The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2013, 01:26 AM   #1
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default John Elway wants to take away your guns!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRWE2ROW7A
  Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-26-2013, 02:42 AM   #2
Ratboy
It's all over...
 
Ratboy's Avatar
 
ಠ_ಠ

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 15,174
Default

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.
Ratboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 05:42 AM   #3
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratboy View Post
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.
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:44 AM   #4
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratboy View Post
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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 03:32 PM   #5
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I'm quite sure you take an oath to uphold the Constitution when you join the military, do you not?
Why yes, one does take a solemn oath to defend the Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic....

I, ____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 10:59 AM   #6
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratboy View Post
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.
Ah just how many ghettos and what kind of a drug problem do they have there?

They are a different culture than we have. Probably why it works better there.
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 01:56 PM   #7
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar View Post
Ah just how many ghettos and what kind of a drug problem do they have there?

They are a different culture than we have. Probably why it works better there.
Most of their gun violence is like ours: Perpetrated by gangs. There's just less of it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 02:16 PM   #8
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Most of their gun violence is like ours: Perpetrated by gangs. There's just less of it.
They are carrying fully automatic weapons in some case just like our gang members are

Which are already illegal in the USA.

No need to make an semi auto (trigger pull for every shot) because hoods are using something that is illegal already.

Who is responsible for about 80% of the murders in the US, gang members who could care less if they are carrying unregistered weapons.

Far left wing nuts think they will turn in their guns. Ahahahahahahaha
lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 05:28 AM   #9
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,401
Default

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.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 06:29 AM   #10
elsid13
Lost In Space
 
elsid13's Avatar
 
Bóg, Honor, Ojczyzna

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: DC
Posts: 19,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
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.
elsid13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 03:27 PM   #11
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elsid13 View Post
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.
anything is possible....you should know that.

Freedom is only one generation away from extinction.....it isn't something you can pass down to your kids and grand kids like genes. It must be preserved and fought for damn near every day.

Our forefathers and the founders knew the day may come when the citizens of this nation would have to fight back against an over reaching tyrannical government like they did when they formed this nation.....and it turns out in McMinn County, citizens did in fact have to fight back to be free.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 04:30 PM   #12
lonestar
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Texas
Posts: 6,203

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Decker
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
anything is possible....you should know that.

Freedom is only one generation away from extinction.....it isn't something you can pass down to your kids and grand kids like genes. It must be preserved and fought for damn near every day.

Our forefathers and the founders knew the day may come when the citizens of this nation would have to fight back against an over reaching tyrannical government like they did when they formed this nation.....and it turns out in McMinn County, citizens did in fact have to fight back to be free.
Outstanding post.

However they knew I do not know. But it is almost like they had a Mc Fly in the group to see what has happened in the past 4 years.

Why is it that far left radicals do not understand what is written.

lonestar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 04:48 PM   #13
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
Freedom is only one generation away from extinction.....it isn't something you can pass down to your kids and grand kids like genes. It must be preserved and fought for damn near every day.
Our democracy is that fragile that we need guns "damn near every day"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand
Our forefathers and the founders knew the day may come when the citizens of this nation would have to fight back against an over reaching tyrannical government like they did when they formed this nation.....
How?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 09:26 PM   #14
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Our democracy is that fragile that we need guns "damn near every day"?



How?
Every time some mentally disturb whack job pulls the **** that Sandy Hook clown pulled, the government will try to reduce your freedoms a little more.

I liken it like a frog being put into boiling water....if you drop him in the pot of water that is already boiling (a massive ban on all guns regardless of make or model or magazine size) he will jump out immediately to avoid being killed.....however if you put him in a cool pot of water and then turn the heat on increasing it a little at a time (starting with a ban on this gun, then that gun) by the time he finally figures out that it's starting to boil it's too late.

As for how did the founding fathers know the day may come? Look at history dude.....our founding fathers learned their lessons by looking at how other nations were ruled by despots and over reaching governments, which is why the Bill of Rights was written.

The constitution puts limits on what the government can do....not what we the people can do.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 06:37 AM   #15
BroncoMan4ever
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoMan4ever's Avatar
 
That's just like your opinion, man

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,370

Adopt-a-Bronco:
VIRGIL GREEN!!!
Default

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.
BroncoMan4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 06:49 AM   #16
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever View Post
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.

