Choose your colors: The Pink Pistols

like the GOP has the Log Cabin Republicans

From its racist roots and given that it is an infringement of personal rights, I have a hard time understanding how a progressive or liberal who considers the matter in light of history can support gun control or banning as they are trying in San Francisco.

Pink Pistols are indeed a fringe group. They piss off the established GLBT at times, which may well be a good thing at times. Nothing stops muggers or gay bashing faster and sooner than armed resistance from intended victims. I support them.

I am a proud liberal who believes that it should be as hard to get a licence to own a gun as it is to get one to operate a car.

Otherwise we would need licenses to vote etc, own property, etc. Society insisting on responsibility and accountability is reasonable.

I was not always so hard over on this, but events in my life radicalized me in this area.

Otherwise we would need licenses to vote etc, own property, etc.


Or lisences to drive, or handle hazerdous materials, or to fly, or to sell beer, or to be a lawyer, or to be a doctor. . . :eyes:

People need to be lisenced so that the government can force people to go through saftey programs regarding firearms. Why does everyone suspect that we liberals want to take away guns. I don't care if you want to possess a rifle or pistol. I really don't. I just want to make sure you have attended SEVERAL THOROUGH classes regarding firearms.

Are you in favor of allowing convicted violent criminals to carry automatic weapons?

If not, you support gun control.

We've discussed this to death in the gungeon. It's surprising how many of our DU members think that this is a fictious group founded by the right to somehow lure the party faithful away and cause mass confusion within the ranks.

As the slogan says, "Armed gays don't get bashed."

All are welcome to join. No dues, no membership requirements except that you support GLBT issues and RKBA - or at least support a member who does.

that's why I urge every liberal-minded person in this country to own a gun. There will be a time, in the near future, when we will desperately need them.

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a decending spiral. Returning violence with violence only multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
MLK Jr.

Some asshole shot him.

There's a difference between violence and self-defense.

Are you suggesting the Iraqi people should have welcomed us with flowers?

> There's a difference between violence and self-defense.

No there isn't a difference. Self-defense is about killing. What are you going to do, tickle the guy into submission? No. Therefore, anyone that claims they own one of those things just for "self-defense" has admitted that they are willing to kill someone. That is wrong.

I would just want to make them stop doing whatever it is they're doing that would kill me.

If that makes someone stop being alive, then so be it.

The ultimate rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When you are being assaulted all of the above are being taken from you by force. I've been there I am never going to let that happen again. You try to be smart about things, avoid problems, use preventive means, but sometimes, they are just not enough. What would you advise in that situation, just accept it?

When someone is willing to do that kind of violence to me or my family, *any* force is more than justifiable, and is not wrong.

Self defense is about defending yourself from those who would initiate force or the threat of force. We would all like to live in a nice rosy world where we roll around on gumdrops all day long and love each other, but we don't. We live in a hard, crass world where predators roam, and I propose that defending myself, by whatever reasonable means I deem necessary, is a moral obligation.

If "self-defense is about killing", do you make any moral distinction between a murderer committing wanton slaughter, and a woman shooting and killing an attacker that surely would have killed her?

For I would suggest that your example of Iraq is a perfect example of violence committed by one entity under supposed self-defense (that would be us) that perpetuated violence by another (that would be them).

Ireland, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Japan, Spain, Norway, Italy, Denmark, the UK, all haver stronger gun regs than the USA and all have much lower gun homocide rates and lower amounts of people in prison.

Where possession in the home of automatic weapons is common?

Furthermore all of those "progressive" nations are much more authoritarian than the US. The possibility of serious social upheaval is literally unthinkable to them. They also have considerably less personal freedoms.

What about the whole rest of the progressive world? Let's overlook 450 million for 2 tiny very unique nations.

Furthermore, how do you rate all these progressive nations as more "authoritarian" than the USA. Hell, we have the "PATRIOT" act. Sounds like bullshit.

Fact: Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.

