"No Gays With Guns"
 

LINK

I am honestly not at all surprised. Often those who preach "tolerance" of one group are ignorant enough to irrationally fear another group. Pink Pistols is a gay pro-gun organization which encourages gays to be familiar with and carry (where legal, of course) a handgun. To single them out and deny them their right to carry is blatant discrimination against gun owners, and is deplorable.

"Irony" isn't strong enough.

As to this:

If anyone but a law enforcement officer tried to take my gun away from me by force, they would be shot in self defense.

Maybe the problem was their insistence on carrying firearms and not the ideology? Lots of events ban the carrying of firearms. Hell, you couldn't even smoke at the Atlanta Olympics.

Were their guns confiscated or were they not permitted to participate? I didn't see the outcome of the encounter in the article.

I kind of agree with you on this Seretogis. Except instead of ignorant or irrational I would have used discriminitory and bigotted. Most ~zealots~ of 'tolerance' of any kind are nothing of sort, imo.

-bear

I know at least here in OHIO that if you hold a demonstration or "parade" you have to get seperate approval for there to be weapons at it and you have to list all who will have them. This law came right after Kent State in 1970.

Sometimes before judging a law or criticizing an event, you need to know the past and why that state or city may have that requirement.

Plus, perhaps the Columbus Stonewallers wanted this to be a "peaceful" parade and in which case, in my opinion, guns have no right there. You cannot claim peace while having 20 people marching with guns (with the excepetion of a military honor guard or police officers celebrating). Sorry, but to me there's something wrong there.

Sounds like some people trying to create problems, as there is a pretty big schism between the concealed and non concealed activists here. And again, IMHO this parade is not a forum for those people as they probably had little to do with organizing it.

I cannot even begin to describe how offensive this is to every peaceful gun owner in this country.

So I'm just going to fly off the handle and start shooting while the cop over there won't??

NO to me, I just feel if you are demonstrating in the name of peace you do not need weapons there. To me that's hypocrasy.

I suppose the question from me could be, Why do you need guns at a PEACEFUL demonstration so badly anyway?

I'm not against guns, just don't feel they are needed at peaceful events. To me that shows no respect for people like me, who feel weapons are symbols of violence.

If I held a peaceful demonstration and people chose to want to bring weapons, I wouldn't let them (by not putting in paperwork and in any legal way possible), they can do their own work and set up their own demonstration. It's a matter of ethics, my opinion and morals to me.

That is my opinion, I am sorry you take issue with it, but I am allowed mine and you, yours.

Why do you need to disarm me to feel at "peace"?

Why is it I can carry my gun "peacefully" up to the point I arrive at the rally, but I can't carry it "peacefully" in the rally?

Why is it that I have to justify my right or desire to carry a gun with me when it has already been determined legally that I can?

A walk in the park is "peaceful", should I be disarmed there as well?

The bottom line is this: If I am trusted to carry a gun, the I am trusted and if your rally/parade is on public property, then it really isn't your business if I carry a gun, so long as I am legally allowed to.

This is one reason why this country has so many problems.

WHY, if I organized a peace rally do you feel the need to disrupt it and not form your own?

WHY would you feel the need to disrespect my wishes at a rally I formed, and did all the work on?

It's all about respect. The ONLY reason you would bring a gun to a demonstration of peace that I organized would be to make a point.

To me that is very disrespectful. You do your own work and make your point, don't come into my yard and shit and say...."oops, but I'm allowed so fuck you." and to me that is what you would be doing.

I have respect for you, I would not do that to you, why would you feel the need to do it to me.

Simply because YOU want to use my forum, my hard work to make YOUR statement and to me that is very, very wrong and disrespectful.

A walk in the park, go ahead, that is not for me to decide and I truly don't care, but not at my rally or demonstration.

Besides that article is VERY misleading. Yes, in OHIO you may carry weapons but as far as I know you still have to "register" before public demonstrations.

It's all about respecting the people who did the work and went to the trouble of arranging the event. Obviously, the "Pink Pistols" (or the way you talk about our hypothesis) have no respect for anyone but themselves. Not to mention are too lazy to do their own work and organizing.

As for public ground, depends am I paying for the use of it (it then becomes private), am I responsible for the actions of everyone there (if so then by rights I should be allowed to dismiss anyone I want, if I deem them trouble).

We can argue this both ways until eternity end Lebell, you aren't changing your opinion and I'm not changing mine. You feel my opinion to be wrong and arrogant, just as I feel yours to be. It's an impass.

Yes, it is about respect, in this case, respecting each and every person and the choices they make.

I see that you will never see the irony of the original story.

And I see that we will never agree.

You're right I don't see any irony. I see a group (who did none of the official work) wanting to make a statement at the cost of those who did work. How is that respectful of the choices made by Stonewall? Were Pink Pistollers not allowed to sit on the Stonewall board and make suggestions?

Again I ask why did they choose to make a statement at another's expense? Would you want someone doing it to you? (You have yet to answer, perhaps there is something I overlooked.)

Just because Stonewall didn't want them carrying guns doesn't mean they were prejudiced against them. Perhaps they just felt this wasn't the place for that particular statement.

Were the Pink Pistol memebers even from the Columbus area, or were they "bussed in" to make their own statement and create problems? (BTW this made press for the Pink Pistols and got them attention that just being at the event may not have.)

