Phony Gay Gun Group Runs Afoul of Real Gays--Hilarious!

[MrBenchley]

Once again myth of the" law-abiding responsible gun owner " is shown for the horseshit it is...

"Exactly two days prior to the event, Kim Rife of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols had received this email from Kate Anderson of Stonewall Columbus, prompted by leaked internal communications sent to her by unknown persons.
Should anyone bring a firearm this Stonewall Columbus event, the firearm will be confiscated and not returned and the individual will be rejected from the event. I have notified all Pride Committee members and co-chairs and I will also alert all security personnel and the police.
I appreciate your group but we at Stonewall Columbus cannot allow any opportunity for violence to occur, intentional or unintentional."

Despite which, the loonies turned up with their popguns, and picked a fight with the event's organizers.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html

[theivoryqueen]

1. hahahahaha!

enjoy reading your postings. always funny yet never give an inch.

[MrBenchley]

2. Thanks...

You might note that this so called "gay gun group" has an enemies list on its site that includes Barney Frank, Barbra Streisand and Rosie O'Donnell...but mysteriously omits any of the far right wing loonies (such as Fred Phelps) who want gays dead and in hell soonest.

It also used to have a link to the right wing think tank that whistled them up out of thin air and boasted on ITS website what a "good joke they were on liberals."

Convincing, no?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

3. What laws were broken?

On edit: By the Pink Pistols members I mean. Obviously that other woman was probably breaking a law when she threatened them with a club and tried to steal their guns. Probably not the the smartest thing, threatening someone with a club when you know them to be armed. Of course I wouldn't go around threatening anyone with a club, whether I thought they were armed or not.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[FeebMaster]

5. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

My version really is better. You should use it, I don't mind.

So what laws were broken?

[FatSlob]

6. They are quite real.

I know Kim, and two of the other people involved. Kim is a wonderful woman who doesn't compromise on rights. She constantly amazes me with what she does, even as she battles Multiple Sclerosis. Kim is an avowed lesbian who is an active abortion rights, gun rights, and free speech advocate. She lives near Columbus, and I'm proud to call her a friend. So, young man, I say that you are full of shit. I won't tolerate you besmirching the name of such a fine individual by referring to her as a loony. Piss off Mr. Benchley, and know what you are talking about before you spew forth your venom against such a fine lady. I'll also have you know that Kim and her friends were eating lunch when they were accosted. Additionally, Ohio law specifies that what they were doing was and is legal. The Director of Stonewall was the only one picking any fight, so I think it is time for you to edit your post, young man.

[OpSomBlood]

8. I know three gay people with CCW permits.

It's amazing how a few stories about people like Matthew Shepherd can make people take their self-defense seriously.

[FatSlob]

9. A big hell-yes on that one.

When I got married, one of my groomsmen was a gay guy. Andy is one of my best friends. Shortly after the concealed carry law went into effect, he asked me to train him to get a license. Andy didn't want to end up like his boyfriend did, with three broken ribs and a bashed up face.

[MrBenchley]

10. Yeah, it shows (snicker)

[MrBenchley]

11. "The Director of Stonewall was the only one picking any fight"

wonder what she thinks about Rosie O'Donnell and Barney Frank? Or about Fred Phelps?

Or about phony right wing "gay" groups that try to disrupt events by actual gay groups.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

13. Why not ask one of my friends, op...

[OpSomBlood]

14. Don't you mean "ask my one friend"?

n/t

[MrBenchley]

15. No, I mean what I said...

Now go snivel to somebody who gives a shit. It ain't me.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[MrBenchley]

17. I sure don't give a shit about the RKBA crowd's lies...

or about phony right wing groups that try to cause trouble at peaceful legitimate events...

And I sure don't give a shit about those who try to bully other people and then whine and snivel about getting it handed back to them.

[OpSomBlood]

18. Yeah, the pro-gunners here are all bullies.

That's an interesting yet paranoid appraisal of the situation.

[Fescue4u]

42. One?

Ever the optimist arent you?

[iverglas]

19. oh look

This Republican --

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/wentling.html

-- got an "A+" rating from the pseudo-pinkos even though he does not support the right of same-sex couples to marry (and his answer to the question about immigration sponsorship of same-sex partners pretty much indicated that he had failed to grasp the question). Looks like the "10 points" got awarded automatically for every other question after he got the guns ones right.

