Let us end the bickering

[hp-hobo]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

Anyone else find a "let us end the bickering" thread turning into a bunch of bickering to be the height of irony?

At least we are bickering about me being a queer and not stuff that matters. I would rather you all drag me out of my house and burn me t the stake than to see the 2A movement splinter into a bunch of guys yammering at each other about crap that matters even less.

Can you show us ONE place in this thread that anyone has taken issue with your sexual preference? I don't see it. Nobody cares. I only see a chip on your shoulder. if there's a problem in this thread, it's you.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

I do not have a chip on my shoulder, brother.

 

[AbNo]

imported post

Well, THIS thread went downhill fast. :uhoh:

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

There are lot's of criminals who live as free men, that makes them no less a criminal.

Damn that Rosa Parks. :quirky

 

[nitrovic]

imported post

I agree with you Alex, +1 for me. I've always been for open carry and will continue to. That is more important to me than calling out the lies and other stuff that goes on here at times.

 

[Aran]

imported post

Yiff in hell.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

AbNo wrote:

Well, THIS thread went downhill fast. :uhoh:

AbNo, the thread has been dominated for a few entries by some guy who has a problem with what I said as counsel to some kid who might have problems. I wrote what I did knowing there would be trouble, and I must say I am surprised that it is only one guy maaking a big deal out of it. I tried explaining myself and tried a little good-humored teasing. Sad to say but there are just some who cant deal with the mere mention of some things. Sorry I went of my own topic. But I have seen suicies and murders go down from attitudes such as Roos' pal displayed, so consider that our discussions here may have saved a life or two. This is entierly within the mission of this organization and site. Carrying a weapon is akin to carrying a fire extinguisher. The objective is to protect life. The response I have recieved in the attempt is much milder than what anyone who justifiably used a firearm could possibly expect. At lest if Roo's pal winds up going off the deep end in a homo "panic" and kills somebody, I can sleep easy knowing I did my bit and sacrificed my rep to try to keep it from going down. This is not the first time I have stood in a moral crossroads and gotten run over and it will not be the last. I don't care if one guy or everybody is disgusted with me. Just stop the bickering with each other. We have a common enemy who is determined to take away our freedoms and make us dependent serfs. Getting backi to the topic. Let us unite and fight.

 

[JBURGII]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

I am teasing! The Hi-Point is a very good albeit expensive firearm. Especially when you are hunting Medusa Gorgon. Sorry.

To start, I appreciate what the OP is saying. It can seem like there is a lot of disparity in groups such as this. We have been organizing face to face meets as we can in some locals and really is a great thing. I think it is great that such a strange and diverse group of people can and will agree on the important issues at hand today. Okay not always agree.. hehe.. anyway..

Alex, I can't stop laughing... I own a JHP .45 and love it.. but by gosh it is NOT the prettiest thing in my arsenal.. hehe.. you do know it is a tactical advantage when you whip out such a beast.. sure saves on ammo when they just 'turn to stone'...

 

[Aran]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

AbNo wrote:

Well, THIS thread went downhill fast. :uhoh:

AbNo, the thread has been dominated for a few entries by some guy who has a problem with what I said as counsel to some kid who might have problems. I wrote what I did knowing there would be trouble, and I must say I am surprised that it is only one guy maaking a big deal out of it. I tried explaining myself and tried a little good-humored teasing. Sad to say but there are just some who cant deal with the mere mention of some things. Sorry I went of my own topic. But I have seen suicies and murders go down from attitudes such as Roos' pal displayed, so consider that our discussions here may have saved a life or two. This is entierly within the mission of this organization and site. Carrying a weapon is akin to carrying a fire extinguisher. The objective is to protect life. The response I have recieved in the attempt is much milder than what anyone who justifiably used a firearm could possibly expect. At lest if Roo's pal winds up going off the deep end in a homo "panic" and kills somebody, I can sleep easy knowing I did my bit and sacrificed my rep to try to keep it from going down. This is not the first time I have stood in a moral crossroads and gotten run over and it will not be the last. I don't care if one guy or everybody is disgusted with me. Just stop the bickering with each other. We have a common enemy who is determined to take away our freedoms and make us dependent serfs. Getting backi to the topic. Let us unite and fight.

Alexcabbie, calling a group of sexual deviants fags doesn't indicate you're a repressed homosexual.

It indicates you're in a room full of sexual deviants.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

22 year old student. Keep studying and someday you might have something positive to contribute. I guess this little poem sums it all up as far as bickering goes:

At Wenock edge the wood's in trouble. His forest fleece the Wreckin heaves;

The wind, it plies the Saplings double, and Thick on Severn snow the Leaves-

T'would blow like this through holt and hanger, when Uricon the City stood;

"Tis the old wind, in the old anger, but then it threshed a different wood.



