• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Guns? Who has guns?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
896
If you even start research of your own, the federalist and anti-federalist papers are a good place to start, instead of parroting liberal dogma you may begin to see it.
That will likely never happen because these aren't "conversations." They are cons with the intent to fleece the individual of their most precious possession; liberty. The game is as old as antiquity.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,907
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
No, The bill of rights in not a granting of rights.
This statement is inherently absurd.

And you can't pick and choose what amendments have more weight over others for the purpose of suiting your particular argument.

All of the amendments convey the authority of the Constitution. They are, by definition, amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is simply a title given to the first 12 amendments.
 

rescue161

KE4FHH
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
2,853
Location
Hubert, NC
Nobody is forcing you to make your daughter carry a gun. If you don't want to arm yourself to protect your family, then good. I'm glad you are standing up for what you believe. You do realize that criminals are not going to follow laws, right? Do you honestly think that criminals will just stop and say, "You know what, I'm not legally allowed to own a gun, so I better not get one."

Do you teach your daughter how to be street smart? Did you teach her how to fight? Or are you just relying on some else to protect her when you're not around?
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
896
"and then attempt to convince me it's a good thing."

The CONversation is the snake-oil. See Rules for Radicals.

Your answer to too much gun violence is more guns. I don't want my daughter to have to carry in order to safely play in the yard. Why is this snake oil?
That has nothing to do with the context of the post(s) replied to and you know it. ;)
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,907
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Nobody is forcing you to make your daughter carry a gun.
In a manner of speaking, that's what you're all advocating.

In your defense of YOUR gun rights, which I am NOT attacking, you guys are insisting that criminals MUST be allowed to have guns.

Nothing you say will cause that to make sense to me.

Imagine a legal Syrian refugee comes here intent on causing harm. As a legal resident, he is afforded constitutional rights... all of them. He's done nothing wrong, but based on chatter ends up on an FBI watch list.

Should he be able to stock up on guns and ammunition?
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,907
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
The conversation is the snake-oil.
No it isn't. You have staked out a position on a political issue. I happen to disagree with part of it.

My disagreement with you is not snake oil. Or perhaps yours is, by that same argument.

The bottom line is, YOU want criminals to have guns. I do not.

Who's position is snake oil? I think mine is perfectly rational.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
896
In a manner of speaking, that's what you're all advocating.
Rule #4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.

In your defense of YOUR gun rights, which I am NOT attacking, you guys are insisting that criminals MUST be allowed to have guns.
Rule #11: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.

Nothing you say will cause that to make sense to me.
So much for the "conversation" y'all always seem to call for.

Imagine a legal Syrian refugee comes here intent on causing harm. As a legal resident, he is afforded constitutional rights... all of them. He's done nothing wrong, but based on chatter ends up on an FBI watch list.

Should he be able to stock up on guns and ammunition?
Staw man army for rule #11.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
896
No it isn't. You have staked out a position on a political issue. I happen to disagree with part of it.

My disagreement with you is not snake oil. Or perhaps yours is, by that same argument.
Asked and answered but you obfuscate. See https://forums.radioreference.com/2879150-post291.html

The bottom line is, YOU want criminals to have guns. I do not.
Rule #11

Who's position is snake oil? I think mine is perfectly rational.
Again, asked and answered. You are taking out of context. Ho-hum.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
5,907
Location
175 DME, HEC 358° Radial
Asked and answered but you obfuscate.
You can't argue with the substance of my point, so you're left with arguing with the structure of it.

I have clearly and unequivocally stated that I support your 2nd amendment rights. I am only arguing against criminals having access to guns.

Since you oppose my point of view, you are apparently in favor of criminals having guns. Why don't you just so state, and we'll be done.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
896
You can't argue with the substance of my poin, so you're left with arguing with the structure of it.
You know perfectly well that this set of posts were about chaos and anarchy. You are deflecting, obfuscating, and taking out of context. Anyone reading this thread can see that. I refuse to help in your endeavor.

I have clearly and unequivocally stated that I support your 2nd amendment rights. I am only arguing against criminals having access to guns.
Rule #4
Rule #11

Since you oppose my point of view, you are apparently in favor of criminals having guns. Why don't you just so state, and we'll be done.
Rule # 8: Keep the pressure on.
Rule # 10: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
And, overall, rule #13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

Asked and answered in other posts.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
896
Nope. I don't even know what that is. But you sure seem familiar with it.
Your next stop will probably be rule # 5: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. At some point, you will likely take your ball and go home.

If you "don't even know what that is" then you aren't reading all of the post. The link is clear.

A bit of advice... remember rule #7 because this is getting a tad boring. ;)
 

rescue161

KE4FHH
Database Admin
Joined
Jun 5, 2002
Messages
2,853
Location
Hubert, NC
In a manner of speaking, that's what you're all advocating.

In your defense of YOUR gun rights, which I am NOT attacking, you guys are insisting that criminals MUST be allowed to have guns.

Nothing you say will cause that to make sense to me.

Imagine a legal Syrian refugee comes here intent on causing harm. As a legal resident, he is afforded constitutional rights... all of them. He's done nothing wrong, but based on chatter ends up on an FBI watch list.

Should he be able to stock up on guns and ammunition?
Boy you sure are dense. I'm not advocating that criminals have guns at all. Quite the contrary. In a perfect world, criminal would not be allowed to acquire guns, but we do not live in a perfect world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top