continued
Wildalaska, Senior Member Commented:
> I normally do not approve of open carry. In this case, I applaud
> it..would be happy to expound why but wht hijack this most excellent
> thread!
> I am happily married and quite hetero. I intend to figger out some way > to support the PP....
> As should we all?......
> Why?
> Becasue GLBT people vote...Deomcratic...the same people that want
> to disarm them...this is again the situation where the leadership is out
> of touch with the community. As soon as the GLBT folk recognize that
> equality can come from the barrel of a gun, perhaps they will work to
> convince their pet politicos that being alternative lifestyle friendly aint
> enough, ya got to be able to protect it...
> Bravo!
Thank you! And while a MAJORITY of us (GLBT) DO TEND to vote Dem, not ALL of us do (ever heard of the Log Cabin Republicans? - GLBT Republican group)
I'd say MANY GLBTs _I_ know vote Libertarian...as they (Libs) are cool about BOTH the GLBT and the firearm parts of our rights.
In Ohio, we are REALLY screwed (Pink Pistols) if we DO vote Republican, `cause Taft (Governor) is anti-firearms, and Voinovich and DeWine BOTH are anti-firearms (a D- and F per the NRA respectively, I believe). Plus they are ALL VERY anti-GLBT, not that Bush is all warm and "fuzzy" on either issue, but on firearms he's better than Kerry. And Kerry isn't all that "warm and fuzzy" on the GLBT stuff. <throwing up arms> So yeah, voting in November is gonna be real rough.
For Senator I'll likely vote for the DEM, who will he be WORSE re:firearms than Voinovich, most likely, BUT he won't have as much "clout" as Voinovich, and won't be able to get much "done" and how MUCH worse than a D- can one GET? (F-?) and if we "spank" the Republican Central Committee, by many of "us" (firearms rights folks) voting for the WORSE DEM maybe they'll STOP putting up RINOs for office and instead put up REAL Republicans?
Moparmike, Senior Member commented:
> I hear that PP accepts all people of all sexual orientations, not just
> GLBT.
Yep, the Central Ohio Chapter is about 33% "straight"
> Can you imagine the left's tiny brains shorting out when they try to
> villify gays (whom they ardently support) who carry guns (which are
> evil) for protection (that the cops are supposed to provide, but the
> left knows better)? I think they would have a logic error (think 2+2
> suddenly equaling "elephant" or something) when they try to put the
> two together.
I like that 2 + 2 + elephant... can I use some version of that?
> I think the NRA should become an ardently pro-GLBT organization, so
> that the left cant vilify them anymore.
I'd be happy if they'd just STOP "allowing" the leadership, and members in "speaking" positions STOP being anti-glbt and be VERY Pro-Pink Pistols (which only makes sense, IMO)
Jackthelad, Commented:
> Bravo to Kim- I am subscribed to your email list. I am a hetero male
> married with 4 children, and your bravery is an inspiration to me and
> my family. Good job.
Actually, it's bravo to Joey, Jacques, Aaron and Kim. But thank you and <blush>. And WELCOME!
griz, Senior Member commented:
> Do you wonder if Kate Anderson considered the irony of her statement
> (no guns so we can have a safe event) as she was personally
> threating to assult peaceable and safe people?
> Probably not, but then I can't concieve of why she would need
> security at an event that was already made safe by prohibiting guns.
> To be blunt, I think she is a pinheaded tyrant.
We thought that was pretty ironic ourselves, actually, but that IS what the liberals TEND to be "taught"... frankly I "believe" a LOT of what they put out there, but I'm not stoopid [sic] enough to "buy" that one, I knows better
On the pinhead tyrant front, <heavy sarcasm> "Ya think!?!?"
Coronach, Moderator commented:
> Did the cops witness the alleged threat?
Unfortunately, no. That occurred prior to their arrival.
> Was it an actual threat?
It was and an implied threat, more because of her anger and the "way" she was "handling" the 1" thick rod. Kinda like the comment about porn, "I can't "define it" but I know it when I see it." I saw it.
> Was the threat credible?
3 out of 3 people thought she was about to utilize it when I dissuaded her w/threats of prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. So, I say yes.
I believe SOME of the "security" would have said THEY thought the same way WE did, she was utilizing it in a threatening manner - perhaps they knew her better than we did though and would have thought it merely "intimidation"? <shrug> Dunno.
carpettbaggerr, Senior Member commented:
> I'm wondering why the club-wielding woman wasn't arrested by the
> police.
She had divested herself of it by the time the police showed up.
> Given Ohio's gun laws, I cannot imagine carrying a nightstick is legal
> there.
Yes, but it was a _2'_ long by an INCH thick "KEY CHAIN"... remember? <Heavy sarcasm> SURE IT WAS!!
cracked butt, Senior Member Commented:
> Methinks that the club wielding thug broke the first rule of a gunfight..
Yup.
> The PP's were incredibly astute in this situation- I think its a lesson
> that can be learned by alot of other organizations.
Thank you.
Coronach, Moderator Commented:
> A few other things to consider: as astute as the PPs are in this
> instance (and, yeah, go team!),
Thank you.
> it may be that their description of the alleged menacing and the
> alleged 'truncheon' may be a bit biased and/or hyped.
Honestly, the only thing "hyped" was the "stormtrooper" portion (we were running out of words that related "security" adequately <shrug>). She's a BIG woman. She was SO angry she was turning the most interesting shade of RED. She BROUGHT with her a TWO FOOT LONG (MAYBE 2.1/2') DOWEL ROD that was at LEAST 1" THICK. She was "waving it around", using it to "punctuate" portions of her tirades. It takes quite a lot to make me feel threatened, Especially since we had CCW holders in the "wings", who were "taking it all in." And they WERE carrying concealed. But they are VERY level headed individuals, and they know I can take a few bruises w/o much comment, so my LIFE would have had to have been in danger, not JUST my "health" (IMO, THAT WAS threatened, I don't BELIEVE my life, I could be wrong, of course. I don't think so.)
> Also...if requested to leave by the rally organizer, the PPs may have > actually been guilty of trespass...or may not have been. It was a > public park...but as this was obviously an organized rally, complete > with city permits etc...does the rally organizer have the right to
> exclude people from the space the rally occupies?
Our lawyers say "No." the city prosecutor the police LT. called said, "I THINK they will PROBABLY be guilty of trespass." That's verbatim from the SGT. My money is on "no" because of the TYPE of permit that I understand that they had (did not "exclude" the "general public"), IMO, we were part of "the general public", therefore should NOT have been "kicked out". (Unless we broke the law, which we did NOT in any way. Or if we had been "threatening" anyone, which, IF we were doing THAT SIMPLY by exercising our constitutional right to open carry, then I wanna see a BOATLOAD of newsfolk busted for exercising THEIR first amendment rights! Not really, but you get my point.
Thing is it SEEMS when one wants the police to be NICE they're less than, and when you WANT them to be jerks, they are sweethearts. <shrug> We couldn't bring ourselves to give the police a bad time `cause they had been so cool. :/ Go figure.
Josey, Senior Member Commented:
> Interesting. The open carry was of UNLOADED firearms. Ohio law says
> that is legal. The PP rep was carrying an airsoft. Legal. The only BAD
> thing is, the PP were essentially UNARMED, facing armed attackers and
> force disparity in a hostile environment. Darwin?
Joey and I WERE (effectively unarmed), two of our number in the immediate vicinity had CHL's and WERE indeed ARMED, ammo and all.
(We are dumb, and yet, we are NOT so dumb
)
And, FWIW Open Carry of LOADED firearms is legal in Ohio too.
Bubbles, Member commented:
> I met a PP member at a training class I took a few years back. He
> mentioned that gun owners were much more tolerant and accepting of
> him being gay, than the GLBT crowd was of him being a member of the
> gun culture.
> Go figure...
I have found that to be VERY true if we're talking "gay leadership" and the "wannabe" gay leadership. Most of the gay community though 80% (in Central Ohio, anyway) are PRO PP. IF we do our "job" of getting the "word" to the community, I think that will become VERY apparent to Stonewall and Ms. Anderson.
Henry Bowman, Senior Member commented:
> It is a pro-homosexual (GLBT) organization whose leaders happen to be > anti-self defense bigots.
I'm not YET ready to "condemn" Stonewall's entire organization. IMO, the next month will be VERY telling. If they allow Anderson to remain, I'm comfortable saying they are indeed hypocritical bigots. I mean COME ON! She THREATENED US (very, very obviously) in her email. Charges rising to the level of THIRD DEGREE FELONY had she followed through with her threats! (And I truly believe the ONLY reason she did NOT do so is warnings from us that she would be breaking the law, and to what extent.
And if she's not BRIGHT enough to check in w/a lawyer PRIOR to making threats of violence, is she REALLY bright enough to be running an organization that is in the top 5 highest populations of GLBT people in the U.S.? I'd have to "vote" NO.
Big Gay Al commented:
> DRAT!!!! There was potential for gun play, and I Missed it!!!
Dat's riight! <g>
GunGeek, Member commented:
> OMG: I am so pissed right now!! I also am blocked from viewing the
> website due to filters, the reason I am pissed thought is our filters are
> run by the Florida Department of Education, and the reason for
> blocking it is:
> The site
http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html has been
> categorized as Criminal Skills by the current DOE/FIRN Site
> Access Policy.
That is SERIOUSLY, SERIOUSLY messed up! Thanks for the "heads up".
Dain Bramage, Senior Member Commented:
> All in all, a hearty "booyah!" to the Pink Pistols for keeping their heads
> and upholding the highest standards that make all of us gun owners
> look good.
Thank you kindly sir!
Stebalo, Senior Member Commented:
> I got some input from this subject from a woman in Ohion who
> responded when I posted this story on a gay oriented discussion
> board. She was at this particular event and is familar with Kate
> Anderson and as you will see, has some strong opinions about her.
<snip>
Stebalo, that's too cool, we GOTTA "talk".
countertop commented:
> Don't know what color the sky will be, but the lawyers should definatly
> be rolled out. This one is a slam dunk.
> They WERE assaulted and should file a lawsuit alleging such. Lets turn
> the tides on these goons. As I explain in more detail at the countertop-
> chronicles:
Thanks for the link
Coronach, Moderator Commented:
> While there has been zero case law about this yet (of which I have
> been informed), either the columbus city attorney or the state AG
> (cannot recall which) dropped the bomb a while back and informed the
> Mayor that, yes, the term "buildings" used in the law actually means
> buildings, and not, in fact, large expanses of open land with grass,
> trees and a few benches. This so bothered some ninnies that they are
> already mounting a campaign to change the law so that CCW can be
> banned in Metroparks.
> If I'm wrong, please correct me.
You're not wrong, you are 100% correct. Some mayors/city council are going nuts about this (and FRANKLY, the parks are dangerous ENOUGH w/o disarming all but the criminals! Just goes to show, IMO there are WAY too many "mayors" etc... out there who need replaced!)
