Senate GOPers: Loosen Gun Laws To Defend Gay Rights

Washington Independent:

One month after successfully tucking an amendment into the credit card reform bill that expanded gun rights, a small number of Senate Republicans are looking at the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act as another chance to score a victory for the Second Amendment. The possible plan -- to add an amendment that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons from one state to another in accordance with concealed carry laws. The possible rationale -- to defend gay rights.

Read the whole story: Washington Independent

Comments

[SiberianRat]

Gays can already carry guns like anyone else--they shouldn't though. We have 23,000 shootings each year in our country--the only developed country on the planet with such an absurd statistic.

[thefooligan5]

Yet there are people who there just aren't enough guns. What is the definition of insanity again ....

[JulieSA]

It's none of your business whether they should or shouldn't, as long as it's legal. People defend themselves with firearms hundreds of thousands (minimum estimate) of times per year.

[dcjdjay]

This is utter nonsense.

As a gay man, I have the same Second Amendment rights as anyone else.

It's those other rights I don't have, rights that the GOP spends way too much time trying to keep me from having.

If this is what "GOProud" spends its time doing, they deserve any ridicule that comes their way.

[chedar]

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

[SiberianRat]

Enough with the spam already.

[Grunty1]

Rushpublicans are obsessed with their "pink pistols"

[onepotatotwopotato]

Their are a whole passel of "Blue Dog Democrats" who "Get It" when it comes to gun rights and the Second Amendment. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia holds a concealed weapons license in his home state for example. With a strong affirmative commitment to the right of American citizens to keep and bear arms the Democrat party can increase it's base and cement it's current majority.

[Cosmic-Zantor]

I think it'd rather the Democrat party remain ethical rather than to sell out to this abhorrent gun frenzy that conservatives have. Even if it costs a few votes. This isn't the 1700's. We don't need more gun rights, we need less, far less.

[BeulahBell]

And your attitude is what invariably sinks the Democrat Party. Keep it up!

[vie2012ne]

Gun deaths in US = 23,000/yr.

Abortions in US = 900,000/ yr.

Who's ethical? Yeah, right.

[3rdpartypatriot]

Some would rather the Republican party remain moral rather than sell out to the abhorrent gay frenzy the liberals have. Even if it costs a few votes. The rapture is coming soon! We don't need more gay rights, we need less, far less.

Sounds a little ridiculous doesn't it...

[andronicus titus]

Perhaps Congress is thinking too small. How about a full rights for gays bill, that will have full gun owner rights added by Republicans. Sounds good to me. How about a smaller government bill that calls for ending the 69 billion dollars wasted every year on the drug war by ending it. That sounds good too.

[CigarGod]

Can we attach another bill, so an 18 year old soldier can legally have a beer?

[washlib]

i have to agree with you here, that if our young men/women are old enough to fight for our country, they are old enough to have a beer, or two.

[LintLass]

As long as that soldier can be openly gay? :)

[LintLass]

Wait a minute, I might be onto something here...

If people are worried about 'unit cohesion..­.' What could be better for unit cohesion than, 'Hey, thanks to these gay comrades.. We get beer!

Brilliant! :)

[BeulahBell]

LOL! Bravo! ;^D

[onepotatotwopotato]

Now this is "change I can believe in!"

[DonCosenza]

That depends... what's the legal drinking age in Iraq? ;)

[MajorKong]

This only proves that the gun lobby has more pull in the GOP than the anti-gay lobby.

[Grunty1]

Pretty much. Or that they see it as a way to sabotage the original bill.

[prdbldngheart]

The ad could just have easily have read Rethuglicans but they went after gays in yet another fear mongering attempt. Typical of this party to make owning a gun the solution to prejudice and hatred, rather than understanding and acceptance.

[chedar]

Actually, it's not just the GOP wanting this, it's a gay organization as well.

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

[Grunty1]

Not opening a link from a gay organization called Pink "Pistols"

[chedar]

Then google for it if you don't trust the link. It's a gay group with 45 chapters that promotes conceal and carry to gays for defense.

They hold meetings, go to the range to practice together, etc.

[Waltfl]

I hardly agree with anything that comes out of the GOP, but this is not as stupid as it is being made out. A general, or, even better, a Federal CCW is something that makes sense. Most states grand carry rights based on reciprocity anyway, so it's already being done.

Linking it to the gay issue is somewhat stupid, however, what makes me mad is that every wing of the left-right spectrum picks& choses from the Constitution what they like, and believe what doesn't fit their agendas, can be discarded. The 2nd allows people to bear arms. Unless the Constitution gets changed, that's the status. Period. Gay's rights are protected by the Constitution as well. I simply can't see how an American, who lives by the supreme law of the land, denies gays rights, but yaps for an expansion of gun rights, because it's in the Constitution. On the same token, I can't understand why people on the left believe that you can deny a law-abiding citizen the right to bear arms, just because they feel that part of the Constitution doesn't make sense. It's either all or nothing.

