Now Beto wants to take ALL THE SEMI-AUTO FIREARMS away (Not just AR15s and AK47s)

Status
Not open for further replies.
gulogulo1970 said:
This makes me happy. He did pretty well against Cruz, now he has no chance against John Cornyn. Beto is done in Texas.
Click to expand...

Beto did as well as he did against Cruz because he was running as a moderate, not as a leftist. There was no hint then that he was going to go after guns.

The filing date for running in the primary in Texas (for all offices) is Dec. 19. To run against Cornyn, Beto would have to drop out of the presidential race by Dec. 19. He won't do that because a decent showing in the Texas presidential primary (Mar. 3) would put him in the running for VP. That has to be his strategy going forward. He knew from the outset he had no chance against Cornyn.

And, BTW, the VP path is plausible for Beto only if Elizabeth Warren is the nominee. That partially explains why he's moving to the left. His best strategy is to boost Warren, and undermine Biden. (I guess the gun stance does, in fact, undermine Biden.)
 
CapnMac said:
to generate more donations to put in his pocket after he is sent packing after they narrow the field.
Click to expand...
CapnMac said:
he'll be happy to just have the money and wander away, too.
Click to expand...
He can't divert political donations to personal use. They have to be set aside for future political runs, donated to other candidates, or donated to charity.
 
AlexanderA said:
By making it a right-left issue (as the NRA has done), we alienate a significant portion of our support.
Click to expand...
The Democrats made this a "right-left issue". They are 100% all in for racially invidious gun controls. The ones who say they aren't are LYING.

If you want to impose on the people of the United States a combination of the Holodomor, Hitler's "Hunger Plan", Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and Pol Pot's "Year Zero", you simply CANNOT allow the intended victims to be armed.
 
LiveLife is correct. If there is a presidential debate, both candidates will have to answer tough questions on gun control.

The Democrat will have to state clearly if confiscation, mandatory buy back is the plan. The Republican will have to say more that it will be a beautiful bill.

I'd ask the GOP person if he or she will encourage SCOTUS to roll back state bans and loosen up the carry requirements in the tough may issue states. Also, the HPA and reciprocity. None of this: I will defend the Second Amendment. What will you do to expand gun rights in practice across the country.

Robert did well as Raphael is an unpleasant sort of guy. As far as liberal vs. conservative - both sides have liberty denying principles based on a lack of understanding of personal freedom. We have been litmus tested into two sets of crap. One thing to be sure, monied elites will still come out on top.
 
AlexanderA said:
He can't divert political donations to personal use. They have to be set aside for future political runs, donated to other candidates, or donated to charity.
Click to expand...

Ain't supposed to. More'n one old boy has done good for hisself on what he ain't supposed to do. Even if our Beto proves pure of heart how much money he raises in this campaign is going to be directly proportional to his future political influence.

Lookin' too close at the financial integrity of your opposition is kind of a game of chicken. You don't divert your eyes. They don't divert theirs. We've never had that in America beyond maybe an isolated incident here and there.
 
The problem is when the Middle Class is gutted by income inequality. I read a scholar who says you see civilizations fall when the disparity reaches too high a level (France, Rome and others). Unrestricted capitalism, socialism, communism, the nobility oriented regimes of the past - all tend to go that way, it seems. Oh, well, we are doomed.

Anyway, I like Beto for pushing the issue right into the faces of the political classes - they can't dance around now with evasions and cliches. It's not enough to say you support Uncle Elmo's lard butt in his deer blind. Yes, some of them want all the guns except maybe some rich folks O/U Tweety Bird Assault Guns. Save the Skeet! They are endangered. When was the last time, you saw a Skeet in your neighborhood?
 
GEM said:
gutted by income inequality.
Click to expand...
Another made up term. No such thing. The biggest problem with the middle class is the children did not get their parents work ethic or penchant for living within their means and saving. The biggest threat to the middle class is paying for all the free stuff, because that is where the money ultimately comes from. It's why Socialism and Communism never have a middle class to start with. The truly rich pass the cost on.

You cannot bring people up, only down. People with no sense of being responsible for themselves and no discipline to save will never be anything but poor. They bring themselves down. Steal everyone's money, distribute it out evenly to every man, women, and child in America and it will go back to the way it is now in one generation at most.

Everything is in place for people to succeed, some just never will. That is regardless of the system as well, some people just have the mentality of being poor, and they always will be. And that doesn't even include the ones that are so lazy they would rather have next to nothing than work.
 
It takes a lot of naïveté to believe the gun issues are not a left right issue. It’s also foolish to believe there are not 100 different ways to use campaign money for personal gain.
It’s against the law for felons to have firearms. It’s against the law to use campaign money for personal benefit. It’s against the law to run a stop sign. Are you liberal voters listening? Unfortunately some will read what I just wrote and still not get it.
 
GEM said:
LiveLife is correct. If there is a presidential debate, both candidates will have to answer tough questions on gun control.
Click to expand...
I agree. I believe discussion of gun control/gun rights will be center stage for presidential debates (I am counting on Trump) as he will accuse the Democrat presidential candidate to push for more gun control measures.


This is how I have been responding to questions Beto O'Rourke commented in Colorado.

“Do I care more about how upset somebody is who owns a weapon ... for ... self-defense, or do I care more about the families who’ve lost a child?”

