Gay Patriot Header Image

Is Gun Control Bad for Gay People?

 Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Until recently, among the issues which formed the core of modern American conservatism, as articulated by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan and their ideoligical heirs, I found myself most at odds with my philosophical confrères on the issue of guns. Here, it didn’t seem that freedom would work. I used to believe that the proliferation of guns fostered increased violence in our society.

But, then, I started listening to the various arguments for gun control. I found that those with whom I once agreed refrained from argument and indulged in innuendo, while writing off the argument that guns could be used for self-defense. Opponents of gun control made better arguments, noting increased crime rates in jurisdictions with the toughest gun control laws and demonstrating how law-abiding citizens used firearms for self-defense.

And while I do favor more limitations on gun ownership than do most of my fellow conservatives, I am no longer an advocate of gun control as I once was. In a recent piece on District of Columbia v. Heller, a case challenging the District’s strict gun control now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Dale Carpenter addresses some of the issues which caused me to reconsider my position. He makes the cases why gun control laws could make it more difficult for gay people to protect ourselves against hate violence.

A law professor at the University of Minnesota, Dale helped Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL–a gay libertarian group of which yours truly is a member) and Pink Pistols, “an international group . . . advocating gun ownership and training in the proper use of firearms by gay people.”

With nearly “one-third of anti-gay bias crimes [occurring] in the home,” the D.C. gun ban is particularly pernicioius as it “forbids the effective possession of firearms for self-protection.” Dale concludes:

. . . for many other gay people, especially the ones living on the margins of life in crime-prone or anti-gay areas, owning a gun is one important part of a comprehensive plan for protecting life and property.

Gun ownership might at the very least give [gay people] peace of mind. And widespread knowledge that many gays are packing might give their would-be attackers second thoughts Gun rights are gay rights.

Given the lower crime rates in states with concealed weapons laws and the persistence of hate crimes even in states with Hate Crime statutes on the books, I wonder if opposition to gun control may be a more effective means of stopping hate crimes that such statutes.

A topic for serious discussion. If Log Cabin had some guts, at their convention in April, it might offer a panel considering this very issue.

Whatever the case, Dale Carpenter makes a strong argument on why gun control is bad for gay people, so I suggest you read the whole thing.

Share

49 Comments

  1. Tammy Bruce is a big proponent of gun ownership. She has named hers snuffy.

    Seeing that many gays are at the forefront of regentrifying bad neighborhoods, I’d say it makes sense to be armed.

    Comment by Leah — February 26, 2008 @ 2:53 pm - February 26, 2008

  2. BTW, I don’t think you linked Pink Pistols itself; here it is:
    http://www.pinkpistols.org/

    I believe LCR has been making noises lately about supporting gun rights.  I can’t exactly remember the last e-mail I got from them, but it was something to the effect that they’re trying to broaden to other issues of interest to gays and lesbians.

    As for gun control in general… let me say this.  I don’t own a gun.  And I’m not opposed to waiting periods, background checks, etc.  But I am definitely opposed to gun bans, "gun-free zones", etc.  Take any of those mass shootings that have been in the news.  The casualty counts are higher if the shooting is in a "gun-free zone" such as university.  The casualty counts are lower if an armed citizen was around to take out the evil S.O.B.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2008 @ 2:58 pm - February 26, 2008

  3. Personally I love my gun, and it bugs the hell out of me that my state requires a showing of necessity (such as threats against me, etc.) in order to get a concealed carry permit.  But it doesn’t bother me that I need to get a permit and background check to buy a handgun.  I’m cool with that.  Pity the guy who tries to break into my house at night though.

    Comment by Mike — February 26, 2008 @ 3:02 pm - February 26, 2008

  4. Even though I live in one of the toughest states to legally purchase a handgun, the nearby cities of Camden, Trenton and Newark, NJ are amongst the most-dangerous places to live and work in America.  Camden’s the murder capital of America most-month’s per-capita inspite of NJ’s highly-restrictive handgun laws and firearms laws in-general.  And there’s no such thing in NJ as legal concealed-carry.  We can’t even use the same effective hollow-point self-defense rounds the Police carry to defense ourselves in our own homes.

