Second Amendment

Young Americans Behind Gay Marriage Successes, Faltering Gun Restrictions


Reason 24/7

Pundits find themselves befuddled. In an era of supposed progressive triumph, marijuana legalization enjoys majority support and gay and lesbian couples are gaining the same rights as straight couples to glare at each other across the breakfast table comfortable in the knowledge that their uneasy detente enjoys the protection of the law. So how is it that proposals for draconian gun restrictions are stalled at the federal level and some states are even loosening firearms restrictions?

Won't you think of the children?

Actually, won't you think of the intriguing fact that younger Americans tend to support both gay marriage and gun rights? The future may well be full of very domestic and rather well-armed same-sex couples. In an article that plays with several reasons why policy is moving so quickly in one direction on gay marriage, but unpredictably if at all on gun control. National Journal's Jill Lawrence rejects the president's fulminating as "marginal at best" and points out that NRA clout is more of a result of larger cultural factors than a determining factor itself. At least one important factor driving policy change and the lack thereof is the preferences of the up and coming generation.

From National Journal:

Demographics offers one answer. Acceptance of gay marriage in the political world is being driven in part by polling that shows overwhelming support for it among young people. By contrast, at least two polls this spring show there is no corresponding generation gap on guns.

People aged 18 to 34 are slightly more supportive of universal background checks than older people and a bit less supportive of limits on the size of ammunition magazines, according to a new Quinnipiac poll. Those aged 18 to 39 are more likely to oppose a ban on assault weapons, a Washington Post/ABC poll found. However, both polls found the younger groups back the general idea of new restrictions on guns and most specific proposals at about the same level as the rest of the country.

Reason's own polling has found similar results. For instance, in September 2012, A Reason-Rupe poll found that 59 percent of respondents aged 18-29 favored legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use, while a post-Newtown January 2013 Reason-Rupe poll found that 63 percent of respondents aged 18-34 agreed that Americans should continue to be able to own "assault weapons." In fact, only the over-55 contingent in the second poll supported an "assault weapon" ban (that same poll found that people have no consistent idea of what an assault weapon is, by the way).

At least in terms of social issues, younger Americans seem to favor, to a greater extent than their elders, tolerance and expanded personal freedom. That preference prevails without regard for whether that stance on any given issue is Team Red, Team Blue, or something else entirely.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Egypt Suspends Tourist Flights from Iran

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


  2. This is pretty weak tea 2chili but I guess it will have to do for now!

    Couldn’t you do something Thatcher related?

    1. Wait, Margaret Thatcher died? Why hasn’t H&R informed me!

      1. it got lost in all the mosque coverage.

    2. Was she a gun-wielding lesbian?

      1. Now that’s a movie I’d pay to see.

        1. You missed Django Unchained”?

          1. I thought that was about a gun wielding gay black cowboy in love with a preening house slave played by RuPaul.

    3. Gay guns married by Margaret Thatcher. Review of ceremony by Roger Ebert.

      1. It’s Adam and Eve, not Heckler and Koch!

        1. …not Heckler and Koch!


          Which Koch brother is he?

          1. The dangerous one.

            1. I thought Heckler was all talk?

              1. He really knows how to put the bullets in the clip, if you know what I mean.

      2. Gay guns married by Margaret Thatcher. Review of ceremony by Roger Ebert.

        Incoherent political commentary by Bill Maher.

  3. but… but…

    Proglodytes assure me that a vast majority of Americans favor strict gun control, and that only a few Tea Bagging NRA Rethuglican obstructionists oppose any “sensible” gun legislation.

    1. My favorite left wing meme: There are ‘only’ 4 million NRA members.

      Yeah, and the NRA has a 42% approval rating with a 30% disapproval rating. They’re far more popular than Barack Obama, who liberals have assured me has a popular mandate.

    2. That’s true. CBS Newsradio New York was going on and on this morning about how 92% of Americans supposedly support background checks and how Obama was going to be wrapping himself — oops, I’m sorry, I mean “appearing” — yet again with the Newtown families to “keep the pressure on” Congress to “do something.”