While my heart goes out to families of those killed in mass shootings, I believe in "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (as spoken by Spock in Star Trek). My rationale is while hundreds could be killed by mass shooters each year, tens of thousands are killed by violent crime nation wide. So as a society interested in saving larger number of lives, arming citizens (potential victims) is a better option. I tell them the reality of violent crime in every city/town nationwide and ask them if home invasion took place with their life and lives of their family/significant others threatened, would they prefer to have the armed defense option, and almost all of them say yes.

For any presidential candidate to say they care more about the families of victims of mass shootings (And this question may likely be asked in debates) would be political suicide as VOTERS would CARE MORE about their own lives and lives of their own families/significant others.

Option A:
  • Banning/confiscating guns may not stop/decrease mass shooting deaths
  • Banning/confiscating guns will violate the Second Amendment
  • Banning/confiscating guns will likely increase violent crime deaths, especially for disabled/elderly/female home owners with less physical strength/agility

Option B:
  • 50 state legalization of AR15s/AK47s and normal/larger capacity magazines may reduce violent crime deaths
  • 50 state concealed carry reciprocity may decrease mass shooting deaths as it gives potential victims an opportunity to shoot back
  • Expanding gun rights to include latest technology such as binary triggers/integral sound suppressors will provide disabled/elderly/female home owners better options to defend themselves

As to citizens being able to use "modern" firearms/technologies for application of the Second Amendment, following is expressed in District of Columbia v Heller opinion of the court - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

Just last week, a Georgia family was attacked by three masked robbers. Had the home owners not been armed with "modern" semi-auto firearm with "modern" ammunition storage device, outcome could have been different with the home owners shot/dead instead - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...pistol-killing-them-all.856344/#post-11235810

How would 2020 presidential candidates debate this robbery attempt? Not well for anti-gun candidate as multiple attackers, possibly all armed, could have overpowered the homeowner with just a revolver.
 
Last edited:
Remember after the Luby’s nightmare in TX where Suzannah Gratia-Hupp lost Both parents, then testified opposite Schumer about the vital need for legal carry, while Shumer could only respond to Suzannah’s clear logic with a smug smile?

Poster boy Beto would prevent any carry, preferring more Luby’s -type massacres, all in the name of govt. “control”: the type of control where citizens have totally inadequate defense (throw ketchup bottles) .

Schumer and Beto would rather you hunker under a table, waiting to be executed.
It really doesn’t matter to them-because They have bodyguards for their security. You are just the riff raff who needs to vote for them.
 
Last edited:
Beto has set the antigunners back on their heels. It's going to take them a long time to regroup. Whenever they propose something, it's going to be pointed out (rightly) that this is only a waystation on the road to confiscation. I don't see how they make headway under those conditions.

Most Americans do not want to hear of confiscation.
 
AlexanderA said:
Beto has set the antigunners back on their heels. It's going to take them a long time to regroup. Whenever they propose something, it's going to be pointed out (rightly) that this is only a waystation on the road to confiscation. I don't see how they make headway under those conditions.
Click to expand...

The way we win against the Betos of the world is to simply cede our time to them so they can yammer on and on and on about their grand plans.
 
LiveLife said:
....As to citizens being able to use "modern" firearms/technologies for application of the Second Amendment, following is expressed in District of Columbia v Heller opinion of the court - https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."....
Click to expand...
I've taken out your emphasis and added my own, and for a particular reason. You are correct in that Heller contains the language you quoted. With that said, do not overlook the importance of the language I've underlined above. When SCOTUS called the argument about "only those arms in existence in the 18th century [being] protected by the Second Amendment[,]" it chose the word 'frivolous' for a very specific reason. Take a look at the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct:
American Bar Ass'n said:
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

Model Rules of Prof. Conduct 3.1
Click to expand...
Source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...duct/rule_3_1_meritorious_claims_contentions/

"Shall not" is a non-negotiable, rigid standard. A lawyer shall not (as opposed to may not or should not) bring an action or defend one, unless there is a non-frivolous basis for doing so. IMO, SCOTUS was saying that the attorneys were right on the edge of professional misconduct by making that argument, because there was no good faith basis in law or fact for making it.
 
I find it really disturbing that despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from opioid overdoses in the last few years, gun banning and confiscation are still the big mainstream debate topics. I'm not saying gun violence isn't a thing, it is, and we really need to try and figure out some way to help people with murderous or suicidal tendencies. However, when you actually look at how many people have been killed with semiautomatic guns compared to prescription drugs, I think people are reacting to the wrong thing.

I know, violence breeds fear, and fear makes news, so it becomes sensationalized and a hot topic issue for voters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

hso
  • Locked
good AP article pointing out Robert Francis' flawed thinking
2 3
Replies
65
Views
3K
Snowdog
Snowdog
J
  • Locked
AR15 vs AK47 vs Mosin Nagant
Replies
2
Views
1K
nalioth
N
LiveLife
  • Locked
So what are "military grade" firearms made for the battlefield that antis want to ban/confiscate?
Replies
21
Views
1K
Walkalong
Walkalong
B
  • Locked
Yes, they do want to take your guns
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
6K
Midwest
M
S
  • Locked
Hey Pax and all, SHERIFF SPONSORS CLASSES TO TRAIN LADIES TO USE FIREARMS PROPERLY!
Replies
6
Views
745
Lester Flatts
L
Back
Top