Beto's gun rant

I loved (sarcasm here) Beto's, or whatever his real name is, comment that the AR15's bullet was especially designed to be a high powered flesh ripper that would kill with its incredible speed and power making it suitable for only military use.

I am tired of Democrats constantly pointing their fingers at me and telling me what I can and can not do.

jmorris said:

That’s the sad part.......

Click to expand...

And that is the truth!!!!

https://www.infowarsstore.com/beto-...d+Take+it+Beto+O'Rourke+2nd+Amendment+T-Shirt


https://smile.amazon.com/Beto-America-Anti-President-Shirt/dp/B07HWRW8W8


https://smile.amazon.com/TACOS-Texa...&ie=UTF8&linkCode=xm2&tag=duckduckgo-brave-20

Hokkmike said:

I loved (sarcasm here) Beto's, or whatever his real name is, comment that the AR14's bullet was especially designed to be a high powered flesh ripper that would kill with its incredible speed and power making it suitable for only military use.

I am tired of Democrats constantly pointing their fingers at me and telling me what I can and can not do.

Click to expand...

This assertion that the 5.56mm./.223 round is some kind of "magic" death bomb from hell is wearing me. In the wake of the Parkland Florida school shooting, a surgeon (whom I would respect for her medical talents) quipped that the 223 was capable of doing horrendous damage to body organs compared to 9mm. I wanted to yell into the tv; "you're comparing a RIFLE bullet to a PISTOL BULLET!!!!"
GEEEESH!
I could have shown her photos of Civil War soldiers who miraculously survived horrendous wounds from blackpowder muzzle loaders .... bet she'd want to ban those, right quick!!!

Tommygunn said:

This assertion that the 5.56mm./.223 round is some kind of "magic" death bomb from hell is wearing me.

Click to expand...

That's right. The .223 is far less powerful than the .30-06, which nobody seems to have a problem with (since it's commonly used for hunting).

AlexanderA said:

That's right. The .223 is far less powerful than the .30-06, which nobody seems to have a problem with (since it's commonly used for hunting).

Click to expand...

And yet, the .223 is probably the most popular round for everything from prarie dogs to coyotes.

FROGO207 said:

So which three states are going to be the bellwether to show the way THIS time? I have a deep distrust of anyone that has an agenda as to the results of said poll.

Click to expand...

With all this antigun talk, the Democrats are playing to their base. Their problem is that their base is concentrated in states that will vote for them anyway. We've known since 2016 that the next election will be decided in a few states in the Rust Belt and Sun Belt, where there are disproportionate numbers of sportsmen and gun owners. What the Democrats are doing now, on guns, is "political malpractice" of the highest order. They're on track to snatch defeat from what was almost a certain victory. And even if they don't lose the presidency, they're almost certainly going to lose their hoped-for control of the Senate. (The antigun Mark Kelly, their candidate in Arizona, must be absolutely furious at Beto. Kelly is trying to show how "moderate" and "common sense" he is in his antigun stances. This undermines him completely.)

Their catch phrases looked at:

"Weapons of war"
Most weapons started out as weapons of war. Improvements, developments, whatever you want to call them came out of trying to make better weapons than the other guys had. At one point in time matchlocks were weapons of war.

"Guns designed to kill"
All guns were pretty much designed to kill. Deer. Bears. The other guy's armies. Orcs kicking in your front door.

"Assault rifles"
Not even going to bother.

I won't watch the debates, too tempted to throw the remote through the television and that gets expensive after a few debates.

AlexanderA said:

That's right. The .223 is far less powerful than the .30-06, which nobody seems to have a problem with (since it's commonly used for hunting).

Click to expand...

Yuppers. One of the parameters used in the development of the 5.56/.223 was a less powerful round than the '06 used in the M1903 and the M-1 Garand. Another thing the antis say that makes my head hurt.

AlexanderA said:

That's right. The .223 is far less powerful than the .30-06, which nobody seems to have a problem with (since it's commonly used for hunting).

Click to expand...

Well, then the antis will want to ban the rifles that fire the "more powerful" round because it is more "dangerous".

Wait, and antis will next say the hunting rounds made for larger animals are even more powerful than .30-06 and even more dangerous so they must be banned too.

The slippery slope just became a vertical drop.

FlSwampRat said:

Their catch phrases looked at:

"Weapons of war"
Most weapons started out as weapons of war. Improvements, developments, whatever you want to call them came out of trying to make better weapons than the other guys had. At one point in time matchlocks were weapons of war.

"Guns designed to kill"
All guns were pretty much designed to kill. Deer. Bears. The other guy's armies. Orcs kicking in your front door.

"Assault rifles"
Not even going to bother.

I won't watch the debates, too tempted to throw the remote through the television and that gets expensive after a few debates.

Click to expand...

Completely true and all absolute common sense, which unfortunately, the American people are collectively losing at a rapid pace for some reason.

