Strange Bedfellows


PDA






Mark Tyson
January 10, 2003, 05:29 PM
A number of threads here have addressed the issue of gay and sexual minority gun rights groups. I think that the gay community should be more aggressively targeted for recruitment by the gun rights movement.

Gays are frequently victims of violent crime for their lifestyle. When these crimes happen the police are where they always are, too far away to help. The self defense argument may be the gun rights movement's most compelling argument. Stories about gays who defended themselves from hateful bigots are just as powerful as stories about abused women who fought back against their tormenters.

Politicians who throw away that mass-mailed NRA card without a second thought will pay attention to a letter from a group like pink pistols. Gays are stereotyped as liberal, and left wing politicians may take their vote for granted. When they realize that their position on this issue is costing them votes among one of their central cocnstituencies, they will definitely take notice.

A gay gun owner is about as far from the stereotype of the "illiterate redneck"(forgive me for using that word) as you can get. Peaceful gun owners have been subjected to a great deal of such hateful slander during the dark years Clinton's (spit) reign. Some of that slander has unfortunately managed to stick, and we must do our best to wash it away.

I think that the shooting community, firearms training facilities, or similar groups should take out ads in gay publications and otherwise invite them to empower themselves to fight back against those who would take away their rights or their lives. I think we should discuss methods for reaching out to them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange Bedfellows" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
David Roberson
January 10, 2003, 05:34 PM
Amen. We need to work more closely with all those who want to defend freedom. Gays and racial minorities are good prospects for allies in the ongoing campaign against Those Who Would Be Our Masters.

scottgun
January 10, 2003, 05:41 PM
Not everyone believes that homosexuality is an acceptable life style, or that people need to define themselves based on their sexual preferences.

If you are into shooting, that's great, but I don't care and don't want to hear about your sexual preferences.

spacemanspiff
January 10, 2003, 05:46 PM
i think that all oppressed people are beginning to realize that they have to take matters of personal safety and security into their own hands. its commendable to see groups like Pink Pistols gain positive exposure.

its unfortunate that people still try to play 'higher entity' and judge another persons choices, and worse yet, take action against those who they judge 'unworthy'. we'd like to think that society would display positive traits and foster tolerance. that may take a few more generations to accomplish however.


with that said, i'd like to play devils advocate for a brief moment. everyone has opinions, and what floats one persons boat doesnt always float anothers. and if i should want to state my thoughts on why i like my eggs overeasy as opposed to scrambled should be allowed. all this political correct BS just frustrates me. as long as i dont try to make everyone else prepare their eggs overeasy and impose my system of beliefs on others, why should anyone care what i say about it? its not like i'm saying that deviants who like scrambled eggs will burn in each of the 9 levels of hell.
we have opinions. why is it wrong to express our opinions? i'm not just talking about sexual orientation, i'm talking about issues or race, gender, 9mm vs .45, glock vs 1911, tomato vs tomatoe.
all i ask is to be able to SPEAK MY MIND. i dont want you to conform to emulate me. just let me rant for a minute or two, just like i've done here.

okay, back to our regular programming.

roscoe
January 10, 2003, 07:57 PM
Scottgun,

I think the point is that homosexuals do exist and do identify themselves as a distinct group. They are a vocal minority that often gets listened to by the left and, as such, represent a potentially effective advocacy group supporting RKBA. You will find that liberals will listen to what they have to say more often than they will listen to many other groups.

Given the prevelance of gay-bashing, they have an easily identifiable and articulable reason to carry firearms, and they are treated respectfully by the press.

They could easily become a powerful ally, if we can bring them around in numbers.

Your difficulty in accepting their lifestyle is potentially counterproductive to promoting the cause of RKBA generally. Besides, nowadays identifying ineself as gay/lesbian is as much a political statement as a sexual one.

4v50 Gary
January 10, 2003, 08:02 PM
Gays got political clout. While I don't care what a person's political preference is at the range and it's irrelevant there anyhow (the only real relevant issue is safety), if we can muster their influence in favor of the Second Amendment when it comes to the ballot box and influencing politicians, we should. In the fight for our rights, we can't be picky about our allies or exclude potential allies. We've been losing ground since '68 and it's time to retake them.

Gordon
January 10, 2003, 08:15 PM
How about "nobody bashes a .32" for a slogan?:evil:

jsalcedo
January 10, 2003, 08:29 PM
I read recently that the pink pistols were getting letters of support from NRA members and other "conservative groups"
at the same time a huge amount of hate mail from gay rights groups telling them they are giving a bad name to gays everywhere by embracing violence.

Strance bedfellows indeed.

Morgan
January 10, 2003, 08:32 PM
The Pink Pistols are a great group. The gay community as a whole probably isn't comfortable with the NRA, etc., but now, with a group of their own, they (and we) have a great opportunity to reach liberal politicians.

The gay community is also typically an upper-class financial group with a penchant for conspicuous consumption (as evidenced by Jaguar's recent gay market ads). It'd be interesting to know what the weapon of choice is among them.

jsalcedo
January 10, 2003, 09:01 PM
Its got to be a Glock :D :neener:

sctman800
January 10, 2003, 09:26 PM
I am a happly married man with a great wife, she likes guns also. That being the case, I don't want to be hit on by any one, gay guy or good looking woman, but as long as they are not hitting on me I care less about their sex life. I work with a young black guy who is gay, we all know it but he doesn't bother anyone about being gay, or black. I think he is a nice kid, I say kid because he is quite a bit younger than me. I guess what I am trying to say is that I would rather sit down and eat lunch and talk to a gay guy than the most gorgeous woman in the world if she is a "gun hater" Guns and freedom are a lot more importaint to me than someones sexual orientation. A man has to set priorieties. Jim.