    3. There is a huge divide on guns between Dems in the dark blue states and Dems in the flyover states. Do they really think that Tester and Baucus (MT) are going to vote in favor of gun control?

      This is a loser all the way around.

    4. Back in December there was a clear majority for “Something” re: guns. Meaning, there was a window in which there were clear signals that there was a willingness to support ‘safety’ efforts.

      The problem is that when it comes to the actual proposals that the Admin has backed, over the last 3 months everyone (left and right) has become more lukewarm about the issue, realizing how useless and pathetic most efforts would be.

      Even “universal background checks” is becoming less attractive to some as they realize a) we already have a system of background checks, and b) said checks were simply a facade to establish a National Firearms Registry… which few truly think is either practical or desirable.

      (well, some think its a wonderful idea… its just that if they understand the practical application of said Registry, they eventually realize that its a mother of a beast of a nightmare of a joke that will never actually work)

  4. Big Bill Clinton tried to warn them off this, but it’s liberal crack

  5. Shoot a few, knock ’em down, cost you half a buck now
    Guns, guns, guns
    Babe give you kisses if you hit a rubber duck now
    Guns, guns, guns


    Now that woman is the face of evil. Damn.

    1. Can you imagine her giving a crying child a comforting hug?

      I can’t.

      1. Makes me almost feel sorry for the idiot son. Almost.

        1. My attitude precisely.

          The former heir apparent, the guy who got busted for sneaking into Disneyland, seems to have completely walked away from the ruling oligarchy. Would that the other Kims do the same.

    2. I don’t know? She looks a little bit like the woman my wife shovels money at for pedicures!

      ……I’m off to “Linda Nail”!

    3. Of course it’s a woman who’s really pulling the strings behind the scenes. It all makes sense now…

      1. Also, she kind of looks like a Koren Frau Farbissina.

        1. *Korean


    4. According to The Telegraph however, their main role is to help defend the dynasty by pushing the young leader’s image as a powerful military figure. There are apparently concerns he is not trusted by some of his generals.

      If the generals had any sense, his recent behavior would be making their days of not trusting him come to a middle.

  7. “The future may well be full of very domestic and rather well-armed same-sex couples.”

    Tony prefers them imported (something about advanced Euro culture) and doesn’t think there is any reason to have more than one arm.

  8. younger Americans seem to favor, to a greater extent than their elders, tolerance and expanded personal freedom.

    if this is, in fact, true and not some outlier poll result, then it is a good sign. Of course, young folks have historically supported personal freedoms they later decide were not such great ideas – like drug legalization and guns – so we’ll see if this pattern holds.

    1. Young people are liberal until they have kids. Then they think about all the stuff they did and then they say “oh shit”.

      1. Young people can be “libertine” until they have kids. There is a difference.

        1. But a lot of “self-sufficient” young wome become raging liberals when they have a kid or two to take care of.

        2. I think it works both ways. Even if they are not themselves into being libertine, young people will be more apt to take a live and let live attitude about drugs, sex, etc. But when they have kids, they want the rest of the world to do their job for them.

  9. These numbers only mean something put into context. Life is about priorities. So what if they support gun rights. How high is the issue on their priority list? Will the vote based on the issue? If not, who cares?

    1. It might hold some credibility as a proxy for other issues, but I think you’re right. My generation might not be as namby-pamby about gun ownership as the democrats we vote for, but we’ll shelve those feelings when something like nationalized healthcare is on the plate.

      Myself excluded, of course…

      1. Their support for gun rights doesn’t mean much if they are willing to trade it for free shit.

      2. A lot of democrats are good on gun rights too. Just not the ones from big cities. And a good thing too. Otherwise we’d be hearing about how the evil republican house won’t pass common sense assault weapons bans that the enlightened senate passed. Instead people have to come to terms with the fact that federal level gun restrictions are political suicide.

        1. A lot of democrats are good on gun rights too

          the Team advocates love to ignore than Harry Reid had more to do with killing DiFi’s bill than any Repub. Harry freakin’ Reid.

          1. One reason it’s probably a good thing he didn’t lose his seat in the 2010 GOP stomp. If he had we’d have Durbin or Schumer as Majority Leader.