Last edited by That One Guy; 01-26-2013 at 06:52 AM..
That One Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:27 AM   #17
ScottXray
Opinionated A******
 
ScottXray's Avatar
 
We will NOT lose!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PDX (Portland OR)
Posts: 5,572

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Off. CENTER
Default

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 .
ScottXray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:36 AM   #18
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottXray View Post
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 ****.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:45 AM   #19
That One Guy
Producer of Nonsense
 

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sun and Beachville
Posts: 14,066

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottXray View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:51 AM   #20
chanesaw
Ring of Famer
 
chanesaw's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 1,256

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Steve Atwater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
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
chanesaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:58 AM   #21
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
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.
Especially from the political left, the fad of the day is to circumvent every law that isn't liked, be it federal marijuana laws or local bans on gay marriage and state benefits to illegal aliens.


Quote:
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.
No, these shootings are an indicator of the mental health of the shooter, which statistically is that nearly all of them are mentally ill. Blaming society for their behavior? I don't think so.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:24 AM   #22
ScottXray
Opinionated A******
 
ScottXray's Avatar
 
We will NOT lose!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PDX (Portland OR)
Posts: 5,572

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Off. CENTER
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
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.
1. No, but I believe that the peoples right to keep and bear arms comes with certain responsibilites. Having to pay a license fee and pass a background check for certain 'special weapons" such as machine guns ( already in place), "assault" type weapons, extremely large bore rifles and cannons, or bazookas for instance, is both prudent and reasonable.

2. Laws and amendments are two separate things. Changing a law requires an act of congress and or state legislature, whereas changing or eliminating an ammendment requires passage by 3/4 of the states ( generally). Making a fee a requirement to own "special" weapons is already a well established
law. What we are talking about is describing a certain type of weapon as a "special" class. A $250 fee is not unreasonable for weapons that typically cost between 1.5 to 3K. More important is the background check.
Other than a proposal to ban >10 round magazines, and to limit future sales
of assault weapons to only federally licensed dealers, how does my proposal
limit anyone that currently has such weapons? It does not require anyone to turn in magazines ( although it compensates anyone that voluntarily does so), and it does not ban such weapons.
While I agree that current owners are mostly honest and law abiding, there are those that are not. Many have illegally modified their semiautomatic weapons to make them full automatic capable. ( illegal) Limiting their ability to sell their weapons to licensed dealers only, does not affect their right to own them. Only future purchases/sales are affected, and the value will actually go up over time.

3. I agree that you can't stop people from doing things they intend to do. You can make it more difficult.

4. It is federal because of the 2nd amendment itself, which is what guarantees the "right " to keep and bear arms. This supersedes state law.
ScottXray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:37 AM   #23
LRtagger
Ring of Famer
 
LRtagger's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,775

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
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.
Dont forget the war on PEDs
LRtagger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:14 AM   #24
BroncoMan4ever
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoMan4ever's Avatar
 
That's just like your opinion, man

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,370

Adopt-a-Bronco:
VIRGIL GREEN!!!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
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.
I agree the average law abiding person should be able to. Purchase and possess a gun if they so choose. It is their right and I agree with it completely. What I think though is that no one needs an arsenal of dozens of guns and no average citizen needs military grade weaponry. That is why I thibk gun limits should be put into action. However I don't agree that the goverment should take guns from citizens who already possess them.

I walk a middle road on this subject. I believe americans should be able to have guns but I believe the type and amount should be within reason
BroncoMan4ever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:19 AM   #25
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,854
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever View Post
I agree the average law abiding person should be able to. Purchase and possess a gun if they so choose. It is their right and I agree with it completely. What I think though is that no one needs an arsenal of dozens of guns and no average citizen needs military grade weaponry. That is why I thibk gun limits should be put into action. However I don't agree that the goverment should take guns from citizens who already possess them.

I walk a middle road on this subject. I believe americans should be able to have guns but I believe the type and amount should be within reason
I am against anything that is hard to enforce, and even when enforced does not make us safer. How many guns someone owns doesn't matter and limiting them to 10 or whatever would not make us safer.

Military grade? what does that mean? Are you saying if the military uses it then the public should not have it? because they use sidearms, shotguns etc etc.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:39 PM.


Denver Broncos