Gays And Guns, The Constitutional Option
Does the gay bar attack in liberal Massachusetts have you skittish about violence against our community? Well folks, Jake at Breakfast at Tiffany’s reminds us that gay people are protected by the Constitution with a specific right — to bear arms if we choose.
These are my words of advice to every gay person I meet: Obtain a RtC permit and use it. What is an RtC, one friend of BaT asks? RtC stands for “right to carry.” It’s the correct term for “a concealed weapons permit,” which the anti-self-defense groups like to use because “concealed” sounds more ominous. Thirty-eight states have RtC laws for qualifying citizens. Among the 12 that don’t are some of the worst crime statistics. If you are unfortunate to live in one of those dozen states then you have to make a moral judgment on what is more important to you.
Yep, that good old Second Amendment doesn’t distinguish between white, black, man, woman, gay or straight. Oh and I agree with Jake’s closing remarks….
You won’t convince me with any argument, lame or otherwise, that I do not have the capability or right to protect myself — especially if you are the same sort who will also say that we must “understand” why people commit crimes. No, I don’t have to understand sh*t, and I’ll take my chances with my 25 years of firearms knowledge over waiting 5 minutes while 911 responds.
As the T-shirt once said, “I’d rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.”
Which is why we didn’t win the Cold War by implementing the Liberal Plan: A Nuclear Freeze.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
53 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I love the second sentence here:
“Police are looking whether Robida had any accomplices in New Bedford or beyond, though evidence suggests he acted alone, Walsh said. They are also trying to determine where Robida got his handgun, a Ruger firearm. In Massachusetts, handgun owners must be at least 21 years old.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183979,00.html
I guess they really believe in Massachusetts (and cities like San Francisco) that the restriction or banning of handguns will keep the violent away.
Comment by Anthony — February 7, 2006 @ 2:54 pm - February 7, 2006
So, your answer to one deranged individual is weaponize the country, all carrying our .38s into Safeway, the local pub, and on the highway? Isn’t it obvious that your “solution” is worse than the problem? Bruce, do you think through your “initial” reactions to their probable conclusions? Ideas have consequences, even stupid ideas.
Comment by Stephen — February 7, 2006 @ 3:22 pm - February 7, 2006
I wonder what America’s greatest civil rights leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., would say about your proposal. Would he have been more successful if he’d been armed? Does his widow, who was buried today, maintain that he would not have been assassinated had he been packing? Actually no, she spoke in favor of gun control.
Comment by Andy — February 7, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - February 7, 2006
Carrying a gun around all day is generally a bad idea. Don’t have anything against it, but I think you would be much more in danger of getting shot by the police than a criminal. They do tend to be nervous around civilians with guns. I’d like to have one for the house though.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 7, 2006 @ 3:41 pm - February 7, 2006
Dr. King’s and Gandhi’s non-violence only works when your opponent is capable of “shame”. Against barbarians and criminals it merely make one “cheap-meat”, and I tend to be the most expensive filet they ever tried to serve.
My state does not allow CCW’s, but if they did I would get one…even if I did not intend to carry-concealed 24-7. I do legally have firearms at my home; and would have at-least on handgun in my car, and at my office, if my state allowed. As-is, I’ll leave you…gentle reader…guessing where I might have them.
I’ve posted a few recomendations on my blog today on defensive-arms.
http://tedbnnj.blogspot.com/2006/02/to-be-unarmed-is-to-be-dispised.html
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 7, 2006 @ 3:56 pm - February 7, 2006
NH has very loose concealed carry laws, and we have a very low murder and crime rate in general.
I think the problem is that liberals want to blame the guns for the crimes rather than the person weilding the gun.
Comment by Just Me — February 7, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - February 7, 2006
Where do you live, Canada? I’m armed. Every household in my neighborhood is armed. This is the United States.
It’s called taking responsibility for your life, and the lives of your family.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 7, 2006 @ 4:04 pm - February 7, 2006
I have a simple motto: “My Second Amendment rights are there to protect my First Amendment rights.”
Vera wouldn’t hesitate to use her pearl handle Colt defender (a compact .45 for concealed carry in her clutch bag) should the need arise.
