how can u b gay and a right wing supporter?

[Kulindahr]

I'm not sure that's a true characterization of the reason Republicans, in general, are opposed to gun regulation. But if it is true, it's only more evidence that today's Republicans are not conservatives but rather a bunch of radical extremists.

A conservative believes in law and order, and would advocate calling the police rather than taking the law into one's own hands.

I guess Hitler was a conservative, then?
Conservatives are realists who recognize that people's reliance has to be on themselves -- and you say that's "radical" and "extreme?

And I know your characterization of the Democratic position on gun control is disingenuous. The Democratic position has nothing to do with whether or not to rely on police. Nothing. The Democratic position is that guns should be licensed and registered. That's it. The Democratic Party supports a law abiding citizen's right to own handguns.

Then why if you look at the votes on simple measures in COngress trying to defend the Second Amendment do you find Democrats almost universally opposed to them? Why did most of the opposition to the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act come from Democrats? Why has it been Democrats who have stalled bills to require states to honor each others' concealed carry licenses? Why has it been Democrats who have tried to stop concelaed carry shall-issue laws all across the country? Why has it been Democrats who oppose Castle Doctrine laws which attempt to restrain penalties against Americans for exercising their ancient right to protect and defend their own homes as they see fit? Why is it Democrats who lie about what guns are and pass laws that are nothing but cosmetic? Why is it Democrats who oppose exemption from waiting periods for those who have been threatened by violence? Why is it Democrats who regularly vote for measures to keep citizens from having guns available for self-defense?
Given all the evidence, I'll believe that the Democrats are in favor of our rights on this issue about the same time I see all the Iraqis lay down their arms and embrace in the streets.

 

[NickCole]

Then why if you look at the votes on simple measures in COngress trying to defend the Second Amendment do you find Democrats almost universally opposed to them? Why did most of the opposition to the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act come from Democrats?

That legislation had nothing to do with a law-abiding citizen's right to own firearms.

It had to do with the legal liability of gun manufacturers for harm caused by criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms.

I don't know if you're badly informed or dishonest but you're not addressing the point I made, which I think is the crux of the matter and was clearly stated: "The Democratic Party supports a law abiding citizen's right to own handguns."

Why has it been Democrats who have stalled bills to require states to honor each others' concealed carry licenses?

That's been Republicans as well (such as Rudy Giuliani). People in places like New England, especially urban areas, do not want gun nuts walking around the streets with concealed weapons. You can find a cop on the streets of New York City; you don't need a gun under your vest.

Why has it been Democrats who have tried to stop concelaed carry shall-issue laws all across the country? Why has it been Democrats who oppose Castle Doctrine laws which attempt to restrain penalties against Americans for exercising their ancient right to protect and defend their own homes as they see fit? Why is it Democrats who lie about what guns are and pass laws that are nothing but cosmetic? Why is it Democrats who oppose exemption from waiting periods for those who have been threatened by violence? Why is it Democrats who regularly vote for measures to keep citizens from having guns available for self-defense?

You have a bunch of NRA talking points down but you have no credible support for your characterization of the Democratic position.

Given all the evidence, I'll believe that the Democrats are in favor of our rights on this issue about the same time I see all the Iraqis lay down their arms and embrace in the streets.

You've presented no evidence at all. You've typed out a bunch of propagandistic talking points that mischaracterize the Democratic position.

 

[Kulindahr]

I mischaracterized nothing -- just look at the voting records. Show me a single case where it was Democrats -- a majority of them -- who carried one of the pro-Second Amendment issues!

As for those lawsuits, people involved in coordinating them have said what they're really about: bankrupting the fireamrs industry. So it IS about citizens having access to firearms, and is even before then -- it's a deliberate attempt to raise the price of self-protection.
And is one sensible judge pointed out, if we applied that principle across the board, we'd have to shut down a lot of major industries in the country, starting with automakers.

 

[NickCole]

I mischaracterized nothing -- just look at the voting records. Show me a single case where it was Democrats -- a majority of them -- who carried one of the pro-Second Amendment issues!

Being "pro-Second Amendment" means supporting the right of citizens to own firearms. All those side-issues you chronicle that Democrats have supported do NOT take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

As for those lawsuits, people involved in coordinating them have said what they're really about: bankrupting the fireamrs industry. So it IS about citizens having access to firearms, and is even before then -- it's a deliberate attempt to raise the price of self-protection.

I don't support that legislation because I think there are already too many frivilous lawsuits clogging our court system. Also I don't think the way a consumer uses a product is a manufacturer's responsibility. But your characterization of the motive behind the legislation is not objective, it's more BushRepublican-style propaganda.

And is one sensible judge pointed out, if we applied that principle across the board, we'd have to shut down a lot of major industries in the country, starting with automakers.

