RobertNashville

"Warning shots" are for TV and movies.   Oregon is becoming a place for whimps and idiots. That aside, I'm not so sure that this veteran would have been treated any differently in Tennessee.   if you are justified in giving a "warning shot" then you are justified in shooting to stop the threat; if the threat hasn't reached the point where deadly force is justified then neither is a warning shot. The fact that he gave a warning shot indicates to me this veteran perhaps wasn't sure that this bugler was enough of a threat to justify deadly force and if the veteran who was there wasn't sure then why would the police be???   For discussion: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-columns/its-just-the-law/warning-shots/

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that you simply cannot (or will not) see the difference between someone being a homosexual and someone "living" a homosexual lifestyle.   There are plenty of Christians sitting in church on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings who leave service and go out and screw their mistress or get drunk or eat themselves into a heart attack so I would say that  any assertion that homosexuals have some sort of corner on the market as far as being unrepentant sinners is a bit short sighted.

I've mentioned several of them in various places through the thread; I'd really rather not try and go into them with my iPhone!

We are a country of and need immigrants.   The problem is that those who break our laws by coming here; break our laws by staying here and break our laws by working here aren't here to immigrate; they are here to simply escape the cesspool in their own country; work and send their money back "home". They do nothing to integrate themselves into American society; rather, the seek to make America conform to them.   I realize I'm painting with a broad brush and there area always exceptions but that's how I see things.

That's funny...all the theological training I've had taught me that it's the engaging in homosexual sex that was the sin, not simply "being" a homosexual. Somehow, however, Christians never seem to differentiate even though they have no problem doing so with regards to heterosexuals.   But I'm probably wrong; just like I've never understood why "homosexuality" send Christians screaming for the hills but other "sins" hardly get a reaction form anyone.   :shrug: 

The shine is absolutely off Rubio as it is for any "Tea Party" politician (Rand Paul included) who is in favor of this abortion of an immigration plan.   We have no control of our border and an administration who absolutely refuses to enforce the laws already on the books or even allow states to do the job that the federal government has abdicated. Until the border is CLOSED no one who truly values this country or the Constitution has any business proposing anything else.   I can solve the immigration problem with four steps...   1. Seal and control the border; use the military if necessary   2. Enforce hiring law about hiring illegal aliens and pull the business license of ANY business who violates it..perp walk a couple of CEOs on the 6PM news and jobs for these criminals will evaporate faster then you can imagine.   3. Absolutely no TAXPAYER ASSISTANCE of any kind for illegal aliens or their children   4. Declare English as the official language of the U.S. and require ALL business conducted by government agencies be conducted in English only.   Enact the items above and the 20Million criminals currently living here will deport themselves.   THEN and ONLY then can we talk about "comprehensive immigration reform".

  If you can figure out what a politician really means then perhaps you can help me figure it out some day! :)

Well, assuming that your characterization about being "hammered" and under constant assault, etc. is correct (not saying it isn't but I don't have all the history sitting in front of me); that still doesn't constitute being "forced" to change their policy.   As to the "devout Christian children, it's been my experience that most children simply follow their parent's religious beliefs until they are mature enough to make up their own minds about what they believe or don't believe about god. Further, I doubt very many give a rat's behind if there are gay boys in scouts and in any case, maybe they should get used to the idea because unless they are going to go live alone in a cave they are likely to run into homosexual men and women in all the places they live and work throughout their lives.

Oh but haven't you heard? Our illustrious governor has already said that he sees no need for any more firearm legislation. ;)

I just can't believe that two Republican politicians lied to my face (well, to my ear anyway)...I mean; if I can't trust a politician to tell me the truth then what is the country coming to???  These guys even wrote a letter to say why they passed the law and what it should do (even though they didn't want to put that IN the bill for some unknown reason). ;)

Well folks, in case you hadn't already figured it out; the recently passed and Haslam signed "guns in trunks bill" is a worthless piece of crap and Tennesse's own Attorney General has said so (with a little embellishment from me).   http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2013/may/29/tennessee-gun-parking-lot-company-attorney-general/       I find this a very odd :rolleyes: turn of events given that I had personal conversations with Senator Jim Tracy and Senator Ron Ramsey who ASSURED me that such was not the case.  

I get hot seeing beautiful, naked women...I'm not sure I really care what they are doing to each other or even if they are doing anything to each other. ;)

Who is denying the ability of the BSA to freely associate?  They caved...pure and simple...that choice was theirs and theirs alone.   I find homosexual acts repugnant.  I don't find a person repugnant just because he or she happens to be a homosexual so long as he/she maintains appropriate public decorum and so long as he/she treats me with the same respect and courtesy they expect of me.   There appear to be quite a lot of people with "religious convictions" who will go outright apoplectic over a homosexual but their BP won't even rise a point about such people as adulterers, alcoholics, gluttons, or the sexually promiscuous (as long as it's "normal" sex of course). I find that inconsistency in dealing with people repugnant too.

There was a few crying eyes when Outpost Armory closed their restaurant which served alligator!  :)   I never got a chance to try it. :(

Absolutely you can still get a safe with a mechanical dial...and I would. (in fact, I did)

Which presumes, does it not, that there will be a history that the Democrats can write?   I predict an economic collapse is coming that will render any discussion about the future history of this country, if not moot, at least a complete unknown.

