Smith

They are about the best AK you can get. As has been said they are made by the Molot factory which is who makes the Russian militaries RPK's and better quality military weapons.The VEPR is considered the highest quality and most accurate of the AK family. Slant cut recievers are no big deal as there and plenty of folks who make adapters and stocks that fit them. BTW- the 5.56 and 7.62x39 work with standard AK mags if you add a $2 bullet guide. Just like the Saiga's. The x54's can be modified to take SVD/PSL mags in a similar fashion.

Government mandated marriage would mean dictating to the Church mandates that would carry with it penalty of law if not adhered to. That means that Church's that don't adhere to the "law" would be subject to prosecution under the law for religious "intolerance". Before you say that won't happen, many groups like the Southern Poverty league and other government supported groups and offices have already labeled us as "hate groups". Right now there is little legally they can do. This would give them the legal leverage they need. The health care issue is another and is already showing it's tail. If you are for that then you are for State=Church IMO. Which is ironic because most of the arguments made here for gay marriage is based on "separation of Church and State". I personally have been accused of wanting to dictate my religious beliefs on these poor souls, when in actuality I am advocating that the government stay out of the Church and not subjugate me to the will and beliefs of a very small minority of the population who disagree with me under threat of legal jeopardy.

Its doable. Move to Iran, Palatine, or Afghanistan! Amazing how many places this thread has gone.

HvyMtl - I didn't think it was directed at me. Just answer your question and pointing out the agreement.

So you're saying it's 100% 50/50? Yogism

.... and we've back to blaming Christians. More christiphobia. Just messing with you Mike.

Good try. Not as obviuos as the religiphobeia/christiphobia. This gets old. I have gay friends and know plenty of folks from that persuasion. I have no fear of them, but again - good try.

MOre I look at it, expecially the howling picture looks like a Red Wolf. I would bet it has some mix in it.

by the way there a number who seek counseling and help who are not comfortable with who they are.

I am not bent out of shape, lol. If 10% of the population is gay I don't consider it an abnormality, but rather a variance. That is a lot of people. Being gay is very normal. Ask a gay person. so is alcoholism drug abuse obesity and a number other genetic disorders. ask anyone in prison.

Mike, I equated genetic disorders and abnormalities to homosexuality. Before you get bent out of shape by that, if that stats are right even on the high end and it is 15% of the population is homosexual worldwide, then by those facts alone it is scientifically an abnormality. An no color of eyes, skin color, etc are not abnormalitites they are traits. Are you reading? The main reason I believe is to prevent the very thing you are proposing above. Whether it comes from the religion of gnosticism, aethism, secularism, or any other ism.

I'm not sure what the title means? Did you get married or are you just excited about the class?

Mike? I have no problem with it being genetic like any other of the many problematic genetic disorders and tendencies that people have. That being said it is not an excuse to choose the wrong thing. I feel for the guy who struggles with alcoholism but I don't just condone it because he was "born that way". There are people born with tendencies towards violence and murder. Does that make it OK? Just because a choice is hard does not mean you don't have to make the right one and the deal with the consequences that come with it choosing the wrong one.

Or entire system is built on Christian morality and all legislation is morality. Not sure where you guys think they septate? You can't have your cake and eat it to. You want Constitutional law? You have to accept the precepts it was founded on. If not you destabilize the entire system and no longer have rule of law, but rather rule of anarchy. Or as the rest of the world knows it... Europe.

Couple problems. 1 tax "breaks" and the like were established to support the traditional family as it had been understood was the core of society by providing propagation and a solid traditional family would support and govern itself. Thus relieving the burden on the governments social programs. They've turned that on its head so essentially that's thrown out the window. 2 with the above idea, the state "partnered" with the church to support marriage through various economic incentives. However, as had been stated, that is now turning against that idea. If be fine if the government got out of marriage altogether. Since it is a religious institution to begin with. I don't see that happening, so this will come to a reckoning as OS and Mike pointed out. Somebody will be left in the lurch. Sometimes there its not a win-win. I'd rather a minority miss out than the government to co-pt the church and tyrannically force its will on the vast majority. As the OP referenced about statistics. Again making the stated and church one. We are in more agreement than disagreement. We are just approaching it from different points.

Won't happen. That's not the real issue they are after. As has been said everything they claim they want they can have thought various paths. What they can't have is recognition from churches. That is the real heart of the matter. All the rest is a red herring. IMO As to all the flipant biblical references, it doesn't take a scholar to note that just because the Bible references or accounts for wrong actions is it implied or stated as being condoned. The fact scripture accounts for the imperfections in humanity works towards its credit, not against it. Scripture, properly understood, teaches us to work from imperfection to perfection. It does not assume utopia is attainable or possible in this present life.

All the benefits of marriage can be had through civil unions, living trust, wills, etc. As far as insurance is concerned ether problem with that is that family policies are built around the idea of child producing families. I'm still against the government writing policies based on socio political ideology. The biggest impact reason I'm against gay marriage, outside of the moral and definition reasons already mentioned, is that the state well be dictating to the church what it can and can't believe and hold to as far as theology and practice. I believe that if it is made legal there will be "new" civil rights and discrimination suits against churches and pastors who do not acknowledge or accept the practice. If it its recognized as a right, them it has to be protected by the government and that is done through the legal system. You will then have the very thing strickj was arguing so adamantly against. The starte, in essence, would become the religious author of theology and practice. Some will say that is far fetched, but I always thought it was far fetched that the generation that lived thorough the Cold War would elect a a socialist President. Just look at what Obama Care is threatning to do to hospitals who well not preform abortions.

Its been answered numerous times here and in other threads. It wouldn't make a difference in any ones opinion either way. Never does.

My apologies the the OP for being part of this derailment. I know better and sometimes I get sucked into these vortex's of no-win "discussions!".

So you agree? As to your illusion of Biblical "laws," hedge laws are what you are referring to and are not considered "laws" in the Biblical sense because the Jews do not acknowledge the Bible. I was referring to the Judeo-Christian ethic as was the framers.

That's why I said Erick

Erick made the emotional attempt to negate anything religiously associated as "sin" as a nonsensical factor in legislature. I pointed out that almost everything Biblically viewed as a sin is illegal and considered morally unacceptable in our Constitution and legal codes. Come on guys. Get off the emotion train and read in context. Then it has been the current cultural context of humanity since the beggining of time. If that is the argument the you are implying that homosexuality is indeed and abnormality and abstract to all known human history. Which by definition does not make it "cultural" but a condition of humanity.

Easy there tiger. You know good and well that "Seperation of Church and State" as used in the context you tried to use it is not implied or there. The framers where very clear it was about the FED government not being able to dictate a FED Church. In fact the states COULD establish there own "Church". Not abolition of religion altogether or a negating or it's role or importance. We've had this discussion before. So is murder, stealing, adultry, assault, abuse, ..... Does that negate those as well?

The whole Constitution was written based on Religious opinion. To read "Seperation of Church and State" into the context you used you have to read 2A as only being for Militia.

That is incorrect and not within the inteded or expressed context.