Again, by your statements, I should allow anyone at my rally. So if KKK and Neo-Nazis show up at my peaceful demonstration I should allow them to, when their organization's whole purpose is about hatred?

Should a peaceful Muslim demonstration asking for recognition and trying to educate about their religion allow radicals tied with terrorism to their demonstrations?

I'm sorry, but this is not a reasonable attitude. Would you carry your gun to funerals, birthday parties or an airport? Guns are not ALWAYS appropriate.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

haha love that. However i think it is pretty reasonable to request that people do not bring fire arms to certain events.

If the pink gun owners want to have a rally in support of gays with guns thats fine but they shouldnt be able to hijack the purpose of the gay parade which is to promote gay acceptance on a wide scale and not just in any certain area.

Guns are symbols of violence, regardless of what many pro-gun lobbyists tell us. The stigma attached to guns will forever be one of violence and death, not marksmenship and self defence.

Regardless of the 2nd ammendment, is it that hard to understand why someone wouldn't want a symbol of violence at their parade?



SLM3

Ok. I have a net-friend who was involved in this, and this is straight from the Horse's Mouth, as it were.
The Stonewall Columbus people were the ones threatening violence. The woman in charge of the 30-person strong contingent attempting to disarm the Pink Pistols threatened them repeatedly with a 2-foot wooden club ( ostensibly a 'keyring' by virtue of having keys attatched ) and made repeated threats to ILLEGALY disarm the Pink Pisols by force.
Several lawyers were called, and finally the Columbus Police had to be called to prevent the Stonewall Columbus contingent from assaulting members of the Pink Pistols.
Furthermore, Stonewall Columbus officials had repeatedly told the PPs that they were not allowed to recruit, distribute literature, or set up a booth; this on PUBLIC PROPERTY. Their entire attitude towards the Pink Pistols was one of intolerance, bigotry, and irrational hoplophobic hatered.

As a parting note, the P.P.s carry their weapons, and encourage other GBLT persons to do the same, in an effort to prevent the sort of 'bashing' which took the life of Matt Shephard. They are perhaps the strongest and most consistant Gay Rights group out there; how are you supposed to, if needed, prevent being "bashed" to death if you're disarmed? There is nothing "peaceful" about staying alive if some bigot is trying to bludgeon you out of this world, and there is nothing "peaceful" about maintaining and securing your rights. Rent the film "Deacons for Defense" for a good, factual presentation of this.

As for "violence:"
Sometimes violence is nessescary. If some bigoted piece of trash is trying to murder you, for instance. In such a case, it is only natural and moral to defend yourself with whatever violence is required to prevail over your attacker. If this means a slap in the mouth or a bullet in the head, fine.
If more bigots and "bashers" were aware that BGLT persons were willing and able to engage in instant, ruthless, and deadly violence in defense of their lives, "bashing" would suddenly become much less of a problem.

This is a fascinating case of "strange bedfellows." Is the NRA jumping on board with this story? If so, that is a surprise. Remember that Bush refused to meet with the Log Cabin Republicans and that their campaign contributions have been returned by Republican candidates. Of course, this just might be a story of opportunity for gun advocates.

I've never heard the term "hoplophobic" before. This is also fascinating, as it smacks of the "identity" politics that American conservatives profess to hate. Has the gun crowd joined the ranks of the cultural sensitivity set?

If more people weren't taught that gay people are an abomination before god, we might see a strong decrease in "bashing."

The NRA has ( predictably ) been silent on this. I and most other fairly radical pro-gun people consider the NRA to be an ineffectual crowd of DC sell-outs, at best.
Bush is far from the gun-friendly Republican he purports to be; I couldn't care less what he thinks of the Pink Pistols, and I'm pretty sure the PPs feel the same way; I know my friend does.
Since we can't make people stop thinking that gays are abominations, the best we can do is allow/encourage gays to defend themselves.
"hoplophobic" means "fear of weapons." From the Greek; "hoplon" for 'weapon' or 'shield' and "phobia;" an irrational fear.

I googled the meaning. Don't you think that the phrase evokes the feeling of American leftist politics? Maybe it's just me.

As someone who's been actively involved with leftist politics, I can easily imagine the organizers of the demonstration overreacting to the PPs, but their insistence on bringing weapons into a parade does smack of intentional antagonism, don't you think? What reaction did they expect to get?

While we're talking, how do you feel about the Black Panther Party's belief in carrying arms for self-defence? This is another issue that the NRA wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

If every splinter group decides to go to peaceful demonstrations and creating problems (bringing guns after having been asked not to = creating problems) keeps happening. We will lose our right to demonstrate at all. Constitutionally or not, no city or state will or has to put up with demonstrations gone awry.

Sounds like the PP's could have done their own thing, instead they chose to try to make a statement.

Let's see, there's a lot of homophobia and prejudice against gays without having crap like this happen. It tarnishes the whole event and there are people now who can point to this as a reason to deny the event the next time Stonewall tries to put on an event.

Sad very sad our country has gotten so pathetic and petty to put their ideas ahead of others and shitting on someone who is making a stance.

Stonewall was making a stance, obviously they felt they didn't want PP's there as that would bring about focus on an issue they didn't want focus on. PP's said fuck you, we want the gay rights but we want things our way, so fuck you Stonewall. Not a civilized way of handling things.

If the Black Panthers want to carry openly, I say more power to 'em.

