Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,523
Reply with quote  #61 
Like I said, those are my opinions and I don't need to do endless homework assignments for your amusement.  There is a litany of discussion throughout all these threads that support the points I made and the readers will just have to trust that I didn't make any of it up.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,989
Reply with quote  #62 
Lost 1 you did notice that dewey said he wants semi automatics outlawed didn't you?
__________________
"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: 24,423
Reply with quote  #63 
pabar - But hopefully you do understand accusation without evidence is truly unfair, here or anywhere.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,523
Reply with quote  #64 
The readers can decide for themselves what's fair.  All of the posts are available for their perusal.  You saying it doesn't make it so.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,593
Reply with quote  #65 
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
Lost 1 you did notice that dewey said he wants semi automatics outlawed didn't you?




Yep, I saw that too, but without a functioning knowledge of how a gas operated firearm works. If there is a Republican President he would probably want the 1st amendment to go back to quill & ink!

__________________
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: 24,423
Reply with quote  #66 
pabar - But it's unfair to make the accused prove his innocence.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #67 
rocklifter - We've buried your post so please know I responded here.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,989
Reply with quote  #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost_1
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepinitreal
Lost 1 you did notice that dewey said he wants semi automatics outlawed didn't you?




Yep, I saw that too, but without a functioning knowledge of how a gas operated firearm works. If there is a Republican President he would probably want the 1st amendment to go back to quill & ink!


He has a lot of opinions with no functioning knowledge of what he speaks. He also talks with a forked tongue. He was only interested in the vote and not the discussion because in the discussion he shows his glaring ignorance. He ain't so interested in the vote anymore after they got the public boot in their collective asses. All of a sudden no more talk about the vote. That's why harry reid is so 'gun shy' On bringing up votes.

__________________
"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" 
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 4,897
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - But it's unfair to make the accused prove his innocence.

Especially without a link.

__________________
#SCOTUS
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #70 
Dewey, I apologize if I were vague on gun regulations.  If I have a Conceal and Carry then, I believe I should be able to carry my gun into any state/city park.  I have gone through the proper channels to be able to do so once I have the C and C.  The opposite would be that states and cities could simply legislate away any and all places so that one could never carry a gun.  Maybe I didn't make that clear enough. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #71 
CoachB - I understood what you said about believing if you have a permit, you should be able to carry your gun anywhere.  I'm wanting to know what you think if my State/community passes a law saying no guns allowed in State parks and/or theaters.  Do we have this right or would such a law be a violation of the Constitution, in your opinion?  (Actually, I'm just as interested in knowing if you think it should be unconstitutional, in the event you're unsure of what the legal result would be.)

Lost_1 - I'm happy to have a discussion with you if that's your wish.  I'm not sure what you want to discuss but, if there's a question you want to ask me, fire away.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 9,523
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
pabar - But it's unfair to make the accused prove his innocence.


Life is unfair Dewey.  I don't have time to go through thousands of posts to find the one of which I'm referring and I'm not going to do it so you can stop asking.  If you want people to judge me on that, no problem.

If you're denying that you said you wouldn't criticize Obama as a matter of debate strategy, go ahead and deny it here.

I did post that you edited a previous post making it impossible to reference that post.  If you deny doing that, deny it here.

I recall a discussion of a poster who had left and a claim that he left because he couldn't keep up with your intellectual arguments.  If you're denying it, deny it here.

As for rabbit holes, all one needs to do is read some of the other posts of FIB, KIR, and others.

As for the posting of endless questions, there are far too many to reference but anyone who has been following these miscellaneous threads for the past months knows exactly what I am referencing.

I'm under no obligation to "prove" my opinions - that's what makes them opinions.


rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,920
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
rocklifter - My apologies as I'm just now seeing your post.  First let me thank you for acknowledging your faults as I do think you went way beyond the line yesterday.  Now I'd like to address some of the things you've said.
Not only is this a prime example of digging into someone I dont know what is. I said it was my fault for getting mad. I do not regret saying what I did nor my intent behind it.
I believe one must acknowledge their faults. In this case I became angry with you. I let you get under my skin with your double talk and twisting of peoples words.
I do not for one minute regret calling you out for your BS.


I know full well there are many people out there who completely disagree with my thoughts.  In fact I have many personal friends who completely disagree with many of my Progressive thoughts.  I don't know how many times I've stated I respect those who think differently than I and I try never to characterize any of them in a negative personal manner.  Where you are completely mistaken, in my humble opinion, is to suggest I would ever consider sacrificing a friendship, or treat a friend improperly, in order to share my political perspectives.
You did and have done over the past few months. Your blinded by your own ideals.

Now we both know I lost you as a friend three or four months ago and, until my dying day, I'll never completely understand how it happened nor will I ever take comfort in the fact you made such a decision.  Fourteen months ago, you kindly contacted me in such a pleasant manner it reminded me of why I come to this site in the first place.  I've made so many contacts/friends through the years here and you were every bit as important as any of them.  Unfortunately, you must think I dramatically changed for the worse in the first nine months of 2013, (It can't be the 2012 election or SC decision because you contacted me after those events), that pushed you to a breaking point...one I'll never fully understand.  I was disappointed, to say the least, but I still don't think it was deserving. 
Of course you wouldnt because you never feel as if you ever do anything in error or make a false judgement.