    The criminals…who always have access to firearms…know that they are facing an unarmed, defenseless civilian populace.

    Personally, I’m hoping the SCOTUS finds for an indiviual-right so-strongly that all states have to shift to shall-issue concealed-weapons permitting with cross-state-lines reciprocity like with drivers licenses, and quick criminal-background clearances mandated.  While the Federal waiting-period strikes many as excessive…here in NJ you might wait for months for the local police chief to sign-off on an individual hand-gun purchase permit.  And if you want to purchase another handgun later-on, you have to apply for yet another permit and wait several months again.

    While I might not choose to go about my business armed, I’d like the option of others thinking that I might be able to defend myself.  To paraphrase Mr. Heinlein;  …"A potentially-armed populace is a more polite populace."

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 26, 2008 @ 3:11 pm - February 26, 2008

  5. Camden’s the murder capital of America.. *because of* NJ’s highly-restrictive handgun laws…

    Fixed it for ya Ted ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 26, 2008 @ 3:22 pm - February 26, 2008

  6. Nice correction, ILC.

    Ted, have you had that experience of the months long waiting period?  I’m curious.  NJ here too, while I haven’t applied for a purchase permit yet, I intend to.  My co-worker only moved here a couple months ago and got his permit in about 2 weeks.

    I should be allowed to carry concealed.  I drive to Camden 4 nights a week. LOL.

    Comment by Mike — February 26, 2008 @ 4:56 pm - February 26, 2008

  7. I used to be a Civil War reenactor with my brother. I’ve got a .58 Enfield. My brother has an Enfield, a Navy Colt revolver and a Moison Nagant rifle. What bugs me most is that gun controllers want to put the kabosh on reenactor gun ownership as well.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — February 26, 2008 @ 5:04 pm - February 26, 2008

  8. It’s an old saw but… guns don’t kill people; people kill people.
    I have a CCW license but seldom do I actually carry "snuffy" on my person. When traveling, I do carry my .357 in the car with me. I am certainly no threat to anyone who’s not planning to do my or my snookems bodily harm.
    I would not shoot someone over property and certainly don’t go out of my way to find a gun fight (situational awareness: being aware of your surroundings so that you can leave before things get bad).
    I’ll be moving to the Left Coast pretty soon and it bothers me a bit that I’ll lose my CCW license. I’ve never understood how anyone can think that disarming the law-abiding among us makes us safer.
    All gun control laws do is assure criminals that there’s a good chance their victims will be unarmed.

    Comment by Robert — February 26, 2008 @ 5:20 pm - February 26, 2008

  9. I’ve (sucessfully) gone through the handgun-purchase process several times, never-once in less than 6-weeks.  My initial NJ firearms permit…which you need to purchase or just touch ANY firearm in NJ…even a BB air-rifle…took 0ver 2-months. 

    It very-much depends on the attitude of the local Police chief, and the manpower-priority he places on processing the paperwork since it’s an unfunded-mandate of the State.  Other local jurisdictions hand them out like yard-sale permits.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — February 26, 2008 @ 6:33 pm - February 26, 2008

  10. That’s very interesting, Ted – thanks.

    Comment by Mike — February 26, 2008 @ 8:25 pm - February 26, 2008

  11. Barbara Stanwyck in The Big Valley with a rifle in her hand. ‘Nuff said.
    Gawd, I’ve got to get my FID!

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — February 26, 2008 @ 8:52 pm - February 26, 2008

  12. I once fired an evil assault rifle in self defense. It worked. Nobody got killed (a few malefactors got very scared), and it doesn’t show up in anybody’s statistics. Without it, I’d have been seriously injured or murdered.

