights. See, if you aren’t the right kind of gay, you aren’t welcome, and what I mean by that, if you have a different political belief, perhaps you are gay and conservative, or you have any belief that does not match the Democrat Party talking points, you aren’t welcome. It is the same with black conservatives being called Uncle Tom or Ben Carson being attacked by black Democrat Party leaders. It is all about political loyalties. These people insist you cannot be gay if you are conservative, a gun owner, Republican/Independent/Libertarian, support the American dream, or you are an individualist we independent thoughts. (Sorry, I call it how I see it.)

    • Yes. Not all gay people participate in “pride events”. In fact, the numbers have been declining, and a lot of it is the kind of attitude you alluded to here.

      Pride events, or really parades and showy events in general, filter for extroverts to say the least. Moreso it filters for people very far in all of their views to one extreme.

      In general, “parades” and “demonstrations” aren’t very representative of the average sample of the demographic.

  26. Some things to point out:

    1. Is it me, or is ever openly gay person who comments here also a furry?

    2. This attitude is frightening. Look at college campus “safe spaces” where you don’t have to encounter such scary things as ideas you disagree with. I also wouldn’t be surprised if that “psychological harm” was in the vein of the “trigger warnings” for “micro-aggressions” that are also so common in the bubble that is college intellectualism these days.

    3. As another commenter stated, gay rights has become entwined with marxism, progressivism, college “intellectuals”, being antigun, etc. I find this real damn sad, as being the “wrong kind of gay” must make some feel excluded from a community that already feels excluded for a large part. It must suck being a gay conservative or libertarian who tries to fit in in a largely leftist gay community.

    • “1. Is it me, or is ever openly gay person who comments here also a furry?”

      What’s that got to do with the price of tea in china? I’m guessing a lot of us probably like comic books as well, and own a lot of games on Steam. If this is supposed to be some kind of ‘gotcha’ statement, or inflammatory in some other way – no, I just think you’re seeing a swath of a demographic that at least online, hasn’t remained closeted and is used to interacting online without being ashamed of it. (And before you follow up with ‘Well isn’t furry…’ with some shining gem of insight you heard on 4chan, I’ll help you out here: No. It isn’t.)

      That said, this very attitude is part of the reason I carry, and part of the reason my friends carry. People want to start stuff – even when others are being passive. (Granted, I’m not being passive in this discussion, but I’m also not defending the premise that I’m supposedly aligned with.)

      “2. This attitude is frightening. Look at college campus “safe spaces” where you don’t have to encounter such scary things as ideas you disagree with.”

      … Or gun blogs, where you don’t have to encounter such scary things as ideas you disagree with? None of the openly gay people on TTAG support the ridiculous ‘psychological harm’ argument. And honestly I don’t know a single gay person who would. I haven’t been to SFO, so I can’t really attest to what that crowd would say.

      As another commenter said, these parades are not representative. They select and filter for flamboyant, extreme, extroverted sorts. And yes, IMO they’re pearl-clutchers, and I wouldn’t be able to stand being in a room with them. Gay has nothing to do with it. Getting bent out of shape over something innocuous has everything to do with it.

      “3. As another commenter stated, gay rights has become entwined with marxism, progressivism, college “intellectuals”, being antigun, etc.”

      Only in the visible centers. Only in the events that end up on videos and TV. See, you don’t see those of us minding our own goddamned business, since we’re not all ‘college marxists’. Some of us are just mowing the damned lawn and painting the house this weekend, and don’t walk into a gun shop cloaked in a giant rainbow flag. That doesn’t quite make it onto Youtube.

      The individuals in this video looked ridiculous by saying that the appearance or laying-eyes-on of a gun can cause “psychological harm”. I have no dictate or influence over them. I can’t call them up and say “Hey, quit that.”

      As I’ve said – the bigger problem is the continuing and incremental stigmatization of guns. If it weren’t for the stigma, more and more “minority” or “fringe” populations would embrace gun rights, not eschew them.

      • “As I’ve said – the bigger problem is the continuing and incremental stigmatization of guns.”

        I’m going to disagree with you on that.

        I can’t recall the specifics, but when worded something like ‘The Second Amendment guarantees the citizen the right to own a gun.’ currently 70-plus percent agree.

        20 years back it was around 50 percent. That is a huge increase for that time frame.

        Black attitude an gun ownership has made similar gains but in a much shorter time frame.

        I recall a while back you mentioned at one time you were an anti but the Sandy Hook incident opened your eyes.

        The media’s tactic now is to use the instant speed of the internet to propagandize their position 24-7 to flood the ‘net with the horrors of guns.

        What they didn’t realize was there are a whole lot of folks like you that actually have some critical thinking skills and are beginning to see the reality of the situation.