Contact Crime Victimization Rates
(% of population Victimized in 1999)
2.4 Northern Ireland
2.2 Sweden
3.4 Canada
4.1 Austrilia
2.2 France
2.0 Netherlands
3.6 Engalnd and Wales
3.4 Scotland

0.4 Japan
1.4 Portugal
1.5 Spain
1.8 Belgium

1.9 USA

From: Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, 2001

We have more PEOPLE than most (if not ALL) of these countries, therefore OF COURSE the overall # of homocides would be greater. But when one looks at how many victims of violent crime out of every 1000 people, THEN we start talking apples and apples.

No banana - try again.

Have a link for that info?

billbuckhead: I notice you don't mention MURDER
Have a link for that info?

Not ALL knowledge is gleaned from the internet. I'd suggest utilizing an anciet institution called a LIBRARY - ask your gandma about it ;)

The report is: Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, 2001

(I didn't list them all, just the ones mentioned that were also in the report, plus a couple that seemed appropriate.)

"Assault with force" includes enough force so that the victim is no longer alive. IOW, Assault with force includes assault with DEADLY force.

Fact: Since gunbanning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen.

Source: British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002

Fact: Street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%

Source: Gallant , Hills, Kopel, “Fear in Britain”, Independence Institute, July 18, 2000

Fact: Comparing crime rates between America and Britain is flawed. In
America, a gun crime is recorded as a gun crime. In Britain, a crime is only recorded when there is a final disposition (a conviction). All unsolved gun crimes in Britain are not reported as gun crimes, grossly undercounting the amount of gun crime there. To make matters worse, British law enforcement has been exposed for falsifying criminal reports to create falsely lower crime figures, in part to preserve tourism.

Source: Daily Telegraph, 1996

Happy? ;)

of whole cloth. The gun crowd is famous for it. Even the NRA's motto is the 2nd amendment with the first part missing. It seems truth goes out the window when worshipping guns.

It's only true if it's posted on the Internet? Libraries don't count.

Or are you happy simply ignoring and questioning those things you disagree with?

If you witness a crime, do you need a link before reporting it to the police? We all know how unreliable books, newspapers, magazines, and especially eyewitness acounts are.

NEWSFLASH

Everything on the web, in books, in newspapers, etc. began as an eyewitness account. Uh, anecdotal evidence for some of our members.

Your the one making the assertion. Prove it. Where did they get their studies?

JUST when I think I've heard the most absurd presumption, and it could NEVER be topped, some moron on DU says something even MORE absurd.

If it's NOT on the internet, it can't be real.... Are you 12 years old Bill? Ask grandma about libraries, really, they can even (on occasion) surpass the internet, honest.

billbuckhead

If you can't pull it up on the internet then something is wrong

Your the one making the assertion. Prove it. Where did they get their studies?

Who is "they"? What do you MEAN "where did "they" get their studies"? I guess you'd have to ask the Netherlands who did the studies, and how they crunched their numbers.

I TELL you (3 or 4 times now) what studies and where _I_ got them (Library research) and because YOU can't find it "on the internet" it's bogus? Sounds like your BS is bogus. If I did find a link, you'd gripe that it also would have to be in ENGLISH (even though the review/study was done in the Netherlands - they should have to conform to OUR standards in order for US to give them any plausibility at all) - RIGHT?

If you're too lazy to get off your backside and use something BESIDES a computer screen... well then you're just too sad for me to bother with anymore.

My suggestion -try key words - Nederlands Rechtvaardigheid 2001 in your search.

It's not my job to prove you're assertions. You're the lazy one.

There goes the efficacy of online newspapers, university research findings - the list is endless. Everything starts somewhere, and it's not the Internet.

Let me break that down for you. Something occurs in the real world, then someone posts it on a website. Not all occurrances have links. Is someone's leg any less broken because the accident wasn't newsworthy enough to merit a web post?

I guess we all know what some folks are pulling up when they're online.

Iraq can in NO way shape or form be defined as "self defense". Bush made that all up SO he could go get the guy who tried to kill "daddy". No MORE, no LESS. Therefore that is FORCE, hence it is VIOLENCE.

I suppose in a way MAYBE one could make the case for "defense of others".... but I won't be making it.

Big difference between me STOPPING an attack by a would-be basher and the Iraq war. Shame on you!

In any case, it was still a bad example.

It would have been better to point out the difference between:

1) You killed my father and now I must avenge his death.

and

2) You are in my home pointing a gun at me and I must make you stop doing that.

