• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

A New State

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

I_Hate_Illinois,

1. Yes, I believe I do. And if you are not aware that most gun-owners are quite liberal on other issues (besides guns) -- which makes them not my choice for living amongst even in a "A NewState" -- then maybe you are the ignorant one? I used to think most gun-owners were conservatives and shared a real conservative's platform of core beliefs...they aren't and they don't. They're mostly liberals-libertarians or libertarian-liberals...I don't know which. But at least nowYOU are aware of this phenomenon.

2. By "US" I meant gun-owners such as yours truly and people who share my values (a small minority). By"YOU" I meant most gun-owners (the majority of them). I included you in the "great majority" because I truly doubt we'd agree on those social/moral/political/cultural issues which separate the men from the boys, if you will.

Given the rampant moral decay of this country, I don't see any way to fix it (work within the system) because there is no solid foundation anymore to build on, so seceding from the Union to "start over" seems a viable option...but my idea of a "New State" would be different than most people here. I think this country CAN be fixed, if people really wanted to do that (but not enough do), but itcan't be done via the democratic process.

-- John D.
 

kmcdowel

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
253
Location
Marquette, Michigan, USA
imported post

cloudcroft wrote:
1. Yes, I believe I do. And if you are not aware that most gun-owners are quite liberal on other issues (besides guns).
...I was not aware of this.
I truly doubt we'd agree on those social/moral/political/cultural issues which separate the men from the boys, if you will
...so because you are pro choice, or pro "civil union," you are a man and I am a boy? Please elaborate.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

Again, you have it wrong. It's actually just the opposite: Most gun-owners support those twoitems you named, not I. For example, don't say anything negative about the Pink Pistols, Log Cabin Republicans, etc...most gun-ownerswill be all over you for being a homophobe bigot. And certainly don't ever talk about race and crime statistics...then you're certainly a racist. In short, they're very much PC in other issues and the truth is avoided, even censored.

You reallyDO need to get up to speed on this...

But enough said from me because I don't "debate" in forums anymore. I just put in my opinion (as alien as it is) like everyone else and won't get into arguing about it. Besides, what is said here in this forum or any other forum of any topic matter changes nothing anyway...much like all the gun-issue polls people feel the need to take part in...it doesn't mean anything but I guess it makes people feel good to "vote" anyway, as if it really matters. It doesn't.

Regards,

-- John D.
 

kmcdowel

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
253
Location
Marquette, Michigan, USA
imported post

cloudcroft wrote:
You reallyDO need to get up to speed on this...

...I'm trying, but what you are saying is truly news to me. Please clarify for me. In your opinion, are you saying that: Most gun owners are pro-choice and pro-civil union and ignore the high correlation with race and crime rates, but you are the opposite?

-Thanks, -Kevin
 

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
imported post

kmcdowel wrote:
cloudcroft wrote:
You really DO need to get up to speed on this...
 

...I'm trying, but what you are saying is truly news to me. Please clarify for me. In your opinion, are you saying that: Most gun owners are pro-choice and pro-civil union and ignore the high correlation with race and crime rates, but you are the opposite?

-Thanks, -Kevin

I think he is definitely right if he is saying there are a large segment of gun owners who believe in liberty and equal rights for everyone. not just for rich white straight gun owners.
The bigots and hate mongers are slowly dieing off as a this other group of people who actually live amongst different races, ethnicities, religions, and sexual orientations become gun owners. I have high hopes for this up and coming group to spread the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just the people who share the same religion, or skin color, or sexual orientation. The love of guns is not what brings this group together, it is the intelligence to determine that free men should have actual freedom, freedom to protect ourselves, to speak our minds, and to live our lives as we see fit.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

cloudcroft wrote:
Again, you have it wrong. It's actually just the opposite: Most gun-owners support those twoitems you named, not I. For example, don't say anything negative about the Pink Pistols, Log Cabin Republicans, etc...most gun-ownerswill be all over you for being a homophobe bigot. And certainly don't ever talk about race and crime statistics...then you're certainly a racist. In short, they're very much PC in other issues and the truth is avoided, even censored.

You reallyDO need to get up to speed on this...

But enough said from me because I don't "debate" in forums anymore. I just put in my opinion (as alien as it is) like everyone else and won't get into arguing about it. Besides, what is said here in this forum or any other forum of any topic matter changes nothing anyway...much like all the gun-issue polls people feel the need to take part in...it doesn't mean anything but I guess it makes people feel good to "vote" anyway, as if it really matters. It doesn't.

Regards,

-- John D.

That's funny, I always thought of myself as a classical liberal, or a right-libertarian, sometimes even a "conservative". I guess if being a conservative means I have to embrace bigotry and using coercion to force my idea of morality on other people, I have no problem with you calling a me a "liberal". Besides, Ludwig von Mises called himself a liberal, using it in the original 19th century context, so I have no problem re-hijacking the word from the socialists (who, like your type of "conservative", want to use coercion to force their ideas of morailty on people).

Too bad the world doesn't fit your defintion of ideal, John D., but I for one don't miss the days of treating people different under the law because they have different lifestyles or ancestry, so long as they leave me alone I'm content to return the favor. Squirt some if that upsets you.
azcrying.gif
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

Yes, it definitely is too bad.

But thanks for being a good example of the problem.

-- John D.

EDIT: I firmly believe and have often posted that I never hold two things against anyone:Race and gender.No one can control what race or gender they are born into,so why should that be held against them?So you misrepresent my position. But from that point on, I sure do, and anything IDO hold against someone (including myself) -- or a group of people acting similarly -- isall based on behavior. That surely IS within someone's control.
 

kmcdowel

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
253
Location
Marquette, Michigan, USA
imported post

Yeah, I think I see what you mean John. I'm guessing I'm on the same side of the fence as you when it comes tosocial/moral/political/cultural issues.
 

