Pink Pistols Set Record Straight

Status
Not open for further replies.

StonerStudent

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
41
Location
Ohio
Pink Pistols Set Record Straight on Gay 2nd Amendment Stance and Queer Shooters' Gay Rights Issues

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Pink Pistols Set Record Straight on Gay 2nd Amendment Stance and Queer Shooters' Gay Rights Issues

Philadelphia, PA (PP National) April 19, 2004 - Over the weekend of April 18, the National Rifle Association held their annual convention in Pittsburgh, at which Vice President Dick Cheney was a voluble guest speaker against Sen. John F. Kerry's record of gun-rights predation.

"John Kerry's approach to the 2nd Amendment has been to regulate, regulate and regulate some more," Cheney warned, stressing that President George W. Bush was the only candidate to offer any appreciation for a pro-2nd Amendment stance whatsoever.

But many GLBT and anti-violence organizations -- including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Gay Men of African Descent, Gay Asian Pacific Islander Men of New York, Mano A Mano, The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, Al-Fatiha, and the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against De! famation -- have issued a joint press release criticizing both the NRA and the Vice President for their actions, their statements, and their choice of rights to support.

The issue: That the Bush administration supports the right to keep and bear arms, already a Constitutional right, but has made statements favoring a Constitutional amendment banning marriage between same-sex persons. This is seen by GLBT organizations as a fundamental hypocrisy on the part of the Republican Party, and of the Bush administration in particular.

The Pink Pistols has this to say regarding the issues brought up by the various GLBT organizations that spoke out on this very emotionally-charged topic.

"Yes, many crimes have been committed by criminals using firearms," said Gwen Patton, Pink Pistols National Media Spokesperson. "There are adequate laws that state that the commission of such crimes are illegal, and that those who perpetrate such crimes should be punished. Let the! m be enforced. It is the person who committed the crime, and not the t ool used, that is responsible for the evil done.?

"Also, just as there may have been 11,348 Americans killed and 45,316 injured by firearms, it is estimated that between 1.5 and 2.5 million crimes are prevented each year by the use of firearms, a growing number of these by GLBT persons who have taken up arms in their own self-defense. In addition, the number of injuries and deaths due to firearms has been steadily declining over the past 20 years, most notably those due to accidents."

Patton went on to point out that firearms are not weapons of mass destruction, they are tools of domestic defense. "Less than 1% of all firearms in the country are ever used for illicit purposes -- the remainder act as deterrents against crime, terrorist actions and foreign invasion. During World War II, the Japanese deliberately refused to invade our nation due to the presence of so many firearms in private hands -- and many terrorists have been neutralized in foreign nations by! armed private citizens. Neither are the 'assault weapons' affected by the Assault Weapons Ban 'machine guns', as was implied by Clarence Patton of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs." (Machine guns have been tightly regulated in the US since 1937.) "The AWB banned only rifles that fired a single shot with each pull of the trigger that resembled military machine guns superficially."

"The one area where the Pink Pistols agrees with these organizations is in the area of marriage," Patton continues. "The U. S. Government should not be deciding who marries whom. But to give up one set of rights for the sake of another is neither a victory nor a sign of wisdom. One cannot win one's heart's desire at the cost of one's heart. The right to bear arms is not the right to hunt ducks, or the right to buy noisy trinkets. It is the right to be safe, to be secure, and the right to defend one's self, one's family, and one's country against all evils -- whether they com! e from outside or from the inside. Gay rights will be an eventual real ity because they are the right and proper estate of gay citizens. They are inevitable, as were the rights of women and African-Americans. But the right to bear arms, once lost, may never be regained, and may result in irreparable harm to the nation."

"We are willing to fight for the former, even if it takes a lifetime," said Patton. "We are not willing to lose the latter, even for an instant. No compromise on either our gay rights OR our right to bear arms is acceptable to the Pink Pistols. But we realize the battle is not going to be won overnight, or even soon."


