Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 9      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #91 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
bhblue - No, it's not clear enough but I'll get to that in a minute.  Outside of some articles you've linked, I am in no position to know what is banned in Mexico or if it's helped make Mexicans safer or not.  Wouldn't you think some qualified study would be in order before coming to any conclusion?  You think I'm qualified to answer that question sitting here at my keyboard?  If you're making me answer something I cannot know about, I'll just say yes.
The old Dewey double standard - it's no different than your badgering some of us regarding grenades and the 2nd Amendment. Speaking for myself, I wasn't prepared to give an informed opinion off the top of my head. 

That said, I will agree that banning guns can work for better or for worse.  Take away all handguns in this Country and I think we're a much safer society.  Take away all guns from citizens and many in their homes may be in danger.  Clearly gun legislation has to be well thought out.

Finally, I want you to clarify which statement below represents your position on hand grenades.  It isn't completely clear to me what you meant.

The Constitution gives me the right to own grenades but society elected to make laws to the contrary.

The Constitution guarantees me the right to own grenades and society unlawfully took this right away from me.

Moving the goal posts again... SMH And you wonder why people are reluctant to answer your questions.

Yes or no Dewey - have you stopped beating your (pick one: wife, DD, dog...)?
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #92 
Quote:
When I generalize a world I think is best for society when it comes to guns, I do it with the understanding it may take Constitutional amendments to get there.  I believe that holds true with the President and other Democrats as well.  They understand any changes proposed and attempted will ultimately have to meet the Constitutional test.


What you want to do for greater safety--'do' being undefined--admittedly may be against current law, regulation AND the Constitution plus Amendments. States rights. You live in California. When the assault weapon ban lapsed, California jumped at the chance to enact statutes that kept many federally legal guns illegal. You have your utopia here. Don't foist it on the rest of the nation. Let them vote for it state-by-state. While you envision this undefined 'best for society' move will result in positive change, many here in this forum have documented that restrictive laws have little to no effect.

Another 'do good' idea regarding guns is eliminating their use in suicides. Again, it is not the gun.

By the way, how are the sentences I quoted above not to be construed as 'taking guns'?

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

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #93 
Bill - If by taking guns you mean I don't want to allow citizens at home to have the right to bear, then you would be wrong.  If by taking guns you mean I favor some guns removed from society, then you are correct.

PDad - Asking a member of a softball forum how citizens in another Country are faring, is quite different than asking what your personal opinion is on the rights of Americans to bear grenades and automatic weapons.  One would suspect you'd either think they should have the right to own those weapons or they shouldn't.  Maybe you're a yes on one but not on the other.  Maybe you think no weapons should be excluded from the right to bear.  I don't know but I was just guessing you might have an opinion regarding some of this discussion.  Doesn't seem to be a vague subject that wouldn't draw an opinion one or the other out of most people.

Edit:  Bill, I should say banned because I'm not at the point where I believe we should go home to home and remove guns if we pass gun legislation.  It would be a phase in process from my perspective.  Sorry, I typed that too fast and I hope you don't respond before I get this edit up.

Edit:  PDad, I do accept "I don't know" as an option to these questions I ask.

Edit II:  PDad, are you telling me those two sentences I supplied bhblue can't be decided upon?  Really?  No goal posts were moved.  I think the Constitutional phrase gives us the right to own a nuke but I don't think it guarantees us that right.  There is a real distinction to be had there and I wanted to know where bhblue fell on that distinction.  Again, no goal posts were moved.  Just need clarification.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,210
Reply with quote  #94 
Yes, Liberal politicians, and Socialists want to take guns from American citizens. They want to take them away, make them illegal, confiscate them in mass, for our own good. I think that I will ignore Liberals, and Socialists, and invite them to attempt to enact laws, and executive actions to take guns away from me and my neighbors. Please Liberals, make this a cornerstone, and a concrete plank in your Presidential campaign platform. Attempt to enact Constitutionally illegal actions, and laws. Make a major play, to change the second amendment. Please do so, and make your policy platform perfectly clear and defined to Americans. Just say that citizens should not own firearms. Go ahead, this is what a Socialists platform aimed at total control of society wants. Do it, lets get this over with now, and stop the pussyfooting around the law. Do it, and see what happens. Please. Tired of the BS from the leftists pukes that want to have total control of a complacent society dependent on their handouts. Screw all of you Socialists Libtards. Come and take it. See what happens.
__________________
Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist. 

