Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Trying to find a way to put this without just being my normal blunt self. Okay, let's try it this way. LGBT Community. You had a win. Congrats. After Heller vs D.C., I understand what that win must mean. However, in the recent days, you've been acting a bit vengeful. Let's have a chat:

1.) The Black Community and you have NOTHING in common. You have more in common with the GUN Community. Why? No one knows you're carrying a weapon unless you're "OPEN CARRYING". Same for whomever you having "relations". Sure you can wear clothing, and carry yourself where people have a suspicion of you being a gun owner, and POSSIBLY carrying a weapon, but they have no proof. Black folks can't really hide being black. So. Cut it out. Trust me, they had a discussion with me about today. Seriously. Cut that out.

2.) Stop being bullying azzjacks to those who don't go "Cheerleader" for your win. If they're not bothering you, don't bother them. This goes for those who don't say/post/write all sorts of positive (or NEGATIVE) things. Sometimes? Ain't their circus. Ain't their monkeys. I had no dog in this "marriage fight". Not because of the "gay" part, but the "marriage" part. Don't believe in it, don't like it. It was originally designed to end wars/feuds, expand lands, fill coffers, and clean up bloodlines. Romance didn't come into this till about the mid to late 1700's.

3.) Another "bullying azzjacks move", stop going after churches that won't marry you, or businesses that won't support you. Simply put, acting like this means you're being a bully with your rights over someone else's rights. There are folks willing to accommodate you, and happily so. Yeah, you feel like crap, and hate people for being this way, but don't be the bully, be the bigger person. A lawsuit just makes you look like an arrogant bullying azzjack. Now, clarifying, this does NOT mean any guv'mint clerks! You took the job, now DO the job! Trust me the gun community has many a fight under their belts with "clerks" and "bureaucrats".

This yet another example of how you're more in tune with the GUN COMMUNITY! I cannot carry my firearm into certain businesses. I respect their PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS! Trust me. I have open carried a sidearm, and been asked to leave, sternly, but politely. They said "You can put it in your car! And come back." You can simply say "I chose not to do business with anyone who doesn't respect my rights. Being a bigger person, I'll honor your right of private property, and let others know about this incident. Thank you."

4.) Keep your "cray-crays" in check. AGAIN! Reference the "Gun Community". We have some outlandish folks in the gun community that are just whack-a-doodles when it comes to the things they say/do/behave about firearms. Temper your actions in GOOD MANNERS OR TASTE! Or if you will, as if your job/life depended on it. It builds supporters that were PREVIOUSLY NEUTRAL! Keep that in mind, some people in this argument had "no dog in the fight". You keep acting badly, it turns people "off" to your movement! (IE: Carry a Military Styled Semi-Auto slung over your shoulder. Sure it's legal, and you can do it, but it does NOT win "Hearts and Minds")

5.) Leave old folks alone for about a month. They came from a different time, they know they have LGBT people in their family, and love them, but this is a scary time for them. The whole fabric of what they believe has changed. Reference "be the bigger person".

I know some of this has your blood in a boil, but trust me. The gun community went through this over, and over, and over again with courts siding with us in "Shall Issue", and "Constitutional Carry", and many other rulings. We have the same conversations within our OWN community!

You are happy, excited, and you should be! You had a "Win". But don't be a "Poor Winner". Graciousness accents a good win. Pass this around to those you think need to have that conversation.

This thread is nice, but it would have been better if it started with... "does it burn, tickle, neither or both?"

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Some good points, but I believe the "facts" are suspect.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Reverenddel wrote: 5.) Leave old folks alone for about a month. They came from a different time, they know they have LGBT people in their family, and love them, but this is a scary time for them. The whole fabric of what they believe has changed. Reference "be the bigger person".

Very true. Was visiting today with an "older" family member. They were pretty bent out of shape over this. To the point I didn't want to continue on the subject out of respect. To the 65 & older Christian crowd....this was an unbelievable slap in the face to the values & morals they've believed in for longer than plenty of us have been alive. They take it personal, as an assault on their values, & are legitimately distraught over the ruling.

Well said, Carl.

Oh... and another thing. I was reading about Fairfax county school system & the transgender stuff....... Ummm... I pose a question/circumstance: So, you are in a public place... lets just say a big box store. Say your wife, or your daughter have to use the can. You patiently wait outside the restroom. A biological male err....uh transgender wanna be woman approaches & wants to go use the ladies restroom. Are you letting Caitlyn in the ladies room while your wife or daughter is in there...? Just curious to others' opinons......