Standing Wolf
January 10, 2003, 09:29 PM
I have more in common with homosexual Second Amendment and firearms enthusiasts than heterosexual anti-Second Amendment bigots; I remain, however, profoundly bored with other people's love lives.

spacemanspiff
January 10, 2003, 09:36 PM
why do all straight men fear being hit on by gay men? maybe since i rarely get women hitting on my fugly mug i know i have nothing to fear from a homosexual trying to flirt with me. :D

and because of that, its obvious that i dont have to be flamboyantly straight, so it'd be nice if out of common courtesy everyone else could refrain from being flamboyantly whatever as well.

we all have a stereotype of homosexuals looking a certain way, acting differently, talking with a lisp, behaving in a feminine manner, etc.

PM me if you want to hear what henry rollins had to say about homosexuals and the 'perks' such a lifestyle would bring. i'd post it here, but it might be offensive to some.

Gordon
January 11, 2003, 12:40 AM
Now I'm a hetro old man with grand kids but I'd like to shoot with a homosexual man or women. "An armed society is a polite society" . I would NOT like to shoot with a "hairy chested nut scratcher", and would not like to be around an anti.:)

MessedUpMike
January 11, 2003, 02:06 AM
I think some people are getting jumpy and missing the point."hairy chested nut scratcher"? I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a generalazation of a particular sexual preference, or a condemnation against all of us who have hairy chests and scratch. It's not very polite at any rate and doesn't do much to put us in better light. There was a thread recently about the difference between beliefs and convictions. For those of us who feel the RKBA is a conviction and a right for EVERYONE we have to embrace everyone who feels the same. It kind of makes it a double edged sword. Personally there are many more peole who would make me uncofortable to be around armed than the Pink Pistols. Skinheads come immediately to mind. I feel it's worthwhile to support ANYONE who wants to take up arms in the interest of personal defense who does not intend harm towards others. It would also help to stop us from looking like a bunch of hairy chested, beer drinking, crushing cans on our heads, overthrow the government, cheered when bambi's mother died rednecks to accept and encourage a diversified crowd.

Gray Peterson
January 11, 2003, 03:24 AM
<b>we all have a stereotype of homosexuals looking a certain way, acting differently, talking with a lisp, behaving in a feminine manner, etc. </b>

Speaking as a gay man, I can say that some of it is an act. Me, I do it only on rare occasion as a matter of comedy.

There are those who use it to be shocking, and do it all the time. Some do it because they're just psychologically effeminate, whereas some do it just to "piss the breeders off".

Let me say this:

I'm butch. I'm masculine. You wouldn't be able to tell I'm gay. I could be your friend just as easily because I don't push my sexuality on people. I don't hide it, but I don't push it, either.

Wildalaska
January 11, 2003, 03:43 AM
"No one bashes a .32"..Great slogan..

The NRA should set up a booth in that annual SF Gay pride parade. Ah the future...

""We're here...we're queer...we're ARMED..."

"Senator Boxer, we are here on behalf of the SF gay gun owners society. We are letting you know that in our opinion, gun control is nothing more than a plot of the extrmeist right wing to ensure we are helpless and defenseless so they can feel free to bash us. Because of your anti second amendment attitude, we are withdrawing our support from you...."

Naa wake up...too many gun owners see freedom as a means only to carry as much hardware as they want to fuel their own hatreds, rather than as an open society where all are welcome. Look at some of the extremist posts on this Board.

Pendragon
January 11, 2003, 05:51 AM
Not everyone believes that homosexuality is an acceptable life style, or that people need to define themselves based on their sexual preferences.

If you are into shooting, that's great, but I don't care and don't want to hear about your sexual preferences.

Most people who have a problem with gay people because:

1. They grew up in a church that denounces the homosexual lifestyle

2. They are ooged out by it and cannot get over it - much like 3 year olds are about bathroom functions.


Listen - if you have a religious problem with homosexuals, fine - just be consistent. Most people who I know who get hung up on this issue for religious reasons have no trouble associating with heterosexuals who practice extra-marital sex. Thats just as "sinful" - yet it is not as "repulsive" so they do not alter their lifestyle to avoid people who may be doing that.

Second - the whole weird "oh I hope they dont hit on me!" thing is just preposterous. I have a few gay friends and guess what? They dont go around trying to cop a feel or convert me or other straight people. I mean seriously, this makes me laugh.

Whether or not you agree with their "lifestyle", you cannot deny two things:

1. They have a right to live and defend their life.

2. They are a powerful political force that could give RKBA a real shot in the arm.

Trisha
January 11, 2003, 12:15 PM
If the 2A movement was successful, then American youth would be involved en-masse; but it's not.

If the 2A movement was inherently relevant, then +30 years of LSD gun-bashing would've been completely inneffective; but that's turned out differently.

If the 2A movement was celebrating active outreach and inclusion, then all demographics of our society would be visible and comfortable at the range; but that isn't happening.

What to do?

Learn enough about the people you identify as "them" to deconstruct any stereotype - so we can relate to each other. I see enough evidence of stereotypes in this thread (and one other comes immediately to mind...) to make me wince:

But I will resist the urge to try and address them (....somehow...); that's something for you to look into. Here's a place to start, if you're so inclined: http://www.inthelifetv.org/

For those of you who haven't visited Pink Pistols web site, please go and do some reading: http://www.pinkpistols.org/

I've very recently learned that being a lesbian is seen as being akin to accessorizing my basic reality with hearing concepts such as "it's a lifestyle choice," or "it's about what you do behind closed doors," and so on.