CONTACT INFORMATION
National Media Spokesperson
Gwendolyn S. Patton
Pink Pistols National
 
Gotta hand it to the PP spokesperson, another very eloquent and concise presentation of why gun control is bad and useless.

And to the point she was making, who are either a) any .gov or b) any bystanders to dictate what consenting adults do with each other and what kind of pacts they voluntarily enter in? This is a point my old man makes: and his word should count for something, as he's a true christian, a retired minister of a quite conservative protestant denomination and a very clear-thinking, benevolent man. Which also includes a clear biblical and ethical understanding of the right for self-defence for everybody: he saw our last war as a boy and lost his dad in it. Who was BTW as old as I'm now when the Russians got him...

The civil legal implications surrounding marriage here are different from the U.S. and practically gays have been able to register their relationships for purposes of last will beneficiary documenting, visiting and information practicalities when hospitalized (next-of-kin stuff) and such. Legally those families can function exactly as straight families do here, AFAIK.

My dad wouldn't wed a gay couple in church as he considers the biblical kind of marriage a strictly straight kind of a deal (nor would it be possible in our churches as of now). OTOH he has nothing against a ritual blessing of the home of such a family (for which the church has a generic rite available) and would like to see a new kind of a "marriage" institution/rite developed so the congregation could embrace these families. What do you think?

Not trying to hijack the thread! If all the religion is a problem, feel free to tell me to take it elsewhere. IMHO this should be considered a parallel to all the discussion on .gov involvement in citizens' lives (read: RKBA) that also are made into moral and ethical issues.
 
I think it was unwise for the PP to compare gay marriage to the 2nd Amendment. Whatever your personal views on gay marriage may be, it has nothing to do with the constitution. There is no right to marry, be it gay or straight. There is a right to bear arms, however. Marriage is cultural ceremony, belief, whatever you want to call it. This is one that will/should be decided by the people.
To put the 2A on the same level as gay marriage diminishes the value of the 2A. Without arms, you'll end up with no rights. Without gay marriage, well, at least you can still live together....right?

Il Duce
 
The U. S. Government should not be deciding who marries whom.

I actually agree with this even though I'm not for gay marriage. I think the fight against gay marriage should be made in my church, not in the government.

I don't have a problem of the government recognizing religious marriages as a civil union. I don't even have a problem with the government recognizing the union between two gay people in exactly the same way, as long as they don't call it marriage. If another religion wants to marry gays, there's not much I can do about it. However, it's not the place of the government to recognize it as a marriage. It's up to the government to recognize the rights of the people involved.

Many people will consider the distinction as political correctness gone awry.

However, to me marriage is a Sacrement. It's a holy union between a man and a woman blessed by God. It's not something politicians have a right to mess with or define.

I'm not homophobic. While I don't agree with their lifestyle I do have several friends who are gay. I don't want the government to stomp on their rights, I just don't want mine stompped on either. I don't think we need a new constitutional ammendment to achieve this. I think the ones we have already cover the issue just fine.
 
Whatever your personal views on gay marriage may be, it has nothing to do with the constitution. There is no right to marry, be it gay or straight.
Please re-read the 9th Amendment.
 
At present, a government "marriage certificate" confers financial benefits, automatic powers of attorney in case of illness/accident/etc, inheritence issues, child custody issues and much more.

SHOULD it be this way?

Good arguments can be made against this gov't connection to a religious function, but we're a long way from that point.

Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court has declared "gay sex" to be legal, last year. That's done and over with. Therefore, a constitutional issue does indeed kick in, hard and heavy: equal protection. A gay couple ends up in exactly the same practical and legal boat as an infertile or post-menopausal heterosexual couple, either of which can marry.

I see no way to argue against a constitutional right to gay marriage based on equal protection and how all heterosexual couples are currently treated.
 
