Memberships have more than doubled in a national LGBT pro-gun rights organization since a gunman opened fire at a gay nightclub in Florida, killing 49 people.

Pink Pistols Utah chapter President Matt Schlentz said Pink Pistols membership has grown from 1,500 to 4,000 since Omar Mateen's June 12 rampage, the Salt Lake Tribune reported.

'It's really sad that something on this scale had to happen for people to realize this is a need for our community,' Schlentz said. 'But the reality is we still get attacked for kissing our partners or holding hands in public.

'We get windows smashed for having an equality sticker on them.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...e-masthead


Sent from #ClutchCity using Tapatalk

I encourage people to look into getting training, and owning a basic pistol or rifle for home/self defense...I have no issue with the Pink Pistols...it's the Pink AK-47s that would bother me...I also want them to ALL pass a background check...pretty simple stuff.

Again, marginal to unobservable presence in the LGBT community. I'd see it if there was a presence. In my community, I am seen to be aligning with the 'middle of the road - moderate friendly' faction. Many of you guys have no idea how far to the left the mainstream LGBT community is. Don't laugh. I supported a Republican for Houston Mayor last year. And I did so very publicly. I consider myself center-left. In my community, that makes me center-right.

Since the Pink Pistols were used by the guns everywhere advocates to lead a lawsuit in DC, its probably a bunch of straight people joining. We saw this with GOProud. No idea if this is the case with Pink Pistols.

Even assuming the 3% number for out LGBT persons in the USA, there are well over 10 million openly LGBT persons in the country. I'd argue that the number is closer to 15 million. Between 600,000 and 1 million will vote for Donald Trump (consistent with the 15% GOP vote in the community). But of the 30 or so of my Trump LGBT friends, only 10 or so are pro-gun (and most of them support some gun controls opposed by the GOA/NRA). My guess is that there are 2,000 LGBT members of Pink Pistols. There's probably room for them to grow. But I'd be surprised if they ever really made much of an impact in our community.

I do know two members. Neither very well. One is a non-US citizen. I did ask them how they get their message out into the LGBT community. Basically, they don't.

The LGBT community, in absolutely overwhelming numbers, supports gun control. There are cultural issues as well. We largely don't hunt as much as other communities, we are concentrated in urban areas (where gun ownership levels are far lower), etc. And the image of a Conservative, cisgendered, white, male and tribal gun culture instinctively turns many of us off.

I suppose its a good thing, in some respects, that a historically very anti-Gay class (NRA support highly correlates with support for anti-Gay referenda) has decided that its acceptable to highlight Gay gun owners. Although I see them as being used by them. But the Pink Pistols probably agree with the NRA, so its their call. I look forward to a debate in our community about the merits of unlicensed unregistered and prevalent gun use in our country. That being said, its difficult for that debate to happen so long as their advocates are largely invisible in the community.

Quote:Don't let its intense name fool you: AK-47 will leave you relaxed and mellow. This sativa-dominant hybrid delivers a steady and long-lasting cerebral buzz that keeps you mentally alert and engaged in creative or social activities. AK-47 mixes Colombian, Mexican, Thai, and Afghani varieties, bringing together a complex blend of flavors and effects. While AK-47’s scent is sour and earthy, its sweet floral notes can only be fully realized in the taste.

Created in 1992 by Serious Seeds, AK-47 has won numerous Cannabis Cup awards around the world for its soaring THC content.

(07-03-2016 09:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Since the Pink Pistols were used by the guns everywhere advocates to lead a lawsuit in DC, its probably a bunch of straight people joining. We saw this with GOProud. No idea if this is the case with Pink Pistols.

In just a couple sentences you go from saying "its probably" to "no idea." That is outstanding.

(07-03-2016 10:01 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 09:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Since the Pink Pistols were used by the guns everywhere advocates to lead a lawsuit in DC, its probably a bunch of straight people joining. We saw this with GOProud. No idea if this is the case with Pink Pistols.

In just a couple sentences you go from saying "its probably" to "no idea." That is outstanding.

My point stands. Where are the openly Gay members of the organization? My social circle in the LGBT community trends right. I personally know half the Log Cabin Membership in Houston and a lot of them in other places, including DC - and many of them well.

