Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 9      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #1 
I'll move this discussion here so I won't be accused of changing the subject in the Hillary thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Of course, Hillary couldn't wait 12 hours after the Charleston incident to also fear-monger relative to guns and the need for more gun control, whatever that is.

Of course, Hillary, nor the POTUS, nor Josh Earnest, or the Daily Kos, or anyone else on the left could answer that question, except to say there should be an outright gun ban, which is not happening.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
I'll try to offer an answer. First let me say just as the constitution allows free speech, it also allows amendments to the constitution. Suppose we allowed rifles but not handguns or grenades using the amendment process. I'm thinking guns that can't be easily concealed. What would be the downside?


Now let the discussion continue and let me start by saying, no, this amendment probably wouldn't have stopped the killing of those kindergarten kids.  Let me also say I don't advocate an outright gun ban.

Here's something else I want to say on this subject.  These two statements have basically been said by others...

1)  O'Reilly said no legislation can stop these horrific acts of violent shootings.

2)  Sen Rand Paul and others, have basically said no trillions of dollars, nor any numbers of American troops, can stop these Muslim terrorists.

Do you find either of these statements to be true?

mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,984
Reply with quote  #2 
Why are you equating gun control and muslim terrorists?  I don't even understand what you're asking.

The Atlanta case I referenced, http://www.ajc.com/news/news/crime-law/arrest-made-in-homicide-following-fayette-pool-par/nmgzk/, was perpetrated by a convicted felon in unlawful possession of a gun.

If you are talking about foreign muslim terrorists - there is no negotiating with them - they have to be killed.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,984
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
I'll try to offer an answer. First let me say just as the constitution allows free speech, it also allows amendments to the constitution. Suppose we allowed rifles but not handguns or grenades using the amendment process. I'm thinking guns that can't be easily concealed. What would be the downside?


I was walking up to the grocery store last Saturday.  There is a Synagogue near me, and a good many of the folks who go there on Saturday walk.

So, I passed a few of those folks as I walking home.  Then, a very clean cut guy, probably mid-20's, with a yarmulke and everything, comes into view.  As he got closer, I realized he had rifle over his soldier.

I wonder if you would have wet your pants if you were me.

I will admit, I am not sure that I have ever passed someone on the sidewalk carrying a rifle, when it wasn't 4 in the morning, outside a Circle K, in cold weather grabbing some coffee.  I've seen hundreds of folks carrying rifles and shotguns in that situation.

Would it make you feel safer to pass this guy with a rifle over his shoulder, or would you rather that he had a concealed handgun, that you never knew was there?

One last thing - is it your belief that all handguns would magically disappear if they were outlawed, or would only gang members and convicted felons have them then?
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #4 
First, playing the simple game, the answers to your questions are:

1) Agree, no legislation will stop violent shootings. e.g. A police officer, in legal possession of a firearm, might become as deluded as is necessary to commit an act such as South Carolina recently experienced.

2) Agree that no amount of money can "...stop these Muslim terrorists", assuming you mean stop to eliminate in entirety.

And to add a third, no amount of rendering the past to museums will eliminate prejudice.

__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #5 

In my mind, recent comments by the President have invoked the thoughts of 1984. Further gun control, remove items of symbolism from view and the like of rhetoric contained in literary pieces such as Orwell's and Moore's V for Vendetta.

Funny enough, liberal themes. Free thinking. Freedom.

BS


__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #6 

Does anyone know why the troll started another gun control thread?
What was wrong with one already hashing through this topic?
Wouldn't it sense to keep it in a single thread?

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #7 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Does anyone know why the troll started another gun control thread? What was wrong with one already hashing through this topic? Wouldn't it sense to keep it in a single thread?


there are actually two long, lengthy and very detailed "gun control threads".  You will learn nothing from a thread about guns that dewy authors, NOTHING.  It did alert one bill smith it seems

__________________
"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #8 
kiir- I assumed Dewey started another thread so he might eventually apologize for his consistent assertion that the Obama administration would not be taking anyone's guns. [mad] And Bill Smith was/is usually semi-alert during gun control posts as those, along with the 'Can you hear me now?" thread are areas to which I can speak from experience. True political junky talk is beyond my depth and scope.
__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #9 
Is Obama coming to take your guns away? No
Is Obama coming to take any of your guns away? Highly unlikely
Does Obama think as I do that some arms should be excluded from right to bear? Probably

I think I've been consistent all along and I don't believe I have anything to apologize for.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #10 
Beyond even parody
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #11 

How is excluding 'some arms' not taking arms away?