  10. People aged 18 to 34 are slightly more supportive of universal background checks than older people

    That is a very telling statement. It demonstrates that young people don’t understand what universal background checks entail, nor do they understand history.

    1. It is just a buzz word. It sounds good so people support it.

      1. The “universal” background check is nothing but a bill of attainder.

        Barry touts that background checks have kept 2 million guns out of “dangerous hands.” My question would be, if these people are so dangerous, why are they allowed to walk the streets?

        1. Exactly. If we know they are a threat? Would the village idiot feel better if they killed people with knives?

        2. My question would be, if these people are so dangerous, why are they allowed to walk the streets?

          The people only become dangerous when they have a gun in hand. Remember, it’s the guns that kill people.

        3. How do UBCs qualify as a bill of attainder?

          1. In English common law, it qualifies as it nullifies the rights of specific parties. Under the Nixon test, which is the prevailing American analysis, a law is a bill of attainder if it involves a legislative act; against a particular or easily defined group; a punishment; and the lack of a judicial trial.

            We have at least two legislative acts (Gun Control Act of 1968; Brady Handgun Act of 1993); a group (ex-felons, fugitives, people convicted of drug possession, committed to a mental institution, illegal aliens); a punishment (having one’s right to self-defense nullified); and the lack of a trial (you receive no hearing as to whether or not you are “dangerous” or if you intend to commit any crime).

      2. I actually reduced a proglodyte to spittle-flecked ranting this past weekend when I asked her why she steadfastly opposed voter ID laws but saw nothing wrong with gun background checks.

    2. Ya that. I’d actually be OK with universal background checks if you could show me a system that wasn’t just step 1 of a “register and confiscate” plan. I’m not sure that is really possible though. (I’m old though, so I’m not claiming to represent the youngins).

      1. That’s all it is. All it accomplishes is the government knowing where all of the guns belonging to law abiding citizens are.

        And there’s only one thing you can do with that information.

        1. …I think also there is some reticence to going Full Retard with a program that Canadians tried at 1/100th scale… and which not only failed miserably, but cost many many billions more than expected, and cost a number of politicians their careers.

          I think some of the Dems are realizing Obamacare is a shitshow, and are scared of doubling down on a policy that will blow up in their faces even harder.

      2. 1. Establish a database of all prohibited persons.

        2. At transfer, FFL enters partial buyer information; not enough to identify a specific person, but enough to narrow down to 10 prohibited persons or less.

        3. FFL electronically receives list of prohibited persons matching the partial information (s)he submitted.

        4. FFL refuses sale if and only if the buyer is on the list received.

        1. At transfer, FFL enters partial buyer information; not enough to identify a specific person

          This is much harder to do than you think. For example, just 5-digit-zip, gender, birthdate is enough information to uniquely identify a person 87% of the time:



    A group of gay men in Boston decide to act like normal guys. Gay community outraged.

    Eli Fox, a commenter from New Orleans, captured the general complaint of those who took issue with Deluca’s treating the gay “stereotype” like an unwanted cardboard box: “This is such bullshit and just perpetuates the idea that femininity is fake or that people put it on [?] He makes it sound like masculine gay guys are somehow OPPRESSED. No, they’re the most desired, because masculine traits are prized in the gay male community just like practically every other social group [?] Masc guys aren’t the ones who need to spend time promoting some agenda of masculinity and “regular guy” culture crap. Society has already done that for them.”

    1. so gay guys who like guy stuff are like to the activist bunch what women who like men are to feminists? Good lord; first the griefers’ thongs knot up over stereotypes, then they do so because someone bucks the stereotype.

      1. But remember, they are all about everyone being free to live how they want.

        1. you are free to do it “our” way.

        2. Depends on who the 2nd ‘they’ in that statement refers to.


      1. But it’s a story by a gay guy complaining about how other gay guys are not acting gay properly and that’s supposedly proof that all gays are the same.

        1. No. That is supposed to be proof that Slate is retarded.

          1. You linked a story about one gay type complaining about another gay type and then you and wareagle seemed to decide that all gays were the same.