I didn't ignore it; I just don't think your your premise, "de-facto" included, applies since "homosexuality" isn't and never has been illegal. As such, the illegality you were referring to doesn't seem to explain that lack of a policy against gay scouts until the late 70's. Even more so since those "sodomy laws" in most jurisdictions had been ignored long before the 70s and the change in policy..   The "mental disorder" is more pertinent but it still begs of question of why "single out" that one (alleged) mental disorder while ignoring all others. To me, singling out homosexuality evidences a fairly repugnant bit of prejudice.

I don't believe lower charges can be considered by a jury unless they have been included up front...to the best of my knowledge Zimmerman is charged only with murder 2; nothing else (at least nothing I've heard).   Civil case issue depends on whether FL has a shield law (as TN does) and how it's applied.  Besides; what good is winning a "civil case" anyway if the the person you sue doesn't have anything.

There have probably also been "gay" leaders as long as there has been scouting too.   I do expect that at some point, the prohibition against gay scout leaders will be dropped as well and I think that will also have little affect on anything.  I care about what people do; not what which sex they find attractive especially when, with regards to scouting, sexual activity shouldn't be any part of it in the first place.   If the BSA was/always was a formal part of a church/denomination/specific religion with long and deeply held religious beliefs then I'd be just as upset as anyone that any group would come along and tell them they have to change.  However, BSA isn't that; their policy against gays was just that, a policy they adopted and adopted relatively recently at that.

I'm looking forward to Haslam's mail to me asking for donations to support whatever he's going to run for (either a new office or a second term)...he isn't going to like my response (not that I think he'll personally see it).   Does anybody want to bet on whether Haslam will once again reach out to the TFA??? He might but I don't think he has the b***s to come to another meeting.  ;)

Really?  They are demanding you change your beliefs? How, exactly, does asking that gay boys not be arbitrarily excluded from scouting require you to change your beliefs?   Who here is demanding you "change your beliefs"?  Is it that because someone doesn't agree with your view of homosexuals you equate that with demanding you change your views? Are you "demanding" I change my belief if I don't agree with your view of homosexuals or are you just disagreeing? I'd like to know because if you are demanding I change my beliefs you are out of luck; my beliefs are based on nearly six decades of living, education and experience and I'm not going to change them just because someone on the internet thinks I should. ;)     No one was stopping them? What do you think this policy change was about???   The BSA stopped them from having gay scouts with their policy; that's why they pushed the BSA to change and at the end of the day, I submit the BSA voting members realized they had no good reason for having their policy in the first place.   Other than fear and innuendo I've yet to read anything in this thread that demonstrates how allowing gay boys access to scouting in any way diminishes the mission of scouting.

What principle am I giving up by allowing people to live their lives they way they want to?  They have no right to tell me how to live and I don't have the right to tell them how to live. As long as that's as far as it goes then my principles need to stay that way, my principles.   People do all kinds of things that I don't happen to agree with or like -by my accepting that they have the right to do so, how am I ""giving up" my principles?

I find few reasons to go to the Nashville show any more...I rarely need what they have anyway and there are better and less expensive shows I can go to if I feel the need.

Really? Homosexuality is/was “illegal”? Care to name a state where that is or was true?? I’m not an expert on each state’s laws but I suspect that what you are actually referring to are old, outdated and repealed (or ignored) sodomy laws that declared certain sexual ACTS as crimes (oral sex, anal sex to name two). Being homosexual (attracted to the same sex) has never been “illegal” any more than being a heterosexual any more than "thinking" about punching an asshole in the nose is NOT illegal; actually punching the asshole in the nose IS). And as a matter of law, the sexual acts courts included under these laws applied EQUALLY to homosexuals and heterosexuals (although no doubt their primary use, as evidenced by how they were applied, was clearly to go after homosexuals). More to the point, what possible difference could the existence or absence of these laws have on the BSA or any other organization where sexual acts are absolutely not permitted and have no place EVER? “Mental Disorder”…yes, homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder but no longer which is as it should be. However, even if you believe it is a mental disorder and should be classified as such, why did or why should the BSA not have similar prohibitions against all mental disorders as they did about homosexual boys? Why single out one particular disorder and ignore all others? This line of thought also begs the question of how would they know that ANY boy had been “diagnosed” as having the “mental disorder” of homosexuality? I submit that the BSA adopted its policy against homosexual boys out of unfounded fear, prejudice and pressure from certain religious groups seeking to impose their morality…they’ve now abandoned that policy likely because of pressure from homosexual rights groups. In my opinion, the adoption of the restriction and now that abandonment of the restriction shows a significant lack of character, backbone or any core “moral” beliefs at all within the BSA.

What this state doesn't need any more of are politicians who wouldn't know an unalienable right if it crawled into bed with them and bit them in the ass.   Haslam, Ramsey, Harwell and more than I have time to name are worthless politicians and unworthy to be in any elected office...these people make me sick to my stomach that I ever once identified myself as a Republican.