Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 9      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,918
Reply with quote  #31 
Tell you what. You and the libs can have the hand grenades. Ill keep the claymores.
This makes me laugh.

__________________
I voted for Trump. 
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,918
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
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?


Because the one asking the question isnt raising any relevant points.

__________________
I voted for Trump. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #33 
Hello rocklifter.  No, that's not it either.  Try ignoring the poster name for a moment and just focus on the question.  Should the right to bear arms include a hand grenade?  You're free to say yes.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,759
Reply with quote  #34 

Don't get lost on hand grenades.

The point of hand grenade ownership is the complete ignorance of the basic tenants of the Second Amendment. It is not for an individual citizen to protect themselves. Thank you for your oblique observation that the citizenry is 'out gunned' by its gov't.

The state does not provide an independent militia. Individuals are not allowed ownership of arms that could provide a proper defense. Seems rather simple to say the Second Amendment has been obfuscated. One would hope that change would occur.

Yes, the Obama administration would further this by limiting the arms such that a citizen could not properly defend their family and property. I don't have to be 'careful'. My eyes are not wide shut to lawmakers saying they won't take guns, then passing regulations that restrict the very weapons necessary for such. Impossible hoops make it difficult for a watch dog.

Quote:
Bill - Again, I would say it means "taking some types of guns and some types ammo". 


Again, if a citizen owns the XYZ Arms, Semi-Auto Home Defender and it is rendered illegal by a push to make 'some guns and some types of ammo' illegal, that's coming to take guns. And by an electorate, such as yourself, that has no idea about what weaponry should or should not be owned for use in defending THEIR family. You and legislators want to leave me with what THEY feel is safe. Why? Because legislators live under the umbrella of protection and citizens such as are fearful of guns and abhor their ownership would strip We The People of the safe use of a weapon of choice.

Of course, I live in California, where that has, for the most part, already occurred. Don't debate the Conservative voice about hand grenades. Rather understand the reason why I offered the comparison. The true question is whether the basic tenants of the Second Amendment can be met by a citizen's militia armed with hunting rifles. You've admitted that the gov't has its citizens over-matched and there is no reason to believe things will return to a competitive balance, so to speak.

My contention is that those in favor of gun control see no need for an individual citizen to be in control of defense via the use of personal weapons. Therefore, those that step to the podium and say, "We have to do something", are reaching for what limited weapons are already legal. Don't think that can be disputed.

**minor edit of bad grammar and such**


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

Registered:
Posts: 28,906
Reply with quote  #35 
Embedded image permalink
__________________
"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: 24,419
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith


Again, if a citizen owns the XYZ Arms, Semi-Auto Home Defender and it is rendered illegal by a push to make 'some guns and some types of ammo' illegal, that's coming to take guns.



Bill - I follow this logic and understand the point being made.  Just the same, the "generalized" phrase is being used to suggest there's a push in this Country to take away a citizen's right to own a gun in order to protect his home and family.  To me, this appears to be a completely misleading suggestion in order to deceive the electorate and stop any gun control conversation in its tracks.  I think the proof of this obvious spin to label gun law advocates in a "slippery slope" manner can be found in the refusal to answer my hand grenade question.  There's a reason I can't get folks to say yes or no to this particular example regarding grenades.  You used to tell me there is often a gray area and I think the right to bear arms and the illegalization of hand grenades, or some other certain arms, lies right there.

I'll ask my question this way.  If I'm against the legalization of hand grenades, large ammo clips, or automatic assault rifles, does that somehow make me against the right to bear arms?  How so?


Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 3,328
Reply with quote  #37 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith


Again, if a citizen owns the XYZ Arms, Semi-Auto Home Defender and it is rendered illegal by a push to make 'some guns and some types of ammo' illegal, that's coming to take guns.



Bill - I follow this logic and understand the point being made.  Just the same, the "generalized" phrase is being used to suggest there's a push in this Country to take away a citizen's right to own a gun in order to protect his home and family.  To me, this appears to be a completely misleading suggestion in order to deceive the electorate and stop any gun control conversation in its tracks.  I think the proof of this obvious spin to label gun law advocates in a "slippery slope" manner can be found in the refusal to answer my hand grenade question.  There's a reason I can't get folks to say yes or no to this particular example regarding grenades.  You used to tell me there is often a gray area and I think the right to bear arms and the illegalization of hand grenades, or some other certain arms, lies right there.