They were not disarmed, although I can't recall whether or not they marched. The fact is that they were threatened by someone with a wooden club an 30 or so thugs standing behind her.

When I get my Concealed Carry Permit, I will be carrying my gun anywhere that I can legally carry it unless I feel that there is too much of a chance of it being taken or being off of my person (into a bar where a bunch of drunks could jump me and take it or I might be too intoxicated to safely aim and fire if the need arises, somewhere where I'll be swimming and have to take the holster off,) and in those situations, it will most likely go into a box with a combination lock in the trunk of my car.

A member of the Black Panthers is a prime target for violent vrimes perpetrated by those who do not agree with their message, and they have just as much of a right as every other responsible citizen to carry a self-defense weapon.

pan6467, have you ever actually fired a firearm?

I see no reason why anyone should be denied the right to carry a firearm. Stonewall was wrong to deny the Pink Pistols the chance to participate in the rally; sexual freedom is far more important than whether or not someone is armed. Assuming the Pink Pistols acted in a peaceful and legal manner (which they did), then Stonewall should have let them express themselves as they see fit.

Guns are not evil. They are not violent. They are tools. It is extremely easy for a criminal to obtain a firearm; why shouldn't citizens be allowed the same right. I have never met a gun owner who would deliberately disrupt a public event, in fact I have never met a gun owner who wanted to draw attention to the fact that he's armed.

Stonewall brought shame to the event by placing a fear of guns (hoplophobia really is a cool word) above her desire for sexual equality. Just as a person should not be discriminated against because of race or sexual preference, they should not be discriminated against because they're armed.

Here in Louisiana (and other states, I think), even with a permit you aren't legally allowed to carry concealed in a bar. This is probably not a very controversial regulation.

Do you think that organizers of an event have the right to refuse entrance to those carrying weapons? I'm sure most concert promoters and schools try to bar weapons from their functions. Do you consider this an infringement of your rights?

Right on! Hell, the 2nd amendment is there so that the poor can protect themselves from The Man :)

Assuming it's a private venue, then they have the right to place any legal limitations that they feel are necessary. If a restaurant can keep me out for wearing a t-shirt (dress is considered a form of free speech), then a private entity can bar access because I'm armed.

The problem is that this was a public demonstration of gay pride, and the organizers threatened the Pink Pistols for legally carrying firearms. I find that to be repugnant.

No I don't think so as I saw this a little differently. It seemed to me that the organizers of the event went out of their way to single out and exclude a certain segment (however minority it might be) of the gay community, with peaceful and similar goals, apparently even violently. Essentially they were intolerant of people who wanted to attend an event designed to promote tolerance.

You may be homosexual but your not the right kind of homosexual to be included in our homosexual event...so we will violently and intolerantly try and prevent you from attending ~our~ peaceful tolerance event. That ~is~ a text book example of irony.

I find the blatant bigotry and intolerance of the organizers... directed at members of their own constituency to be rather bizarre. Yet interestingly not all that unexpected.

This is a debate about a group of hypocritical intolerant bigots over stepping their bounds in order to exclude members of their own community from participating in an event designed to forward the common aims of that community. THIS IS NOT a debate about guns, imo...

-bear

One "yes" or "no" question:

Would it be appropriate for a plain clothes policeman to carry his weapon to these events?

This feels lke a gun litmus test to me, but I would prefer that my friends not bring firearms into my house at all. I don't own one nor do I plan on purchasing one.

Surely you can't pack heat into major sporting events in your area. Do you think that this is unreasonable?

Barring your statement at the end, you do not mention the word gun at all in your explanation. In my opinion, that's misleading. Perhaps for you guns are bountiful tools that enrich the lives of those who use them, but it isn't that way for all of us. Guns have a stigma attached to them which cannot be ignored. They generate legitimate feelings of unneasiness among many who are exposed to them.

Criticize the way they went about dealing with the gun toters, but don't make this into something it's not. You're equating their disdain for guns at a parade with discrimination based on some sort of inherent part of the person.

They didn't want guns at their parade. This isn't racism or bigotry and should not be placed on the same level.

Of course this is all IMO.


SLM3

Did the PPs show up with no foreknowledge of the reaction that they were going to create? It's a possibility, but I find it hard to believe.

As stated here numerous times in other threads, yes I have fired quite a few guns. And may someday own one, I am not anti-gun.

I am, however, supportive of people who want to peacefully demonstrate and choose how to. Stonewall chose not to want PP's there, I am sure if PP's had not brought their guns and tried to get the focus off Stonewall and onto their group (leeching and being predators) then it would not have been a problem.

Instead PP let Stonewall do all the work and pay all the bills (permits, pay the off duty officers, pay to close the streets and what not)
and thought they could make a name for themselves and get free press. THAT IS WHAT THIS ALL BOILS DOWN TO, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

No guns are not evil, never said they were. I just simply stated my opinion that guns have no place at a peace or peaceful demonstration. And that those who do bring them are doing so to create problems.

Love guns, like guns, hate guns or don't care about guns one thing is true guns are a prime symbol for violence, so why would you take one to a peace demonstration? I have yet to hear an answert to that.

I will reiterate this, Stonewall asked PP's not to come. PP's then had to have come to create problems and get free press from other people's hard work. That is wrong.

If the PP's want to have a rally they can do their own work and pay their own bills.

