geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
The fact is, they DONT ISSUE. In a state with 8.2 million inhabitants, in the year 200, less than 800 carry permits where issued, and this includes restricted work related permits.
"Some discretion", my hat!
Pink Pistols in the news
- Thread starter StonerStudent
- Start date
- Status
The fact is, they DONT ISSUE. In a state with 8.2 million inhabitants, in the year 200, less than 800 carry permits where issued, and this includes restricted work related permits.
"Some discretion", my hat!
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
The leadership of the Gay organizations know all about the Pink Pistols.
For them to deny that fact is nonsense.
Its the typical, if we deny or ignore, it must not exist.
We need as many converts like th PP's and Tammy Bruce on our side.
For them to deny that fact is nonsense.
Its the typical, if we deny or ignore, it must not exist.
We need as many converts like th PP's and Tammy Bruce on our side.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
Alexey, this kind of thing results from the U.S. political system. We only have two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats. Traditionally, the Republicans are supposed to be the "conservative, right-wing" party and the Democrats, at least for the last 40-50 years, the "liberal, left-wing" party. But because there are only two major parties, they have trouble addressing all issues in a consistent way.
The Republicans and conservatives tend to be more religious and to ally themselves with religious leaders, which often means a dim view of homosexuality. Through the years, this has built the impression that all Republicans/conservatives hate gays. That's not true, but certainly the Republican political party is less friendly toward gays than the Democratic party is.
At the same time, Republicans have built the reputation of being pro-gun and in favor of freedom where firearms are concerned. Again, this is not necessarily so, but it's the impression people have gotten over the years. In my opinion, it has hurt the gun-rights movement. The NRA, our most powerful lobbying group, tied itself so inextricably to the Republican party that nowadays even when a Democrat (or anyone else) wants to help gun owners and a Republican wants to hurt us, the NRA will usually support the Republican anyway. This, of course, just encourages the Democrats to conclude that they can never have gun owner support even if they "get right" on the issue.
And therein lies the problem. With only two major parties to encompass every issue out there, there are bound to be lots of contradictions. This confusion is confounded by the fact that regional differences are so great in the U.S. Here in the state of Illinois, both parties are very leftist, though neither would say so. Go south a few states to Texas or Alabama, and both parties are pretty "conservative." But nationwide, most of the time, it usually goes like this:
Republicans:
Favor more freedom where it concerns guns, business, employment, money, taxes, the right to worship Jesus, and property and home rights.
Democrats:
Favor more freedom where it concerns speech/protest/art/nudity/pornography, drugs, the right to worship people other than Jesus, and sex.
Both sides push for more government control, both sides claim to represent freedom of religion, etc.
There are other parties, like the Greens and the Libertarians, that occasionally make some noise. I'm a Libertarian myself. However, we're so small and ineffective that we can usually only affect the outcome of an election as "spoilers," taking votes that most people think would otherwise go to the major candidate closest to our views. That, in turn, keeps us small and ineffective by allowing BOTH major parties to appeal to voters not to "waste their votes" on people who "can't win."
The Republicans and conservatives tend to be more religious and to ally themselves with religious leaders, which often means a dim view of homosexuality. Through the years, this has built the impression that all Republicans/conservatives hate gays. That's not true, but certainly the Republican political party is less friendly toward gays than the Democratic party is.
At the same time, Republicans have built the reputation of being pro-gun and in favor of freedom where firearms are concerned. Again, this is not necessarily so, but it's the impression people have gotten over the years. In my opinion, it has hurt the gun-rights movement. The NRA, our most powerful lobbying group, tied itself so inextricably to the Republican party that nowadays even when a Democrat (or anyone else) wants to help gun owners and a Republican wants to hurt us, the NRA will usually support the Republican anyway. This, of course, just encourages the Democrats to conclude that they can never have gun owner support even if they "get right" on the issue.
And therein lies the problem. With only two major parties to encompass every issue out there, there are bound to be lots of contradictions. This confusion is confounded by the fact that regional differences are so great in the U.S. Here in the state of Illinois, both parties are very leftist, though neither would say so. Go south a few states to Texas or Alabama, and both parties are pretty "conservative." But nationwide, most of the time, it usually goes like this:
Republicans:
Favor more freedom where it concerns guns, business, employment, money, taxes, the right to worship Jesus, and property and home rights.