Then - twas before my time - the Roman, at younder heaving hill would stare;

The blood that warms an English Yeoman, the thoughts that hurt him, they were there;

There, like the Wind through Woods in Riot, through him the Gale of Life blew high,

The Tree of Man was never quiet.

Then twas the Roman

Now 'tis I.

The wind, it plies the saplings double; it blows so hard;

"twill soon be gone,

Today the Roman, and his trouble

Are ashes under Uricon.



I guarantee you, young man. you will come to understand this. and you will weep. Enjoy your youth, and blessings upon you.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

We are not a 'house' or a community even. There is an essential tension between freedom and community and between orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

Who's your daddy in your house or the mayor of your community? Imagine an amorphous blob, like an amoeba, that is a healthy society that to a demagogue needs direction and sharp leadership.

Like I said.

 

[Audioautomatica]

imported post

+1


I'm sure I'm already on a few people's bad sides, and they probably won't be the last. And I could care less if people misunderstand one of my posts on the internet and think I'm something I'm not. But if I feel you are outwardly mistaken, whether it's a fact about guns, what color the sky is, what is/isn't moral etc I will correct you. People being wrong or mistaken with a false sense of 'superiority' or 'correctness' bothers me infinitely. I can't explain why, any more than I can explain what light is made of. :lol:

And if I reply to you with sarcasm, it means I didn't take your post seriously at all.


But I don't make a point to piss people off, normally people become irritated when they hear things they'd rather not. But how people react to things I say is out of my control and no concern of mine.

hp-hobo-
"does not mean that you deserve to have that honorable discharge... It just means you didn't get caught."
" I guess we can only be brothers in armsif we all shoot the brand of gun you prefer."

Are you serious? You're attacking him because he's gay and doesn't think the gun you own is pretty?

Talk about showing true colors.

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

Audioautomatica wrote:

hp-hobo-
"does not mean that you deserve to have that honorable discharge... It just means you didn't get caught."
" I guess we can only be brothers in armsif we all shoot the brand of gun you prefer."

Are you serious? You're attacking him because he's gay and doesn't think the gun you own is pretty?

Talk about showing true colors.

You're f*cking kidding me right? How many times do I have to say, I DON"T CARE ABOUT HIS SEXUALITY. When he was in the military, it was against published regulations to be homosexual and it was my sworn duty to report it, much the same as if he was using drugs, selling top secret information or stealing. It doesn't matter if you agree with the regs or not, it's your job. And what he was doing was illegal. Anyone with half a brain understands that.

Show me one time, just once, where I attacked him for being homosexual. You can't do it because I didn't do it. Talk about showing true colors. What color is incredibly stupid? That'd be your shade.

 

[Audioautomatica]

imported post

I don't care what you imagine your sworn duties would be.

Anyone who has served this country deserves an honorable discharge, everyone short of rapists I suppose. :quirky



He and I come from vastly different times but I can't imagine homosexuality being so horrbile 'back in the day' that soldiers would go out of the way of their own duties just to report it.

Edit: By duties I mean physical activities. Things more important than telling on someone.


It's a preposterous idea just typing it out, although I suppose it isn't impossible.



Anyhow the point is (was?) he was gay, and a person would have to make the choice to report it; duty or not. I can't imagine someone with gay family members or being gay themselves or anyone comfortable with gay people would make a point of getting someone thrown out of the military over sexuality.

I don't claim to know the social or moral structure of the military past or present as I'm not, never was and never will be related to the military. But if I were, and I had been when he was I wouldn't have reported anything.


Oh and..

hp-hobo said: ", and I liked you better when you were still in your closet."


Or perhaps it was satire that was over my head.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Audio 'bot, you have no idea of what you prate. Try living on a submarine with someone whose sexuality is even suspect.

There is no honor in the closet.

Time to lock this one up.

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

Audioautomatica wrote:

I don't care what you imagine your sworn duties would be.

Anyone who has served this country deserves an honorable discharge, everyone short of rapists I suppose. :quirky



He and I come from vastly different times but I can't imagine homosexuality being so horrbile 'back in the day' that soldiers would go out of the way of their own duties just to report it.

Edit: By duties I mean physical activities. Things more important than telling on someone.


It's a preposterous idea just typing it out, although I suppose it isn't impossible.



Anyhow the point is (was?) he was gay, and a person would have to make the choice to report it; duty or not. I can't imagine someone with gay family members or being gay themselves or anyone comfortable with gay people would make a point of getting someone thrown out of the military over sexuality.

I don't claim to know the social or moral structure of the military past or present as I'm not, never was and never will be related to the military. But if I were, and I had been when he was I wouldn't have reported anything.