I'm heading Cols way anyway today so I'm sure I can learn more because I have several friends down there that are heavily active in the community.

It just amazes me, that there are people on this board who yell about zealots and fanatics and taking things overboard yet when it comes to them it's ok for them to be all those things because "damnit they are right and fighting for the right cause." Yet, they don't realize when others do the same on causes they don't approve of. (I don't mean that in a bad way, just find it interesting.)

There is nothing wrong with being passionate about your beliefs, that is what makes us all unique and interesting people. However, it is WRONG to force others to defend or harass about, their opinions. If you expect respect for your opinions and your causes YOU MUST SHOW RESPECT TO OTHERS.

How would you like it if you worked hard for a year to get a parade and rally for a cause, only to have some other group come and try to take over (as I asked before and yet, another question ignored out of fear.)

Why is it I ask legit questions and they get ignored yet have to defend MY OPINION? What you can't defend yours, so you don't have to answer the questions I asked?

Not trying to fight but it is not civil or respectful to ignore questions about your beliefs, yet continue to question and try to show up the opposing side.

Yes, BUT and this is a big but it is their job to have it and if they are off duty and attending those events as a civilian and not in an official capacity, NO. (Although most cities the plainclothesmen are considered "on duty" 24/7 even if not officially, but again it is their job to carry their weapon.)

Are you implying it is OK for anyone to carry a weapon to those places just because a cop can?

The didn't try to "take over," they wanted to march in support of gay rights. Obviously I wouldn't be pleased if a group attempted to overthrow my work, but your question has no relevance to this issue. How would you like it if you wanted to participate in an event that meant a great deal to you, but were denied because of a minor issue?

I walked into the conversation a bit late, so I really don't think that's either deserved or necessary.

You seem convinced that the PP were being "predatory" and attempting to "leech" attention away from the purpose of the rally. How can that be when the main purpose of the PP is to promote the same goals as the rest of the marching gay community? Had Stonewall not made such an issue about the right to bear arms, nobody would have noticed or cared. The only person responsible for this mess is the organizer who denied them access for a foolish reason.

While you didn't answer my question, I will answer yours.

Yes, I think this is unreasonable.

Why am I trusted to carry a gun in traffic but not while watching baseball?

But I also respect that property owners may wish to restrict people on their property (such as your own example).

Of course, then it is my choice to enter your property under your restrictions or not.

No, I am not implying that.

What I am trying to establish is if it is the gun or the person carrying the gun you object to.

If the former, then you should object even to police carrying.

If the later, then it is not logical to me why you would object to my carrying presupposing that I am licensed, have had training, etc.

Well said, I agree.

This is becoming a very heated debate in here, just be sure we all keep it peaceful.

Speaking of peaceful- no one has explained exactly how having a gun on me makes me less peaceful. You've all done a decent job of dancing around the subject, but I find it equally ironic to the story that the supporters of this irony can't explain how this is so. It wasn't an anti-gun parade, it was a gay pride parade. Also, it was not on private property, as in a sporting event or some similar place, but out in the open on PUBLIC property.

When the law is observed, and allows a person to carry a weapon, you have no right to infringe on or abridge my right, simple as that.

Guns have nothing to do with Gay Pride but only the organizer of the event. It is for Gay Pride, not him, it's silly.

What would be the problem if they carried legal firearms in the parade when they are legally licensed to carry them? They're not going to be shooting their guns in the air for gay pride, if anything it probably makes them feel safer because they know walking in a gay pride parade puts a target on their back to many people. Knowing that they'll be unarmed doesn't help much either.

How many gays get shot in the back while parading?

Are there any crazy people in the USA who would go on a suicide mission in order to kill a large amount of gay people? I personally don't know of one, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was more than say 10.

It's that possibility in the back of your head that you say will never happen.

Just like two kids arming themselves to the teeth and going into a high school.

Just like two armed men with AK's and body armor having the ability to fight 40 police officers after a bank heist and almost over power the officers.

Just like someone parking a car bomb in front of some building in Oklahoma.

Just like someone hi-jacking an airplane and crashing it into a building.

Just because you don't think it's ever going to happen doesn't mean it never will.

So, what is the problem of dis-arming a group of individuals who legally and safely carry guns for self-defense?

I think I made myself quite clear on the cop issue. I would object IF he were there as a civilian and was in a city that does not recognize undercover officers as being "on duty" 24/7.

Analog, I explained my view a gun is a weapon and a symbol of violence to many, therefore it should not be necessary to take one to a rally promoting peace.

I just think it boils down to respecting the people who did the work and organized the rally.

If you want to make a statement with your guns, go ahead, I didn't say you couldn't. But civil and common sense should dictate if you attend a rally others worked hard on then you should abide to their wishes. Otherwise you are there ONLY to create problems and to leech off others hard work.

It's a rally promoting acceptance, not peace.

I thought that we needed an account of this story that actually took quotes from both sides, so follow this link for a more balanced account of the event.

Here's an excerpt from the Stonewall Columbus response to the critcism:

What wasn't mentioned in the earlier article was that the PPs were advised to leave the festival by police. If an organizers of this event had the right to deny weapons, then this is legally identical to any other public or private event where firearms are barred. SC may have acted a bit hysterically, but they didn't trample on anyone's rights. I also still believe that the PPs went in there ready for a confrontation, as they were forewarned not to bring any weapons.

I just think it boils down to respecting the people who did the work and organized the rally.

