You Can't Bash An Armed Queer!

[Madspirit]

"The opportunity to be threatened, humiliated and to live in fear of being beaten to death is the only 'special right' our culture bestows on homosexuals."
- Diane Carman, Denver Post

"Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "
--Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

We did. There are now over 35 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide, and more are starting up every day. We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage. Self-defense is our RIGHT.

The Pink Pistols get together at least once a month at local firing ranges to practice shooting, and to acquaint people new to firearms with them. We will help you select a firearm, acquire a permit, and receive proper training in its safe and legal use for self-defense. The more people know that members of our community may be armed, the less likely they will be to single us out for attack. Join us today. It is your RIGHT.



http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/RRR/rrrpage.html


__________________________________
If the apocalypse comes, beep me.
Buffy
__________________________________

[Ken Burch]

1. Woulda been better if it'd been The Pink Panthers

They could march to the theme music during the Pride Parade.

[Madspirit]

2. I LOVE It

The Pink Panthers...<g> That is funny.
Lee

[originalpckelly]

8. OK, that's fucking funny!

I love this idea, and I hope everyone who might find themselves a target will learn the essentials of firearm based self defense!

[TahitiNut]

11. Some would get an image of a WW2 German Battle Tank painted pink.

:silly:

[Madspirit]

14. I LOVE that Picture!!...n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

29. Off topic, but what's the story on that tank?

Mary Kay with an attitude?

[maine_raptor]

33. For one thing, it's not a German WWII Tank.

Frontal armor is not shaped the same (should be more "boxy" and without the headlights). The driver and gunner's positions are not correct, and the tube looks bigger than an 88mm, which I believe is the largest the Germans used in WWII.

But, it's a GREAT pic. :toast:

[qdemn7]

42. Sorry

That's not a WWII German Tank. That is in fact a British FV433 Abbot Self-propelled artillery. http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/7413/FV433Abbot.html

[Recursion]

45. That's neither German, nor WWII, nor even a tank, but still cool...

Go pink pistols!

[BlooInBloo]

56. ROFLMAO!!!

[qdemn7]

3. As a corollary..

You can't rape an armed woman.

I welcome ANYONE who embraces their right of self-defense and personal responsibility for their own safety.

I presume you are familiar with Oleg Volk's work? http://olegvolk.net/gallery/technology/arms/

[Madspirit]

4. I like that!

I will check out your link....fellow Texan.
Lee

[Morgana LaFey]

64. Sure you can

rape an armed woman.

See post #10.

[derby378]

5. We've got your back, pal...

Check out this blog if you like:

Amendment II Democrats blog on MySpace

[roamer65]

6. Neat. The 2nd amendment cuts BOTH ways.

Pink Pistols. I LOVE IT!!!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

30. No, it only cuts one way ...

The right of the people. All the people.

But any organization that promotes safe gun ownership and education/training/recreation is OK in my book. That was the intent of the NRA, though they seem a little caught up in fundraising and ranting these days.

[Madspirit]

7. I Used to Be

I used to be totally anti-gun. Not any more. I'm a lesbian and I am vulnerable and I am not going to die at the hands of any right-wing freak.
Lee

[MazeRat7]

9. But don't you think everyone would look so much more fabulous carrying sabers... -nt

[Madspirit]

13. I have

I have a gay guy friend who collects swords and sabers.
Lee

[Posteritatis]

22. I'm straight and I still demand such a society. Swords for all! (nt)

[Recursion]

51. I collect swords, too...

At least they're legal for me to own in DC, unlike firearms (though for once the courts seem to actually be working to overturn DC's colonial status vis-a-vis the 2nd Amendment). I have one infantry straight sword, two cavalry sabres, a messer, and a daisho set, plus my (dull) NCO sword from the Marines. 7 years of traditional fencing, 5 years of iaido, and 4 years of historical sword training -- I'm hardly a master but I feel pretty confident with them.

Swords are really really cool. Too bad they're illegal to carry in so many places...