Lordy, what's this one?

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/michael.html

The only nominal Democrat willing to waste time running against John McCain? Yup -- http://www.lizmichael.org/ -- a loon.

Now this Democrat --

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/jackson.html

-- got only five points for giving the same answer as the Republican buddy for the state-sanctioned relationship questions (supports domestic partnerships for both same- and opposite-sex couples) PLUS supporting same-sex marriages. And here's a score I love:

4) Would you support the banning of some firearms or ammunition? (IE: Saturday night specials, "assault weapons", Hollow points, and "Safety Slugs") Why and to what extent?

UNSAFE AND/OR POORLY MANUFACTURED GUNS SHOULD BE BANNED.

0 Points

Zero points for supporting consumer protection legislation.

Oh look --

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/kerry.html

-- John Kerry got an F. For declining to respond, based on a policy of declining to respond to all of the zillions of questionnaires he receives.

Hmm. D'ya suppose that a whole lot of other Democrats and Republicans follow the same policy? So, what -- if they just didn't bother answering at all (rather than sending a polite acknowledgement declining to answer), they didn't get an F?

Well, here's one other who did:

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/jajuga.html

Sen. Jajuga asked me to thank you for sending him your political questionnaire. As a matter of policy, Sen. Jajuga does not respond to such surveys. He prefers to consider each individual issue as it arises before making a decision on whether to support or oppose it.

Two general statements about Sen. Jajuga's record and position on issues you identified:

(1) He support reasonable restrictions on gun use and ownership while recognizing the rights of gun owners under the federal constitution; and

(2) He supports equal rights for gay & lesbian people, including anti-discrimination protections and domestic partnership rights.

I hope your organization finds this information helpful.

Well, it isn't exactly 100% politically correct ... but an F??

The remaining Republican --

http://www.pinkpistols.com/answers2001/lee.html

-- got a B for saying

Until the legal definition of marriage is changed, then "marriage" between same-sex couples should not be allowed. I honestly do not know how I would vote for a change in the legal definition.

... and burbling something quite incomprehensible about same-sex partner immigration sponsorships that got him 0 points.

The fact that virtually all of the responses listed are from Libertarians suggests that quite a few others -- Democrats and Republicans -- besides Kerry and Lee didn't respond.

I'll bet Kerry and Jajuga have another distinction on that list, too. I'll bet they're the only ones ever elected to anything.

Static.

[MrBenchley]

20. Sure is a convincing "gay" group, isn't it?

Perhaps if you were blind and had somebody lying to you about what their website says, you might fall for the fiction that this is a real gay group...but I doubt it.

And isn't swell to see our "pro gun democrats" trying to assert that this had a group to bring guns to the event and try to disrupt it?

[iverglas]

21. wah! I wanna read it

That link -- http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html -- just goes to some kinda main page for me. Then alleged link to the article in question, "Ohio Pink Pistols Threatened, Ordered to Surrender Firearms at Rally" just links to the very same page.

But I did get to see the links to articles at johnlott.com (whatever), worldnewsdaily and the NYdaily post. Yee haw.

How come everybody else seems to have seen it?

I wanna know why this "what law was broken" question is being asked. Did somebody say a law was broken?

Did they spot DUers coming, and draw the blackout shades?

[MrBenchley]

22. I suspect it's because I said

that these disruptive fuckwits showed what horseshit the "law abiding responsible gun owner" meme really was...

After all, it's not like these pistol packing pinheads didn't get an e-mail requesting them not to bring their "loved ones."

[iverglas]

23. here's a fun one

http://www.hellinahandbasket.net/archives/001214.html

It reproduces the message in question and makes idiotic comments about it, these being the only reasons I link to such tripe.

Here's the message:

Dear members of the Pink Pistols,

This is official notice and response to the email below that I received today.

NO FIREARMS, LOADED OR UNLOADED, CONCEALED OR EXPOSED WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE PARADE LINE-UP, THE PRIDE PARADE, NOR THE PRIDE FESTIVAL.

Should anyone bring a firearm this Stonewall Columbus event, the firearm will be confiscated and not returned and the individual will be rejected from the event. I have notified all Pride Committee members and co-chairs and I will also alert all security personnel and the police.