If you want to make a statement with your guns, go ahead, I didn't say you couldn't. But civil and common sense should dictate if you attend a rally others worked hard on then you should abide to their wishes. Otherwise you are there ONLY to create problems and to leech off others hard work.

I do not condone what Stonewall's reaction was, that's why there are off-duty officers provided to prevent those things from happening. BUT I can very well appreciate what they went through and do believe the PP's got exactly what they wanted, which was press at the cost of Stonewall's expense.

By the way a parade IS NOT a public participation process. It requires streets being closed, off and on duty police officers on the scene, and an application process. ALL cost money.

Again I ask for the numerous time, (to which noone answers) is it right for PP's to show up to publicize THEIR AGENDA AT SOMEONE ELSE'S EXPENSE? How would you feel if someone did that to you?

Is promoting acceptance NOT a form of promoting peace. You cannot have acceptance without PEACE.

You're reaching, in a big way. This is not a complicated issue, and there is no reason to complicate it, other than to try to blame the victims.

Here's a link on how to get the booklet that talks about what hoops one must go through and what one must pay the city to hold a "special event" such as the one Stonewall organized.

link: http://www.columbusrecparks.com/arts...e_planning.asp

here is the link to City of Cols. "Block Parties" of which a parade is defined as.

link: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/columbus/index.htm

Here's the link defining "nuisances" according to Cols. Ordinances. As the organizers of the parade and the ones responsible they can have whom they want there.

Link: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/columbus/index.htm

So now I have proven that Stonewall went to great expense, monetarily and time wise AND were responsible for any and all damages or problems arising.

Therefore I submit, by them asking PP to not come and make a statement, PP lleeched off Stonewall and had Stonewall foot the bill for PP to make their statement. THAT IS WRONG.

To me that is theft.

So I ask again..... If you held a rally or parade and asked a splinter group not to come because you felt YOUR event was not the place for that particular statement, and they showed up taking the focus off the issue the event was truly about, for their own profit?

You would not ask them to leave?

You would not be pissed?

You would allow this splinter group to take away all the focus that YOU had worked for and paid for?

You would not feel as though all YOUR hard work went for naught as this splinter group takes over the event YOU paid for, the event YOU are solely responsible for?

I highly doubt you would want that to happen to you, yet you believe it is ok for the PP's to do it to Stonewall.

It was Stonewall's buck and Stonewall's cause NOT PP's.

And yes I would feel the same way in any circumstance this would happen in.

The victims were Stonewall because PP was asked not to promote their cause or bring guns and they refused (knowing it would create problems and havoc and public nuisance), thus stealing a service from the legitimate party, that did pay and take the time to organize and were liable, while PP walks away scot free having paid no money, having put in no time and effort, and getting exactly what they wanted.

This escapade hurt the whole gay community in Cols. because next year Stonewall will probably have to pay more liabilty insurance, more for police AND the citizens of Cols. can point to this year and have a case for total denial of permit.

In my opinion Stonewall was the victim, not PP.

Like I said this affected a few close friends and it is sad because it hurts the whole community, because some people chose to try to be above the law and make a statement where they shouldn't have.

First of all...

Second of all, my white skin is a symbol of violence AND oppression to "many people" - basically anyone who's ever been trampled on by whites due to their race. The small amount of my German heritage is a symbol of violence and oppression to "many people" - anyone fucked over by the Nazis. MY COCK is a symbol of violence and oppression to "many people" - hardcore feminists, anyone who's ever been raped or abused by a man, etc...

Whoever you may be- I will not cover my skin to protect your sensitivity, I will not deny my heritage to console your feelings, and I will not cut off my penis to make you happy.

Ok... so is your beef that they're taking guns to a rally where they're not wanted, or because they're glomming off the others' work? They're still gay. They're still here, they're still queer, and they still want us to get used to it (reference to a chant commonly used by them, not MY words, for those who don't know).

It is ridiculous for them to preach acceptance and tolerance from one side of their mouth while yelling at the Pink Pistols for just being of a different opinion out of the other side. They are getting all up in arms (wordplay intended) over nothing, end of story.

EDIT:

They were perfectly well within the law, you are very incorrect on that statement. Perhaps ignorance of the law is making this harder to understand for some people.

The PPs weren't "perfectly within the law," as the law backed SC's right to exclude firearms from the rally that they organized. The initial post that started this thread glossed that fact over, but it is the truth. That is why the city of Columbus sided with SC.

Edit: I thought that calling someone ignorant was considered bad etiquette on these forums. Should we lock the thread?

I've not seen it shown that that is the law. So, show me where it specifically states there is a law against people who already have gun permits in that state to show at a public rally on public land, and we won't have a problem.

If there is a specific law that prevented them from doing so, and no one brought it up until just now, then I have argued with people who don't even know what the hell they're arguing about. Sometimes, though, that's par for the course.

Um. No, I (or any of the other staff) will not be locking the thread. One odd comment will not get a thread locked.

Second of all...

...is not calling anyone ignorant. I didn't say, "you're ignorant". I said "ignorance of the law...". Saying "ignorance of ______" simply means not knowing about it. I was also not speaking to anyone in particular, especially since i said, "for some people". "Some people" makes it plural, as in more than one, so it was not directed at anyone.

