Its amazes me that people so keenly aware of their Second Amendment rights being infringed by NOT being able to carry concealed in the mall, or in whatever other place, and their rights being infringed by certain firearm models being outlawed by various states and localities....

....could post a comment like "this is not the place to discuss matters of religion" i.e. "check your religion at the door / you're NOT ALLOWED to talk about that here."

To me, they're no better than the gun control people - wanting to "outlaw" religious discussion in this forum. Wanting to make what makes them "uncomfortable" to simply go away. Just like those "Million" Moms. They don't like guns becasue guns make them "uncomfortable." Religion makes y'all "uncomfortable" so you want it to go away.

Freedom cuts BOTH ways, people.

Well put Garandman.

You can't limit one without limiting the other, you can't have one without the other.

1.  This is a privately owned forum, whatever the owners say, goes.  Constitutional freedoms don't apply here, so stop blathering about them.
2.  It was mainly the Jesus-shouters who were upset by the porn, so I am attempting to illustrate that these things do, indeed, work both ways.  You had your sensibilities offended, so something was banned.  Now my sensibilities are offended by something else, so I want that banned.  You were the ones who set the precedent, so now deal with it.

Getting a littel touchy there Golgo????

To my knowledge, the mods have NEVER locked, deleted, or spoken ill of a thread SIMPLY becasue it had religious content. SOmetime religious folk go over board (Gee, non-religious folk NEVER do that. Right???) but that is a separate issue from religious content.

Fact is, GOlgo, you whine about people trying to take away your guns, and ALSO try to silence people of religious conviction. You have a fundamental flaw in your logic, and you have to deal with that. Ironically, you ENTIRELY dodged this point in your initial response to my thread opener. Typical.

SAYS WHO I was offended by the porn??? As a religious fellow myself, I happen to like hot, naked chicks. I CHOOSE to NOT look at the pictures, out of respect to my wife, and obedience to my Savior.

Methinks thou does't protest too loudly.

Can't we all just get along?

I think there is meat on both of your plates, but lets pass the steak sauce.

I, for one, would hate some anti-gunner to troll this board and think that we are trying to outlaw religion, that would make us Godless killers out to take over the world.

I love these discussion forums because I can bring anything to the table.

Hey guys...this is a "No Win, No Win" arguement.

Regardless of your Belief System, we are all here to enjoy our freedoms...whether it be SUR talk, or anything else.

The question is whether or not you would accept each other as allies if the SHTF, or would you refuse to back each other because of philisophical differences...

In point of fact, you can run a search on all my posts and you will find that I do not "whine" about people trying to take away my guns.  If you want to characterize me, at least try to be marginally accurate in your statements.
Since you say I have a flaw in my logic, what is that flaw, exactly?
I am stating the following:
At this board, the precedent exists that if members are offended by something, that something is banned, "don't look" having been determined to be an inadequate response.
Therefore, since I am a member and offended by religious material that material should be banned.

Where is the flaw in the logic?

Also, the phrase "methinks thou dost protest too loudly" is inappropriate for the point you were attempting to make at my expense.  By using that phrase, you were saying that I secretly am guilty of posting religious material.  

I answer to contras21's question, -


I would gladly have GOlgo cover my back in a SHTF scenario, even tho my religious beliefs offend him.

Fact is, we're on the same team.

After all, its my "offensive religious convictions" that teach me that "greater love hath no man than this, than for me to lay down my life for my friend / neighbor."

I would also cover Garandman's back.  That is not to say that after the last shot is fired, I am the least bit interested in hearing about his religious convictions.

WE ARE AMERICANS !!!
We are all free to choose what we believe in.
We should respect the choices made by others, even when we don't agree with them.
There should be nothing wrong with stating your beliefs and there should be nothing wrong with stating you disagree.

So, are you generally in favor of more or LESS firearms rights?? If "more" then it is contradictory for you to put greter restriction on expression of religious belief (greater than what the mods have put, which is little or none)



See above.



The flaw is not so much there, but in the assumtion that you want MORE firearms freedom (2nd Amend) but LESS religious expression (1ST Amend)

If you DON'T want more firearms freedom, can we assume you are a troll???



Not at all. Not saying anything of the sort. This is an example of a red herring, in you trying to divert attention from the point I am making. And perhaps shows a limited knowledge of the literary context my reference comes from.

Good...that having been cleared up we can move on.

Just to set the record straight, I do not share the same Belief views that you do. And why I don't is not important, except to me. I have gotten into the fray about this on other threads, but I have decided that I have spent too much time and energy engaging in a debate that has absolutely no clear cut winning ground...for either side. All it does is just create ill-will, and adds fuel to counter-productive pursuits.

Enjoy your freedoms while you still have them, and try to take other's views into consideration before firing back...

Ne Parcas Nec Spernas

"The flaw is not so much there, but in the assumtion that you want MORE firearms freedom (2nd Amend) but LESS religious expression (1ST Amend)

If you DON'T want more firearms freedom, can we assume you are a troll???" said Garandman.

I think what we can assume is that you don't have a leg to stand on in your argument here.  First you said I have a flaw in my logic, now you are saying the flaw is in an assumption that you are making about me.  Let's try an alternative version of my argument that might allow you to clarify your thoughts better, since they won't be so clouded with righteous anger.
1.  The precedent exists to ban things that offend members.
2.  I am a member and I am offended by boldface print.  Therefore, boldface print should be banned.

Now, find the flaw in my argument.  Don't drag in the Constitution of the US (which doesn't apply), or misquote Shakespeare, or tell me that you feel sorry for me.  Stick to the topic at hand and tell me where the flaw is in my argument.

Funny, that.

In a paradoxical sort of way, it reminded me of the old saying "There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole."

Its a known historical fact that during WWII, nearly every GI attended mass / church / religious services WHENEVER possible, and there was a measurable increase in "religious activity "among GI's. Even un-religious ones.

Golgo, if it got bad enuf, its likely you would be anxious to hear about God. Not my opinion. Documented historical fact.

Okay, here we go, third time. (maybe if I say it LOUDER you will "get" it.)

Since you are in a firearms forum, the assumption is you are pro-RKBA, or you are a troll.

Accepting you at face value that you ARE pro-RKBA, its seems patently hypocritical for you to want GREATER 2nd Amendment freedoms AND MORE RESTRICTED 1st Amendment freedoms. Therein lies what I interpret as a contradiction. If you don't "get" this, then thats the end of this discussion.

I never addressed your comparison of banning offensive porn vs. banning offensive religious content. I concede that point, and will defer to the judgment of the mods, and suggest you take this "apparent contradiction" up with THEM, as it was their decision to get rid of porn content, and allow what you purport to find offensive..

"Accepting you at face value that you ARE pro-RKBA, its seems patently hypocritical for you to want GREATER 2nd Amendment freedoms AND MORE RESTRICTED 1st Amendment freedoms. Therein lies what I interpret as a contradiction. If you don't "get" this, then thats the end of this discussion." said Garandman.

You are hopeless.  The Constitution and its ammendments DO NOT APPLY IN THIS FORUM. Why don't you toss in a few references to the Geneva Convention, The Hague Accords, The Magna Charta, and The Diet of Worms, while you are at it?  They don't apply either, but that hasn't stopped you from continually referencing the Constitution of the US.  You finally got one thing right.  This discussion is over.  We'll argue again on a day when you are more capable of assembling a cogent defense of your position.

[BLUE]GARANDMAN

Your Founding Fathers, I do believe, are
proud of you.