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

[jhat01]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Would it really? Disarming gangs is really that simple?

That's the rub isn't it. All his outline would do is jack normal people around, and create hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through accomplishing absolutely nothing.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

What they were dealing with was actually real,not some paranoid delusion.

Lots of colonists that still supported the crown would disagree with you.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by jhat01

That's the rub isn't it. All his outline would do is jack normal people around, and create hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through accomplishing absolutely nothing.

That's ultimately the root of the problem with any gun ban. You might make something inconvenient but you can't make anything impossible. They're considering inconveniencing everyone on the hopes that someone will see the inconvenience that lies ahead and it'll divert them from a murderous rampage.

Sorry, I don't buy it. And, ultimately, they can't win. There's no way gun ban proponents could stand up after the first shooting post-ban and say "Hey, 5 people died but at least it was only 5 people!" whereas those opposing the ban could only have 1 person wounded and still be able to say "I thought the ban was supposed to stop these shootings?" The ban cannot succeed perfectly and that'll make it a lose/lose position. Lose getting it through and lose again when you can't stop all violence.

[NUB]

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to form a militia, then get rid of it. No militia has stood up to a modern military with only small firearms in nearly a hundred years. The trope of mountainmen scurrying about the Rockies to fight the government is a fantasy. To say the concept is outmoded is an understatement.

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to simply allow civilians to own firearms, fine. But does anyone really think the Founding Fathers would have OK'd all weapons? Their concern at the time were muskets with an effective firing range of about a hundred yards, one round a minute, with very low accuracy. Today, an AR-15 basically accumulates enough force multipliers (mobility, range, firing rate, power) to contest an 18th century regiment singlehandedly.

People seem to forget that the 2nd Amendment has a relationship with technology -- the only Amendment of its kind. It should be the Amendment we return to most for second looks. Who knows what kind of weaponry we'll be talking about in the future.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by NUB

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to form a militia, then get rid of it. No militia has stood up to a modern military with only small firearms in nearly a hundred years. The trope of mountainmen scurrying about the Rockies to fight the government is a fantasy. To say the concept is outmoded is an understatement.

If the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to simply allow civilians to own firearms, fine. But does anyone really think the Founding Fathers would have OK'd all weapons? Their concern at the time were muskets with an effective firing range of about a hundred yards, one round a minute, with very low accuracy. Today, an AR-15 basically accumulates enough force multipliers (mobility, range, firing rate, power) to contest an 18th century regiment singlehandedly.

People seem to forget that the 2nd Amendment has a relationship with technology -- the only Amendment of its kind. It should be the Amendment we return to most for second looks. Who knows what kind of weaponry we'll be talking about in the future.

The problem is that it's not the weapons that are making the difference. These kinds of shootings didn't immediately take off after the AR ban was lifted and they didn't exist at today's numbers before the ban, either. For whatever reason, our people just want to kill each other these days. To keep reactively locking things down to try to stop that is a terribly scary precedent.

And as for whether things should be limited - it's an effort in futility.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by errand

This nation has millions of armed law abiding citizens who will not allow themselves to be disarmed by the government as long as the 2nd amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights.

Not every gun owner is a full-throated supporter of the NRA/GOA/JPFO. More than few detest those organizations for their rhetoric and their paranoia.

Who said anything about disarmament?

Originally Posted by errand

I'm sure you're of the thought that given how well equipped our military is that it would be impossible to overthrow the government that would try to take away our freedoms

Pretty much, yeah. Until the insurgents get a hell of a lot better equipped, trained, and led, they'd be hamburger. Heck, most of 'em wouldn't even know what hit 'em. They'd be eradicated from miles away without a clue that it was coming.

Originally Posted by errand

I guess you haven't noticed the numerous law enforcement leaders who say that they will not obey unconstitutional orders to seize weapons owned by law abiding citizens....not to mention many of the law abiding gun owners in America are military people who swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.....

Why are you counting on LEOs and the military and gun owners being on the side of the insurgents? It's no less likely that the gun owners will happily fight on the side of the government against the anti-American traitors. And we know from the Drug War and various "incidents" on the part of the military that barbaric acts are far from impossible.

Originally Posted by errand

now imagine if that domestic enemy is our own government....whose side do think these military men and women will be on? The President who is generally only liked by 50% and overstepping his authority or the Constitution installed to protect We the People that they have sworn to defend?

Wasn't a problem for the witch hunts of the 1950s. Given the right propaganda and PR, the military will fall into line and do as they're ordered. They won't be getting rid of John and Jane Doe, regular Americans - they'll be eliminating a threat from domestic terrorists who want America destroyed and who are dangerous traitors and subversives.

[ant1999e]

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinstei...d-have-done-it

During a "60 Minutes" interview on February 5, 1995 when discussing the federal assault weapons ban, Sen. Feinstein commented she'd get an out right ban if she could.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them....Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here," Feinstein said.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Wasn't a problem for the witch hunts of the 1950s. Given the right propaganda and PR, the military will fall into line and do as they're ordered. They won't be getting rid of John and Jane Doe, regular Americans - they'll be eliminating a threat from domestic terrorists who want America destroyed and who are dangerous traitors and subversives.