        Another major player in this are the folks that play FPS games. Rarely do they portray guns as ‘evil’, guns are just tools to accomplish a task and don’t ‘just go off’ all on their own.

        The same goes for Hollywood. If Hollywood wanted to propagandize guns as evil showing guns as tools to vanquish evil is the exact opposite of what they hope to accomplish.

        Add to that the Millennials that are disillusioned with the state of the economy and you grow a crop of Libertarians that don’t like being told what they can’t have.

        I don’t buy that guns are being increasingly stigmatized. Quite the opposite actually.

        That’s my .02 and worth every penny… 🙂

      • I wasn’t trying to throw out some kind of “gotcha” with the furry thing or imply anything about furries or gays. I’ll put it this way: Are openly gay furries over represented in this comment section as compared to the total number of openly gay furries? If so, do you think there is a reason for this?

        Thank you for your reply.

        • I know maybe… two others, total, on TTAG. And I don’t even know them personally, even though I’ve been in the furry fandom for 12 years. I’m even only guessing because of their avatars/icons.

          But to me, two others, that’s a REALLY small sample pool. But my opinion on the matter is that you’re combining a demographic that’s A) pretty active online, and B) not ashamed about being gay in their online interactions. And C) usually actually not hostile to pro-gun ideas.

          I’m not in charge of evening out representation. But those factors *do* mean that if you do encounter an openly gay person online, who’s willing to talk about it, and doesn’t necessarily align with political prescriptions, there’s a non-insignificant chance that they’re in the furry fandom.

          Nonetheless, again, I think I know of two others on here. Unless you have higher statistics, I don’t see “three” as being a large sample pool by any argument.

          As for the *reason*, most people in the furry fandom, it being pretty much a 95% online culture, tend to get their information from online sources and don’t adhere strictly to “left wing coastal politics” by any stretch.

          As another commenter said, a lot of them may be gamers, too, (due to the online factor) and therefore have a more open opinion about guns as well, and are more willing to frequent a site like TTAG than say, HuffPo.

          If I’m still not getting your gist, feel free to elucidate more.

        • Oh wait. It took me a while to get what you were insinuating.

          You’re insinuating that I know these others, and that there’s some kind of conspiracy and we’re putting eachother up to it, aren’t you?

          Well, if that’s the case, nothing I’m going to say is going to dissuade you.

          However I’ll state as point of fact – No, I don’t know either of the two other “openly gay furries” who comment on TTAG. We’ve never met, online or otherwise, and the only reason I *believe* I know who you’re talking about is, as I said in my other post, I’ve seen one or two other furry-looking icons go by.

          I actually am hesitant to call them out because I don’t want to A) assume they’re furry if they’re not, just by icon, and B) presume they’re gay if they’re not, just because they are, I think, the two you’re talking about.

          If you mean “emfourtygasmask” and “noishkel” (I think that’s who you may be talking about?) – No, I do not know them, no, we’re not in some kind of group, and I’m not even positive that they’re gay or furry.

          Some people just like icons/images they find, so I never assume it.

          But no, I don’t know them at all.

          If you’re talking about someone else, or a handful of someone elses, I must have missed those identifying factors.

          In any case, if you’ve made your mind up about conspiracy, there’s little I can to to dissuade you.

          But I’m actually the only person in my circles, online or otherwise, that I know of, that comments on TTAG.

  27. This is how I-594 got passed. I live across from Seattle, where the sidewalks might be painted in rainbows and the Mayor is Gay. And typically I have no reaction, whatever. But this really pissed me off. All across the country the LGBT screams for respect and equality, so we give it to them. And we are repaid like this? They want their civil rights to marry, protest, etc, but not all civil rights for everyone. Their cake and eat it too, cherry picking, what ever you wish to label. But know this, these people of the LGBT community are some self-centered…..

    Why did the police not protect the open-carries? Why do I constantly see the pro-gun people back down? Why can’t we demand to be equally treated? Don’t we all have these Rights? Screwed up mess and seems to be getting much worse. Sad the LGBT community is not truly interested in liberty for all.

    • In the eyes of Shannon and Bloomie, wanting equal treatment or anything that could lead to positive media exposure makes us “gun bullies”. It isn’t the entire gay community, you occasionally come across a gay conservative or libertarian who “gets it” and knows you don;t have to sell your soul to the democrats to be gay in America.

      • I still assert there are more out there than you think there are. The internet is causing that to become more known, and allowing ideas, like the notion that gun rights don’t have to fall strictly on partisan platforms, to spread.

        I’m guessing you don’t talk to a whole lot of gay people, (and I’m sure as hell not saying you have to) – but I do, and our sample sets are going to be different.