I asked around. Basically - no active members in Houston (sure they exist - but they don't meet regularly). A few people in the West. About 30 core members in DC. And a bunch of people who have joined up and perhaps paid some dues.

I will concede that there are probably more than 4,000 LGBT people out of 15 million that support the NRA/GOA on gun access laws. How much more? Probably not as much as you think. And I've seen little to no evidence that the Orlando shooting has caused any appreciable changing of people's views in our community on that issue.

---

What I meant to say...is that its having 4,000 LGBT members is possible. But its also possible that the membership is, like with GOProud, largely straight people joining the group to show their support of them.

Do all gays like the color pink?

(07-03-2016 09:48 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I encourage people to look into getting training, and owning a basic pistol or rifle for home/self defense...I have no issue with the Pink Pistols...it's the Pink AK-47s that would bother me...I also want them to ALL pass a background check...pretty simple stuff.

What exactly is it about the AK-47? Handguns and AK-47s have the exact same firing capabilities (semi-auto). If it's magazine capacity, I have a factory Glock magazine that is bigger (33 rounds) than the standard factory AK-47 magazine (30 rounds).

If it's about people illegally altering AK-47s to become fully auto, see below:




Even though your odds of being killed by a gun in the US are infinitesimal (about 25,000:1), in the event that you are exceptionally unlucky, you are 20:1 more likely to be killed by a handgun than a rifle. You're actually 3:1 more likely to be killed by someone's fist and 2:1 more likely to be killed by a hammer than you are a rifle.

Just some perspective so that hopefully you can put your irrational fears to rest.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr...9-2013.xls

(07-03-2016 03:11 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 09:48 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I encourage people to look into getting training, and owning a basic pistol or rifle for home/self defense...I have no issue with the Pink Pistols...it's the Pink AK-47s that would bother me...I also want them to ALL pass a background check...pretty simple stuff.

What exactly is it about the AK-47? Handguns and AK-47s have the exact same firing capabilities (semi-auto). If it's magazine capacity, I have a factory Glock magazine that is bigger (33 rounds) than the standard factory AK-47 magazine (30 rounds).

If it's about people illegally altering AK-47s to become fully auto, see below:




Even though your odds of being killed by a gun in the US are infinitesimal (about 25,000:1), in the event that you are exceptionally unlucky, you are 20:1 more likely to be killed by a handgun than a rifle. You're actually 3:1 more likely to be killed by someone's fist and 2:1 more likely to be killed by a hammer than you are a rifle.

Just some perspective so that hopefully you can put your irrational fears to rest.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr...9-2013.xls

Maf

Good for them. Get a gun, learn how to shoot it and get a concealed permit and if someone tries to make you a target, shoot them first.

once again....it should be standard training by the age of 10 and replace PE until HS graduation.....defense training should be embedded in peoples brains by this point....

that's what's really fk'd up....

(07-03-2016 03:11 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 09:48 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I encourage people to look into getting training, and owning a basic pistol or rifle for home/self defense...I have no issue with the Pink Pistols...it's the Pink AK-47s that would bother me...I also want them to ALL pass a background check...pretty simple stuff.

What exactly is it about the AK-47? Handguns and AK-47s have the exact same firing capabilities (semi-auto). If it's magazine capacity, I have a factory Glock magazine that is bigger (33 rounds) than the standard factory AK-47 magazine (30 rounds).

If it's about people illegally altering AK-47s to become fully auto, see below:




Even though your odds of being killed by a gun in the US are infinitesimal (about 25,000:1), in the event that you are exceptionally unlucky, you are 20:1 more likely to be killed by a handgun than a rifle. You're actually 3:1 more likely to be killed by someone's fist and 2:1 more likely to be killed by a hammer than you are a rifle.

Just some perspective so that hopefully you can put your irrational fears to rest.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr...9-2013.xls

But, but, but the AK-47 is so much scarier for poor wittle UofM.

(07-03-2016 08:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  once again....it should be standard training by the age of 10 and replace PE until HS graduation.....defense training should be embedded in peoples brains by this point...

That's actually a great idea... what a militia that would be...

(07-04-2016 11:00 AM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 08:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  once again....it should be standard training by the age of 10 and replace PE until HS graduation.....defense training should be embedded in peoples brains by this point...

