@ The_Master_Warrior: "I don't know about you Brits, but I do know that we Americans have a right to carry/drive whatever we want to. RPG? If you can get your hands on one, and you have the right license, sure. Howitzer? Where are you going to shoot it? Okay, whatever. Second Amendment. Tank? As long as it's street legal and you can afford one. (They cost millions of dollars). Yeah. I just said all that. I want to reiterate that like all rights not reserved for criminals, the Second Amendment applies for every adult. If I'm law-abiding, have no history of a felony or violent misdemeanor, mentally stable, and know how to use whatever I carry, what's wrong with it?"

What's wrong with you owning a fully-armed howitzer or main battle tank? Lots! The Howitzer is a great example - you yourself say "Where are you going to shoot it?" but you still defend your right to own one, despite the fact that there is no legitimate reason for needing to own such a dangerous thing!

On that basis, if in your interpretation the Second Amendment allows you to own pretty much any weapon, presumably you agree that individual US citizens should be able to own cruise missiles and nuclear ICBMs? That would stop the gays from being a threat to you.

Nutjob.


@ Mafialligator: "The right to bear arms is not considered a fundamental right in most countries, and a lot of these countries have lower rates of violent crime than the US."

Bingo: Nail. Head. Direct hit. Guns are dangerous. The more guns in circulation, the greater the danger.

Amusingly, there are numerous examples of people being shot by robbers/intruders WITH THEIR OWN GUN, which the robber has either got to before the householder, or where there is a scuffle and the robber gains control of the gun.


@ Draugnar: I respect the fact that many US gun owners are highly responsible individuals. Unfortunately, for every responsible person, there's a nutjob like The_Master_Warrior, who would pull a gun on anyone who touched his arm.

@Mafia: Fair enough on the stats, nothing was pulling up for me last night. >_> I concede (how can I not?) that empirical data doesn't necessarily seem to indicate that trend on an international level. And I fully grant that if we decided to make broader cause-effect constructions that my position would be in trouble empirically. However, I value the capacity of self-defense with firearms which the USA allows enough to look at the higher death rate and call it acceptable, much in the same way one might, say, be fine with criminals walking free in our legal system to reduce the likelihood that an innocent person is found guilty. I'm simply not comfortable with looking at data and condemning the Tulsa woman in the link I posted earlier to be raped and murdered.

Your point is valid that empirically the idea doesn't seem to stand. But when it makes clear logical sense that arming the would-be victims would deter a would-be criminal, and when the issue is as convoluted as it is... I dunno how helpful empirical data is.

@De Gaulle: Ah, sorry to hear that. Good to have you back.

...But now I've got to ask. Surely you don't mean to imply that people shouldn't worry about defending themselves because the army and the police can protect everyone, right? Because living in one of the more murder-infested areas of the USA (Baton Rouge -- per 2007 statistics, 31.7 murders per 100,000 people in the city -- I can tell you that such reliance is not very practical.

"@ Draugnar: I respect the fact that many US gun owners are highly responsible individuals. Unfortunately, for every responsible person, there's a nutjob like The_Master_Warrior, who would pull a gun on anyone who touched his arm."

I know you mean that in context of the phrase "For every x there's a y," where x is something good/bad (in this case good) and y is something bad/good (in this case bad)... but please tell me you see the absurdity in this claim. The amount of responsible gun owners *far* outweighs the number of irresponsible ones.

@ Draugnar

I said if he touched my arm suggestively (i.e. stroking it) and said "Do you want to have fun?". Learn how to read.

@ Jaimiet

That's an illegitimate argument, because no one (non-military) could ever get their hands on a cruise missile or ICBM, for a variety of reasons. But I understand the basis of your argument. You're saying "Where does regulation stop, under your logic." Well, I'll tell you. Wherever it becomes impractical to own something. Like I said, not very many law-abiding people have the need or means to own an RPG or a tank. Most people have the means to buy an assault rifle for home defense.