At first I thought it was a shame that an organization like PP that has been unquestionably embraced by the pro-2A camp would choose to attack the NRA and to raise a divisive issue rather than an inclusive one. On second thought, if they had done so, there would be no "news" or controversy to report. But the media loves controversy and stating it this way gave the PP a platform to preach their pro-2A message to the masses of sheep. Those who hate the NRA and think it is an extremist, racist group chart cheering the "controversy" and then find themselves in a logical dilema when they hear what PP really stands for. Good idea PP! The NRA and Cheney can take a little heat "for the cause." :neener:
 
The Pink Pistols are a dual-purpose organization, while the NRA is a one purpose group. If they're invited to speak, you can't expect them to not express both views. If you invited a police organization, you'd expect them to talk a bit about crime, wouldn't you?

If anything, the PP shows that not all gays are like the ones we hear about on the news all too often.
 
I wish they'd keep the issues separate. RKBA is one issue, gay rights, marriage et al is another.
Don't blame the Pink Pistols. They didn't combine the issues, the other groups did.
 
HR, I don't think it's possible for that particular group to do so. That's why it's so easily a divisive subject here at THR.

Not all allies in any particular war have identical interests in all matters. Witness the US and its allies in WW II--or the Gulf War. All we at THR can do is laud the Pink Pistols' efforts when their efforts parallel those of THR. On other issues, we best remain silent.

Art
 
I wish they'd keep the issues separate. RKBA is one issue, gay rights, marriage et al is another.

Not if you need a gun to keep from getting your ass beat because you think you should be able to mary whomever you please.
 
The gay marriage issue revolves around the word marriage.

The majority of the people in the US don't oppose giving gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. They majority doesn't appear to granting them the same rights in a civil sense. However, when you start calling it marriage, then the majority swings to objecting.

Marriage is the name of a religious sacrament, and many people, myself included, don't want the government to change the definition. We see it as the government making an attack on our religious beliefs, which the first ammendment prohibits them from doing.

If giving gay couples the same rights but calling it something different doesn't meet the standards of equal protection in the Constitution, then the government shouldn't be trying to define marriage.

The government needs to define the civil aspects of such a union. The government is welcome to consider my marriage to my wife as a civil union, and treat that civil union the same as it does the union between a gay couple.

However, if we aren't willing to recognize marriage as part of religion, then I agree that the government has little right to prohibit gay marriages. It's not the government's place to do so.
 
IMO....2nd amend and gay rights are two seperate issues,unfortunately the mentioned gay rights groups are trying to undermine the work of the Pistols. The Pistols are get pretty good write ups in the gay press which is not making outfits like The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs [antigun group]very happy.The Pistols and the NRA are 2nd amendemt groups,and GLAAD,HRC etc are gay rights groups.And one doesn't have anything to do with the other and niether group should be taking cheap shot at the other....IMO
 
We have a large group of virgins that patrol the streets in my area. I believe they call themselves "The Virgin Defense Force". They've reduced sex crimes dramatically. Nobodys gonna mess with an armed virgin, now, are they?
 
I think the govt should just butt out and an amendment banning gay unions would be completely unconstitutional. Give the homosexuals their own version of marriage with all the perks and legal implications but I don't think it should be called marriage. They should treat it as a strictly legal term meaning union between a man and a woman. Civil Union = union between two of anything else be it Man-Man Woman-Woman Man-Ferret Woman-Manatee Whatever...

Just like Grand Theft Auto can't occur without a perp and a stolen automobile, marriage shouldn't be called that without a man and a woman. Under this system the homos get equal legal perks and the conservatives don't get all riled up either. :scrutiny: Everyone will be happy ... except the dumbasses that think Boy Scouts should let girls join. :barf:
 
Marriage is the name of a religious sacrament, and many people, myself included, don't want the government to change the definition.
Why on earth does the govt have anything to do with defining a religious sacrament in the first place? A sacrament of which religion, anyway? (the one that the govt has established as a state religion, obviously)

Just get the govt out of the whole business, and people can always make a contract any way that they want. (Good luck getting your ferret's pawprint to hold up in court, though)
 
Arts' post above was what we Texans call a hint.

Those who fail to recognize a hint, get a visit from what we call a cluebat.

Said cluebat looking somewhat like this:

Closed, for thread veer.

LawDog
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top