I appreciate your group but we at Stonewall Columbus cannot allow any opportunity for violence to occur, intentional or unintentional. There will also be no solicited like you did last year, if so, you will be aske to leave. It is past the deadline for a booth but we will be happy to sell you a booth space. If you want a space to distribute your literature and to sign up members, email Michael Dutcher at (snip)

This may seem severe to you but it is nothing more than an attempt to keep all people safe and afford them the opportunity to have the most fun they can have on Saturday. I would greatly appreciate all of your members being notified immediately, so that you can make alternative plans.

Sincerely, Kate Anderson, Executive Director, Stonewall Columbus

And here's the idiotic commentary (my emphasis):

In past years, the parade organizers have tolerated a group of people who belonged to NAMBLA. They said that as long as they weren't actually engaged in pedophilia then it wouldn't have been right to exclude them from the festivities.

So now we know that the gay community thinks that people who advocate lawful gun ownership are worse than people who advocate pedophilia. Just beyond belief.

Beyond belief indeed.

That someone would copy and paste the actual relevant bit of info -- that the group/individuals s/he finds distasteful ARE NOT ENGAGING in the behaviour in question -- and then disregard it in favour of making the false claim that the organizers "think" that a group/individuals who ARE ENGAGING in the behaviour in question in their case, i.e. CARRYING WEAPONS, *not* "advocating" ANYTHING, are "worse" than the former group.

Lies, lies, damned lies.

The parade is on public property, so I don't think the CCW laws allow them to 'disallow' attending armed, though it might be included in the parade permit.

Well, fuckin' duh, fuckin' eh?

Parade organizers who are unable to ensure compliance with the conditions of their permit aren't too likely to get a permit next year.

A personal account of the upshot:

Long story short.. the police came, they didn't know what to do either, we talked with them after they'd huddled for a bit and eventually agreed (with the police) that we'd allow ourselves to be escorted off the park property.. instead of being taken to jail for criminal trespassing. It was the only thing they could come up with.. it was such a nice day..we didn't really want to spend it in jail, but I think it was a bluff.. something to do with open carry at an "event" even if it was in a "public" space. It didn't fit the Section 9 thing, since we were openly carrying and the park wasn't posted. The police were great. Sympathetic, agreeable, sorry that we had to suffer through this horrible HB 12 CCW thing.. etc. So, we took our .45 airgun, and my empty .380 (yes, we were such a threat) and left. It's not over. A bunch of us will be filing a suit against Stonewall. For what yet? Don't know, ...

If I were a cop policing a community event and having to remove troublemakers, I think I'd make an effort to be agreeable too. That's called good policing.

Oh, and here we have part of what had disappeared from the pseudo-pinkos' site:

Ohio Pink Pistols Threatened, Ordered to Surrender Firearms at Rally

"Initially three, then later, four members of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols, a group promoting the safe handling of firearms in the GLBT community, were threatened by the Executive Director of Stonewall Columbus, who wielded a 2-foot club, and up to 30 volunteer security personnel at the Stonewall Columbus Pride Event on Saturday, June 26. The Pink Pistols were repeatedly ordered to surrender their legally-owned and carried firearms by a steadily-growing army of guards. Knowing the law was on their side, the Pink Pistols refused to surrender their property or knuckle under to illegal threats of violence, search, and seizure by Stonewall Columbus personnel. Police were summoned at Pink Pistols request. No firearms were surrendered or confiscated, and no arrests were made, as no laws were broken."

Or no firearms were surrendered or confiscated, and no arrests were made, as it was a full moon that night ... whatever.

[MrBenchley]

24. Or

no firearms were surrendered or confiscated, and no arrests were made because the organzier of the event did not swear out a complaint.

"the gay community thinks that people who advocate lawful gun ownership are worse than people who advocate pedophilia"
Gee, I wonder if the people who advocate pedophilia tried to disrupt the event...or endorsed candidates who hate gays...

[FeebMaster]

25. What laws were broken? (nt)

"these disruptive fuckwits showed what horseshit the "law abiding responsible gun owner" meme really was..."

[FeebMaster]

26. I've been chuckling about this one all day.

The whole incident certainly puts the high capacity magazine argument into perspective. What if that 30 member armed gang had pushed the issue and attempted to steal those guns?