[DarkTirade]

63. I collect a few too...

but mostly cheap stainless steel, unsharpened crap. (of course, being cheap stainless steel, I'm sure one good swing would dull the blade right away even if it was sharp...)
But anybody who breaks into my house doesn't know that... :evilgrin:
I do have a carbon steel katana (cheap, but if I sharpened it, it would hold an edge), and a chinese longsword (also fairly cheap, but slightly better construction than the katana).
I suppose that's the one benefit to living in a small apartment... just about anything is within sword range. No need for a gun when a 3 foot long blade and a long step will reach across any room.

[rasputin1952]

10. There is one bad thing about handguns. if one pulls one...

they must be ready to use it. Wounding or killing someone is tough, confronting someone elae w/a gun is "interesting".

Most people will not fire on another human being until you rationalize that the oppopent is somehow less than human. It takes a while for this type of emotional response to be entered into the psyche.

While I believe everyone should have the opportunity to protect themselves, training and understanding the type of individual you may have to shoot is a serious benefit.

Use Care!!! You could get killed or charged w/a crime.

[Bigmack]

12. That's the down side of guns...

You not only have to know how to use them, but also when to use them.

If somebody is gonna pop you in the nose, you can't blow up his shit. If four guys with bats want to beat the shit out of you, you can shoot, but do you give them a chance to back off before you fire? If you wait too long, they'll take the gun away and shove it up your ass.

Killing somebody - even an attacker - is nothing to be taken lightly.

There is a twisted part of me that would love to see some homophobic assholes begging for their lives, or maybe shot up... just a little.

[Jed Dilligan]

15. What's the point of them?

Four guys threatening me for whatever reason--I would drop every single one of them, head shots, no hesitation.

I would feel worse about killing a mosquito.

This from a straight guy who's been attacked by gay-bashers just for having a gay friend.

[Endangered Specie]

17. Just be careful about the law...

granted I wouldn't shed a tear for a violent homophobe getting buried six feet down, but some states have a law where you have a "duty to retreat" and they are usually pretty vague about what that means (like, run away... what if you can't run fast or have you surrounded, etc...)

At the very least you have to warn them to stay away from you, and you should not draw your weapon unless you are more than willing to use it (not having to actually shoot with your gun drawn should be considered a luxury).

Also, make sure you have steady aim, you don't want to accidently hit a bystander so its better to aim for the chest not head. Two or three in the chest is just about as good as one in the brain bucket and a heck of alot easier to hit. If you miss aiming for the chest you are still likely to hit something of the attacker, if you miss with a head shot odds are its gonna fly away and hit who knows what.

In any event Im glad to see democrats and progressive are catching onto this "two can play at the self defense game". YOu seriously dont want republicans to have a monopoly on guns, do you?

[rasputin1952]

18. We differ on our plan of defense. Head shots obviously kill...

I don't want to kill unless there are absolutely no other alternatives. It takes less than a second to size up the situation, there may be better options than killing.

For one thing, unless I am facing a beating or more, shooting can wait. If I do pull a gun, they are going to get a chance to have second thoughts, maybe not much of one depending on circumstances, but again, I do not take killing lightly. If they leave, fine, if one or more of them pulls a gun...let's just say I'm a damn good shot. Options abound throughout the situation, all but one are non-lethal. IF I can use an option,that avoids firing that weapon, I'm taking it. If I have to fire, the first shot goes to the thigh, a fractured femur is debilitating and sends a clear message.

I have been trained well by the military, even though that was a while back, I want information, I want to give as many chances as possible to defuse the situation, but if I do draw a gun, I know how to use it, and I would feel little remorse using it in defense...the law might look differently at that, but reality is, if some pinhead(s) is doing me or someone else harm, if they don't leave at the sight of an M-1911A1 pointed at them, they are pretty damn stupid. Hitting someone w/a 45 cal will knock them down, I don't care where you hit them.

In any case...it is wise to get training and know the firearm one owns inside and out long before the occasion arises where one might use it.

[conscious evolution]

28. Hitting someone w/a 45 cal will knock them down

That is what makes the .45 my weapon of choice.
Any hit with a .45 will knock the target down.Even someone in body armor.

I have been telling my lib friends it is time to arm up for a while now.

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution was written with days like these specificly in mind.The founders knew that one day we would need to defend our right to be free human beings.

