Originally Posted by Prince

lets see...because his thoughts are sexist??

Damien435 thats a good point, there'll be an uproar if they try to disarm the people, how will they protect themselves from phycopaths,....a pencil V a gun? lol obserd. her proposal is rediculous point blank and simple

You are wrong again. Standing for moral correctness is not sexism. If I were sexist in relation of your point it would mean that I treated those with your illness as sub-human or discriminating in a working environment towards you because you can't do your job. I am pointing out the deviation from the norm and that I do not agree with the standpoint that they should be granted all of the same treatment as those that are not deviating from the norm.

You don't seem to get the point. The rule books, not only the King James Translation of the Bible (among virtually all other translations of the Bible) as well as many other non Christian books of religious writings tab homosexuality as an abomination.

So much for the rules of name calling. You might as well call me racist because I believe that it is wrong for the 12,000,000 to 14,000,000 illegal immigrants are law breakers and need to be deported.

im not going to reply to this its way off topic not even slightly related and you'll get this thread locked for no reason.
i will say. keep your opinions to yourself otherwise you'll become very disliked in future i garentee you.

Looking back through the thread, I'm afraid I have to take responsibility for it moving from a thread on Pelosi to one on the nature of homosexuality.

My asking what Pelosi's husband/wife was like, without intending it to, got Senior Chief and Prince(ess) into a verbal brawl. So I'm sorry about that.

But I have to say Senior Chief is entitled to his opinions on homosexuality which I mostly agree with without him being called a sexist. It is not sexist to have traditional moral ethics. It is not invalid to have Christian principles. I know the third longest reigning Queen of England (Elton John) would disagree.

I am also willing to pay 500 milbucks to read the PM's between Senior Chief and Missileer. What a hoot, I fell off my chair laughing at just the public exchange - what must the PM's contain ?

i bet the PM brawl was better than to kangaroos fighting...

Originally Posted by Prince

im not going to reply to this its way off topic not even slightly related and you'll get this thread locked for no reason.
i will say. keep your opinions to yourself otherwise you'll become very disliked in future i garentee you.

YOU brought up the fact that you are bisexual, not one person here singled you out for that distinction.

The line of this thread is the unrealistic outlook that the presumed future speaker of the house has. She is pro-gay which is not somehting that 86% of the U.S. accepts. If this thread is locked it is because you have commented on a point that I posted and I do not agree with your stance. You have done the gaming portion of this to inflame the board and I am the only one responding and I am responding because the gay lifestyle is repugnant and not normal. I do not have to accept that lifestyle. I believe it to be wrong..very, very wrong.

The good news is that you say that you read the bible, the bad news is that you only apply the portions of it that fits your beliefs. Unfortunately for all of us we do that in parts throughout the bible. I have areas that I'm wrong, but then there are areas that I understand to a greater extent.

If you can't reply and be civil then don't reply. If you have a substantial argument then you need to be willing to stand by your convictionsa as I have.

Originally Posted by Damien435

Supposedly 62% of Americans own firearms, we won't have to worry about losing our guns anytime soon because A.) even many democrats own guns and B.) there will be enough psycho's that open fire on the authorities who try to take their guns that disarmament will only have a minor effect before the Republicans can be put back in power overwhelmingly and overturn this law, unfortunately many innocent people will have likely died in tragic manners before this moment of clarity and competence from Congress.

hehe I am not entirely certain the psycho's in option B are going to do the pro-gun lobby a lot of good.



But out of interest (I assume 5.56 will have the figures) how many of the shootings each year are actually considered self defense?
Although maybe a new thread would be better for this.

Thread closed for further review.


EDITED BY MISSILEER-

After further review, I'm reopening this thread. Carry on folks.

I don't believe in the owning a gun for self-defense argument so I don't know how many of the killings each year are in self-defense, I believe gun ownership should be for hunting and competition shooting, when not in use guns should be locked up in a gun safe, not under a person's pillow. Unlike some other members I do feel that our police force is adaquate, maybe not in the major cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, etc. but that is not an accurate representation of the country as a whole.

There are more deaths due to smoking, auto accidents, household accidents and cancer in the United States than there are from shootings. America has more murders involving the use of fire-arms than Europe but the death rate in Europe involving murders with knives, blunt instruments, etc. is much higher. The key to remember is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, a gun locked up in a gun safe is no more harmful than a kitty, in fact I bet the kitten would be more dangerous.

I also don't see a need for a person to own an automatic weapon or a .50 cal anti-material rifle.

Originally Posted by Damien435

I don't believe in the owning a gun for self-defense argument so I don't know how many of the killings each year are in self-defense, I believe gun ownership should be for hunting and competition shooting, when not in use guns should be locked up in a gun safe, not under a person's pillow. Unlike some other members I do feel that our police force is adaquate, maybe not in the major cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, etc. but that is not an accurate representation of the country as a whole.

There are more deaths due to smoking, auto accidents, household accidents and cancer in the United States than there are from shootings. America has more murders involving the use of fire-arms than Europe but the death rate in Europe involving murders with knives, blunt instruments, etc. is much higher. The key to remember is that guns don't kill people, people kill people, a gun locked up in a gun safe is no more harmful than a kitty, in fact I bet the kitten would be more dangerous.

I also don't see a need for a person to own an automatic weapon or a .50 cal anti-material rifle.

When it comes down to it people are going to kill each other with whatever is at hand the only real detractor for the gun is that it also kills at range as opposed to knives, bats or handbags.
I tend to agree with your other comments and certainly dont believe gun control would be a good idea for the US, its just way too late to implement now.
But my reason for asking about the number of "self-defense" shootings was to determine whether the number was high enough to validate the argument that you need a gun for that purpose.

Wow, so much to cover in one thread. Pelosi is an extremist. That is always bad. As for homosexual behavior, I am pretty sure that it has been determined to be genetic, but it is still an aberration from the norm and while showing up in animals, it shows up when things are wrong, such as the population becoming to big, as soon as the population corrects itself, the homosexual behavior stops.