I'm betting this is going to happen with more frequency in the coming months/years/etc....

See, that transgender question there...

I'm not comfortable with that. And, truthfully, the idea that I MUST be comfortable with that is infuriating to me.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

There are legal stages for transgender. I expect them to follow the law.

I don't need to be comfortable with it. The anti-gunner say that they aren't "comfortable" with my wearing a gun. As long as I am courteous and don't pose a problem, then frankly, that's their problem. Same goes for me and transgender folks.

In another thread a few years ago, Reverendel said something along the lines of, "People and the government can either get along with me, or stay the hell out of my business." That's how I feel.

To clarify, I don't care if you decide to chop off your manhood and wear a dress. Truly, it's none of my business. Go for it; have fun.

It's the bathroom scenario that Viper presented that I am uncomfortable with. I don't want a man in the bathroom with my wife and daughter. If you were born with a penis, you have male DNA. That can't be changed, regardless of the mutilations that you have done to yourself.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Everyone is different. If I have a "Bachelor Party" incident with "Tim who repairs BMW's", I'll let you know, but transgenders aren't any danger to anyone. Wang, or not to wang... that is the question. Kinda determines which restroom.

SHMIV wrote:To clarify, I don't care if you decide to chop off your manhood and wear a dress. Truly, it's none of my business. Go for it; have fun.

It's the bathroom scenario that Viper presented that I am uncomfortable with. I don't want a man in the bathroom with my wife and daughter. If you were born with a penis, you have male DNA. That can't be changed, regardless of the mutilations that you have done to yourself.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I could be wrong, but I don't believe most women's bathrooms are going to have urinals hanging on the wall, where the women have a conversation while doing their thing and I don't think they are going to be like Fort Pickett's WW II barracks or Quantico's ranges where you have a couple of thrones with no dividers between them. Speaking of that I always thought it was funny they chose to stencil "flush after use" above each throne so there was no confusion that they all needed to be flushed...

The problem comes that if a business is open to the public, by law it means all of the public. The have a right to refuse service to those they deem a danger to their customers (ie those with weapons or obviously under the influence). The problem is that they cannot as a public business refuse service to someone they object to, that is discrimination. If said businesses were allowed to do so then they could also refuse service to blacks, whites, christians, jews, muslims, hell even if they didn't like the way you were dressed. It would be chaos and that is why as a public business they are not allowed to do such things. There is a loophole however that said business become private. They then can deem whoever they feel is suitable to be a member of their private business. And that can be for any reason.

As for the ones that are being bad sports, well it's actually kind of understandable. The LGBT community has been fighting for this for so long and to finally have it handed to them...well I can say from my view that I cried when I heard the news. It was a dream of mine to one day be married, a dream I had given up on, and now one day I may be able to again. It is one time I can honestly say I was left speechless because no words could of expressed how profoundly happy I was.

As for the crazy zealous woohoos, they're fun but they often go too far and make a mess of things. Trust me there ain't no stopping them, best just to smile and nod and try to avoid them. Or just go along with them, they're kind of like that one guy everyone knows where every time you hang out you end up the next day in a hotel room surrounded by empty beer bottles, a goat, three strippers, party balloons that all say merry christmas, being accused of filling the pool with lime jello by the management.

As for the vintage ladies and gentlemen, while I can't speak for anyone else I have the utmost respect and courtesy when it comes to my being gay. I keep it to a minimal around them. Heck I haven't even told my parents yet, half out respect half out of fear that my homophobic dad may tan my hide; hey he may be twice my age and I may be a grown man and may be able to take him but he is the toughest SOB I've ever met so I'm not chancing it!

thekinetic wrote:The problem comes that if a business is open to the public, by law it means all of the public. The have a right to refuse service to those they deem a danger to their customers (ie those with weapons or obviously under the influence). The problem is that they cannot as a public business refuse service to someone they object to, that is discrimination. If said businesses were allowed to do so then they could also refuse service to blacks, whites, christians, jews, muslims, hell even if they didn't like the way you were dressed. It would be chaos and that is why as a public business they are not allowed to do such things. There is a loophole however that said business become private. They then can deem whoever they feel is suitable to be a member of their private business. And that can be for any reason.

It would not be chaos. Let business owners put their sign up in the window "no blacks/gays/christians/jews/whatever" so everyone will know who those businesses don't like and can choose to take their money and shop elsewhere. Suppliers by the same token can also choose not to resupply those businesses if they so choose. This is the age of social media and the market takes care of issues like this through boycotts and protests. Kinda hard to run a business without supplies and customers. In the end there will always be a group of people accepting everyone into their stores as long as their cash is green.