[MrBenchley]

27. Utterly gratuitous kick...

[FeebMaster]

28. Thanks. What laws were broken? (nt)

[CO Liberal]

29. What Difference Does THAT Make???

If a group portrays itself as something it is not, that's just plain dishonest. Regardless of any broken or unbroken laws.

[FeebMaster]

30. It was alleged several times that the people carrying

the guns weren't law abiding. Are you now saying that they are lying about their sexual orientation?

[CO Liberal]

31. I'm Saying Their Whole Organization is a Lie

Period.

[FeebMaster]

32. Then how do you explain this incident?

Was the whole thing made up? Were the people involved lying about being members of the Pink Pistols? Were they lying about being pro-gun? Were they lying about their sexual orientation?

[CO Liberal]

33. Pink Pistols Is a Lie

Pure and simple.

[FeebMaster]

34. So you're saying this whole incident

involving a confrontation between the Pink Pistols members and Kate Anderson never happened? Does Kate Anderson actually exist or is she part of some elaborate conspiracy?

[OpSomBlood]

35. I KNOW gay people in the Pink Pistols.

But that's an interesting "strategy"...pretending that something you disagree with doesn't exist.

"It's all the fucking Matrix, man!"

[MrBenchley]

36. Yeah, and you KNEW

people were picking on Pete Coors because he was Republican...

"hat's an interesting "strategy"...pretending that something you disagree with doesn't exist."
Oh, it's there...rotten, phony and full of right wing loony crap....just like the rest of the RKBA cause.

[CO Liberal]

38. Then They're Being Deceived

If Pink Pistols was a group founder BY gays FOR gays, that would be one thing. But it appears to be a bogus organization founded by non-gays with a real anti-gay agenda in their hearts.

[Fescue4u]

44. Guns are anti-gay?

strange

[CO Liberal]

62. No....

The people behind Pink Pistols are anti-gay.

[Fescue4u]

64. What????

They ARE gay!

Is it really so hard to believe that a gay man might own a gun?

WTF is going on here?

[MrBenchley]

71. And this attempt at disruption shows it

as does their "endorsements" and their idiotic "enemies list".

[MrBenchley]

37. Amazing how many phony "grassroots groups"

the RKBA cause has, isn't it? They've also got a phony "law enforcement group" and a phony "doctors group."

[MrBenchley]

39. You might think a group supporting gay rights

would follow the rules at the gay rights event....instead of trying their damndest to disrupt it...

But then you'd think a real gay rights group would actually endorse pro-gay poliitical candidates, inbstead of bigoted right wing nuts.

[FeebMaster]

40. You mentioned something about them not being law abiding.

What laws were broken?

[Jack_DeLeon]

57. Rules != Laws

Anybody can make any rules they want, but arbitrary rules do not trump Federal/State/Local laws in public places.

[MrBenchley]

69. And so these fuckwits tried to disrupt a peaceful event

Shows what they're REALLY about, doesn't it?

[Jack_DeLeon]

It doesnt appear that they disrupted the event.

From the article it doesnt appear that there was any disruption till some individuals tried to steal thier firearms under threat of force.

[MrBenchley]

101. Mostly because there was only three of them

out of the 35,000 or so that showed up...and because the people organzining the event called the cops.

[CO Liberal]

118. And If Cops Were Called.....

...I guess it's safe to assume that a law was broken - right???

[FeebMaster]

119. Who was arrested? (nt)

[Jack_DeLeon]

133. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

So are you implying that if the police investigate you that you are automatically a criminal?

I dont think so.

Even if someone was arrested they wouldnt officially be a criminal until they were convicted.

I think you are just fishing for a reason to agree with MrB even though you know he is wrong in calling these people criminals.

[Fescue4u]

41. Wow, I must be on Freerepublic????

You are showing your wonderful sense of humor as a "democrat" by attacking the gay/lesbian community.

Its Ironic that I find such attacks on a progressive site, rather than free republic.

But then again, coming from such a fine "democrat", maybe its not ironic at all?

You are a Democrat arent you bob?

[MrBenchley]

45. Which bunch of fuckwits tried to disrupt the Columbus Gay Pride parade?

Oh, yeah, it was the phony RKBA "gay" group...the one endorsing the right wing bigots.

"I must be on Freerepublic?"
Well, they sure love guns and hate gays over there...but of course they're hate-filled pieces of shit of the sort that peddle "gun rights."

