gaywad

[Acetone]

How in the hell can you mother fuckers come on here and complain day in and day out about violations of second amendment rights and then criticize someone who chooses to exercise his first amendment rights. You're a bunch of fucking hypocrites. YOUR opinions of rights revolves around what YOU enjoy in life, and I call bullshit. If you didn't like guns, you'd be against them too.

Fucking bitches.

Excellent demonstration on the use of profanity. Thank you for your valuable input.

 

[Wraith]

Wow, genius to come in here and challenge our right to free speech to call the kid a gaywad. Hypocrite.

 

[DCortez]

How in the hell can you mother fuckers come on here and complain day in and day out about violations of second amendment rights and then criticize someone who chooses to exercise his first amendment rights. You're a bunch of fucking hypocrites. YOUR opinions of rights revolves around what YOU enjoy in life, and I call bullshit. If you didn't like guns, you'd be against them too.

Fucking bitches.

Uh, cause this is still America? Gaywad!

 

[sv6er]

You're a bit broad in your accusations. Care to be more specific and a little less abrasive?

I'm sorry. I get upset very easily when it comes to discussion of rights and freedom.

We claim to live in a free country, and a lot of gun nuts pretend to support freedom. What many (not all, but a lot) really support is freedom for their personal lifestyle. They like guns, so, we should have the right to have them. They don't like homosexuality, so homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get married. They don't like a 10 year old kid's opinion and him expressing it, so "The little gaywad needs his young ass busted and some respect taught"!

Come on. Pick one side or the other. You either support someone's right to do whatever the **** they want (as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights) or you don't.

Wow, genius to come in here and challenge our right to free speech to call the kid a gaywad. Hypocrite.

I didn't challenge your right to say it, just expressed my opinion of you for having said it. Big difference.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I'm sorry. I get upset very easily when it comes to discussion of rights and freedom.

We claim to live in a free country, and a lot of gun nuts pretend to support freedom. What many (not all, but a lot) really support is freedom for their personal lifestyle. They like guns, so, we should have the right to have them. They don't like homosexuality, so homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get married. They don't like a 10 year old kid's opinion and him expressing it, so "The little gaywad needs his young ass busted and some respect taught"!

Come on. Pick one side or the other. You either support someone's right to do whatever the **** they want (as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights) or you don't.

I didn't challenge your right to say it, just expressed my opinion of you for having said it. Big difference.

I don't think anyone on this board objects to this 10 year old's right to say what he said. I believe the objections had to do with the content of his message or the belief that he is simply parroting the views of an adult (his father, perhaps), and is therefore a pawn for someone who lacks the guts to express his opinion. The objectors might believe this young man is being used as a publicity stunt to further an adult cause or possibly to make money.

In any case, I'm fairly certain that most, if not all, of the dissenters would defend this young man's right to say whatever he might say, even though they clearly disagree with his position.

This type of debate and dissent represents the very epitome of the First Amendment.

 

[TrailDust]

Personally, I don't care one way or the other about homosexuals and what they do in the bedroom. To be honest, I don't even care if they get "married," as long as the government doesn't define marriage. This is not the function of the government.

On the one hand I agree government shouldn't define marriage because that should be a religious/personal issue, but on the other all the legalities associated with marriage requires it to be the government's business. That's a tough one!

because it's a private business. Businesses should be dictated by their owners.

that's actually pretty far from the standard rebuttal. I'd come back with "Because children and animals are not able to sign contracts."

Why should signing contracts be a limiting factor? Understand that I'm not trying to antagonize you here, but really playing Devil's advocate.


actually, homosexual unions are have been around since the dawn of civilization. It's the puritanical ethical system that is relatively new.

There's certainly truth to that. The Spartans society was heavy with homosexuality/pederasty, bonding their warriors. But as for homosexual unions being around for millennia, that still doesn't make it "normal" or "natural." Let's face it, the ultimate act of a united couple is the sexual act, and there's no way on this Earth using the anus and rectum for sexual purposes when it obviously, naturally serves the sole function of passing feces can be considered normal. Just because people have been doing this unnatural act for thousands of years does not make it right.


I'm willing to suffer the consequences of absolute freedom and responsibility. What elevates you that you are given authority to stifle my actions which don't affect you?

Then we go right back to the argument of people who want to have relations with kids. Who is anyone to stifle their actions if it doesn't affect anyone else? Being able to do that is absolute freedom, isn't it?


I am hesitant about pledging allegiance to any government. And it seems contrary to the founding principals of our country. On the otherhand, I have no problem saluting it out of respect and gratitude, but that's separate from making a pledge.

I still say Thomas Jefferson had the best idea in weak federal and state governments, while towns and cities enjoyed the primacy of laws/governance. That gives the common person the greatest freedom, the greatest choices of where to live and how to live as he/she sees fit.

How in the hell can you mother fuckers come on here and complain day in and day out about violations of second amendment rights and then criticize someone who chooses to exercise his first amendment rights. You're a bunch of fucking hypocrites. YOUR opinions of rights revolves around what YOU enjoy in life, and I call bullshit. If you didn't like guns, you'd be against them too.

Fucking bitches.

Lighten up, man! We're having a discussion here, and there's nothing wrong with that. I may disagree with some of the things Bob Loblaw says, but at least we're exchanging opinions and ideas. Back off on calling people here bitches.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I am hesitant about pledging allegiance to any government.

I'm not only hesitant to pledge allegiance to a government; I simply refuse. You might believe this is nothing more than semantics, but I don't pledge my allegiance to the government, but to this nation. I'm not wild about my government, but I love my country.