[Recursion]

47. Especially somebody in armor

Without armor even a 45 doesn't actually transmit that much kinetic energy to its target. The whole movie thing with people getting shot and flying out of a window (which I know isn't what you're saying; still it's a pet peeve of mine) irritates me because by Newton you know the exact same amount of kinetic energy had to be transferred to the shooter, too.

[rasputin1952]

52. Thing about the .45 is that it provides a pretty devastaing

wound, and it drives people to the ground quickly. It was designed as a "stopper", and it certainly does that at close range. Getting hit while in armor, would be like being hit w/a hammer, it's gonna hurt, and create a situation where one can either get away, or have those extra seconds for a more devastating shot.

[conscious evolution]

67. The .45 does release that much energy.

It was specificly designed with that in mind.In 1911 body armor was not even a consideration when it was being developed.The army at that time was fighting guerrillas in the Phillipines.The Filipinos were getting drugged up and were unable to feel the rounds from the standard .32 cal pistol.The Army needed a hand gun that would literally knock a man on his ass.The Colt .45 ACAP was the result.

In college physics,one of my class assignments was to figure out the energy released on impact for a .45 ,9 mm and .357.The Colt was way higher then the others.

[Endangered Specie]

35. That and a .45 is much less likely to overpenetrate...

its nice to have the bullet *stay* in the intented target.

[Bigmack]

36. Ever actually fired a shot in anger/fear?

Ever actually killed anyone?

Most people couldn't kill the chicken they're going to eat, and yet they talk about killing a person as if it would have no consequences.

It was years ago, and far away, but those little brown people I killed - on purpose and by accident - still come back to visit me at night sometimes.

A person is not a mosquito.

If you're ever confronted by 4 guys, you won't get head shots.... nobody outside Hollywood is that good... and I'd lose the 'tude before the cops got there. Killing people for threatening you is a crime in most civilized parts of the country.

Besides, wouldn't it be more fun... and instructive to gay bashers everywhere... to have them on their knees, begging, offering BJs for their freedom. Nice, clean, blood-free fun!

[Jed Dilligan]

44. I've never fired a shot at all

This is a hypothetical me who can afford a gun.

Still, I'm pretty sure I could kill without remorse. I have a lot of anger in me.

[slackmaster]

49. Killing in anger would be exactly the wrong thing to do

The only legally defensible reason to shoot someone is to protect yourself or someone else from injury or death. You do not shoot to kill, you shoot only to stop a threat.

Killing someone out of anger is murder.

[rasputin1952]

50. Anger and guns don't go well together...

for that matter, anger and knives, hammers, molotov cocktails, and a host of other things don't go well together either.

Psycho and Sociopaths cannot feels emotions like compassion ...for the rest of us, we have to dehumanize and rationalize our behaviors.You say you would feel no remorse, but I am willing to bet that if you killed someone, depending on the circumstances, you'd feel regret. It is a thin line that differentiated between killing for defense, and murder, a line that should be evaluated before moving to a position where one might use a gun. Anger blurs this line, and while I do not think you would murder someone, the law may look at it differently.

Be careful of your anger, try to manage it. Learn from the past so as not to end up in a nasty situation, and remember, you cannot alter the past, but the past can alter your future, but only if you allow it to.

[SnowGoose]

55. "A person is not a mosquito." Thanks for saying that.

I was uncomfortable at how cavalier some seemed to be about the prospect of killing another human being.
There are some lines that once crossed change lives forever.

Thanks again, and take care.

[qdemn7]

23. True, but..

Sometimes all that is needed is to make the aggressor(s) aware you are armed, to make them retreat. And if you make the choice to CCW then it's imperative you study the laws concerning the use of deadly force in your state. This is usually covered in the course you take to get your permit.

As fars as the duty to retreat, states like Florida and Texas have passed "Castle Doctrine" AKA "Stand Your Ground" laws that no longer require this anymore.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/legislature/stories/032807dntexcastle.241e482.html


BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:

(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.

(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.


SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.


SECTION 5.

(a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.

(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.


SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.