You've got your homework cut out for you (no one specifically, please).

The 2A movement defines itself as being isolationist every time more demonstrations of stereotypical definitions are voiced - and the LSD's celebrate - because they've made the active outreach.

We're not "them."

We're already among you.

We're members of your Police Departments, teachers, electricians, paramedics, firefighters, truck drivers, dentists, authors; we're your children, your relatives, your best friends - and you likely don't know that yet if you see "us" as "them."

Taking a very deep breath....

I've only neen out for a little over a decade - and I went "public" with this, my first article:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1741

To me, just as to the millions of other LBGT people, I'm normal.

The intolerance still so pervasive sees somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 adolescent Americans either literally kicked out of their homes for coming out - or they leave out of desperation; and they are killed there in horrifying numbers every day. One municipality verified that 92% of their homeless youth was LBGT...

The 2A community likes to see itself as defining the very best of what it is to be an American, to embrace and cherish liberty, insuring a future that sees the reality of our "melting pot" Republic viable and renewed delivered to our inheritors.

That doesn't seem to be happening, does it?

In our homes, should a family member come out and ask questions about being gay, are we reaching out with humanity and acceptance and love and courage - living the reality that willl see us delivering that idealistic vision intact?

We can do so much more - but it will mean we build bridges: "What's the best way to build a bridge?" "From both ends, simultaneously!"

A few of us are being very visible, initiating just that concept.

I believe that together, actualizing the motto "United we stand," we can deliver on the promise of Liberty to a degree unimaginable to the apathetic, the disenfranchized, the "them."

By example.

Trisha

JamisJockey
January 11, 2003, 12:27 PM
I think he is a nice kid,

How would you feel if he was out, on his own time, and maybe tried to pick up a new 'friend' in a bar. Instead, three rednecks beat him up and tie him to a fence, leaving him to die...?
Now, how would you feel if he saved his own hide with a firearm?
The reason we should 'target' these groups is because they are discriminated against. The second amendment is all about empowerment. People can defend themselves and don't need to rely on JBT's to do it!
:fire:

By the way, I'm an Athiest Libertarian. You Bible thumpers have every right to believe what you want, the same that I, or a gay, or any :cuss:ing one else has the right to believe what they want!


:neener:

Preacherman
January 11, 2003, 01:16 PM
Pendragon - EXACTLY! I angered many in my congregation a while back by making exactly your point: sexual sin (according to the classic Christian biblical definition) involves any sexual relationship outside a monogamous, male-female, permanent married relationship. Whether it's hetero- or homosexual is absolutely irrelevant - the definition is relatively simple and straightforward. This makes many Christians, who are involved in heterosexual extra-marital relationships, very uncomfortable, due to the beam in their own eye, which makes it difficult for them to point out the splinter in their homosexual neighbor's eye...

I think it's important to recognize that we live in a post-Christian, multi-faceted society. I guess the great majority of society (probably in excess of 80%, perhaps over 90%), whether or not they proclaim any particular morality (Christian or otherwise) with their mouths, do not practice it in their daily lives. They've developed a double standard of living - "what I do and say in Church need not equate to what I do and say in my private life, and the twain need never meet". Even worse is that many allegedly Christian leaders fail the "morality test" miserably - and if their leaders are repeatedly caught in such moral peccadilloes, why should their followers feel guilty or uptight if they do the same thing(s)? Think of high-profile public figures like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jimmy Swaggart, Cardinal Law (who admittedly did not commit such lapses himself, but covered for those who had), President Clinton, Congressman Barney Frank, and so on.

Oddly enough, many gun-owners and Second Amendment supporters are guilty of exactly the same kind of self-deception. They talk at great length, sometimes very vehemently, about what the Second Amendment means, and how it must be defended to the death, and how important it is: but then they'll turn around and verbally blast another individual or group because they don't observe the same moral/religious/sexual/political norms as they do, or because their particular viewpoint is "un-American", or because they disagree on some point or other. If we regard the Second Amendment as critically important, what about the First, Third, etc., etc.? If we expect our rights and freedoms under the 2A to be supported and defended, we have to defend the rights to freedom of speech, religious liberty, freedom of association, etc. of others. It's a seamless continuum... one can't violate rights at one point without affecting the entire continuum of rights as a whole.

Let's apply this to religious choice and morality for a moment. (Puts on Preacherman's official costume, adjusts foil-lined hat...) As far as I know, and the Bible reveals, God's gift to humanity has always been, first and foremost, the gift of free will. We can read the Bible, hear the message of Jesus, and decide freely whether or not we wish to accept it. If we don't, God loves us enough to respect our choice, even though it may lead us to damnation. If He wanted conscripts in His army, he wouldn't have asked us to volunteer! (Removes Preacherman costume, continues to write in unpreacherly deshabillé.) I can't fault those who choose another religion, or a different version of Christianity - they have the right to choose, or to reject, whatever beliefs they choose.

In the same way, there are those who have made choices concerning their sexuality that I find personally distasteful, but they do not share my opinion. Fine - that's their right. It may be contrary to all that I believe, but they don't believe what I do. I must grant to them exactly what I want and expect and require them to grant to me - the freedom to choose for myself! It's a two-way street, and traffic must flow in both directions. I may believe that they're wrong, and try to "convert" them - but I never have the right to force my views on them. I shall almost certainly have a far greater effect on others by living what I believe in, and preaching by example, rather than by bombarding them with words alone, and banging them over the head with a Bible in which they don't believe!

