Gay Libertarians oppose San Francisco gun ban

[Ivy Mike]

rock jock, I would also like to point out that homosexuality does not remove or infringe the liberties of others. Slavery and murder do.
Our country was built on the idea that personal freedom is paramount AS LONG as it does not reduce the amount of personal freedom another person has. Equality in its truest form.

I say cheers to whomever wants to stand up for your rights and the rights of others. What goes on in your personal life is your business, is none of my business and is certainly NONE of the governments business.

 

[Justang]

With all the anti-gunners in this country, we don't need to divide ourselves up based on silly things. Up until just now I had never heard of the Pink Pistols. Very cool.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

You forgot moral ambiguity, class jealousy and feelings of inadeqacy

Not to mention childishness, smug arrogance, sanctimony, and venality.

 

[carebear]

Not to mention childishness, smug arrogance, scantimony, and venality.

Criminy! Smith and Wesson invented ANOTHER new alloy?









j/k sanctimony, I understood.

 

[rock jock]

The difference is slavery and murder are not victimless breaches of judeochristian morality.

I wasn't trying to compare homosexuality to either; I was merely pointing out poor reasoning...the kind that is usually employyed against pro-RKBA ypes.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

Criminy! Smith and Wesson invented ANOTHER new alloy?

Yep, it's used in guns designed for shooting down from the moral high ground.

(You expect me to be able to spell at 3am?)

 

[fallingblock]

Go Pink Pistols!

This group's influence is enhanced in the Bay Area by the relatively high per-capita homosexual population.

There can be no sanctimonious dismissal of their motives by the hoplophobes among those of similar sexual orientation.

We need all our allies...

RKBA is the issue.

 

[Keaner]

I wasn't trying to compare homosexuality to either; I was merely pointing out poor reasoning...the kind that is usually employyed against pro-RKBA ypes.

Rock: His point is this: just because something is morally wrong, doesnt mean it should be illegal! The purpose of the country is to preserve and defend the rights of the individual, not to destroy them. As fine as your attempt at reasoning was, you used the "well if everyone did it" excuse incorrectly.

I do realize that perhaps its my fault that you did, i did post it without context, so it does seem not entirely full, but the overal jist of the conversation is this:
The government has a purpose, and that is to defend the rights of the individual. A government should never be based on morals, EVER. The law should never be moral. A law may be morally correct, yes, like in the case of morals, but only because the government created the law to protect the rights of individuals, which is inherently moralistic.

Did that make sense? It does seem a little cloudly, im trying to summerize a 3 hr conversation into 3 paragraphs!

 

[Bear Gulch]

The bottom line is that we should support all legal gun owners. If we let them divide us, it just makes it easier for them!

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

lwsimon, I think his point was, that while some of us (not all of us obviously) are likely to oppose a homosexual lifestyle, that we should put away that difference and realize they're on our side. I concur with that.

Agreed.

With regards to the RKBA movement, the addition of every non-traditional and lawful group to the mix is a plus.

Pink Pistols, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, Armed Females of America, etc. are each welcome additions. Their presence has the added benefit of helping remove the dirty stereotype promoted by Sarah Brady, Diane Feinstein, et al. that we're all just potentially violent rednecks.

 

[artherd]

Any true supporter of Personal Freedoms can recognize that our federal government has no business telling me:

a) Whom I can or cannot marry.

b) What I can or cannot posess in terms of arms.

The truth of these issues go hand in hand.

Glad to have the Pink Pistols onboard, though I pretty much knew we could count on you guys (and gals)!

 

[Art Eatman]

Maybe the moral of the story is that efforts of profound thought shouldn't be posted after beer-thirty or at omigod AM.



Art

 

[The_Antibubba]

Actually, this silly proclamation by the SF City Council ought to turn out to be a good thing for gun owners in California. As someone pointed out earlier, this law is unconstitutional in California, so it will never make it actual implementation. The last time this was tried, Pink Pistols didn't exist yet. The publicity from the case should get a lot of gays and lesbian curious about the group, and consequently, in firearms, and nearly all of them will be new shooters. Finally, if the City Council once again wastes millions of dollars worth of taxpayer money on lawsuits-money it does not have-maybe they'll finally be thrown out on their rears.

This is a case that will clearly illustrate that it is not about guns, but about control.

 

[one45auto]

I have to confess that my regard for Constitutional Rights far outweighs any personal objections I might have to the alternative approach to human interaction and so I applaud and support thier efforts on behalf of Bay Area gun owners.

 

[carebear]

The last time this was tried, Pink Pistols didn't exist yet. The publicity from the case should get a lot of gays and lesbian curious about the group, and consequently, in firearms, and nearly all of them will be new shooters.

That's a really good point. I think many people don't try shooting because "people like me don't do that".

Homosexuality crosses most of the other lib/con areas of interest so it is not necessarily a die hard "lib." constituency across the board. Throw in the "Stonewall" prideful determination to resist violence with appropriate violence and if a group can be profiled (PP) that isn't your traditional redneck/right winger bunch of shooters and that could be the "never again" kind of movement we all need to broaden the base more publically.