Better a thousand times careful than once dead.
Comment by Vera Charles — February 7, 2006 @ 4:30 pm - February 7, 2006
A foundation that promotes gun violence prevention surveyed state gun laws and found Massachusetts has the strictest. And, according to the federal government, Massachusetts also has the nation’s lowest gun death rate.
While there are exceptions, there appears to be a pattern. Louisiana — which researchers found to have virtually no gun laws — has the highest gun death rate.
You’re right. Guns don’t kill people, conservatives do.
Comment by Andy — February 7, 2006 @ 4:33 pm - February 7, 2006
#2
Better a .38 than a bottle of Astroglide.
You can either fight it or bend over and take it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 7, 2006 @ 4:37 pm - February 7, 2006
#9
Liberals don’t?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 7, 2006 @ 4:39 pm - February 7, 2006
In my state, over 15,000 citizens DO ‘walk around with a gun every day”, Patrick. Would you like to make me a bet?
I’ll give YOU $1000 for every legally-licensed concealed handgun carrier who has been “shot by the cops” in the past ten years in my state.
You will give ME $1000 for every time a handgun was used in legitimate self-defense in the past FIVE.
How about it, Pat? Got guts?
Comment by DaveP. — February 7, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - February 7, 2006
Vera: You GO, girl.
Comment by DaveP. — February 7, 2006 @ 5:16 pm - February 7, 2006
#2) First off, I give Stephen kudos. His last two posts have been just one paragraph. I’m still not impressed with what he’s writing, but at least I read it all since it wasn’t a book of repetitive rants.
“Isn’t it obvious that your “solution” is worse than the problem?”
No, it’s not obvious. That’s why when you think someone’s premise is incorrect, you should logically explain why it’s incorrect. Please convince us why enabling law-abiding people to defend themselves is worse than passing gun laws that criminals, by definition, ignore.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 7, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - February 7, 2006
There has never been a shooting at a Gun Show or an NRA Convention.
Compare and contrast with places like schools and post offices, where firearms are strictly forbidden.
Comment by V the K — February 7, 2006 @ 6:33 pm - February 7, 2006
That nice for you, but i live in Los Angeles, where the police regularly shoot people without guns, much less those who are actually carrying. I have a friend who is a Sheriff’s Deputy who carries a gun when off-duty. He has had some close calls with nervous police officers. I don’t know why you are so worked up about this. You have issues dude.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 7, 2006 @ 6:42 pm - February 7, 2006
#3
Let’s see. Who else has been for gun control?
Oh yeah. Hitler, Mussolini, your buddy Chairman Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussien etc. etc. etc.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 7, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - February 7, 2006
And let’s not forget U.S. Sen. Thomas Dodd(D, Nazi)
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 7, 2006 @ 7:09 pm - February 7, 2006
That’s okay, Patrick. I understand why you’d be afraid to put your money where your mouth is, especially with the nonsense you spout.
All it takes is your apology to me and to the rest of the posters for wasting posting space, and I’ll forgive you.
PS- Yuor friend, the one who’s in danger of being shot all the time- he’s obviously lying to you, as everybody knows that since guns are banned in San Francisco he must be perfectly safe.
I’ll galdly accept your apologies for repeating his lies too.
Comment by DaveP. — February 7, 2006 @ 7:50 pm - February 7, 2006
#14 – Dale, just for my own curiosity: did Stephen’s comments actually address somethat that GP or GPW fairly said in the original post?
I know they’re short-ish comments and I could read them; but, I figure, since your eyes are already tainted… you could just let me know yes/no
Comment by Calarato — February 7, 2006 @ 8:17 pm - February 7, 2006
Bruce, thanks for the link love. I’ve corrected my oversight of not having you in the blog roll. I’m concerned for my soul that so many Republicans agree with me lately.
Thanks to the others for their kind comments.
Comment by Jake — February 7, 2006 @ 8:50 pm - February 7, 2006
Like I said earlier… You’ve got issues dude.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 7, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - February 7, 2006
#22 makes no sense to me. Gryph, you clearly got the worse of the exchange you’re attempting to escape.
