An interesting board for gay RKBA and their supporters

[alwynsw]

http://usp45usp.proboards42.com/index.cgi

It seems that more gays are realizing that self protection is not only a right, but a responsibility. We simply can't depend solely upon law enforcemnet for protection because, by definition and structure, law enforcement is designes to be reactionary. Preventive actions lie almost completely with the individual.

[Alisa]

1. I am gay

and not only do I own a gun but I am certified in teaching handgun, rifle, shotgun. My certification is though the NRA so that makes my mail very interesting indeed.
;-)

[alwynsw]

2. I imagine it does.

Good for you!!!

[Billy Ruffian]

3. I agree, it must be interesting

It's my perception that a lot of non-gun owners, and even gunowners that are not NRA members, don't realize that the NRA is very, very, big in education and safety.

Good on you, Alisa, and keep on teaching.

[Union Thug]

4. I say good for you, as well! But...

We really need to form a gun owners organization that is not such a blatant tool of the republican party. My dad was an NRA member in the seventies, but bailed once they became the voice of the armed redneck brigade.

I don't want any part of the NRA either. So, while I really admire the training, I really wish there was another avenue for this kind of thing.

[Lazpash]

6. I agree, however....

I have decided instead of for instance, trying to form a whole NEW party that takes the 95% of the GOOD stuff from the Democrats, but which is pro-firearm, I've decided to work on the Democratic PARTY to help the EXISTING party see that GUNS aren't evil, but rather the actions of SOME people ARE, that they CHOOSE to utilize the tool of a firearm is no different than a bank robber choosing to use a car in a "get away" plan... does this, therefore mean CARS are evil because SOME criminals use them in their crimes? I think not.

Same w/the NRA. YES they are inundated with the morally challenged, and with the "conservative" non-progressives, but the answer is NOT, IMO, to start from scratch, but rather to join them, and work from within to change them. IME it works, if, albeit SLOWLY. JMO, YMMV.

[benEzra]

7. You might find this interesting...

We really need to form a gun owners organization that is not such a blatant tool of the republican party. My dad was an NRA member in the seventies, but bailed once they became the voice of the armed redneck brigade.

You might find this interesting, from the NRA-ILA 2004 candidate endorsements for North Carolina:

Governor--Mike Easley, Democrat (endorsed over "A" rated Repub)
Lt. Governor--Beverly Perdue, Democrat
Attorney General--Roy Cooper, Democrat (endorsed over a pro-gun repub)

State Senate
District 1--Marc Basnight, Democrat
District 2--Scott Thomas, Democrat (endorsed over "A" rated repub)
District 3--Clark Jenkins, Democrat
District 4--Robert Holloman, Democrat (unopposed)
District 5--no endorsement
District 6--Cecil Hargett, Jr., Democrat (over "A" rated repub)
District 7--no endorsement
District 8--R.C. Soles, Jr., Democrat
etc.

A lot more of the endorsements at the national level were repubs, but it's clear that if the Democrats run a pro-gun candidate, she/he can definitely get the NRA endorsement (and I notice that several A-rated dems were endorsed over A-rated repubs). I suspect that if Howard Dean hadn't jumped on the prohibitionist bandwagon at the last minute, and if he had won the primary, he might have gotten the NRA endorsement over bush, if they thought he'd stand up to the Feinstein/Schumer/Kennedy axis on the gun issue, but I can't say for sure; the secret mind-control device in my membership card didn't fill me in on that. :P

Are there conservatives in the NRA? Yes. Are there liberals in the NRA? Yes. Are there rednecks in the NRA? Yes. Are there college-educated academic geeks in the NRA? Yes. Are there homophobes in the NRA? Yes. Are there gays and lesbians in the NRA? Yes.

The NRA is a very diverse group united by one issue--the idea that the right to keep and bear firearms responsibly is a fundamental human right recognized by the Second Amendment. That's a pretty big tent.

[Lazpash]

9. You should drop in then :)

Just cut and paste. We're open 24-7, but right NOW there's onl 63 of us... as we're pretty NEW, and just not really "advertising" just yet (we'd like to get things a wee tad more "developed, and probably move the site as well, to a friend's server :)

http://usp45usp.proboards42.com/index.cgi

[davepc]

5. http://www.pinkpistols.org/

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

[MrSandman]

8. ....

