I don't think there is a connection between gun preferences and sexual preferences , unless it's a matter of self defence .

Excellent point ... this was the reason for me to raise the issue. Just as most bible basher have extremely limited knowledge of their own bible. Most of these gunsters probably have equally limited knowledge of legal processes and the changing nature of laws.
Interestingly enough my present post attracted most comments from these gunnuts.

Like the religious, they pick and choose. For me the interesting point is that since every citizen has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then the right to bear arms must not conflict with that, so guns (or any lethal weapon) should not be allowed where they may threaten the lives of others and restricted to private property, gun ranges, army bases etc.

I like that comment.

"The world is a sick and scary place"
Your profile says you're a "lot of fun". You might want to work on that.

@Gareth I can't help but let the news get to me.

Thank you for your comment.

I adore your defence of the constitution ...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I am not sure whether the gunsters really have profound knowledge of the constitution. I suspect that many just repeat what you just wrote without ever checking the original text.
I also suspect that many US citizens have rather limited knowledge of the rights people have in other countries. As a matter of fact there is a perception outside the US of A that most Americans have extremely limited knowledge of the rest of the world.

Personally, I'm happy to live in a country where someone doesn't have the right to kill me in cold blood with just a twitch of their finger but I will defend the rights of idiots to endanger themselves as long as it's well away from me.

@PontifexMarximus Unfortunately , it seems intelligence , isn't an inalienable right .

@Cast1es Your statement isn't even logical.

@SkotlandSkye That seems to be a matter of opinion . A supervisor once told me , I didn't fit in as a government employee , because I'm too logical . He knew me much longer and much better than you , so I think his opinion is more factual based then yours .

@Cast1es riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Post a nonsense statement and then defend it. LOL What a brilliant strategy! hahahah

If you read the "mission statement“ of that group you read that "debating should be kept to a minimum". My point is more in relation to the presence of this group within this site.
I would assume that for most gun ethusiasts the guns rank higher than the religious affiliation or lack thereof.

@PontifexMarximus see my reply further down this thread!

Defenders of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and shooting sports enthusiasts. This group does NOT believe in so-called "sensible" gun control measures, so debating within this group shall be kept to a minimum.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Your tag line

"Defenders of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and shooting sports enthusiasts. This group does NOT believe in so-called "sensible" gun control measures, so debating within this group shall be kept to a minimum.“

The wording of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

My invitation to people to voice their opinion has little to do with censorship.

It is your opposition to sensible gun control measures and your reminder that debating should be kept to a minimum that justifies, in my opinion, the label extremist.

Your allusion to the instinct of self-defence has very little to do with the issue of owning guns and the ”right" to use them is somewhat ludicrous. The process of obtaining a gun is a rather rational and controlled act which has absolutely nothing to do with an instinctual reaction to an imminent threat unless one grabs a gun that happens to be within reach while the threat of an attack is present.

@PontifexMarximus I included the part about debating because that particular group was not intended for debate, just like for the most part the gun control group is not for debating but like-minded individuals. Also, from past experience there are alot of folks on this site who cannot debate or converse in a civil manner, so I set that group up for like-minded members mostly. There is no such thing as "sensible" gun control measures, it's only about control, and I have no choice but to be opposed to said measures because they have been and continue to be a huge failure. Creating a group that limits debating is hardly extreme when you consider all the groups out there that would welcome it because that would be the purpose of such groups, and based on feedback I got from fellow group members most of them have said they shouldn't have to deal with trolling. There is nothing ludicrous about owning/using guns for self-defense, more often than not they are the most efficient means of home defense should the need arise, and based on your response you obviously didn't get the point I was trying to make in regards to that. It had nothing to do whatsoever with comparing the two scenarios.

@SpikeTalon Can you guide me to some unbiased research on your claims about using guns for self-defence?

@SpikeTalon I wrote that your argument about the "instinct" is ludicrous.

@PontifexMarximus Neither of them were ludicrous. Regarding your question, how so? What is it exactly you are looking for? How could scenarios that involve self defense with a firearm be biased, they are what they are and either occured or didn't.

My speed data for this month has been used up which means slow net speeds, and I'll be busy over the holiday weekend, but I will certainly get back to you on that.

@SpikeTalon I didn't see the bit about restricting debate in the group before I posted my initial comment. Sounds more like you want a nice cosy "echo chamber". If you want a "safe zone" maybe set up your own blog elsewhere? Otherwise let your views be challenged, it's the best way to learn!

@Pete66 Who said anything about a damned safe space? The groups on here are intended to be for like minded individuals. Do you have any idea how upset the gun control group got in the past when opposing views presented themselves? Some of us didn't come here to debate or argue with others, but to connect with like minded individuals. If you're into debating then why don't you specifically start a debate group then and leave me alone.

@SpikeTalon a "safe space" is exactly what you are describing!

@SpikeTalon Ignore them. There is no group as small minded as those that want to take away and restrict the freedoms of others. They are the ones that want an "echo chamber" where no one disagrees with them...and they are the ones who want a "safe place" to curl up in a ball and not have to deal with anyone who disagrees with their narrow minded view of the world. This site is full of SJWs and special snowflakes who would love to take away the rights and freedoms of others -- up to and including abolishing private property and private wealth. Honestly, it all stems from their own insecurities and failures....they haven't managed to create wealth and freedom for themselves so to feel better about their failures, they want everyone to have the same failures. They really aren't worth your time. The have been brainwashed beyond hope. Just ignore their ignorant rants.

@shebaloney It's NOT a new word. I actually have an Ammosexual TShirt that is at least 5 years old. People try to use it as an insult....but it actually was coined by defenders of the 2nd Amendment.

@Benthoven you, as I did, assumed that this site is based on logic and reason. That is your downfall. Some people here are just mad at God and religion because something in their lives went wrong and their beliefs screwed them. They didn't go through the process of actually determining that God and religion are anti logic and reason. Consequently their anti logic and reason (and anti legal) beliefs that there can be no restrictions on guns despite the US Supreme Court saying that there can be is to be expected. You will also find intolerance and racism here that would also seem to be counterintuitive. If you dare to raise such issues you will be told you should leave the site.

I can certainly respect your personal opinion on that matter, and thank you for standing up for free speech/expression.