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #95 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
PDad - Asking a member of a softball forum how citizens in another Country are faring, is quite different than asking what your personal opinion is on the rights of Americans to bear grenades and automatic weapons.  One would suspect you'd either think they should have the right to own those weapons or they shouldn't.  Maybe you're a yes on one but not on the other.  Maybe you think no weapons should be excluded from the right to bear.  I don't know but I was just guessing you might have an opinion regarding some of this discussion.  Doesn't seem to be a vague subject that wouldn't draw an opinion one or the other out of most people.

You asked for more than that - you asked whether the 2A granted it. That requires some understanding of the 2A which is an involved topic for Constitutional scholars. I do have an informed opinion on it after considering what BillS posted and doing some research.

The problem now is I don't know what you're asking since you've varied your wording and moved the goal posts on bhblue. Make up your f'g mind on the question you want answered and post a final version that you won't change.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #96 
woody - I'm not asking anyone to be a scholar, or to know for certain what the Amendment intended.  Heck, SC Justices probably can't agree on that.  I'm asking for personal opinions, not how a ruling will come out.  I wanted bhblue to tell me, according to his personal opinion, if he thinks the 2A guarantees him the right to own grenades and society inappropriately got in the way, or if the 2A gives him the right but society appropriately or otherwise, said no?  I'm not looking for a guaranteed factual answer as to how a court might rule, just a personal perspective.

Edit:  Sorry PDad, I thought woody jumped in with that.  I'll go back and see if I used the term granted.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,210
Reply with quote  #97 
Don't expect Dewey to take a position on anything. He will defer to the wonderful wisdom of his President Obama God. Better to defer to people with no qualifications to render an opinion for you, as opposed to actually putting any effort into forming an opinion. That hurts the brain pan. Much better to just let much more important and informed people make all of life's decisions for you.
__________________
Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist. 

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #98 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Edit:  PDad, I do accept "I don't know" as an option to these questions I ask.
I seriously doubt it. I expect you'd still accuse of us dodging the question.

Edit II:  PDad, are you telling me those two sentences I supplied bhblue can't be decided upon?  Really?  No goal posts were moved.  I think the Constitutional phrase gives us the right to own a nuke but I don't think it guarantees us that right.  There is a real distinction to be had there and I wanted to know where bhblue fell on that distinction.  Again, no goal posts were moved.  Just need clarification.

Your original question asked for a yes/no answer and then his 'Yes' wasn't satisfactory - that's moving the goal posts! For the record, I don't understand your follow-up question.

Quit adding onto your posts! SMH
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #99 
Just in time, another adversary to jump into the fray.  Hello woody.  How are you?  Did you ask me for an opinion and I failed to answer?  I don't think so.  That's become another common accusation around here.  Here's a question for you.  Do you mind if I take a break and go enjoy a cigar?  Oh never-mind, I'm going anyway.  Have a good evening.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,210
Reply with quote  #100 
Go enjoy the Clinton Special. Dewey, you have attached yourself at the hip with your Obama God. Nobody made you do it. This was your decision to go all in, and blindly support an unqualified President, that chose to surround himself with Socialists, instead of the best people qualified to do the job. Even an average CIC could be considered marginally successful if that CIC surrounded himself with brilliant people. Your Obama God that you worship did not surround himself with brilliant people, he instead sought out political ideologues that would only support his decisions, instead of attempting to shape them into rational policy. He could have been a great president, instead he chose Socialism over America. Bad choice, but the choice he made. You blindly support any, and everything, yes everything, he spits out. Pathetic.
__________________
Jane you ignorant slut. Keep your booger hook of the bang switch, you stupid Socialist. 