Like President Eden said, the police aren't omnipresent. Citizens have a right to defend themselves with more than their own fists.
Guns prevent more crime than they cause. It's unfair to associate a high gun ownership rate with a higher-than-average crime rate. There's more than one variable that could add to America's high ownership rate. For example, our hunting tradition. Our impoverished often turn to crime, and guns are cheap and easy to obtain illegally.

I hate it when people use the term "homophobia". It's almost always an incorrect term. I'm not scared of queers. Most queers and queer lovers can't understand why people don't like queers, so they incorrectly assume that such dislike is out of fear. Wrong. I don't have a problem with queers, as long as they keep it in the bedroom. I hate seeing two guys wearing short shorts and holding hands. That also applies for straights in my view.

I am a responsible gun owner. I own three, and I have a concealed carry permit. I won't go into details, but I'm a fair marksman as well.

I want to go back to something that was posted earlier in this thread - the classification of people into hetero and homosexual.

I cannot find the link now (and even if I could, I doubt heading to NCSF's website would be wise from the office), but the generally accepted theory now is that there is a *gradient* of sexual attraction, from a 1 being completely attracted to your own gender to a 10 being completely attracted to the opposite gender.

Most people are *not* a complete 10, but tend to range in the 7-8 range. This doesn't mean the men have constant fantasies about the cock, but that in right circumstances *irrespective of societal conditioning*, they could be interested in a little dick on the side.

That's where the social conditioning comes in, and where the problem comes in for *some* who are in the 6-7 range. While a pure 10 just doesn't *get* the idea of being attracted to their own gender, they tend to be more baffled by the whole thing than feel threatened. Those who are a 7 or below, on the other hand, occasionally *do* have moments where they do 'get it', and have been programmed by society to be friggin *terrified* of it.

Hence the frothing-in-the-mouth 'gays are sinful' types that get caught in the bathroom at an airport asking for a good deep dicking.

My point?

Those who are the most homophobic are *not* necessarily the most heterosexual. Instead, they have the most concerns about the whole 'gay thing', because gays represent *temptation*.

So the reason you don't like 'queers', TMW, is because you fear that in the right circumstances you could be one. If you had no feelings at all, you really wouldn't give a good goddam.

And note this isn't just my pet theory I'm pulling out of my ass, there is oodles of research that is consistent with this.

So maybe you shouldn't be such a goddam hypocrite, TMW. No one is going to force you to suck the dick, and you probably *wont* if you choose not to. Your self control, or lack thereof, is your own concern, and you can demonize Teh Gays all you want, but those feels aren't going to go away just because you scream about how icky they are.

Now, normally I'd just start utilizing the same terminology you're using to degenerate Men Who Love Men (or at least lust after them), because I know it's likely to drive you up the wall, but I have no desire to sink to your level.

Instead, I will just dismiss you with all the contempt you deserve.

@TMW - The point is that using deadly force cause someone stroked your fucking dick would still be manslaughter 1 at a minimum and probably get you murder 2. Oh, and if you shot him in a bar as he did it, you are in violation of nearly every state's weapons laws where alcohol and guns are not allowed in the same stablishment. So you are still the fucking Diplofool.

@ President Eden: "The amount of responsible gun owners *far* outweighs the number of irresponsible ones."

That may be, but the fact is that even if there are 1000 responsible gun owners for every 1 irresponsible gun owner, that's still a LOT of gun-toting nutjobs like TMW, and I would not like to live in a country like that. I could never live in the USA.


@The_Master_Warrior:

"@ Draugnar - I said if he touched my arm suggestively (i.e. stroking it) and said "Do you want to have fun?". Learn how to read."

That is still NOT sexual harrassment, and definitely not justification to pull a gun on someone, you insane freak. All you need to do in that situation is say "no thanks, I'm not interested in you," and move away. Firearms are not required in this scenario.


