RobertNashville

I don't think the "manual" is an issue; a "manual" can't disarm an otherwise legally armed citizen.   "Neighborhood watch captain" or not anyone has a right to call 911 and report what he believes to be a suspicious person...and that person also does nothing illegal by trying to keep the suspicious person in sight until the police get there.   I'm in my neighborhood watch; the Rutherford CSO never gave any of us manuals that I'm aware of. I don't nor do the rest of my neighbors "patrol" our neighborhood but I can damn sure tell you that if I"m awake I'M ARMED and that would include; even especially include if, until the police arrived, I outside of my home and were trying to keep an eye on someone I though was a potential thief/criminal up to no good.

Sorry...I assumed that's what you were talking about since I thought that was the point of the thread. ;)

It still isn't and never was a "Christian" organization nor does the word "god" have to mean a particular god no matter how many "Christian values" it was surrounded by (what does surrounded by Christian values even mean???).   In fact, the BSA has always gone out of its way to be a-religious and not specify any particular religion.

damn right

Where is the Constitutional encroachment from the BSA changing its policy because I really don't see it.   If the BSA allowing gay boys into the scouts is an encroachment then not only should they not allow gay boys then, shouldn't they exclust not only gays but fat kids or kids who have lied or kids who have coveted something the belonged to someone else or who have ever taken the Lord's name in vain or had impure sexual heterosexual thoughst?   Why is homosexuality singled out as if it's a "worse" sin than, say, gluttony???

What "rights" are they pushing for that they already have?    If you mean marriage that's not a "right" to start with, isn't in the Constitution and really none of the government's business to be involved with in the first place.

Zimmerman being or not being a member of a "watch group" is absolutely irrelevant. He was a citizen (or "white Hispanic" if you perfer; whatever the hell that's supposed to be) who lived in a neighborhood that had been dealing with break-ins and, it sounds like, the thugs usually getting away.  He saw someone he thought looked suspicious and tried to describe and follow him until the police arrived..he took his side arm with him as I and I'd bet everybody else on this board would have done.   The 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow Martin and from what I've seen he complied with teh 911 operator and either had or was about to return to his vehicle when he was jumped and beaten.   You can say he should have never "followed" Martin in the first place or never left his vehicle and I'd be inclined to agree with you but I can't see any act on Zimmerman's part that presented to Martin what a "reasonable man" would consider to be an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm and if there was no such threat from Zimmerman toward Martin then Martin was the aggressor, had ZERO legal right to jump Zimmerman and beat his head against the sidewalk - as far as I can see, Martin got exactly what he deserved.

Race is absolutely an issue - it's the soul reason Zimmerman is on trial for murder...had this been a white 17 year old thug it would have ended when the DA decided not to prosecute. The DA at the time it happened saw the evidence and didn't prosecute...the evidence I've seen since has given me no reason to think that the DA was wrong.

Fact?  What "fact" are you talking about.   You use words like "chase" but unless you are holding out on us you weren't there; there is a hell of a lot of difference between "chasing" someone and simply trying to keep up with someone to see where he is going/if he, as Zimmerman suspected, was going to do something criminal. And if Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle then how was he "chasing" Martin?   When exactly did Zimmerman display his weapon - do you know that for a "fact" too?   Martin had a "right to defend himself" if and ONLY if Zimmerman presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm and I see NOTHING in any evidence we have access to that shows Zimmerman did so...if you've got access to something I don't or have missed please feel free to point me to it.

Most of that described chain of events is assumption and in conflict with the un-doctored 911 tapes and witness statements.

You had me pretty much up to the unfounded allegation/assumption that Martin did nothing wrong.   If Zimmerman had disengaged and was leaving the area, as it seems to me the evidence at least suggests he was and if Martin, trying to be a badass tracked him down and attacked and put Zimmerman's life in danger the Martin did something VERY wrong, perhaps wrong enough that he would be facing a charge of attempted murder of Zimmerman.   To put it in the parlance of what we talk about every day here; even if Zimmerman was a "threat" to Martin at some point, if Zimmerman had/was disengaging then he was no longer an threat to Martin or anyone else and Martin then had ZERO justification for doing anything to him at that point.   Non of us have a right to murder someone; we have a right to defend ourselves, including the use of deadly force, to stop a threat...PERIOD.  Once the threat stops we have to stop.  It looks to me as if Martin didn't stop and crossed that line.