So I am ignorant (coming from a mod I highly respected) for making legitimate arguments. You can argue my opinion but there is no need to get personal or call names. I have not done that to anyone here. I have done nothing but argue my side and provide facts substantiating (as linked to the City of Columbus City Codes) what I say, so as not to have people argue that I do not know what I am talking about.

Where is the proof from those calling me ignorant or avoiding the facts or twisting events and trying to say the PP's were within their rights (when I have shown through links they weren't).

Where are the answers to the questions I asked? As I have answered with facts every question and rebuttal directed at me?

You want to debate fine, you want to just say your side is right and fuck the facts, the city codes (laws) and anyone who disagrees with you, then just tell me that is what you want.

I was under the impression this was a forum of debate and of presenting facts to back up what one says, which is what I did. I guess I was wrong in my assumption, you all would rather call names, ignore facts and questions to have what you want. Fuck what the rules are or who paid for it or who was truly hurt by all this.



NOT 1 PERSON ANSWERED MY MAIN QUESTION? And yet I answered showed links to proof of everything I stated and am still told that PP's had every right to have guns, when the proof shows differently.

I am ignorant because I had friends there that feel the PP's stole their hard work.

I would just like one of these defenders of the PP to say if they had a parade or rally, and did ALL the work, paid ALL the bills, were LIABLE for everything that happened and asked a certain group not to come.

Yet that group came.

Turned the rally into something totally different and PAID for nothing, were liable for nothing and created problems, that YOU would not feel used and would not be pissed.

It is theft of services plain and simple. Stonewall paid for the area to be closed, paid for the extra police protection and trash cleanup and so on for only one purpose to promote education and acceptance of gay rights NOT promote or affiliate themselves with guns.

It is amazing how if this had happened to a gun enthusiast crowd and some splinter group came out and created problems the same people arguing for the PP's would be all pissy.

Look at the links I provided for the City of Columbus (a few posts back), they will show that the PP's WERE NOT within their rights.

I would like to know how I am ignorant of the law when I have provided links (obviously not used) to the CODES of the City of Cols. defending everything I said.

I am showing the laws and they support what I say. That is not being ignorant that is being factual.

It was the 3rd to last post, those are the links.

I didn't see anyone on your side showing where the PP"s had the law on their side. So does that mean YOU don't know what you are arguing about as you accused others of?

I supplied the links before anyonme asked, because I wanted everyone to see the PP's had no right to be there with guns.

If you would like I WILL post the whole booklet one gets when planning events like this in Cols. and it will illustrate even further the rights of those who are having the event. And it will show without doubt how the PP's infringed on the rights of Stonewall.

Apparently, the city of Columbus felt that the organizers of the rally were within their rights restricting admission as they did. They then sent the PPs packing (pun intended).

Quote:

If there is a specific law that prevented them from doing so, and no one brought it up until just now, then I have argued with people who don't even know what the hell they're arguing about. Sometimes, though, that's par for the course.

Is it better, worse or equivalent to argue for something that you know nothing about rather than against it? Regardless, the pasted article that began this thread neglected to bring up that SC was within their rights to restrict admission. The people that you are arguing with are the only ones that bothered to check the facts. Is this also "par for the course?"

I understand the subtleties of the phrasing. The intent is clear.

Pan,

Let's take a step back and examine the facts you provided that you say support your claim that a law abiding citizen may not bring a weapon to a public event. Your first link stated That's it, basically. Hardly a reference.

I spent a considerable amount of time with your second link. I now know more about how the City of Columbus treats "block parties" than I ever wanted to. I saw nothing pertaining to handguns.

Your third link was equally vague. They use the term "nuisance" to refer to abandoned, dilapidated real estate. I'm not seeing the connection you hope to establish.

As far as I can tell, you've provided no supporting documentation. Please stop referencing your links, they add nothing. Feel free to quote specific paragraphs I might have missed, as I said, it was very long and involved and it's not unlikely I missed what you wanted me to see.

I feel like i'm taking crazy pills.

I didn't say anyone - especially not anyone in particular - was ignorant.

btw- it IS a rule that if you're going to directly quote something, don't just link to it, but copy and paste into the post. Some people don't like blindly clicking links...

After sifting through links that didn't actually point to anything but the index, and finding all the info myself, I find nothing that says at all what you claim it does.

From your "block parties" section:

923.01 Definitions.
923.02 Parades.
Note the highlight, i'll come back to it.

923.99 Violations--Penalties.
Note that there is no penalty for firearms, and in no way in any of the sections i've posted (or didn't post because they were about block parties) does it even reference firearms.

Now, back to... No problem. We'll check out Chapter 2111.

Chapter 2111 PARADES, PROCESSIONS AND OTHER MOVING ASSEMBLAGES The caps is on the site.

Forgoing the others because they aren't worth reposting, but i'll link to them in a moment, i'll put up the

2111.05 Standards for issuance of permit.
Nope. No mention of firearms or anything even related to them.

You can check out these others if you feel the need, they are formality and also have no mention of anything firearm-related:

Application for permit
Traffic Control
Division of fire personnel - This has to do with staffing appropriate fire department response, should it be needed.
Notice of rejection of application for permit
Appeal procedure
Nonwaiverability
Penalty

I used your links, I went to where you sent me. There is nothing that even remotely mentions guns. I also searched the site using it's search function and found no correlation of "gun", "firearm", or even "weapon" and "parade" or "block party", which you also mentioned.