Not just relating to this but isn't that a terrifying thought? The government could never again be stopped, most likely.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

Not just relating to this but isn't that a terrifying thought? The government could never again be stopped, most likely.

I don't recall the NRA standing up for the rights of the Americans that were targeted, nor did they stand up for those who opposed the PATRIOT ACT and the Iraq War. They did just the opposite, by and large.

So much for gun owners being automatic allies.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

I don't recall the NRA standing up for the rights of the Americans that were targeted, nor did they stand up for those who opposed the PATRIOT ACT and the Iraq War. They did just the opposite, by and large.

So much for gun owners being automatic allies.

Just like you said above, it's the propaganda and PR effort.

I don't recall at this point whether it was just that people expected Ds to resist for political purposes or if so many were just ready to retaliate against something but now, in hindsight, that whole period is definitely a dark period in American history.

[Rohirrim]

So, nothing gets done and the next massacre will be worst than the last massacre. How do I know this? Because the next psycho will want to outdo the last psycho.

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

That's ultimately the root of the problem with any gun ban. You might make something inconvenient but you can't make anything impossible. They're considering inconveniencing everyone on the hopes that someone will see the inconvenience that lies ahead and it'll divert them from a murderous rampage.

Sorry, I don't buy it. And, ultimately, they can't win. There's no way gun ban proponents could stand up after the first shooting post-ban and say "Hey, 5 people died but at least it was only 5 people!" whereas those opposing the ban could only have 1 person wounded and still be able to say "I thought the ban was supposed to stop these shootings?" The ban cannot succeed perfectly and that'll make it a lose/lose position. Lose getting it through and lose again when you can't stop all violence.

Ultimately there are too many guns and gun makers only want more sales, more gun in America. They wouldn't mind at all if we carried guns around like we do our cellphones. Your view that some people might be able to defend themselves if there was an attacker is correct. There would be some people who could have defended themselves. But I guarantee you that there would be more deaths and injuries still because not all bullets always end up where you meant to shoot. There would be innocent people shot by mistake.

The answer is not to put a gun in every hand of every American. Sorry, but this aint the rootem shootem wild west of 1880.

There are 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S. You start adding more and more and more guns and that number is going to go up and up and up.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by ZONA

Ultimately there are too many guns and gun makers only want more sales, more gun in America. They wouldn't mind at all if we carried guns around like we do our cellphones. Your view that some people might be able to defend themselves if there was an attacker is correct. There would be some people who could have defended themselves. But I guarantee you that there would be more deaths and injuries still because not all bullets always end up where you meant to shoot. There would be innocent people shot by mistake.

The answer is not to put a gun in every hand of every American. Sorry, but this aint the rootem shootem wild west of 1880.

There are 14,000-19,000 nonfatal injuries stemming from accidental shootings per year in the U.S. You start adding more and more and more guns and that number is going to go up and up and up.

I'm not really big on the "OMG! Take my guns away and I can't defend myself!!!" thing. Very few are storming down doors with guns at the ready for home invasions. If you can sneak in, steal stuff, and get away then the cops won't get too riled up. If there's an invasion that involves a shooting, you just became public enemy #1.

That said, I'm mostly alarmed by where such actions (gun ban) can eventually lead and the reality that I liken this to taking away the baseball bat after your kid smashed a neighbor kid's skull in with it. I'd be more concerned about the mental state of the kid that could smash in someone's skull than concerned about whether or not all my baseball bats were secured.

The country needs to evaluate how they deal with those incapable of living in a peaceful and harmonious society. We need to face that question as a nation. Until we figure out why so many want to go down as a heinous murderer, taking away a few bullets per magazine won't solve our greatest problems.

[peacepipe]

The NRA leadership is about making money for gun manufacturers. Not even a majority of NRA members stand with NRA leaders.

[ant1999e]

Originally Posted by ZONA

IMO, I don't think it's wrong for an American to own a gun but I think we should be limited to 1 handgun and 1 rifle.

Love this shyt. ****ing ridiculous.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

So, nothing gets done and the next massacre will be worst than the last massacre. How do I know this? Because the next psycho will want to outdo the last psycho.

You do realize the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve a single firearm, correct?

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

The NRA leadership is about making money for gun manufacturers. Not even a majority of NRA members stand with NRA leaders.

And you know this how? Did you get a secret handshake decoder ring that tells you that NRA members are willing to give up their firearms?

Ahahahahahaha progressives y'all do not have a clue.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

You do realize the worst school massacre in US history didn't involve a single firearm, correct?

Damn! I guess you're right. In that case, we should do nothing.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by lonestar

And you know this how? Did you get a secret handshake decoder ring that tells you that NRA members are willing to give up their firearms?

Ahahahahahaha progressives y'all do not have a clue.

Who said anything about taking away your firearms? Nobody! GET A CLUE BEFORE RESPONDING TO MY POST!
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns....n_121509.shtml

A recent poll shows National Rifle Association members overwhelming favor closing the gun show loophole, and that has the NRA fuming. Never mind that the poll was conducted by Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster who is on Fox News so often that he may as well be considered a network personality.