[underseasurveyor]

26. Been there done that

well not killed obviously;-) but charged with a crime because yes I did pull one and yes I did use it (I was in deathly fear of losing my life..not convicted..whew..and never underestimate a good lawyer) Actually I've been on both ends of a gun. Neither end is fun x( It's easy to say what one would do but until you are in that situation one truly doesn't know how they'll react.

Yes be wise and be very, VERY careful, Please:-)

[rasputin1952]

31. It is an odd feeling being on the receiving side of a gun....

the first thing you notice, is that regardless of caliber, that barrel looks like the Holland Tunnel.
Then one gets that blast of adrenaline; it is difficult at best, to make rational decisions, this applies to both parties, and if the individual threatening you is less competent in the use of firearms, disaster can follow.

Knowledge and practice can make a difference between life and death.

[underseasurveyor]

54. An odd feeling for sure and absolutely terrifying

:scared: I had a boyfriend many years ago that thought it was amusing to frequently hold a gun to my head or a knife to my throat. I couldn't think and I froze every time. The only thought I can recall going through my mind was, 'these may possibly be my last seconds on this earth and how sad and angry my family would be'.

There was one other completely separate incident that I happened to be on the wrong side of a barrel and unfortunately I was in between the gun wielder and his intended target and the fact that I was in the middle didn't stop the guy from taking aim. Fucker:mad:

Since those days I've be taught to use firearms and I'm a pretty good shot if I do say so my self :-)

[rasputin1952]

58. Glad to hear that you got out of those situations....

I have to tell you, the first time some SO, or anyone else pulled a gun on me as a joke would be the last time...:grr: What makes people think this is anywhere near "funny", it is sick, and w/all of the reports of "mishaps", you'd think that idiot would have figured that ANYTHING CAN GO WRONG AROUND GUNS!.

I am glad you are safe now, and especially glad to hear you know about hte use of guns and what they can do. Someday I might post of my times in fire-fights, but not today...:D

Edit: forgot spell-check...:(

[rasputin1952]

32. Most people who would attack another, do so because they

believe they have a great advantage. If that psychological aspect can be countered effectively, the chance for attack is minimized. Women, gays, smaller individuals and those that don't show an awareness for their surroundings are the victims most often.

Women, gays and others can get an edge by carrying a firearm, but this is not the movies, once drawn, the entire situation changes radically. It is also relatively rare for "one on one" attacks against gays, usually groups of two or more are involved...there is a "pack" mentality in these situations. Attacks against women are more often "one on one" because there is a "power" issue involved that the attacker has to prove something to himself, as opposed to proving something to a group.

As a straight guy that knows a few gays, I will defend anyone who is being attacked, gay, female or anything else. I have wound up in altercations where I've defended the original jerk, but such is life, no one "deserves" to be attacked physically, but if they are, they need to be defended by society.

[slackmaster]

39. A good defensive handgun course clears up those doubts and gray areas

I recommend that anyone interested in the subject take one some time. It's a real eye-opener for most people.

Most states include proof of training as one requirement for getting a concealed handgun permit.

[rasputin1952]

43. Absolutely... No one should just go out and buy a firearm and

start plinking at everything they see. Many people have no idea of the range a bullet can travel from a specific firearm. A .22 Long Rifle can easily go over a mile, and w/o checking downrange, great damage can be done.

It all comes down to Common Sense and accepting that we don't know everything...a class helps us understand what we are doing, especially when it comes to firearm safety.

There is another aspect that comes in to play as well. Once armed, people tend to forget the defensive part, and some become offensive, this can lead to tragedy very quickly. Just because someone carries a gun, doesn't mean they are suddenly some kind of expert or in control of their emotional states.

It comes down to using what knowledge one has to extricate themselves form problem environments...:)

[slackmaster]

48. Training helps with the problem you pointed out here

Once armed, people tend to forget the defensive part, and some become offensive, this can lead to tragedy very quickly....

A good defensive handgun course teaches not only the letter of the law but also the morality and practical consequences of using deadly force. Even in a "good shoot" situation you have a high probability of facing criminal prosecution, getting sued, and being socially ostracized. A competent trainer will teach you how to decide when deploying a gun is appropriate and when it is OK to shoot. A really good one will teach you how to behave, what to say and what not to say after the initial fight is over.