"Citizens have a right to defend themselves with more than their own fists."

Not in my country, thankfully.


"Guns prevent more crime than they cause."

Please prove this using verifiable data.


"Guns are cheap and easy to obtain illegally."

yes, and that's because of your weak gun control. Many of the guns now held illegally by criminals were once legitimate, legal guns which have either been stolen or illegally sold on. If you didn't let people have guns in the first place, criminals wouldn't be able to obtain them so easily and cheaply.


"Most queers and queer lovers can't understand why people don't like queers, so they incorrectly assume that such dislike is out of fear. Wrong. I don't have a problem with queers, as long as they keep it in the bedroom."

Please don't use the term "queers" - it is a pejorative term.


"I hate seeing two guys wearing short shorts and holding hands. That also applies for straights in my view."

I'm not sure what you mean by "that also applies for straights" - You hate seeing two straight guys in short shorts holding hands? How often do you see that, exactly?

I think he means he doesn't like seeing guys in short shorts or speedos. That says more about TMW and his security in his masculinity than he wants ot admit. I dare say that deep down he finds it rather homoerotic and probably watches Reno 911 just for the cop that always wears the tight shorts, but won't admit that either.

I have a hard time believing he actually thinks it's OK to shoot someone for stroking his arm whether it be in a bar, where guns are generally banned by law unless you carry a badge, or anywhere else (the pool or the shopping mall or wherever).

Oh, and regarding his claims of gun ownership and such, this is Diplofool who once claimed to be some PhD proferssor whose Doctorate's Thesis was called "Airplanes and Aerodynamics". He was banned for his trolling at one point and is pushing the envelope again. I suspect within the month we'll see TMW banned and then he'll have to come back as some completely different persona, but we'll know right away it is him.

He even has a German opening named after him that involves bouncing units in Spring 01 in a territory where no one could move but him anyhow.

I love that "I don't mind queers as long as they keep it in the bedroom." Basically what that means is "I'm totally willing to be tolerant as long as I'm never confronted with the reality that some people are different than me." The way sexuality is constructed in our society, sexual orientation is bound up in personal identity. And it's hard to confine personal identity to the bedroom. After all, is your profession only part of who you are when you're at the office? No, if you are an oncologist, you are still Dr. Smith, even when you're not in a hospital.
And don't worry about the word "queers". We've reclaimed it; whatever his intent was it's no longer a pejorative.

And as for the gun debate, using individual cases to prove a broad, social point just isn't a bad idea. You're right, the alternative would be dooming that woman to be raped and murdered, but I'm sure if I looked, I could probably find a case or two where lives, even innocent lives, would have been saved if someone in the situation did not own a gun. That sounds really really callous, but I hope people can look past that and see what I mean, without thinking I'm a terrible person.

Jamiet99uk wrote:

"Please don't use the term "queers" - it is a pejorative term."

Sorry, not anymore. Fag and dyke leaders refer to "queer culture" with regularity.


"You hate seeing two straight guys in short shorts holding hands? How often do you see that, exactly?"

I've seen it in ROCKY III, when Rocky and Apollo Creed were jumping around and hugging in their ball-hugger gym shorts on a beach in California, after Rocky finally beat Apollo in a race. That was SERIOUSLY gay. After that, I've always felt as if it should be outlawed. That was enough for me.

@TMW

"I won't go into details, but I'm a fair marksman as well."

Do you practice while flying your plane?

@ Draugnar: "He even has a German opening named after him that involves bouncing units in Spring 01 in a territory where no one could move but him anyhow."

Hahaha, yes. I'd forgotten about that. Thanks Draugnar. Now laughing at that farce all over again!

Draugnar +1

@ Mapleleaf: "Jamiet99uk wrote: "Please don't use the term "queers" - it is a pejorative term."

"Sorry, not anymore. Fag and dyke leaders refer to "queer culture" with regularity."