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
1,908
Location
El Paso, TX (formerly Colorado Springs, CO)
imported post

Please note my "EDIT" remarks in my last post.

I told you that lots of "gun-owners" will be on the other side (the enemy) in Culture War I or Civil War II.

Guns are just tools. Ideas and beliefs, which result in behavior, arewhat is really important. And most important is one's faith....or lack of same.

-- John D.
 

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
imported post

cloudcroft wrote:
Yes, it definitely is too bad.

But thanks for being a good example of the problem.

-- John D.

 EDIT: I firmly believe and have often posted that I never hold two things against anyone: Race and gender. No one can control what race or gender they are born into, so why should that be held against them? So you misrepresent my position. But from that point on, I sure do, and anything I DO hold against someone (including myself) -- or a group of people acting similarly -- is all based on behavior. That surely IS within someone's control.

So if it was proved that being homosexual was from birth and not a choice of the person, you would be fine with gays and homosexual marriage?
 

kmcdowel

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
253
Location
Marquette, Michigan, USA
imported post

mkl wrote:
So if it was proved that being homosexual was from birth and not a choice of the person, you would be fine with gays and homosexual marriage?
...is this getting OT??

Let's try a for instance, just for fun.:celebrate I just ate 1/2 of a pizza and am pretty full, but there are still 1 and 1/2 more pizza's left that ICOULD eat. Just because I could eat it doesn't make me a glutton. When I act on my desire, I become a glutton. Some people may argue this 'for instance' could apply to homosexuality. Just because you are born with certain desires, doesn't mean you must act on them.

Another analogy. Some adults are truly attracted to children, and it could easily be argued that this attraction is biological, just like an attraction to a man or women. Because one is born a pedophile, does that make his behavior permissible?
 

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
imported post

kmcdowel wrote:
mkl wrote:
So if it was proved that being homosexual was from birth and not a choice of the person, you would be fine with gays and homosexual marriage?
...is this getting OT??

Let's try a for instance, just for fun.:celebrate     I just ate 1/2 of a pizza and am pretty full, but there are still 1 and 1/2 more pizza's left that I COULD eat. Just because I could eat it doesn't make me a glutton. When I act on my desire, I become a glutton. Some people may argue this 'for instance' could apply to homosexuality. Just because you are born with certain desires, doesn't mean you must act on them.

Another analogy. Some adults are truly attracted to children, and it could easily be argued that this attraction is biological, just like an attraction to a man or women. Because one is born a pedophile, does that make his behavior permissible?

Your analogies are horrible. Children don't have the ability to consent, so that activity is not valid.

We are talking about 2 consenting adults.

And as for your first one that is just laughable. Are you saying that you have sexual desires for men (like you want more pizza) but you don't act on them because that would be wrong?
Wow. Just Wow.

How about this, I think a better analogy would be like if you were born with a craving for beef. But instead you only ate lettuce, because thats what society said was right. But eating beef doesn't hurt anyone else, and it is what you desire.
Is it wrong to eat beef?

Once people stop judging people as groups, and start treating them like individuals, the world will be a better place.
 

kmcdowel

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
253
Location
Marquette, Michigan, USA
imported post

mkl wrote:
How about this, I think a better analogy would be like if you were born with a craving for beef. But instead you only ate lettuce, because thats what society said was right. But eating beef doesn't hurt anyone else, and it is what you desire.
Is it wrong to eat beef?
I dont want my kids to see other people masticating beef:what::what:
 

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

Being a Christian, I believe both homosexuality and hatred of homosexuals are wrong. Bigotry is sinful, since it constitutes violation of the second great commandment. Homosexual acts are also sinful, just like adultery and fornication.

Being an American, I believe in freedom of religion and fully support the freedom of anyone to believe and worship who, what or how they may. I accept that others may not see either homosexuality or bigotry as immoral, so I oppose any effort to suppress homosexuals or bigots.

Being a Gun Owner, I believe that everyone, including homosexuals and bigots, have the right to be armed in order to defend their natural right to believe and act as they wish, as long as it harms no one.

If this makes me a non-conservative, I'll accept that, content that I'm in the best possible Company.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

swillden wrote:
Being a Christian, I believe both homosexuality and hatred of homosexuals are wrong. Bigotry is sinful, since it constitutes violation of the second great commandment. Homosexual acts are also sinful, just like adultery and fornication.

Being an American, I believe in freedom of religion and fully support the freedom of anyone to believe and worship who, what or how they may. I accept that others may not see either homosexuality or bigotry as immoral, so I oppose any effort to suppress homosexuals or bigots.

If this makes me a non-conservative, I'll accept that, content that I'm in the best possible Company.

And that's pretty much the attitude I think is what's best about America. You understand the key to getting people with vastly different religious beliefs and morality to live together without killing each other. No other country has ever achieved this. While Catholics and Anglicans and Lutherans and Quakers and Jews were killing each other in Europe, we colonists just agreed to disagree on religion and went about the business of building our homes and making a living. The result wasn't a "godless" nation, but rather the USA is among the most religious nations in the western world. Freedom works.

I hope any "new state", or better yet all the old ones, can remember that this is the essence of freedom.
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

cloudcroft wrote:
I firmly believe and have often posted that I never hold two things against anyone:Race and gender.No one can control what race or gender they are born into,so why should that be held against them?So you misrepresent my position. But from that point on, I sure do, and anything IDO hold against someone (including myself) -- or a group of people acting similarly -- isall based on behavior. That surely IS within someone's control.
Unless my "behavior" crosses your property line or invades your personal space (or the personal space of your family), you can mind your own business. It's called liberty and neo-cons need to come to peace with the idea.
 
Top