Democrats:
Favor more freedom where it concerns speech/protest/art/nudity/pornography, drugs, the right to worship people other than Jesus, and sex.
Both sides push for more government control, both sides claim to represent freedom of religion, etc.
There are other parties, like the Greens and the Libertarians, that occasionally make some noise. I'm a Libertarian myself. However, we're so small and ineffective that we can usually only affect the outcome of an election as "spoilers," taking votes that most people think would otherwise go to the major candidate closest to our views. That, in turn, keeps us small and ineffective by allowing BOTH major parties to appeal to voters not to "waste their votes" on people who "can't win."
jimpeel
Member
Alexey931
Welcome to the boards.
There are Gay groups who are Conservative, as in the "Log Cabin Republicans" http://www.lcr.org/ . They are not a part of the voting block that the Democratic Party seeks to court.
The activist groups, like the "Lambda Project" http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/record?record=9 and "GLADD" http://www.glaad.org/index.php , et al, are very vocal and are as Liberal as they come; while the "Log Cabin Republicans" tend to work more in the background.
Welcome to the boards.
There are Gay groups who are Conservative, as in the "Log Cabin Republicans" http://www.lcr.org/ . They are not a part of the voting block that the Democratic Party seeks to court.
The activist groups, like the "Lambda Project" http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/issues/record?record=9 and "GLADD" http://www.glaad.org/index.php , et al, are very vocal and are as Liberal as they come; while the "Log Cabin Republicans" tend to work more in the background.
Johnny Guest
Moderator In Memoriam
Glad for the update - -
In the TFL thread jimpeel[/b] referenced above, on 20 SEP 2000, the Pink Pistols founding president, Doug Krick, said there were two chapters with about 45 members at that time.
In the current thread, StonerStudent quotes a news article indicating there are currently 37 chapters. Way to go!
Anyone know the approximate total membership nowadays?
Jeeper asked,
Best regards,
Johnny
In the TFL thread jimpeel[/b] referenced above, on 20 SEP 2000, the Pink Pistols founding president, Doug Krick, said there were two chapters with about 45 members at that time.
In the current thread, StonerStudent quotes a news article indicating there are currently 37 chapters. Way to go!
Anyone know the approximate total membership nowadays?
Jeeper asked,
Didn't see a reply. Any word on the health of Mr. Krick?
Best regards,
Johnny
JeanC
Member
Mr Krick is in fine health as far as I know, it is Dan Weiner who is the president of the Pink Pistols Houston who is quite ill. I have not heard how is he is currently doing.
The Palouse Pink Pistols were specifically asked to have a table at the last Pride day here in Moscow and at the previous one the year before when we asked if we could have a table we got an ethusiastic YES! Both years we had positive responses from folk. The first year we had only one real negative response and when she walked away, her partner grabbed up a lot of the literature we had available
The Palouse Pink Pistols were specifically asked to have a table at the last Pride day here in Moscow and at the previous one the year before when we asked if we could have a table we got an ethusiastic YES! Both years we had positive responses from folk. The first year we had only one real negative response and when she walked away, her partner grabbed up a lot of the literature we had available
Brian Dale
Member
Cool Beans, Jean!
Mauserlady
Member
I have heard this from a few friend.. One said that his gay friends refuse to even associate with him any longer since he became interested in guns/shooting/self protection...
I find that reaction very confusing coming from a group that touts "acceptance"
It never ceases to amaze me how the most persecuted groups in this country are the most opposed to gun ownership. I mean really the "white male" demographic is probably the LEAST likely to be the victim of a violent crime and yet.... go fig. These guys are a refreshing exception to this with, hopefully more to come.
Dex Sinister
Member
Darnit Jim, now I've got iced tea all over my monitor!
Dex }:>=-
Dex Sinister
Member
IIRC, this will do.
"Someone made the mistake of asking if we have ID cards.
Now we do. Print one off, fold in half, and laminate.
Enjoy. " Pink Pistols.org ID page
Instructions for starting a chapter
Dex }:>=-
Kaylee
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong -- it's been years since the "gay history" talks I heard the GLBA group give at my ol' alma mater but um... wasn't Stonewall some kinda "we're fed up and not going to take this abuse any more" well... riot?
Seems kinda ironic that someone gets thrown out of an event celebrating an unorganized violent response for advocating measured violent response in self defense. How...odd.
