Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 9     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #121 
bhblue - I'll let you and Bill hash this out.  Like I said, I don't know if the banning of any arms has been settled clearly by the Supreme Court.  As far as I know, you may still retain the right to own any arm out there, including fully automatic firearms, weaponized drones, bazookas, etc.  I wasn't trying to suggest I knew for a fact what the law said as I was more interested in the opinions of members.  Are they of the mindset the Constitution guarantees us, or should guarantee us, the right to any weapon we want to bear?  Some of us say yes, some say no, and some haven't decided yet.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #122 
Dewey, you have prodded and probed many of us here for our beliefs.  If you don't mind, could you proved a definitive statement about what you believe the Constitution means by the Second Amendment and what we are allowed to have in our possession as a "militia" that is supposed to be able to defend itself should the government cease to represent the people?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #123 
CoachB - I think one would need aircraft, drones, tanks, bombs, etc., to take on the Government, and I think a citizen, or a group of citizens, would still come up far short at defending their cause.  I think those days of our neighborhoods defending against a tyrannical Government, have long passed.  I'd prefer to see citizens using rifles, assuming they want to be armed, as a defense against a much more likely threat these days, individual intruders in their home.  If citizens have these arms, I would think we would have satisfied the "right to bear" promise.

How about you?  What arms would you hope and think the Constitution allowed citizens to bear?  Yesterday you seemed to exclude grenades.  Are there any arms you would ban citizens from owning?  Chemical weapons?  Dirty bombs?  Are there more exceptions you care to share?
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 10,636
Reply with quote  #124 
I support the right to arm bears!
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #125 
Dewey, you didn't really answer that question in my opinion.  You skirted it with rifles.  Are rifles the only thing that the Right to Bear Arms allows? 

BTW, I answer you question in much more detain than just rifles.  I stated my opinion on grenades which none of us have access to anyway and mentioned that, to me the fall under the bombs category. 

Here is the request again, " If you don't mind, could you proved a definitive statement about what you believe the Constitution means by the Second Amendment and what we are allowed to have in our possession as a "militia" that is supposed to be able to defend itself should the government cease to represent the people?"

BTW, your statement about the government and whether citizens could defend themselves reminds me of this one event.  It seems there were these colonist that felt that their rights had been abused by the GREATEST POWER IN THE WORLD.  They did something about it.  I believe they had a pretty good outcome.  Eventually, they had this document made that allowed for Amendments which, in part, ensured that citizens would be able to rise again should that government cease to represent the people.  At least that was in this book once.  Who knows how it will be taught in coming decades as the left edits history. 
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #126 

Dewey- By throwing out weapons that would be considered 'illegal' by agreed conventions of the world's nations, you are attempting to match what you see as hyperbolic arc of argument. A reminder that through your efforts you have now convinced a couple more people in this forum to examine the Second Amendment and consider what it does promise, how that promise has been severely broken and the road toward disarmament of We The People in a manner that will only give token consideration to the 'right to bear'.

Quote:
If citizens have these arms, I would think we would have satisfied the "right to bear" promise
.

Let's play a Science Fiction "B" movie scenario:

Geologists studying the caldera at Yellowstone National Park induce an volcanic eruption of  epic proportion. The resulting plum of ash gives rise to a global disaster. Chaos ensues and it is every man for himself.

Snug in their condo in Northern California, the Smith family is confronted by a band of marauders, hell bent on knocking down their door and stealing the accumulation of food stuffs and water. Armed with his gov't approved bolt action rifle versus the motley crew's stolen gov't issue AR-15s, it is certain that the Smith is doomed. His last cry is...

"Dewey, if I only had a hand grenade!"

Or...those marauders might be dressed in SWAT gear, stopping boats and vehicles after Katrina and confiscating every weapon the come upon. You might think the former of my comments to be fiction. The latter really happened in New Orleans.

The rights of We The People, have been trampled to such and extent, that by your admission, the past no longer applies. Me? I'm voting for someone that can right the ship and damn the torpedoes in doing so.

That ain't Hillary. Please offer a better Democratic candidate.

 

 


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

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #127 
Bill - I think far more people will succumb to all the unnecessary weapons, those are my words, obtained out of fear of some, maybe possible but extremely far fetched, scenario you can describe.  Hey, some might want to put a wall around their home to further protect themselves from these invaders but they'll be lucky to get past the homeowners association let alone prevail in the courts.