        If we only went by what the media highlights, only a certain sort of “gun person” would be shown, as well.

    • It’s not monolithic. “The LGBT Community” isn’t a person, or even really a collective. It’s not a political party. Some gay kid in Iowa doesn’t have eff-all of a connection to what’s going on in San Francisco.

      Presuming that it’s like a political party where everyone ends up looped in, makes as much sense as saying that every single gun owner is on the same page. How would you feel if a FUDD or a “But,”-head was assumed to speak on your behalf?

      The best most people can do is make their individual opinions known, and speak or act otherwise through voting or political action. But pride parades and vocal extremists speak for all gay people about as much as Jesse Jackson speaks “necessarily” for the black garage mechanic down the street.

  28. Oh man please don’t equate interracial marriage with happy “marriage”. AS my beautiful black bride of 26 years points out she can’t change her skin color but happy boys can “act” straight. And I don’t care if the happy folk hate their own-life’s rough and then you might be defenseless. I would think you would get it GRINDSTONE-with your self described IR marriage to a Mexican lady…BTW when is TTAG going to run a clickbait thing on the confederate flag bruhaha??? THAT should be a barrel of giggles…

    • And I would’ve thought you’d be more supportive for freedom. I am disappointed. Your defense is that gays can “act straight”? Are you serious? In that case, you and I can “act” in love with white women, then.

      • I should care that the anti-Christian Grindstone is disappointed with me? Are YOU (and whoever the hell Michelle is) serious? So-called interracial marriage is not in any way shape or form the same as two happy boys pumping each other. I can’t change my race-but I sure as hell can change my behavior. Have you discussed this with your wife who YOU said has been picked on(harassed?)by the PO-leece BECAUSE she’s a mite dark? NO? Maybe I should be wagging my finger at you LOL…

        • Wow, so because Grindstone disagrees with you, that makes him anti-Christian? That must make you…. wait… Oh my God! Great to meet you finally!

          Why’s it always the homophobes that are the very first in any argument to bring up the lucid and lurid descriptions of sexual acts? What made you choose the image of “two boys pumping” over say, some other sexual image that nobody up until now in this thread has visualized?

        • YOU are what you do–having happy sex makes you happy-and I’m not afraid of homosexuals-AND Grindstone has stated that Christianity is myth propagated by bronze-age sheep herders. The 1967 supreme decision legalized IR marriage in the red-neck racist south -where thousands of slave masters created all those mixed-race children. Hilarious all those white boys had the gall to call it miscegenation…Strom Thurmond for one. G’night…

    • So what you’re saying is, that gay people should act straight, because people like you who can’t bring themselves to even type the word “gay”, think they should?

      Freedom — with an asterisk. I guess it’s all just a matter of who gets to write the fine print at the bottom, isn’t it.

    • So for all your high-falutin’ tolerance because you married interracially, you are still…

      a flaming bigot.

      • But I don’t care if happy boys are together-just don’t call it marriage or demand millions of people approve of it. Look in the mirror if you’re trying to find a bigot steve-the original theme was gay folks kicking their own to the curb. I’m fine with them supporting 2a too.

  29. I’m not going to get too bent about this. I can’t imagine MDA saying, “we’d love to have you if just put the guns away.”

    I took this as the event organizers being hoplophobes and more proof that gun normalization needs work everywhere. Crashing the party wouldn’t have helped the cause of normalization, so the folks trying to carry there made the right move by backing down rather than make a bigger scene.

    If it were me, I’d have come back without the guns and had the conversation about gun rights without the hardware present as a distraction. Regardless, the gun group should keep the pressure up and find a way to engage with the event organizers about discrimination, event safety, civil rights, etc.

    • It’s the stigma, it’s the stigma, it’s the stigma. While everyone’s looking in the wrong direction and saying, “Well, it’s that person who isn’t exactly like me that’s the problem”; the very shape of a “gun” gets further stigmatized, helping the antis cause by cueing a pavolvian fear in the uninitiated.

      As a result, we get ‘pop tart expulsions’ and T-shirt bans. And people like this — regardless of their proclivities — recoiling at the very thought of a firearm.

  31. I get furious at such things. I would have asked the bleating sheep why they were pro-rape and pro-assault — because in my life and those of friends, the only thing that stopped rape and assault were our guns.

    The Pink Pistols slogan is “Armed Gays Don’t Get Bashed”. I’d ask what they would do if some skinheads came along with baseball bats and ice axes and starting smashing people and booths — chant at them in hopes it would drive them away? Because I know what that armed group would do: stop the bashing.

    From there it would be a short step to ask why they want to make it easy for those who hate gays. If some sicko out there wanting to make a name for himself saw this, he’d realize he could rid the world of hundreds of gays really easily… once the armed group left.

