Posted on 12/12/2011 9:58:57 AM PST by Between the Lines
That might be true, but perhaps it’s better to select better cases than a pervert being engaged in dangerous sexual behavior to make a case for armed self defense. It doesn’t play very well in most parts.
I’ll tell you what case would be better with most people. How about a guy who has to defend himself from a gay co-worker who continually keeps hitting on him despite repeated rejection and being told the guy isn’t gay, who finally tries to rape the straight co-worker? Now that’s a case I’ll get on board with. Or realistically, a guy of lower rank in the military having to fight off a gay male superior who’s attempting to rape him. This happens all the time. that’s the guy who needs to be armed.
So should every human wear an electronic collar controlled by the government to control what they do sexually? Because that’s the only feasible way to do such a thing.
What somebody does in their own bed is none of your business.
So nobody ever organized a community watch? Doing that along with shaming them is more effective than depriving people their God-given right (which is given to all Americans regardless of their sexual preference).
Like laws against murder and theft: just because it's illegal, doesn't stop people from doing it.
I can see by your opinions you are clueless on public health issues and the threat and cost it carries, not for what homos do in private, but for vectoring diseases there, in bath houses, and most frequently in filthy public restrooms—and the rest of us pay the price. The Mayor of Portland porked a juvenile kid in a public restroom—are you aware of anything other than what the homophiles promote?
Please reread: that is the big issue with male homos—infecting other people with a dozen diseases. Somebody has to work for public health, and trust me, it is not a glamorous or easy job, but male homosexuals are without parallel in their disgusting methods of disease transmission. Suggested reading for you: “The Gift.”
“”which is given to all Americans regardless of their sexual preference.””
Homosexuals having a sexual preference for little boys is called rape and is not a God-given right, but an adomination against all manner of decency even if it is labeled homophobic.
I'm not sure about you...but it rarely happens. There are more straights who hit on ladies at the work place. Come on...I don't like most of the gay's behavior, but neither does my gay friends.
being told the guy isn’t gay, who finally tries to rape the straight co-worker?
Did it ever happens?? If one of my employees ever try to RAPE anyone at work, I would FIRE the person and then I would press charges against the person. If it was after hours, I would have the person fired and see if the person would want to press charges.
This is my last statement on this subject. I believe that the constitution protects all... including GAYS -- with LIFE LIBERTY and HAPPINESS.
You believe the constitution protects perversion.
When the Constitution was written, sodomy was outlawed and often punishable as a capital offense. So was rape. The same brilliant minds that gave us the Consitution had no problem with that.
Nice try, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.