-K
gunsmith
member
I live in SF
The anti's try to paint the RKBA as racist & homophobic.
We know they promote (the anti's promote)
the victimization of minority & gay/lesbian people.
Welcome to high road stoner!
The anti's try to paint the RKBA as racist & homophobic.
We know they promote (the anti's promote)
the victimization of minority & gay/lesbian people.
Welcome to high road stoner!
Brian Dale
Member
kaylee,
Heretics are always excommunicated. Don't try to confuse things with the facts.
johnr
Member
JeanC
Very cool. We need all the allies we can gather.
Mark Tyson
Member
The thing is, "victim" is an celebrated status in our society. At the same time, guns have been demonized as death machines spontaneously mowing down busloads of pre-schoolers while their owners aren't looking. People who defend themselves with martial arts for example aren't looked down on, but people who use guns are instantly suspect.
jimpeel
Member
Groups who seek power through the legislative or litigation process do so through the use of victims as evidence of their plight. They actually need victims as leverage to attain that power.
Anti-firearms groups are the biggest users of victims. The ADL, Gay groups, et al are anti-firearms because they also need victims as their main course of leverage. The ADL eschews the likes of Mordechai Anielewich and perish the thought of a healty Matthew Shepard standing over the prostrate bodies of his intended perpetrators. A person who can stand up for themselves and avoid victimhood is of no use whatsoever in the attainment of the goal. The agenda will whither on the vine without victims.
So the best, surest, and easiest way to "recruit" victims is to convince them, without their cognizant knowledge, that they must allow themselves to be placed in the position of becoming a victim. There is no call for willing victims to be shot as an example of the devastation that firearms are able to produce. They simply recruit the willing who are convinced that self-defense is an evil trait that is reserved for the <fill in the blank> types of people; and we wouldn't want to be like <dripping with condescension>THEM</dripping with condescension>, now; would we?
They are told that firearms, and their use as a self-defense tool, is immoral. They are told that the firearm will simply be taken from them and used against them. They are told that firearms are an ineffective tool for self defense. And here's the kicker. They are told that in light of the "facts" presented above, they should do exactly as the perpetrator(s) say and give them anything they want. The person who does the preceding has a name; and that name is VICTIM.
Criminals prey on the weak and ignorant and the groups which seek power supply them with plenty of people who fit that apt description. They turn them out like puppy mills. They beat the drum of ignorance in their ears at a steady cadence in the finest tradition of Fritz Lange's 1927 classic "Metropolis".
Always remember. Victims are manufactured. They are not created naturally -- cowards are. They are turned out at frightening rates by willing propagandists whose goal is to enslave them in a far worse way than the criminals ever envisioned. And what is the chant of these victims? Disarm! Ban guns! Guns are bad! Carry a cell phone! The police will protect us!
Peace through concensus or appeasment has never been achieved at any time in world history -- not with tyrants and not with criminals -- yet those who seek to disarm the populace have convinced far too many people that this is not only achievable; but it is necessary to the future of this nation.
God help us all if they ever get their way.
Anti-firearms groups are the biggest users of victims. The ADL, Gay groups, et al are anti-firearms because they also need victims as their main course of leverage. The ADL eschews the likes of Mordechai Anielewich and perish the thought of a healty Matthew Shepard standing over the prostrate bodies of his intended perpetrators. A person who can stand up for themselves and avoid victimhood is of no use whatsoever in the attainment of the goal. The agenda will whither on the vine without victims.
So the best, surest, and easiest way to "recruit" victims is to convince them, without their cognizant knowledge, that they must allow themselves to be placed in the position of becoming a victim. There is no call for willing victims to be shot as an example of the devastation that firearms are able to produce. They simply recruit the willing who are convinced that self-defense is an evil trait that is reserved for the <fill in the blank> types of people; and we wouldn't want to be like <dripping with condescension>THEM</dripping with condescension>, now; would we?
They are told that firearms, and their use as a self-defense tool, is immoral. They are told that the firearm will simply be taken from them and used against them. They are told that firearms are an ineffective tool for self defense. And here's the kicker. They are told that in light of the "facts" presented above, they should do exactly as the perpetrator(s) say and give them anything they want. The person who does the preceding has a name; and that name is VICTIM.