Like LGBT supporters, I believe in equality under the law. That means when someone interacts with government. Private (non-government) entities are completely different though. I've been able to explain my position to numerous people why businesses should be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason they want, yet supporters who want to force businesses into serving people they obviously don't like can only explain their position by saying "it's the law". To me that's not a compelling argument since laws get changed all the time. What is the rationale to use government to force someone into a financial transaction they don't want to be a part of?

I also come across a logical inconsistency when it comes to discrimination. People don't like a "no gays allowed" sign but those same people would be ok with a "no guns allowed" sign. How can you be ok with discriminating against someone exercising their constitutionally protected right? Well they claim property rights (and I agree someone should be able to hang up that sign if they want). OK, but how can you have property rights in regards to a "no guns allowed" sign but not have property rights in regards to a "no gays allowed" sign?

What exactly is marriage? The dictionary I have says (I'm paraphrasing), the legal state of being married, wedlock, the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, the act of marrying, a close union, the combination of the king and queen as in pinochle.

Let's take the "legal" aspect of it since that was what the SCOTUS decision centered on. Isn't it, when you boil it down, a social contract between two consenting adults? Don't we, as consenting adults, have the right under constitutional and natural law to enter into a contract with another person?

This all started out (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm in error) as the demand that two people who decided to enter into a social contract, as I've described marriage to be, be afforded all the same rights as two people (man and woman) who decided to get married. Very simply, if one dies the other gets it all, if one fools around the other gets half.

Because our government decided, many decades ago, to apply legal constructs to the concept of marriage, they put themselves at the center of a controversy they hadn't yet conceived of. So, along comes the gay community and they want the same rights as the hetero community. The moralists among us cried foul! Why, you can't do that! That will change everything! Change what? It wouldn't have redefined marriage, it would simply have afforded the same rights to gays. Very likely we would not have gotten to the point of the SCOTUS deciding this issue. Congress could have settled this a long time ago.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's patooti how others want to live. Just live your way and STFU! Don't try and convince me your way is okay or moral, or anything of the sort. I don't agree with it, but I won't stop you or criticize you for it. And you should have the same rights as my wife and I have. The constitution guarantees it.

Swampman wrote:What exactly is marriage? The dictionary I have says (I'm paraphrasing), the legal state of being married, wedlock, the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife, the act of marrying, a close union, the combination of the king and queen as in pinochle.

Let's take the "legal" aspect of it since that was what the SCOTUS decision centered on. Isn't it, when you boil it down, a social contract between two consenting adults? Don't we, as consenting adults, have the right under constitutional and natural law to enter into a contract with another person?

This all started out (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm in error) as the demand that two people who decided to enter into a social contract, as I've described marriage to be, be afforded all the same rights as two people (man and woman) who decided to get married. Very simply, if one dies the other gets it all, if one fools around the other gets half.

Because our government decided, many decades ago, to apply legal constructs to the concept of marriage, they put themselves at the center of a controversy they hadn't yet conceived of. So, along comes the gay community and they want the same rights as the hetero community. The moralists among us cried foul! Why, you can't do that! That will change everything! Change what? It wouldn't have redefined marriage, it would simply have afforded the same rights to gays. Very likely we would not have gotten to the point of the SCOTUS deciding this issue. Congress could have settled this a long time ago.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's patooti how others want to live. Just live your way and STFU! Don't try and convince me your way is okay or moral, or anything of the sort. I don't agree with it, but I won't stop you or criticize you for it. And you should have the same rights as my wife and I have. The constitution guarantees it.

Damned funny that procreation never enters that line of rationalization.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I have made this statement over and over again. I get poop for it every time... but I'll repeat it again.

I don't care if you are part of the LGBT community. If you want a legal, contractual partnership so you can have 100% of all of the benefits of a heterosexual couple, I am 100% fine with that. You want to live with someone you love and care for? Outstanding. I fully support that. You want to be sure that when you are gone, the person you love is well taken of? Great! I'm down. I'll even help you if you are a friend or family member. Just call it anything but marriage, because its not marriage.

If you research the true origins of marriage, you will find that it is 100% spiritual in nature and origin. Marriage is a blessed sacrament. It is a spiritual union of a man and a women joining to become one, to procreate, live in God's image and in God's honor.

Therefore, if you are electing to be with a person who is the same sex, not able to procreate and a choosing to intentionally engage in sin in defiance of God, you can not possibly be married. I don't care what the courts say. I don't care the the marriage license says. I don't care what the member of the cloth who performed the service says. YOU ARE NOT MARRIED!!!! I'm sorry... you're just not.

