Let us end the bickering

[smccomas]

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

smccomas wrote:

Wrong please read Sect 925 Art 125 of UCMJ Covers sodomy and DOES not discriminate between sex's.

Now as far as sex with someone other than spouse someone else can do the research.

Wrong? Wrong about what? I bet your mother tells you you're so smart.

She's wrong.

Check the definition of sodomy. Anal sex is forbidden;

925. ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Doing a reverse frog squat or a bike pump with my old lady doesn't apply. Words mean things and it's up to you to make sure you know what they mean.

As you stated in a previous post "Then cite the reg that disallowed varied sexual positions"
I cited a reg that disallowed a variance of a sexual position.

What you do with your "Old Lady" is between you and her, not my business however the cited reg does not make allowances for your "old lady" notice it reads "Any and Other" it does not exclude married couples.

Now why bring the topic of my parentage into this? Whats the relevance to the conversation. Did I or anyone else in this thread reference your parents? Please explain. I and maybe some of the others participating in this thread might want to know.

edit spelling

 

[sraacke]

imported post

Gentleman Ranker wrote:

Alexcabbie (17 November 2008 Monday 04:40) wrote:

Of course I realize that we have atheists amonst us.

I am one.

... our sacred (sorry, atheists; that is just how I see it)

No problem. I have a very high tolerance for metaphor and traditional phrases, or even actual differences of opinion.

I don't feel the need to be a PitA to those who believe differently than I do, so long as they show me a similar courtesy. I even say "Merry Christmas" during the holidays.

The enemies of the 2nd Amendment rejoice to see us argue. Our enemies - who are largely dupes who do not realize that they ate their own worst enemy - love it to read our bitterness toward each other. They realize that ifn they can keep us from hanging together,then eventually they can hang us one at a time from their gallows. And if we keep on bickering, we will even help buld the gallows upon which we shall hang.

That's it. We're scr3w3d.

regards,

GR

Atheist here too. I also understand and use traditional phrases and metaphors. +1 for GRs post.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

As I have said I am quite happy with my current career, but thank you HP.

I would also like to thank everyone for their understanding and support. Please understand that I never would have mentioned this except that I percieved what in my experience could have evolved into a life-threatening situation. I thought about just shooting Roo a PM but decided to just be open and above-board.

And while we have been having this debate, it occurred to me that this back-and-forth could have a certain use to the gun-rights movement. Homosexuals comprise a huge voting bloc in anti-gun jurisdictions such as Frisco and DC. Assaults on them are not uncommon, yet they (and their fellow citizens) are denied the means of protection from mob assault. Yet they tend to think that we who are members of groups such as this are a bunch of faggot-hating bumpkins, and are afraid of us. Make no mistake, the political anti-gun scum exploit this, and the comments on this thread largely disprove it.

Our movement has a rough few years ahead and we are hip-deep in the drool of antis who think their day has come. All of the smaller grassroots gun rights orgs need to come together in a National congress, and having a group like Pink Pistols on board would bolster our strength in places like DC. Our little discussion here may be the start of something good.

As to ending the bickering, note that Styles has not once accused anybody of wearing tinfoil headgear for not agreeing with him and even Audio-teen seems to be thinking things through. We have not been "bickering" but having a mostly civil discussion, and we have shown the world that we are a tolerant people who are interested most of all in the preservation of a basic right. How much in danger that right is can be seen in a booklet available from your Senator or Congressman purporting to explain the Constitution. That booklet calls the Second Amendment "obsolete". Our job is to make any politician who hinks that way "obsolete", and we have a hard row to hoe. We are going to need all the help we can get and are going to have to work together and contribute in any and every way we can.

Just one last thing. I am sure some of you are wondering is there any female...... well, yeah. "Open-Carry Laurie" makes me wish I were about 20 years younger. IMHO nobody could possibly be that queer as to not find her attractive.

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

smccomas wrote:

As you stated in a previous post "Then cite the reg that disallowed varied sexual positions"
I cited a reg that disallowed a variance of a sexual position.

What you do with your "Old Lady" is between you and her, not my business however the cited reg does not make allowances for your "old lady" notice it reads "Any and Other" it does not exclude married couples.

Now why bring the topic of my parentage into this? Whats the relevance to the conversation. Did I or anyone else in this thread reference your parents? Please explain. I and maybe some of the others participating in this thread might want to know.

edit spelling

I'm sorry, I didn't make it simple enough for you. Sodomy is not a sexual position, it is a sexual deviation. Except for in the cherry picked definition supplied above, it is anal intercourse. I understand now that you don't comprehend the difference between anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse. To make it as simple as possible for people like you, let's put it this way. Front hole good, back hole bad, position immaterial. Got it?

