Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by JeffG, Sep 26, 2019.
At this point, Beto can't help himself from getting deeper and deeper into this antigun stuff. It's as if it fulfills some sort of emotional need on his part. He's completely thrown political expediency to the winds. Every time he opens his mouth he helps the pro-gun cause. We should be cheering him on.
This is stunning. What a combination of arrogance and condescension on the part of O'Rourke. And Colion Noir does an outstanding job of tearing the statements into little pieces.
Thank you so much for posting this, I will be forwarding it.
Well done to Mr Noir yet again. Beto believes he is the future of this country. I do not believe he is correct.
I guess Beto O'Rourke didn't read or can't remember the preamble to our Constitution (Which BTW cannot be changed):
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"Provide for the common defense" phrase means that the protection of the United States, its citizens, and property, is the responsibility of the federal government and boy oh boy, is the federal government armed to the teeth so they can defend this nation.
And in the same manner, the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v Heller, "We the people" must be armed to defend and protect individual freedom and liberty. And as justice Scalia stated and reaffirmed by justice Gorsuch, we the people need "modern" firearms to properly defend ourselves like AR15s that Beto O'Rourke is trying to ban/confiscate.
He and the antis are un-American and anti-Constitution.
I live in an EXTREMELY liberal area in central Ohio. It’s an urban oasis surrounded by hood well within the outer belt. We conservatives (fiscally...constitutionally....don’t give a crap socially) live in the closet. A conversation that I’ve been having, when the topic comes up, is that to a percentage of liberals.....THIS...TODAY....is the most tyrannical government they could imagine. In their eyes, we have a racist, anti Semitic, xenophobic, homophobic, lying fascist running the country. I let them tell me all about it and then I ask “so you want him and his ‘regime’ to disarm you and end up with all of the guns and power?”. I generally get silence. If the left is to believe the current media mantra, it makes no rational sense why they would also want a defenseless citizenry. Every gay, trans, ESL immigrant, minority, woman, Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Hindi, Socialist, environmentalist should be fighting for that constitution right now.
Now, I simply ask these questions:
1. Is there crime in every city/town like robbery, rape, murder? Answer is "Yes"
2. Can police respond immediately when your door is being kicked in by robbers/rapists/murderers? Answer is "No"
3. So do you need guns to protect yourself until police can respond? Answer is"Well ... Y ... E ... S"
4. Which guns are better suited for multiple intruder home invasion? Answer is "Ummm ... Bigger guns with big magazines?"
5. And if you live in high crime areas, do you need to carry guns on person? Answer is "Of course"
6. And every year, when hurricanes hit and police cannot maintain law and order, who can provide protection from looters/robbers/rapists/murderers? "The person with guns ..." "Yeah, media has been silent on that crime statistics"
7. So explain to me why guns should be banned. Respond - Silence.
He (they) keep using the term "Military Grade" weapons, Well I have no full autos, no grenades, no missiles etc etc. I have a rifle that looks like a full auto AR 15 but it's not. A semi Auto is not the same
No how about all the Ford Trucks with Military Grade Aluminum??
And I hope they continue as "every type" of gun manufactured were used in battlefield and thus "military grade".
Now, if they want to use "Mil Spec" that will be fine by me also.
O'Rourke knows he has no chance of getting nominated to run for POTUS so he's focusing on driving the issue he has attention on and essentially lobbying for a role in the party and the organization of whoever does get the nomination. He's also causing problems for the established party apparatchiks by being this extreme so getting that role may not come.
That doesn't make him irrelevant since driving the "gun control" issue toward the extreme moves the "reasonable gun control" goal post towards the authoritarian ban side. Pay close attention to how the front runners shift their position towards the more extreme in reaction to his ridiculous and impossible goals.
All I can say is we told you so.
We need to purge the anti gunners and all the other types who think government should rule you and not the other way around. Start with the anti gunners, you know what they want.
It is not ridiculous to many of them, and certainly not impossible, which is why we can never stop fighting the antis. Vote them out folks, get rid of them.
Great post. Thanks Jeff. Colin nailed it and Beto is polling so low he couldn't fill a church for a rally. I bet he is for legalizing schedule 3 drugs.
I bet several globalist Democrats are mortified that Beto is exposing their true agenda. Like them, he believes that a government has the right to be tyrannical, an idea that is completely contrary to our Constitution, and to just about every writing by every founding father. Based on his rhetoric over the past year, I knew it all along, but now he's actually admitting it. This should be concerning to every American. If the 1st Amendment included limitations on treasonous speech, he should be in prison.
I'm sure Beto would love to be the head tyrant. If he really thought he had any future chance of national Globalist leadership, it would seem strange that he is so blatantly spilling the beans, especially if he is one of "them." Maybe they have a foolproof plan to seize control no matter what, and we truly are doomed, so he can spout off without repercussions.
What I find more worrisome than the rantings of this tyrannical fool is that millions of emotionally confused people will support his agenda solely because of their irrational fear and hatred of guns. They have no clue that they are contributing to the elimination of their own liberty.
That's not a good argument. First of all, the 2nd Amendment is precisely about "military grade" weapons. Secondly, just because a rifle is semiautomatic, that doesn't make it markedly less effective than its full-automatic cousin.
I own both semiautomatic AR-15's and full-automatic M16's. I can tell you that if a person had to go into combat, the full-automatic feature would only be a small advantage. In fact, in the hands of a not-well-trained individual, the full-automatic feature would be a disadvantage, because it would waste ammunition.
Talking about "sporting" or "non-military" uses plays right into the hands of the antigunners.
What scares me is many people in my home state voted for this criminal. Good gosh.
It could be argued that the opposite is true. What was formerly seen as "reasonable" (UBC's, even registration and licensing) is now seen as "unreasonable" because the end goal, confiscation, is in the open and undeniable. The antigunners themselves know this and that is why they are so angry at Beto.
I never said a semi auto was not effective. What exactingly is an "assault rifle"?? My refiles have only "assaulted cardboard. Jerks like Beto think AR stands for assault rifle, When is a AK an AK type?? Is a semi auto rifle and 1K rounds of ammo an "arsenal"??
OH OK then I guess you have a MSP (modern Sporting rifle) I don't care what the call them Weapons of War, Military. AK "type" "They" think they are Machine guns. What is a high capacity mag? Who defined that?? "They" want to get rid of all guns especially "semi auto" guns.
So what term do you suggest?? Flintlocks, Blunderbuss??
All I can think of is someone drowning and grasping at the air in hopes of catching something, anything vs doing something productive to stay afloat.
He is a moron but at he at least someone finally came out and said it. Proof that he’s a moron. Other politicians with political tact just lie about their end goal, which is the same as his.
I tend to agree with that reading of the 2nd. But then pretty much all shoulder fired weapons available to the modern infantryman should be available at hardware hanks. Few are gonna get down with that level of 2A but it is a more accurate reading IMO.
I don't like that term either. It concedes that "sporting" is a legitimate limitation.
Originally, "assault rifle" (sturmgewehr) was a WW2 term for a selective-fire weapon firing an intermediate round. It was the U.S. gun industry itself, for marketing purposes, that appropriated this term to apply to various military-look semiautomatic rifles. The antigunners shrewdly jumped on this as a way to demonize these guns. Therefore we have ourselves partially to blame.
There's no use fighting the "assault weapon" terminology today. Everybody knows more or less what it means.
As I have mentioned before, it's similar to the "Saturday Night Special" term that they used in the past to outlaw the importation and manufacture of various, and affordable, small handguns.
It's a buzzword/talking point term that makes it simple for them to use and their followers to understand.
Yep some less than more.
The anti gunners did not go way back into history. The Armalite rifle aka, AR which they made "Assault Rifle"
WASR AKs are now AK "style" rifles
High Capacity means what ever they want it to be,
My 8 round SW 357 must be high capacity as it is more than 5 or 6.
Now if I can just have a Dillion Mini Gun!
So that means I should stop baiting liberals I meet a parties? When one of their women asks me how anyone could stand to touch anything so evil and tainted, I probably shouldn't say things like, "Just today I fired a military assault rifle, a trapdoor Springfield. It's reputed to be capable of twenty rounds per minute in the right hands."
They look at me in pity, and in righteous indignation that as a private citizen I can lawfully hold so much firepower, and thinking I might have had a chance at decency had the evil inherent in the weapon of war not permanently damaged me. To the hardcore liberal the evil in the rifle, any rifle, is just as palpable and transferable as the light coat of oil most of us would use to protect our weapons.
Does this sound like I'm suggesting I'm down to earth and practical and see an instrument for just what it is and nothing more, and not as an embodiment of an idea, whereas the liberal can't?
Not at all. I believe the liberal deserves the same protection as my rifles. If I wouldn't waste the good oil I use on my rifles on them, but I still haven't met one I wouldn't like to give a good coating of WD-40.
I think that we should thank Mr. Francis.
He not only drove all of the fence-sitters off of the fence, he burned the fence.
Now there's only pro-gun or anti-gun... .
Separate names with a comma.