    The right to self defense is a natural right. The founders recognized that, and so should everyone else. When the bad guys have guns, you need guns for protection (if you are forced into a confrontation that you cannot avoid), because (as Harrison Ford showed so nicely), there ain’t no substitute.

    Comment by John — February 26, 2008 @ 10:45 pm - February 26, 2008

  13. You can’t dismiss sixty million gun owners and their 250 million firearms unless you really enjoy total political suicide.

    A President Obama would be a first-class fool to try and ban guns because even gun-hating dem house members wouldn’t go along with it.

    Comment by Cheney W. Hallibushwater — February 27, 2008 @ 12:12 am - February 27, 2008

  14. And while I do favor more limitations on gun ownership than do most of my fellow conservatives

    I’m curious which limitations you favor.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 27, 2008 @ 1:29 am - February 27, 2008

  15. For folks who constantly attack the concept of victimization of gays, it’s interesting that you whole-heartedly use it as an excuse for gun ownership.  

    Comment by Kevin — February 27, 2008 @ 6:19 am - February 27, 2008

  16. The gun is to PREVENT victimization.

    Not allowing oneself to be a victim is a virtue.  Enslaving yourself and your own security to the state is tryanny.

    Comment by Vince P — February 27, 2008 @ 6:30 am - February 27, 2008

  17. [...] Is Gun Control Bad For Gays…Everybody? GayPatriot » Is Gun Control Bad for Gay People? [...]

    Pingback by Playing With Guns Is Good For Boys - Page 7 - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum — February 27, 2008 @ 7:45 am - February 27, 2008

  18. Actually, the case of DC’s gun ban is even more disgusting when you consider that gays are usually a big target for robbery and violence in DC.  Just a few years ago, there was a guy mugging gays in broad daylight in the middle of Dupont Circle.  I knew one of his victims, and he was shooken up that someone could point a gun at the head of the person that he loved, and there was nothing he could do to protect that person.  I’m in Virginia, so he asked if he could buy one of my handguns from me.  I had to decline, because I knew it was illegal for him to possess in the District.  
    The police will not protect you in DC, and they sure as heck won’t solve your murder.  You are all alone.

    Comment by Some Guy in DC — February 27, 2008 @ 7:59 am - February 27, 2008

  19. Ted B: 6 weeks for PPP, and 2 months for a FID is the -shortest- I’ve ever heard of getting NJ permission slips in order.

    My fid took 10 unforgivable months, which started me on the whole path to taking my leave from that blighted state. Considering that the whole process, which dates back to 1966, before the days of national instant check, is now entirely reduntant for all practical purposes. As a process, the only purpose it now serves is as a barrier to entry, and it remains simply as a result of NJ’s deeply entrenched institutional contempt for guns and their owners.

    Comment by geekWithA.45 — February 27, 2008 @ 8:08 am - February 27, 2008

  20. Dan, we hunt (upland birds, deer, rabbit and the occasional varmits near the garden) in our family.  We are part of the "gun culture" more readily than the "lgbt culture".  b4 kids, we took vacations that were exclusively about hunting and we all fish regularly (and badly).  Both of our sons have been in the duck blinds with us as toddlers, albeit while watching LibertyKids on the portable dvd player).

    We’re also conservationists and climbers/hikers.  We carry sidearms in the Michigan backcountry.

    We’d welcome more gays supporting the right to bear arms, but, frankly, like the LCR in Republican politics… or liberals speaking about their support of the military… gays have little standing or credibility in the broader context to talk about gun rights being gay rights.  It isn’t an issue that resonants credibly for gays.

    It isn’t part of the gay rights agenda anymore than an equal pay for women issue is part of a gay agenda or enlighted creationism being taught in public schools is an issue for gay rights.

    DaleCarpenter makes his point that gays should support gun rights because we’re more inclined to be targets of violence and live in marginal neighborhoods… which is smartly informed self-interest in my book.

    But part of a gay rights agenda?  No more than proposing that a gay rights agenda should include forgiveness of the 3rd World’s debt.  Like Mayor Daley used to say, "it ain’t germane if it don’t make sense."