 

[sv6er]

I don't think anyone on this board objects to this 10 year old's right to say what he said. I believe the objections had to do with the content of his message or the belief that he is simply parroting the views of an adult (his father, perhaps), and is therefore a pawn for someone who lacks the guts to express his opinion. The objectors might believe this young man is being used as a publicity stunt to further an adult cause or possibly to make money.

In any case, I'm fairly certain that most, if not all, of the dissenters would defend this young man's right to say whatever he might say, even though they clearly disagree with his position.

This type of debate and dissent represents the very epitome of the First Amendment.

Maybe I misinterpreted the posts, but it seemed to me like there were those that objected to this kid's right to not say the pledge of allegiance.

I'm not wild about my government, but I love my country.

Roger that. Patriotism, not nationalism.

One of my favorite quotes:

"It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government." --Thomas Paine

 

[DCortez]

#1 If my kid is talking about things he has no business talking about, he's getting shut down.

#2 If my kid is disruptive or a distraction at a place where others are trying to learn, he's getting shut down.

#3 When my kid is an adult and choses to do #1 or #2, I'm still going to call him a gaywad.


The kid and his father are both douchebags.

 

[Hawghauler]

#1 If my kid is talking about things he has no business talking about, he's getting shut down.

#2 If my kid is disruptive or a distraction at a place where others are trying to learn, he's getting shut down.

#3 When my kid is an adult and choses to do #1 or #2, I'm still going to call him a gaywad.


The kid and his father are both douchebags.

Hard to believe that genetic line still breeds.

 

[navyguy]

Sorry, that kid didn't think that dribble up by him self. Young children learn from their parents, and at least at that age, they will acquire the values parents display and teach. They would have us believe that the parents were blind sided by that display. I call bull shit on that.

That's the kind of kid that sorely needs a tour of duty with the 101st or the Marines. That would straighten his ass out, and give him some respect for the flag. atriot:

 

[cuate]

Mind boggling, the drift on forums, including this of ours from GUNS, ammo,
ballistics, shooting, concealed carry to sexual perversion, profanity laced
rebuttals, same sex so called marriage, ad nauseum.

However, the venting of anger at the enemies of Liberty, Freedom, and the old American Republic, who also are anti-gun, pro anything if it feels good is quite entertaining and informational. Very enjoyable are blasts at that big eared pekkerhead some call the Commander-in- chief, as well as
Pelosi and his other toadies, all of whom are enemies of the 2nd Amendment.

But to change the subject, I dug out the old 1896 Krag Carbine and some
soft nose ammo and am thinking about some venison down in the bottoms behind the barn. Oh, I have a scoped Ruger .243 but hell, I'm "old corps" and like roughing it !!! Adios for now.....

 

[Hawghauler]

But to change the subject, I dug out the old 1896 Krag Carbine and some
soft nose ammo and am thinking about some venison down in the bottoms behind the barn. Oh, I have a scoped Ruger .243 but hell, I'm "old corps" and like roughing it !!! Adios for now.....

Very jealous of your Krag. Always been a "want" of mine as well as a Trapdoor Springfield. Never shot a 45/70 but I have had sweaty dreams about it.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

On the one hand I agree government shouldn't define marriage because that should be a religious/personal issue, but on the other all the legalities associated with marriage requires it to be the government's business. That's a tough one!

The important factors being paternity, taxation, and insurance, inheritance. With the exception of taxation, I don't see a need for government intervention. In respect to taxation, I'm opposed to income taxes and tax breaks, so it's really a quarrel best directed towards the IRS.

Why should signing contracts be a limiting factor? Understand that I'm not trying to antagonize you here, but really playing Devil's advocate.

as someone who enjoys debating, I truly appreciate that. Seeing as how neither one of us has the power to enforce our beliefs, it's absurd to be offended by the other's. Onto the issue at hand. Marriage is a contract. It's an obligation.

There's certainly truth to that. The Spartans society was heavy with homosexuality/pederasty, bonding their warriors. But as for homosexual unions being around for millennia, that still doesn't make it "normal" or "natural." Let's face it, the ultimate act of a united couple is the sexual act, and there's no way on this Earth using the anus and rectum for sexual purposes when it obviously, naturally serves the sole function of passing feces can be considered normal. Just because people have been doing this unnatural act for thousands of years does not make it right.

here's the heart of the argument. Marriage is either a union intended to produce offspring or it's not. But what of those who are sterile? Or do not wish to have kids? Or what of the homosexual couple who do wish to have kids. Also, because it's not intended to be used that way, does that make it immoral? We use ourselves in alot of ways that aren't natural, but that doesn't make it immoral.

Then we go right back to the argument of people who want to have relations with kids. Who is anyone to stifle their actions if it doesn't affect anyone else? Being able to do that is absolute freedom, isn't it?

no, because it impedes on the freedom of someone we have a direct duty to protect. Children can't be deciders, can't be responsible, we have a direct duty to nurture and protect them. I would have a bit more difficulty arguing against bestiality, but not interspecies marriage.

I still say Thomas Jefferson had the best idea in weak federal and state governments, while towns and cities enjoyed the primacy of laws/governance. That gives the common person the greatest freedom, the greatest choices of where to live and how to live as he/she sees fit.

on this we agree. Both you and I could be happy if we had the liberty to choose. It wouldn't bother me one bit if your county outlawed homo marriage. Nor would it impose on any great liberty. While it still hinders the homosexual couple from moving in across the street from you, it supports the greatest equal liberty in that they could be free to do it in another county which supported their lifestyle. Who knows, perhaps they could live in a county that has strict gun bans and healthcare, and we'd have no room to argue.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

This thread has run it's course.