    Maybe they should have billed themselves as the “Rainbow Rifles”, volunteer security against gay bashers.

    • While I think that’d be a good idea actually (Rainbow Rifles) – They shouldn’t have to necessarily put on a mask to be considered non-harmful.

      A bunch of OFWGs in camo shouldn’t be presumed to be malicious, either.

      • Maybe someone could gin up a rainbow camouflage pattern. Of course the last thing such a pattern would do would be to ACTUALLY make it hard for someone to see you, but it’d be an interesting novelty.

        • Heh, not like “pink muddy girl camo” ( 9_9 ) actually keeps you hidden, anyways. Though I think for hunting — most critters can’t see color anyways, just patterns in B+W, so even rainbow camo — it actually may work for that purpose.

        • So to some it would be reassuring…”It’s clearly not meant to hide that guy from people, so he’s not a nutjob who’s going to go off and play sniper, just a hunter,” I can hear the semi-holophobe thinking. OK, I should probably hit the sack, I’m getting silly.

        • @Steve – No, it’s not that silly. Though I should probably sleep too; I think that likely carriers shouldn’t “have to” reassure, again, that pushes my “stigmatization” button; however you’re probably right, that reassurance would lead to more acceptance. Repair with a screwdriver vs. hammer…

        • Of course the purpose of being visible to people but not to animals is already served by hunter orange.

          But rainbow camo might appeal to LGBT POTG.

      • In the early 1990s, a little less than a decade before the Pink Pistols were founded, some of the guys and I were throwing around possible names for their own militia unit. It was going to be the Pink Panther Militia, with an olive drab uniform patch depicting Pink Panther (possibly armed) and a unit flag with a kick ass panther. Unfortunately, they weren’t able to get enough people interested to form a unit at the time.

  32. There is a difference in supporting ones rights and supporting what they do with those rights. You can be pro gay marriage for example and still feel uncomfortable thinking about gay sex. As I can be 100% for gun rights and still feel awkward when someone puts tactical shit on a mosin…

  33. The hostile irrational bigots of old have been replaced by the very minorities they abhorred. The slave has become the master and is twice as cruel.

    Government, both wings, loves these useful idiots. Every solution to every manufactured social problem is always growing government.
    If anyone in power actually cared to really solve the issue marriage would cease to be a government sanctioned institution and left to the parties participating in said contract. But that wouldnt help grow government so nobody in government is going to support it.

    Government created the problem in the first place so naturally the solution is more government.

    • Your other point that the slave has become the master and is twice as cruel is what happens in a revolution, the new masters are usually more cruel than those they replaced.

      What could more cruel and brutal than the mass murder of the most helpless among us, those that are waiting to be born?

  34. Summation of the video:
    “It’s our right! We’re in the right!”
    “Just because it’s your right, doesn’t mean you’re right.”
    “Yes it does! The Constitution!”

    I appreciate what these open carriers were trying to do, but they were poor communicators. They weren’t engaging in productive dialogue, they should have been less confrontational, more cheerful, spoken politely and nicely, and tried to put their persecutors at ease and make themselves accepted. They could have used an approach these people might have been receptive to, but instead they just screamed that they had a legal right. This confrontation wasn’t about being able to exercise their legal rights, what was important was rapprochement between the sides. They should have spoken something like this: “Yeah, I have a gun on my hip, which I’ve carried regularly since I was the victim of violence, but I’m against violence and gay and I want to be here and support tolerance. Please just let me peacefully participate with my holstered handgun. I’ll be ignoring it, and I’d like you to ignore it too. I think it would be highly appropriate of you to swallow your distaste and tolerate my different, unusual lifestyle and personal beliefs. I’m under the impression that’s one of the core messages we’ve all come here to communicate.”

  35. “As you may have noticed, we here at TTAG are big believers in individual rights. All of them.”

    Not really, you are incredibly bad on the rights of property owners to control who has access to their property. Property rights are individual rights.

    • I don’t think I’ve seen TTAG’s actual writers do this. (Feel free to show me an example of them advocating for this, though, and I will stand corrected. Be aware, though, that they’ll sometimes post stuff they don’t necessarily agree with to generate discussion.)

      A lot of the commenters, though, act like entitled crybabies and demand laws to force businesses to let them carry.

    • Based on the brief glimpses of the Capitol, it appears they are on the same grassy area where the “I will not comply” anti-I-594 rally was held. This is public land, open to everyone. They were in the wrong to block these people. There were literally hundreds of firearms at the “I will not comply” rally. Nobody was hurt. It’s ridiculous these people kept the open carriers out.

