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, 07:54 AM   #26
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
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.
you kidding most .223 assault rifles not even legal for hunting big game because they aren't powerful enough. My brothers .308 winchester hunting rifle way more powerful then an AR.

I am all for anyone being caught with grenades to be arrested. Aren't grenades already illegal? If so how is that an issue? That is more BS to try and make non gun owners thing holy cow these people have grenade launchers and live grenades. Fine make it illegal to have a grenade launcher but outlawing pistol grips, collapsable stocks or 2 round clips is a joke.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:56 AM   #27
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,834
Default

This whole issue just a huge loser for dems on logic alone.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:58 AM   #28
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhat01 View Post
C'mon dude...machine guns have been effectively banned since the thirties.
... well, that was kinda a typo. It was just easier to type that is all.


To tell you the truth I don't really care much abotu this gun control legislation. America is the most violent industrialized country in the world but I think Americans like it that way. Nothing will change that. An ASSAULT weapon ban won't change that either. Am I for it? Sure, but it would not even be talked about if it wasn't for Connecticut. I don't think Obama will stomach a long fight at the cost of some of his other programs.

All that being said you can get a hundred round clip with your AR 15 and shoot all hundred in 30 seconds.

Last edited by Bacchus; 01-26-2013 at 08:01 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 07:58 AM   #29
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, 08:05 AM   #30
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
... well, that was kinda a typo. It was just easier to type that is all.


To tell you the truth I don't really care much abotu this gun control legislation. America is the most violent industrialized country in the world but I think Americans like it that way. Nothing will change that. An ASSAULT weapon ban won't change that either. Am I for it? Sure, but it would not even be talked about if it wasn't for Connecticut. I don't think Obama will stomach a long fight at the cost of some of his other programs.
If you look at the old 1990s "assault weapon" ban, the only meaningful thing about it was the banning of cartridges larger than 10 rounds, which is irrelevant since even pistols can have cartridges of 30. What they "banned" was elements of the housing which looked scary

The term assault weapon, when used in the context of assault-weapon laws, refers primarily (but not exclusively) to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle that is fully automatic. Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon.

What do pistol grips, flash suppressors, and bayonet amounts do that's so special besides make a gun look more scary like in the movies? Nothing.

Everything you need to know about the assault weapons ban, in one post
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:05 AM   #31
jhat01
Ring of Famer
 
jhat01's Avatar
 
Knuckle Dragging Homer

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West River
Posts: 1,860

Adopt-a-Bronco:
ManRam
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
... well, that was kinda a typo. It was just easier to type that is all.


To tell you the truth I don't really care much abotu this gun control legislation. America is the most violent industrialized country in the world but I think Americans like it that way. Nothing will change that. An ASSAULT weapon ban won't change that either. Am I for it? Sure, but it would not even be talked about if it wasn't for Connecticut. I don't think Obama will stomach a long fight at the cost of some of his other programs.
I hear you..and I agree about the violence which is why I take responsibility for my family's safety. Listen, I don't disagree with everything that's come out of this tragedy, I think all sales of weapons outside of family should go through a FFL holder and background checks done at the time. But the knee-jerk "assault weapon" ban is absurd.
jhat01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:06 AM   #32
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
This whole issue just a huge loser for dems on logic alone.
Since when does logic stop them?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:07 AM   #33
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,834
Default

newflash calling a weapon and AR when it shoots a .223 round does not make it more deadly then a regular .223 rifle without the pistol grip.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:10 AM   #34
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders.

Chris Rock
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:12 AM   #35
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,834
Default

Yeah Bauchus that adds to the discussion. Because you know Chris Rock so influential and smart. People always say well what does Chris Rock think about it?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:13 AM   #36
jhat01
Ring of Famer
 
jhat01's Avatar
 
Knuckle Dragging Homer

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West River
Posts: 1,860

Adopt-a-Bronco:
ManRam
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders.

Chris Rock
Haha the prices are already skyrocketing..hell, good luck even finding reloading components for .223. Shell plates, dies, brass, it's all bought up right now
jhat01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:13 AM   #37
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,834
Default

Bachus can't back up his claim that AR's are a more deadly rifle, fire at a higher velocity, or carry a bigger punch then hunting rifles. Not his fault though the media tries to make those things true.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:14 AM   #38
BroncoMan4ever
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoMan4ever's Avatar
 
That's just like your opinion, man

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 13,354

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   #39
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,834
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
Old 01-26-2013, 08:22 AM   #40
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,834
Default

The key to making society safer is best done just locking away criminals. Tons of the crime we face is just some criminal back on the street up to his old tricks again.

