Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

That is a fine question, SGB. If forced to guess, I'd say that he--like a lot of Americans--he hasn't really thought long and hard about guns and listened to the arguments from well-informed people on both sides. Until he unambiguously articulates the pro-2A argument based on freedom from tyranny rather than coming at it from the angle of what US citizens "need to have," I'm going to assume that he's still fairly anti.

That's not a COMPLETE show-stopper for me, but darn near it.

Like I said, Carson has his merits. One of them is that he's not a lawyer. The government is currently overrun with lawyers.

As to his diplomatic skills, I don't think that there's much difference between bedside manner and diplomacy. Some diplomacy is required when you must tell a patient that they have a terminal illness or some drastically life changing disease. While I might prefer the "Dr. House" approach, most folks wouldn't.

Also, in his medical career, he has served on various boards, and has been director of more than one hospital department. I would suggest that diplomacy would be required in those areas.

To be sure, he holds views with which I disagree. He is not the perfect candidate. As has been pointed out, multiple times, on this forum, the perfect candidate simply doesn't exist. However, he's better than what the Democrats will be offering. He's also a better choice than Jeb or Romney.

I guess we'll see what happens.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

PistolPilot wrote:To all the people that say being gay is a choice; when did you decide you were going to be straight? That had to have been a choice as well, right?

Poor logic/straw man. As you should know, the line of reasoning that ends with "homosexuality is a choice" has as its main assumption that being straight is the default. Doing something other than the default is making a choice. Remaining with the default may be a choice, or it may not.

For myself, I don't buy the "homosexuals consciously decided to be that way" in most cases, but I at least encourage honesty in the debate on the topic.

Now if we're talking about homosexual activity rather than inclinations, well that is obviously a choice (except perhaps in some cases of mental illness in which someone is unable to control themselves).

I have to tell you Jamie, I've had enough "diplomats" running the country in my lifetime. I would really prefer a rear down to Earth guy who won't hold punches.

The left has been cheating at this game for a century and to take ground back, the Right can't play nice anymore.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

SHMIV wrote:As to his diplomatic skills, I don't think that there's much difference between bedside manner and diplomacy. Some diplomacy is required when you must tell a patient that they have a terminal illness or some drastically life changing disease. While I might prefer the "Dr. House" approach, most folks wouldn't.

Also, in his medical career, he has served on various boards, and has been director of more than one hospital department. I would suggest that diplomacy would be required in those areas.

Have we heard how he did with those? I haven't been following him as closely as some, so I may have missed it, but all I've heard is that he's plenty intelligent and hardworking.

Marc, there's a marked difference between "diplomatic" and "diplomats." I agree with you on the latter, but as has been demonstrated with a few administrations now, the former is an absolute necessity.

@Marc: I had meant to make that same point on being tired of diplomats, in my lasts post. Then I got sidetracked while double checking my memory in regard to whether or not Carson had served on any boards, so I forgot to. Glad you thought of it, lol.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

@Jamie: No, I haven't heard, but that doesn't mean that others haven't. To be honest, I haven't researched too deeply into Carson. Currently, I'm comfortable with him, but further research may change my mind. (Being comfortable with him doesn't make me excited about him, by the way. It just means that I feel that we could do far worse )

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

As far as the gun stuff goes, I think he has had a good life and may not see the valued added. I'm sure his advisers told him the base is big on guns and God. No one changes their opion that quickly.

I have a family member who is a diehard by the party Democrat, and has been for near 55 years. He absolutely hates guns. One day we were talking and he said he would love to shoot a gun one day, just to be able to say he did it. So, I took him to the range one day. He fired a few handguns, a semi-auto MP5, my M4 and an SASS. He was smiling from ear to ear the whole time. The bigger the bang, the more he liked it.

We all went to dinner together with the rest of the family that night. He was telling everyone what I great time he had. I asked him if he was going to buy one now and he said, and I quote "Oh, God no. I hate those things. I'm glad I had a chance to try them, but no one should be allowed to any any of those guns you have."

I just about fell out of my chair. He had such a great time, but he still couldn't see the value from an entertainment prospective. I figured it was pointless to argure the defense of Life and Freedom points.

Well, though Carson is a Conservative, I put him at the same level as my aforementioned relative. Until there is some proof, I'm having trouble with sincerity.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Sounds like we are all in violent agreement.

LoL. That happens often in life, does it not?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

You know what we need? What we had at the beginning...

A bunch of Virginia FARMERS running the country!

I'll go for that. 100%... as long as they aren't from the northern part of the state. Now a day... needs to be south western farmers. Anywhere else, the may be too close to the Libs and have been tainted. LOL

Y'all seem to have focused on gay being simply a learned or instinctive behavior. Perhaps it is both, or a combination of the two. Statistics involving identical twins show that they have a roughly 50% ratio of if one is gay, both are gay. That figure is way above the often cited 10% for the gay population. That would support the genetic/ instinct argument. You also hear the many stories about male children who are molested, growing up to be gay. That would be more of an indicator of the learned argument.

Perhaps comparing it to being left handed would be an more accurate analogy. Your instincts may tell you to do something the opposite way from most of the population, you can learn to conform and do things right handed. It would definitely make your life easier, in using many society's tools, good examples being many semi-automatic/ automatic firearms or even something as simple as most scissors. Other folks may learn to do things left handed, maybe because of an injury or other reasons, but they learn to do it. When all you have around you is guys or women and you wont see much of the opposite sex for years, you might be willing to change what you will do. That is what I think happens in prison.

As for "morality" or sin as defined in the Bible, as ancient as it is, I also recognize that many of the laws/rules/ expectations of the Bible were to ensure to propagation, health and prosperity for the people. At this in time on the planet, I don't think the idea of only having sex for the purpose of having children is really a requirement for the survival of the species. Take a look at a few of these from the Old Testament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

Old Testament = Old covenant. Irrelevant. Proscription on homosexual activity is in New Testament as well.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I wouldn't say that the Old Testament is irrelevant; if it were, we wouldn't have it.

It is true, however, that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus made some of the Old Testament traditions unnecessary. A good example would be the stoning of adulterers; Jesus set a new example, not by forbidding the practice, but by suggesting that the first stone be cast by one who was without sin. He could have thrown the first stone, but chose not to.

That choice was in keeping with His new commandment, found in John 13:34, which was to love one another.

I'm not going to "cast stones" by condemning the homosexual. That's not very loving. On the other hand, I'm not going to pretend that there is nothing sinful about the behavior, either. That, also, is not very loving. I will simply refuse to hide my feelings about it, and move on. If one wants to disagree with me, that's fine. If I bore ill will towards everyone who disagrees with me on a given subject, I would have alienated myself from my entire family, and would have no friends.

I have discovered that I can very easily love my neighbors, and maintain friendships with those neighbors, without having to approve of everything my neighbors say and do.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I don't really give a flip who is gay, who isn't, or how they arrived there. Just don't try and tell me I need to accept the lifestyle. I'll accept the person if he/she acts like a civilized member of society, not some cross-dressin, leather-whips-and-chains, freak-o-zoid. Keep those boobs away from me. They freak me out. I know several males and females who live the gay lifestyle. That's up to them, and as long as they don't try and force their lifestyle in either of my orifices, I'm good.

I feel the same way Swampman, I don't care what floats your boat, just don't force me to say: "that's great!".
And don't parade yourself around my children so that I'm forced to have to unconfuse them.

I have my beliefs, you have yours - end of story and move on.