Beer me Hippie. I feel more like I do now, than when I first got here.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #101 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Tyler - I should use your line and say I have no opinion.  You both know quite well there were not 60 out of 60 Democrats favoring some particular gun legislation.  We'll never have 100% Democrat support so we'll need a larger majority, or some GOP help, before any legislation will ever be passed.


It didn't stop them from selling their souls to get Obamacare passed without any republican support. Looks like you can put this issue with gay rights as one democrats will trot out when they can score some political points, but do absolutely nothing substantive on it when they have control.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,161
Reply with quote  #102 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey

Finally, I want you to clarify which statement below represents your position on hand grenades.  It isn't completely clear to me what you meant.


The Constitution gives me the right to own grenades but society elected to make laws to the contrary.

The Constitution guarantees me the right to own grenades and society unlawfully took this right away from me.


Both.  Making laws contrary to the Constitution is unlawful.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #103 
Did anyone see Hannity last night?  Hannity was not there and it was really really good.  They talked about the President's speech against guns and pointed out the lies told.  First, he said that you don't find tragedies like Charleston anywhere else in the world.  He said that no where in Europe will you find a mass murder with weapons.  Since he thought that there were 57 states, maybe he is so adept at geography that he doesn't know about Norway.  He said America leads the world in gun related deaths and the truth is we are 8th in the World.  Russia is far worse.  Anyway, the program had two experts on and they were really intriguing as to their perspective about gun control, the Constitution, and extremist in both parties.

Chicago, NYC, LA, D.C. ... all are so much safer with the strictest gun laws in the nation.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #104 
bhblue - Thanks for the clarification.  It appears you pretty much agree with Bill. 

I believe the vast majority of Americans believe the "right to bear arms" doesn't include any and all arms any more than the "right to free speech" includes any and all speech.  The intent here was to illustrate that fact and to say supporting exceptions to the arms we can bear, like grenades, fully automatic weapons, etc., does not make one anti second amendment.  At least I believe that's the case in the minds of most Americans.  Unfortunately, it was a lengthy exercise trying to determine which members here were on which side of the fence as few wanted to admit their position openly.

There would be little reason to debate laws banning semi-assault weapons and large ammo clips with an individual who believes no exceptions to what arms we can own should be allowed.  It would be a futile exercise.  However, a debate among those who believe some arms can be banned, without violating the second amendment, could ultimately get somewhere.  As for those who don't know which camp they're in, well that's just surprising in its own right.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,161
Reply with quote  #105 
I'll agree the right to bear arms is similar to freedom of speech in that the weapons I bear and the words I speak shouldn't be confined to those you or anyone else approves of.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #106 

bhblue- Agreed.

Dewey- And therein lies the rub. Freedom of Speech protects expression of ideas that might be hateful. As long as not acted upon, protected. Those ideas might draw the ire of others. A right to bear arms (again, not the Second Amendment per se) would provide defense from those that might wish to quell the voice of a hateful speaker. The Constitution was drafted under the concept that ALL ideas needed to be protected, as not all of We The People will agree.

If you believe we are past that concept, I understand your willingness to pick and choose from the Constitution, draft new amendments, close avenues of historical significance because you feel they are outdated.

My opinion would be that you are wrong to do so. Especially in judging how guns play in the fabric of a free society.


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

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #107 
bhblue - Fortunately or otherwise, yelling fire in a crowded theater or libeling another individual, are two examples of "free" speech which may ultimately cost you.

Bill - I understand you think I'm wrong but, as you noted, the Constitution does allow a process to amend it.  And to repeat again, I'm not against the right to bear arms.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #108 
Dewey- I want arms like Arnold, not Pee Wee.
__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,161
Reply with quote  #109 
Dewey - Using free speech that could harm others, not just offend their sensitivities, can be unlawful.  Simply owning a weapon without using it unlawfully may offend or make you uncomfortable, but it is our right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
And to repeat again, I'm not against the right to bear arms.