To do that we need prison reform so they run cheaper with less guards. Maybe even prisons for people on there 3rd strike that are heavy labor, you never get out. No one needs 4 chances to show you aren't a violent felon.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:23 AM   #41
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
you kidding most .223 assault rifles not even legal for hunting big game because they aren't powerful enough. My brothers .308 winchester hunting rifle way more powerful then an AR.
Don't tell the liberals or they'll come after your hunting rifle, too.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:24 AM   #42
ScottXray
Opinionated A******
 
ScottXray's Avatar
 
We will NOT lose!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PDX (Portland OR)
Posts: 5,507

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, 08:24 AM   #43
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
The key to making society safer is best done just locking away criminals. Tons of the crime we face is just some criminal back on the street up to his old tricks again.

To do that we need prison reform so they run cheaper with less guards. Maybe even prisons for people on there 3rd strike that are heavy labor, you never get out. No one needs 4 chances to show you aren't a violent felon.
A disproportionate number of gun homicides in the US are gang-related, and what do gangs do most besides deal drugs? I've been saying and will continue to say that ANYONE WHO SELLS OR SMUGGLES ANYTHING STRONGER THAN POT SHOULD BE EXECUTED.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:27 AM   #44
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
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
They don't have military-grade weaponry. What about these rifles makes them "military-grade"? Appearance?

Keep in mind, of course, that criminals almost always use illegal guns - ones they've stolen and that cannot be tracked, for example.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:28 AM   #45
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
newflash calling a weapon and AR when it shoots a .223 round does not make it more deadly then a regular .223 rifle without the pistol grip.
But one looks scary like in the movies and one doesn't.

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:30 AM   #46
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
you kidding most .223 assault rifles not even legal for hunting big game because they aren't powerful enough. My brothers .308 winchester hunting rifle way more powerful then an AR.

I am all for anyone being caught with grenades to be arrested. Aren't grenades already illegal? If so how is that an issue? That is more BS to try and make non gun owners thing holy cow these people have grenade launchers and live grenades. Fine make it illegal to have a grenade launcher but outlawing pistol grips, collapsable stocks or 2 round clips is a joke.
Yeah it became apparent when he compared the muzzle velocity of an AR15 with a shotgun that he's not real familiar with firearms.

I know a bear hunter or three. They wouldn't be caught dead going anywhere with a 223. That's for Prairie dogs. Not even really adequate for deer. "Assault" rifles are only notorious to people unfamiliar with firearms because they look mean. What is it about this country that policies need be tailored to the whims of the most ignorant?
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:30 AM   #47
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Yeah Bauchus that adds to the discussion. Because you know Chris Rock so influential and smart. People always say well what does Chris Rock think about it?
it's funny, relax. Trust me, I have been on many different discussion boards in my life and NOBODY'S opinion ever changes by what is typed...EVER.

It's just entertainment
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:33 AM   #48
Archer81
Optimum Homo
 
Archer81's Avatar
 
Tactical Neck.

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 22,647
Default

Crazy people. Far scarier than any zombie, ghost, vampire or killer doll.


Archer81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:36 AM   #49
Dr. Broncenstein
Ring of Famer
 
Dr. Broncenstein's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Sterile Fields
Posts: 13,621

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Trey Gowdy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever View Post
Across the board free speech bans aren't necessary, free speech LIMITS are what is needed. Amount and type of free speech allowed need to be changed. No one needs an arsenal of free speech.
Lol
Dr. Broncenstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 08:47 AM   #50
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,834
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yeah it became apparent when he compared the muzzle velocity of an AR15 with a shotgun that he's not real familiar with firearms.

I know a bear hunter or three. They wouldn't be caught dead going anywhere with a 223. That's for Prairie dogs. Not even really adequate for deer. "Assault" rifles are only notorious to people unfamiliar with firearms because they look mean. What is it about this country that policies need be tailored to the whims of the most ignorant?
My cousin hunts, lives in Montana, he claims its illegal there to hunt big game like deer with a .223.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 PM.


Denver Broncos