I'll ask my question this way.  If I'm against the legalization of hand grenades, large ammo clips, or automatic assault rifles, does that somehow make me against the right to bear arms?  How so?





Once again you show your ignorance on the subject matter. Before posting again, please go read the guidelines for acquiring a Federal Firearms License Class III.

You accuse of spin, but then spin like there are tons of fully automatic guns in the hands of the readers. This subject has been beat like a dead horse, and you still come back with innuendo with no factual basis to back up your claims. You lack the basic knowledge of the internal working of any firearm. You possess no knowledge/training of ballistics or ballistic coefficients, you can't even name what firearms or ammo should be banned. 

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #38 
Bill - I can't get past those who require me to know what is legal or not before I can make an analogy or offer up my hypothesis.  I've admitted over and over I don't know what the laws actually are regarding many of these current weapons, but let's assume for the sake of argument an automatic assault rifle was once legal and then made illegal.  I'm asking if supporting such a change in law was equivalent to being against the right to bear arms?  Lost1 is tying hard to take deflect this in another direction.  I wonder if Lost believes the right to bear arms includes hand grenades?
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,759
Reply with quote  #39 
I think I clearly stated, "Don't get lost on hand grenades."
__________________
Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #40 
Bill - While I think I understand your general position on this matter, I admit to being somewhat confused as to why we're moving away from the grenade analogy.  You know full well what I'm trying to do here.  I'm trying to get members to say one or the other...

The right to bear arms includes hand grenades.

The right to bear arms does not include hand grenades.


Why do you think I'm failing to get an answer and why is this now an analogy that fogs the question at hand?  It's pretty much the basis behind my belief some speech can be banned without being against the right to free speech just as some weapons can be banned while not being against the right to bear arms.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,356
Reply with quote  #41 
Some speech is banned. Some arms are banned.

Almost frightening how ill-prepared you are to discuss these matters. But hey, LWNJs are known for weak analogies and bizarre hysteria.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,127
Reply with quote  #42 
Dewey - is it your impression that automatic weapons are permitted now?

What specific measures, gun bans, background checks, or the like would have prevented the Charleston shootings?

For that matter, what about the ones in Philadelphia or Detroit, that you completely ignore?  Or the one here in Atlanta, where the shooter was convicted felon in possession of a firearm, and shoots up a HS graduation pool party?

Grenades are not being used to carry out these attacks.  Your POTUS, and your Candidate HillaryInc seem to think they have a magic answer - "reasonable, common sense solutions".  What are they beyond platitudes that get trotted out after these terrible events?
 
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 13,117
Reply with quote  #43 
This is very similar to the abortion discussion where you can't get liberals to admit they would ever permit a ban on any kind of abortion including partial-birth abortions.  Obama wouldn't even say that he would ban an abortion in the case where the baby was born alive even though abortion was the intent.

The big difference is that you have the 2nd Amendment that was properly enacted.  Roe v. Wade is a constitutional travesty.

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

"Once you open your eyes, it's impossible to be a Democrat." - CJ Pearson
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #44 
mikec - If you don't want to answer my question as to which statement you would adopt, please don't turn and ask me several questions in return. I'm growing weary of answering all comers while being continuoosly ignored.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,356
Reply with quote  #45 
You don't answer all comers. That's a myth you propagate almost daily, but it's not true. You should really try to be honest when you post here, you might eventually earn some credibility.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,127
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
mikec - If you don't want to answer my question as to which statement you would adopt, please don't turn and ask me several questions in return. I'm growing weary of answering all comers while being continuoosly ignored.


You, your POTUS, and your candidate want to ban something.  That is the cause du jour.  I ask what?  What would you change?

Grenades are illegal.  What is the point in that?  You want someone to say, well, grenades are OK to be banned, so then you can say - OK why not guns?

Grenades are already illegal - so what is the point?

Do you want to ban automatic weapons?

Handguns?

Shotguns?

Sniper rifles?

Varmint rifles?

Elephant guns?

If liberals are going to run around saying that something has to happen, they must have some idea of what the something is.

Otherwise, instead of acting in memory of those killed, they are dancing on their graves.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,188
Reply with quote  #47 
The guns Dewey and his pals want banned are currently banned in Mexico.