  36. “As we have said many times (in one way or another), we want to live to see that day that homosexual married couples defend their legal marijuana plantations with machine guns.” I agree with the sentiment but, credit where credit is due, the quote is actually a paraphrasing of Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame. It’s even on his Wikipedia page.

  38. Discriminated-against demographics of people can be hypocritical, bigots, prejudiced, biased, stupid, and jerks… just like all demographics of people.

  39. I don’t hate homosexuals (except when they induce the government to force people to bake cakes for them–yes, that again). But I do find it a bit odd that a group of people who are celebrating what, in strictly Darwinian terms, is not only aberrant but also species-destructive behaviors, complaining about someone else causing “psychological harm” by carrying a handgun.

    • That’s why, as a Christian, I don’t stress about gay relationships. On a strictly evolutionary imperative, gay relationships, by definition, aren’t about having children. So they, like all social behaviors that are not focused on the imperative of having children , will go the way of the Dodo Bird and the dinosaurs.

      So the same of the current crop of “alternative life styles” , most of which are based on something other than the time tested blue print of marriage of a man and a woman with the intent of having children.

      These social behaviors will cause the collapse of any culture that embraces them as the norm. The culture that will replace them will by natural law, will be those cultures that embrace the “traditional models” . The chaos that is created in the process is what sucks for those of us caught in the transition.

      • Homosexuality is not going to go away on some evolutionary grounds – if it did, we wouldn’t have seen it in nature, but we do in many species. So far as we can tell, the percentage of homosexual individuals is roughly constant in every generation.

        This does not contradict natural selection. Remember that it’s about propagating your genes, not necessarily survival of your progeny. Many species (e.g. bees, ants) feature outright sterile members whose only purpose in life is to ensure the survival of some other member to whom they are genetically connected and share most of the genes. It has been argued that homosexuals provide a similar benefit, by allocating a pool of individuals who will not produce offspring of their own, thus freeing them to take care of offspring of others (which are usually their genetic relatives in nature, due to the way communities form). If doing so results in a higher overall survival and gene propagation rate than everyone for themselves, natural selection will retain such a gene.

        • Well at least this guy is conceding it’s genetic rather than ranting about recruitment, et. al.

        • I’m not talking about homosexuality as a rare gene in a species, it would have to be rare, otherwise that species would die out in the first generation. That is also true for human societies.

          I’m talking about human societies that choose a relationship paradigm that emphasizes non-traditional models. “Traditional” is traditional for a reason, it’s what has worked to keep a society viable as a living breathing entity for tens of thousands of years.

          When that traditional model falls out of favor in that particular society, it spells the end of that society.

          To me, to argue this basic fact is like arguing the reality of gravity. A person can step off a cliff and argue that they have defeated the bounds of gravity, that they are free of the restrictions that others have obeyed from time imemorial. They are free! Until the sudden stop at the bottom.

          This is to me, exactly the situation of today. People ferociously and viciously defend their freedom from the strictures and demands of traditional culture. Which in a free society, (which I ferociously defend), they are free to do so. They can violate these boundaries, just as they are free to step off the cliff. But the ground at the bottom of the cliff is waiting, when that violation becomes a cultural norm, as it is today.

          • >> I’m talking about human societies that choose a relationship paradigm that emphasizes non-traditional models. “Traditional” is traditional for a reason, it’s what has worked to keep a society viable as a living breathing entity for tens of thousands of years. When that traditional model falls out of favor in that particular society, it spells the end of that society

            As I have noted in another comment, the traditional attitudes about marriage include it being a private arrangement that neither the state nor religion is involved in at all. It also includes polygamy, child marriages, arranged marriages, treating married women as property of their husbands etc. Which parts of these do you consider “traditional for a reason” and necessary to “keep a society viable”? If you don’t consider any of these as such, then why, and why is same-sex marriage any different in that regard?

        • @Steve: You want to explain that “it’s genetic” stuff to the “former lesbian”, Mrs. De Blasio, or maybe to Anne “I never considered being a lesbian until I met Ellen” Heche (who, BTW, now appears to be hetero again since she and Ellen broke up)? And maybe to Miley Cyrus, once she goes all the way and decides she is a lesbian now? Can’t completely eliminate the “choice” element, I think, at least for some folks.

          • Most people aren’t 100% gay or straight, but rather bisexual to various degrees – it’s a sliding scale, not a binary one. Physiologically, that is – social self-identification is more likely to be tilted one way or the other, and sometimes results in confusing “flip flops” when they realize that they have attraction to the other gender, as well.

        • There have been as many variations of “traditional” as there have been societies. But they are almost all, that I am aware of, based on marriage, between a man and a woman(en), an expectation of fidelity between those in the marriage bond, even in a polygamous arrangement, with the expectation that they will have children.