Maybe i'm missing something? If I am wrong, please remove my ignorance of this matter.

EDIT: NOTE- Just for the purpose of chronology, I started writing my post way before peetster responded in here, that is why mine is after his... it took THAT LONG to compile all of this.

If anyone knows anything about me, it is that i do NOT flame, I do NOT call people names, and I do NOT insinuate that people are stupid, "ignorant", or any other variation of sub-intelligence. If you REALLY MUST believe that's what I did, then I sincerely apologize, and I will try to make myself more clear in the future when referring to specific subject matter, and not people themselves.

I am not perfect, I am ignorant of many things in this world. That does not make me ignorant in a general sense. I was referring to the collective ignorance of the law being displayed by those who were arguing against me. That is not subtlety, it's not even clever semantics, it's plain English.

Otherwise, please kindly observe the way i've always posted and take it to heart that whatever insult you think you read in there, is simply not there.

Best regards,

-analog.

Analog, appology accepted, like I said I do have a lot of respect for you, we may not always agree but you are pretty level headed and can keep things from getting to heated.

It's just I truly don't understand why questions I ask get ignored while others continue to rant and pick apart everything I say (even if proof is provided) yet provide no proof themselves.

Plus, everyone refuses to answer how they would like it if someone did this to their event. It's like you are saying forget the fact that Stonewall PAID and was LIABLE for everything and had politely aske that PP respect their wishes, as the cause was to solely promote acceptance and education of homosexual lifestyle.

PP's totally ignored them, totally knew their showing would lead to a scene and instead of having the cause that Stonewall worked hard and paid a lot of money to promote, a whole different cause was highlighted and now, Stonewall is being called the badguy here for defending their rights.

Perhaps, I am too close to this. (I am not gay, my homophobic nature shows) I have very close friends affected by this and it truly has hurt community relations in Cols.

Like I said I am heated about this because I provide facts (Peetster your were right about the nuisance I posted the wrong link and appologize.)

Here is the Code and link I meant to post.

2317.12 Disturbing a lawful meeting.
(A) No person, with purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, shall do either of the following:
(1) Do any act which obstructs or interferes with the due conduct of such meeting, procession, or gathering;
(2) Make any utterance, gesture, or display which outrages the sensibilities of the group.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disturbing a lawful meeting, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. (ORC 2917.12; Ord. 2535-94.)

#2 is the one that is the ticket.

Link: http://www.ordlink.com/codes/columbus/index.htm

I just don't understand how infringing on the rights of Stonewall is OK, yet taking away guns and trying to keep the focus on the issue paid Stonewall paid for is wrong and making victims out of people who chose to go for the purpose of disrupting and creating problems.

I understand the gun issue and if PP wants to hold a parade or event let them pay for their own event. I just don't see how their disrupting and intrusive behaviors are ok, when if it had happened to the PP's, you all would be charged about how people unwantingly disrupted the PP's legal event.

There are 2 sides and the PP side in this was wrong. That is not to say PP is wrong in their beliefs, they were wrong for violating the rights of others, and taking advantage of other people's expenses to promote themselves. It's that simple.

(Again I will research, but believe it is illegal in Ohio to have weapons at a public demonstration, block party, parade etc.) I will admit if I am wrong, and will post the law if I find it online or will post how to reference it if I can't post the law itself.

Well, does the person who organized the event really speak for "the sensibilities of the group" as a whole, without a vote or some other democratic show of approval? Is this person the Gay Dictator of Ohio? Technically, without the guns, they'd have been let in, so they WOULD BE part of "the group". The only reference that somehow indicates the "will of the people" is this, from the original article...

That was Kate Anderson, Executive Director, and some people. That could be 3 people, maybe 10 people. How many hundreds (or thousands, i don't know) of people marched in the parade? Does that "Stonewall Columbus contingent" really speak for ALL of them without first asking them?

Also, it says "sensibilities"... this is not a "gays who are anti-gun" parade, and these gun-lovin' people are trying to oppose them, it is a parade designed to educate people and promote acceptance and tolerance. How the hell can you say you teach those messages while telling part of the people you represent (gays, lesbians, etc.) to collectively and immediately fuck off?

The links I provided were explained in the post.

The booklet that is not available online (so I linked how to get it) that explains all the fees and what hoops Stonewall had to go through.

The second I stated was to show the definition of a parade as a block party.

The third which I corrected is to show how, when having a public event (lawful meeting) the PP's could be charged with criminal trespess, as PP was asked not to come and make a statement and they did it violates "2317.12 Disturbing a lawful meeting.
(A) No person, with purpose to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession, or gathering, shall do either of the following:
(1) Do any act which obstructs or interferes with the due conduct of such meeting, procession, or gathering;
(2) Make any utterance, gesture, or display which outrages the sensibilities of the group.
(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disturbing a lawful meeting, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. (ORC 2917.12; Ord. 2535-94.)
#2.

By them being asked NOT to come and make a statement, that meant they made "any utterance, gesture, or display which outrages the sensibilities of the group" when the did appear, which is illegal and an infringement upon the rights of Stonewall.

I did not say that any of those links had to do with guns specifically, again, Because of Kent State in 1970 I believe in Ohio there is a law preventing guns at a demonstration, parade or gathering unless registered. I am researching and as I posted I will admit if I am wrong or I will post the law I am thinking of that supports my claim. (Again thatlaw may have also been repealed and since I am basically neutral on guns I didn't pay attention. But even then I will post any finding.