Let me simply close with this and see if maybe you can reflect upon it over the next few days.  We have a Party currently in power that I happen to support wholeheartedly, and we have a President in office who I admire a great deal.  I can tell you all the reasons why but, understandably, they probably wouldn't interest you.  As a proud Democrat who admires this President immensely, can you begin to imagine how difficult it is to personally listen to both your political philosophy and your President attacked in an abusive manner every single day?  From retarded to uncaring to curious George to "it was clear from day one he would be horrible".  It's hard, but it's part of our political way.  Many don't enjoy the back and forth and they stay out of it, as is clearly apparent around here.  Enjoy isn't a good description because I don't fully enjoy many of these conversations either.  However, I try to keep my emotions under control and I do my best to counter as much of the "criticism" as I possibly can in as respectful manner as I can.  When you're being called a maniac, a woman, obsessive, and delusional, it's not always easy .  If it were my local favorite softball program, or it's Coach, being criticized, I'd do the same.  For some reason, if it were the latter, I think you would fully understand and admire me for it.  Hopefully, someday we can get back to that relationship of mutual admiration.  The fact you took the time to write your response, and share some personal thoughts, leads me to believe that's possible.

I am sorry. I can not admire anyone who is bent on supporting the destruction of our country and the freedoms we enjoy.

Yet again. I admit I lost my temper with you and trust me it could get worse. I am a protective man of my family and what I consider my rights as an American.
When a Man/Woman takes the Oath to defend this nation both foreign and domestic one normally thinks its terrorist or someone from a foreign country.
In this case we need to defend our nation against the likes of Reid, Pulosi, Obama, and others who desire to change our country into a Socialistic State. Ive said all I can say on this now. Rebute, twist, act arrogant, condescending, whatever. Im done with this idiotic pissing match.

__________________
I'd Challenge You to A Battle of Wits but I see your Unarmed!!!
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #74 
rocklifter - Clearly I totally misread your post.  We obviously live in different worlds but please know one side has no monopoly on the concerns we have for our friends and family.  You've said your peace, I've said mine, I'll move on.  Good luck to your daughter in her softball career.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #75 
pabar - I answered all your points earlier.  There is little more I can do.  As for your edit comments, I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #76 
Dewey, I don't know how to make my point more clear.  If I own a gun/rifle and I go in to a State Park, there are already all types of laws I have to abide by.  How I transport my gun in a car, how I display it in public, how I use it.  For example, if I take a gun out in public and point it in the direction of any human, I can be charged with a crime.  In order for me to have it in the first place, I have to have a firearms permit.  Conceal and Carry simply changes some of those rules for me.  I can have it loaded and on my person in a crowd.  Per the movie theaters, right now, I don't believe anyone can do so without a permit and most of those are law enforcement.  What you must not be understanding from my responses is that it is against the Constitution of the United States for local legislatures state or federal to legislate away the ownership and use of a firearms and so doing it piecemeal is also unconstitutional. 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,989
Reply with quote  #77 
[rabbithole] 
__________________
"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: 24,423
Reply with quote  #78 
CoachB - Thanks.  As the various debates regarding gun regulations moves forward, I'll continue to push for, and support, laws in my community and/or State that prohibit carrying guns into entertainment centers, like theaters and amusement parks, or public parks.  I think these laws are constitutional meaning I'm within my rights to support laws which limit where guns can go.  I was hoping if others thought differently, they'd tell me now rather than telling me later.  Based on the answers as I read them, it appears I'm not violating anyone's second amendment rights with my support of such laws.   
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #79 
A post in another thread reminded me of this article I've been meaning to link.  Very interesting.  It notes how critical it is, (while meaningless in a different way), for GOP to gain Senate seats in 2014.  The author points out how the GOP will certainly lose seats in 2016 and could give Dems a super majority if they win the Presidency.  The author goes on to say taking the Senate in 2014 doesn't really do much for the GOP other than to force the President's hand at times, but it might help lessen the damage in 2016 if they can force some Dems into difficult votes.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/23/why_2014_senate_races_mean_so_much_for_2016_121323.html

The chart in the article notes if the GOP only gets to 51 Senators in 2014, there is a 93.6% chance Dems will control Senate in 2016.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,184
Reply with quote  #80 
they might be able to reign in his reckless disregard for end-running the Constitution.  If he continues it, then they could starve him of cash.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #81 
mikec - The article notes the House can already block the President so there's little more a GOP Senate can do.  However, the more important point, from my perspective, revolves around the likelihood 2016 will see the Democrats regain control of the Senate.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #82 
CoachB says,  "Per the movie theaters, right now, I don't believe anyone can do so without a permit and most of those are law enforcement."