CoachB - I skirted around nothing.  It's a legal question and I can't know for certain what all the SC would allow, but I gave you what I hope and wish the answer would be.  I think rifles are sufficient to satisfy what the Constitution promises, based on current times.  I choose rifles as sufficient to protect family and property yet lengthy enough to not be easily concealed and surprise a group of people praying in a Church, as one example.  Now I asked you the same question in return because I was interested in what else you think citizens should arm themselves with that will sufficiently protect them from a tyrannical Government?

If you don't think I answered your question, please give me an idea what I could have said that would have better satisfied you?  Thanks.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,161
Reply with quote  #128 
Dewey - I interpret your answer to CoachB25 as you are interested in taking our pistols. Is that the case? If so, how do you propose doing so? If not, why only mention rifles? Also, what rifles are you in favor of? Single shot 22s?
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,984
Reply with quote  #129 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
CoachB - I think one would need aircraft, drones, tanks, bombs, etc., to take on the Government,


ISIS doesn't have this stuff, and they seem to be holding their own against the weapons systems you mention.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,984
Reply with quote  #130 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey

CoachB - I skirted around nothing.  It's a legal question and I can't know for certain what all the SC would allow, but I gave you what I hope and wish the answer would be.  I think rifles are sufficient to satisfy what the Constitution promises, based on current times.  I choose rifles as sufficient to protect family and property yet lengthy enough to not be easily concealed and surprise a group of people praying in a Church, as one example. 


This is great stuff right here.

After the school shooting in CT, everyone want to ban long arms.  I remember discussion here around "automatic weapons", and several other libs jumping in to join the fracas.

The latest criminal used a hand gun, so now those are the target.

Next, it'll be blades over 5" long, then pocket knives.

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #131 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
Dewey - I interpret your answer to CoachB25 as you are interested in taking our pistols. Is that the case? If so, how do you propose doing so? If not, why only mention rifles? Also, what rifles are you in favor of? Single shot 22s?


bhblue - I was kind of hoping to hear from CoachB before we go off on a tangent, but I'll be happy to respond.  I would take no handguns away from citizens but, if I had the power, they would no longer be sold to the public.  Those already owned would remain legal if obtained properly.  In response to CoachB's question, I'm not too confident such a law would get past this SC.  Finally, we're not writing legislation here but the concept in my mind is long arms that aren't automatic, semi-automatic, etc.

I hope Coach didn't put me out there just for the pot shots other members will send my way.  I truly want to know what weapons he thinks should be available and which ones should not.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,984
Reply with quote  #132 
I wonder if most gun crimes are committed with legal guns?

Often, it is a felon committing the crime, and they are not allowed to have guns.

So I guess your thought is that someone in a mass hooting situation would not be able to shoot but one person with a bolt action rifle?  Interesting.

I wonder if you'd have magazine limits as well.  In GA, we have to plug shotgun magazines for deer hunting.  Back when there was a bear season, I will admit I violated the law by unplugging it, and filling it full.  I did not want to be one slug short to satisfy the game warden.

Do you know how many shells these weapons hold, and if you can fire more shots by it being semi-auto?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #133 
mikec - My purpose here was not to debate if my ideas are good or bad. The purpose was determining where we stand on this issue. Are there any arms you wouldn't allow citizens to own? Do you have any exceptions at all regarding arms we can bear?
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,210
Reply with quote  #134 
The 2nd amendment was specifically written in the way it was, in order to allow citizens to own ANY weapons they wished in order to defend the country against not only foreign armies, but most importantly, and most specifically, it was written to allow citizens equal weaponry to their own government, specifically if needed, to overthrow a tyrannical government, that was intent on taking away any of our rights as citizens. So, if I wish to own a Howitzer, a Bazooka, Grenades, or an F-16 complete with laser guided weapons, in order to defend my family, my community, town, city, against an oppressive government, the 2nd amendment allows me this right. Not only does the 2nd amendment apply to "sportsmen", as Liberal Socialists that favor a strong Central Government seem to think, it is absolutely aimed at individual citizens having the ability to own sufficient weapons, so that they are able to overthrow any threat, domestic or foreign that would in any way attempt to infringe on any of our Constitutional rights. The wise men that wrote the Constitution, saw a time in the country's future, when the government, or groups aligned with a strong central government would attempt to overthrow our constitutionally guaranteed rights. Go ahead Socialist Democrats, go all in, and 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.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,161
Reply with quote  #135 
Dewey - Any "pot shots" in your direction are due to your ideas, not CoachB25 setting you up. You don't make a believable victim.

The thought of you allowing the ownership of pistols while banning their continued sales is disingenuous from you and is not to be believed. I feel like you would be all for confiscation. You just wouldn't want to be one of the ones doing it.

I don't remember you calling for any of these forfeitures of our rights after 2 police officers were targeted in NYC. Of course if Obama or the Left had, I'm sure you would have followed suit.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #136 

Dewey- Step back and examine your questions. You are asking forum members to list 'arms' they wouldn't allow citizens to own. Yet you have admitted--and shown via mistaken references--a lack of understanding of even the most basic of the very 'arms' you wish to discuss. Why?

As an exercise to show that most people would be in favor of some restrictions. Therefore, left to the electorate, their elected officials and the justice system, to further restrict what might be available to the public.

Keep stoking the fires and you will stir embers that will result in fire in the belly of We The People. Keep offering those 'safe in your eyes' guns and you'll ring a wake up call to people like...

Me. I was just accepting of the path, the glacier-like, consistent erosion of the Second Amendment. No longer. Thanks for the push


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

Registered:
Posts: 2,161
Reply with quote  #137 
Dewey - Pretty good evidence presented by BS and woody that a scarecrow shouldn't play with fire. Whether it's the gun issue or the continued accusations of pervasive racism. Like Bill said, thanks for the push. Keep pushing.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #138 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
Dewey - The thought of you allowing the ownership of pistols while banning their continued sales is disingenuous from you and is not to be believed. I feel like you would be all for confiscation. You just wouldn't want to be one of the ones doing it.


bhblue - I can guess where you pulled that out from but I can't guess why.  Never said that, never even thought that.  It's quite apparent some of you are very paranoid that somebody is coming to take your guns away.  A person who advocates confiscating weapons from American citizens will not be the sharpest crayon in the box.  Btw, sorry if you thought the pot shot comment was aimed at you.  It wasn't.  It was in response to mikec's quip about my post.

Bill - Glad I could help.  Unfortunately, you guys are doing a great deal to cause everyone else to clam up.  If there is anybody out there willing to state if they believe certain weapons should be banned, they're not coming forward now.  Thanks for nothing. [wink]
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #139 
Dewey- Actually, I was the only far-fetched advocate for hand grenades. At this rate, I might as well run for office. My stock is rising. And while I am at it, if I can make a dent in a glacier, maybe I could solve the California water crisis.

BTW- A hypothetical...Dying UCS member provides in his will, a pistol bequeathed to his son. Given your thought process on estate transactions, would the son have to surrender that pistol in your new pistol-less world?

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

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #140 
Bill - Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself?  No guns are going to be confiscated.  Trade your guns, sell your guns.  There just won't be any more handguns available for sale.  If I have to come up with legislation for you guys, I'll need months of study and research first.  Just accept my thoughts as a general concept to be ironed out.

Now let me ask a question of my own.  Why are others refusing to agree that all arms should be available for ownership?  I said it a couple of days ago...it's so simple to just say, "yes, everyone should be guaranteed a right to buy a hand grenade if they so choose".  But these members wouldn't say it.  It's odd to me if not to you.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #141 
It's because we don't care. Most Americans are happy with the laws the way they are and neither side will put forth legislation anytime soon. It's a wedge issue for the dems to beat the GOP with.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #142 
You know what's funny?  I'll bet none of you guys are out there trying to buy aircraft, grenades, or bazookas.  What is all this talk about anyway?  Seems like just another political argument to kick around.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #143 
Quote:
If I have to come up with legislation for you guys, I'll need months of study and research first.  Just accept my thoughts as a general concept to be ironed out.


You know, if you procured a grant from the gov't to do that study, it would pay for beer and cigars on your breaks from the library.

On a more serious note, your question includes my hyperbole and your inquisitive tone. Neither inspires the right-side of this forum. Heck, I don't even get answers from Diet Coke. I'd call it pouting, but maybe I just wore out a theme.

So, it's not odd to me. Two reasons for their 'lack of participation'. Thoughts that grenades are not a serious talking point and a general malaise in regard to answering your queries. Believe it might just be more misgivings with my sincerity than yours.

**Edited to replace 'due' with 'do'. D'oh!**

__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #144 
Dewey, the Founding Fathers were coming off of a war for independence.  They had actually suffered through a very confrontational government based upon the Articles of Confederation.  When they came up with the Constitution and the Second Amendment, there were "typical weapons" known to be held in many if not most homes.  Those included rifles, swords, knives, handguns, ...  That Second Amendment then was accepted with those weapons in mind.  The modern equivalent then is a minimum of what I believe should be acceptable today.  "Minimum" because those weapons have evolved some.  Still, those mini artillery guns present in local communities back in the day can be substituted for something more modern today.  As a reminder here is my question again:

Here is the request again, " If you don't mind, could you proved a definitive statement about what you believe the Constitution means by the Second Amendment and what we are allowed to have in our possession as a "militia" that is supposed to be able to defend itself should the government cease to represent the people?"

Dewey I didn't get an answer to what constitutes a "militia" and what weapons you would think apply.  Of course you said rifle.  It is obvious your family has not been in danger. My family has had occasion to use handguns multiple times in the past 5 years.  Dewey, that would be the non extremist portion of my family.  BTW, in the St. Louis area, we have had 3 or 4 stabbings today.  Better ban knives.  Hey, one guy broke into his neighbor's house with a hatchet today.  Better ban hatchets.  How about a definitive statement about what you think that the Founding Fathers meant with the Second Amendment and what weapons they approved of.

Edited to add;

Dewey, you said that no guns were going to be confiscated?  Goggle that and find out that guns are being confiscated all across this country.  Fox News did a report where a gun shop owner had his inventory confiscated and the law that was used has a clause that those weapons are not required to be returned. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #145 
CoachB - At the time one side had guns and they gave citizens the right to these same arms.  Along with the swords, knives, etc., as you described.  If we move that up to today, then it would allow citizens to have both nukes and bombs.  I don't think that's reasonable anymore.  If you are asking if the Constitution intended citizens to have the same weapons, you are likely correct.  However, equal weapons in the hands of citizens would create more harm than any good it might prevent.  I don't think the founding fathers would have believed citizens could possibly keep up with the weapons Government has developed, if they saw our times today.

When are you going to tell me what arms citizens should have?  Are you going to suggest something more effective than rifles?  A handgun or an assault rifle when the tank is coming at you will probably make little difference.  Sorry if I can't figure out what specifically you want from me but that's all I got.  Now I'm ready for your response.  You're free to join Bill and bhblue and say all weapons should be available to American citizens.  I was just curious if any members out there agreed with me that it's appropriate, or should I say should be appropriate, to ban grenades, bazookas, fully automatic guns, etc., from citizens.  Maybe nobody agrees.  That's OK too.

In any event, any concept I have in mind will surely require a Constitutional amendment.  The Constitution allows amendments.  I probably can't get a rifle only, (sales), society without one.  I think the neighborhood militia days are behind us.  Now my focus is on saving lives while providing the right to protect family and property with arms.  Again, I support the right to bear arms but I would change the right to bear any and all arms if I had the power.

Edit:  Hey, that last sentence made me think of something.  Why didn't the Constitution say "the right to bear any and all arms"?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #146 
I know one thing for sure.  If a citizen takes out a few thousand sports fans at a football game with a drone strike, or even more by firing off some kind of nuke, most of us will stop talking about addressing mental illness and give a lot more thought to this right to bear any and all arms.  I know, I know, some of you think this is a crazy idea, even if citizens have access to the same weapons as the Federal Government.  Well, please know some of us think the idea citizens must have access to fully automatic weapons is equally crazy.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #147 
For the 1000th time, 'citizens' do not have access to fully automatic weapons.

"Thoughts that grenades are not a serious talking point and a general malaise in regard to answering your queries. Believe it might just be more misgivings with my sincerity than yours."

always much more perceptive, hand on the pulse, than that other guy.  Him, Not so astute



__________________
"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" 
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,984
Reply with quote  #148 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith


BTW- A hypothetical...Dying UCS member provides in his will, a pistol bequeathed to his son. Given your thought process on estate transactions, would the son have to surrender that pistol in your new pistol-less world?


No, but he would be taxed like crazy for it, because the son "didn't build that".
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,984
Reply with quote  #149 
I asked you some time ago if you thought semi-automatic weapons fired more rounds than non-semi autos.  No answer.

I asked about rifle and shotgun magazine capacity - no answer.

I asked about whether you thought hand grenades are available for purchase now - no answer.

I asked whether automatic rifles are available now - no answer.

I pointed out that, after the CT school shooting, you want to ban rifles.  Now, after this latest incident, you want to ban handguns.  What if the mass murderer uses a knife.  Do we then ban knives?  No answer.

My questions are actually factual, real world questions.

Your drones, nukes, and hand grenade questions are just plain stupid.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #150 
Dewey, I've answered you question.  Whatever the equivalent in weapons today per what they were entitled to back then.  No, no nukes but your analogy was way off.  Citizens didn't have access to the biggest artillery and other weapons back then.  They did have access to some smaller weapons which I already stated would be the equivalent of grenades and very small artillery but that was stored in block houses etc. and actually supplied and controlled by the King's men.  Colonist opened those block houses etc. when Indian attacks happened.  So rule all of that out.  I say whatever weapon colonist had in their homes and the equivalent today.  I've already mentioned that in other posts.  That's my answer. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.