John Elway wants to take away your guns!!!!

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

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]

This whole issue just a huge loser for dems on logic alone.

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by jhat01

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.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

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.

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.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

... 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

[jhat01]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

... 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.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

This whole issue just a huge loser for dems on logic alone.

Since when does logic stop them?

[cutthemdown]

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.

[Bacchus]

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

[cutthemdown]

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?

[jhat01]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

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

[cutthemdown]

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.

[BroncoMan4ever]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

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

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

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]

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.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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.

[ScottXray]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

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.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

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.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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?

[Bacchus]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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

[sirhcyennek81]

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

[Dr. Broncenstein]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

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

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

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.