"If you don't like my Bushmaster, excluding it would be taking it away", says the gun owner.

Dewey, you live in California. This is happening all the time. Tweaks to gun control law adjusts the nature of what is legal ammo, magazines and definition of specs to existing LEGAL weapons, such that it is very easy to have your legally obtained weapons no longer in current compliance. It is not your area of interest. You don't stay informed. Go to Cal Guns Forum: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php before expressing the defense of an administration that has aided the cause of gun control.

The President has again taken sight on gun ownership. (Pun intended.) If I currently own a firearm that the President considers necessary to exclude, how would that not be taking away my right to bear arms? Defense against a tyrannical government is expressly covered by the Constitution and specifically in the Second Amendment. A hunting rifle is not going to serve a citizen's militia very well. They will need firepower equal to the tyrant.

I am sure you feel we live in such times that We The People no longer need arms to protect themselves from enemies foreign and domestic. In my time, the Black Panthers, the Native Americans on Alcatraz and others would disagree with you.

For you, I will soldier on. Someone must.


__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith
kiir- I assumed Dewey started another thread so he might eventually apologize for his consistent assertion that the Obama administration would not be taking anyone's guns. [mad] And Bill Smith was/is usually semi-alert during gun control posts as those, along with the 'Can you hear me now?" thread are areas to which I can speak from experience. True political junky talk is beyond my depth and scope.


By all means carry on, I love to see dewy tripping around on gun threads.  low brow entertainment

My, my, no one wants an apology.  Carry on, just let me get some refreshments

Image result for chicharonesImage result for beer brands

__________________
"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #13 
billy,
In between homicidal acts by lunatics dewy will stray from the discussion on the gun control threads.  New horror in Charleston, new talk of gun grabbing.  When his boy obama's interest is piqued, then so is dewy's.  Not before obama is engaged in the gun grabbing talk will dewy participate.  obama was slapped around after Newtown, doubt he can lead anyone out of a wet paper bag on this one.

 Division in America is worse because of obama, this thread is a rabbit-hole, a diversion from the Charleston thread.  He admitted his feelings were hurt.  Not one new idea will result here.  Just ban something already so the thumb suckers can 'feel' batter, can 'feel' accomplished.  Keep fishing with a baitless hook, more enforcement of existing laws will work

p.s. Does Obama think as I do that some arms should be excluded from right to bear? Probably 

Have we ever been supplied with names or models of what gun/s or ammo we should be denied?

__________________
"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #14 
From Obama's own personal Twitter account today:

@POTUS: Here are the stats: Per population, we kill each other with guns at a rate 297x more than Japan, 49x more than France, 33x more than Israel.


@POTUS: Expressions of sympathy aren’t enough. It’s time we do something about this.

What is he suggesting here? If only we had a clairvoyant who could explain what Obama really meant to say. Lol

Because it looks to me like he has nothing. N O T H I N G !

PS - actually, he had four fundraisers and round of golf. Really shook up, this guy.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #15 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith

How is excluding 'some arms' not taking arms away?



Bill - Maybe I'm not being as clear as I can be.  I support the right to free speech but not any and all speech.  I support the right to bear arms but not any and all arms.  You and I have joked for some time now about grenades.  I do believe grenades should not be an arm we have a right to bear and I don't think I'm in the minority.  However, just for fun I'll ask CoachB, mikec, PDad, and Tyler to share their position on the right to own grenades.

The comment that's often made saying Obama is coming to get your guns implies President Obama doesn't believe citizens have, or should have, the right to own guns.  I think this is completely inaccurate and it's far more misleading then any "keep your policy" statement that's so often talked about around here.  With that understanding, I'll continue to state the notion "Obama is coming to get your guns" is mostly a bogus political talking point.