That's actually a great idea... what a militia that would be...

the point is about the masses understanding weaponry and how to handle a specific situation if they found themselves in that arena later in life....but yeah, that's how we overwhelmed the redcoats....we didn't win that battle with jumping jacks...

I'm certain a few on this board would view it as "radical"....not me...

(07-04-2016 11:00 AM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 08:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  once again....it should be standard training by the age of 10 and replace PE until HS graduation.....defense training should be embedded in peoples brains by this point...

That's actually a great idea... what a militia that would be...

Excellent.

(07-04-2016 11:47 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:00 AM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 08:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  once again....it should be standard training by the age of 10 and replace PE until HS graduation.....defense training should be embedded in peoples brains by this point...

That's actually a great idea... what a militia that would be...

Excellent.

Actually, I vote for the "everyone must serve in the military" thinking. That is, if you're physically able you should go through military basic training and if you want stay in, fine, but if not you'll be on an "inactive" status with no pay and no bennys. That way in an emergency which we will encounter in the near future everyone can jump into a military branch of their choice with a small refresher course.

Those that don't believe that we will have a war have their heads in the sand.

(07-04-2016 02:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:47 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:00 AM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 08:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  once again....it should be standard training by the age of 10 and replace PE until HS graduation.....defense training should be embedded in peoples brains by this point...

That's actually a great idea... what a militia that would be...

Excellent.

Actually, I vote for the "everyone must serve in the military" thinking. That is, if you're physically able you should go through military basic training and if you want stay in, fine, but if not you'll be on an "inactive" status with no pay and no bennys. That way in an emergency which we will encounter in the near future everyone can jump into a military branch of their choice with a small refresher course.

Those that don't believe that we will have a war have their heads in the sand.

Is it Israel that does that? I agree. I think whether or not you are physically able or not, you should still be compelled to serve. There are lessons the disabled can learn from military structure.

OTOH, I suppose freedom includes being free not to serve. It's a catch22.

Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, South Korea and several others have mandatory service. Switzerland is closest to he IDF in Israel. All able bodied men and any women who wish are required to keep their own military equipment at home...including the state issued firearms. Way worse than scary black plastic ARs that look like the real thing.

(07-04-2016 02:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:47 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:00 AM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 08:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  once again....it should be standard training by the age of 10 and replace PE until HS graduation.....defense training should be embedded in peoples brains by this point...

That's actually a great idea... what a militia that would be...

Excellent.

Actually, I vote for the "everyone must serve in the military" thinking. That is, if you're physically able you should go through military basic training and if you want stay in, fine, but if not you'll be on an "inactive" status with no pay and no bennys. That way in an emergency which we will encounter in the near future everyone can jump into a military branch of their choice with a small refresher course.

Those that don't believe that we will have a war have their heads in the sand.

My relatives that served during both the draft and post-draft would disagree vehemently with that sentiment. They said that draftees were just about useless and were the source of the vast majority of the drug and criminal problems in the ranks in those days. They stated the professionalism increased in leaps and bounds once they went all volunteer.

(07-04-2016 11:00 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 02:01 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:47 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 11:00 AM)Otacon Wrote:  

(07-03-2016 08:04 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  once again....it should be standard training by the age of 10 and replace PE until HS graduation.....defense training should be embedded in peoples brains by this point...

That's actually a great idea... what a militia that would be...

Excellent.

Actually, I vote for the "everyone must serve in the military" thinking. That is, if you're physically able you should go through military basic training and if you want stay in, fine, but if not you'll be on an "inactive" status with no pay and no bennys. That way in an emergency which we will encounter in the near future everyone can jump into a military branch of their choice with a small refresher course.

Those that don't believe that we will have a war have their heads in the sand.

My relatives that served during both the draft and post-draft would disagree vehemently with that sentiment. They said that draftees were just about useless and were the source of the vast majority of the drug and criminal problems in the ranks in those days. They stated the professionalism increased in leaps and bounds once they went all volunteer.

which is why early defense training is not the same as volunteering/mandatory to serve later or the inability to defend oneself....

however, if defense training was req'd and followed through to enlistment age, then those wanting to serve would become more fluid in numbers....

I still believe in choice (vs. isreal style....different animal in scope).....

it's cool watching how my nephew has evolved....lil' bubba did good with him.....