GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Is Gun Control a Gay Issue?

by

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

I’ll whet your appetite with the first few paragraphs:

Just over two years ago, Jacob Robida, a troubled 18-year-old who lived in a room filled with weapons, Nazi flags, and anti-Semitic writings, walked into Puzzles Lounge, a gay bar in New Bedford, Massachusetts. After presenting a fake ID to the bartenderand finishing off a drink, he asked if it was a gay bar.

Upon learning that it was, he ordered a second drink. Then he went to the back of the bar and started swinging a hatchet at bar patrons, striking two. When others tried to wrestle him to the ground, he pulled out a gun and shot one person in the face, another in the head (twice), and a third person in the abdomen.

After fleeing the scene, he was cornered by police in Arkansas, where he shot and killed a policeman and his 33-year-old girlfriend before being shot and critically wounded by officers. He died later at a Missouri hospital.

The situation might have turned out differently had the bartender or a patron brought a handgun to the bar that night.

To find out how things might have turned out, click here.

Comments

  1. Perhaps the most significant arguement from the "Pink Pistols" in this case is that the District of Columbia’s position would mean that the Second Amendment does not apply to gays.

    DC argues that the Second Amendment only applies to people who are "in the militia."  Those who are not members of "the militia" should not be permitted to own or carry guns…

    "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" aside, that would mean that because gays are barred from "militia" service, gays should not be allowed to own guns.   Further that would mean that people with "flat feet" who are disqualified from "milita" service could not own guns.  The handicapped could not own guns.  People over the age of 45 who are not members of a militia could not own guns because their age is outside the requirments of militia service.  Anyone over 65 could not own a gun. Â

    I don’t believe that this is what the "Founder’s and Framers" meant….

  2. Excellent article.  As a fellow (but not-gay) conservative, I’ve waited for the minority groups that have the most to benefit from firearm ownership to stand up and make use of their rights.Â

  3. I don’t believe that this is what the "Founder’s and Framers" meant….

    "The great object is, that every man be armed."
    -Patrick Henry

    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater… confidence than an armed man."
     -Thomas Jefferson

    I think that tells us what the "Founder’s and Framers" meant.

  4. Great article. Laws will not prevent an evil and/or deranged person from comitting a brutal crime.

    For the record, though, most states prohibit firearms in bars (CCW or not). I hold a CCW license in Kansas and it’s not legal to carry a firearm into a bar. I don’t know whether or not bar employees can carry.

    So, in Kansas (and probably even in Texas), odds are that none of the bar patrons would have a gun.

    Nevertheless, all Massachusetts has managed to accomplish is to ensure a pool if defenseless victims for predators.

    I am moving to SoCal in the near future (no more CCW for me) and have been studying up on Cali gun laws. There are a lot of them and, based on the news of late, they’re not having much effect on the gang-bangers.

    I’ll just have to get a Taser.

  5. Not in Texas, but I remember going to the clubs and seeing gays checking their gun at the door. What gets me, my brother is a bouncer at a (straight) club in the Ft. Lauderdale area. They get a lot of clientele and celebs from Miami. He’s positive that several patrons at any given time are carrying, but bar security can’t.

  7. I love how out-of-control gun advocates (unlike responsible gun-owners I know) have taken the fear-mongering tactics of terrorism and now use it as a new tactic for unchecked gun ownership.  For people who constantly blather on about how great America is and how our compassion and love has no equal in the world, it’s interesting that when it comes to guns, that the attitude given here is that every person you encounter is a potential nutcase who is concealing a weapon and is intent upon murdering you.  In addition to guns, why not make it fully legal to carry all sorts of weapons (being that he did use a hatchet as a weapon in that bar).  We could go even further; why don’t we just round up and arrest people for a crime that they might commit in the future?  Surely we just *know* that there are certain groups of people who are clearly undesirable and might commit some type of crime.  Oh, I know…since a small percentage of gay men might commit sexual abuse on a minor, then how about all gay men get rounded up so we can avoid that crime being committed?
    As horrible as *real* crime is (and I’m not including the multitudes now being locked up for personal recreational drug use), it’s something that we have to deal with to continue living in a free society.  
    By any chance, can you tell me of a stable, peaceable society in this world in which all its citizens are armed every second of every day?
    By the way….any information on this nutcase in MA obtained the guns he had in his possession? Â

  8. We could go even further; why don’t we just round up and arrest people for a crime that they might commit in the future?

    We’ll leave that to the liberals. Helloooo "hate crimes". But I digress. If you carried a weapon and were willing to use it, you’d be less likely to be considered a victim. No wonder liberals hate gun owners.

    BTW, what exactly were you planning to do when you came to my house?

  9. 9:  I think forcing you to watch the episode of "All in the Family" where Archie went on television giving his opinion on arming all passengers to avoid hijacking would suffice.
    And do you mind showing this evidence of liberals arresting people for crimes they didn’t commit? Â

  10.  I think forcing you to watch the episode of "All in the Family" where Archie went on television giving his opinion on arming all passengers to avoid hijacking would suffice.

    So now you’re in favor of torture. Nice consistency there.

    And do you mind showing this evidence of liberals arresting people for crimes they didn’t commit? 

    You are an idiot.