CoachB - I should have added this is exactly how I want the laws to read in my community with the exception that all permits are only for law enforcement.  I'm concluding such a law is constitutional. 
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 22,989
Reply with quote  #83 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
CoachB says,  "Per the movie theaters, right now, I don't believe anyone can do so without a permit and most of those are law enforcement."

CoachB - I should have added this is exactly how I want the laws to read in my community with the exception that all permits are only for law enforcement.  I'm concluding such a law is constitutional. 


Then keep your sorry ass in California, and don't send your kids here with that thinking.  Thousands of you have already fled.   Stay there and finish the neutering of your state. 

__________________
"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: 8,184
Reply with quote  #84 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
However, the more important point, from my perspective, revolves around the likelihood 2016 will see the Democrats regain control of the Senate.


Sorry bud, but as my girls say, whatevs.
Lost_1

Registered:
Posts: 2,593
Reply with quote  #85 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
CoachB says,  "Per the movie theaters, right now, I don't believe anyone can do so without a permit and most of those are law enforcement."

CoachB - I should have added this is exactly how I want the laws to read in my community with the exception that all permits are only for law enforcement.  I'm concluding such a law is constitutional. 




And the SCOTUS is knocking down those laws as quick as they come to the court.

__________________
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: 9,841
Reply with quote  #86 
Gun!

Obamacare!

Shiny stuff!

Obamacare!
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #87 
Lost_1 - That was pretty close.  I think you've almost given me a direct answer.  You do think it's unconstitutional for States or cities to pass laws denying a permit to carry but does that same conclusion carry over to laws telling them where they're entitled to carry?  Does your same unconstitutional claim carry over to a law that requires training before obtaining a permit?  Mikec pointed out how laws limit where one can carry, places like churches, etc.  In my theater post above, I was addressing this precise point by suggesting, if I had my way, only law enforcement would be entitled to carry in such a venue as a movie theater.  Does my position in this instance cross the Constitutional line?  I think you said yes unless you thought I was making a larger point suggesting only law enforcement should have a right to carry, period.    

Here's an interesting article regarding the laws in California and a recent decision by a Federal Court.  The good cause has successfully been challenged.

By state law, requirements for concealed-carry permits include demonstrating "good moral character," taking a training course and establishing "good cause."


CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #88 
Dewey, per the movie theater, the Supreme Court has knocked down Illinois very strict gun laws which prevented conceal and carry.  So, the SCOTUS has said that with Conceal and Carry they can carry in movie theaters.  Dewey, why would you deny me the right to carry my guns.  I am not a bad guy.  I am a guy who has used guns since I was 7, knows the dangers of guns and one who would stand and defend the innocent when and if law enforcement was not there.  I have mentioned on this site a circumstance where my farm was being robbed by a thief and my wife was in possible danger.  I also mentioned though I could have used deadly force, I decided to scare the perpetrator instead.  However, had he been armed, he would have lost. 

Dewey, please forgive me, imo, you know little about firearms.  They are not evil.  People are evil.  My family is well armed and we will defend our right to firearms.  It is ingrained in our culture.  Again, I started when I was 7.  Some of the best times of my life were with my Uncle Pete hunting.  As long as criminal understand that they have nothing to fear from an unarmed public, they will continue to rob and kill.  I hope for all of our sakes that none of our loved ones run into the armed criminal.

Edited to add:

I'm sure that private business can post their own rules denying conceal and carry much as schools can do.  Then, consumers will make their own choices about those places.  I'm betting in my area, those businesses will go broke fast.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #89 
CoachB - I have no problem with you having a conceal and carry permit.  I could say the same thing about many other people I know.  I'm only worried about the one who will abuse their privilege, or make a very unwise decision, and kill somebody I know.  If there were a way to let you carry, and not some of these others who are undeserving, I'd be much more supportive.  Unfortunately, we have to open it for almost all if we open it up for you.  I see a lot of problems doing such.  Next, I'm afraid it will be determined the Government cannot require you to undergo training prior to being permitted and then we'll be in a real fix.

Maybe like you say, we'll have to address this from the private side.  All establishments may have to make their own rules to keep out guns.  Then we get to libraries, courts, DMV, and other Government establishments.  What do we do with them?

Anyway, I know everyone here wants more rights to carry and I wasn't expecting to have this kind of debate.  I simply wanted to know if my support for the various limits I've been trying to describe, regarding if, where, and when, one can conceal and carry a weapon, was a Constitutional position or not?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #90 
After pulling more teeth than I intended, I think the answer is becoming quite clear from my opposition inside here:

Agree/disagree - A State/City law prohibiting firearms inside State/City parks is an infringement on our second amendment rights and should be declared unconstitutional.

Not sure why we couldn't just say "agree" from the get-go.  I thought the Supreme Court had given communities some leeway regarding regulating guns.  I'll have to do more research and see what the SC has been allowing.  I still choose disagree but maybe the Constitution won't support me.  We'll see.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.