Criminals prey on the weak and ignorant and the groups which seek power supply them with plenty of people who fit that apt description. They turn them out like puppy mills. They beat the drum of ignorance in their ears at a steady cadence in the finest tradition of Fritz Lange's 1927 classic "Metropolis".
Always remember. Victims are manufactured. They are not created naturally -- cowards are. They are turned out at frightening rates by willing propagandists whose goal is to enslave them in a far worse way than the criminals ever envisioned. And what is the chant of these victims? Disarm! Ban guns! Guns are bad! Carry a cell phone! The police will protect us!
Peace through concensus or appeasment has never been achieved at any time in world history -- not with tyrants and not with criminals -- yet those who seek to disarm the populace have convinced far too many people that this is not only achievable; but it is necessary to the future of this nation.
God help us all if they ever get their way.
Last edited:
twoblink
Member
One of the Pink Pistols I met.. "357 + Gay = Damn straight you'd better not mess with me".
madmike
Member
My second novel, "Freehold," has two bisexual women characters.
They carry guns.
They also pour out a considerable volume of fire against UN "Peacekeepers."
Along with Druids, Christians, street gangs, store owners and hookers, among others.
You don't win by dividing yourself into subcultures. You win by agreeing to get along.
From the Constitution of the Freehold of Grainne:
Section 5:
Rights of Residents
Residents retain inviolably and forever the rights enumerated herein, subject only to the duties enumerated in Section 6:
1) Freedom to possess and carry arms of any and every kind, except during such time as they are Prisoners of Citizens' Court.
Section 6:
Duties of Residents
Residents shall have only the following duties:
The duty to keep the Common Law of the Freehold of Grainne.
The duty to ensure that no personal exercise of rights and freedoms infringes detrimentally upon the physical person or property of any other Resident or natural person.
The duty to prevent the Government and its agents, individually or collectively, from exercising any privilege, right, power or other imposition of any kind over the Residents of the Freehold, except as provided for in this Constitution.
The duty to defend the Freehold against invasion or other attack.
Email me for more details. It can be advance ordered now.
BTW: most true lefties and true communists support kaba. How can the people hold a revolution if they aren't armed? I refer you to the VERY left wing Leon Trotsky, George Orwell, Eric Flint, Steven Brust and Mercedes Lackey, among others.
They carry guns.
They also pour out a considerable volume of fire against UN "Peacekeepers."
Along with Druids, Christians, street gangs, store owners and hookers, among others.
You don't win by dividing yourself into subcultures. You win by agreeing to get along.
From the Constitution of the Freehold of Grainne:
Section 5:
Rights of Residents
Residents retain inviolably and forever the rights enumerated herein, subject only to the duties enumerated in Section 6:
1) Freedom to possess and carry arms of any and every kind, except during such time as they are Prisoners of Citizens' Court.
Section 6:
Duties of Residents
Residents shall have only the following duties:
The duty to keep the Common Law of the Freehold of Grainne.
The duty to ensure that no personal exercise of rights and freedoms infringes detrimentally upon the physical person or property of any other Resident or natural person.
The duty to prevent the Government and its agents, individually or collectively, from exercising any privilege, right, power or other imposition of any kind over the Residents of the Freehold, except as provided for in this Constitution.
The duty to defend the Freehold against invasion or other attack.
Email me for more details. It can be advance ordered now.
BTW: most true lefties and true communists support kaba. How can the people hold a revolution if they aren't armed? I refer you to the VERY left wing Leon Trotsky, George Orwell, Eric Flint, Steven Brust and Mercedes Lackey, among others.
StonerStudent
Member
One of the problem's most of the LGBT look at the 2nd as a conservative vs liberal issue. Example if a Candidate is pro gun then he or she is most likely antigay.
braindead0
Member
And pro-life, and probably other hot button issue for many people.
The only choice where you have any control over your own life is Libertarian ;-)
StonerStudent
Member
For me I look at the issue at hand.....last time around it was getting the AWB dumped, I didn't see ether Candidate [Bush or Gore] doing anything majorly helpful on gay rights. What most don't see is gay rights and 2nd admendent rights are generally a bargaining chip for both the Dems and Repubs...Clinton did more to screw over the LGBT then Bush as even thought about. But ask most in the LGBT groups and Uncle Bill is a saint
Dilettante
Member
Find out whatever Stoner is smoking, and pass it around at every LGBT meeting!
- Status