By all means, if we agree on a common principle (in this case, the right to keep and bear arms), let's unite around that. Extraneous issues such as which arms, borne where, in what color, with what quantity and/or type of ammunition, and under what weather conditions, biorhythm indicators and planetary aspects of the Zodiac, are really not important. If we can work together regardless of race, creed, color or sexual preference, we're much more likely to prevail. If not... well, wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who said something to the effect that "if we don't hang together, we shall most assuredly hang separately?"

Archie
January 11, 2003, 02:33 PM
Preacherman

sexual sin (according to the classic Christian biblical definition) involves any sexual relationship outside a monogamous, male-female, permanent married relationship. Whether it's hetero- or homosexual is absolutely irrelevant

As far as I know, and the Bible reveals, God's gift to humanity has always been, first and foremost, the gift of free will. We can read the Bible, hear the message of Jesus, and decide freely whether or not we wish to accept it. If we don't, God loves us enough to respect our choice, even though it may lead us to damnation. If He wanted conscripts in His army, he wouldn't have asked us to volunteer!

From some things Preacherman has said, I believe he is of the Roman Church. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm a Southern Baptist, which is about as Protestant as one can be. But he is right on the mark! His comments are absolutely correct regarding sin and free will.

It is not particular actions (homosexuality, smoking, scratching in front of Mom) that condemn us, it is our rejection of Jesus Christ.
Jesus also said to "...render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's..." In other words, pay attention to the matter at hand.

Scottgun, let me ask you: Are you as careful in the rest of your life regarding dealings with "sinners"? Do you check out your auto mechanic and make sure he's not a smoker? Or a pornography enthusiast? Do you determine the grocery store clerk is not a gossip? (Paul condemns gossips along with homosexuals in the same sentence, by the way.)

There are many beliefs with which I take issue; Atc1man is an atheist. Maybe he and I can argue over that. But we have the background of being shootists and servicemen in common. And I'm a Libratarian as well. I would not run him out of the Pro Gun movement for his lack of belief.

I do not agree with the premise of homosexuality; but I certainly don't think they should be fair game for any nitwit who has to prove his or her superiority by cowardly violence.

I can tell you all this: If we loose the right to own weapons, we will eventually loose the right to choose our church, our God, or our sexual partner.

Keith
January 11, 2003, 03:19 PM
It certainly looks like the majority opinion here is to be inclusive rather than exclusive, so let's put our money where our mouth is and contact the Pink Pistols and simular groups and invite them over!

I wonder if a new forum under Social Situations would be appropriate? So these people could have a home base of some sort...

Oleg, are you up for this?

Keith

Betty
January 11, 2003, 03:29 PM
We've already had other threads discussing forums for specific groups of people, but that only separates us. We don't need to start it, or we're going to get too subdivided into bzillions of other forums like "Women with Guns", "Gays with Guns", "Disabled with Guns", etc.

Personally, I don't like neverending, super-subdivided categories - one reason why I don't frequent knifeforums.com anymore.

ALL responsible gun owners are welcome to gather here - heck, I believe some of our members are from Pink Pistols.

scottgun
January 11, 2003, 03:43 PM
Archie, I think you have taken other people's posts to extrapolate that I opposed to homosexuality based on religious views. I have made no such arguement.
Also, you state that you "do not agree with the premise of homosexuality". I agree with you.

We are all free to live our lives the way we wish, to a certain extent. I'm not going to convince anyone that what they are doing is wrong, that's not my job. I'm not a "Bible thumper" or "ilitarate red neck" gay basher, or homophobe, or any of the other names that are brought up when some one doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle. I may have a son or daughter someday who is gay and will I have to accept that. I will judge an individual based on their own merits, if that individual needs to identify themself with a particular group, then they open themselves to being judged on the merits of the group and not solely based on their own merits. I do believe in right and wrong, not moral relativism.

We can all subcategorize ourselves then call each other names, but I don't think that is very productive.
I enjoy reading your gun related stories, but as I said earlier, what you do in the bedroom is private and should remain so.

Gray Peterson
January 11, 2003, 05:58 PM
I'm not a "Bible thumper" or "ilitarate red neck" gay basher, or homophobe, or any of the other names that are brought up when some one doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle. I may have a son or daughter someday who is gay and will I have to accept that.

That can always happen. Remember the difference between a "lifestyle" and an orientation. Do I agree with what the typical gay community "deals" are, like gay sex clubs, and whatnot? Hell no!!!

Before this turns into a debate, and before anything gets out of control, I will keep religion OUT OF IT.

I've debated many a time with people who claim that homosexuality is a choice. They quote stuff from the Family Research Council, and other places that have publicly stated funded "research" for the purposes of their propaganda. That's like the Brady Campaign's policy of using biased research, like the Kellerman study and the 43/1 ratio.

Simply enough, I hope all of you realize that biased research on either side is amoral, no matter how good the "cause" is.

Gordon
January 11, 2003, 07:45 PM
Lonnie, Just one question: since I have anarchist leanings and am some what to the right of Ghengis Khan politically my religion is my only restraint and guideline. What exactly would restrain you from infringing on others following a "Pagan" belief system. What part of you generates the KINDNESS which is one of the few human characteristics worth having.:)

Trisha
January 11, 2003, 08:29 PM
Gordon, I've sent you a pm - it'll help keep this thread on-topic.

Trisha

pax
January 11, 2003, 08:45 PM
... i dont have to be flamboyantly straight, so it'd be nice if out of common courtesy everyone else could refrain from being flamboyantly whatever as well. ...
That's actually not possible.

If you go out in public with your (wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, significant mammal), your behaviour toward the other speaks volumes about your relationship with them.