:scared:

[CO Liberal]

10. A Bogus Group

Founded by a libertarian asshole.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[MrSandman]

16. I support effective gun control, if...

You are wanting to make the current levels of control enforceable.

:hi:

[alwynsw]

17. Simply because you don't likke PP doesn't make it bogus.

Using your logic, the Republican party is bogus, but that doesn't change the fact that their boy is in the White House.

Like it or not, the Pink Pistols are real and here to stay.

Cry me a river.

[CO Liberal]

25. The Thing That Makes The Pink Pistols Bogus....

...is the fact that they're totally bogus, through and through.

No matter WHAT you pro-gunners say about them. They're about as pro-gay as the Log Cabin Republicans.

[Maria Celeste]

26. Isn't this a bit circular...

They are bogus because they are bogus.

Later you say that it does not matter who founded the Democratic Party but don't make that allowance for the perceived ill founding of the Pink Pistols? Somehow I don't see a lot of rationality in your posts.

I ran into a Pink Pistols member at a local range. Not a lot of women shooters to begin with. She was wearing a shirt with their logo on it. Originally I thought it was a women's pistol group. Chatted a bit and learned some things.

They seem about as well founded as any I have seen. Comparing them to the Log Cabin Republicans is inane.

[CO Liberal]

27. No

Comparing them to the Log Cabin Republicans is spot-on. The rank and file might think they're an OK group, but they're rotten at the core.

[Maria Celeste]

29. Your answers seem

to be little more that demagoguery.

- How are they bogus?
- What is wrong with their positions?
- What is the "core" you think is rotten?

Not seeing a lot of facts from you.

The website and members I have met all seem to be as advertised, namely Gays with Guns and their friends. IMO, armed progressives are a good thing and we need many more of them. Perhaps that is your real concern.

[CO Liberal]

30. Look, Maria.....

Their group was founded by a LIBERTARIAN who is NOY GAY!!!!! That alone makes the group bogus. Period.

[skippythwndrdog]

12. Yeah, right.

You can keep saying that it is bogus...and keep being wrong.

[CO Liberal]

14. Oh, I'm Absolutely Correct

And the Pink Pistols are totally bogus.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[CO Liberal]

23. If It Had Been Founded By Gays, That Would Have Been One Thing

But it was founded by a straight libertarian, with his own agenda that is contrary to the basic concept of Democratic Underground. that's why threads that talk up Pink Pistols historically get locked by the mods.

As this one should be, IMHO.

[turnkey]

20. What I like about

These various organizations are the fact that they dismiss political ideology, while defending and acting upon a fundamental right.
Gay...Jew...Black...Progressive or Conservative!...It's the one thing that unites them.
This can't be a bad thing, now can it?

[CO Liberal]

28. Here's The Thing

o Gay groups should be founded and organized by gays and lesbians.

o Jewish groups should be founded and organized by Jews.

o Black groups should be founded and organized by blacks.

o Womens' groups should be founded and organized by women.

o Progressive groups should be founded and organized by progressives.

o And conservative groups should be founded and organized by conservatives.

Do you see a pattern developing????

[Maria Celeste]

31. By your logic

the Democrats should disband and are bogus since it was not founded by a liberal or progressive. The "logic" you are spouting has not time dependency clause such as "unless it was done more than XX years ago. Sorry, that just doesn't cut it. If you think the Democrats are OK based on current actions and policies, then any group should be afforded the same opportunity.

However, your insistence that only gays should found, organize, and I presume run a gay oriented group intrigues me. In the AM I will look at what PP docs are public and see what they say about:

- What proof of gayness is required for membership, local office, and national office. (you seem to think it is so critical)

- Are TGs or Bisexuals allowed? Are they only eligible for associate memberships?

- Are straights OK for anything other than targets? (/sarcasm)

If pedigree is as important as you say, then those sort of questions should clear it up. Then again, have to wonder if that same standard was applied to other advocacy groups how well they would fair under your standard. For example should only women support and participate in the operation and protection of women's health centers where a woman's right to choose is protected?