Comment by Calarato — February 7, 2006 @ 9:44 pm - February 7, 2006
[...] The Gay Patriot thinks that the best way for gays to respond to the New Bedford incident is to pack heat when they go to bars. [...]
Pingback by Outside The Tent — February 7, 2006 @ 10:31 pm - February 7, 2006
Why do you guys distort the record? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I have no problem with hunters and their rifles, homeowners and their handguns. I draw the line at weapons who serve no valid street purpose.
I go back to my biggest point, if people were taught respect for life, handling guns, drinking, sex and all other taboo subjects this would be a better country.
Comment by ralph — February 7, 2006 @ 11:45 pm - February 7, 2006
15: Yet how many gun shows were used to sell firearms in a very loose manner to people trying to avoid the law?
Comment by Kevin — February 7, 2006 @ 11:54 pm - February 7, 2006
25: I keep in mind that while people kill people it’s a lot easier to do it if you’re in posession of a weapon that was specifically designed to injure/kill another person. I agree with you about other gun ownership…I have several friends who are hunters and gun-owners. They belong to the NRA and are involved with things like responsible gun ownership and safety programs provided by the NRA. In contrast though, they are sickened and apalled by the NRA leadership who constantly promote that anyone should be able to get a gun, no matter what the reason or their background.
Comment by Kevin — February 8, 2006 @ 12:00 am - February 8, 2006
Damn, GP and GPW and everyone, your entire blog explains why it makes so much sense for gays to be conservatives. I don’t understand how it can be any other way.
Comment by Hello Moto — February 8, 2006 @ 12:25 am - February 8, 2006
According to the 2002 figures of the National Safety Council, your chances of dying by firearm assualt, in one year, are 1 in 24,342. The chances of an accidental gun death are 1 in 377,876. Your chances of dying by traffic accident are 1 in 5,953.
Comment by John — February 8, 2006 @ 12:55 am - February 8, 2006
When did queers learn to throw a knuckle, anyway? And now they’re talking about propogating the gun culture. Americans… *sigh*
Comment by Not American — February 8, 2006 @ 1:36 am - February 8, 2006
My sympathies. Try living in the United States of America sometime.
Comment by rightwingprof — February 8, 2006 @ 9:17 am - February 8, 2006
Regarding gun control, it should be recognized that historically gun control laws were passed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and other minorities.
Some here might find the following article interesting:
‘Negroes With Guns’
http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/naacp.htm
Comment by raj — February 8, 2006 @ 10:22 am - February 8, 2006
…when did queers learn to throw a knuckle, anyway?”
Does this question REALLY need an answer?
I, for one, was raised in Chicago and moved out to Los Angeles when I was a teenager. Being queer in these two cities FORCED me to learn how to “throw a knuckle.” I’m not about to live the rest of my life as a perpetual victim – I’ll leave that to the DNC’s constituency, thank you very much.
Eric
Comment by HollywoodNeoCon — February 8, 2006 @ 11:20 am - February 8, 2006
#27: “They belong to the NRA and are involved with things like responsible gun ownership and safety programs provided by the NRA. In contrast though, they are sickened and apalled by the NRA leadership who constantly promote that anyone should be able to get a gun, no matter what the reason or their background.”
Your friends are disgusted with the NRA but their members, which gives your post more validity, I suppose… Please give a link to a press release or something where an NRA leader states that as their stance, i.e. no background checks. As for the “reason” to have a gun, we all have a reason because any one of us could be the next victim of a crime.
Personally, I’m of the same mind on this issue as I am with child molesters. If we don’t trust them around children, and history shows that little to no hope of reform, then they shouldn’t be out. Being on a watch list is of little use. Child molestors should be in jail or a humane mental institution for the rest of their lives.
I’m not saying all criminals can’t reform, but if we don’t trust someone with a gun, we should release them into society. Gun ownership is a fundamental right; not a privilege. The right to defend your own life is the most basic right one can have in a free society. Even an ex-con can be the next victim of a crime. If they decide to get their hands on a gun to commit a crime, they will. The gun laws and background checks won’t stop them. In fact, if their purpose is crime, they will avoid the legal procedures for getting the gun anyway. It’s a false sense of security which can be a dangerous thing.
