Here’s a story which isn’t going to go away, nor should it.

The right to arms is constitutionally guaranteed. The right to keep and bear your homosexual marriage is not. Of course, I wonder what the opinions of gay gun nuts are on the issue?

Say Uncle refers, of course, to this letter (which touches on an issue near and dear to my heart):

I am a gun owner and I live a gun owner life style.
I don’t know if I was born with a tendency to be this way, or if it was an acquired disposition. All I know is, I don’t see why I should be forced to change. Truth be known, I like owning guns, and am happy with who I am. I hope I suffer no repercussions by “coming out of the safe,” but I just can’t hide the truth any longer.
We gun owners have been living and working among you. Our kids go to school with yours. We may be your doctor, or minister, or your child’s teacher. We may even work in city administration, or the courts, or on the police force. And we are sick of being abused for simply being who we are, all because of hoplophobic prejudice and fear. We don’t see any reason why we should have to put up with it any more.
Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you.
You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.

For sending that letter, the author has been subjected to police harrassment, has been told to kill himself, and, most recently, has had the FBI sicced on him. (From Publicola via Glenn Reynolds.)
Once again, guns and gays.
To me, this is notapples and oranges.” It’s a fundamental issue of freedom, of privacy, of a right to live your life as you see fit.
If there is no right to self defense, then I submit the right to privacy is meaningless.
As I said in July, “No matter what you’re allowed do inside your home, it ain’t much of a castle if you can’t defend it!”
Some of this may have to do with the managerial class mentality (via Glenn Reynolds):

since managing a society is conceived as an intricate undertaking, naturally it is seen as requiring specialized training. That means the willing hands will be in school for awhile. The managerial class is large. It includes not just elected and appointed officialdom, but the class of civil servants and, around them, the advocacy groups and journals of opinion. The longer anyone spends in post-secondary education, particularly in the departments dedicated to training “the leaders of tomorrow” – political science, administration, education and the other humanities departments that even Chad Orzel’s letter concedes skew left politically – the more likely they are to know, like and identify with the trainees. Shared circumstance becomes shared values – that would seem to be the very meaning of class consciousness.

The managerial class tends naturally to hate guns, and tends toward communitarian thinking. Thus, they see gay rights and gun rights as distinctly different. Libertarians, on the other hand, see individual autonomy as including both. Thus, whether the issues are “apples and oranges” depend on whether one adheres to a control mindset or a freedom mindset.
I am as against gun control as I am penis control, and I see no contradiction at all, but let me take a stab at analyzing two comments, by the same source: this one

I do feel compelled to point out that it would awfully difficult for somebody to kill me with their homosexuality, so it’s not exactly a valid comparison…

and this one:

Constitutionality and current law aside, it’s very difficult to argue that homosexuality poses anywhere near the sort of public safety risk that guns potentially could. And whether or not they do a good job of it, protecting public safety is a valid function of government. That, to me, is where the comparison falls flat.

The problem with Tom’s “public safety” argument is precisely that it is a communitarian, not libertarian one. The moral conservatives use the very same argument in favor of laws restricting homosexuals that the liberal gun-grabbers against guns. Here’s a more extreme one:

The homosexual life is a violent one. Many common homosexual acts themselves do violence to the body. Beyond that, sado-masochism, the intentional infliction of pain for perverse sexual gratification, is very popular in the homosexual community. And even the homosexuals have begun to admit that there is a disproportionate amount of ?domestic violence? in their communities, violence directed inward.
Unfortunately, the homosexual community also projects violence outward, as any dispassionate study of history and current events reveals. For instance, considering the small percentage of the world?s population which claims to be homosexual at any given time, the incidence of members of that community committing rape culminating in murder is shocking!
Of course, the most famous historical example of such sodomite violence is the Genesis account of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. The ?gay? inhabitants of Sodom were determined to break down Lot?s door, rape his angelic guests, and apparently kill Lot. ?. . . Now will we deal worse with thee, than with them . . .? (Genesis 19:9). Divine intervention saved the day in that case. We in New Sodom must also pray for God?s assistance as the sodomites in our culture break down one institutional and legal door after another.
In Judges, Chapter 19, we see the sodomite Benjaminites take out their rage on a female concubine, abusing her to death, after they are denied an opportunity to sodomize a man sojourning in their land.
The ruthless and brutal Spartan Army was a sodomite army. The Spanish explorer Cortez wrote that the blood-encrusted Aztec priests who spent their days brutally murdering human sacrifices to the Aztec gods were sodomites who found time to engage in a few other pursuits such as cannibalism.
Authors Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, sourcing a vast number of historical documents and eye witness accounts, have documented what William Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, earlier confirmed–that homosexuals were at the center of Hitler?s rise to power and in many cases even served as sadistic death camp guards. By the way, one of the most well-known leaders of the American Nazi Party, Frank Collin, was a homosexual who preferred teenage boys.
Now let us further consider the connection between homosexuality and murder. I am speaking here, not of murderous heads of state and their deputies, but of individuals who personally murdered victims with their own hands. The examples given also delete the class of baby-killers known as abortionists, a disproportionate number of which are also homosexual or bisexual.

And here is a more mainstream “public health” argument:

If you accept the usual liberal public health arguments (such as applied to guns), these are all legitimate public health arguments for regulating homosexual anal sex–even if the law is overbroad, affecting the relatively small percentage of gay men who are in permanent, mutually monogamous relationships. After all, liberals don’t mind that many gun control laws are even more overbroad, impacting the vast majority of gun owners who will never misuse a gun.

As I told the above blogger when he left a comment to one of my numerous posts about homosexuality and guns,

I don’t care what liberals or conservatives mind, nor do I care how many foolish people die because of stupidity; I oppose such restrictions on personal autonomy as a threat to human freedom.

For more detail on the public health arguments against homosexuality, visit Nathan’s site and click on his numerous links. One can invoke public health or public policy arguments from now till doomsday, but if you believe in personal freedom, they should be considered no more than advice.
To those possessed of the regulatory mindset, though, they are an argument for repressive laws. The argument that “homosexuality kills” is about as logical and persuasive as the argument that “guns kill.”
Which is to say, NOT AT ALL!