          The only variation to this idea of fidelity, that I am aware of, between those in a marriage are the traditional eskimo where the husband would share his wife with a visitor as a method that would help infuse new genes in a people isolated from new blood for long periods of time.

          The idea of a patriarchy as men “owning” women, just as the tradition of owning slaves was mostly, I believe, because of a pre-industrial society where bodies were needed for the labor intensive farming that was needed and the fact that women just didn’t have the physical strength as compared to men. Women in this situation were just not looked at as valuable as men.

          This is why, I believe, that there was often a matriarchal based hunter gatherer societies when the physical demands was more equitable as compared to the heavy labor of a farming community.

          Now adays, with modern technology, women once again have a more equitable situation as compared to men.

          But you ask, why shouldn’t same sex marriage be considered as equal to marriage between a man and a woman?

          There is much that is no longer needed in a traditional model, like owning slaves, child brides and having women as second class chattel due to our technology.

          But it still comes down to one basic question, what is the purpose of our time on this planet? That is individual to each person, but in the process of living that individual purpose, mother nature teaches over and over again, that if one of the main purposes of a species is not focused on putting incredible energy, a total commitment, to the death, of providing a safe place to have offspring, and then to raise that offspring until they are old enough to continue the cycle, that species becomes extinct.

          So sure, if a few people are in non- child bearing relationships, like gay couples or sterile couples, a healthy society can weather that. But when that society, as a norm, as a whole, sees child bearing as a burden rather than a gift’, that looks at not having children at all as admirable; well, history and the fossil record show that 90 % of species didn’t make it. Human beings, with this current attitude towards having children as a burden and a financial black hole, might just add themselves to the extinction list. We might have already reached that point in most of Western society. Western Europe has reached the point of not having enough children to replace themselves. The USA would be in the same situation except for our immigration, both legal and illegal. Most immigrants come from more traditional cultures where having large families are the norm.

          I believe we will see in our life time if we gave crossed the tipping point in our population levels, at least in our Western culture.

          • The drop in birth rates has very little to do with same-sex marriage or lack thereof – which should be obvious once you consider that homosexuality is largely inborn (partly genetic, and partly epigenetic but still determined during fetal development), and the percentage of the population that identifies as strictly homosexual is low and mostly constant (if it changes overtime, it hasn’t changed significantly over the time period that we were watching, and that’s decades). What those people do or don’t do doesn’t really affect the birth rates either way.

            What does, ironically, is the quality of life. It doesn’t really matter how conservative the society is, statistics shows that the better it lives, the fewer children it has. It actually kinda makes sense when you realize that it’s a classic r-strategy vs K-strategy thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory).

            As for negative birth rates in the West, the most obvious explanation is that we’re currently in the overpopulation phase. We may not perceive it as such (though many do), but our bodies beg to differ. This is exacerbated by our tendency to optimize economic efficiency of large populations by clustering them together in tightly packed cities. Note that cities, in general, tend to have lower birth rates than countryside, and megapolises even more so.

            There is even some evidence that the growth on social behaviors discouraging more children is actually caused by this. There were some interesting experiments done on rats where they were placed in overpopulated cages. Turns out that past a certain number of rats in a cage, they start to introduce various means to relieve the population pressure, and one of those is increasing the number of homosexual offspring (this is epigenetic – as in, the fetuses are affected that way through hormones if the mother rat carrying them is living in crowded conditions). We don’t know if and how much that translates to humans, but it’s not an unreasonable hypothesis.

        • I agree.The percentage of those identifying as gay is miniscule. Anywhere from 1 to 5 percent. It isn’t gay relationalships that impact population level.

          So is the population drop below the replacement level a healthy response to population density and having technology doing the heavy lifting where a large family is no longer needed? Or is it a pathological result of the riches created by our high technology society with the malaise of those born to riches (for even the poor in this country are rich by current as well as ancient standards) indulging in actions of selfish self-satisfaction as in Paris Hilton?

          The proofs in the pudding. Like I said, I believe we will see with in our life times as to what is the end result of abandoning traditional (by whichever tradition you choose) values and embracing what was once looked at as a violation of cultural and spiritual law.

          Traditionally, historically, things didn’t end well for those societies.

          We will see.

  40. Yes TTAG, most of us have noticed you are desperately trying to become the Huffington Compost Junior. Almost daily this site gets more difficult to take seriously.

  41. As usual whenever the oh so tolerant and open Left has a chance to display their openness they fall back to their safe room of fear, bigotry and neurosis.