I'll bet five dollars that if you're married, you have occasionally held your spouse's hand in public.

pax

nualle
January 11, 2003, 08:48 PM
Keith very generously suggested:
...let's put our money where our mouth is and contact the Pink Pistols and simular groups and invite them over!
Thanks for the thought but no need... we're already here. And I, for one, like the current forum organization just fine. I'd rather have generalized topic areas that have room for the topics that are near&dear to me than cordoned-off "home base" ghettos, IYKWIM.


Gordon asked an interesting question:
What exactly would restrain you from infringing on others following a "Pagan" belief system. What part of you generates the KINDNESS which is one of the few human characteristics worth having.
I describe my religion as "heathen" (see sig). As part of my religious outlook, I view certain of my ancestors (both lineal and cultural) more or less as Catholics view saints. I figure that's near enough to "Pagan" to take a crack at your question.

In answer, I am reminded of a quote from the movie "Amistad." Sengbe (played by Djimon Hounsou), said something along the lines of "At this moment in time, I am my ancestors' entire reason for being." Personally, I gain incentive to act honorably from thinking of what my honored ancestors might think of what I do. I also recognize that each and every person has a crowd of ancestors behind them, reaching back farther than human memory—certainly farther than the vogue of this or that set of religious ideas. I dunno about other folks, but that thought has made me hesitate, given me a little perspective, and caused me to moderate what might otherwise have been an immoderate reaction. Does that count for the kindness you mean?

Dave Markowitz
January 11, 2003, 09:17 PM
IMO, RKBA activists should reach out to minorities, since we need all the allies we can get. And I speak as one myself, being Jewish. The vast majority of Jews I've known have been socially conditioned to be antis. Somehow my dad escaped that mindset, so I've been rabidly pro-RKBA since I was little. And some of my fellow Jews are able to be awakened, if you nudge them in the right direction. ;)

Guy B. Meredith
January 11, 2003, 10:20 PM
I am glad to see the gay community coming on board, because as stated above they are politically active--much more so than the average gunny. I can't think of any group that would vex Pelosi and Brady more than gun toting gays. Just gotta love that.

Though I practice the Christian ethic, Maslov sets the example for me as to how this can be done--intrinsic (coming from within) rather than extrinsic (influenced from outside). I will treat all people with tolerance as long as they respect others, not just me.

Flamboyant behavior gets the cold shoulder. Individuals who are looking for attention are a turn off whether swish gay or just wanna-be-center-of-attention-drop-dead-beautiful women. I have no time for any of them.

However, if an individual of any persuasion wants to spend some constructive time on the firing line I will be the first to share my meager knowledge, on line use of my firearms for instruction and unlimited quantities of ammo.

Betty
January 11, 2003, 10:42 PM
I think it's a great thing that gays are interested in firearms and self-defense. The more people realize that discriminated groups aren't going to kick back and get trampled over, the better. That's more people who won't beat up on gays or murder one, because they'll fear they're armed and will defend temselves.

Saw a man in a brand new car with the tell-tale rainbow license plate sticker - someone had scratched a "very foul slang term for gay" in big letters on his trunk. :fire: It made me wonder - is the person who did this going to gather up a few buddies and wait for this guy to walk to his vehicle next time? What's going to happen if the victim is unarmed? Armed?

Gordon
January 11, 2003, 11:40 PM
This is great. I personally dont think its my business what your sex orientation is or your belief system-only like the "gratefull Dead" lyrics said "are you kind".:)

sgtredleg
January 11, 2003, 11:51 PM
Interesting Dialouge; (did I spell that right ?)

Iv'e been an ardent supporter of the 2A for years, and indeed am a Freedom activist.
I believe that 2A is ESSENTIAL for ALL people to maintain Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And that it is in their best interest to aggressively restore that Bulwark of Individual Freedom.
That said, I can't accept the Homosexual LIFESTYLE (or the unfaithful Heterosexual for that matter ) as a wholesome, reliable ally in what I view as a war on Individual Freedom.
I'm sure I'll be flamed on this one, So be it.
If nothing else this thread has caused me to re-evaluate my priorities, it is time I break out the "Good Book" again.
Later All it's been fun,:uhoh:

nualle
January 12, 2003, 11:26 AM
sgtredleg said:
That said, I can't accept the Homosexual LIFESTYLE (or the unfaithful Heterosexual for that matter ) as a wholesome, reliable ally in what I view as a war on Individual Freedom.
I'm sure I'll be flamed on this one, So be it.
No flame. Just this: What you accept or don't accept isn't what matters. What matters is what you do about it.

You don't find me wholesome or reliable? That's fine. I'm not too hurt by that. Who knows... I may feel similarly about you. We are nonetheless allies in the struggle for freedom. That remains the case until one of us starts working toward some other goal than freedom.

Keith
January 12, 2003, 03:18 PM
I see what you mean by creating a "ghetto" with a new area. That wasn't my intent.

It's difficult for new people to "break in" to a forum, especially one like this where those new to guns may feel totally lost at first - I mean, look at the acronyms and other specialized language we use! Add to that the constant flaming of each other, ie: your Glock, 1911, Mouse Gun, etc, sucks! This is mostly tongue-in-cheek and merely considered a form of entertainment, but I imagine it's pretty difficult for a novice to come in here and post some basic questions in the face of what passes for "wit" among dedicated shooters.

I feel strongly that we should cater to new blood in whatever way we can. Perhaps a "no-flame" area devoted to novice gun owners in general would serve the purpose more easily? Call it the "Welcome Aboard Forum" or something like that.