[Fescue4u]

47. LMAO

You called someone else hate filled.

[MrBenchley]

48. LMAO myself...

You tried to pretend these bigoted dishonest fuckwits aren't....

[Fescue4u]

49. I always laugh

when the pot calls the kettle black

[MrBenchley]

51. And I always laugh when the RKBA crowd

tries to pretend anybody is dumb enough to fall for their phony shit...like this fake "gay" group.

[Fescue4u]

53. What law did these fake gays break.

fake gays.

funny shit.

[MrBenchley]

55. Why did they try to disrupt the event?

Answer: Because they're as phony as everything else in the RKBA movement.

[Fescue4u]

56. Disrupt? They were trying to participate

In the past, blacks were not allowed to particpate in a great many things either.

Its called discrimination against civil rights. ALl good Democrats decry discrimination.

I ask you again. What law did they break?

[Jack_DeLeon]

58. Doesnt look like they broke any laws.

but MrBenchly apparently thinks private organizations can enforce thier arbitrary rules in public places.

Rules != Laws.

[Fescue4u]

61. Some people think that those who disagree

Should be locked up out of sight.

We defeated those kind of people in the 60's.

Well most of them. Apparently a few are still amongst us.

[MrBenchley]

67. And some people think that rules

don't apply to fuckwits with guns...

"We defeated those kind of people in the 60's."
Yeah, who can forget all the shootouts at Woodstock?

"Apparently a few are still amongst us."
And they're all pedddling this gun rights crap....and trying to hide what they're really about with phony "grass roots" groups like the Pink Pistols.

[Jack_DeLeon]

68. The 60s?

Dont you mean the 40s?

[Fescue4u]

72. fair enough.

for the most part anyway.

Bigots still walk the streets and post on forums though.

[MrBenchley]

77. Funny, the 60s were the Civil Rights movement

when many of the same shitheels peddling "gun rights" were trying to prop up Jim Crow...

[Jack_DeLeon]

80. Were Gun Rights an issue in the 60s?

Other than the fact that whites wanted to keep blacks disarmed.

[CO Liberal]

84. Knock It Off With The Race Card

It's never worked before on this board - it won't work now.

[Jack_DeLeon]

87. Race Card? If the Glove doesnt fit....

what are you talking about.

[Fescue4u]

90. I hear you and partly agree

But civil rights are civil rights.

And the oppression of african americans is a close analogy and a recent and current event.

Hence the analogy

[CO Liberal]

96. I Don't Consider Guns a Civil Right

I consider it a matter of choice.

People are born black, gay, or a member of a minority group. No one is born a gun owner.

[Fescue4u]

99. I understand and respect your opinion

I of course disagree and we'll proably never meet in the middle on that.

But i bet we can agree that 2nd ammendment groups do believe it is a civil right.

[CO Liberal]

107. And I Believe That They Are WRONG

Period.

[Fescue4u]

113. Hey CO..we are gonna need a new thread

If we are going to debate this point.

Me and MILLIONS believe they are right.

period.

(see I can play)

[Jack_DeLeon]

106. People arent born able to speak either....

but I assume you would consider Free Speech a civil rights issue.

[CO Liberal]

108. People Don't Choose Whether or Not They Can Speak

However, they DO decide whether or not they will own guns. Hence, gun ownership is a choice - not a civil right.

[Jack_DeLeon]

110. people can choose not to speak....

if they are so inclined.

1st amendment issues are civil rights issue, just as are 2nd amendment issues, just as are all issues in the bill of rights.

[CO Liberal]

117. I Disagree

People can choose not to speak - they can't choose whether they have the ability to speak.

However, people CAN choose whether or not they own a gun. Hence, gun ownership is not a civil right. It's not intrinsic to the individual.

[MrBenchley]

104. No, back then Trent Lott and his ilk called it "states rights"

but people can see through that NOW.