Well that's stupid because cars are intended for transport. Guns are intended for killing.

 

[Andreus]

why does every thread here become about the second amendment and guns?

it is really getting very very old

 

[Baddog]

The thread was on topic for the first seventy posts. That's when kulindhar went off the rails again and started with his gun shit in this posting, This sort of thing happens far too frequently among some posters. Disruption isn't debate, it's just noise.

Well it must get tedious and lonely eating canned food and bottled water in your underground 'panic room' while watching the motion sensors as they scan the perimeter of your compound.
Can't blame a gal for getting a little stir crazy.
Of course when you throw in an armful of guns it does begin to sound like an unpleasant combination.
Well, let's hope the 'black helicopters' find him first, so he doesn't cause harm to himself.
Or some Christmas carollers.

 

[smelter]

Well, let's hope the 'black helicopters' find him first, so he doesn't cause harm to himself.
Or some Christmas carollers.

It's good you didn't say Holiday carollers, else you'll have Bill O'Reilly, Judge Napolitano and John Gibson on your ass.

 

[Kulindahr]

So your point is that the fundamentalist Christian Republicans running the party are not the same as the Republicans who vote for them, give them money, proselytize on their behalf, and help them get their fundamentalist agenda codified into law.


Fine.


How would you propose to tell them apart?

I somehow missed this till now.

How to tell them apart... well, I could be sarcastic and say that if they're sneaking off at night with some young guy to a motel, then they're the ReligioPublicans...

Or do a survey: if they answer "no" to both of these, they're good guys:

1. Is masturbation a sin?
2. Should prayer be required in public schools?

 

[Kulindahr]

The thread was on topic for the first seventy posts. That's when kulindhar went off the rails again and started with his gun shit in this posting, This sort of thing happens far too frequently among some posters. Disruption isn't debate, it's just noise.

"Off the rails"?
I guess when people use examples you like, it's okay, but when they use examples you don't like, it's "off the rails".
Read the thread again and you'll see that my post was just another part of the discussion until I got jumped on.

 

[Kulindahr]

Like I said, Alfie: when someone uses an example you like, it's fine, but if an example you don't want to hear about, it's "off the rails".

All I was doing was putting in my two cents on a theme already in the thread.

 

[Andreus]

it is a stretch to say that its nesesary to talk about guns and the second ammenment in a thread about being a gay right wing supporter.

you just talk about it everywhere all the time.

there are three different threads going on it right now. you are running close to flooding the ce&P forum with posts about it.

we dont deny your right to discussd it in the right place, but ALL the time? everywhere?

 

[maltese]

it is a stretch to say that its nesesary to talk about guns and the second ammenment in a thread about being a gay right wing supporter.

I think it's extremely apropos to discuss in this thread. The whole point that many of us who aren't loyal democrats are trying to make is that being a gay man isn't just about being gay... it's about everything that makes up the man, and being gay is a part of that. Today's GOP isn't very accepting of the gay part. Today's Democrats aren't very accepting of some of the other things that are also very important parts of some of us.

For Kulindahr, that includes his Second Amendment rights. Many here would deeply disagree with his statement that he votes on the basis of that single issue - but see no irony in insisting on a similar one-issue voting on the basis of the Democrats alleged support of gay rights.

What's interesting is that despite the fact Kulindahr brings up the issue as an explanation of some of his political choices, the mob chooses to object to his second amendment beliefs as illegitimate, rather than discuss the good and bad impact of allowing other beliefs to inform our choices as gay men.

 

[Andreus]

gay is not by choice, we are born that way. like black men or spanish women, we are inherently identified by that genetic reality.

Alfie asked how a person born as a minority could support a political ideology that is openly professing the desire to deprive us as a minority of our civil rights.

conversely

you are not born a gun owner. You are not born with the desire to own and operate a firearm.

there is a difference between a gay man who owns a gun and a gay man who fights for his right to be gay.

big difference. it is just not the same.

look lets just drop it and get back on topic here. Kulindahr had his say and that is fine.

it doesnt need to dominate so many threads all the time.

it makes all of us weary of the topic and not very likely to take his position seriously simply because we are bombarded with it so often.

I honestly just skip his posts as soon as they mention guns nowadays.

I'm sure thats not what he intends.

 

[NW007]

gay is not by choice, we are born that way. like black men or spanish women, we are inherently identified by that genetic reality.

Alfie asked how a person born as a minority could support a political ideology that is openly professing the desire to deprive us as a minority of our civil rights.

conversely

you are not born a gun owner. You are not born with the desire to own and operate a firearm.

there is a difference between a gay man who owns a gun and a gay man who fights for his right to be gay.

big difference. it is just not the same.

look lets just drop it and get back on topic here. Kulindahr had his say and that is fine.

it doesnt need to dominate so many threads all the time.

it makes all of us weary of the topic and not very likely to take his position seriously simply because we are bombarded with it so often.

