Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


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

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #61 
mikec - The point is if the Right agrees an arm should be banned, (if you can get anyone to actually say one way or the other), it's OK.  If the Left thinks an arm should be banned, then they are against the second amendment.  Seems like just another double-standard to me.  I'm upfront with the fact I can see weapons I would agree with eliminating from availability.  Many of you keep the fact you have your own exceptions a big secret so you can avoid the criticism I get.  I think that's disingenuous.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 3,328
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
mikec - The point is if the Right agrees an arm should be banned, (if you can get anyone to actually say one way or the other), it's OK.  If the Left thinks an arm should be banned, then they are against the second amendment.  Seems like just another double-standard to me.  I'm upfront with the fact I can see weapons I would agree with eliminating from availability.  Many of you keep the fact you have your own exceptions a big secret so you can avoid the criticism I get.  I think that's disingenuous.



You have yet to name them...... What are they?

__________________
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


mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,127
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
mikec - The point is if the Right agrees an arm should be banned, (if you can get anyone to actually say one way or the other), it's OK.  If the Left thinks an arm should be banned, then they are against the second amendment.  Seems like just another double-standard to me.  I'm upfront with the fact I can see weapons I would agree with eliminating from availability.  Many of you keep the fact you have your own exceptions a big secret so you can avoid the criticism I get.  I think that's disingenuous.


[crazy]

Who is it, exactly, who has been running around blabbing about gun control the last few days?

It started with your POTUS, then your candidate picked it up, then you and DC.

What does that have to do with "The Right" wanting to ban arms?

You are reaching so hard, I think you've forgotten what your argument is.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #64 
Lost_1 - And you have yet to chime in as to where you stand with regards to grenades, weaponized drones, bazookas, etc.  Why is that?

In any event, did you hear me tell Bill any weapon small enough to conceal on your person would be a good idea to remove from availability, imo.  I'd limit large magazines as well.  Not sure why I have to identify precise weapons to express my stance in this area.  You know, we have white people discussing the black community in that other thread and you're calling me out for not having expertise in the gun discussion?  Geez, there's another double-standard.

mikec - Can you avoid the point any harder?
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 28,906
Reply with quote  #65 
So, we're getting somewhere.  dewy wants to eliminate the small guns (handguns) and cripple the rifle/long gun (limit magazine sizes).   Probably, if Diane Feinstein says '2 rounds per magazine is plenty' and then Mario Cuomo said '2 rounds per magazine is plenty' and then the girly president said '2 rounds per magazine is plenty' then I presume dewy, aka the gun grabber, would say '2 rounds per magazine is plenty'.  Pretty much let the libtard left decide what we can and can't use for defense and hunting. edited

 I personally wouldn't carry hand grenades for home defense or personal defense.  Too much collateral damage I would imagine.  If I shot someone breaking in my house, why would I want to destroy my walls, my flatscreen, my pets and amenities and use a grenade instead in the process?



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

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

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

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

Registered:
Posts: 28,906
Reply with quote  #66 
"any weapon small enough to conceal on your person would be a good idea to remove from availability, imo."

good gawd, that would include the .380, the 9mm, the .22 pistol, the 40, many 45s.  What's left? 
 What would the gun grabber ALLOW with a carry permit, maybe just .357s?  should be the question

__________________
"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: 6,759
Reply with quote  #67 
CoachB25- Thanks for the well-written 'history' lesson. You did more in a concise paragraph than I have dribble inconsistently over the past few years on this forum.

Dewey- If you can't get away from hand grenades...

Given that the state's militia has been militarized into a National Guard, would you be OK if individuals created armories where weapons like bazookas, grenades, RPGs and other advanced weaponry were held for the purpose of adherence to Second Amendment principles? Or, as you said earlier, are we beyond that point?

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

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #68 
Dewey, you asked my opinion but, to be honest, there are times when I must keep my opinions to myself.  The reason is that you don't know who my family is.  To say that my family is infamous is a major understatement.  To say that my family has borne arms is a major understatement.  Note I said "major understatement."  My family is not the family you want to come calling if you are anti America.  They take the 2nd Amendment to the extreme and I'll have to leave that at that.  If I posted a link to one of my uncles, it would blow your mind.  "Blow" now that is funny!
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,759
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
...it would blow your mind.


Gesundheit! Or should I say, "Salute!" [smile]

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

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
mikec - The point is if the Right agrees an arm should be banned, (if you can get anyone to actually say one way or the other), it's OK.  If the Left thinks an arm should be banned, then they are against the second amendment.  Seems like just another double-standard to me.  I'm upfront with the fact I can see weapons I would agree with eliminating from availability.  Many of you keep the fact you have your own exceptions a big secret so you can avoid the criticism I get.  I think that's disingenuous.


Dewey - Maybe a reason very few will engage you on these subjects is that they just don't want to.  You can not force others to participate in an exchange with you, and continuing to call them out and call them disingenuous is probably not a good way to get them to.