That said, I understand and respect the fact you object to any of these gun control messages and I understand you disagree with those like me who think some arms bans and access laws are in order.  I'm sure our disagreement over this issue will continue for a long time to come.  Additionally, I will agree Obama is probably like me, and many other Democrats, when it comes to thinking some arms should be excluded from the "right to bear" category and that more restrictions or qualifications could be put into place as it relates to obtaining arms.  If I've ever implied otherwise, then that's my bad.  If you've taken my objection to the "Obama is coming to get your guns" statement as being untrue, and taken it to mean I don't think Obama would take steps to enact gun control measures given the chance, then whether it's my fault or yours, my message is being misunderstood.


BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #16 

Dewey- Some of those here have asked, "What guns do you feel should be excluded?" You have admitted to not knowing and depending on your elected officials to make those decisions. The rhetoric of some of those officials, Diane Feinstein...who would severely limit the public's opportunity to own weapons or better Leland Yee...a proponent of restrictive gun control, who in turn is a 'gun runner'. They are not alone. Rather, every time there is an opportunity, new liberal voices cry for gun control.

Because a passionate lunatic commits a crime, I must lose the right to protect myself from passionate lunatics in the fashion I might chose. I've been trained & trusted, yet current California laws are so daft in their draft that it is not prudent to apply for a concealed carry permit. Nor store weapons that might be misjudged by someone reading a spreadsheet incorrectly, causing issue at my residence.

I can't use my phone in my car, I can't drive that car without filling it with corn syrup-laced gasoline that reduces the life my engine, I can't drive that car without wearing a seat belt, I can't...well, it's a long list...all foisted upon me because of previous idiotic behavior.

So, I cannot own weapons to protect myself from passionate lunatics, idiots and more importantly factions of our government that might overstep their authority because you don't want to protect yourself that way, the President and those like him are protected and others like you would rather rely on the insane idea that banning some weapons, requiring more paperwork, restricting areas of ownership/or possession will reduce incidents where killers kill.

I understand Feinstein, I understand Obama, I understand those that live in the privileged position of protection by those that have been trained & trusted. Then, those same secure politicians give you reasons to believe them instead of me. Classic 1984. If one serves those privileged few, issue that man a weapon. Private citizen? Despite clear language that allows a right to bear arms...no. The idea that liberal minded politicians will 'allow' ownership of hunting rifles instead of AR-15s and AK-47s is laughable. What is a bolt action deer rifle going to protect me from? An attack of government-sponsored mutant deer ramage? The Second Amendment is clear that I have the right to bear arms, for the reason of protecting myself from a well-armed enemy. A hunting rifle is NOT the weapon needed to provide a militia able to resist tyranny.

Question: Do you deny the need?

Believe me, I hear your message loud and clear. Before these discussions, my baseline was more accepting that restrictive conditions were inevitable. No longer.

Lastly, you didn't answer a simple question. I will reword, but basically repeat:

"If you are in favor of restricting or excluding some arms, then how can you say that you and the President are not 'coming for guns'?"

I'm not taking objection to what you say, I am pointing out that on one hand, you are saying I get to keep my guns, on the other, you have no idea what I might own. If you ban, exclude or restrict what I own, how is that not 'coming for my gun'?

 


__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith


Lastly, you didn't answer a simple question. I will reword, but basically repeat:

"If you are in favor of restricting or excluding some arms, then how can you say that you and the President are not 'coming for guns'?"

I'm not taking objection to what you say, I am pointing out that on one hand, you are saying I get to keep my guns, on the other, you have no idea what I might own. If you ban, exclude or restrict what I own, how is that not 'coming for my gun'?

 



Bill - I believe your phrase implies the President does not believe Americans have a right to own a gun.  It's not clear enough when said that way.  If you said "the President wants to ban some arms", then I wouldn't object to the comment.  It would be true.

Now I'm highly unlikely to get a response from my four members because, using your perspective, anyone who favors making grenades illegal is in effect coming for your guns or taking away your right to bear arms.  I think many people who won't support grenade ownership will view this differently than you.  Are they willing to admit such a stance openly?  I'm doubtful.