I accept your point, however I felt that the way TMW was using it WAS pejorative - his usage appeared quite aggressive. Plus, just because one community reclaims a word, doesn't necessarily mean those from outside that community can use it freely without upsetting said community. For example some black people call each other "Nigger", having reclaimed the term, but I would not dream of walking up to a black man I didn't know and addressing him as "nigger".

TMW=diplomat1861? makes alot of sense.

Yes Sic, he is Diplofool. Figle confirmed it when he (TMW/Diplofool) first returned.

The word "queers" may be in a gray area, but the words fag and dyke...not so much.
And your forum handle "mapleleaf" led me to believe that, being a fellow Canadian you'd be more reasonable about this than American forum posters. Oh well, that's what I get for making generalizations. (Unless you're just being a troll.)

Maple is one of the bigger trolls here, Mafia. And did I gather from your "we've reclaimed it" that you are in fact, gay? Not that there is anything wrong with that. :-) Just an interesting wording if you aren't.

That does explain a lot. I'm not terribly surprised to hear that mapleleaf is in fact a troll. I am still kinda new to this using forum things so I sometimes have difficulty identifying trolls from first principles, but there were signs.

And yes Draugnar, very astute of you picking up on my wording like that. You are correct.

Good for you, not hiding your orientation! and I learned long ago it isn't a decision you make but part of who you are. My buddy Gary used to point out that no one would choose to be gay. The societal ostracism at the time (early 90s) was even worse than today. I sometimes think the stress of dealing with a society that couldn't see him for who he was contributed to the heart attack that took him at way to young an age (45).

@Jamie

"For example some black people call each other "Nigger", having reclaimed the term, but I would not dream of walking up to a black man I didn't know and addressing him as "nigger". "

I know what you mean, I as a black person would not dare to call a white person a "cracker" even though they do all the time...Oh wait, I call them that too :D

I think though saying any good word in a negative tones = bad word. I could call someone a toaster stroodle which is amazingly delicious, but if I say it rudely, it is an insult, regardless of who owns toaster stroodles

hahah There is no way I'd be able to call someone a toaster stroodle without laughing.

I've never actually met a white person who was offended by the word "cracker." Are there such people? Perhaps it's my location (New England)?

Oh me gee, Maple and TMW look, a gay guy playing diplomacy(IS HE IN SHORT SHORTS AT THE SAME TIME?!?!), quick, me r must make this illegal!

Draugnar, I'm sorry to hear about your friend Gary. As much stress and discrimination as he faced, I'm sure he was also thankful to have you as a friend.

taylornottyler, now I really want toaster strudel, but I do not have any. = (

There was also something relevant I wanted to say, but I forgot what it was. Sorry!

Haha once you've realized you don't have a toaster stroodle, but want one, everything else becomes irrelevant.


My relevant contribution: If you're gay/bi, move to Los Angeles/San Fransisco. We're generally more accepting here. Prop 8 was a doosy though. Not a fun time, not fun at all.

San Fransisco is a nice place for sure. But I live in a large city in the Great White North. It's not so bad up here.

move to Seattle!

I have a feeling that the appropriateness of using the words 'queer', 'dyke', etc. are almost entirely dependent on tone or context. :)

Those who commented that the word queer has been reclaimed would be correct (by the LGBT community at large rather than solely gays) but obviously the term holds venom depending on the context of it's use.

Which makes discussing such subjects on the interweb a complete clusterf&*k.

Lesson? Don't censor yourself, but try to think about what you say before you say it, and don't offended if someone informs of the hurtfulness of your language. Don't be an ass-hat.

-----

In any case my dear TMW, saying that you'd shoot a gay man for hitting on you in a bar makes you look like a dangerous, murderous pyschopath; not something so innocent as a mere gay-hater.

----

Also, mapleleaf may be a troll, mafialligator, but he's *our* troll. (Warm fuzzy feeling)