    Ray

  42. I don’t care if someones gay or not, but those anti-OC guys are a bunch of FAGGOTS!

  43. #gaylivesmatter haha, had to. And they do. I am sick of the backroom talking by supposed gun supporters that bash gays. Really sickening and the fact they think every conservative minded person thinks like them. Typically these are just RHINO loving republicans that hopefully fade from the collective memory of the planet so we can all enjoy our rights in peace.

  44. Figures the ultra-lefties that have commandeered the gay movement would eject anyone outside of their mold. As always, some animals are more gay than others.

  45. Michael, let me ask you a question. Would you say that you do not feel that your marriage is safe when same sex couples are around? ~

  46. I would like to see how the same group would respond to a preacher at their festival. Would they toss out a peaceful Jesus loving bible thumper in the same manner?

    “Repent your sins”

  47. When did homosexual marriage become a right?

    Point to it in the Bill of Rights…

    Now back to our regularly scheduled programing of RKBA.

    I am not surprised that the group who likes to trample on Religious, Self Defense and Speech freedoms kicked out a group who are doing the same except the right of defense part.

    • >> When did homosexual marriage become a right? Point to it in the Bill of Rights…

      It’s right here:

      “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

  48. Have no problem with people who sin , I certainly do , daily , and would never consider myself better or smarter than anyone else . I can say with confidence that I will never cut off your head , stone you to death or throw you from a building for being a homosexual . I think a gay gathering is a place where you would want responsible citizens armed to stop the nut that hates gays and wants to have his face on AOL. The only thing I would like to add to this conversation is please , everyone , straight and gay . Let us all fight together to keep the Federal government out of ”all marriage” . This stuff will ripple out in ways that the brightest among us cannot even fathom because it will lead to the Feds telling everyone , clergy , media programming , and all people how they can and cannot believe or else be in opposition to Federal discrimination law . This will eventually lead to some nut shooting a bunch of unarmed homosexuals at a gay get together and more whining by a bunch of nuts in Washington . Please stop the insanity .

  49. Lol. I would have turned their chant around on them and joined in with my back to them and concluded by shouting over them “support gun rights for gays! Protect gay civil liberties!” XD
    Also, that Ak74 was drop dead sexy.
    – a proud AK-sexual

  50. I would love the see the tables turned. About 30 seconds into the video I hear some one say “why do you go to the boat fair and do that shit over there”. I would love to see how this would play out if 4 gays tried to go to some rally even if it wasn’t a for 2nd amendment and be turned away because it made the rest of them feel uncomfortable. I would also love to hear someone say why do you go somewhere and do that shit over there and see how they would react.

  51. A response to xer21 . I believe that gay people , red people , yellow people , big people , little people , fat , skinny , dumb , smart , happy , sad , stinky and sweet smellin , bald , harry , hooded , bare headed , and yes , now , even black people , have the same rights in America today that everyone else has , if you remove the federal government from the equation . No one has a right not to be stared at , frowned upon , laughed at or even hated . No has a right to tell me not to hate any of these people . Yes , in America , I have a right to be a bigot or a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ . You should not be able to force me to bake your cake , sell you anything or marry you . I shouldn’t be forced to live with you or worship with you . When you tell me I have to do something that I don’t want do when I am harming neither another person or society in general , you have infringed on my rights just as much as if I tried to force you into something . If or when you try to unbigot a bigot by the strong arm of law you are unbalanced in your stance and will surely fall . Every American has every right bestowed on us by God and enumerated under our constitution and the bill of rights . I will give in to the argument however that the last 100 or so years of progressivism in America has had a deep impact or our basic inalienable rights and the God who granted them . We are under attack as we speak by the people who claim to be for us . Wolves in sheep clothing following the dictates of humanities oldest adversary , The beast who deceived us first will be and is the same who deceives us now .

  52. And this is one of the reasons why I will never actively support the homosexual rights movement. Their more extreme advocates have a strong tendency to alienate potential allies (much like the 2A crowd, actually)…

  53. Welcome to the passive-aggressive hate and intolerance of the so-called “gay community.” Pretend to be victims to persecute the people they hate.

    They’re not all like this, but most… This is why I don’t like gays. Nothing to do with being gay, but their fine-tuning of the “pretend to be harmed as an excuse to lash out” at anyone who doesn’t press the prescribed liberal agenda precisely as directed. While a fundamental premise of everything democrat, gays make an issue of attacking virtually everyone, all the time, with this stupid tactic. It’s tiring and sad.

    Not all, but enough that I avoid them. Being a douche bag is an inter-gender-preference concept, and they are the Kings of being douche bags. Or Queens, whatever… I don’t like douche bags, has nothing to do with gender, save that a certain demographic in that category persistently make a point of being huge douche bags…

  54. I’m confused. This was in a public park? Why didn’t the OCers just ignore them and walk right on past them?

    And what’s with the chanting “We have a right to say we don’t feel safe” over and over and over? What are they, in third grade?