It does give Stonewall the right because they are liable and held responsible. If people did not agree with Stonewall they did not have to be there. Stonewall did not hold a gun to gay people's heads (no pun intended) to show up.

Again PP was well withing their rights to petition and pay for their OWN event and not violate another's rights.

If Stonewall find it offensive and has made it public then PP's were there to disrupt and take advantage of Stonewall's expenses.

Analog, again I ask how would YOU react if someone had done this to you and your event? You or any one of the supporters on your side have yet to answer that.

You keep shoving PP's rights down our throat but you totally ignore Stonewall's rights. Why is that? Does Stonewall have no rights unless they conform to what YOU believe?

Do you truly believe if it had been Gays for unicyclists rights instead of PP you'd be arguing how they had the right to violate Stonewall's rights?

I seriously doubt it. But because this has to do with guns and people are fanatical on both sides, and Stonewall did not want to take focus off their cause chose to politely ask PP not to come, it has become a big 2nd Amendment issue.

When it isn't about guns it is about one group (PP) violating and taking advantage of another group (Stonewall).

To use the example that Stonewall was excluding a portion of their "constituency", while fair, it could be argued that by having PP there (which is in many in the community's eyes a "militant group") is a slap in the face to those gays who don't want to be associated with them.

Stonewall took a stance, why can you not honor that stance?

Why must it be your way?

Why must you attack Stonewall's stance when PP could have their own event?

Again the question I posed (in previous posts) goes unanswered.

Pan, I advise you to stop your reckless behavior. Stay on topic. You are all over the page and your insulting comments will not go unwarned. Consider this free guidance. The next time you hear from me it will be via PM and contain the term [Official Warning] in the title.

They didn't say "fuck off"....they said "please don't bring guns." For some reason, possibly as an attention getting stunt that appears to be working, the PPs brought guns anyway.

Point of order and an FYI,

Saying someone is "ignorant" is the same as saying they "don't know", because that's what "ignorant" means.

In otherwords, it's not the same as "stupid".

So there are many things I am "ignorant" of.

Playing the piano, for example.

We all take indirect swipes occasionally, and I'm sure it was all done well within the regs of the forum. My comments were simply a way of reminding a mod that his passions were inflamed :)

Ok.
Let's be clear here.
It was the SC contingent ( about 30-40 people ) who were being threatening. Waving a club in someones face and threatening to ( Illegally! ) confiscate their property is not exactly "Peaceful." Attempting to confiscate private property, in such a case, could be classed as Extortion or, in the case of the club-waver, Armed Robbery. Let's be clear who's simply "Insensitive" and who's a CRIMINAL.
The PPs were escorted from the rally by Columbus Police FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. That is, in order to keep from being ASSAULTED. Most of the PPs were carrying their weapons unloaded, and would have had no way to defend themselves from this crowd of bigots.
Additionally, according to two seperate lawyers retained by Pink Pisols and the Citizens Committee, not to mention the Columbus Police, the PPs were within their rights. SC WAS NOT. It was a public even, on public land.

I may be misreading, but what I've gathered is Stonewall didn't want the PP to bring guns to the event. As the "creator" of said event, he has the right to either approve or deny guns being brought to it. He didn't ask them not to come, he asked them not to bring guns. You could argue that the PP just attending without guns could draw attention from the intended cause, but I'm not seeing where they were denied attendance. "Don't bring guns to this event." Seems like a reasonable request to me.

Businesses on private property have the right to deny guns on the premises. This event didn't happen on private property, per-se, but when Stonewall was the overseer of the event, organized it, payed for it, planned it - he was granted certain privelages, one of those being the right to have or not have guns permitted at the event. He chose to *not* have guns allowed. If one or two random people had firearms, alright...no big deal. Tell them they can't bring guns into it. Tell them to come back after they've put the guns away. But when an organization who advocates firearms shows up, ESPECIALLY when *they* were asked not to bring guns(surely Stonewall knew it would steal thunder from the true cause of the event), thats just blatantly trying to get people riled up for THEIR cause.

The article that I linked to stated that the Columbus City Prosecutors Office agreed that as the event organizers, SC had the right to refuse entry to anyone with firearms and that the police asked the PPs to leave (after consulting with city hall) because of their insistence on carrying their guns. If you have some news source that disputes this sequence of events, please reference it.

Sounds to me that the parade organizers were more concerned with the pragmatics of introducing firearms into an event that already inspires high emotion and hate than denying the 2nd amendment rights of their brethren. I assume the parade was organized with the cooperation of the city and police therefore there is no valid reason the members needed to be armed. Of course the "Pink Pistols" should be represented in the parade and they have the right to show their affiliation with firearms, but, in this situation, it's better done with a banner than a rifle.

What you can do is accept my apology, refuse it, or ignore it, but what you cannot reasonably do is use it to attack me with your own "subtlety". Really though, your words are about as subtle as a slap in the face.

There are very few things that will get me "inflamed", and I assure you that the stuff in this thread is not on that very short list.

My apologies to the others on the thread for leaving in the middle of debate, but I withdraw from this discussion.

No, we don't.

No, it's not.

Please be respectful of your fellow boarders.

This has become a non-discussion. The alleged regs don't exist. This, at best, has become an argument over symantics. PM me if you think otherwise.