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 27, 2008 @ 9:12 am - February 27, 2008

  21. For me personally, the gay angle is meaningless compared to the fact that the right of individuals to bear arms is a fundamental guarantee in the Constitution.  Either repeal it (good luck with that) or quit trying to undermine it.  Btw, I say this as someone who has never owned a gun but might decide to get one someday.  Doesn’t matter if I do or not, the fact remains is that it is my RIGHT to make such a choice without government interference.

    Comment by John — February 27, 2008 @ 10:49 am - February 27, 2008

  22. Yeah, Michigan-Matt.  It’s not like gay men (and, if we’re using the LGTBQWTF alphabet soup acronym) and lesbian women and transgender individuals and bisexuals of both genders have been regularly targeted by a variety of rather impressively violent individuals in rather high-profile assaults, rapes, and murders.

    There’s absolutely no resonance there with lawful self-defense.  Not at all.  Not really high on any gay man’s priority list.

    And, hell, it’s not like gun control has had any roots in disarming only unpopular classes, or that modern "may-issue" CCW laws have been quite effective at allowing biased individuals to infringe on the rights of unpopular classes even today.

    The gay rights agenda includes supporting freedom of speech and freedom of association.  Those are rather important things for GLBTQ individuals because any infringement of them can rather easily be focused on those individuals, and those rights are rather important for not just political progress but ordinary life.

    Comment by gattsuru — February 27, 2008 @ 11:02 am - February 27, 2008

  23. The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – <a href="http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/02/web-reconnaissance-for-02272008.html"> Web Reconnaissance for 02/27/2008 </a> A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

    Comment by David M — February 27, 2008 @ 11:22 am - February 27, 2008

  24. gattsuru, I didn’t say it wasn’t prudent for gay guys to be armed, be able to protect their property, to hunt, etc.  Nice try at spinning, tho’.

    I said that gun rights aren’t germane to the gay rights agenda… whether that be the conventional LeftGayRights agenda or the GeorgeWallaceGayRights agenda -if there is one.

    My point is that gun rights aren’t germane to a gay civil rights agenda.  Nor is relinquishing the 3rd World debt, equal pay for women, teaching Intelligent Design in public schools and hundreds of other non-germane issues.

    If you want gun rights unfettered, gattsuru, that’s great.  Join me at the NRA.  If you want pro-gun judges, vote GOP in the fall.  If you want access to a CCW permit and can’t get it in your home state, move to a more gun-friendly state like Michigan where it’s readily available.

    But don’t think that gun rights are a sellable part of the gay rights agenda… because a "gay stance" on the issue has zero credibility with any group that advocates protection of the 2d A.  And zero relevancy to 99.9% of gays.  Go figure, too; you’d think any thing as phallic as a weapon would be passionately embraced by all gays.

    Like LCRs talking about what’s wrong with the GOP… or liberals trying to "fix" the military or win the WOT… gays and gun rights don’t match-up.

    Remember, Dan’s question was "Is gun control bad for gays?"  I’d say yes in a heartbeat.  Should pro-gun rights proposals be a part of any gay rights agenda?  No.  There are groups that have credibility on the gun rights agenda and gays sure aren’t one of them.

    But you go ahead and spin it anyway you want.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 27, 2008 @ 2:24 pm - February 27, 2008

  25. gattsuru, good comment, especially your conclusion.  Self-defense rights – like free speech rights, free association rights, freedom-from-excessive-taxation rights, free-market-medical-care rights, freedom-from-terrorist attack rights, and freedom-from-Islamic-Sharia rights – are very much germane to a true gay rights agenda.

