Right-wing troll Tomi Lahren has crawled out from under her bridge to spout more idiotic rhetoric, this time by claiming gun rights are gay rights.
Lahren made the remarks in response to the recent mass shootings in Dayton and El Paso. Following an interview with NRA social media director Billy McLaughlin, Lahren claimed that because McLaughlin is gay and supports the NRA, gun rights are synonymous with gay rights.
Related: Who invited her? Tomi Lahren defends Straight Pride in fevered rant
“You know, when I interviewed Billy McLaughlin it was actually during Pride month,” Lahren says. “He wrote an excellent article in The Washington Post talking about how gun rights are also LGBT rights and he also happens to be gay and the social media director of the NRA in his 20’s, so the NRA really does represent everybody. Gun rights really are human rights and he attests that perfectly.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Lahren has a long history of defending the NRA and of attacking the LGBTQ community. As for McLaughlin, he supports Donald Trump, claiming that Trump–whose administration is one of the most homophobic in history–is a friend to the queer community. No doubt that has something to do with his paycheck.
For that matter, logic suggests Lahren is simply grifting for pay herself and doesn’t believe any of the nonsense she spews. That, or she’s inhaled way too many fumes while bleaching her hair.
Cam
That’s the right wing’s Orwellian game. Just make something up and push it.
The Victims of Racism are the real racists. LGBTQ people are the real bullies for pointing out other people’s bigotry, and now allowing weapons of mass slaughter is somehow an LGBT rights issue.
Hussain-TheCanadian
I really dont understand how a dumb@ss like her ended up with her own TV show?
Is she saying that shes for multiculturalism now?
Wolfwalk
She’s blonde female. She’s a far right wing extremist. It’s FOX. That’s reason enough for her to have her own TV show there.
jsmu
It’s called spending your time under the boss’ desk.
happiness17
What is a Tomi Lauren? Before this article I’d never heard of this hoe.
Ms. Lauren looks like she brings in a lot of money to her pimp. She probably had to open her mouth and swallow for the higher ups to get a show. Before she spews out here hatred this woman needs to focus on not being a friken nasty bitch and a hoe!
evanxx
Tomi sweetie, did you land on your head a few times when you were a pole-dancer? You should go back to working at the strip club, so people will stop laughing at you!
bowlingbutch
I would like to know how these right wingers and Republican politicians would respond if one of their loved ones was killed during these shootings? Would they be so insistent their views are so right?
Scorpjr
Since I support our Constitution, I’m willing to work within the framework it provides. The right to keep and bear arms, provided for by the Second Amendment, was partially intended to prevent our government from disarming its citizens, which may come in handy when the masses finally realize that a relatively small number of people are controlling America’s wealth, and are mismanaging it to our detriment. The Second Amendment also requires our militia(gun owners) to be well-regulated. Since so many domestic terrorists are accessing extremely powerful rifles to commit acts of atrocity on American soil. Our militia is obviously not regulated well. My point is that we don’t need new gun control laws. Interpreting an amendment is a much easier Supreme Court argument than trying to remove one.
OzJosh
You seem to use the term “Amendment” without actually comprehending what it means. An amendment is a CHANGE to the Constitution and the very existence of amendments acknowledges that the founding fathers recognised that the Constitution was not immutable or infallible, but would always need to be changed to overcome flaws or adjust to changing circumstances. The argument that everyone should just grin and bear the existing framework of the Constitution and its Second AMENDMENT (for Christ’s sake: it’s an amendment) is beyond asinine.
Kangol2
@Scorpjr, the Second Amendment was not added “to prevent our government from disarming its citizens.” There is nothing in the Amendment or its history that bears this out. Nothing.
The US had no standing army before the country’s founding, so militias served to defend the states against foreign powers and to suppress internal uprisings, even by free white citizens (cf. Shay’s Rebellion).
Though both the North and South had slavery through the period 1776-1789, which marked the American Revolution through the founding of the country and the beginning of first presidential term of George Washington, the Southern states, which had large comparatively larger enslaved populations, employed militias to suppress slave rebellions and staff slave patrols, while also policing the movement of free Black people.
The Second Amendment was in no way intended to be used against the federal government, though Southern slaveowners rightly feared that the federal government would eventually end slavery (it did through a war, provoked by the Confederacy, in 1865). Read the original exchanges between James Madison, who wrote the Second Amendment, and Patrick Henry, who wanted to preserve militias to enforce slavery, on this subject.
And its opening words are “a well regulated militia,” underscoring that James Madison properly felt that Congress had and has the power to regulate not only militias–which we have no need of, since we have the most powerful and best funded military in the world–but guns in the hands of anyone in this country.
dwes09
Actual history proves otherwise. Insurrection and treason laws prove otherwise. The purpose of the well regulated militia for the young government with no well funded standing armed forces is quite clear.
That the second amendment was intended to allow people the option for violent overthrow of the new democracy is ridiculous: the worst of the NRA funded myths.
Freedom of the press,
Freedom of assembly,
The right to redress grievances,
The right to vote,
The forbidding of religious tests for office
The independence of the judicial branch…
These were among the things intended to preserve the young democracy, and these are specifically the things Trump, with his authoritarian bent, is slowly eroding.
Gun ownership is a modern carrot on a stick foisted on the US by at least 50 years of NRA lobbying, not the underpinning of “freedom”.
These were the things intended to preserve the rights of the people
jsmu
PTOMAINE LIARIN, the First Stage of Meth. 🙂
jsmu
Why won’t Queerty allow a meme to be posted? WTF?????
Google The Three Stages of Meth…
TheMarc
She’s just asinine. Seriously. She tries this type of false equivalency BS all the time. Gun rights are not gay (civil) rights. Gun rights are gun rights. Maybe similar to a license to drive; but not certainly equivalent to having the right to not be murdered because of who you are attracted to or how you sexually identify.
Paco
So by Miss Lahren’s logic, the NRA should be lobbying for gay rights to be enshrined in the constitution just like gun rights already are. I’m on board for that, but I highly doubt they are.
The founding fathers never envisioned firearms that could kill a large number of humans within seconds.
Aires the Ram
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290.?Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.
Josh in OR
Hooray! Another person who agrees that Americans have a right to arm themselves the moment they escape the womb! Do you also believe that we have the right to own our own personal Sherman tanks? And Howitzers? Or my personal favorite fashion accessory, the nuke? I mean, if we are to stand up to tyranny effectively, we need to be able to have legal, unregulated access to all arms that the US Army has access too, right?
No regulations, no restrictions. Guns for everyone. Semi autos for toddlers! America! Let’s hasten our extinction!
Invader7
Maybe she’ll fall into a vat of bleach and be gone !!!
djmcgamester
*rolling eyes at her* There’s always some nutjob with a crazy theory who’s given a platform to talk about it.