Seriously, I saw that a couple of PP members posted elsewhere in the thread. How about a synopsis of charter, rules etc to put this to bed?

[CO Liberal]

32. And By Your "Logic"....

....the Concerned Women for America must be an all-right group, even though it was founded and run by radical right-wing fundamentalist men.

Nothing you or anyone else posts here will change the fact that Pink Pistols was founded by a straight man, and is therefore a totally bogus group.

[Maria Celeste]

33. My approach says...

That an organization is defined by its members and behavior. You make it sound that there is some evil conspiracy at it center, though fail to say what it is. If a straight helped found Pink Pistols (something you have not demonstrated) So what. Based on my experience with them, I have found them to be gays who are out, politically active, with a strong interest in firearms and self defense. The ones I know are more tolerant of divergent viewpoints than many here at DU. Its a niche group that is as valid as many I have seen in the progressive movement. Your fascination with them seems odd to me.

Not sure where you got "....the Concerned Women for America must be an all-right group, even though it was founded and run by radical right-wing fundamentalist men." That would be your approach not mine.

[CO Liberal]

35. You Believe What You Want...

...and I'll believe what I want. We're never gonna convince each other.

I have found absolutely nothing that shows that Pink Pistols is anything BUT a bogus organization. And that will be my last discussion with you on this topic.

[Maria Celeste]

41. As you choose

However, other than demagoguery IMO you brought nothing to this topic. No proof, no facts, and no reasoned discussion.

[iverglas]

43. gee

Pick me! Pick me!

Oh, no, I guess that might call for some facts and reasoned discussion from you ...

Git yerself one o' them gold star thangs. Search for the times this topic has been discussed in exhaustive detail ... if you haven't seen them before ... . Then tell someone who has been posting here for years before you existed that he has brought nothing to the discussion. The world really wasn't created on Dec. 27, 2004, and the discussion didn't begin the day you decided to butt into it.

[alwynsw]

48. Careful, you're dealing with a true savant.

You imply that Maria Celeste began t o exist on Dec. 27, 2004. If that's the case, Id not want to tangle with one who has mastered so many skills in less than a month.

As is usual with many on this board, you are taking the position that life and the ability to reason only begin upon becoming a member of this board. Let me see, what ever did I do with the 47 years I lived before I joined this board? That's right! I lived in a bubble, completely isolated from the universe.

[iverglas]

50. usual shmusual

As is usual with many on this board, you are taking the position that life and the ability to reason only begin upon becoming a member of this board.

Gosh, it sure is easy around here to imply something quite different from what one said, ain't it?

Or maybe it's just that it's so easy to claim to have inferred something quite different from what someone else said or even implied.

I wonder what I might have actually said? Oh, here it is:

Search for the times this topic has been discussed in exhaustive detail ... if you haven't seen them before ... . Then tell someone who has been posting here for years before you existed that he has brought nothing to the discussion. The world really wasn't created on Dec. 27, 2004, and the discussion didn't begin the day you decided to butt into it.

And this, of course, was in response to:

However, other than demagoguery IMO you brought nothing to this topic. No proof, no facts, and no reasoned discussion.

-- and *that* just weren't true. The "discussion" is one that has clogged this forum for months, and the author of that comment either has no idea whatsoever what CO Liberal has brought to it, or knows and is pretending not to.

I quite definitely did *not* take "the position that life and the ability to reason only begin upon becoming a member of this board". I took the position that no one else's life and ability to reason only began upon "Maria Celeste" becoming a member of this board.

Let me see, what ever did I do with the 47 years I lived before I joined this board?

Fascinating question, I'm sure. But the relevant question would be: whatever did CO Liberal do with the years he was involved in discussion on the board before "Maria Celeste" was born?

"Marie Celeste" is a persona at the DU forums, and was "born" in late December 2004, as I recall. And is evidently taking the position that anyone who expresses an opinion is now duty-bound to demonstrate the soundness of that position to "Maria Celeste", no matter how many times s/he has done so before in the absence of "Maria Celeste" -- or be conclusively demonstrated to have no leg to stand on, and to be propped up with nought but demagoguery and to have brought no facts or reasoned argument to the discussion. Not so, I'm afraid.