Oh and..

hp-hobo said: ", and I liked you better when you were still in your closet."


Or perhaps it was satire that was over my head.

You are obviously and completely without a clue. First you tell me that you don't know what my imagined sworn duties were. Then you say that it may be possible. Then you admit that you haven't served your country in a military capacity. Well I have. Proudly, for over 23 years. My wife still does. My son is about to. Like it or don't little fella, I know just a little bit more about the military than you. If he joined in 1971, homosexuality was illegal and homosexuals were banned from military service. Like it or don't, I don't care. Denying the truth makes it no less the truth. So if he was a homosexual while in the military, the only reason he got his precious Honorable Discharge is because he lied for his entire enlistment. Did he serve honorably? Probably... Except for that one critical detail.

As for my quoted comment above. Anything taken out of context can be twisted however you want it. You done a good job Skippy. You should be proud of yourself. Put in your resume and go to work for the DNC.

 

[david.ross]

imported post

So, just for personal curiosity, what if the person was pansexual or bisexual? Was the ban homosexual specific or same sex relationship specific?

 

[Audioautomatica]

imported post

This is interestimg hp-hobo.

You claim to not care about someone's sexuality, and that the law is above your morals. By that I mean you will throw someone under a bus because someone made a law that said being gay in the military is a no no.


Yet here you say..


"snake021 wrote:

The only one I see in this thread saying what they believe.

How about the rest of you, answer the question, will you shoot someone for a gun?

You mean as in government sponsored confiscation?

I already have the posts cut to put skulls on around the perimeter of my property. Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do."

(Quote is from different thread)


You're willing to break the law and murder someone over a gun (I mean rights, sorry :quirky ), but you can't cut a guy a break because of his sexuality?

Nothing wrong with protecting your rights of course. But seriously, people in the military serve the government (not just the gov mind you, I'm making a point; bear with me). And you're willing to throw a countrymen out of the army, if the government says being gay isn't okay but if the government says you can't have guns you'll kill the government?

:lol:



And Doug my best friend whom I've known since literally the day I got home from the hospital after being born is gay. He's virtually my brother.

What difference a submarine makes, I have no idea. But I'm sure you'll come up with something.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

Audioautomatica wrote:

And Doug my best friend whom I've known since literally the day I got home from the hospital after being born is gay. He's virtually my brother.

What difference a submarine makes, I have no idea. But I'm sure you'll come up with something.

You will notice that I have not mentioned my brother's or my friends' sexuality. You 'have no idea' of a lot of things. Be silent before all doubt is removed.

Remember, 'let's end the bickering' and 'gun owners fellowship'. Anony Mouse is no one's fellow lest he be the camel's nose in the tent.

There is an essential tension between freedom and community and between orthodoxy and heterodoxy and between heterosexuality and xeno-sexuality.

Lock it up. They can't keep it in their pants (their ignorance).

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

You are obviously and completely without a clue. First you tell me that you don't know what my imagined sworn duties were. Then you say that it may be possible. Then you admit that you haven't served your country in a military capacity. Well I have. Proudly, for over 23 years. My wife still does. My son is about to. Like it or don't little fella, I know just a little bit more about the military than you. If he joined in 1971, homosexuality was illegal and homosexuals were banned from military service. Like it or don't, I don't care. Denying the truth makes it no less the truth. So if he was a homosexual while in the military, the only reason he got his precious Honorable Discharge is because he lied for his entire enlistment. Did he serve honorably? Probably... Except for that one critical detail.

As for my quoted comment above. Anything taken out of context can be twisted however you want it. You done a good job Skippy. You should be proud of yourself. Put in your resume and go to work for the DNC.

Damn that Rosa Parks again.



Just because something is a law, doesn't make it just or right. Stop being a hypocrite. You frequent OC.org and you're going to tell me that all laws are just, right, and ethically correct just because they're laws. Give me a break. :hammer:

If you couldn't comprehend how that Rosa Parks reference applies... He didn't choose to be gay any more than a black person chooses to be black and there isn't anything wrong with either. Just because some bigot idiots made a law that says someone of a particular ethnicity or sexuality can't do something, doesn't make that law right or something that should be followed. Alex and every other homosexual in the military defied an unjust law the same way the blacks defied unjust laws during the civil rights movement. I see no reason why he doesn't deserve an honorable discharge.

And as for the argumentagainst homosexuals in the military. What's the big deal? You afraid they might be looking at you? Grow up. Who cares. Did your creepy ass ever walk down the street and check out a girl? That glance and thought process was unwanted on her part (I'm sure), but I don't see you proposing laws to keep horny straight guys out of public places. Don't be afraid of the big, bad homo buggie man. He isn't real.