PS:  I don't think I've been saying "you can keep your guns" but I have said I would ban certain ammo clips, bazookas, grenades, and other arms.  I'm open to how any such laws would ultimately be phased in.


mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,984
Reply with quote  #18 
I have never attempted to buy a hand grenade.  I have assumed it is illegal to own or buy hand grenades.

Am I wrong?  Are they legal now, and is there some movement afoot to ban them?  What have I missed?

In the bigger picture, the problem to the knee jerk reaction, as always, is this:
- what would be accomplished?
- would it have prevented the incident that sparked the hysteria?
- what exactly are we talking about banning?

There are some states and cities (liberal mostly), that have very restrictive gun laws.  Yet, some of those same places lead the nation in homicide rates (Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore).

In Georgia, I have to take a hunter safety course prior to getting a hunting license.  Part of the course is firearm safety.  If I want a concealed carry permit, I have to get finger printed, background checked, pay hefty fees, and wait several months.

I am not sure what more you want.  Criminals don't go to the trouble of getting permits.  Law abiding citizens do.  What, exactly, do you and DC think will change?

You guys can't even articulate what you think should be done, and what you think they result might be.  Nor can the POTUS, or Hillary Clinton.

There can be no conversation, when one side is entirely trying to capitalize on the headlines, without a single rational thought.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #19 
mikec - I'm not asking what is legal and what isn't.  I'm asking if you think Americans should have the right to purchase and own hand grenades as part of their right to bear arms?

Edit:  I'll read on the run and I'm back to the field again.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Now I'm highly unlikely to get a response from my four members because, using your perspective, anyone who favors making grenades illegal is in effect coming for your guns or taking away your right to bear arms.  I think many people who won't support grenade ownership will view this differently than you.  Are they willing to admit such a stance openly?  I'm doubtful.

Firecrackers aren't legal in Cal, so I presume neither are grenades.

Please educate us on the legality of hand grenades, including homemade ones. You can start with molotov cocktails.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #21 
With his wandering, indefensible missive about guns thoroughly destroyed, the troll moves the goal posts to hand grenades.

I hope the readers are paying attention to how Dewey is defending his so-called beliefs. Or as it is, failing to defend.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #22 
Not surprised rhat dewey ignored Obama's tweets from yesterday. Anyone who follows the reactionary radical left knows full well they are coming for our guns. Dewey claims to side with more gun control, but somehow doesn't know what the leading proponents of gun control are doing and saying. Maybe he should read the stuff DC is posting.

When I read Dewey on gun control (and many subjects, actually) it reminds me of a line from Sonny in The Godfather, where he wants to make sure Michael is fully prepared for the task ahead:

Sonny: Hey, listen, I want somebody good - and I mean very good - to plant that gun. I don't want my brother coming out of that toilet with just his dick in his hands, alright?

Dewey is coming out of the toilet with just his dick in his hands. Intellectually speaking, of course. Hahhahaha!
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #23 
Bill - I got no answers while I was away but I'll continue to believe there are many Americans, maybe even a few among the four UCS members I asked today, who wouldn't favor the right to bear arms to include hand grenades, and at the same time wouldn't consider themselves as citizens attacking our second amendment rights.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,984
Reply with quote  #24 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Bill - I got no answers while I was away but I'll continue to believe there are many Americans, maybe even a few among the four UCS members I asked today, who wouldn't favor the right to bear arms to include hand grenades, and at the same time wouldn't consider themselves as citizens attacking our second amendment rights.


Are grenades considered arms?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec


Are grenades considered arms?


mikec - Will they help you against a well armed enemy?
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #26 

I've been out doing my part to keep women's softball alive in NorCal. Guess we will be playing again next weekend. When a player tells a coach, "I had so much fun."...gotta keep the ball rolling.

Grenades. In attempting to define what those that want further gun control to encompass, I reread the Second Amendment with more scrutiny. Came to some conclusions. One is that I should be able to own/access hand grenades. Why? Because...it says so in the Constitution. Here's my logic.

First, this whole idea that gun control advocates have that they don't want to 'come get' any hunting rifles. Well, that's not an issue. Didn't find any language that a US citizen had/has any 'right' to hunt. Maybe I missed it. The right to bear arms specifically deals with a citizen owning weapons that might allow the formation of a militia that can defend the country from a tyrannical government. How am I and other citizens going to do that with a bolt action hunting rifle? The citizenry is promised, via the Second Amendment, to more.