    In fact, a true "gay rights" agenda would focus on such things – the generalized civil rights that just happen to be extra crucial to a gay life – plus a few other things like civil unions, putting the ‘DP’ (Don’t Pursue) into DADT-DP, and keeping sodomy laws repealed.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2008 @ 2:36 pm - February 27, 2008

  26. A recent murder in Hawai’i aptly illustrated the cliche "Guns don’t kill people, People kill people." A large, angry man beat his ex-girlfriend to death in the middle of a neighborhood street with the stock of a rifle. He used the long, heavy rifle as an implement to beat her head into the pavement until she died. Dozens of neighbors were witnesses, and all unarmed and unable to defend their neighbor’s death. One 69 year old Korean War Vet tried to stop the murder by restraining the assailant, but was hospitalized himself having suffered a beating too. The Irony of being beat to death with a gun is nearly indescribable.

    Comment by divinryan — February 27, 2008 @ 3:02 pm - February 27, 2008

  27. [...] Is Gun Control Bad for Gay People? [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » What is the Gay Conservative Agenda? — February 27, 2008 @ 3:20 pm - February 27, 2008

  28. "Communitarian", "harmonious", "liberal" (i.e., leftist / bureaucrat-run) societies want people passive and unable to defend themselves or each other, relying totally on government.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2008 @ 5:39 pm - February 27, 2008

  29. That, ILC, and by blaming guns, they avoid any discussion of whether or not their social policies are what’s creating the underlying problem of people who rampantly misuse them.

    The Virginia Tech shooter was a great example; this person should have been in a psychiatric hospital, not roaming the streets. But instead of looking at that, liberals blame guns, even though it should be obvious to anyone that this guy was out to kill people with or WITHOUT having access to guns. 

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 27, 2008 @ 6:00 pm - February 27, 2008

  30. To quote Glen, from Texas, " If somone with a firearm wants to kill you, and you don’t have one to defend yourself, you’re dead."  Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

    Comment by Broadsword — February 27, 2008 @ 8:06 pm - February 27, 2008

  31. "In fact, a true "gay rights" agenda would focus on such things" –and there we have the penultimate example of issue advocacy in search of support where none is apparent nor warranted.

    Most intelligent people would say that a "true gay rights agenda" would be focused on issues of singular interest to correcting the inadequacies felt or experienced within the gay community -not things like eliminating 3rd world debt, banning nuclear weapons, ending global warming or fixing the shortage of good crusted breads.  LOL.

    It’s simply amazing that any supposedly "conservative" gay would want to hijack the gay rights agenda in order to advance issues which are NOT germane to the broader gay community.  What’s next?  "Gays rights include the repeal of NAFTA!"  "Get the troops out of the MiddleEast and bring the Navy back to NYC for shore leave where they belong!"  "Urban sprawl kills gays culture!"

    I can appreciate –although not support– gays wanting to maintain easy access to free gay porn on the net.  I can appreciate –although not support– some gays wanting the gay community moved lock-stock-n-barrel onto the Democrat Plantation.

    But gun rights as a plank of a gay rights agenda?  LOL.

    Is gun control bad for gays?  Sure.  But it’s a far, far stretch as ILC would like to propose that gun rights are as sacred to gays as the right of association or to wear white speedos on the annual PrideFloat.

    Get some common sense, will ya?

    Stick with what’s germane to our community.  You want to pimp out the gay rights agenda to include nefarious and tangential issues that are especially dear to conservatives… then make it tax reform per the marriage penalty parallel for partners, make it the treatment of SS benefits for surviving partners, or make it something else that pertains to our unique situation… we don’t have a monopoly on violent domestic abuse and a welfare mom in the ghetto or trailerpark has a far greater threat from being a victim of violence than any gay.

    For all the important issues that adversely impact our community, sometimes gay conservatives try a little too hard to be a little too different for the sake of separation from the GayLeftBorgTypes.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 27, 2008 @ 8:16 pm - February 27, 2008

  32. [...] fellow conservatives over at Gay Patriot are choosing to come around a little and become pro-gun (at least 10%) on the issue of gun control [...]

    Pingback by Truth v. The Machine » Archives » Well, I guess “limp wristing” IS a shooting term — February 27, 2008 @ 9:43 pm - February 27, 2008

  33. Amazing, MM. You tried to quote me, yet wrote a post which is truly, utterly irrelevant to what I wrote. A post which is you talking to yourself.  A new low.