What's interesting is how carefully "Maria Celeste" appears to have stepped around my own post, the one I posted in response to the same post to which CO Liberal's response evidently caused MC so much distress. Funny, that, for someone who seems to be professing such an interest in fact and reasoned argument. Even kinda makes me think that CO Liberal's alleged shortage thereof maybe didn't bother MC all that much at all.

Hell, I'd really have to conclude that if CO Liberal had posted a thesis on the nature of the Punk Plinkers, MC wouldn't even have bothered responding, it seems to me, based on the evidence: the non-response to what I said. So me, I just saw something quite other than someone affronted at an absence of fact and reasoned argument, and with some reason for claiming to be so affronted quite other than any actual interest in fact and reasoned argument. I'm afraid. But that's just what I saw, of course.


(spelling typo from sloppy editing fixed)

[Maria Celeste]

52. I do hope that his kind of argument is not the usual

Ahh, been busy for a few days, and I am not sure which post of yours I stepped around. Seem to be quite a few removed ones on this thread. Not quite sure what the threshold for that is here. Some of the surviving ones could easily be called a PA, not that it bothers me.

I did look around a bit once he posted something other than they are bogus because they are bogus. I did not find anything that supported his position. The questions were quite sincere. Would have gladly followed up any links to prior discussion, though none was offered. No thesis or regurgitation of prior threads required or requested. Pointers would have done just fine.

I did note that he finally posted a link in an attempt to substantiate his claim. Taking the LP press release at face value it says that Rostcheck is a founding member (not sole founder) of the Pink Pistols and makes no mention of his sexuality. Clearly his move to Libertarian is after he was involved in starting the Pink Pistols. That Rostcheck is now a Libertarian and that me might not be gay seemed key to his objections to the Pink Pistols. To me he has never made the connections that seem to be the cause of the bogosity he is so insistent about.

The Pink Pistols seem to me to be pretty much as advertised, a gay etc centric shooting group. Don't see anything bogus about them. Still not clear what upsets him and for that matter you about them.

[iverglas]

57. hmm

I am not sure which post of yours I stepped around. Seem to be quite a few removed ones on this thread.

Well, I wonder whether it might be the one I said it was:

... my own post, the one I posted in response to the same post to which CO Liberal's response evidently caused MC so much distress.

You know, the only one of mine in this thread posted prior to the one in which I responded to your post.


Would have gladly followed up any links to prior discussion, though none was offered. No thesis or regurgitation of prior threads required or requested. Pointers would have done just fine.

Really, is it invisible?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=97352&mesg_id=98487&page=

iverglas
Mon Jan-24-05 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
34. "they dismiss ideology"

Ah yes. That would be why the Pink Pistols endorses every Loonytarian candidate for office in US elections.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/answers2001/answers.html

Oh, pardon me. Those aren't endorsements, they're just scores. I'll bet they were all out working and voting for John Kerry for the Senate, after giving him a 0%/F score.

"pink pistols" libertarian

http://www.pinkpistols.org/newspapers/massliberty.html

The Pink Pistols also rates candidates for public office based on a survey of their positions on issues such as gay civil rights andthe right of all citizens to bear arms without restrictions. A list of the questions asked of each candidate can also be found on the web site. Unlike most PACs (Political Action Committees), the candidate’s answers are also made available to the public. Libertarian candidate Carla Howell, who is challenging Ted Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate, scoring an A+ for her responses, including her declaration that she "is a 100% pro-gun candidate." ...

That's the way to get Democrats elected ...

Well, if we consider that the Loonies are most likely to siphon off Republican votes, it might be. And if the Loonies were actually up front about their party's anti-medicaid, anti-public education, anti-just about every plank in the Democratic social justice platform, that's what they might do. If they were actually up front about it ...

It was in response to the assertion by turnkey:

What I like about
These various organizations are the fact that they dismiss political ideology, while defending and acting upon a fundamental right.

to which CO Liberal replied ("Here's the thing"), with you then lobbing a bunch of red herrings in CO's direction, and so on and so forth.

I, in the meanwhile, posted material that addressed the point: that there is lots of good reason to regard the Punk Plinkers as something other than an organization of, for and by GLBT people. And you seem to be still scanning the horizon and missing it under your feet.