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2015/06/10-gunned-down-at-monterrey-nl-beer.html

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2015/06/21-criminals-in-tamaulipas-captured.html

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2015/06/is-mexican-govt-outgunned-by-cartels.html

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2015/06/cjng-killing-enemies-by-dynamite.html

I included the last to further show what type of folks we're dealing with.  I could link more if more are needed.  That's just the last week in a country where law-abiding citizens can't protect themselves.  Does it seem to be working there, Dewey?

If an answer from me is required for you to answer my question, then yes, the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own hand grenades.  BTW, I did a search for "hand grenade" on the same site and got 32 articles.  Here's the most recent:

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2015/04/confrontation-in-tamaulipas-leaves-at.html

ex:  

"The Army searched the abandoned vehicle, and found that it was armoured, and inside they found seven assault rifles of 7.62 x 39 calibre( otis probably Ak47 ), two rifles of 5.56 x 45 calibre (otis probably AR15 variants) a .50 calibre rifle ( otis probably a Barrett), 14 frag hand grenades, 14 40mm grenades for a grenade launcher, a 40mm grenade launcher, a rocket launcher armed with a 85mm rocket, and eight 85mm rocket reloads ( otis sounds like a SMAW)"

Well, Dewey?  Are law-abiding citizens more safe where these weapons are banned?
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,759
Reply with quote  #48 
Dewey- I'm not moving away from hand grenades, but you should. Originally, the point was that gun control advocates will whittle away at what is currently legal until a point where nothing can be owned that might be considered a usable firearm.

In past conversation, I realized that the concept that the Second Amendment didn't cover hunting, rather the very gist of the doctrine has been rendered useless by time & legislation through advancement in weapons technology and agenda-driven pacifists. Separate issue.

The POTUS again stood in front of America and advocated change to the regulations regarding guns. He's going for guns. Don't like the simplicity of the statement, then in turn, someone should hand down details on what "something needs to be done" entails. You admit to not knowing and judging by the way the current President held a shotgun, he isn't any more the experienced. Don't trust his cabinet nor advisors. Too many non-military, urban dwellers who have no concept of responsible gun ownership.

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

Registered:
Posts: 28,906
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Bill - I can't get past those who require me to know what is legal or not before I can make an analogy or offer up my hypothesis.  I've admitted over and over I don't know what the laws actually are regarding many of these current weapons, but let's assume for the sake of argument an automatic assault rifle was once legal and then made illegal.  I'm asking if supporting such a change in law was equivalent to being against the right to bear arms?  Lost1 is tying hard to take deflect this in another direction.  I wonder if Lost believes the right to bear arms includes hand grenades?


It's just very difficult having a conversation with a dumass gun grabber. You know their agenda going in and there is nothing to be gained.
Hand grenades, for 2 years the idiot has been hung up on hand grenades to build his argument. bill plays along as a cat with a mouse and dewy is still hung up on hand grenades. We know Feinstein, curious george et al. are not coming for hand grenades but dewy keeps hoping the forum will keep chasing the hand grenade rabbit thrown out by dewy.

__________________
"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: 24,419
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
You don't answer all comers.


I answer all comers.  I don't shy away.  Ask a concise question where one can clearly state an opinion and and I'll answer.  Don't ask me how to defeat ISIS, stop crime, or cure cancer.  I don't know the answers to these large complex questions.  Don't ask me why the President is dividing this Country and when I answer, "he isn't", say I'm not answering your question.  Again, here's your chance to prove your theory correct by asking me a question I won't answer.  I think the readers probably know you just made that up in order to deflect from this thread which clearly shows others refusing to share a position.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
You want someone to say, well, grenades are OK to be banned, so then you can say - OK why not guns?



mikec - Precisely.  Actually some but not all guns.  But more importantly, I want to know where the line is drawn?  Which of these can you be against and not be accused of being against the "right to bear"?

Hand grenades, fully automatic weapons, semi-automatic rifle?

Finally, why couldn't you say, "the right to bear arms doesn't include grenades"?  Seemed like an easy statement to make.  Is it because you believe I would say "the right to bear arms doesn't include semi-automatic rifles"?  Are you of the mindset the first statement is true and the second statement is false?  Please help me know where the definition of being against the second amendment comes in.  Can you answer the question I just asked?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillSmith
Dewey- I'm not moving away from hand grenades, but you should.