Words have meaning and you cant use a court proceeding to change the meaning of a word or act that has existed as-is since the beginning of mankind itself. Get over yourself, call it anything you want (except marriage), but stop bullying the 98% of the rest of the population because we disagree.

If you believe the bible,this whole thread is moot,gay relationships cant be rationalized in no way,shape or form

SHMIV wrote:To clarify, I don't care if you decide to chop off your manhood and wear a dress. Truly, it's none of my business. Go for it; have fun.

It's the bathroom scenario that Viper presented that I am uncomfortable with. I don't want a man in the bathroom with my wife and daughter. If you were born with a penis, you have male DNA. That can't be changed, regardless of the mutilations that you have done to yourself.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Im with ya SHMIV. I'm somewhat... indifferent to the gay marriage thing. I don't support it, yet.. I'm not really against it either. However, this whole transgender nonsense, really bothers me. Plenty of these types, get breast implants, wear makeup, dresses, etc... yet still have Mr Winky. Not a situation, I'd want my wife, daughter, or granddaughter to be forced to encounter in a public restroom. Yet, according to Fairfax county public schools, they are now a protected class, & kids are going to have all of it shoved down their throats in "health" class, with parents unable to opt out of the teachings. So... in the future, a teenage boy, who thinks he's a woman, can come to school wearing a dress, & use the girls bathroom...????

For the record..... I support everyones right to be a freak, or whatever you want. AS LONG AS, it doesn't infringe on others. I have no problem with gay people, I have no problem with those going through identity crisis. Where I think things are flawed is, forcing kids to be taught it is normal, & okay.

Viper21 wrote:

SHMIV wrote:To clarify, I don't care if you decide to chop off your manhood and wear a dress. Truly, it's none of my business. Go for it; have fun.

It's the bathroom scenario that Viper presented that I am uncomfortable with. I don't want a man in the bathroom with my wife and daughter. If you were born with a penis, you have male DNA. That can't be changed, regardless of the mutilations that you have done to yourself.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Im with ya SHMIV. I'm somewhat... indifferent to the gay marriage thing. I don't support it, yet.. I'm not really against it either. However, this whole transgender nonsense, really bothers me. Plenty of these types, get breast implants, wear makeup, dresses, etc... yet still have Mr Winky. Not a situation, I'd want my wife, daughter, or granddaughter to be forced to encounter in a public restroom. Yet, according to Fairfax county public schools, they are now a protected class, & kids are going to have all of it shoved down their throats in "health" class, with parents unable to opt out of the teachings. So... in the future, a teenage boy, who thinks he's a woman, can come to school wearing a dress, & use the girls bathroom...????

For the record..... I support everyones right to be a freak, or whatever you want. AS LONG AS, it doesn't infringe on others. I have no problem with gay people, I have no problem with those going through identity crisis. Where I think things are flawed is, forcing kids to be taught it is normal, & okay.

Are you saying that gay married couples should not be able to adopt?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

WRW wrote:

Viper21 wrote:

SHMIV wrote:To clarify, I don't care if you decide to chop off your manhood and wear a dress. Truly, it's none of my business. Go for it; have fun.

It's the bathroom scenario that Viper presented that I am uncomfortable with. I don't want a man in the bathroom with my wife and daughter. If you were born with a penis, you have male DNA. That can't be changed, regardless of the mutilations that you have done to yourself.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Im with ya SHMIV. I'm somewhat... indifferent to the gay marriage thing. I don't support it, yet.. I'm not really against it either. However, this whole transgender nonsense, really bothers me. Plenty of these types, get breast implants, wear makeup, dresses, etc... yet still have Mr Winky. Not a situation, I'd want my wife, daughter, or granddaughter to be forced to encounter in a public restroom. Yet, according to Fairfax county public schools, they are now a protected class, & kids are going to have all of it shoved down their throats in "health" class, with parents unable to opt out of the teachings. So... in the future, a teenage boy, who thinks he's a woman, can come to school wearing a dress, & use the girls bathroom...????

For the record..... I support everyones right to be a freak, or whatever you want. AS LONG AS, it doesn't infringe on others. I have no problem with gay people, I have no problem with those going through identity crisis. Where I think things are flawed is, forcing kids to be taught it is normal, & okay.

Are you saying that gay married couples should not be able to adopt?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

It takes decades for those kinds of chickens to come home to roost...
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... atter.html