No thesis or regurgitation of prior threads required or requested. Pointers would have done just fine.

Here ya go:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=90711#91305

(This, of course, was my point when I said Git yerself one o' them gold star thangs. Search for the times this topic has been discussed in exhaustive detail .... Nothing to do with "seniority". Everything to do with demonstrating the gravitas of someone who genuinely wants to enter and participate in a discussion, rather than butt into and impede it. A gold star allows a poster to search the forum for previous discussions of a topic, something a poster might want to do, on the assumption that people posting here for a long time might really have had something to say that someone wishing to engage them might really want to know about. I mean, if I'm at a party, I don't generally stride up to a cluster of strangers discussing the weather and demand that someone who has just said that it rains in Rwanda provide me with proof of his/her claim and listen to all my silly hypotheses about why it might not rain in Rwanda. Really.)

Oh, and btw, I referenced that previous thread in another thread in this forum just a week ago:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=98244#98266

And oh my goodness gracious me -- look what my gold star just found me (this being the reason I have that gold star - to find things):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=68319&mesg_id=68319

Thread started by:

CO Liberal
Thu Jul-01-04 10:03 AM
Original message
I Just Did Some Research On The "Pink Pistols"

You might want to start here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=68319&mesg_id=68471&page=

I think you'll be needing to read quite a bit of that thread to get yourself up to speed here. Lucky I caught it before it dropped off into the archives sometime in the next couple of days, eh?

Happy hunting!

[iverglas]

61. and you don't even need a gold star!

google search for "pink pistols" at democraticunderground.com

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Maria Celeste]

51. OMG, a seniority argument?

How droll.

I asked a serious question and his reply was circular at best. No reasons or discussions. Just "bogus because they are bogus". I pointed out my personal experience and that the sin he was accusing the Pink Pistols of, even if true, was prevalent in many other respected liberal and progressive organizations. Again came the unsubstantiated bogus comment, followed by I don't want to discuss it anymore. I don't see how a "gold star thang" would change any of that.

Claiming that the number of posts should give someone respect is silly. Its a variation of the seniority argument with a dash of listen to your betters. By that line of thinking, the only thing that should be taught is Aristotle for science and Euripides for literature. He may well have made lots of posts. Hopefully some were better that he showed in this thread. All he did was throw rocks, it really doesn't matter how many years he has been posting.

[iverglas]

56. oooo, straw fellas

What fun.

Claiming that the number of posts should give someone respect is silly.

Absolutely positively! I couldn't agree more! We're of one mind on this one!

You go right ahead and chide anyone who claims such a thing now, y'hear?

I'll be right behind you.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[alwynsw]

49. So I suppose you think Hillary Clinton is bogus.

After all, her father was extremely active in the Illinois republican party. State chair at one point as I recall.

Using your logic, since Hillary was born to and raised by staunch rebublicans, she cannot possibly be a true Democrat. Proressive is out of the question. (I wouldn't vote for her if she were running for dog catcher, but our party has many that are worthy of election at many levels of government. I don't adhere to the "One bad apple" theory.

[Lazpash]

62. Where TF do you GET your information???

Pink Pistols WAS founded by a Libertarian... THAT part IS true, but he's a BI... or are you asshats still trying to insist that Rostacheck founded the group? (He didn't, BTW,) though he DID I believe found A CHAPTER (in Houston, TX) the FOUNDER is Doug Krick... and Rostacheck wasn't even AROUND until like the 3rd meeting.

[alwynsw]

47. Great logic!

Cars should only be driven by those who build them

Prepared food should only be eaten by cooks

Medicines should only be taken by the researchers who develop them

etc. etc. etc.

Did you invent and/or print and coin money? You didn't? Well then, using it is not for you. Send yours to a charity.

[-..__...]

59. Black groups should be founded and organized by blacks.

Uhhh, the NAACP was founded by whites. I suppose that's a bogus organization too?