Its roots doesn't mean it can't be accurate or accurately applied.   I'm seeing at least some folks here who appear to have a significant problem, not with homosexual sex but just with "gays" period...just because they are gay. That seems a bit "homophobic" to me especially. I suppose what troubles me most is that I suspect that while condemning "gays"; other "sins" are casually overlooked or ignored (or even practiced) by some of those very same individuals to whom I think the term homophobe might actually apply.   I agree with you and others in that I don't think the "homosexual" lifestyle is "normal"; I find the idea of homosexual sex repugnant. However, I also don't give a rat's ass if someone is or isn't "gay".

I used to think that the label "homophob" was just something made up by pro-homosexual lobbying groups to disparage those who don't agree with them.   However; with this thread I'm beginning to see that their may be some substance underlying the label.

You said "both are equally unacceptable"...you made the initial assertion so feel free to present your "biblical evidence" to support it.   Otherwise it's just you opinion; not a edict from God.

Maybe you haven't been reading the same posts I have; like the one I was responding to.

Do you?   And do you really want to turn a thread on a gun forum into a deep theological discussion?   Do you really think it would be productive for me to use an internet forum to explain nearly 50 years of my personal walk with God and how I arrived at where I am in my belief system?

It seems to me that most of the labeling going on is coming from people who aren't gay and who have little or nothing to do with the BSA.  :shrug:

Please tell me what I said in the post you quoted that in any way led you to think I am ambivalent toward pedophilia or child sexual molestation.   Or do you just assume that a homosexual scout leader = a child molester?

To YOU maybe; but not to me and I suspect, not to most people, either.   More importantly, I don't think both are equally unacceptable to God either; at least not the God I know of from the Bible.

I'm in favor of a majority being able to vote for something I am against so long as what they are voting for is not unconstitutional, even when they vote for Obama in 2008 and in 2012; that is not "mob rule, that is how our government was set up to work.   Do you only like the way our government was set up to work wen it passed laws you agree with?   Do you believe in the first amendment or do you only believe in it when it protects your religion and your speech?

Is pushing for passage of a law "forcing" or is it just the way our government was set up to work?   No, no one is forced to go to church but I think there is evidence in this thread that there are some Christians who seem to think that a completely secular institution like the BSA is obligated to follow what they believe are "Christian" principles; frankly I find that a little offensive and un-American.

How about they just accept that people don't have to agree with their position???

  And what evidence do you have that the "gay lobby" forced this change on the BSA - do you really think the sureys they conducted, in which I participated, had nothing to do with the voting members' decision?   What evidence to you have the the "gay lobby" is demanding the BSA "approve their behavior" or do you see no distinction between tolerance and acceptance?   Who said that Christians can't speak what they believe to be the truth?  Seems to me some have been pretty vocal here about speaking their mind; I don't think anyone has banned for stating what they believe.   It seems to me that it's the "Christians", in this instance, that are demanding that their beliefs be both accepted and followed.   I say again; allowing gay boys into scouts is not an endorsement of homosexuality or of homosexual sex any more than allowing "fat" boys in scouts is an endorsement of gluttony; at least not in any way I can see. I'd be willing to bet, however, that if the BSA voted to no longer allow "fat" kids into the BSA because they are "un-reptetnt" sinners (committing the sin of gluttony) that a lot of folks here who think it's just horrible that gay boys are now allowed in scouts would be screaming bloody hell about how "intolerant" the BAS was for excluding fat kids.

And as long as the "gay scout master" does nothing sexually inappropriate with the troop he is leading what exactly is the problem? Is sexual misconduct somehow more "sinful" if it's homosexual sexual misconduct rather than heterosexual misconduct?

How many people are actually buying the stuff on Armslist? You can still find ARs and SCARs on Armslist for incredibly inflated prices too; that doesn't necessarily mean people are buying them. ;)