You are against my right to own a weapon that you don't think I should have.  No difference to me.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #110 
bhblue - I think we already have some arms citizens can't own by law.  Has this been found unconstitutional or has it simply not been tested yet?  This makes it appear all and any arms ownership is not your right.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #111 
bhblue - Anyway, this was about our personal opinions on the "right to bear" clause as I suppose this law hasn't been completely settled to the point where we can determine who is right and who is wrong.  I thank you for giving your opinion.  Clearly legal decisions will eventually settle what this right actually encompasses.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #112 
Quote:
Has this been found unconstitutional or has it simply not been tested yet?


Yes it has been tested. Links have been provided in previous posts/threads.


Quote:
...decisions will eventually settle what this right actually is obfuscated to.


Hate ending with a preposition, but best I could to in changing to my liking.

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

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #113 
Bill - Then have grenades been found legal or illegal to own?  Does bhblue have the legal right to own them as he said?  Can they be sold at gun stores?
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #114 

Of course not. But, a strict definition of the Second Amendment should.

And the NRA won't press. Like you, their attempts are to compromise and argue 'winnable' battles. More concern with the rights of an individual to 'bear arms'. To reiterate, that isn't the basic tenants of the Second Amendment.

Well, you can buy a hand grenade. It just won't work. [biggrin] 

 


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

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #115 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Bill - Then have grenades been found legal or illegal to own?  Does bhblue have the legal right to own them as he said?  Can they be sold at gun stores?

At the Federal level, grenades are highly regulated as a Destructive Device similar to machine guns. They can be legally owned by people with the right license. I expect many state and local governments also have laws regarding them.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,161
Reply with quote  #116 
PDad is correct.  So, Dewey, much like driving a car and owning fully automatic weapons, I have the right to own hand grenades with the proper license(s).  Are you in favor of taking that right away?  If so, why?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #117 
bhblue - I'll say no for now assuming there may be a good reason for such.

Edit:  If you can't publicly buy them, it may be a law enforcement thing.
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,921
Reply with quote  #118 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Bill - If by taking guns you mean I don't want to allow citizens at home to have the right to bear, then you would be wrong.  If by taking guns you mean I favor some guns removed from society, then you are correct.

PDad - Asking a member of a softball forum how citizens in another Country are faring, is quite different than asking what your personal opinion is on the rights of Americans to bear grenades and automatic weapons.  One would suspect you'd either think they should have the right to own those weapons or they shouldn't.  Maybe you're a yes on one but not on the other.  Maybe you think no weapons should be excluded from the right to bear.  I don't know but I was just guessing you might have an opinion regarding some of this discussion.  Doesn't seem to be a vague subject that wouldn't draw an opinion one or the other out of most people.

Edit:  Bill, I should say banned because I'm not at the point where I believe we should go home to home and remove guns if we pass gun legislation.  It would be a phase in process from my perspective.  Sorry, I typed that too fast and I hope you don't respond before I get this edit up.

Edit:  PDad, I do accept "I don't know" as an option to these questions I ask.

Edit II:  PDad, are you telling me those two sentences I supplied bhblue can't be decided upon?  Really?  No goal posts were moved.  I think the Constitutional phrase gives us the right to own a nuke but I don't think it guarantees us that right.  There is a real distinction to be had there and I wanted to know where bhblue fell on that distinction.  Again, no goal posts were moved.  Just need clarification.


Dewey, Who do you propose would come confiscate these weapons? You?
I dare you or any Socialist come knock on my door and expect compliance.

__________________
I voted for Trump. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #119 
rocklifter - I didn't suggest anyone would confiscate weapons from your home.  That said, I've seen others ignore instructions from law enforcement so I don't think gun owners would be the first.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,161
Reply with quote  #120 
Dewey - My understanding is that they are hard to find but can be bought publicly by a properly licensed citizen. It's also my understanding that there are plenty US military grenades available south of the border. Some were even part of a "grenade walking" program similar to Fast and Furious. No licensing necessary.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.