Keith

Tamara
January 12, 2003, 03:29 PM
Perhaps a "no-flame" area

The intent of the (admittedly more strict than your typical gun board) polices at THR, and TFL before it, is to create a whole board that is a "no-flame" area where new folks will feel comfortable asking their questions. ;)

Keith
January 12, 2003, 03:45 PM
Tamara, a "no flame" board is a great idea but, look around you... it's not going to happen, not totally. Much of what passes for "give and take" on a board like this, would be seen as "flaming" by an outsider. The forum (and users) do an admirable job of keeping things civil, but some friction is inevitable. I mean, just mention Tupperware to a Glock owner, and... well, you know how THOSE people are!

I think an area devoted to "the basics" has merit, but it is not for me to decide.

Keith

gwalchmai
January 12, 2003, 04:28 PM
Speaking only for myself, I think the 2nd Ammendment applies to all citizens, just as the right to self-defense applies to all people everywhere.

I get the chills, though, when people talk about making sure their elected reps know they are "gay and armed", or they express concern about certain minorities not being represented "enough" at gun ranges. How far a stretch is it for the libs in this country to conclude that RKBA might be a great thing, but only for "protected minorities"?

Far fetched? Maybe so, but I'm old enough to remember when the civil rights movement was devoted to a color-blind society, instead of a vipers' nest of racial and sexual preference.


So yeah, RKBA for everybody, but I'd prefer to see you as a gunowner. Not a gay-gunowner, or a redneck-gunowner, or a black-gunowner.

Respectfully,
g ;)

Malone LaVeigh
January 12, 2003, 05:30 PM
gwalchmai:

Not far-fetched at all. One of the things that has frustrated me about my well-meaning liberal friends is how they will often look the other way when oppressed minorities take up arms, but don't think I should have the ability to protect my rights. On the other hand, the subject being raised can be an opportunity to open up a dialogue. The problem is there has been a history of the gun rights movement being allied with some of the same forces that did the oppressing. there's a lot of distrust on both sides.

gwalchmai
January 12, 2003, 05:54 PM
Malone:

I agree.

Perhaps some of the problems with some of the bad associations was that the gun rights movement was too quick to adopt other ideas in order to get the gun rights support. By keeping the gun rights part separate we may avoid such associations.

I may disagree with someone's choice regarding their sexual preference, but still support their 2nd Ammendment rights.

I don't necessarily have to share someone's position regarding abortion just because I share their position on the RKBA.

I may be completely opposed to one person's stand regarding the legalization of marijuana, yet fully support their CCW position.

We all have a lot of freedoms in this country. One of the most important is our freedom to choose which issues we agree upon.


Respectfully,
g ;)

edited to add: Your point about opening a dialog with the left regarding RKBA is a good one. They may be more open to the idea if it's coming from a "friendly source". Still though, I just have trouble trusting the leftists.

DrDremel
January 12, 2003, 07:11 PM
Most openly gay people live in urban areas. There is not as many gun owners in urban areas. Besides, The problem with aligning with the gay community is that they are a group that does not want tolerance, they want forced acceptance. Tolerance is: I don't agree with you but can live with you. What they want is: I agree with you and think that what you are doing is right. They twist the words of anyone that does not agree with their choice. If you think it is wrong to be gay they call you homophobic, which is a fear of homosexuals. That is not true. They are Heterophobic as they fear not being accepted by heterosexuals. I am not homophobic, my brother in law is gay and I don't hate him or fear him or any other gay person. I feel it is wrong as I am allowed to. The media portrays the entire nation as believing that homosexuality is an acceptable and correct way to live. I believe that most of America agrees with me. Those that own the media are percentage wise, more likely to be gay than other parts of the country. The only way I could see any special benefit from a gay person in the fight for gun rights is if a pro-gun gay person shoots someone that attacks them. I don't want to attack anyone with a gun no matter what they believe so I would not hold my breath.

Duke of Lawnchair
January 12, 2003, 09:58 PM
If you are into shooting, that's great, but I don't care and don't want to hear about your sexual preferences.

AMEN.

Guy B. Meredith
January 13, 2003, 02:09 AM
gwalchmai,

You don't agree with legalizing marijuana? Haven't you heard of 'shotgunning' pot? Who says drugs and guns don't mix. :rolleyes:

On the other hand, I have a hard time visualizing putting the muzzle of any firearm to my mouth for any reason...

gwalchmai
January 13, 2003, 09:02 AM
Guy - my post was I may be completely opposed to one person's stand regarding the legalization of marijuana, yet fully support their CCW position.
I didn't say what either of those stands may be.

Resp.
g ;)

Monte Harrison
January 13, 2003, 10:25 AM
This image has Oleg written all over it:
http://www.pinkpistols.org/images/splash3.jpg
Is it one of his?

nualle
January 13, 2003, 10:29 AM
Good eye. Yes, it is Oleg's. I know 'cause I'm the model.

doseyclwn
January 13, 2003, 11:13 AM
I'm reading this thread, and taking great interest because I have a shooting partner who is so gay that other gay men look at him and go "Damn, that guy is gay". My opinions as to the appeal of the gay lifestyle to me are totally beside the point when it comes to my relationship with him. I may not exactly seek out him kissing his boyfriend, but I don't seek out him eating cauliflower either (which I actually find much more disgusting). And a funny thing, he has yet to graphically describe one of his sexual acts to me, nor I to him. My opinion of his lifestyle should mean little, even if he were to think I'm hot. There are plenty of women I think are hot, and I have yet to show any of them (except the wife) my willie. My friend has never attempted to have sex with my 2 year old son. I routinely leave him in my buddies care.

Plus, he's a better shot than me.

Archie
January 14, 2003, 02:24 AM
My apologies for my mistake.

Now let us get on with overturning these idiotic gun laws.