Now gun control advocates point to the reference of a militia. OK, let's examine this definition. Any state militia that might be considered as representing this as fulfilling the passage contained in the Second Amendment is now part of a National Guard. Is that structure as intended by the Constitution properly able to defend We The People against our government? No. Examples of the National Guard being brought in to quell uprisings of its citizenry. That's in direct opposition of the nature of its invention. The US military is clearly defined as not to be purposed against its own citizens. The National Guard is in cahoots with the Pentagon. Answerable to the CiC and Joint Chiefs. Therefore...

I should be able to own or have access to weapons that would allow a militia formation as defined by the constitutional amendment giving me the right to bear arms. Not a hunting rifle. Rather, the weaponry necessary to defend the Constitution against a tyrannical government that might attempt to subject its citizenry to things like...illegal search and seizure (see Snowden threads), enter into unlawful trade and tariff agreements, falsely imprisoning US citizens, hunting down and/or executing US citizens without due process, etc.

You don't have to agree with the militia. They have the right. They might be wrong. But they have the right. It's in the Constitution.

mikec- Thus there is no movement afoot to which I am privy. The genesis of my thoughts were solely from conversations here in the Misc. Items subforum. Haven't checked to see of some 2nd Amendment advocate is on a parallel path. Nears as I know, hand grenades are still illegal everywhere. But I'm questioning the reasons why, as discussed above.

Dewey- The idea that Obama is 'coming for guns' is simple. He makes reference to it every time he says, "Something must be done." To what would he be referring? As has been discussed often, there are plenty of paper trails, registration and checks/balances currently in place. It is nearly impossible to receive a concealed carry permit in any urban area of California. What more could be done? Take what is currently legal and restrict it more. That's taking guns.

I brought up hand grenades again, because you suggested that concealed carry was somehow more important to be targeted than open carry. A concession? Then logic would require me to ask if open carry grenades were OK. Or, since you stipulated that rifles were bigger, therefore inherently less troublesome, I thought backpack grenades could fit your scheme. Absurd? Not if you read the constitutional amendment, understand the infrastructure of existing 'militias' and the role of an individual.

I will reform and ask this question again..."Do you feel the need for We The People to be armed sufficiently to resist a tyrannical government has passed?"

 


__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #27 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith

Dewey- The idea that Obama is 'coming for guns' is simple. He makes reference to it every time he says, "Something must be done." To what would he be referring? As has been discussed often, there are plenty of paper trails, registration and checks/balances currently in place. It is nearly impossible to receive a concealed carry permit in any urban area of California. What more could be done? Take what is currently legal and restrict it more. That's taking guns.

I will reform and ask this question again..."Do you feel the need for We The People to be armed sufficiently to resist a tyrannical government has passed?"

 



Bill - Again, I would say it means "taking some types of guns and some types ammo".  It seems to imply otherwise.  It's my belief we should be more careful and we should not say President Obama does not want citizens to be armed at home to protect their families, imo.

As for your last question, I suppose my opinions would seem to lead me in that direction.  Current times probably dictate a citizen is going to need aircraft, bombs, weaponized drones, and easier access to airspace, to have any chance at all against a tyrannical government.  I don't see citizens gaining access to any of that.

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #28 
"Take what is currently legal and restrict it more. That's taking guns."

Thank you Captain

__________________
"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Bill - I got no answers while I was away but I'll continue to believe there are many Americans, maybe even a few among the four UCS members I asked today, who wouldn't favor the right to bear arms to include hand grenades, and at the same time wouldn't consider themselves as citizens attacking our second amendment rights.


You're surprised readers aren't taking this thread seriously? Seriously?

__________________
"Getting your motor revved about taking our guns is going to be what undoes your efforts."

"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #30 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
You're surprised readers aren't taking this thread seriously? Seriously?


Don't fool yourself for a minute because that's not it.  In this forum of ours, with so many right leaning posters, the answer to the question asking if the right to bear arms should include hand grenades, should be a very easy "yes".  But nobody, outside of Bill, chose to give that answer.  I ask why?
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.