TMF

Those are separate issues. I realize that it is the same people pushing gay marriage as the people wanting to force churches to perform gay marriage and classify Christianity as a "hate group", but that doesn't negate the validity of the argument that gays view their relationships the same as heteros view ours. It doesn't matter what I think about gay marriage, since it is not my business. That is really the root of it here. I don't know a bunch of gay people, but I know a whole buncha straight people who have crappy marriages and should have never gotten married in the first place. I could easily argue that those people don't have the same relationship I have with my spouse. Of course, my opinions don't matter for squat, and I don't believe we should legislate on behalf of what I think is a normal marriage. That violates the basic principles of liberty no matter how you slice it. When the gay lobby comes after churches then I'm down for that fight. I don't believe the church should be in the business of legislation any more than I think legislation should be in the business of the churches. I agree that the gay lobby is and will come after religious institutions in an effort to force them to perform gay ceremonies. But two wrongs don't make a right. We should always approach any legislation from the perspective of liberty first, and go from there. Yep, liberty leads to moral decadence, but it is better than the alternative. Morality should be a choice.

Yep, man-love Thursdays are where it's at. Allah can't see 'em once the sun goes down. Say a prayer for the chai boys tomorrow, they're in for a rough night.

Yep, a common mistake on those type of machine pistols since they work from an open bolt and have the firing pin machined into the bolt. What is scary is when you see an open bolt machine gun, such as an M249, lose its trigger assembly while loaded. I've seen it happen twice. One time it was mounted and all rounds went into the berm. Another time it was in someone's hand and a bunch of people were almost killed.

Well that is where you're wrong. When it comes to the government the only beliefs I have revolve around liberty. I am not an advocate of gay marriage, I'm an advocate of small government and people not using that government as an action arm to push their religious beliefs on others. Liberty is my only motivation when it comes to deciding policies of our government. Your motivations are obviously religious. That has no place in deciding policy outside the walls of your church.

No, it is not my business or has it anything to do with basic freedoms in my country. In case you weren't aware, gays are going to have gay sex whether they are recognized by the state or not. But I assume you want to outlaw that too, right? I'm just curious, please explain to me how the things that gays do to one another is your business. If it is your business, then it is the business of everyone else what you do with your wife.

I don't care where the concept came from, it's irrelevant when it comes to making laws. I don't care if a person marries his lawnmower. It's none of my damn business. It's none of your damn business. It sure as hell is none of the government's business. We DO NOT live in a theocracy.

I think you miss the point. We need to live under the laws of the religion I believe in, as all the others are illegitimate. Once you're forced to live in a theocracy that mirrors my faith then things will get better. All other faiths be damned, they're all wrong anyway. Could someone do some research and actually look up the word "liberty" in Websters? For crying out loud, we're simply talking about the government's opinion on marriage. Why on earth would anyone care, gay or straight, what a bunch of corrupt politicians think about their marriage? I just don't get it.

To say that marriage is a religious matter is to also say that one must be religious in order to participate. Under that philosophy we are talking about something much larger than simply gay marriage. We are now talking about religion dominating our laws. I don't want to live in a country like that. I've spent many years of my adult life in countries where religion dictates law. Not a good thing, no matter how much you may or may not agree with the religion in power.

I don't have an issue with things being equal, but I don't like rights being confused with perks. None of us here have a "right" to have our marriages recognized by anyone. We simply don't, and shouldn't, and furthermore, why do people care so damn much what the government thinks about their marriage? This is what makes me cringe when I hear the argument being angled at equal rights when it comes to gay marriage. If the gay marriage advocates would make the rational argument versus the misleading argument then maybe people would be more receptive to the idea simply out of logic. The solution to this argument, which would make all things equal, is so damned simple yet the folks on both sides of it are so selfish and narrow minded that the solution will never be realized; it will simply be both sides trying to undermine the other side for petty and stupid reasons.

[quote name="Mdunntn" post="1052210" timestamp="1382459400"] I'm I the only one who supports gay rights just as much as gun rights? Has nothing to do with religion. Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2[/quote] Well, this is the part where I point out that there are no "rights" gays don't have that I do have. Recognizing marriage isn't a right. I don't have a "right" to a recognized marriage with my wife any more than hit lesbians have a right to marry each other. Rights aren't something given, you are just born with them. Gays have every right to make a lifelong commitment to one another as hetero couples. However, the have no right to have that marriage recognized by any public or private institution. That is something that would have to be granted. What you're talking about is what is "fair" and what is not "fair". I'll give that argument legitimacy all day, as I think it is a compelling argument, but it ultimately leads to the conclusion that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, gay or straight. Gun ownership is a right. I am born with the right to bear arms, but it isn't the government's responsibility to provide me with those arms. You can't compare gay marriage privileges with gun rights. It ain't even in the same ballpark.

[quote name="TankerHC" post="1052168" timestamp="1382454443"] It's supposedly about tax dollars and shared benefits and has nothing to do with religion. In all of these lawsuits not one word about religion is mentioned. Every single thing they claim is not available to them unless married can be done legally without being married. Are their states that do not allow people to designate certain beneficiaries? Is Tn one? You can leave your money to your dog if you want to? Are there states that do not allow you to buy insurance? How hard is it to designate someone to be allowed into a hospital room? Who's stopping them from joining the military? I know for a fact that in Tennessee you can about designate anyone to do anything. I was asked just 8 months ago to sign to remove life support from someone who wasn't even related to me by that person and it was completely legal. N9, this is about one thin and one thing only. Forced acceptance of a deviant lifestyle. The female lead of an arm of a gay militant group said so herself just last year. The reasoning behind these lawsuits is false. I won't be buying into the propaganda. Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2[/quote] You're probably right on most accounts there. I'm just too lazy to research it. The only thing I disagree with is the "forcing acceptance of a deviant lifestyle." I don't see that as something to be legislated, and I certainly don't consider gay marriage to be any more deviant than the things that go on with many hetero marriages or adults in general. I don't see what would change if gays were recognized as married couples by the state. You were in the military too, so I know you saw what I did in terms of "mutually beneficial" marriages. We don't have to agree those were moral or ethical, but they were still legal and not our place to legislate against.