I honestly just skip his posts as soon as they mention guns nowadays.

I'm sure thats not what he intends.

Like we should maybe skip the posts that continuously equate Republican being always a "right wing supporter". Too many threads pound that theme which is incorrect.

 

[Andreus]

Like we should maybe skip the posts that continuously equate Republican being always a "right wing supporter". Too many threads pound that theme which is incorrect.

now this is on topic

lol

and since i have the utmost respect for you, rr564s, i would only ask you to tell us what other political affiliations there would be that are associated with the right wing in american politics?

 

[maltese]

now this is on topic

lol

and since i have the utmost respect for you, rr564s, i would only ask you to tell us what other political affiliations there would be that are associated with the right wing in american politics?

In some areas of the country, the Democrats still have a right-wing contingent, you know. There are also reform party folks, constitution party, libertarians... not to mention the very fallacious nature of your logic: after all, even were we to grant that all right-wing Americans are Republicans, it does not follow that all Republicans are right wingers.

 

[Sausy]

With many left-liberals,if you are not of that persuasion,you're a right winger.If you are a Democrat who has problems accepting the morality of abortion rights virtually unlimited,tough defense,critical of racial preferences or ethnic and group cheerleading,etc,you are right wing and a traitor or turncoat.There is no shading,no grey,no degrees of difference of opinion allowed.They claim to hate orthodoxy and groupthink,yet practice it as fiercely as the right does.

 

[Baddog]

With many left-liberals,if you are not of that persuasion,you're a right winger.If you are a Democrat who has problems accepting the morality of abortion rights virtually unlimited,tough defense,critical of racial preferences or ethnic and group cheerleading,etc,you are right wing and a traitor or turncoat.There is no shading,no grey,no degrees of difference of opinion allowed.They claim to hate orthodoxy and groupthink,yet practice it as fiercely as the right does.

Oh what do I know...I"m just a Massachusettes liberal with a sense of Hollywood Elitism and Upper Manhatten snobbery living in New Jersey like you Sausage.
Doesn't the NRA have it's own chatboard? (or don't they 'cotton' to your 'alternative lifestyle'?)

And Smelter made me realize something. What this war on Christmas needs is some real fire power and secularist piercing bullets! Who ever heard of a war without guns?
Everything goes better with guns!
U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

 

[NickCole]

The thread was on topic for the first seventy posts. That's when kulindhar went off the rails again and started with his gun shit in this posting, This sort of thing happens far too frequently among some posters. Disruption isn't debate, it's just noise.

I'm to blame as well because I responded to that post and then continued with the tangent discussion.

Personally, I never mind off-topic strays because they can lead to interesting places and nothing prevents me or anyone else from scrolling past and posting something that brings the discussion back squarely on topic.

But I understand the rules here and I'm sorry my off-topic posts were annoying.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Like we should maybe skip the posts that continuously equate Republican being always a "right wing supporter". Too many threads pound that theme which is incorrect.

I agree.

I've said it before, I'm an active Delegate and Precinct Chair for the Texas State Democratic Party.

However, I respect the fact that there is such as thing as "Gay Republicans."

There should be.

Most active Gay Republicans that I know are fighting for their right to be heard within the Republican Party; both at the State and National level.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that their fight is an up hill battle....just to be heard!

I also recognize that there's a knee jerk reaction from both Gay Democrats (how can you be gay AND Republican?), and from Gay Republicans (how can you JUST ASSUME that because I'm gay that I'm a Democrat?)

Where I part company with my Gay brethren Republicans is when they endorse a Republican candidate who is openly against Equality for Gays and Lesbians, over a Democratic candidate who openly supports Equality.

I've been told by many a member of Log Cabin Republicans, "We have to prove that we can get out the vote, before they'll take us seriously."

My response was, "You don't have to prove anything, except that you live and breath, and that you're an American! If that contradicts the "big tent" Repbublican platform then call them on it, and don't give them your vote until they prove it!"

It's a catch 22 no matter how you look at, but it's fight they've chosen to fight, and God Bless 'em!

Believe it or not I support less government, and a "pay as you go" Federal Budget. Republican talk the talk, but they sure as hell don't walk that talk.

At least within the Democratic Party, where I have a voice thank you, I can vote against "tax and spend" liberalism type programs/initiatives when they come up before the party platform committee.

If you're going to be a Republican, then fight for the causes that you believe in without compromising the rights of others! That's what I'm talking about!

I'm not saying, I'm just saying.