    • If it was a public park (I don’t know) – honestly the thought that “Well you make us feel unsafe” and the idea that they were *removed* would make me pretty angry…

      Are we sure that they were removed from the area? Or was it sort of like a “you can’t associate with them” sort of thing.
      The chants are exactly that, childish, and don’t help their cause. Neither is shoehorning “commonsense” into every commentary. But someone told them do to do it this way, and that’s how they’re going to keep doing it.

      I’ve seen other instances of the ‘chanting’, and the most it’s done is creep me out. I think it’s just a way to stop conversation and silence dissenting voices of your opposition — so it’s all about volume. What it says, I guess, probably isn’t important to them.

  55. I think that they have the right to tell whoever they want to leave their pretentious parade…only when they stand up for cake makers that say no to making cakes for a gay wedding. Because that’s similar. That’s fair.

    But they want their cake and they wanna eat it as well…and they can’t. That’s not fair.

    They are douchebags of the highest order. I like how they think they’re better than you…OOH, look at us. Well, I’m sad to tell them they look like they smell bad. Please tell me I’m right.

  56. That was classic Olympia for you right there. You have to accept my rights no questions asked – end of conversation. But if I don’t like what you are doing I will start a group chat to drowned you out so you don’t have a voice. Whether it be a city counsel meeting or debate on the sidewalk this is how they strong arm you in to giving up. I wonder how they would feel if a group of them went to Lakefair just to find a bunch of people who didn’t like gays blocked their participation in the event and started chanting “we don’t feel safe” until they left. That would have made front page news in the daily zero. They are so blinded by their cause they can’t see how hypocritical they are.

    Plus I really question that they would have the ability to block access to the open carry group seeing how the park they were in is part of the state capital campus. The same capital campus that has open carry rallys all the time. It is the peoples capital and open carry is allowed on the grounds. Seeing how the Washington state patrol provides security for the whole campus including Heritage park where this event was. I would have seek one out because they are always at event that might be controversial and had them explain that they have the right to open carry on the state capital grounds. I have found the Washington state patrol to be fairly reasonable people and would have done right by the letter of the law. That they would have told the chanting antis to leave them alone.

    I do find it funny in being around these type of people a lot. That people of the gun are so much more inclusive then these “open minded” groups ever are.

  57. We don’t have open carry here in CA. However, the local ranges I shoot at (San Jose area) welcome everyone from a gay shooting group (Pink Pistols) to Scouts. Nobody cares about gender, sexual orientation etc. when the common interest is safety and improving skills. Pride organizers in San Francisco have no problem with gay gun enthusiasts marching either – see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORXA7fWh48w

    Strongly suspect the exclusion in Olympia would be grounds for prohibiting Pride organizers from use of pubic facilities (streets and parks) and a parade permit for future events. Tough to see how the “don’t feel safe with X around” excuse couldn’t be applied to racial minorities, a guy wearing “I girls” t-shirt, or anything one chooses as an excuse from excluding the public at public events using public property.

    Hope the open carry folks file complaints against pride organizers with Olympia authorities. I would if denied entry and I’m gay.

  58. It makes no sense. Of all people, gays should be carrying. If their concern is defending themselves against violence, that would be a great way to do so. But really, everyone who is able and responsible enough should carry, regardless of their race or sexual ID/lifestyle.

    Probably half the reason why they’re automatically pushed out in this video is that often the pro-gay media is very liberal and left-leaning, which, unfortunately, is anti-gun.

    But yeah, good for calling them out on this.

  59. I think a big part of it is Evergreen. I went and graduated in 1986 and lived in Oly for 8 years. Note that the same people had NO problem in Seattle – even posing for pics with smiling cops.

    In 1984, my male housemate was kicked out of a dance for dancing shirtless – because women allegedly couldn’t. Contrast that with the top free movement or today’s pics of topless Lebanese women burning an ISIS flag, and honestly, I just think that some of us on the left have crawled so deep up our precious feelings that we’ve lost our courage.

    Meanwhile, in Seattle, two guys from Oly were beaten by three guys from Seattle who didn’t like their “lifestyle.” As human rights for gay people find more acceptance, we’re going to need the Pink Pistols more in the coming years than maybe all of the last few decades. When you have the votes, you don’t need to beat someone to prove your point. It’ll get ugly, before it gets better.

    I’m a bi / poly (22 years married, ten of those years in a fourple) / pro 2nd / lefty and don’t find any of that inconsistent. There are more of us than you might think.

    I find the Oly Pride response really sad and shameful.

Comments are closed.