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

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

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

Well that explains your posts then.

[Rohirrim]

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

[DENVERDUI55]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

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

They already are illegal and have been for awhile.

[jhat01]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

So you would propose some sort of buyback for the millions upon millions of semi auto pistols, semi auto hunting rifles and sporting rifles that are already out there? Maybe some sort of turn in reward system for all the bad guys running around with the "assault weapons?"

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

They already are illegal and have been for awhile.

This is an example of how people are so naive on this subject. Ban guns and it will be all roses and rainbows?? Ya right. Ban guns and its more money for the gangs. It means the only people holding are criminals. Criminals do NOT respect laws. It won't stop a pyscho from shooting up a school. How many people have died from alcohol or died as a result of someone else drinking? They banned that too. Who profited from that ban?

All you have to do is look at Chicago. Ya that works.

[DENVERDUI55]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

My cousin hunts, lives in Montana, he claims its illegal there to hunt big game like deer with a .223.

It's state by state. The law usually give caliber min of .243 or a lot of the states say it has to be a centerfire rifle which the .223 qualifies for. I sure wouldn't hunt with that small round and bullets it fires.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that guarantees the right to unrestricted use of the internet, either. You're playing games.

[BroncoMan4ever]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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.

Good point on the military grade point of my post. Did not clarify. Handguns and rifles are weapons anyone can have, but I feel if it is a gun a teenager likes to use in call of duty, it is too much for the average american. And on the point of amount limits, no one should have an arsenal with enough firepower to be able to launch an assault on a building. In america there are 2 trur reasons for having guns. Protection and hunting.

To protect yourself a run of the mill hand gun is fine. You don't need an M16. For hunting rifles are fine and realistically you don't need an uzi to snuff a deer.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

It's state by state. The law usually give caliber min of .243 or a lot of the states say it has to be a centerfire rifle which the .223 qualifies for. I sure wouldn't hunt with that small round and bullets it fires.

I dont hunt but logically you would think the bigger the better for hunting. Ladt thing you want is a half killed Moose or something coming at you.

He's coming straight for me!!!!!

[DENVERDUI55]

What firearm is not like the other bacchus?

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[DENVERDUI55]

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

Good point on the military grade point of my post. Did not clarify. Handguns and rifles are weapons anyone can have, but I feel if it is a gun a teenager likes to use in call of duty, it is too much for the average american. And on the point of amount limits, no one should have an arsenal with enough firepower to be able to launch an assault on a building. In america there are 2 trur reasons for having guns. Protection and hunting.

To protect yourself a run of the mill hand gun is fine. You don't need an M16. For hunting rifles are fine and realistically you don't need an uzi to snuff a deer.

wow you left out what guns are used for more then anything. Target practice and recreational shooting. Then you go on to say something vauge if it looks like a gun from Call Of Duty you can't own it? That is so silly. Then last you say a man should only own 1 or 2 guns. What if i want a .22 because the ammo cheap. A shotgun because they are so usefull for protection and small game/bird hunting. Then i need my .20 gauge for even smaller birds. I would like a .308 to hunt deer and a .223 to target practice with and use for protection. In handguns I need both a .22 because the ammo is cheap to practice with, and a bigger one for protection, say a 9mm. Also though my dad gave me a .44 revolver and i have that as a family heirloom. See where i am going with this? What you call an arsenal I call a collection.

Liberals can go **** themsleves on this issue.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

If I bought a .223 i think I could see myself going traditional like these guns. not sure i would even want the pistol grip military looking one.

[nyuk nyuk]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

To protect yourself a run of the mill hand gun is fine.

Even in a home invasion?

[2KBack]

Originally Posted by BroncoMan4ever

Good point on the military grade point of my post. Did not clarify. Handguns and rifles are weapons anyone can have, but I feel if it is a gun a teenager likes to use in call of duty, it is too much for the average american. And on the point of amount limits, no one should have an arsenal with enough firepower to be able to launch an assault on a building. In america there are 2 trur reasons for having guns. Protection and hunting.

To protect yourself a run of the mill hand gun is fine. You don't need an M16. For hunting rifles are fine and realistically you don't need an uzi to snuff a deer.

My guns are 25% for protection and 75% hobby. It's not unlike someone who collects cars. If I want lots of different kinds of guns to shoot at the range, no one has the right to tell me I cannot own them. Who are you to say that I can't just be a hobbyist? Why must I hunt?

[ColoradoDarin]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

There is nothing in the 1st Amendment that allows anybody to talk on the internet, tv, radio. Outlaw anything other than typeset printing press and the corner soapbox!

[ColoradoDarin]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

This is an example of how people are so naive on this subject. Ban guns and it will be all roses and rainbows?? Ya right. Ban guns and its more money for the gangs. It means the only people holding are criminals. Criminals do NOT respect laws. It won't stop a pyscho from shooting up a school. How many people have died from alcohol or died as a result of someone else drinking? They banned that too. Who profited from that ban?

All you have to do is look at Chicago. Ya that works.

[ColoradoDarin]

[Houshyamama]

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 truly sound as if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[Houshyamama]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

There's nothing in there about bolt action rifles either. That's a weak argument.

[ColoradoDarin]

2 points from the same article

1) Gun controls don't correlate with gun crime

and

2)"poor blacks in high-crime areas benefit the most from carrying a gun."

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk

There's nothing in the 1st Amendment that guarantees the right to unrestricted use of the internet, either. You're playing games.

Every American is guaranteed access to the internet? When did that happen?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Houshyamama

There's nothing in there about bolt action rifles either. That's a weak argument.

The point is, government can either limit the type of weapons allowed, or it can't. If it can't, then I should be able to own my own suitcase atomic weapon if I can manage to put one together. Or a fully auto 50 cal. Or a rocket launcher. Or everything from there in a continuum down to a slingshot if that's the way you want to read the 2nd amendment.

Bolt action rifles could be used for hunting. If you need a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round clip for hunting, then you need to find another sport, because you obviously suck at it and you don't get the ethics and anti-cruelty side of hunting.

Everybody tries to simply ignore the part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The founders were strongly opposed to standing armies. Clearly, a big piece of the amendment concerned the ability of the government to raise an army of Minutemen, if the need arose. We now have a "well regulated militia" that is twice what the rest of the world has combined. I doubt we need to worry about Homer keeping that musket over his mantlepiece.

[TheElusiveKyleOrton]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

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.

Translation: "Hooray for dead kids!"

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that allows anybody to have a semi-automatic assault rifle with a thirty round clip of armor piercing ammo. Outlaw everything but bolt, or lever action rifles, revolvers, and shotguns, and limit the lever actions and shotguns to three shots.

Yes, that will probably work as well as the nation wide 55 MPH limit did ........