One is violence, the other is defense.

Sorry. My bad. :D

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Ghandi

Facts confuse you naysayers?

"Uncontrolled force" is violence. "Controlled force" can be many things, but it is NOT defined as "violence" and self defense is under the "controlled force" heading.

And as a friend of mine pointed out, MLK Jr. was right. "*if* both sides are *actually using raw, uncontrolled force*, hence, true violence. Since there were firearm-carrying persons at Selma among MLK's followers, I doubt he himself felt that quote applied to self-defense." Nor should any rational, thinking person.

Why aren't you arguing that since this can't be found on the internet that Ghandi couldn't POSSIBLY have said this?

Don't want a link?

<rolleyes>

A few reasons:

1) The Democrats abandoned us in the last election. If they're going to play that way we might as well find allies outside the Dem party;

2) Abandoning us means more hate crimes and the police won't save you many times. . . you need to protect yourself;

3) The NRA is going to be abandoned by the Republicans in the next few years as the "soccer moms afraid of terrorism" are a larger voting bloc and want gun control and legislation.

I say, you go Pink Pistols!

I have thought long and hard on the 2nd Amendment and I do believe that it does give the average person the right to own firearms

now, I also believe that there should be limits on what firearms should be made available to the public

bazookas--no
handguns--yes

I would support a group like Pink Pistols because yes, you do have a right to defend yourself and you won't be congratulating yourself for being "non-violent" if confronted by a violent person. I don't carry a handgun, but I won't stand in the way of someone who wants to. (I might get shot! :evilgrin:)

But don't tell me you need a machine gun to "defend yourself." I'm not buying it.

And any little bitch started shit with me by trying to rob me, or kill me, I'd have to empty some lead into their face. It's my instinct to defend myself. along with other people.

I didn't realize I had walked into the sequel to New Jack City.

Seriously, though, read my post again. I (sort of) agree with you.

And should be the first thing to get BEFORE going with any weapon for defense.

the weapons mongers and their fascist friends like NRA whores John Asskkkroft and Grover Norquist.

If they're going to shoot at me, I want to be able to shoot back, not be a standing-tall martyr.

This is the society they gave us, they're the bigger group, we have to play by their rules. And we can still win, even doing so. Unless we're all dead because we decided not to defend ourselves, or count on police officials like that anti-gay Sheriff in Alabama to "protect" us.

If guns made men free, Afghanistan would be the freest nation in the world and Ireland would be a gulag.
Bad guys will always have more powerful weapons than your guns.

All that would be a fine arguement........if I lived in Ireland or in the middle east. Or if the US Army decided to invade Dayton Ohio. As it is I think I have the local gay bashers covered.

Anyone remember that?

Well three of the members of DU are Pink Pistols......

I know the media spokesperson thought the BS of us not existing was a tad much, therefore you must all be loons, so she left.... if it weren't for a few really good folk, I might have to agree....

HEY! Ya know what? the Pink Pistols IS on the Internet! So we MUST exist! Just ask Billy! ;)

All DU did was "prove" that the PP was founded by an individual who DID help, but who was NOT the founder. And the "proof" was more along the lines of the individual who says if it's not on the internet it doesn't exist.

Basically a bunch of loudmouthed morons insisted the sky was green and the grass was blue w/white poofy clouds floating in it and the moon is made of cheese.

So, if you buy THAT, then - yeah... I guess so.

Thing is I am a REAL lesbian and the co-founder of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols. There's a Yahoo! Group that numbers over 200 members, and a political list that numbers maybe 1/2 that... there are REAL lesbians, gay men, bisexual and straight folk in the various chapters that exist across the country. The San Francisco chapter is spearheading the fight against SF banning guns in the county.

And, if we DON'T "really exist" can you explain all the mainstream press we're getting? Kinda odd for a "freeper front group". Eh?

I'm just sick of dealing with the asshats on BOTH sides, the "liberals" who don't believe we exist, and the "conservatives" who I gotta "spank" every now and then for being total jerks w/regard to GLBT folk.

Heck of a LOT less problems from the conservatives though.... kinda making ME wonder sometimes...