" The NAACP was formed in response to the 1908 race riot in Springfield, capital of Illinois and birthplace of President Abraham Lincoln. Appalled at the violence that was committed against blacks, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard, both the descendants of abolitionists, issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, only 7 of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln's birth. Echoing the focus of Du Bois's militant all-black Niagara Movement, the NAACP's stated goal was to secure for all people the rights guaranteed in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which promised an end to slavery, the equal protection of the law, and universal adult male suffrage, respectively.

The NAACP established its national office in New York City and named a board of directors as well as a president, Moorfield Storey, a white constitutional lawyer and former president of the American Bar Association. The only African American among the organization's executives, Du Bois was made director of publications and research and in 1910 he established the official journal of the NAACP, The Crisis. With a strong emphasis on local organizing, by 1913 the NAACP had established branch offices in such cities as Boston, Massachusetts; Kansas City, Missouri; Washington, D.C.; Detroit, Michigan; and St. Louis, Missouri".

http://www.africanaonline.com/orga_naacp.htm

[CO Liberal]

60. The NAACP Works For the Best Interests of Blacks

When the Pink Pistols work to get Libertarians elected at the expense of Democrats, they are not working in the best interests of gays and lesbians, are a bogus organization, and do not deserve support from anyone on DU, IMHO.

[iverglas]

34. "they dismiss ideology"

Ah yes. That would be why the Pink Pistols endorses every Loonytarian candidate for office in US elections.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/answers2001/answers.html

Oh, pardon me. Those aren't endorsements, they're just scores. I'll bet they were all out working and voting for John Kerry for the Senate, after giving him a 0%/F score.

"pink pistols" libertarian

http://www.pinkpistols.org/newspapers/massliberty.html

The Pink Pistols also rates candidates for public office based on a survey of their positions on issues such as gay civil rights andthe right of all citizens to bear arms without restrictions. A list of the questions asked of each candidate can also be found on the web site. Unlike most PACs (Political Action Committees), the candidate’s answers are also made available to the public. Libertarian candidate Carla Howell, who is challenging Ted Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate, scoring an A+ for her responses, including her declaration that she "is a 100% pro-gun candidate." ...

That's the way to get Democrats elected ...

Well, if we consider that the Loonies are most likely to siphon off Republican votes, it might be. And if the Loonies were actually up front about their party's anti-medicaid, anti-public education, anti-just about every plank in the Democratic social justice platform, that's what they might do. If they were actually up front about it ...

[davepc]

18. and the Democratic party was founded by a slave owning elitist

who you happen to quote in your signature.

Do you have a point?

Oh, and thanks for the personal attack! appreciate it!

[CO Liberal]

24. What Happened in the 1800s....

...has no bearing on the Democratic Party today. In fact, the Democratic Party ad lots of conservatives until Strom Thurmond jumped ship and took all the racists with him.

The point is this - the Pink Pistols is totally bogus, and nothing any of you can post will change that fact.

And if you continue to spew the same crap as your brain-dead bretheren, expect more of the same.

[Township75]

38. Hey, what happened to his signature?

OUCH!

[Krinkov]

21. so there arent any gay/ally libertarians?

:lol:

thats a new one.

Would it you like it better if it was started by a democrat? We (and many repubs) haven't been the best at standing by the RKBA..

[CO Liberal]

36. One Final Note About the Founder of the Pink Pistols

I found the following through Google on the Libertarian party web site. First he's a Green, now he's a Libertarian. All you people defending the Pink Pistols need to ask yourself the following questions:

* Does David Rostcheck stand for anything other than himself?

* Why are progressive Democrats so quick to defend a group founded by a Libertarian???

* Why are you supporting an obviously bogus organization?

* * * * * * * * * *

Founder of Pink Pistols gun group becomes a Libertarian Party member

A founding member of the Pink Pistols -- a gun-owners organization composed mostly of "sexual minority community" members -- has defected from the Green Party and joined the Libertarian Party.

David Rostcheck, who became a member on August 22, said he joined because the LP is the only political party opposed to the "illegal expansion of government power."

"No party that cannot name and oppose the erosion of Constitutional law will ever be able to stop this erosion," he said. "Only the Libertarians have the courage and clarity to name the enemy and stand firmly against it."

Rostcheck had helped launch the Pink Pistols in September 2000. The organization, which views the Second Amendment as crucial to the freedom of minority citizens, now has 27 chapters nationwide.