Bill - I guess I don't understand why.  It's my basis for knowing the "right to bear arms" isn't the same as saying the right to bear any and all arms.  I can have my exceptions just as those on the Right can have theirs.  I'm more than fair game to be criticized for going too far in the minds of others but I'm not fair game for being accused of being against the 2nd amendment.  It seems we all agree it allows for exceptions.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 3,328
Reply with quote  #53 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
You want someone to say, well, grenades are OK to be banned, so then you can say - OK why not guns?



mikec - Precisely.  Actually some but not all guns.  But more importantly, I want to know where the line is drawn?  Which of these can you be against and not be accused of being against the "right to bear"?

Hand grenades, fully automatic weapons, semi-automatic rifle?

Finally, why couldn't you say, "the right to bear arms doesn't include grenades"?  Seemed like an easy statement to make.  Is it because you believe I would say "the right to bear arms doesn't include semi-automatic rifles"?  Are you of the mindset the first statement is true and the second statement is false?  Please help me know where the definition of being against the second amendment comes in.  Can you answer the question I just asked?




Liberal slight of hand here, didn't you earlier state "automatic" assault weapons? Which is it?



__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 3,328
Reply with quote  #54 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Bill - While I think I understand your general position on this matter, I admit to being somewhat confused as to why we're moving away from the grenade analogy.  You know full well what I'm trying to do here.  I'm trying to get members to say one or the other...

The right to bear arms includes hand grenades.

The right to bear arms does not include hand grenades.


Why do you think I'm failing to get an answer and why is this now an analogy that fogs the question at hand?  It's pretty much the basis behind my belief some speech can be banned without being against the right to free speech just as some weapons can be banned while not being against the right to bear arms.



We ALL fully understand what you are trying to do here!

It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you on this subject, you admittedly have no credibility on the issue.

You still have not answered what guns, ammo, gun powder needs common sense reforms?

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 10,356
Reply with quote  #55 
As arms evolved, so too the right to bear them should have evolved with the advancements. The law doesn't say the "right to bear muskets."

The government has already successfully banned about 99% of modern arms. Citizens are left with relatively zero firepower to fulfill the intent of 2A. And yet the zealots want to take away more.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 3,328
Reply with quote  #56 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
As arms evolved, so too the right to bear them should have evolved with the advancements. The law doesn't say the "right to bear muskets." The government has already successfully banned about 99% of modern arms. Citizens are left with relatively zero firepower to fulfill the intent of 2A. And yet the zealots want to take away more.



Yet they don't equate the 1st amendment with a quill and ink well.

__________________
If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. - Dr. Martin Luther King


“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.” Winston S. Churchill


Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #57 
Then it would seem you guys would have no problem saying the right to bear arms includes grenades, weaponized drones, bazookas, etc.  And yet you can't say it.  Only Bill seems to have the ability to make this statement.  Why is that?
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #58 
There is a huge history lesson in here somewhere.  We forget that the Amendments were forced upon the Constitutional Convention and the subsequent adoption of the Constitution because certain states and people had not only been upset with the Articles of Confederation, but also had long standing grievances from the Reign of George III.  Therefore, the Right to Bear Arms, really is a phrase to denote the ability to keep a well armed militia and not one that is a formal militia with names recorded on some docket.  Instead, the purpose is to ensure the ability of the people to protect themselves, their families and their communities from tyrants.  Yes, including tyrants who may take over that new untested government.  Again, reference George III.  So, when Dewey asked about grenades, while I might say heck no, the reality is that under the Founding Father's intent, I do believe that they would be acceptable.  Finally, reference the artillery, muskets, powder, ... all to be found at Lexington and Concord.  (Actually, the block house at Concord)  They were the focal point of the King's men's march and the focal point of those Patriots who secured them for the Revolutionary War for the colonist. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #59 
Thanks for the information CoachB.  The follow-up question, and I'm assuming hand grenades are banned today, is should they be?   In your opinion of course.  And if a person answers yes, does it mean they're against the second amendment?
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,127
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
Thanks for the information CoachB.  The follow-up question, and I'm assuming hand grenades are banned today, is should they be?   In your opinion of course.  And if a person answers yes, does it mean they're against the second amendment?


Why don't you stop with these stupid questions, and deal in the real world.

You, your buddy DC, your POTUS, and your candidate have all said there needs to be gun control.  HillaryInc blabbed on and on about it.

What exactly is on your mind?

No answer means that it's just rabble rousing to buy votes, using the lives of innocent murder victims to purchase them. 

Not very flattering.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.