“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.

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

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.

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.

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.

we need more people like him to continue his mission

“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.

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.

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.

I was thinking that the ammendment granting abortions was absolute.

As far as I know, most gun owners are the most responsible with them.

No “right” whether in the constitution or not, is.

Unless it’s the Fourth Amendment.

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:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

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.

That would explain why Democrats support them.

Unless it’s the Fourth Amendment.

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.