[rasputin1952]

53. Yes...I've seen it all before...There are people that get a little

wierd when they handle guns. I recall a friend telling me that owning and carrying a gun was a "false sense of security"...Uh, it's a very REAL sense of security, but only with knowledge and wisdom involved...:)

[aquart]

16. Pink Pistol!

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

20. In fairness...

What happened in Virginia is an example of what a nut with a gun did to a bunch of unarmed and unprotected people.

[slackmaster]

41. A nut who did NOT have a license to carry a concealed firearm

Just to set the record straight.

[Madspirit]

24. "YOU PEOPLE"

Yeah ok....:rofl:

[Duncan Grant]

25. "You People?" -- wtf?

<SIGH> :banghead:

[Endangered Specie]

34. 'we' need guns like you need manners lessons...

which is to say: more than you realize.

[JackBeck]

37. Do you whisper when you say "Black" or "Hispanic"?

"You people". Give me a break.

[slackmaster]

40. Why do you need to concern yourself with what other people need?

MYOB.

[beevul]

21. Right on.

Self defense is a human right.


:toast: :thumbsup:

[Vexatious Ape]

27. Great idea.

I've been thinking for a while now that one of the reasons the Right is not so intimidated--like they where in the 60s, and 70s, is because the Left, the liberals, have been so anti gun. If the powers that be knew, freaking knew that the Left was armed, they would worry a little more.

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Gays (or any other civilians) won't be able to own handguns if Kucinich has his way

Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.

“America is being engulfed in violence every day. Let’s show them we have the wisdom and the courage to come from our hearts to meet this challenge,” Kucinich said.

more: http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=62819

[dogday]

57. I read the article but did not read anything

about the banning the sales of guns, but more about education of the use of guns, education in schools about guns and mental health prevention to help those who think a gun is the answer to their problems..

Could you point me to the part where it states he wants to ban all sales of guns?

[beevul]

60. Second to last sentence of the article...

"Could you point me to the part where it states he wants to ban all sales of guns?"


Not the sale of all guns, all handguns.

[Recursion]

62. Kucinich has not stated he will ban long guns

And it would surprise me if he did. He's been pretty clear about advocating a 0-tolerance, no-handguns-for-civilians-period policy.

This, at least, actually addresses the class of guns used in the commission of the vast majority of crimes in which guns are involved, though I still think prohibition of an widely-available good or service is generally a bad idea and ineffective.

There's probably more room for handgun restrictions on 2nd-amendment grounds, I suppose: they are less commonly used as infantry weapons than long guns. Though they are the weapon of choice for LEO's, and for good reason. And Kucinich simply doesn't have my support as long as he advocates keeping civilians from owning them.

[Freddie Stubbs]

70. He already doesn't have many peoples' support already

Perhaps he is just trying to make it unanimous.

[cwydro]

46. I'm all for that!

Great idea!

[IronLionZion]

59. polyamorous?!?!

Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English - Cite This Source Main Entry: polyamorous
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: pertaining to partipation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships

Hey thanks! You're opening up new worlds for me!

Yeah, gays should definitely defend themselves and use the freepers' own laws against them.

[Recursion]

61. I don't think of the 2nd Amendment as a "freeper" law

The origins of gun control in the US were the freepers: they didn't want blacks, jews, immigrants, etc. to be able to defend themselves against the good old boys. I don't think this has particularly changed: Reagan and GHW Bush both supported pretty strong gun control laws, and gun control as a national issue has always been most strongly advocated by the "law & order" DLC-wing of our party.

[EFerrari]

65. kick

[iverglas]

66. sorry, friend; do the research

The Pink Pistols are an arm of the Libertarian Party, and we all know what that's really about. And that's just for starters. If you think they have your interests at heart, you're in for a bad disappointment. There are gay and lesbian right-wing assholes too.

If you think carrying firearms is the answer to social and political problems ... well, this is where I won't be standing on your side.

[Nikki Stone1]

68. Just had to say I like your sig line, Madspirit. I miss Buffy

:)

[tavalon]

69. Ummmmm.......

"We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage."

Were you ever for that "right"?

:evilgrin: