The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community

The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/index.php)
-   War, Religion and Politics Thread (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   John Elway wants to take away your guns!!!! (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=109997)

01-26-2013 02:26 AM

John Elway wants to take away your guns!!!!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRWE2ROW7A

Ratboy 01-26-2013 03:42 AM

Respect.

As someone who does not own a gun and only shoots when the military requires me to do so, I am all for taking away guns.

I am stationed in Japan and they have a gun ban and it seems to work out really well for them.

errand 01-26-2013 06:28 AM

Want to know why the 2nd Amendment was installed? Google "Battle of Athens McMinn Co. TN" and perhaps you'll understand the real reason people go nuts over gun bans.

That One Guy 01-26-2013 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratboy (Post 3788909)
Respect.

As someone who does not own a gun and only shoots when the military requires me to do so, I am all for taking away guns.

I am stationed in Japan and they have a gun ban and it seems to work out really well for them.

You're not stupid. You're well aware there's other things about their society way more responsible than the gun ban.

elsid13 01-26-2013 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by errand (Post 3788914)
Want to know why the 2nd Amendment was installed? Google "Battle of Athens McMinn Co. TN" and perhaps you'll understand the real reason people go nuts over gun bans.

I have question, do you even think that situation is even possible any more? We live in an era of social media, improved civil right/voting laws, 24 hour news cycle and active judicial and political activism.

BroncoMan4ever 01-26-2013 07:37 AM

Across the board gun bans aren't necessary, gun LIMITS are what is needed. Amount and type of guns allowed need to be changed. No one needs an arsenal or a sub machine gun.

That One Guy 01-26-2013 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever (Post 3788928)
Across the board gun bans aren't necessary, gun LIMITS are what is needed. Amount and type of guns allowed need to be changed. No one needs an arsenal or a sub machine gun.

We had the war on alcohol, the war on drugs, why not undertake a war on guns? If the government has proven anything, it's that they can declare a war on something and make it absolutely unattainable by the average person. :thumbs:

ScottXray 01-26-2013 08:27 AM

As far as the gun ban goes.

I don't think that an absolute assault weapons ban is politically possible.
However, there is really no reason for any private citizen to have a need to have one, other than curiosity and hobby uses. Since these types of weapons are expensive to start with , raising the bar in price is not going to
be much of a hindrance.

Instead of banning them it should be possible to require a license to purchase one, with an extensive background check and waiting period. Positive ID, no criminal history and no mental history should be bare minimum requirements. Currently you can purchase a machine gun, although it requires a federal license ( and a $50000 fee). Requiring such, with maybe a $250 license fee would effectively limit their casual spread. Also, make it illegal for a private party to sell or transfer one to anyone but a licensed dealer, closing the gun show hole. Fine of $10000 for each occurence. The gun shows will continue, but only federally licensed dealers should be able to sell and must comply with federal and state laws.

Over 10 round magazines should be banned, period. While this won't solve the problem, it will at least require the crazy people that have effected some of the recent outrageous killings, to reload more often , giving a 1-2 second gap in their spree. An outright ban on selling any magazine over 10 rounds should be put in, and no magazine should have any removable block or mod that can expand its capacity, possible. There could be a program to exchange large capacity magazines for equivalent smaller ones made a part of such a ban, as well as a outright purchase plan to private citizens. The manufacturers could get a federal check for every magazine exchanged, prompting them to manufacture them ( this will also help the employment situation).

Handguns and "sporting" arms laws ( legitimate hunting rifles, shotguns etc)remain unchanged, except for background checks.

While most honest citizens never use their weapons in any harmful way, the potential for damage of assault weapons is unreasonable, and some laws for restraint are needed, to ensure ( as much as reasonably possible) that they do not go to the wrong people.

With over 300 million guns in private hands in the US this is only a small step.
It will not solve the problems, but may help eventually close down some of the abuses .

01-26-2013 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottXray (Post 3788955)
As far as the gun ban goes.

I don't think that an absolute assault weapons ban is politically possible.
However, there is really no reason for any private citizen to have a need to have one, other than curiosity and hobby uses. Since these types of weapons are expensive to start with , raising the bar in price is not going to
be much of a hindrance.

There was an absolute assault weapons ban in the 90's and it worked just fine. I went to wal-mart yesterday and their gun selection is almost completely sold out. People are running out and buying these rifles and pistols that are not even in consideration of being banned.

People are just so unimnformed. Either that or they are just plain scared of a government consiracy to take all guns or some dumb ****.

cutthemdown 01-26-2013 08:36 AM

If assault rifles are the main worry how come they only account for a very samll % of gun homicides.

LRtagger 01-26-2013 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That One Guy (Post 3788932)
We had the war on alcohol, the war on drugs, why not undertake a war on guns? If the government has proven anything, it's that they can declare a war on something and make it absolutely unattainable by the average person. :thumbs:

Dont forget the war on PEDs

01-26-2013 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3788962)
If assault rifles are the main worry how come they only account for a very samll % of gun homicides.

Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

cutthemdown 01-26-2013 08:39 AM

Also laws that makes it too expensive for poor people to own guns could be construed as unconstitutional. Not sure you can just say AR rifles ok but it takes 500.00 to do the background check and you have to do it ever yr etc. That will take poor people out of the loop and be a defacto rich guys can have them poor can't.

Also how long do you want to throw people in prison for violating things like failing to get your safety class renewed, or having a clip that holds 20 instead of 10 etc. Do we want prison time for them, just a fine and a slap on the wrist? what?

cutthemdown 01-26-2013 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacchus (Post 3788964)
Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

AR's are not machine guns. Machine guns are fully automatic. AR's just like your hunting rifle, one squeeze, one round. So once again why target AR's if they are only responsible for less then 1-2% of gun crimes or homicides?

cutthemdown 01-26-2013 08:41 AM

They want to make them illegal because they have a pistol grip. Can one liberal come up with a good explanation how a pistol grip, over a regular stock, makes a gun more dangerous or deadly when being shot at you?

jhat01 01-26-2013 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3788967)
AR's are not machine guns. Machine guns are fully automatic. AR's just like your hunting rifle, one squeeze, one round. So once again why target AR's if they are only responsible for less then 1-2% of gun crimes or homicides?

because they are an easy target, and half these loons don't know a thing about them except that they look scary.

01-26-2013 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratboy (Post 3788909)
As someone who does not own a gun and only shoots when the military requires me to do so, I am all for taking away guns.

I'm quite sure you take an oath to uphold the Constitution when you join the military, do you not?

That One Guy 01-26-2013 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottXray (Post 3788955)
As far as the gun ban goes.

I don't think that an absolute assault weapons ban is politically possible.
However, there is really no reason for any private citizen to have a need to have one, other than curiosity and hobby uses. Since these types of weapons are expensive to start with , raising the bar in price is not going to
be much of a hindrance.

Instead of banning them it should be possible to require a license to purchase one, with an extensive background check and waiting period. Positive ID, no criminal history and no mental history should be bare minimum requirements. Currently you can purchase a machine gun, although it requires a federal license ( and a $50000 fee). Requiring such, with maybe a $250 license fee would effectively limit their casual spread. Also, make it illegal for a private party to sell or transfer one to anyone but a licensed dealer, closing the gun show hole. Fine of $10000 for each occurence. The gun shows will continue, but only federally licensed dealers should be able to sell and must comply with federal and state laws.

Over 10 round magazines should be banned, period. While this won't solve the problem, it will at least require the crazy people that have effected some of the recent outrageous killings, to reload more often , giving a 1-2 second gap in their spree. An outright ban on selling any magazine over 10 rounds should be put in, and no magazine should have any removable block or mod that can expand its capacity, possible. There could be a program to exchange large capacity magazines for equivalent smaller ones made a part of such a ban, as well as a outright purchase plan to private citizens. The manufacturers could get a federal check for every magazine exchanged, prompting them to manufacture them ( this will also help the employment situation).

Handguns and "sporting" arms laws ( legitimate hunting rifles, shotguns etc)remain unchanged, except for background checks.

While most honest citizens never use their weapons in any harmful way, the potential for damage of assault weapons is unreasonable, and some laws for restraint are needed, to ensure ( as much as reasonably possible) that they do not go to the wrong people.

With over 300 million guns in private hands in the US this is only a small step.
It will not solve the problems, but may help eventually close down some of the abuses .

I have a few issues:

1. Do you really think hunting and sport is the reason the second amendment exists? If not, you can't use that to justify what people can have.

2. If people disagree with the second amendment, change it. Don't circumvent it. Things like issuing fees such outrageous that noone could afford them would be such a blatant disregard of the constitution that anyone still revering the document couldn't even pretend to support it. There's a mechanism in place to change laws that shouldn't apply anymore - use it.

3. You can't stop people from doing what they want to do. These shootings are just an indicator of the mental health of our country as a whole. This isn't something where trying to treat a symptom will solve it.

4. Why is this Fed Gov domain? Let the states face this issue.

That One Guy 01-26-2013 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacchus (Post 3788964)
Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

Is that the role of the government? To give the majority whatever they want?

01-26-2013 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3788967)
AR's are not machine guns. Machine guns are fully automatic. AR's just like your hunting rifle, one squeeze, one round. So once again why target AR's if they are only responsible for less then 1-2% of gun crimes or homicides?

Yes, they're taking the "machine gun" thing and taking it upon themselves to paste in "assault weapon" into Elway's words when only "machine gun" came out of his mouth.

This is, as I've been saying, driven by media hysteria and nothing more. This is like the mass panic caused by the 'War of the Worlds' radio show. Literally.

Mass hysteria, also known as collective delusions, is defined as "the spontaneous, rapid spread of false or exaggerated beliefs within a population at large, temporarily affecting a particular region, culture or country."

chanesaw 01-26-2013 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by That One Guy (Post 3788972)
I have a few issues:

1. Do you really think hunting and sport is the reason the second amendment exists? If not, you can't use that to justify what people can have.

2. If people disagree with the second amendment, change it. Don't circumvent it. Things like issuing fees such outrageous that noone could afford them would be such a blatant disregard of the constitution that anyone still revering the document couldn't even pretend to support it. There's a mechanism in place to change laws that shouldn't apply anymore - use it.

3. You can't stop people from doing what they want to do. These shootings are just an indicator of the mental health of our country as a whole. This isn't something where trying to treat a symptom will solve it.

4. Why is this Fed Gov domain? Let the states face this issue.

this

cutthemdown 01-26-2013 08:51 AM

This whole shabang is great for the Repubs IMO. Dems sure to lose some political captial over this and maybe up to seats in the Senate.

01-26-2013 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cutthemdown (Post 3788967)
AR's are not machine guns. Machine guns are fully automatic. AR's just like your hunting rifle, one squeeze, one round. So once again why target AR's if they are only responsible for less then 1-2% of gun crimes or homicides?

ARs are not like other hunting rifles. They are high-power weapons, in addition to firing multiple rounds quickly, their muzzle velocity is almost double that of a typical traditional shotgun. Plus they can be easily modified with 100 round clips and even a grenade launcher.

What happened to the days when you would go deer hunting with your 30-06 Springfield. Damn that is the only hunting rifle you'd ever need, great gun.

jhat01 01-26-2013 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacchus (Post 3788964)
Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

C'mon dude...machine guns have been effectively banned since the thirties.

01-26-2013 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bacchus (Post 3788964)
Because its something most Americans agree on. Private citizens should not own machine guns.

Newsflash: Semiautomatic rifles are not machine guns.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.