And if you think I was referencing your mother, you're even less intelligent than I gave you credit for. It has nothing to do with your mother. It has to do with you. But then that'd be one less thing for you to whine about.

 

[hp-hobo]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

...And while we have been having this debate, it occurred to me that this back-and-forth could have a certain use to the gun-rights movement. Homosexuals comprise a huge voting bloc in anti-gun jurisdictions such as Frisco and DC. Assaults on them are not uncommon, yet they (and their fellow citizens) are denied the means of protection from mob assault. Yet they tend to think that we who are members of groups such as this are a bunch of faggot-hating bumpkins, and are afraid of us. Make no mistake, the political anti-gun scum exploit this, and the comments on this thread largely disprove it...

I can tell you for a fact that where I live, people who live a non-traditional lifestyle need protection even more than the "regular" folks. My two friends mentioned above are now CWP holders mostly due to my convincing them they need tocarry to help ensure their own safety.

I just wish $3 wouldn't have bought himself a Charter Pink Lady. :?

 

[smccomas]

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

smccomas wrote:

As you stated in a previous post "Then cite the reg that disallowed varied sexual positions"
I cited a reg that disallowed a variance of a sexual position.

What you do with your "Old Lady" is between you and her, not my business however the cited reg does not make allowances for your "old lady" notice it reads "Any and Other" it does not exclude married couples.

Now why bring the topic of my parentage into this? Whats the relevance to the conversation. Did I or anyone else in this thread reference your parents? Please explain. I and maybe some of the others participating in this thread might want to know.

edit spelling

I'm sorry, I didn't make it simple enough for you. Sodomy is not a sexual position, it is a sexual deviation. Except for in the cherry picked definition supplied above, it is anal intercourse. I understand now that you don't comprehend the difference between anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse. To make it as simple as possible for people like you, let's put it this way. Front hole good, back hole bad, position immaterial. Got it?

And if you think I was referencing your mother, you're even less intelligent than I gave you credit for. It has nothing to do with your mother. It has to do with you. But then that'd be one less thing for you to whine about.

People like me? Please clarify.

 

[Gordie]

imported post

hp-hobo wrote:

smccomas wrote:

As you stated in a previous post "Then cite the reg that disallowed varied sexual positions"
I cited a reg that disallowed a variance of a sexual position.

What you do with your "Old Lady" is between you and her, not my business however the cited reg does not make allowances for your "old lady" notice it reads "Any and Other" it does not exclude married couples.

Now why bring the topic of my parentage into this? Whats the relevance to the conversation. Did I or anyone else in this thread reference your parents? Please explain. I and maybe some of the others participating in this thread might want to know.

edit spelling

I'm sorry, I didn't make it simple enough for you. Sodomy is not a sexual position, it is a sexual deviation. Except for in the cherry picked definition supplied above, it is anal intercourse. I understand now that you don't comprehend the difference between anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse. To make it as simple as possible for people like you, let's put it this way. Front hole good, back hole bad, position immaterial. Got it?

And if you think I was referencing your mother, you're even less intelligent than I gave you credit for. It has nothing to do with your mother. It has to do with you. But then that'd be one less thing for you to whine about.

Cherry picked definition?:what: It came from the dictionary, I included the whole thing. I'm afraid that it is you who "cherry pick". As the definition states, it includesanal(male or female), oral (male or female), and copulation with an animal (male or female). All are equally andcorrectly identified as sodomy.

As you pointed out yourself hp, words mean things and we need to know what they mean.

Good job of convincing your friends of the need for self defense. I wish that more people could see the logic of it. That's one thing that we definitely agree on.

 

[Aran]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

And while we have been having this debate, it occurred to me that this back-and-forth could have a certain use to the gun-rights movement. Homosexuals comprise a huge voting bloc in anti-gun jurisdictions such as Frisco and DC. Assaults on them are not uncommon, yet they (and their fellow citizens) are denied the means of protection from mob assault. Yet they tend to think that we who are members of groups such as this are a bunch of faggot-hating bumpkins, and are afraid of us. Make no mistake, the political anti-gun scum exploit this, and the comments on this thread largely disprove it.

Our movement has a rough few years ahead and we are hip-deep in the drool of antis who think their day has come. All of the smaller grassroots gun rights orgs need to come together in a National congress, and having a group like Pink Pistols on board would bolster our strength in places like DC. Our little discussion here may be the start of something good.

I have many times tried to open dialogs between myself as a gun owner and several LGBT groups both locally and over the internet to pursue a common fight for the rights of gun owners and the LGBT community.

Each time, I've been forcefully shot down, told that guns are evil, gun owners just want to "shoot some queers," and many other things.

