The 9th Amendment is suddenly "progressive" because it covers something you disagree with? LOL.
Even Jefferson knew we had to keep evolving on issues.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
Why Do They Hate Our Soldiers?
- Thread starter mrjarrell
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Even Jefferson knew we had to keep evolving on issues.
Absolutely not. Who are you to believe you know how other people in other states should govern their lives just because you disagree with them? Who is the statist...the one that wants to control what other people do or the one that wants to use the federal .gov make people do what they disagree with?
What about the liberty to be a libertine...
It's a case of government vs government, not government vs people. Two completely different things. The state is not entitled to any federal tax dollars or equipment for their state militia unless they follow certain rules and treat soldiers with the dignity and respect they deserve. These tools in state government have decided to treat all soldiers and their families with disrespect because of their bigotry. Withholding federal funds from them till they decide to treat American soldiers with the respect they deserve is not progressive or even statist. Just a tool in the armoury to make the state treat everyone equally before the law and not base things off bigotry.
You're version of right and wrong is not necessarily the only or correct version. At least, thanks to the machinations of the progressive era, the .gov has the necessary tools to enforce the version you prefer.
Of course it is. Nothing I said was meant to imply that such a thing is not entirely your choice.
Keep in mind that my comments related directly to mrjarrell being told he should be open minded toward people who are not open minded. You can't possibly tell me that won't set off an Alanis Morissette branded irony meter.
I can't agree with "..is just exactly as reprehensible as any persecution of them in the past." People have been murdered because they are gay. Forcefully demanding equality and acceptance is not even close to murder.
Trooper
Shooter
Nothing prevents gays and lesbians from being assigned the worst duties. Like clearing mine fields. Or being on point during patrol in combat. And MOS can be reclassified for the good of the service.
Frankly this really does not matter. It is only important to the gay community because we resist them. Once they get this then they move on to some other way to disrupt society. It is more about destroying normal and traditional. Pushing to the point that society rebels thus allowing a fascist government to take control. At that point those who supported them will purge them. That is how the communists did it.
Frankly this really does not matter. It is only important to the gay community because we resist them. Once they get this then they move on to some other way to disrupt society. It is more about destroying normal and traditional. Pushing to the point that society rebels thus allowing a fascist government to take control. At that point those who supported them will purge them. That is how the communists did it.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,563
- 149
So how do you feel about the McDonald suit? Or Moore v Madigan?
I thought I was quite clear on Constitutionally protected rights and those that were left to the people and the states to decide on their own.
Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,563
- 149
Except all rights protected by the Constitution are not enumerated.
You might also want to read Art 4 Sec 1 of that document.
ETA You might also want to check into how the 14th Amendment and it's "progressive agenda" fit into those decisions. You do realize that before the 14th those Constitutionally protected rights weren't protected in regards to the states, right? Just the feds.
Last edited:
You seem to believe my remarks were directed toward you. Why is that?
People have been murdered for all sorts of terrible reasons - being unwanted in the womb is one - but retail murder isn't a threat to our collective liberty; the liberty our Forefathers sought when they declared their independence. Radical gays no longer want "equality"; they want the same sort of special status and power that other "protected" classes of people have garnered, and for less worthy reasons. Part of their reprehensible behavior is an outgrowth of the liberal/progressive/communist movement intended to not only redefine our language to suit themselves, but also to deny those who may disagree with their views any ability to speak our minds by labeling us "bigots," "homophobes," "haters," and such. THAT is absolutely as reprehensible as would be our labeling them as "queers," "un-natural," and "anathema."
Equality by fiat has not proven remarkably successful for negroes in the hands of Progressives; I see no reason to believe that gays and their attendants will fare any better.
Gee, I don't know. Maybe because you quoted me in your comment. You do realize you can go to the bottom of the page and just start typing, right? That way you'll be making an undirected statement. You know, just throwing it out there.
Ah, now I see what you were getting at. It appeared to me you had made a general comment - call it a generic comment, if you wish. I didn't particularly impute the comment to you personally, and certainly my comment was meant as a generic comment, not something directed toward you, personally. Therein lies the miscommunication.
Mutually so, it would seem.