[Drunken.Broncoholic]

I think it's hilarious when people bring up countries that ban guns, like Japan, and how it's such utopia and peaceful. Wrong. What country has the most gun related murders? Brazil. A country with a strict gun law ban. How's that working for them?

Chicago has strict gun laws. They had a very peaceful weekend. Not.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Drunken.Broncoholic

I think it's hilarious when people bring up countries that ban guns, like Japan, and how it's such utopia and peaceful. Wrong. What country has the most gun related murders? Brazil. A country with a strict gun law ban. How's that working for them?

Chicago has strict gun laws. They had a very peaceful weekend. Not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...loped-country/
This chart seems to contradict your post.

[NUB]

I was a little confused. The post started with Japan, but ended with Brazil. Furthermore, I don't think comparing the U.S. to Brazil and third world banana republics is what I would call a good argument.

[Meck77]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Damn! I guess you're right. In that case, we should do nothing.

No. Here are a couple of options.

-Volunteer for your neighborhood watch
-No watch? start one
-Volunteer at your childs school
-There are citizens programs to work with police
-Donate money to any of the above
-Work with trouble teens
-Volunteer to help the mentally ill


The list goes on and on and on..............

Instead people sit around and wait for the next score to come in on a shooting. Why? It's easier. Hundreds of millions of people in this country, BILLIONS of potential man hours, yet we sit idle and wait for the next idiot to grab a gun.

Obama argues "It's worth it if we save just one life". Meanwhile the homeless and hungry get stepped over by congressmen on their way to the capital or White House everyday. There are hundreds if not thousands of them within a mile of the ****ing white house yet our administration talks about saving JUST ONE LIFE. How about we start with their own damn backyard.

If the goal is to "save just one life" then let's do it. Feed someone tomorrow. Help someone quit smoking. Help someone quit drinking or beat a drug addiction. Volunteer some time with the vets coming home from the war. Really want to save some lives? Start an organic farm and save THOUSANDS of people from eating chemicals that are being pumped into our food everyday!

Do I need to go on how to REALLY help save just one life starting tomorrow?

Oh never mind. Blog/post on. In a few months some mentally ill person will probably shoot 5, 10 or maybe 20 people and everyone will have something to talk about. During that time probably 50,000 or more people will have died from some of the examples I gave above while most of us DID NOTHING to stop it and even ENCOURAGED IT with our support of those companies or habits.

[2KBack]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

I'm not really big on the "OMG! Take my guns away and I can't defend myself!!!" thing. Very few are storming down doors with guns at the ready for home invasions. If you can sneak in, steal stuff, and get away then the cops won't get too riled up. If there's an invasion that involves a shooting, you just became public enemy #1.

That said, I'm mostly alarmed by where such actions (gun ban) can eventually lead and the reality that I liken this to taking away the baseball bat after your kid smashed a neighbor kid's skull in with it. I'd be more concerned about the mental state of the kid that could smash in someone's skull than concerned about whether or not all my baseball bats were secured.

The country needs to evaluate how they deal with those incapable of living in a peaceful and harmonious society. We need to face that question as a nation. Until we figure out why so many want to go down as a heinous murderer, taking away a few bullets per magazine won't solve our greatest problems.

I agree with this post 100%. If I am not mistaken, violent crime statistics tend to follow the same curves as economic statistics.

and a psycho is a psycho, their tools don't matter, what matters is figuring out why a person snaps in such a way and how to prevent the act itself.

What will the outrage be if one of these people decides to drive a Van into a soccer field one of these days?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Meck77

No. Here are a couple of options.

-Volunteer for your neighborhood watch
-No watch? start one
-Volunteer at your childs school
-There are citizens programs to work with police
-Donate money to any of the above
-Work with trouble teens
-Volunteer to help the mentally ill


The list goes on and on and on..............

Instead people sit around and wait for the next score to come in on a shooting. Why? It's easier. Hundreds of millions of people in this country, BILLIONS of potential man hours, yet we sit idle and wait for the next idiot to grab a gun.

Obama argues "It's worth it if we save just one life". Meanwhile the homeless and hungry get stepped over by congressmen on their way to the capital or White House everyday. There are hundreds if not thousands of them within a mile of the ****ing white house yet our administration talks about saving JUST ONE LIFE. How about we start with their own damn backyard.

If the goal is to "save just one life" then let's do it. Feed someone tomorrow. Help someone quit smoking. Help someone quit drinking or beat a drug addiction. Volunteer some time with the vets coming home from the war. Really want to save some lives? Start an organic farm and save THOUSANDS of people from eating chemicals that are being pumped into our food everyday!

Do I need to go on how to REALLY help save just one life starting tomorrow?

Oh never mind. Blog/post on. In a few months some mentally ill person will probably shoot 5, 10 or maybe 20 people and everyone will have something to talk about. During that time probably 50,000 or more people will have died from some of the examples I gave above while most of us DID NOTHING to stop it and even ENCOURAGED IT with our support of those companies or habits.

The gun industry waits for the next psycho shooting too. Why? Because they have to ramp up production to get ready for the big sales to come.