As Bill said, get away from grenades and pick an issue people want to talk about.  IMO, republicans and democrats will stay far away from any gun control issues.  Both parties have had a chance to advance legislation and have not done so.  It seems democrats only get excited about this issue after a mass shooting.  They had control of all three branches and didn't put a bill forward.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal

 What would the gun grabber ALLOW with a carry permit, maybe just .357s?  should be the question


kiir - At least you should throw some kudos my way for putting my position out there for all to see without concern for the mocking I was guaranteed to receive. [wink]

Tyler - I don't truly believe nobody wants to state their position, with regards to which weapons they believe shouldn't be included as arms we have a right to bear, I just think it's a team thing.  Maybe with a little prodding I can break the bond.  How about you?  My understanding, and I could be wrong here too, are most fully automatic weapons are among arms one can't legally bear, at least for the most part.  If you had the power, would you change that law and allow fully automatic weapons to be sold to Americans?

Bill - I would probably still say we are beyond that point.

CoachB - You sent me that link long ago.  It was very interesting to say the least.  Tell you what, if you care to, feel free to answer the question I just submitted to Tyler and send it to me in a PM.  I'll keep it completely confidential.


mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,127
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey

Tell you what, if you care to, feel free to answer the question I just submitted to Tyler and send it to me in a PM.  I'll keep it completely confidential.




[3511404-strange-bird-looking-scared] 
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey


Tyler - I don't truly believe nobody wants to state their position, with regards to which weapons they believe shouldn't be included as arms we have a right to bear, I just think it's a team thing.  Maybe with a little prodding I can break the bond.  How about you?  My understanding, and I could be wrong here too, are most fully automatic weapons are among arms one can't legally bear, at least for the most part.  If you had the power, would you change that law and allow fully automatic weapons to be sold to Americans?



It's not a team thing, it's that no one cares. 

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.  If they weren't, there would have been a push for legislation over the past 6 years. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #74 
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.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,759
Reply with quote  #75 

Quote:
Bill - I would probably still say we are beyond that point.


And thus, we are back to my epiphany moment regarding the Second Amendment. Our elected officials have been allowed to ignore the language in that constitutional amendment. The current administration, as well as the leading candidate of that party, wish to further break the law by reducing the effectiveness of a citizenry. That's wrong. Legally, ethically, morally wrong and leads tyrannical times.

I fully understand the sacrifices made for freedom. Disarming the public is not an exercise in freedom. The public is not safer. Rather, the converse is true.



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

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #76 
Dewey, here is what I think about grenades.  First, I don't think that the Founding Fathers would have a problem with private ownership.  Again, reference George III.  There is a point where one has to then ask the purpose of the grenade.  IMO, it is a bomb.  Therefore, I don't think that the Founding Fathers would have been supportive of every house having bombs stored.  Why?  The general welfare.  A bomb is so very dangerous that multiple homes would/could be threatened as well as lives.  You might then ask what the difference is then with guns.  Explosives over time become unstable.  An event as simple as dropping one might destroy an entire home.  It might cause damage to a neighborhood whereas a firearm won't do that.  IOWs level of destruction per accident.  I don't have a problem with grenades being banned.  I don't think that they were prevalent in the normal home of a colonist as most of that type of weapon were stored in block houses.  Just the opposite was true about firearms.  IMO, just about every home had some firearm.  Firearms not limited to muskets, long rifles and blunderbuss.  Handguns were a major part of the typical home experience.  That is the same with my family.  I forgot that I had sent you a link to my Uncle and so, you understand that I don't just put his name out there or the militia group he started.  I'm sure you can understand that I started using firearms at age 7.  For me and mine, it is our right and we intend to be armed.  As an FYI, another of my nephews has just become a Police Officer.  He served our country as a Marine in Afghanistan and so, he has always wanted to serve.  He will make a great police officer since he has so much patience and good judgement.  He is another in a long line of lawmen in my family. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #77 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoachB25
I don't have a problem with grenades being banned. 


CoachB - Thanks for replying.  In my case, I don't have a problem with fully or semi-automatic weapons being banned, just to name a couple examples.  But I was less focused on what we may have problems with and was more interested in if our particular stances, using our exceptions, makes us anti-second amendment?  Does the banning of these weapons go against the Constitution?  I think it doesn't as long as we allow sufficient arms citizens can legally bear to protect family and property.  That said, there's no doubt "sufficient" will always be a difficult debate.
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,188
Reply with quote  #78 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
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.


Not so much. It seems you did shy away from the question I asked you twice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
mikec - Can you avoid the point any harder?


Pot, meet kettle.