Wildalaska
January 14, 2003, 03:38 AM
Those that own the media are percentage wise, more likely to be gay than other parts of the country.

Got any facts to support that?

Matt G
January 14, 2003, 04:41 AM
Good question. While there is a higher likelyhood of liberal bias among media heads, I don't see the correlation with them being gay.



Friends and neighbors, I'm proud of the way y'all have been conducting yourselves in this thread. Even the dissenters are polite and without flames. That is what The High Road is about! :)

That said, I think we're pretty much beating an expired equine by now, don'tcha think? ;)

BamBam-31
January 14, 2003, 05:17 AM
I dunno. Something not kosher about accepting gays on account of their political clout. Either you accept them, or you don't. Why should their views towards the 2nd be the deciding factor? Ulterior motive, and not completely honest.

The ends justify the means, I guess.

spacemanspiff
January 14, 2003, 09:25 AM
If you go out in public with your (wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, significant mammal), your behaviour toward the other speaks volumes about your relationship with them.
I'll bet five dollars that if you're married, you have occasionally held your spouse's hand in public.


actually pax, the first sentence of my post you quoted from should have indicated that my ventures into the vast public are solo, and for all intents and purposes, will remain solo, if not by force, than by choice.


i'm surprised this thread has stayed open this long. i am very disappointed that people still make judgements about others. i hate to continue bringing religion in here, but if our beliefs in a higher entity include condemning the actions of other humans who are just as imperfect as we are, then we've become fundamentalists instead of just believers. maybe the majority dont have a problem being labeled a fundamentalist, but i would rather avoid such a path and realize that if there is a higher entity that will judge all humans, i should only be concerned about what i will be judged for, not for so-and-so over there.

we all shoot. we all support the 2nd Amendment. 'nuff said.

Strings
January 14, 2003, 03:56 PM
... if Nualle is still on COFO or not (my pagan gunowners mailing list), but we've been talking about some form of website that could act as a "guidepost" for those of a "minority" to find the shooting sports. We've got the Pink Pistols, JPFO, SAS, the 10th Cav... all dedicated to bringing in "non-traditional" shooters. A central website with links to all the groups (including NRA, GOA, etc) would probably be a good idea...

Of course, I've been talking about this with pagans. Talk about herding cats!:banghead:

Khornet
January 14, 2003, 06:02 PM
and everyone, including those I disagee with, has that right. I will welcome anyone here who supports RKBA...as supportes of RKBA and fellow shooters, not as homosexuals, heteros, etc.

'course, if you approach me from the standpoint of your beliefs rather than as a fellow shooter, and if your beliefs conflict with mine, then we'll have an argument.

I'd rather be shooting.

pax
January 14, 2003, 06:22 PM
actually pax, the first sentence of my post you quoted from should have indicated that my ventures into the vast public are solo, and for all intents and purposes, will remain solo, if not by force, than by choice.
Whoops, I must not have been as clear as I should have been. "You" in that sentence was a generic "you," rather than a specific "you."

If one goes out in public with a significant other, one's behaviour toward that other speaks volumes as to one's relationship with the other.

Convoluted, but less personal and less likely to be misunderstood.

What I was trying to say is that there's no way not to be "flamboyantly" whatever-you-are.

Often, when a straight says they "don't want to know about it," they are actually saying that they don't want any people around them to give any indication of being whatever-they-are. And that's a fundamental impossibility.

Not only so, it's also fundamentally hypocritical. I say hypocritical because straights behave like straights in public and would be horrified at the idea of behaving like gays simply in order to get along with those around them. Very understandably, they want to behave like what they are instead of like what they're not. When the shoe is on the other foot, though, many straights want gays to act like what they're not instead of like what they are -- on pain of scorning, shunning, spitting, or worse.

Btw, you probably know that 'fundamentalist' isn't a dirty word for many believers (though it is for others). Some consider it merely descriptive ... and to others, it is a badge of honor. Of course, the secular definition of "fundamentalist" and the definition commonly accepted in the Christian sub-culture split radically some time ago. But I agree with your primary point: "To his own Master he stands or falls..." Too many people, Christian and otherwise, want to be the judge of everybody else's behavior. To accept a Christian view of the world means to acknowledge that there is only one Lawgiver and Judge -- and that we are not He.

pax

It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not. -- Andre Gide

spacemanspiff
January 14, 2003, 07:02 PM
maybe i just need to quit letting mass media feed the stereotypes i associate with people?

how can you tell if a person is hetero, if you never see them with a sig-other? how can you tell a fair-skinned person is german, russian, polish, if they dont speak with an accent?


personally, i dont like the idea of a fundamentalist. basically, i interpret the word to mean that you are convinced that all your beliefs are correct, and that everyone else should conform to what you believe. anything less is sacrilege.

i dont define 'fundamentalist' any other way. a person can have strong convictions and never waiver in their faith, WITHOUT imposing their systems on others. we sometimes associate 'fundamentalist' with extreme factions, such as islam. a fundamentalist follower of islam is what we see setting off bombs and killing in the name of 'god', inflicting supposed 'divine judgement' on the unbelievers.

i have strong faith, that would only be shaken by definitive proof that my systems are incorrect. but i'm not going to be so presumptious that i will judge other imperfect humans because they are different than i am. and thats what i see being displayed by some here.

i find that sad.

Shalako
January 14, 2003, 09:02 PM
Rainbow Power- Special interest group du jour

Catering to special interest groups is something the liberals cooked up to get more votes. The ‘color-blind’ thing had already run its course, so the libs dissected up the social spectrum and say they are more suited to understand and represent you, the people-of-labor, people-of-color, people-of-exceptionality, people-of-gayety, etc.