It's why I cringed whenever someone tried to justify the existence of AR-15s because they are used for predator or varmint hunting.

The real purpose is to be as lethal as possible in killing the enemy, and there is nothing wrong with that. Evil exists and sometimes defending your rights and liberty with lethal force is necessary.

The 2nd amendment was never about hunting. It was about the people defending themselves against people in government like Beto. Have most Americans given up on freedom and liberty? It seems so. When we've reached the point that a group of politicians can openly advocate for socialism and gun confiscation and they aren't either tarred and feathered or arrested as enemies of America, then we have reached a point where the Republic is in great peril.

Hokkmike said:

I loved (sarcasm here) Beto's, or whatever his real name is, comment that the AR15's bullet was especially designed to be a high powered flesh ripper that would kill with its incredible speed and power making it suitable for only military use.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Nato compliant bullets are full metal jacket designs. Beto doesn't know much about guns. That's the problem.... it is something you need to understand better before making these political statements that are intended to be sensational and garner attention. Nobody seems to mention the full autos that are legal.

FlSwampRat said:

"Weapons of war"
Most weapons started out as weapons of war. Improvements, developments, whatever you want to call them came out of trying to make better weapons than the other guys had. At one point in time matchlocks were weapons of war.

Click to expand...

Not only that, but the 2nd Amendment was precisely written to protect "weapons of war" in citizens' hands.

AlexanderA said:

Not only that, but the 2nd Amendment was precisely written to protect "weapons of war" in citizens' hands.

Click to expand...

+1. And as judge Benitez already applied the "common use" argument to overturn/overrule CA's large capacity magazine ban with judgement earlier this year, I believe the "Originalist" Supreme Court will also rule to protect the firearms in "common use" so citizens can protect their lives and rights from criminals and overreaching law makers - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/happy-days-in-ca.849757/page-2#post-11098192

"In 2008, Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to arms in common use for lawful purposes. Benitez notes that highly popular firearms owned by millions of Americans, such as the Glock 17 pistol, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the AR-15 rifle, come equipped with magazines that exceed California's arbitrary limit ... 'Millions of ammunition magazines able to hold more than 10 rounds are in common use by law-abiding responsible citizens for lawful uses like self-defense ... This is enough to decide that a magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds passes the Heller test and is protected by the Second Amendment.'"

We'll see you antis in court!

22-rimfire said:

Beto doesn't know much about guns.

Click to expand...

None of them do. And you're right, that IS the problem, they're legislating about something of which they know little to nothing. Unfortunately, we live with the laws they pass.

Turning back the clock to the beginning of this year, it appeared at that time that Beto was less antigun than some of the others running (such as Swalwell). He came out against the commercial sale of "assault weapons," but clearly said that existing owners "could continue to use them safely and responsibly." On the basis of that, and his general moderation on other issues, I contributed to his campaign. To say that I feel betrayed would be an understatement.

They are all committing political suicide with their calls for gun ban/confiscation.

Truth of reality is people own guns for self protection/protection of others. Regardless of what politicians/media claim, this fact will not change.

There are many more voters living in urban/suburban areas than rural areas and they face greater risk for crime, hence why they have guns in the first place ... for self defense against criminals. For increasing number of voters, handguns are not sufficient enough as multiple criminals/gang attacks/home invasions are a reality and Pistol Caliber Carbines/short cartridge carbines/rifles are better suited to counter these threats.

Increasing fervor for gun ban/confiscation will force urban/suburban voters to ditch their issues to better focus on gun rights/2A for self defense/protection of others.

To me, the anti gun/2A candidates not only committed political suicide for 2020, but helped Trump to secure a win to appoint more pro gun/2A federal judges and Supreme Court justices to secure the future of our gun rights/2A for decades and generations to come.

while I am in total agreement that violation of the 2nd amendment would be a horrible thing I keep thinking of a tangential issue, pertaining to proposed "red flag" laws. my concern here is that it would only take one pissed off acquaintance to drop a dime on somebody and cause a real mess. even if you had never broken a law or done anything out of bounds it is not so easy to dispute charges of being "dangerous." they might not be able to prove you did anything or are a danger of doing anything but clearing your name and getting your possessions returned could be a huge issue. guess I am saying be careful what you say to whom and who you offend.

Trey Veston said:

When we've reached the point that a group of politicians can openly advocate for socialism and gun confiscation and they aren't either tarred and feathered or arrested as enemies of America, then we have reached a point where the Republic is in great peril.

Click to expand...

We would be far more danger if people couldn't advocate unpopular opinion.

Unpopular (or even flat wrong) opinions given voice are a sure sign of freedom.

AlexanderA said:

Turning back the clock to the beginning of this year, it appeared at that time that Beto was less antigun than some of the others running (such as Swalwell). He came out against the commercial sale of "assault weapons," but clearly said that existing owners "could continue to use them safely and responsibly." On the basis of that, and his general moderation on other issues, I contributed to his campaign. To say that I feel betrayed would be an understatement.