[hansberrym]

135. Scummy Judge Reinhardt is a firm advocate of states rights.

(From Silveira)
To resolve any remaining uncertainty, we carefully examined the
historical circumstances surrounding the adoption of the amendment.
Our review of the debates during the Constitutional Convention,
the state ratifying conventions, and the First Congress,
as well as the other historical materials we have discussed,
confirmed what the text strongly suggested: that the amendment
was adopted in order to protect the people from the
threat of federal tyranny by preserving the right of the states
to arm their militias. The proponents of the Second Amendment
believed that only if the states retained that power could
the existence of effective state militias — in which the people
could exercise their right to “bear arms” — be ensured. The
historical record makes it equally plain that the amendment
was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with
respect to private gun ownership or possession. Accordingly,
we are persuaded that we were correct in Hickman that the
collective rights view, rather than the individual rights mod-
els, reflects the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Thus, we hold that the Second Amendment imposes no
limitation on California’s ability to enact legislation regulating or prohibiting the possession or use of firearms,
including dangerous weapons such as assault weapons. Plaintiffs lack
standing to assert a Second Amendment claim, and their challenge
to the Assault Weapons Control Act fails. (end quote)



According to Judge Reinhardt, RKBA is a right of the state, not of the people.

But indeed, most people can see through that lie.

[MrBenchley]

140. IS he, hans?

perhaps you'd like to show us where he tried to prop up Jim Crow with "states rights"

"Take the first place Reagan first announced his candidacy for the 1980 Presidential run. He didn't announce it in Iowa, nor in New Hampshire. He didn't even announce it in California, the place he came to prominence.
He announced it in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
The only event of historical note to ever happen in Philadelphia, Mississippi, up until that point, was the murder of three civil rights workers (Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Cheney) in 1964. Other candidates, including those from the Democratic side of the aisle, made it to Philadelphia, Mississippi, as well. Southern voters are a powerful bloc. But in Ronald Reagan's case, when he appeared before the citizens of Philadelphia, he spoke of one thing — his support for states' rights. And no matter the argument I've seen printed that Reagan meant the phrase in the context of the "Sagebrush Rebellion," that focused on wresting control of western grazing lands from the federal government, we all know what "states' rights" means in the South. "

http://www.africana.com/columns/slate/bw20040608reagan.asp

[MrBenchley]

59. Gee, fescue...they tried to disrupt the event

"Its called discrimination against civil rights."
No, it;s called right wing fuckwits in action.

[Fescue4u]

60. You sound like quite the expert

In right wing fuckwits.

I wonder why that is, mr "democrat".


I've heard Homophobes speak with the same kind of invectives against the GLBT community.,

[MrBenchley]

63. We sure see enough of them everyday

some even pretend to be "pro gun democrats"

"I've heard Homophobes speak with the same kind of invectives against the GLBT community."
Now THAT I don't doubt...knowing the sort of crap that gun nuts spout routinely.

"The National Rifle Association's annual convention in Reno, Nev., degenerated on Sunday into a session of gay-bashing, with one commentator referring to anti-gun talk show host Rosie O'Donnell as a "freak" for her recent admission that she's a lesbian.
During a two-hour panel discussion attacking the media for distorting the views of gun-rights proponents, all but one speaker took an opportunity to slam gays and lesbians -- including O'Donnell -- in some manner. "

http://www.planetout.com/news/article-print.html?2002/04/29/2

But then so few people are fooled by what's REALLY peeking out from under the "gun rights" sheet.

[Fescue4u]

66. I bet you do.

Once again, I bow to your expertise in right wing hatred.

[MrBenchley]

73. Yeah, fescue...I actually read what gun nuts say

that's how I can show that what our "pro gun democrats" pretend they say is horseshit...and show that our "pro gun democrats" are utterly afraid to say even word one that's pro-Democrat on any of those "forums".

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[OpSomBlood]

115. I find myself using a lot of quotation marks with him, too.

n/t

[CO Liberal]

65. Why Do You Pro-Gunners Keep Asking That???

Laws may not have been broken, but the Pink Pistols are just plain dishonest.

[Fescue4u]

70. And they called blacks dishonest and law breakers

Just because they wanted to sit in the front of the bus to.

The guys just wanted to participate.

They broke no laws.

Yet, the anti-gun bigots seem to hate them for wanted to belong.

[CO Liberal]

74. You Don't Get It, Do You???

The Pink Pistols is just a front group for the NRA. They don't GIVE A DAMN about gays and lesbians - they're just pushing their agenda.

[Fescue4u]

86. IMO, I don't believe that to be the case

CO, I appreciate that I can debate with you, unlike some other angry people in this forum.