    Here is what you said:

    Most intelligent people would say that a "true gay rights agenda" would [not] be focused… things like eliminating 3rd world debt, banning nuclear weapons, ending global warming or fixing the shortage of good crusted breads.

    But who said anything about "eliminating 3rd world debt, banning nuclear weapons, ending global warming or fixing the shortage of good crusted breads"? I know I didn’t.

    Oh, that’s right… You did. LOL :-)  Here is what I actually suggested:

    Self-defense rights… free speech rights, free association rights, freedom-from-excessive-taxation rights, free-market-medical-care rights, freedom-from-terrorist attack rights, and freedom-from-Islamic-Sharia rights… [in short,] the generalized civil rights that just happen to be extra crucial to a gay life – plus a few other things [that are even more gay-focused] like civil unions, putting the ‘DP’ (Don’t Pursue) into DADT-DP, and keeping sodomy laws repealed.

    And gattsuru said:

    The gay rights agenda includes supporting freedom of speech and freedom of association. Those are rather important things for GLBTQ individuals…

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2008 @ 9:44 pm - February 27, 2008

  34. Oh, and purely for the record: I am no conservative.

    I just make common cause with liberty-loving conservatives, on matters of individual rights and freedom.  There are issues where conservatives and I part company.  It’s a tribute to the openness of the GayPatriot blog, that Bruce and Dan have always made a bit of space for me.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 27, 2008 @ 9:53 pm - February 27, 2008

  35. h/t Instapundit… New piece from John Stossel: Guns Save Lives.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2008 @ 12:19 am - February 28, 2008

  36. There seems to be some confusion as to what GPW is asking. It all depends on if he is asking, "what would the gay agenda look like if conservative gays wrote it" or what would the conservative agenda look like if conservative gays wrote it".

    I would hope that the "gay agenda" would be extremely short if conservatives wrote it:

    1. equal treatment under the law. (which i believe we already have)
    2. Discuss with society, rather than trying to dictate to, the benefits of gay marriage.
    3. Thanks for coming, please tip your waiter.

    The conservative agenda is much longer and encompasses issues such as gun rights and free trade.

    These case for these broader rights can certainly be made to those in the "gay community" in terms of their own self interests (in many cases thats the only way to reach people that have decided they are victims), but part of the conservative gay agenda should be to reverse the trend toward identity politics, not further it by constantly searching for a "gay angle" on every issue.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2008 @ 12:46 am - February 28, 2008

  37. American Elephant: Good point.  I was going to say , as a gay conservative my agenda would be to not have a gay agenda. I advocate for an American agenda.

    But I understand where he’s coming from.

    Comment by Vince P — February 28, 2008 @ 1:06 am - February 28, 2008

  38. AE, agree 100%.  Great comment.

    All I would add is, a narrow minded focus on narrowly "gay" issues is self-destructive – dare I say, self-hating?  on the gay community’s part.  The War on Terror is a gay issue.  Individual rights / freedom in general, are a gay issue.  Gun rights are one small manifestation of individual rights; there are many others.  I, as a gay man, can only live – happily, or at all – in a Western, free society.  The fact that freedom and individual rights in general are other people’s issues too – that is, *human* issues – does not make them less important to me as a gay man; it only means I have a lot in common with other people.  It means  I can work with them and emphasize what unites us – instead of stupid, victim-y identity politics that would divide us.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2008 @ 1:12 am - February 28, 2008

  39. Final, unimportant point for the night – This is the "Is Gun Control Bad for Gay People?" discussion.  You referred to a question of Dan’s; I can’t tell your intent entirely, but I think it might be "What Is A Gay Conservative Agenda?" – in another thread ;-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2008 @ 1:37 am - February 28, 2008

  40. #39 yes, youre right, but it seems to be what people are discussing in this thread, confusing and conflating the issues, so i put it here.

    Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2008 @ 2:16 am - February 28, 2008

  41. Gays & Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL)…

    I’d think you would spell that Gays AND Lesbians for Individual Liberty (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Galil">GALIL</a&gt;).

    respectfully,
    Daniel in Brookline

    Comment by Daniel in Brookline — February 28, 2008 @ 10:12 am - February 28, 2008

  42. Sorry, that didn’t come out right.  The link for Galil is here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Galil

    respectfully,
    Daniel in Brookline

    Comment by Daniel in Brookline — February 28, 2008 @ 10:13 am - February 28, 2008

  43. ILC offers: "All I would add is, a narrow minded focus on narrowly "gay" issues is self-destructive – dare I say, self-hating?"

    Well, there we have it folks… ILC is using one of the GayLeft’s standard ploys to imply someone who doesn’t agree with his lunacy must be a self-loathing, self-hating gay.

    Not bad, ILC.  It took you a nanosecond to move from a self-proclaimed political independent to a "rally the crowd and stone ‘em" liberal pscho-babbler.

    No, a narrowly constructed agenda is exactly what conservative gays need to distinguish themselves from the conventional gay rights agenda that THEY THEMSELVES and you too, ILC, so often criticize on the Left as being overly broad, shilling for other political interests in which we have "no dog"… et cetera.

    Just as a honestly placed sincere suggestion for you: if you’d put aside your urgent need to always be correct and "victorious" even if it takes a miracle or leap of logic to get there, try applying a little common sense.

    Gay conservatives should be about repealing the tax code that unfair burdens partners.  It should be about modifying the SS laws to allow survivor rights.  It should be about providing greater freedom for partners to care for thier ill loved one.  It should be about granting greater asylum to immigrants fleeing repressive societies (like Oklahoma maybe).  It should be about the repeal of DADT.  (Of course there are others) And it should be mostly GERMANE to gays who hold a conservative philosophy –and not be hijacked by every loon on the Right who sees yet another chance to gain support for their unique world view of what’s right/wrong… including your pet peeve of societal antipathy toward Americans who follow Islam’s tenets.

    Despite what you might like to think, most Americans don’t give a hoot about whether gays support a liberal or conservative gun stance –it ain’t germane.

    The more issues that supposed "conservatives" add to their little litany of grievances, the more they water down and lose focus on what’s important.

    Old political advice to any advocacy group: Keep your eye on YOUR ball, keep it simple, advocate.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 28, 2008 @ 6:51 pm - February 28, 2008

  44. [Comment deleted due to violation of community terms of conduct.]

    GP Ed. Note — Matt, please lay off the personal attacks. I don’t have time to play nanny.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 28, 2008 @ 8:48 pm - February 28, 2008

  45. Talking to the mirror again, eh MM? ;-) Rant rant rant.  ROFL

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — February 28, 2008 @ 9:16 pm - February 28, 2008

  46. [...] to work on a piece on gun control and gays that Pajamas had asked me to write as a follow-up to this post. I had sent out a draft to a few friends who had reviewed it, offering some (mostly mild) [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Ergh! — March 7, 2008 @ 7:26 pm - March 7, 2008

  47. [...] I followup to my post wondering whether gun control were bad gay people, Pajamas asked me to explore the issue in greater depth. They’ve just posted my [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Is Gun Control a Gay Issue? — March 13, 2008 @ 11:45 am - March 13, 2008

  48. [...] my posts on gun control (here and here), I have set out why Patrick and Tammy are right, that this decision is indedd a cause for [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Heller Decision: Gay Rights’ Victory — June 27, 2008 @ 8:13 pm - June 27, 2008

  49. [...] left, we got one such comment from another blogger, GeekwithA.45 (he might like my writings on gays and guns).  This clever blogger offers a great image to describe the projections some on the left [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » The Conservative Straw Men the Left Set Up to Burn — January 23, 2009 @ 6:12 pm - January 23, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.