This issue has got to be one of the best example of delusions suffered by liberals. I know their motives are sound, but this kind of approach to solving problems is just not productive. You need to get your emotions out of the issue.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 8, 2006 @ 11:57 am - February 8, 2006
Typo in my last post: If we don’t trust someone with a gun, we should NOT release them into society. I guess that’s a duh, but I know someone will have fun with that.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 8, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - February 8, 2006
The “right to bear arms” is not absolute. No “right” whether in the constitution or not, is. If you want to carry a gun for protection, fine. If, like many of my criticizers, you apparently want to be John Wayne or Dirty Harry, sorry, you are not responsible enough to deserve any recognition of your “right” to bear arms.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 8, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - February 8, 2006
No “right” whether in the constitution or not, is.
Unless it’s the Fourth Amendment.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2006 @ 2:10 pm - February 8, 2006
Regarding gun control, it should be recognized that historically gun control laws were passed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks and other minorities.
That would explain why Democrats support them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 8, 2006 @ 2:11 pm - February 8, 2006
Here in Michigan we have a strong CCW permit process. The local govt panel that reviews CCW permits involve the county Prosecuting Atty, a judge and a police administrator. It’s not a rubber stamp. And there are mandatory gun safety training classes, etc.
But, Bruce, I doubt many gays own handguns or rifles in Michigan.
If the majority of gays are left of center, to own a gun would require them to go against the anti-gun political allies on the social and political Left. Additionally, to arm themselves would require distancing one’s self from the comfort of victimhood –something the GayLeft is disinclined to for any reason, including civil rights or meaningful political associations. Recently, Michigan had a ballot proposal drive to end Mourning Dove hunts –you know, those big grey coo’ing birds that mate for life and sit on electrical power cables? The same people pushing for partner benefits in three cities were also carrying the Mourning Dove petitions around… I asked one signature gatherer if they were compassionate or pro-animal rights or what. Her response: “Oh God NO! I hate guns.”
I’d like to think my gaybrothers on the Left support my right to have and bear arms but I doubt it. Anymore than I would expect them to understand threats abroad or why second guessing our Adiministration on the WOT is counterproductive.
Asking them to support the 2nd A is just beyond their trained behavior.
But I give credit to the guys in Puzzles who stood up to this kook and fought back –at least they weren’t hog-tied by some sissy moral code. We need more REAL men in the gay community, not another batch of sensitive boys in search of their feminine sides or muscle marys who can’t land a punch.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 8, 2006 @ 2:15 pm - February 8, 2006
NDT says: (quoting me)
No, not excepting the Fourth Amendment. It already contains limitations on its “right” in the phrase “unreasonable searches”. If police are chasing a known murderer down the street and he ducks into someone’s house, even his own, he has no guaranteed “right” to be secure in his person, house, etc.
The Fourth Amendment:
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — February 8, 2006 @ 3:14 pm - February 8, 2006
#37
I was thinking that the ammendment granting abortions was absolute.
As far as I know, most gun owners are the most responsible with them.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 8, 2006 @ 4:16 pm - February 8, 2006
#36
you apparently want to be John Wayne or Dirty Harry,
Sorry. You’re just ASSuming that to be true.
Besides, I have a .58 Enfield. To my knowledge, neither John Wayne nor Dirty Harry used one.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 8, 2006 @ 4:17 pm - February 8, 2006
#36: “If, like many of my criticizers, you apparently want to be John Wayne or Dirty Harry, sorry, you are not responsible enough to deserve any recognition of your “right” to bear arms.”
You’re absolutely right, but it just goes back to my point earlier. If we don’t trust someone with a gun, especially if they’ve demonstrated they can’t be trusted with one, then they should be locked up. Trying to keep guns from criminals is futile and creates a dangerous false sense of security. We agree about the problem; just not on the solution.
