People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, says and does a lot of silly things. For example, they’ve tried to get people to start calling fish “sea kittens” in hopes that changing the name will keep us from eating them.

And for most of the gun-owning community, they’re typically a pain in the butt. After all, their anti-hunting activism has been problematic at a minimum.

However, when an animal shelter decided to screen applicants for their views on gun control, it seems PETA was in line with Second Amendment advocates in being unamused.

No, seriously.

The animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) announced it opposes a California animal shelter’s decision not to provide animals to those who believe the Second Amendment allows them to buy assault-style weapons.

Shelter Hope Pet Shop in Thousand Oaks, Calif., posted a statement on its website that the shelter has added a question asking how potential adopters feel about gun control to decide if they can adopt a pet.

…

PETA representative Catie Cryar said in a statement to The Hill that providing homeless animals with safe and caring homes should be prioritized.

“We have known this adoption group to do good work and are sure they have the best intentions, but from PETA’s perspective, because there is a homeless animal crisis, what counts is that adopted animals are treated well and cared for and that is the criteria we feel is important,” Cryar said.

I–and I don’t believe I’m about to type this–agree with PETA.

These are animals in need of a loving home, and that can come from people of any political persuasion. PETA is right that providing such a home to these animals is literally all that should matter.

Maybe I’m a touch sensitive right now. My family lost one of our beloved pets this past weekend and we’re still torn up over it, so the idea that we should be considered such a loving home because of my position on the Second Amendment is beyond infuriating.

So imagine how it feels to actually be on the same side as PETA for once.

The shelter owner, actress Kim Sill, may think she’s doing the right thing, but as someone who also claims to care about animals, why would she allow her personal politics to get in the way of doing what’s best for those poor animals?

A lot of people are like me, advocates for protecting ourselves from two-legged animals, but big softies when it comes to the furry four-legged variety.

Now, granted, I don’t think anyone who supports gun rights should want anything to do with Sill or her shelter if at all possible, nor should they want anything to do with PETA.

However, they say politics makes strange bedfellows, so I suppose no one should be surprised to find PETA and Second Amendment advocates on the same side of this particular issue.

I just don’t think anyone can be anything other than surprised if it happens again.