That’s how they do it. We on the other hand realize that people are valued on their personal merit and not a society prescribed affiliation that defines its members. If we start seeking out each individual special interest group to explain why they need the RKBA, we are fighting the battle on the libs’ terms, and they wrote the book on that one. I say we stick to our guns and say RKBA for all.
Period.

I say 'Welcome Aboard' Pink Pistols and all other RKBA enthusiasts as well.

-Shalako

Mannlicher
January 14, 2003, 09:29 PM
These threads can be contentious. Personally, I am fairly non judgmental, but I will never be convinced that any kind of gay lifestyle is proper or right.

That having been said, folks can do what ever they want to behind their own doors. I will always be offended by public displays of affection though, be it gay or hetero.

I feel that any one that has to use his/her sexual preference as the primary indentifier for his/her persona, is a pretty sad person anyway.

so far as gun ownership, what do I care who ownes a gun, as long as their intentions are non threatning towards me.

Wildalaska
January 14, 2003, 09:38 PM
I will always be offended by public displays of affection though, be it gay or hetero.

Ever hold your wifes hand in public? You get offended if you see a boy and girl holding hands?

Yes and no?

How about 2 guys holding hands.

Sorry gays have the right to be accepted for what they are, just like anyone else.

gwalchmai
January 14, 2003, 09:54 PM
Sorry gays have the right to be accepted for what they are, just like anyone else.Whether they do or don't, they still have the same 2nd Ammendment rights as you and I - no more, no less. I think that's where the focus needs to stay. Otherwise it'll get pulled into as many directions as there are colors in a rainbow. The antis would love to apply hate crime logic to RKBA and balkanize us.

Resp.
g ;)

ajacobs
January 14, 2003, 10:53 PM
I am the co-starter for lack of a better word of the upstate New York chapter of the Pink Pistols. We have about 35 members. On the club level (speaking for our chapter only) are objective is media coverage. That is a preventive measure to give people a second thought that the gay person they are about to harass or bash may be armed. In regards to the political activism with the second amendment we are almost all both NRA and GOA members and are happy lending are support to the cause through these groups. On the practical level we hope to give people who may not have previously taken an interest in or had the oppertunity the training and mindset to be able to defent them selves. Additionally we are a somewhat social fraternity.

The goal was not origianally to be a seperate group to fight for the second ammendment as I understand it. We just by chance found ourselves in a unique situation in regards to the media that allowed us to contribute to that fight and that helps with the goal of deterance as stated above.

Personally I as well as many homosexual persons view my sexuality as only a small part of my personality, one of my many characteristics. I have never made it an issue and no one has ever made it an issue with me. I am lucky enough never to have been harrassed, I asume it is becuase most people would never guess I was gay. I served in the army, I graduated from syracuse university, I work as a state park ranger now. I have fought activly for the second amendment for ten years, I train search dogs, I teach hunter education, I can't spell, I could shoot a different gun every day for 2.5 months and still not have shot them all, I go away to some form of training atleast once a year and all of those things are probally more defing parts of my personality than my sexuality. I don't want to use my sexuality as a barging chip with our elected represenitives but if at the same time it gets the RKBA more press I will begrudginly agree.

Much like the disabled I don't want to be a special interest group I want to be treated the same, as that was the priciple our coutry was founded on "all men are created equal". Heck, I even hate the word homophobia as it implies a fear when more often than not it is a dislike.

And to put a different twist on what was said many times above "a friend of the RKBA is a friend of mine (even if they are religious zealot that hates our constituational freedom to be who we are):D :D

Gordon
January 15, 2003, 12:05 AM
Well I cant spell and I shoot a different gun everyday of the year and if I was in Vt. I would ask to join the pink pistols too. Would that be OK?:)

Preacherman
January 15, 2003, 12:22 AM
personally, i dont like the idea of a fundamentalist. basically, i interpret the word to mean that you are convinced that all your beliefs are correct, and that everyone else should conform to what you believe. anything less is sacrilege.Good definition, Spiffikins - I think that there are many of us (including me!) who "are convinced that [our] beliefs are correct", but do NOT insist that others must conform to them. This is not fundamentalism, IMHO, but realism. We've all come to where we are through our own backgrounds and personal history. I'm convinced that there is an objective Truth that overrides all personal interpretation and choice: and to me, that Truth has a name... but the road to it takes us through many different approaches. May we all arrive at that Truth one day!

Mannlicher, I'm with you in saying that I will never personally believe that a gay lifestyle is right, morally or otherwise: but I've worked with many, many gay and lesbian people, and continue to do so. They know I'm unabashedly hetero (although celibate), and don't judge me for it, just as I don't judge them. When you've held someone in your arms as they die of AIDS, or help them get over a beating they've taken because of their lesbian lifestyle, you find they're human beings, just as you are, and they need your love, support and strength, just as you may well one day need theirs. God loves them at least as much as he loves me, according to my faith, and I'm not going to offer them anything less than that love (in strictly celibate form!!! :D ).

Pax, you said that "there's no way not to be "flamboyantly" whatever-you-are". Sorry, I just can't resist... surely a lesbian couple are "flamgirlantly" what they are??? :neener:

Gordon
January 15, 2003, 12:31 AM
Preacherman: No priest at mass this 8:30 Am , wish you were there!:(

Wildalaska
January 15, 2003, 12:43 AM
Bravo Preacher!
Bravo ajacobs!

Preacherman
January 15, 2003, 12:53 AM
This thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=3941) is also worth looking at in the context of this discussion.

If you enjoyed reading about "Strange Bedfellows" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!