So I've given up on that path. Let them walk alone; I know I'm doing just fine with none of them by my side.

 

[smccomas]

imported post

LGBT? What does this stand for?

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

It means "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gendered", and recently has been modified to "LGBTQC" to add "Questioning-curious" to the mix. Use of the acronym usually but not always marks the user as a rainbow-and-unicorn %$#@head.

 

[Aran]

imported post

Would you rather I said "I talked to a buncha fags"? :celebrate

 

[smccomas]

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

It means "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans-gendered", and recently has been modified to "LGBTQC" to add "Questioning-curious" to the mix. Use of the acronym usually but not always marks the user as a rainbow-and-unicorn %$#@head.

Ahhh all these damn acronyms. You do know unicorn means something different here correct. From your wording at the beginning of this thread I thought you were referencing the various groups ie GOA, VCDL, NRA ect. Mainly to close ranks with each other and present a united front against things like another AWB. I would imagine if that were ever the case the group would be a force to reckon with.

As far as bickering and debating is concerned I am of the opinion it is a good thing. A good reasoned civil debates forces the individual the critically examine there position and defend through the process they find both strenghth and weakness on said position. There are individuals that I strongly disagree with and those are the ones that have taught me the most.

 

[smccomas]

imported post

Aran wrote:

Would you rather I said "I talked to a buncha fags"? :celebrate

I am assuming you mean this in jest correct. Besides why would you talk to a bunch of cigarettes???

Edit Spelling

 

[smccomas]

imported post

And Alex the when I read the comments about the Hi-Point earlier I spewed coffee all over my flippin monitor. I know you were teasing that was some funny improv buddy.

I am going to bill you for the monitor by the way.

 

[Aran]

imported post

smccomas wrote:

Aran wrote:

Would you rather I said "I talked to a buncha fags"? :celebrate

I am assuming you mean this in jest correct. Besides why would you talk to a bunch of cigarettes???

Edit Spelling

Well, I was half serious.

The groups identify as "Pro-LGBT", so I'm only calling them what they call themselves.

 

[Alexcabbie]

imported post

One of these days someone s gonna order a BLT sandwich and :uhoh:

 

[smccomas]

imported post

Aran wrote:

smccomas wrote:

Aran wrote:

Would you rather I said "I talked to a buncha fags"? :celebrate

I am assuming you mean this in jest correct. Besides why would you talk to a bunch of cigarettes???

Edit Spelling

Well, I was half serious.

The groups identify as "Pro-LGBT", so I'm only calling them what they call themselves.

Gotcha, when ever I read any type of slur without knowing the context I cringe. In a joking manner if a "Pro-LGBT" want to refer to themselves as a buncha fags I am not going to argue, they would be in a far better position than I to make that call.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

Aran wrote:

Alexcabbie wrote:

And while we have been having this debate, it occurred to me that this back-and-forth could have a certain use to the gun-rights movement.  Homosexuals comprise a huge voting bloc in anti-gun jurisdictions such as Frisco and DC.  Assaults on them are not uncommon, yet they (and their fellow citizens) are denied the means of protection from mob assault.  Yet they tend to think that we who are members of groups such as this are a bunch of faggot-hating bumpkins, and are afraid of us.  Make no mistake, the political anti-gun scum exploit this, and the comments on this thread largely disprove it. 

Our movement has a rough few years ahead and we are hip-deep in the drool of antis who think their day has come.  All of the smaller grassroots gun rights orgs need to come together in a National congress, and having a group like Pink Pistols on board would bolster our strength in places like DC.  Our little discussion here may be the start of something good.

I have many times tried to open dialogs between myself as a gun owner and several LGBT groups both locally and over the internet to pursue a common fight for the rights of gun owners and the LGBT community.

Each time, I've been forcefully shot down, told that guns are evil, gun owners just want to "shoot some queers," and many other things.

So I've given up on that path. Let them walk alone; I know I'm doing just fine with none of them by my side.

You should have gone to the Pink Pistols. The "mainstream" "LGBT" "community" is very-anti gun. This doesn't reflect on gays as individuals. Solidarity is very important in this community, but there are as many gays (like Alexcabbie here) who don't revolve their lives around the "LGBT community" and have the same potential to be pro-gun as any American.

Anyway, this thread seems vaguely relevant.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/18367.html

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

These last couple pages make me LOL.

HP has stereotypical, token gay friends like Samuel Bowers had a token black friend, and the rest of you couldn't be any more awkward with your homosexual talk.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

the rest of you couldn't be any more awkward with your homosexual talk.

Hey, I live in San Francisco. What you've just made there is an ipso facto contradiction of terms.