You need to pick your friends. Massachusetts and the EU or the gun loving Red states. I guess you could move to the countystate of Vermont.

I want ALL my rights....I don't believe in trading one right for another . The right to marry doesn't do much good if I have to live in fear of actually being in love.

BTW, the supreme court decided a long time ago that the 2nd amendment isn't an individual rights.


Here's a well written skewring of the gun nut misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. BTW, there's a damn good reason the NRA keeps the first part of the 2nd amendment off it's motto, it's called lying by omission.


A Well Regulated Militia...
(7/9/01)
As a matter of law, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia.

-------------snip-------------------

Tough question for gun nuts
We've seen that court rulings support gun laws and the framers had little or nothing to say about them. No one except a few loonies support an absolute right to bear arms. But let's give them a shot at defending their made-up interpretation.


Consider the words gun nuts love to quote out of context: "...the right keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Is this right unlimited?


That is, does the right to bear arms extend to bearing nuclear bombs, poisonous gas, anthrax, and similar weapons? If you don't believe someone has the right to build a nuke next door to you, you're admitting there's a limit to the Second Amendment. Then the only question is where the limit is, not whether the limit exists.


I've never heard a gun lover address this point—at least, not successfully. If someone has a valid answer, he or she can be the first. Good luck.


Here's one poor soul's attempt:


>> Weapons of mass destruction DO NOT fall under the second Amendment. <<


Says who? Do you expect us to take your word for it? Take my word for it instead: They do fall under the Second Amendment.


Better yet, check the dictionary definition of "arms," then tell us how it doesn't apply to nuclear arms. My dictionary says an "arm" is a "weapon of offense or defense." That clearly does include nukes.


If you can interpret the meaning of "arms," so can anyone. Likewise, anyone can interpret the meaning of "militia," regardless of the definitions passed decades or centuries ago. Either all interpretations are valid or none are. No one gets to choose which words get read literally and which get interpreted.

----------------snip------------

and of course I have links and references

<http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2ndamend.htm>

So kindly stop putting words in my mouth.

Second, I barely remember the info about PP on DU. Obviously, I don't remember it very well. So you can drop the hostility. I'm not one of those "asshats" you're clearly upset with.

All DU did was "prove" that the PP was founded by an individual who DID help, but who was NOT the founder.

This sentence thoroughly confuses me. The founder of PP is not the founder? What did he "help" with? I just don't get this sentence at all.

Thing is I am a REAL lesbian and the co-founder of the Central Ohio Pink Pistols. There's a Yahoo! Group that numbers over 200 members, and a political list that numbers maybe 1/2 that... there are REAL lesbians, gay men, bisexual and straight folk in the various chapters that exist across the country. The San Francisco chapter is spearheading the fight against SF banning guns in the county.

And I'm a REAL bisexual (what's with capitalizing that, it's not like I attacked your orientation or anything) who only vaguely remembers the DU PP discussions.

And, if we DON'T "really exist" can you explain all the mainstream press we're getting? Kinda odd for a "freeper front group". Eh?

Considering I never said you didn't exist, this sentence is pointless. Though I could point out that a freeper front group can easily get press when the mainstream corporate media is largely owned by, well, freepers.

I'm just sick of dealing with the asshats on BOTH sides, the "liberals" who don't believe we exist, and the "conservatives" who I gotta "spank" every now and then for being total jerks w/regard to GLBT folk.

Well, thanks for both insulting me and accusing me of saying things I didn't say. WONDERFUL first impression you've made. You should reserve that anger for the spankings, of which I heartily approve.

Heck of a LOT less problems from the conservatives though.... kinda making ME wonder sometimes...

Here, I could be an asshat (I do chuckle at that word, it's quite imaginative) and point out your few dozen posts and how it "makes me wonder"...but that would be hostile, and despite your initial reaction to my well-intentioned, clearly not-that-well-informed post, I don't want to drag that into it - mainly because I don't think you're a freeper.

Here's the deal: my closest gay friends pack heat. I'm cool with it, and in fact am not against guns and will be getting some myself. So you can relax; this "asshat" isn't trying to knock you for the gun thing. I just remember the PP discussion before, and came away from it with a different understanding. If that's wrong, my apologies.

Peace.