Free Republic

Actually, Stephen Halbrook is well known within the RKBA-defense community and has long been a champion of the right to keep and bear arms. My take on his letter is that he is going on the assumption that the [B]urn [A]ll {T]oddlers [F]irst crowd already have the names and addresses of all the buyers of the device.

He knows that the JBTs never really have felt terribly constrained by the Constitution and that the actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco have never seen justice done.

Whether someone wants to make a stand for their Second Amendment rights and fight it out like the Koreash crowd, or simply send in the device, is up to them. He is giving the advice which in their short-term best interest.

Then again, what this will mean in the long run is another matter. http://www.gunowners.org/op9805.htm

I think this is what they fear, even if it is couched in a joke. The joke goes like this, with variations...

There were three men sitting
on a bench, one was a Texan
wearing a cowboy hat, one was a
Muslim wearing a turban, and
the last fellow was an Apache
with a feather in his hair.

The Indian was sad and gloomy as he
said, "My people were many, but
now we are few."

The Muslim puffs up and said,
"Once my people were few, but
now we are many."

The Texan adjusts his hat, rolls
a smoke, leans back and drawls
out, "That's because we ain't
played Cowboys and Muslims yet."


It's the John Wayne archetype that the Left, and all America's enemies for that matter, despises. That 'type' has stopped the likes of Tojo and Hitler in their tracks, stymied Stalin, Brezhnev through to Gorbachov, has arrested the likes of Noriega and hung Saddam Hussein.

That's why they seek to emasculate American males by treating boyhood as ADD and imposing Ritalin on them, crippling the military and disarming the citizen.

If you wanted to face the USA, wouldn't you rather face a bunch of unarmed Elton Johns versus that of a passel o' gunslinging John Waynes, Clint Eastwoods and Charles Bronsons?

1) I have to echo the sentiments of the poster who called for a reinstatement of homosexuality as a flawed mental condition (or whatever the term of art may be). If there was no science to back up the decision to 'normalize' homosexuality, then the decision was tantamount to letting the inmates run the Asylum.

2) With regard to gay sheep studies in recent news showing that the orientation can be corrected -- this brings SouthParks's ("Bigger, Longer and Uncut") sequence of Saddam singing 'I can change' into a whole new perspective!

Hello Folks,

Thanks for the welcome and fact-filled URLs.

Not exactly sure what a ping list is, but I have the feeling you're about to tell me.

To the poster who found the university to be a hotbed of Leftists, oh yeah, I've been there and got the scars to prove it. I am convinced that being a Leftist is a form of dementia. I don't say that lightly, since the Left constantly belittles anyone who doesn't toe the party line as a Gun 'Nut,' Religious 'Nut,' Right Wing 'Whacko..' you see a trend here. (Look at the DEFAMATION section in "PsychoPolitics" [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics-pt2.html#anchor8]

In contrast, to be a Leftist is to religiously practice self deception: to worship at the altar of Socialism and reject all reports of the 100+ million slaughtered in the name, and STILL think you have the moral high ground over conservative Americans. I could go on at length, but I am certain that I am preaching to the converted.

That they have taken up homosexuality as one of their flagship issues is unsurprising. Their aim is to rot and destroy the pillars of moral society. Once the moral datum plane (that bright line distinction between right and wrong) has been destroyed, they substitute THEIR concept of right and wrong (PC) in its place.

Homosexuality attacks the basic building blocks of society-- the trusting, interdependent relationships between man and woman, husband and wife, and to no little extent, the trust between parent and child, and even close male to male heterosexual friendships. It is not only a vector of the modern incurable plague, it is just as dangerous as a social corrosive.

Maybe it was my referring to the practice as 'vile' and 'loathesome' that got up his a$$ (no pun intended -- okay, so maybe there WAS a pun intended). heh heh.

Hello Folks and Happy New Year,

Jan 01, 2007 and also my first post (signed up with FR today).

Where can I pose questions on this topic? I know most fora have FAQs and appropriate places to post and I would like to follow those guidelines.

In the meantime, I'd like to post - first -- the background and then the question.

Background:

Over time I had participated in a couple fora that were political in nature. In those fora, the topic of homosexuality came up. In a recent case, the focus was on the propriety of having homosexuals in the military. It seemed to be divided into two camps:

Veterans (including myself) who opposed homosexuals in the military, and

Civilians who had never served, supporting it.

Problems in both forums came when I posted URLs to studies showing how homosexuals were quite different from heterosexuals, had a much higher incidence of acquiring HIV/AIDs and had other other nasty habits as well, making them unsuited for a variety of reasons.

In both cases, the mods deleted the posts, even though they were not accompanied by personal attacks or vilification, just studies.

On the other hand, anyone who opposed homosexuals and supported traditional values was personally attacked as biased, bigoted, hateful, stupid and homophobic.

There was no chance to show our side of the discussion because the mods had injected themselves into the debate, had clearly taken sides and deleted info that exposed the weaknesses of their position.


Question:

One of the methods used by the pro-homosexual side was to say that psycholgical 'studied showed' that those who opposed homosexuals were they themselves hiding their own latent homosexuality.

This struck me as akin to those accusing Jesus of being in league with the devil when casting out demons ('you cannot serve two masters.." etc.)

Has anyone published a study exposing this as a homosexual psycho-babble debating tactic?

It has all the earmarks of Leftist debate methodology all over it.

PsychoPolitics - (intended to cover the profession, but look what their intended uses are and compare to what the suits in the entertainment industry have done for our kids).
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html

Raging Against Self Defense:
A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
By Sarah Thompson, M.D.
http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm