Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 9     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #151 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
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.


But wait! Dewey said he answers all questions.

Readers take note!
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #152 
My view on what should be available to citizens is along the lines of Tyler's post and CoachB25.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
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.


- Military weapons like grenades and machine guns are highly regulated. State-recognized 'militias' have access, however they belong to the militia and are kept in armories/arsenals. I'm opposed to making it easier for radicals to get ahold of these weapons, especially more advanced ones like Stinger missiles. 

- Citizens have the right to own guns suitable for hunting and sport, which is sufficient for the defense of themselves and homes. Along with this right comes responsibility for whatever happens with their weapons.

- I'm opposed to limits on magazine capacity as that infringes on people's self-defense. Instead, I favor criminal enhancements based on the amount of ammo in the commission of a crime as that indicates the amount of harm they were prepared to inflict.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #153 
I've made it clear I don't know the answer to most of mikec's questions and they're mostly a smokescreen having little to do with the point I'm making.  I did say I thought hand grenades weren't available and somebody said they were.  I said the same thing about fully automatic weapons and someone said some are legal.  I don't know the answer to many of these questions and the answer is irrelevant anyway.  I'm guessing mikec doesn't know if grenades and automatics are available to the public either.

My theme here continues to be the same, does the second amendment actually mean the right to bear any and all arms?  I say no.  While CoachB didn't get specific, I believe he finally clarified what I was getting at all this time.  The second amendment does allow for the banning of some arms.  All arms should not be made available to the citizens, regardless what the second amendment specifically means.  PDad and Tyler have now chimed in and appear to agree some arms should be kept out of the hands of Americans.  Thanks to both of them for sharing their opinion.  Now if the Courts say an amendment is needed before we can ban some arms, then that's the avenue this Country will have to travel.

It serves no purpose for somebody lacking the expertise like me to identify which weapons should be banned.  I gave it some effort but clearly I'd have to learn much more.  Most of you have a general idea as to what I'm describing.  In any event, I'm making a more general case that certain arms should not be available to citizens.  That's all.  (Well maybe that's not all as I would go much further and ban handguns from further sale.)  While we may disagree on which arms should be excluded, it's very clear now others agree there should be exceptions.  What's the percentage in this Country?  I don't know but I suppose we're slowly learning.  Now we can go back to quizzing Dewey on weapons and asking if we should ban hatchets.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #154 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
My theme here continues to be the same, does the second amendment actually mean the right to bear any and all arms?  I say no.  While CoachB didn't get specific, I believe he finally clarified what I was getting at all this time.  The second amendment does allow for the banning of some arms.  All arms should not be made available to the citizens, regardless what the second amendment specifically means.

Please clarify the statements about 2A because I'm not sure what you mean.

2A is subject to re-interpretation. The minority dissent in the recent 5-4 decisions was very different than the majority's ruling, so a change in SCOTUS could easily result in the right to bear arms being re-interpreted to be for state-organized militias only and the individuals' right rescinded.

Quote:
PDad and Tyler have now chimed in and appear to agree some arms should be kept out of the hands of Americans.  Thanks to both of them for sharing their opinion.  Now if the Courts say an amendment is needed before we can ban some arms, then that's the avenue this Country will have to travel.

I don't think Tyler's post (i.e. the one I quoted) indicates his position on that. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #155 
PDad - I'm saying I think the second amendment has been interpreted to allow for some weapons to be banned.  I could be wrong and so my larger point is it should be interpreted to allow for some weapons to be banned.  I never know for certain how a certain SC will rule.  As for Tyler, he can correct me if I misunderstood his position.  One has to interpret him too because he is a bit vague sometimes, not unlike some of these phrases in our Constitution.  If current law allows some weapons to be banned, and Tyler supports current laws, then a equals b, b equals c, and so on.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #156 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
PDad - I'm saying I think the second amendment has been interpreted to allow for some weapons to be banned.  I could be wrong and so my larger point is it should be interpreted to allow for some weapons to be banned. 
This is the problem with current/recent SC justices - letting their personal views dictate how they interpret the Constitution. Their responsibility is to interpret what it means, not find an interpretation that supports their views.

I never know for certain how a certain SC will rule. (true) As for Tyler, he can correct me if I misunderstood his position.  One has to interpret him too because he is a bit vague sometimes, not unlike some of these phrases in our Constitution.  If current law allows some weapons to be banned, and Tyler supports current laws, then a equals b, b equals c, and so on.

Does he? You're assuming he includes himself among "most Americans" happy with current laws. He may or may not have implied that. Personally, I was not comfortable inferring it since he was responding for a group. I'm surprised you did considering how you typically require lot of clarification from people that were much clearer on their position (e.g. CoachB25).
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #157 
Maybe it was a trick post but I thought he was including himself among those who are happy with our laws now.  Again, he can answer if I got it wrong.  Hey PDad, somebody said I didn't care about cops and the military and you weren't there for me?  Why is that and why are you working so hard to explain Tyler's position?  Man, I need somebody looking out for improper implications made about me.  Oh wait, Tyler was one of those when he said I called out Conservatives regarding something a member a wrote.  It is definitely a tag team match inside here but that's OK.

As for CoachB, I still don't know if he thinks a fully automatic weapon should be an arm people can own.  I think he could still be more clear but I was more interested in those who believe in exceptions to the arms entitlement.  He was clear there.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #158 
Dewey - I'd help you out if it was needed and I could. You're on here all the time and typically respond quickly. Some things aren't worthy of a response and you do just to play the victim/sympathy card. You have a long history with the other guys and I'm not familiar with the background of those implications, so I can't really comment on many things one way or another. I don't know which of Tyler's posts you found objectionable. I'd really like to help you on it, but I don't know...

FTR, I questioned your assumption about Tyler's position. You're either wrong or lucky on it.

Which is more important when selecting a SC Justice?
- Their background in Constitutional law and commitment to apply/interpret it as meant.
- Someone that will rule according to your beliefs.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #159 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDad


Which is more important when selecting a SC Justice?
- Their background in Constitutional law and commitment to apply/interpret it as meant.
- Someone that will rule according to your beliefs.


The bold one.  I was just ribbing you on the other stuff.  I don't suspect you're going to put a Conservative under a microscope, like you do me, anytime soon.  You'd be the first though.  [thumb]
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #160 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden



No thanks on the question.  I'm not nearly educated enough to weigh in here, and it is my belief that most Americans are ok with the current gun laws, as am I. 


PDad - The only luck I had was finding his comment and pasting it for you.

Edit:  For the record, Tyler signed on and off a couple times today and could have given you your answer if he wanted to.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #161 
Now he's got enough time in his day to stalk Durden.  



The tag team, too bad there aren't believers in curious george or the libtard position in general to want to defend it as you do dewdy.  People would speak up if the the subject is important enough. everyone else has fell out of that puppy love stage but you.

__________________
"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" 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 12,109
Reply with quote  #162 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden



No thanks on the question.  I'm not nearly educated enough to weigh in here, and it is my belief that most Americans are ok with the current gun laws, as am I. 


PDad - The only luck I had was finding his comment and pasting it for you.

Edit:  For the record, Tyler signed on and off a couple times today and could have given you your answer if he wanted to.


I find this to be super creepy.

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #163 
As did I.

 FIB did say dewy is more troll-like everyday

__________________
"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" 
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,062
Reply with quote  #164 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerDurden
No thanks on the question.  I'm not nearly educated enough to weigh in here, and it is my belief that most Americans are ok with the current gun laws, as am I. 

PDad - The only luck I had was finding his comment and pasting it for you.

Lucky you! However, it was a curious exchange about legality and you didn't accept his reply as an answer to your question. 

Quote:
Tyler - I didn't ask you to know the laws of the land.  I don't know many of them myself.  That said, you don't have to be educated to have an opinion as to whether you think Americans should have a right to bear grenades and fully automatic weapons.  Anyway, you're not required to answer if you don't want to.

Tyler says he's okay with the current gun laws and your reply is you didn't ask him "to know the laws of the land." WTF? 

Your later acceptance of it as a position seems inconsistent with this response.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #165 
Hey you guys, your name is on the bottom of the page when you're signed in, unless you're invisible.  It's not rocket science.  But I see what's happening here.  A teammate has been exposed for mistakenly implying I may have mischaracterized another members post and now the deflection comes in.  It was just an honest mistake by somebody who is working far too hard checking everything I write.

Edit:  Grammar.  I said "your" invisible.  Thanks for the pass guys.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 12,109
Reply with quote  #166 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Hey you guys, your name is on the bottom of the page when you're signed in, unless your invisible.  It's not rocket science.  But I see what's happening here.  A teammate has been exposed for mistakenly implying I may have mischaracterized another members post and now the deflection comes in.  It was just an honest mistake by somebody who is working far too hard checking everything I write.


From someone who knows all too well what he's talking about on this subject.

__________________
Will I Wynn is a poster who used to go by the name of Dewey.  He used to criticize people who did that.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #167 
Wow - I don't know if I should be flattered or concerned...
Dewey - Tyler had to work today and didn't have time to post, but I did have a chance to read.  I'm not sure why you think I am being vague sometimes, just because I don't give the answers you like.  It also doesn't give you the right to expound on my answers, which again is a little creepy and makes me think you are keeping a secret excel spreadsheet on us somewhere.

I must admit my knowledge of the gun control debate is pretty much what I can read here.  I thank B25 and Bill Smith and others for educating me on the subject.  From what I gathered from someone's post, I believe it is legal to own a grenade if you have the proper licensing for it, so therefore I am for grenades, I think.  Saying that my not wanting my neighbor to not own a nuclear bomb, and you not wanting them to own a semi-automatic weapon are not exactly the same point, so I don't know what your fascination is in proving that I am for some arms being banned. 

I told you I have no desire to have this conversation.  Both republicans and democrats have multiple chances to change the gun laws and have done nothing.  This is nothing more than a democratic talking point they trot out after every shooting and beat republicans up with it.  Why did democrats do nothing when they had a majority in the house and senate?  Going to use the not having a 60 vote majority again?  They had it, and did nothing.  So lets go back to some other threads and see how the WH mislead the American public on Obamacare and how our citizens are now more at risk abroad since we will now allow people to negotiate with terrorist.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #168 
Quote:
Tyler had to work today...


Which one of 'you' would that be? Were you in the cubicle or making soap? [wink]

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

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #169 
Creepy doesn't even begin to describe Dewey on this board. When I inquire about him taking his meds, you may think I'm joking, but with the surreal delusional posts he makes here, it's anything but a joke.

TD - I doubt it stops with an excel spreadsheet. In keeping with the Big Governemnt mantra "If you see something, say something" aimed at turning in your neighbors, coworkers, and friends for having opinions other than those approved by Big Gov, I imagine Dewey writes biased "capsules" of our posts and forwards them to the FBI for threat assessment.

The irony being that the FBI probably has a burgeoning file on a certain LWNJ in California, and will be keeping a very close eye on him should the GOP win the WH in '16.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,753
Reply with quote  #170 
FiB- Sheesh, let's make Dewey out to be the next crackpot with a carbine. Much as I understand your frustration in political argument with Dewey, his observations of who comes and goes on the forum is hardly an issue of his sanity. If your screen is setup to allow the bottom of the main forum page to be viewed, you can see the collected list of all online at any given moment.

Dewey quite regularly would wish a person "Happy Birthday" upon noting their status line while online. I guess someone could take offense, not knowing they could have opted out of showing the BDay to the whole crew here. But positioning him as some super stealthy cyber-stalker, that's laughable. Besides, his meds of choice are a bit of the vine or grain & a nicotine-laden cigar. That's his Rx of preference.

Lastly, if you want to point to someone that once diligently made note of some of the 4$$holes that were running amok on this forum, pick on me. Dewey wouldn't even hold a candle to my Green Lantern.

But nice fantasy. If we all collectively threw in our best efforts, the result could be a best seller. Assuming Oprah would endorse a "Best of UCS" on her book club.

** edit for the usual missed grammatical faux pas **

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

Registered:
Posts: 10,292
Reply with quote  #171 
Dewey might have a carbine in his shirt pocket and not even know it. [wink]

Even so, it's creepy, and weird, and obsessive, to track who logs on and off the board throughout the day.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 10,210
Reply with quote  #172 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachB25
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. 


I completely disagree. Individuals, albeit rich individuals, did own their own artillery, very large cannon, and personal armories of state of the art rifles, pistols, swords and explosive grenades, that were then comparable to those of standing armies in foreign countries. The numbers may have been small, but individual citizens, not just town armories, or villages, owned military grade weapons.  They did in a time of national crises, and under invasion by both Indians or foreign powers, generously supply those weapons, the most advanced at the time, along with ammunition, to local townsmen, individual citizens, the very people, who banded together, to battle an oppressive government. Read the second amendment, and specifically notice the "comma" in between "the militia", and "the people".

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

Notice that the Militia's right to bear arms, military arms used to equally combat threats to the security of the FREE STATE, were specifically given to the very INDIVIDUAL FREE PEOPLE that would be called upon to DEFEND a FREE STATE, which also included their towns, homes, families, and businesses.

The very people that wrote the 2nd amendment had a bloody and violent military war against an oppressive foreign power, and they didn't limit the weaponry that their citizens could own, because they wanted their citizens armed with equal weapons to foreign, and more importantly, equal to the armaments of a strong oppressive domestic government in the future, that is by nature " an enemy" of  the security of a "FREE STATE" 

__________________
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.
ice_67

Registered:
Posts: 143
Reply with quote  #173 
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Why.... Here's why.

GOVERNMENT GENOCIDE CAMPAIGNS AND THE
"GUN CONTROL" LAWS THAT HELPED SLAUGHTER 56 MILLION PEOPLE

 

PERPETRATOR GOVERNMENT

DATE

TARGET

# MURDERED (ESTIMATED)

DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAW

SOURCE DOCUMENT

Ottoman Turkey

1915-1917

Armenians

1-1.5 million

1886-1911

Art. 166, Penal Code
Art. 166 Penal Code

Soviet Union*

1929-1953

Anti-Communists / Anti-Stalinists

20 million

1929

Art. 182 Penal Code

Nazi Germany** & Occupied Europe

1933-1945

Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis

13 million

1928-1938

Law on Firearms & Ammunition, April 12 Weapons Law, March 18

China*

1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976

Anti- Communists Rural Populations Pro-Reform Groups

20 million

1935-1957

Arts. 186-7, Penal Code Art. 9, Security Law, Oct. 22

Guatemala

1960-1981

Maya Indians

100,000

1871-1964

Decree 36, Nov 25 Decree 283, Oct 27

Uganda

1971-1979

Christians Political Rivals

300,000

1955-1970

Firearms Ordinance Firearms Act

Cambodia

1975-1979

Educated Persons

1 million

1956

Arts. 322-8, Penal Code

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,422
Reply with quote  #174 
Bill - Hey, thanks for that.  I appreciate it.  Now I'm going to take this new label "creepy" and add it to my excel spreadsheet right behind vile, rat, wicked, prick...oh, enough of that already.  In any event, if my meds aren't working, blame it on my doctor.  He's a quack. [wink]

PS:  In case the readers missed it, a dispute between PDad and me earlier today, about something Tyler wrote, led me to comment Tyler was online most of the day and could have cleared up the confusion if he so desired.  Unlike some other members, Tyler didn't choose to be "invisible" and his presence was clear at the bottom of the page, as Bill explained.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #175 
Woody, I've read a lot on the Revolutionary War and have several books here in the house.  I've never read about families themselves owning some of the weapons you mentioned.  I'd love to read some info on that.  I find that stuff really interesting.  If you don't mind, pm me with some reading suggestions.  If you don't want to, that's fine as well.  I'll look some of that up.  I'm always wanting to learn more. 

Take care,

Darrell
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #176 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
Dewey might have a carbine in his shirt pocket and not even know it. [wink] Even so, it's creepy, and weird, and obsessive, to track who logs on and off the board throughout the day.


For one who calls out 'stalkers' so frequently and 'an old nemesis has returned', it is definitely weird imo.  dewy's 'life' seems to wrapped up into this defense of the the indefensible.  Also his continued '8 against 1' claims and 'you guys are tag teaming' are nothing more than more obsession on his part. Many of us simply engage in conversation and it usually is hijacked by dewy.  That's where the frustration comes in.  He butts his way into conversation and when others do it, points it out like a little schoolgirl.

There is no sane defense by most clear thinking democrats of this president or his administration. that's why they aren't here.  Most are embarrassed after 7 years under this presidency.  So, with a righteous defense by BS or not, there is definitely something wrong with the obsession dewy has about this forum.

__________________
"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  #177 
kiir- As an aside to your Dewey bashing and not wishing to deflect from thread topic or your argument, however this line,

Quote:
There is no sane defense by most clear thinking democrats of this president or his administration. that's why they aren't here.  Most are embarrassed after 7 years under this presidency.


...reminds me of pre-2008 election rhetoric. Those clear thinking embarrassed Democrat reelected 'this president' so that we now stand at seven years. They might be too embarrassed to post here, but they certainly showed up at the polls. Y'all got your work cut out for you.

Be pulling for ya, as I'd like the prime rate to lift a little and a grenade. [frown]

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

Registered:
Posts: 27,208
Reply with quote  #178 
One person's bashing is another person's keepinitreal
__________________
"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  #179 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal


There is no sane defense by most clear thinking democrats of this president or his administration. that's why they aren't here.  Most are embarrassed after 7 years under this presidency. 


Needless to say, this is absolutely 100% untrue.  This forum includes some very rude and disrespectful individuals, practicing everything one hears bad about internet, including the anonymity and sense of power it gives one sitting at a keyboard alone in their home.  Many of these same individuals like to refer to other internet sources as smear websites.  Let me tell you something.  If you are a Democrat, this is a smear website.

No, Democrats aren't afraid to support their ideology.  Quite the contrary.  However, this may not be the best place to participate in such discussions, unless you enjoy being insulted and disrespected.  Most forums of discussion, your opponent wouldn't have the nerve to look over at you, right in front of an audience, and refer to use as an a**hole or prick.  That's only possible in an anonymous forum like ours.  So don't be fooled by how few Democrats may participate here.  It is in no way representative of the millions of individuals who are proud to be Democrats.  It just takes an odd duck willing to put up with the personal insults for seven years in order to counter this UCS group on the Right, including several who like to continuously mock anyone who considers themselves a Democrat.  That would be Dewey.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #180 
Tick tick tick, the clock is now ticking on this Activist Supreme Court to declare that "militia" in the Second Amendment meant that only those citizens who are signed up in the official state's militia are allowed to have guns.  They are going to declare that they know what the Founding Fathers meant and so, take all the guns for the good of the people and their liberal agenda.  Tick tick tick tick tick ...
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.