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 04-09-2013, 11:24 AM   #251
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
It's the Heller decision that ruled that guns can be regulated,including the banning of certain guns. Hell it was your boy scalia who wrote it.
This is what I'm talking about. That decision knocked the crap out of DC's liberal-authored gun ban laws.

And guns have been regulated forever, so... ?

Perhaps just better regulation than banning them for having a "folding stock" or "pistol grip" would be a wise, adult thing to do. (Eek! My rifle has both)


Quote:
DC at the time had a ban on owning handguns,and was rightfully overruled by scotus. Along with that ruling came this.
As well as requirements for trigger locks which liberals keep calling for not realizing they've been ruled unconstitutional.

Odd nobody has to sue conservative-run cities for violating the 2nd Amendment.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 11:31 AM   #252
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,625

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
This is what I'm talking about. That decision knocked the crap out of DC's liberal-authored gun ban laws.

And guns have been regulated forever, so... ?

Perhaps just better regulation than banning them for having a "folding stock" or "pistol grip" would be a wise, adult thing to do. (Eek! My rifle has both)




As well as requirements for trigger locks which liberals keep calling for not realizing they've been ruled unconstitutional.

Odd nobody has to sue conservative-run cities for violating the 2nd Amendment.
Trigger locks? Haven't heard anything about those in yrs. So I don't know what libs are calling for it.
The point being ARs can constitutionally be banned/regulated further.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 11:35 AM   #253
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,625

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
This is what I'm talking about. That decision knocked the crap out of DC's liberal-authored gun ban laws.

And guns have been regulated forever, so... ?

Perhaps just better regulation than banning them for having a "folding stock" or "pistol grip" would be a wise, adult thing to do. (Eek! My rifle has both)




As well as requirements for trigger locks which liberals keep calling for not realizing they've been ruled unconstitutional.

Odd nobody has to sue conservative-run cities for violating the 2nd Amendment.
As I have already stated SCOTUS WAS RIGHT IN OVERTURNING THE BAN.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 03:05 PM   #254
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Trigger locks? Haven't heard anything about those in yrs. So I don't know what libs are calling for it.
The point being ARs can constitutionally be banned/regulated further.
Why fixate on ARs when such weapons are used in less than 1% of gun murders and less than 25% of mass shootings? Sounds like feel-good thumb sucking to me.

Even the last "assault weapons ban" didn't ban them, they merely outlawed certain irrelevant physical aspects of it. The gun itself was always still legal.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 03:05 PM   #255
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
As I have already stated SCOTUS WAS RIGHT IN OVERTURNING THE BAN.
Great. Unfortunately, it should never have had to go to court in the first place, but liberals are always overstepping common sense.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 03:55 PM   #256
Jetmeck
Not a Chief's board
 
Jetmeck's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 6,301
Default

Vote tomorrow in Senate on Comprehensive background checks.............apparently the 14 republican scumbags who are too chickenchit
to show their no vote want to filibuster.

Votes are there to stop these a-holes blocking our democracy so no filibuster.

Now on to the house of republicans a-holes//err represntatives.

Time to shame them into doing their job as in voting on bills that come before them.

If they wish to vote no be ....be ready to pay for it come election time.

90% of us agree with this..............you clowns can kiss my ass
Jetmeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 04:24 PM   #257
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,625

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Why fixate on ARs when such weapons are used in less than 1% of gun murders and less than 25% of mass shootings? Sounds like feel-good thumb sucking to me.

Even the last "assault weapons ban" didn't ban them, they merely outlawed certain irrelevant physical aspects of it. The gun itself was always still legal.
Why not. I'm just pointing out guns can be regulated.
If you want to ban ARs simply ban the manufacturing of any semiautomatic longer than 8" .
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 04:28 PM   #258
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

What is a "comprehensive background check" besides a comforting-sounding name?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 04:30 PM   #259
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Why not. I'm just pointing out guns can be regulated.
If you want to ban ARs simply ban the manufacturing of any semiautomatic longer than 8" .
Guns are already regulated so there is no point.

And why are we still harping on a caliber of weapon used in a minute percentage of murders?

No logical reason.

If you want to ban any semiauto longer than 8", you're going to ban a ****load of legitimate hunting and sporting rifles that goes well beyond the scary AR of your nightmares.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 04:38 PM   #260
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,625

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Guns are already regulated so there is no point.

And why are we still harping on a caliber of weapon used in a minute percentage of murders?

No logical reason.