Anyway, I've seen no evidence that these men and women are not gay.

IMO, it would be quite possible that they are actually Republicans, who happen to be gay, and who happen to pro 2nd ammendment.

Does that mean I agree with their all their politics? NOPE (except for the gun part of course)

Does that mean they should be denied the 1st and 2nd ammendment rights. I don't think so.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that hard right wing men would pretend to be gay. The mere suggestion of it to rwingers is quite disgusting to many of them.

No. I think that they are RW, pro gun, and gay...and yes they proably get funding from the NRA.

An unusual, contradictory positition? yep. Real? I think so.

[Jack_DeLeon]

75. So you admit no laws were broken?

Then isnt it dishonest to imply that they were lawbreakers?

[CO Liberal]

78. I Didn't Say They Were Lawbreakers

I said the people behind the Pink Pistols were dishonest.

[Jack_DeLeon]

83. I never accused you of dishonesty....

MrBenchly is the one who is implying that these people are lawbreakers.

If you admit that no laws were broken, wouldnt that make MrBenchly dishonest?

[FeebMaster]

76. Because it has been alleged several times in this thread that

the people involved were not law abiding.

By the way, I'm still waiting for an answer to post 34. Maybe you missed it.

[CO Liberal]

82. Regarding Post #34

I'm not saying that incident never took place. I'm saying that the Pink Pistols group is bogus and any agys or lesbiams that join it are being taken for a ride.

Just like the Log Cabin RepubliKKKans.

[Jack_DeLeon]

85. yes but...

do you think its fair for others to imply they are lawbreakers?

[CO Liberal]

88. I Can't Speak For Anyone Else

Do YOU think it's fair for people to defend an obviously bogus organization?

[Fescue4u]

91. Is it bogus?

If the pink pistols claims to be a pro 2nd organization for gays.

And its members are gay and pro 2nd?

You may not like their associates, nor their funding, but I think they are quite legitimate.

[Jack_DeLeon]

92. I dont care about the organization...

Or thier politics, but if they broke no laws and are in a public place then other people have no right to demand they give up thier possessions or demand they leave.

Calling them lawbreakers when no laws were broken is a lie.

[CO Liberal]

93. And Calling Them a Gay Group...

...when they're simpl a front for the Nuts Ruining America is a HUGE lie.

[Jack_DeLeon]

95. Are they opposed to gays owning firearms?

If not then I wouldnt call it a lie.

[MrBenchley]

79. Because they want to pretend

that the idiotic CCW law gave these fuckwits some sor tof mandate to disrupt the Gay Pride Parade...

[Fescue4u]

89. Actually you are quite wrong on that one

They were carrying openly.

That is 100% legal and 100% unlicensed in Ohio.

[MrBenchley]

112. And their popguns don't give them a mandate

to disrupt the event...

[Fescue4u]

114. Nope.

They are a non factor in joining.

[Jack_DeLeon]

43. So what law did they break?

According to thier article they committed no crime by openly carrying as they did?

Believe it or not, there are states where its legal to carry weapons openly.

[MrBenchley]

46. Nice to see what unruly pieces of shit they are...

[Fescue4u]

50. So what law did they break?

[MrBenchley]

52. So why do they endorse anti-gay right wing loonies?

Answer: They're as dishonest as everything else in the RKBA cause...

[Fescue4u]

54. So what law did they break?

waiting........

[CO Liberal]

94. Are You Guys BLIND?????

For the LAST TIME, we're not talking about broken laws. We're talking about BOGUS ORGANIZATIONS.

And the Pink Pistols are about as bogus as they come.

[OpSomBlood]

97. And your proof of this is?

Because you say so?

I know gay people who own and carry guns and belong to the Pink Pistols. Therefore it is not a "bogus" organization.

[CO Liberal]

98. I'm Not Talking About the Poor Folks....

...who may have been suckered into joining this bogus organization. I'm talking about the scumbags who formed the damn organization.

[OpSomBlood]

100. There are several pro-gun gay people on DU!

Why is the concept of a gay person who refuses to be "bashed" so foreign to you?

[CO Liberal]

105. Why Is The Concept of a Bogus Organization So Foreign To YOU??

:shrug:

[OpSomBlood]

111. A "bogus" organization full of genuine gay gun owners.

But gay people would never own a gun.