Of course, the GOP wants gun rights in the spotlight right now, that's about the only issue where they could make Obama fail. If he was stupid enough to step in that trap. Gun rights is the only thinhg the GOP has right now, where they could still score. So stay clear!

[Archontruth]

The second amendment was written when we actually needed a militia. We haven't needed a militia for a very long time.

The original Constitution that holds the second amendment also said that a black man was 3/5 of a person and women couldn't vote. We amended those parts when they lost their relevance, so why do we cling to guns like they're still needed in case the Chinese invade and our entire armed forces magically disappeared?

[cdouglas]

Unfortunately most Cons still think this way about blacks and women.

[onepotatotwopotato]

Patent Clause of United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 :

"{To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts}, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoverie­s."

Second Amendment of United States Constitution:

"{A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State}, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.­"

Both the patent clause and the 2nd amendment to our Constitution contain a prefatory clause, shown in brackets above. But just as the prefatory clause in the patent clause has never been held to limit the issuance of patents solely to those items which are in the area of "Science and useful Arts" the prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment does not limit the "right to keep and bear arms" to service in the "Militia". The prefatory clause of the 2nd amendment merely states one of many possible reasons for the right to keep and bear arms just as science and the useful arts are just one of the many areas in which the patent office may issue a patent.

[SiberianRat]

Right on.

[CrittersRTasty]

Because armed self-defense is still a valid concern (I've avoided the whole defense against tyranny thing- someone else will undoubtedly post that)

[Jeff1958]

"The 2nd allows people to bear arms. Unless the Constitution gets changed, that's the status. Period. "

I disagree with this sentiment 100%. When the righties and the NRA decide that Charles Manson deserves to legally possess grenade launchers, I'd agree with you. But until then, there are limits to the second amendment.

[unstuffedshirt]

Possibly the most cynical thing the GOP has done in a while, which is saying something. Rather than address the fact that almost all people physically threatening gays are Republicans, they push for expansion of concealed carry under the guise of protecting gays FROM THE GOP. Shorter Republican party: "You NEED concealed carry to protect you from us p.s.y.c.h.­o.s!" Meanwhile, zero interest in STOPPING BEING F.R.E.A.K.­I.N.G P.S.Y.C.H.­O.S.

[CrittersRTasty]

"the fact that almost all people physically threatening gays are Republicans"
And you learned this "fact" where?

[onepotatotwopotato]

While not generally a big supporter of "gay" rights this is a plan I can support 110%!
My driver's license is recognized as valid in all 57, 'er, 50 States, so why isn't my concealed carry permit as well?

[patricksmom]

Why isn't your concealed carry permit valid in all 50 states? As a republican I;m sure you have heard of state's rights (all 57, 56, 61 oh what the heck) however many there are.

[Prakosh]

Why isn't my gay marriage recognized in all 50 states?

[CigarGod]

50 states, plus 14 territories.

[DallasMike]

States rights are not takin into consideration when they are being forced to take stimulus money.

[Grunty1]

You should be asking the same question about legal marriages.

[dotsthefunist]

This can't go on much longer ,if the republicans got what they say they want it would come down to them picking each other off for some insane reason .

[green108]

Gays can carry guns. Just don't get married or serve openly in the military. Huh?

[nubret2008]

HAHA exactly. I guess the GOP thinks Gays are the most vivid Pro-Lifers, so they need to get strapped..­.

[MenaC]

This is ridiculous.

[Mystic01]

Agreed.

[SouPro]

I don't quite see the connection, but if it gets Republicans to vote for sound hate crime legislation and it gets Democrats to support sound firearm legislation then everyone wins in my book.

And if I understand correctly, I could drive from Florida to California with an Ohio CCW permit provided every state and municipality I passed through had a CCW permit law. Which I think only excludes two states in the Union IIRC. Nothing sinister in the legislation, in fact it's logical. If you're cleared to carry in one state then there's nothing that makes you any less capable of qualifying in another. Could you imagine Hawaii denying your driver's license because it was from out of state?

Weird way to meet in the middle, but I guess the GOP has to start somewhere.

[Timmeroo]

I agree, good post.

[onepotatotwopotato]

I call this "Vertical Politics", instead of a "Left" "Right" continuum we have vertical integration on issues. I'm not generally a big supporter of gay rights but I am 100% pro-Second Amendment and pro gun rights in general. Some folks on the left of the political spectrum are probably not really that pro-gun either, but we can "Meet in the Middle" and agree that we both have issues that are dear to our hearts, whether it be anti hate crime legislation or national concealed carry legislation. Then we can compromise and say, "O.K., I'll support an anti hate crime bill and you'll support nationwide CCW. " Sounds fair and balanced to me.