Edited to add:

Of course it could be that I don't post often enough.
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #79 
With President Obama and Hillary recently coming out in favor of stricter gun regulations (with no specifics, but that is for another day), I wonder why democrats haven't put forth any legislation to make our gun laws more strict?  They had control of all three branches and nothing was put forward to my recollection, and if they did, they certainly didn't seem to use much political capital to push it through.  It seems they like to use this as a wedge issue and only bring it up as a reaction to a mass-shooting tragedy.
BillSmith

Registered:
Posts: 6,759
Reply with quote  #80 
Quote:
Does the banning of these weapons go against the Constitution?  I think it doesn't as long as we allow sufficient arms citizens can legally bear to protect family and property.


The Second Amendment does not promote or address what you have 'allowed' in your above comments.


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

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #81 
bhblue - Sorry, I must have skimmed right by your post during work today.  Clearly any laws against guns will not stop all killings.  Everyone can cite examples of ongoing incidents.  Still, I believe banning certain guns and ammo, stricter background checks, etc., will certainly lead to a safer society.  Imagine a society where homeowners had a "right to bear" rifles, too large to conceal when on the streets, but suitable at home to protect family and property from intruders.  I think there would be less public killings under this scenario.

I agree the Constitution certainly seems to allow for any arms to be included and owned by citizens but does it also mean all arms must be included?  Anyways, the question remains, if one is for banning grenades, automatic weapons, or other exceptions, can one still be a supporter of the "right to bear" amendment?  Lastly, are you saying the Constitution gives you the right to own grenades or guarantees you the right?  Can you clarify that for me please?
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #82 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
  Still, I believe banning certain guns and ammo, stricter background checks, etc., will certainly lead to a safer society.  Imagine a society where homeowners had a "right to bear" rifles, too large to conceal when on the streets, but suitable at home to protect family and property from intruders.  I think there would be less public killings under this scenario.



I believe this is where some stats need to be included.  What percentage of crimes/murders that are committed with guns involve guns that are deemed illegal now?  If the law were to change, how many of the current crimes/murders are committed with those type of guns? 

Criminals are still going to find the guns and ammo regardless of what the laws are.  Cops can't keep up with the current laws, why would we give them even more to keep up with.  If a deranged individual wants to go on a killing spree, they are going to no matter what.  Could we make it a little more difficult of them, maybe, but is it worth the cost that will come with it?
bhblue

Registered:
Posts: 2,188
Reply with quote  #83 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
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.


Dewey???? Not clear enough?

Now, care to answer the question: Are the law-abiding citizens of Mexico SAFER with the weapons you want banned here banned? No dancing around, please. A simple yes or no.
PDad

Registered:
Posts: 4,058
Reply with quote  #84 
Dewey - SCOTUS has ruled twice in recent years against handgun bans. In 2008, they struck one down at the Federal level in DC v Heller based on 2A. In 2010, they struck it down at lower levels in McDonald v Chicago by using the 14A to apply the 2A to state and local governments. Looks like you need either an amendment or a change in SCOTUS to ban handguns.

Wiki provides a list of major federal gun laws - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States. Here are ones I find applicable to machine guns and grenades:

- National Firearms Act (1934) regulated machine guns and Destructive Devices (e.g. grenades, bombs, missiles, etc).

- Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) (1986) - Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.

- Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004) - Banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.

Based on notes from the Heller decision, I think the current court would uphold the current limitations on machine guns and grenades. I'm not so sure about the expired ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. 

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller‍'s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 28,906
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
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.
Dewey???? Not clear enough? Now, care to answer the question: Are the law-abiding citizens of Mexico SAFER with the weapons you want banned here banned? No dancing around, please. A simple yes or no.



__________________
"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  #86 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue
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.
Dewey???? Not clear enough? Now, care to answer the question: Are the law-abiding citizens of Mexico SAFER with the weapons you want banned here banned? No dancing around, please. A simple yes or no.


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.

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.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 9,127
Reply with quote  #87 
pdad - I note with interest that the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. 

It seems to me that there were at least a few years since then where the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, and the POTUS, and likely could have pushed through a new ban w/o a single GOP vote, if they wanted to.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #88 
Bill and PDad - I'm not having a legal discussion here.  Much of what I may want to do may not be allowed under current law or, more likely, under current Constitution.  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.  Therefore there's not much reason to debate if any thoughts I have are legal today or not.  We've learned through the years most of this stuff has to ultimately get by nine Justices before we know for certain what we can or cannot do.  Gun legislation won't be any different.

Edit:  PDad, I might as well present you with the same question.  Setting any previous legal decisions aside, or adopting them as your own if you wish, what is your personal opinion?  Do you think the Constitution guarantees us the "right to bear" grenades and fully automatic weapons or is/was it appropriate to exclude some arms from the "right to bear" list?
TylerDurden

Registered:
Posts: 3,869
Reply with quote  #89 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
pdad - I note with interest that the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. 

It seems to me that there were at least a few years since then where the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, and the POTUS, and likely could have pushed through a new ban w/o a single GOP vote, if they wanted to.


I've brought that up a few times but for some reason all I can hear are those crickets.....
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,419
Reply with quote  #90 
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.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.