Well, more than anything what I was attempting to illustrate with my post was that behavior modifying drugs may not be the issue, but the behavior which elicited the prescription for the drugs may better point to the issue. Lets say we took 100 adults who have never taken behavior modifying drugs, then we assembled a group of 100 adults that were currently taking behavior modifying drugs. Then we remove all drugs from the equation and monitor those two groups and how they function. Obviously the group that had previously taken drugs are going to have many issues that the other group would not have, even with all drugs removed from the equation. Reason being is that prior to them being medicated they showed signs of mental or personality disorders which led to the prescription in the first place. I don't think it's a great leap to assume the craziest of the crazies are gonna come from the group that has already exhibited signs of issues, ya know? So it's difficult, I think, to blame the drugs on psychotic behavior simply because the drugs are being taken, and there are so many psychotics who have committed violent crimes while taking the drugs. It begs the question, "why are they taking the anti-psychotic drugs in the first place?" The only way to test the theory that the drugs are an issue is to have a control of otherwise stable people take these drugs in order to see how they behave.

Haha, seems inherent that they force their way in the back door. Zing!

I also have a set of UTG rails that I've been very impressed with for the price. Their different than the ones posted above, but were about $110 for 11 inch free floaters that are solid.

Yep, it's all about money when you get down to it. I have no problem with the gov getting out of my marriage, I just have a problem with taxes. Of course, it doesn't make it any more fair to single folks who get hit with higher taxes. Maybe, I dunno, if we lowered taxes across the board, came up with a flat tax that favored no one it might take the wind outa everyone's sails, but we're talking about money here. The people who would make those decisions aren't going to make them; not as long as the majority of their constituents are only willing to vote for what favors them. Once again proving that the biggest enemy of America are Americans.

Well, I don't think that gay marriage will make anyone gay, so I'm not convinced that if it was recognized in TN it would force anything on anyone.  However, I do disagree with the notion of outsiders attempting to change our laws.   I dunno, whenever this comes up I get so pissy because I think the arguments on both sides are rediculous.  The notion that the worth of a person's marriage is whether or not the government properly defines their version of marriage still makes no sense.  The goverment could declare my marriage invalid tomorrow.  That won't change what I have with my wife.  The government could recognize a legal union between a man and his goat as equal to the one I have with my wife and it still won't change my marriage.  Gay marriage is nothing more than a tennis ball you distract your dog with while the neighbor's cat passes through your yard.

  You would likely have judgements about my crappy friction belt I wear.  It holds my pants up and it keeps my gun on.  Not much else I can ask for out of a belt, but it sure ain't tacticool.

  We, as a society, have to accept that there are just f***d up people that will do these types of things.  I think blaming ridilin is just another way of shifting blame on the issue away from the shooter.   Even when there is a shooter who is taking some kind of prescription drugs for any kind of mental issue, I'm not convinced it has anything to do with the drug.  Often times crazy people are crazy before they stick them on medication.  I don't believe the Aurora shooter or the Sandy Hook shooter needed any kind of prescription drugs to do what they did.  They were looney bin material long before the docs tried to put them on meds.  Crazy people exist.  Sometimes they do crazy things.  Not much we can do about it.

This is why I felt as if I should have ordered another pair, but I'm sitting on a whole buncha lowers already without prospects of building anything grand. Since a billet wouldn't work on my other AR builds I just couldn't find a reason why I would use it.

They were announced though, just everyone didnt get the memo. There is no way to ensure everyone living in an area will get notified, because not everyone reads the paper, watches the news or reads through all their junk mail. I've done high vis and low vis type training in urban areas. Even got into a gunfight using blanks with local law enforcement on multiple occasions in urban areas. Every time there is someone who calls 911. What are ya gonna do? World ain't perfect, doesn't mean there is anything sinister afoot each time you see a guy in uniform.

Haha, prepare yourself for disappointment if you have the expectation that ammo is handed by other government entities the way we handled it in the military. Sounds to me like it was stored in a manner acceptable to the job they are doing. It's just ammo.

You know the guy that snatched up that phone? Awesome! I was just reading that story about it the other day. Mi figured it musta been pretty blatant for a bystander to be so bold as to snatch the phone away from him.

What? I live next to the river and have Chinooks buzzing my house once a week, at least. For some reason I'm not "terrified" as this emotional article points out. We have a military. They exist. Why is that so scary to some people?

We've already discussed that here. I was a training event done in a city. The US military has been doing that since they first formed. I've done dozens of training events in cities across the country, even some in Nashville (the horror) and I don't recall there ever being some kind of sinister plot to subject the citizenry to some wacky martial law. Context, context, context. Leave emotion out of it, think critically and look up the word "context".

I remember the same exact words being spoke just prior to "Y2K". I'm still the type of person who needs contextual evidence and critical thinking before jumping off the deep end.