<more - if you can stomach this crap>

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0111/pinkpistols.html

[Blade42]

37. OK CO

Let me ask you a few of questions.

1. Are you LGBT?
2. Are you a gun owner?

If no to any of the above questions what right do you have to question the Pink Pistol group?

And what of the DUers that are Pink Pistols? are they bogus as well? are they not Democrats because they are members of a group that was founded by a Libertarian?

I do believe we have a couple Communist in the group as well, so are they now Libertarians because the founder of the Pinks is a Libertarian?

[CO Liberal]

39. And a Couple of Answers

1. No.

2. No.

That doesn't mean that I can't recognize a bogus organization when I see it.

[Torque67]

42. Bogus?

Ok, itlooks as if Pink Pistols is an organization set up so that gay folks can get together and partake in shooting activities and share personal defense information.

If there arent any gay folks there shooting together, then I can see that you would be 100 percent correct in saying that they are bogus. Seeing that I've shot with a few pink pistol folks at matches, I'd imagine that they really are doing what they say they are. More power to em. I'd also reckon that if there are multiple chapters, that a good number of the chapter founders would be gay too. And maybe even go shooting.

[Maria Celeste]

55. It may be a orthodoxy issue

Some progressives consider guns vile, evil, nasty etc. They also consider gays to be by definition progressive. However, when you get gays who support gun rights it causes irresolvable conflict in their minds. The reaction tends to be virulent with some, as we have seen. The Pink Pistols have a good writeup on just such a mindset issues on their site about the a confrontation with Stonewall Columbus. Makes for an interesting read.

The problem is, the people with these problems are genuine progressives in their hearts but are unwilling to question some of their cherished assumptions about how evil guns are. They really do mean well, so I tend to be more forgiving than some. However, violating their orthodoxy does seem to drive them over the top. DU and the Democratic party claim to be big tent places. What is said in print are not always lived up to in practice.

[iverglas]

58. ah ... theories, theories

Some progressives consider guns vile, evil, nasty etc. They also consider gays to be by definition progressive. However, when you get gays who support gun rights it causes irresolvable conflict in their minds. The reaction tends to be virulent with some, as we have seen. ... The problem is, the people with these problems are genuine progressives in their hearts but are unwilling to question some of their cherished assumptions about how evil guns are.

You should -- assuming you know some folks like this, which I will assume, since you say you've seen their reaction to this dissonance they experience -- invite them around here for a chat.

[Maria Celeste]

54. I'll take a *shot* at answering them

All you people defending the Pink Pistols need to ask yourself the following questions:

* Does David Rostcheck stand for anything other than himself?
Its clear that he stands for gun rights. beyond that its hard to tell without an getting to know him. Presuming you do not, so making such a charge doesn't do much for the credibility of your attack on him.

* Why are progressive Democrats so quick to defend a group founded by a Libertarian???

1) Not all Democrats are liberal or progressive, and not all liberals and progressives are Democrats.
2) Rostcheck wasn't a Libertarian when he helped found the PP.
3) Some of us consider gun rights to be a progressive value. I for one consider gun suppression to be anti women and minority.
4) Both the Greens and Libertarians have some progressive values. I support the ones we have in common. If you are so shallow as to insist on a binary approach (our side or their side), in the big picture they are on our side, vice the Repugs.

* Why are you supporting an obviously bogus organization?

Still looking for a rational reason why they are bogus. What is obvious is that you hate the Pink Pistols for reason that are unclear. I can empathize since I feel much the same way about Brussels sprouts. However, having met members and shot with them, I see them as genuine and authentic as many other liberals and progressives I have met.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Blade42]

22. A great day!!

JT just picked out his first center-fire pistol. He wasn't a anti gunner as much as just didn't care about guns and wouldn't even touch any of mine. But would go to gun shows and shops with me, anyway after 3 years and out of the blue.......came up and ask me about a Walther P99. The salesmen and I sat him down and went through all the pistols they had and JT picked out the Titanium coated P99 9mm. He also told the dealer that he is going to ask me to build him an......AR15!!!!!!!

[aikoaiko]

40. Sweet!

Walthers are nice and built to specification ar15 are great.