Comment by Dale in L.A. — February 8, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - February 8, 2006
Then again, it seems liberals consider the Constitution as “radical” as DiFi pointed out Monday.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 8, 2006 @ 5:09 pm - February 8, 2006
Ref #32 – Raj, when you are right, you are very right.
“A foundation that promotes gun violence prevention surveyed state gun laws and found Massachusetts has the strictest. And, according to the federal government, Massachusetts also has the nation’s lowest gun death rate.”
If the people going unshot are bigots, that is not a solution, that is a problem.
“If the majority of gays are left of center, to own a gun would require them to go against the anti-gun political allies on the social and political Left.”
Another example of unrewarded serfdom. This comes out of the testerone-is-evil wing of the women’s movement, which gays have been steppin’ and fetchin’ for for decades now.
Rights are not absolute, other than in some metaphysical, God-given way, which is not where the bullet meets the bone, as it were. Rights are about political power and political power comes out of a gun muzzle and nowhere else. All the good feelings and court judgements and electin wins in the world mean nothing if they are not backed up by force. Straights have a pretty consistent record when it comes ot respecting the rights of gay people – consistently unreliable.
Comment by Jim — February 8, 2006 @ 5:19 pm - February 8, 2006
Jacob Robida is a true american hero
we need more people like him to continue his mission
Comment by Mitch — February 8, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - February 8, 2006
One more point. Actually two.
Point one, I’ve been discussing the 2d amendment issue on various conservative web sites starting about a decade ago and continuing for years. A couple of years ago it struck me that it was pretty much a waste of time. The US SupCt appears not to have issued a 2d amendment decision since the 1937 case of US v. Miller, and that case involved a defendant (Miller) who by the time the decision was rendered was deceased. A few years ago the most conservative SupCt in decades refused to take what was probably the most deserving case for cert in a while. I don’t recall what the caption was, but some advocates of expansive 2d amendment rights on one message board seemed to be quite upset when cert was denied.
Given point one, point two. It seems to me that those advocates of expansive gun ownership rights make some good points. But they don’t have to rest or buttress the points on the “keep and bear arms” clause of the 2d amendment.
Comment by raj — February 9, 2006 @ 12:24 am - February 9, 2006
#40 Patrick (Gryph) — February 8, 2006 @ 3:14 pm – February 8, 2006
Kinda/sorta, but not exactly. The 4th amendment is absolute, but it gives a considerable amount of discretion to the police officers on a scene as to when a warrantless search is “reasonable,” and a considerable amount of discretion to a judge as to when a set of facts alleged in one or more affidavits is sufficient to provide “probable cause” sufficient to justify issuing a warrant.
Comment by raj — February 9, 2006 @ 12:24 am - February 9, 2006
#46
If you had a dick, you could do it. Just be sure to paint a red dot on your forehead with concentric circles around it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 9, 2006 @ 1:38 am - February 9, 2006
Well, I won’t responnd to the “reasonable liberals” here who advocate gun prohibition as if it would solve anything (after all, we know how well drug prohibition has worked). You can’t reason someone out of a position they haven’t been reasoned into. To those still amenable to reason, I recommend John Lott’s research.
For more information on becoming an armed citizen (whether you’re gay or not, but we have a special mission to the GLBT and other sexual minority communities), see
http://www.pinkpistols.org
Comment by Maggie Leber — February 9, 2006 @ 6:48 am - February 9, 2006
I would only add three things;
“Fill your hand, you son of a bitch!”. – Rooster Cogburn.
“Well, punk. Do you feel lucky?” – Harry Callahan.
“From my cold, dead hands…” – Charlton Heston, Pres., NRA.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 10, 2006 @ 6:28 pm - February 10, 2006
Hi, nice blog how long has it been up? I never installed blog software and need to for my theme on ibm disaster recovery.Can you get #1 spot in search engines if your site is a blog and not a regular website?. Thanks for your effort, MOSE
Comment by disaster recovery planning services — February 12, 2006 @ 11:17 pm - February 12, 2006
Hi There I found your blogg when doing a search, not what I was after but hello anyway
Comment by Luminox — March 11, 2006 @ 5:04 am - March 11, 2006