            1. No. He said the ones complaining about this were conformist assholes, which they are.

              1. I skimmed the article, and I didn’t gather the author was panning the Gaybros. He was pointing out others did, and were not as comfortable with the type. It was hard to tell how much he shared this distaste with their “failure to opt into queeny gay culture”

                FWIW, in NYC my ex-gf worked for a large pro-gay-rights PR firm (they worked in turn for GMHC, one of the larger, older pro-homo groups) All her colleagues were gay dudes, mostly couple years out of top-10 universities. We had drinks together often. I’d say 30-40% were ‘Gaybros’ before it was cool. As in = They wore baseball hats, flannel, played rugby, hated show tunes and house music, and were proud to distinguish themselves from, “queeny fags”. They thought that “Gay” was just about fucking and had nothing to do with being a prancing waifish fashion designer with a limp wrist and who only drinks cosmos.

                It should be noted, another 30% of that group were in fact ‘queeny fags’. They all got along OK, but they both admitted they didn’t date each other much. They stayed in their respective camps as it were.

            2. Why haven’t you made a crude pissy insinuation that the people arguing against you are engaged in homozexual coitus Sparky? You know you want to.

    3. Likely anticipating this kind of push-back, Buzzfeed had asked Deluca to respond to charges of “shaming effeminate gays.” “The most simple way I can explain it,” Deluca replied, “is that we care about interests and character, not mannerisms. Everyone is welcome to come to Gaybros to shoot the shit, grab a beer at a Gaybros meet up, and participate in the different activities and events we schedule.”

      Shorter version: “People should be free to do what they want! Unless it’s something I don’t like!”

      Is there some guidebook to homosexuality? Does a person have to be “fairy” in order to be a proper gay man? Can’t a man just be a man who happens to like poking other men in the butt?

      1. Apparently not.

      2. Tulpa’s Rule of Bum #3:

        No one is as conformist as a deviant.

        1. This is an attempt to fly beneath the gaydar….I disapprove.

      3. …”But before the Gaybros can grow into a full-blown movement, they have some criticisms to contend with: that they are young (or newly out) and are therefore somewhat na?ve or uninformed about the gay culture they don’t identify with”…”

        i.e. They need to tow the lion

        I think the author makes the mistake of treating these guys like they’re some kind of new phenomenon. Bullshit. This has been going on forever. How about the whole “Down Low” culture among gay blacks? They’re not just “guys” = they’re fucking *thug*.

        How about gay guys like W.S.Burroughs, who despised *fags* and *queens*, and strongly identified with a more classic ‘queer’, where ones masculinity isn’t sacrificed.

        Gays want to protect their scene, and these ‘non-participants’ fuck up their self-perceptions. So they accuse them of being ‘repressed’ for failing to reject their ‘masculine’ traits.

        Cosmotarians, in other words.

  12. In fact, only the over-55 contingent in the second poll supported an “assault weapon” ban

    Maybe we should rename them the Busiest Generation and the Busybody Boomers.

    1. When they aren’t feeding at the Golden Corral, they’re writing impassioned pleas for their government to “do something.”

  13. The future may well be full of very domestic and rather well-armed same-sex couples.

    I’m picturing a bunch of pissy temperamental queens having spats with their equally pissy temperamental queen spouses, and they’re armed with guns. That’s not going to end well. /sarc

    1. Actually, that should be a video game.

      1. Maybe in the next GTA installment the main protaganist will be a really, really flaming, effinite fag (since those are apparently the only real gays).

  14. Now there is a dude that knows whats going on. Wow.

  15. “So how is it that proposals for draconian gun restrictions are stalled at the federal level and some states are even loosening firearms restrictions?”

    Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Obama, Feinstein and the rest of the statist gun control gang don’t have any facts or logic at all to support their position and therefore are relying entirely on emotional bullshit, sanctimoniousness and flat out lying throught their teeth (as in Obama claiming Lanza’s weapon was a “machine gun”) about the whole thing.

  16. B,b,b but this doesn’t jive with the generational warfare line certain people around are so insistent on driving home!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.