If you want to ban any semiauto longer than 8", you're going to ban a ****load of legitimate hunting and sporting rifles that goes well beyond the scary AR of your nightmares.
Very weak regulations if that's where you want go. We do need stronger regulations. If an terrorist or criminal can simply buy a gun at a gun show without a BG check,then there is obviously guns need to be better regulated.
BTW,you don't need a semiautomatic to hunt.
Who's talking about caliber?
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 05:09 PM   #261
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Very weak regulations if that's where you want go. We do need stronger regulations. If an terrorist or criminal can simply buy a gun at a gun show without a BG check,then there is obviously guns need to be better regulated.
BTW,you don't need a semiautomatic to hunt.
Who's talking about caliber?
Very, very few guns at gun shows are sold without checks. The gun show loophole nonsense is 99% canard. If you think guns are "weakly regulated," you've never bought a gun.

Again, why fixate on a type of gun used in less than 1% of gun homicides? To feel better? Guns of less than 8" in length are already used in the vast majority of gun homicides, including mass shootings.

Semiauto rifles have much less recoil than shotguns, thus making them better for home defense use for women and older people. Besides, shotguns are used in more murders than all rifles combined.

Last edited by nyuk nyuk; 04-09-2013 at 05:11 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 05:24 PM   #262
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Semiauto rifles have much less recoil than shotguns, thus making them better for home defense use for women and older people.
Yeah, if you don't mind your round(s) hitting your neighbors too.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 05:32 PM   #263
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Yeah, if you don't mind your round(s) hitting your neighbors too.
Tell it to Shotgun Biden. Those weapons do FAR more damage per shot.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 05:38 PM   #264
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,584
Default

any type of gun going off in apt can go through a wall and kill someone. Even a shotgun probably. Through a wall outside also happen. But through a wall, through another wall, probably with high powered handguns and rifles but i bet that is pretty rare.

You should though think about whats the best round and weapon for self defense if you dont want to go through a wall.

Still though since very few people killed with rifles why is it an issue?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 06:12 PM   #265
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
You should though think about whats the best round and weapon for self defense if you dont want to go through a wall.

Still though since very few people killed with rifles why is it an issue?
One of the first things gun owners do is look for the best round for self-defense.

As far as the latter goes, it's all irrational emotion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:05 PM   #266
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
You may not agree with all the decisions scotus makes,I don't agree with all them either. At the end of the day they have the final say on what's constitutional and what isn't. Not you or me.
so you have no issue with a select few people having the final say on basically everything?
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:08 PM   #267
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
They also,in that same oath,swear to follow the orders of the president.
Defending the US Constitution is their main objective...without it, there is no United States of America.

And any military person will tell you they're not required to follow unlawful orders, not even those of the president.....particularly those that go against the Constitution.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:10 PM   #268
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,625

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
so you have no issue with a select few people having the final say on basically everything?
No problem at all. It's how our system of government works.
Are you saying we should get rid of our judicial system?
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:12 PM   #269
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
What is a "comprehensive background check" besides a comforting-sounding name?

Exactly....these clowns act like they'll be any different from the current background checks.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:13 PM   #270
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,625

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
Defending the US Constitution is their main objective...without it, there is no United States of America.

And any military person will tell you they're not required to follow unlawful orders, not even those of the president.....particularly those that go against the Constitution.
So if some nut jobs decide to become domestic terrorists,our military should ignore the president.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:14 PM   #271
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,625

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
Exactly....these clowns act like they'll be any different from the current background checks.
Well then there's nothing to worry about.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:20 PM   #272
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
Exactly....these clowns act like they'll be any different from the current background checks.
They don't even know what the current background checks are.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:26 PM   #273
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Very weak regulations if that's where you want go. We do need stronger regulations. If an terrorist or criminal can simply buy a gun at a gun show without a BG check,then there is obviously guns need to be better regulated.
BTW,you don't need a semiautomatic to hunt.
Who's talking about caliber?

Fast and furious breaks it off in your ass......

the same idiots who want to restrict or stop me from the ability acquire certain weapons, magazines and want me to go thru yet even more checks and balances allowed murderous criminals to acquire them and then kept doing so despite knowing that those very weapons they allowed said criminals to acquire killed law enforcement officers.

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting...it's about our right to defend ourselves from anyone that would do us harm, be it a typical thug, a murderous cartel of drug smugglers or the very government that provided AR-15's to them.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:28 PM   #274
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by errand View Post
The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting...it's about our right to defend ourselves from anyone that would do us harm, be it a typical thug, a murderous cartel of drug smugglers or the very government that provided AR-15's to them.
You, personally, are more likely to shoot yourself in the foot or the dick with your insouciant regard for guns.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 07:29 PM   #275
errand
Ring of Famer
 
errand's Avatar
 
Forgot more than you'll ever know

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Western NC mountains
Posts: 17,187
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
No problem at all. It's how our system of government works.
Are you saying we should get rid of our judicial system?

No, but when laws clearly violate the US Constitution, I have a problem with a select few allowing it.
errand is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:25 AM.


Denver Broncos