Click to expand...

What? I cannot believe what I am reading!!! How do you purport to be in favor of the second amendment yet be ok with someone being against the sale of “assault weapons”? I really do not think you are pro2A at all. As I have pointed out many times over, why are you on this board? Are you here to sow discord among gun owners because you cannot be pro2A with the way you take stances on things. Its like you are bipolar or something. What exactly is an assault weapon? Anything could be an assault weapon! Who are you to get to decide what someone chooses to protect themselves or shoot with as a hobby? Real “assault weapons” true to the definition aren’t out walking the streets in large numbers. So by saying you are for someone against commercial sale of so called assault weapons then you are clearly against the 2A, if not you are at best not helping the cause. And wow, really, you are shocked you were betrayed by a politician? Do us all a favor and quit donating money to these idiots.

AlexanderA said:

Not only that, but the 2nd Amendment was precisely written to protect "weapons of war" in citizens' hands.

Click to expand...

What? How in the hell can you make this statement right after the statement you made above? Here you clearly say the intent of the 2A was written to protect weapons of war in citizens hands, yet above you seem to be against the commercial sale of these same weapons. No offense, but are you on medication or something? You seem to be seriously confused from one moment to the next. Maybe YOU don’t need guns! But that’s dangerous isn’t it, since I don’t really know you.

DJW said:

while I am in total agreement that violation of the 2nd amendment would be a horrible thing I keep thinking of a tangential issue, pertaining to proposed "red flag" laws. my concern here is that it would only take one pissed off acquaintance to drop a dime on somebody and cause a real mess. even if you had never broken a law or done anything out of bounds it is not so easy to dispute charges of being "dangerous." they might not be able to prove you did anything or are a danger of doing anything but clearing your name and getting your possessions returned could be a huge issue. guess I am saying be careful what you say to whom and who you offend.

Click to expand...

Agreed and this is exactly why this is a problem. Free Americans should not live under such a curtain. This is 100% against American values. It also presumes someone is guilty and must prove their innocence and use their life savings to get back what is rightfully theirs in the first place. This is completely antithetical to what is America!

AlexanderA said:

He came out against the commercial sale of "assault weapons," but clearly said that existing owners "could continue to use them safely and responsibly."

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that still be another infringement, another cut? I am (possibly) sorry, but I have to agree with @SilentStalker that you appear to be contradicting yourself.

Beto's open talk of confiscation means that all lesser antigun proposals, such as UBC's and red flag laws, are DOA. That's because they can all be reasonably seen as precursors to confiscation. It gives the lie to the age-old cry of the Democrats that "no one is coming to take your guns." It gives new life to the Republican campaign to hold the presidency and the Senate, since gun confiscation is deeply unpopular in the very states that the Democrats need to win. Finally, Beto's remarks will spur a new round of gun buying and give a boost to a moribund industry. For these reasons, Beto should be given an award for having the done the most to promote gun rights. Let him squirm out of that one!

SilentStalker said:

What? I cannot believe what I am reading!!! How do you purport to be in favor of the second amendment yet be ok with someone being against the sale of “assault weapons”?

Click to expand...

Because I'm a realist. It's all about minimizing the damage. The key words are that Beto appeared to be "less antigun" than the others.

SilentStalker said:

, yet above you seem to be against the commercial sale of these same weapons.

Click to expand...

I'm obviously not against the sale of "assault weapons" since I have a large collection of them myself. But the analogy is that if you're about to get raped, you don't want to end up murdered as well. None of these outcomes is desirable. Some may be unavoidable.

What amazes me the most about the last couple of days is not his comment. Feinstein essentially echoed the same sentiments in 1994 when she said that she would have, if she had it her way, tell us to turn them all in(she was clearly talking only about the guns involved in the 1994 ban, not all guns.) This is not a new position for the Democrats. I am also not surprised by the misleading polling on such a confiscation and false statements about the 5.56 in order to scare those that do not know anything about firearms.

But what blows my mind is the response to the Texas rep Brisco Cain's comment. I am not debating whether or not the comment was smart, or what he meant by it. What do they expect is going to happen if they are actually successful in passing a buyback-confiscation law? All I can think of are a bunch of leftist do gooders in the big cities nodding their head at their computers as if this is somehow going to work. We already know how they think of us. But like most of you I know a lot of AR and AK owners, both Republicans and Democrats, black and white, men and women. I do not know a single one that would actually comply. And I would be shocked if a police chief or county sheriff in the blue parts of the country, which on a map is about 90% of the land mass, that would give any support to the feds.

So we would still have millions of 'assault weapons' in the hands of millions of Americans who are now presumably felons and thousands of jurisdictions ignoring federal law. We would also have millions of American do gooders who support the ban looking to the federal government to do something about it. I think a vague tweet would be the least of anyone's concerns.