That's like saying that the Democratic party is "bogus" because their leadership sometimes advocates anti-democratic principles like revision of the Bill of Rights.

[CO Liberal]

120. Genuine Gays Duped By a Bogus Organization

Gays and lesbians have enough problems in our society - they should be sujected to bogus organizations liek this.

[OpSomBlood]

122. If they own guns and meet with other gays who own guns, how is it bogus?

And to the contrary...when gays arm themselves, they have less problems to worry about. Namely, getting dragged behind a pickup truck and chained to a fence to die.

[CO Liberal]

126. If The Organization Is Run By Anti-Gay People...

...it's bogus.

[Fescue4u]

138. I never met an Anti-gay Gay person.

I guess they exist though?

At least in someones imagination

[CO Liberal]

141. "Focus On The Family" Is Loaded With Them

They call themselves "ex-gays". They hate themselves so much, they project that hatred on to other gays.

[Fescue4u]

102. If its walk like a ducks, acts like a duck

its a duck.

[MrBenchley]

116. So they endorse right wing bigots, put pro-gay liberals on their hate list

link to a right wing think tank, and tried to disrupt the Gay Pride Parade...

Quack quack quack

[Jack_DeLeon]

103. Maybe you havent seen...

but most people asking "what laws were broken," arent asking in response to your accusation.

They are responding to MrBenchly's accusation.
Once again myth of the" law-abiding responsible gun owner " is shown for the horseshit it is...

Which implies that these guys broke the law.

[OpSomBlood]

109. They didn't break the law and they weren't irresponsible.

So one must wonder where the "horseshit" truly lies.

[CO Liberal]

121. It lIes In The Management of the Pink Pistols

And their bogus organization.

[OpSomBlood]

123. Does saying "they are bogus" over and over make you think they are?

I'm just trying to get an idea of your thought process. First they didn't actually exist, now they are bogus.

But as far as I can tell, they are an organization of gun owners who are tired of being assaulted and killed because of their sexual orientation and have chosen to defend themselves.

[CO Liberal]

125. Does Saying "They Broke No Laws" Over And Over....

...make you think they're a legitimate organization? Because they're NOT!!!

[OpSomBlood]

127. They didn't break the law and they aren't a phony organization.

So you're 0-for-2 on this so far.

[CO Liberal]

128. And The Pink Pistols Are a Big Fat Zilch

Totally bogus, through and through.

[OpSomBlood]

129. Oh yeah? Well, I'm gonna get the last word!

Is that what this debate has been reduced to?

[CO Liberal]

130. No, You're Not!

:P

[OpSomBlood]

131. In all seriousness, the PP are a Libertarian spinoff.

To call them "phony" is a mischaracterization in my opinion, simply because I personally know gay people in the organization.

[CO Liberal]

132. You May Know Gays in the Rank and File....

...but the movers and shakers behgind Pink Pistols are anti-gay. Just look at their "enemies list".

Admit it - Pink Pistols is a bogus organization.

[MrBenchley]

124. It walks like a duck and the quacking is deafening

but the RKBA crowd keeps trying to pretend it's a peacock...

[Fescue4u]

137. quack quack fake gays quack quack fake gay.

hehe

There isnt a man alive that I have ever met who would pretend to be gay (unless he is of course)


Fake gays. lol

[MrBenchley]

139. So they endorse right wing bigots, put pro-gay liberals on their hate list

link to a right wing think tank, and tried to disrupt the Gay Pride Parade...

Quack Quack Quack

"There isnt a man alive that I have ever met who would pretend to be gay"
Funny, I've met gun nuts who lie until they're blue in the face....

[Jack_DeLeon]

134. Interesting how this thread devolved.

First it went from MrBenchley claiming that these guys were lawbreakers.

When it became apparent that they had broken no laws, then MrB and COL decided to switch gears and argue, "well they are phoney," ad infinitum.

Kindergarden style debating++

[Fescue4u]

136. Not really debating

Mostly just a bunch of name calling by folks who don't have the facts behind them.

In all seriousness, I think there is at least one person on this forum who is actually is Progun, but pretends to be a raving anti-gun lunatic in order to discredit true anti-gun folks.

But then again I could be wrong and I should just go sit on a park Bench.

[Wickerman]

142. locking

seems to have run its course - and what a pleasant little trek that was... :eyes: