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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only way the dems will stop being the party of gun control is if liberals vote in dems who refuse to go along with it and vote out those who do.

That goes for all parties of course, vote out the antis.
I am glad that Beto said what he did. One of the great things our current president has accomplished which doesn’t get much mention is this: He has caused many on the radical left to come out and say what they have long believed concerning the demolition of our freedoms guaranteed in the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I do believe it's the case of extreme socialist left infiltrating and ruining the Democrat party as we have known it and just as us "deplorables" have stood up against the RINOs (who also have infiltrated the Republican party) and voted for Trump, decent and lifelong Democrats can also stand up and take back their party.
 
Last edited:
Beto O'Rourke - "New slogan ... Hell yes we can ... It means you cannot be afraid ... This is the time to be big, bold and say what you believe ... on AR15s and AK47s, I said what the people of El Paso, Texas wanted me to say ... Country agrees ... we need to stet up ... move big ... and we can get it done ... Don't tact to the middle ... it's what I want." When asked Chuck Schumer disagrees, he replied, "Their job is to lead ... I hope they will come around and do the right thing."



The DNC which is already split is now further split with gun owners who do not want to pursue extreme gun ban/confiscation that Beto O'Rourke is pushing.

Starting at 4:00 minute mark of video, Schumer, Buttigieg, Manchin and even CNN's Cuomo ripped O'Rourke for saying what he said about gun ban/confiscation.

 
Last edited:
I posted the following as to why "modern" firearms like AR15s, etc. (which Beto O'Rourke and others are trying to ban/confiscate) are protected by the Bill of Rights.
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."

And Spats McGee, who is a lawyer, replied and pointed out something interesting
I've ... 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.
"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."

I agree. While I am not a lawyer, when I read "frivolous" for the first time, I was surprised by use of that word in a Supreme Court opinion! :eek: Now reading the sentence multiple times, the intended meaning is sinking in and becoming more prevalent especially when referenced by this.
"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.
Absolutely.

And the next phrase by justice Scalia is very telling,

"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."

That's right, "constitutional rights" are not interpreted that way, with "frivolous" arguments. And what is frivolous? Having no sound basis.

When justice Scalia wrote, "We do not interpret constitutional rights that way", it was very promising to me as it indicated how the Supreme Court justices will treat constitutional rights in future cases as more and more, words of Gorsuch and Kagan saying that the Supreme Court justices are now "Originalists" gives me utmost hope for the future of gun rights and the Second Amendment.

Which brings us back to what justice Scalia wrote that just as First Amendment and Fourth Amendment are applicable to "modern" forms of communication and search methods, so is the Second Amendment applicable to "modern" forms of firearms, like AR15s.

"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" :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

So instead of giving up our gun rights and accepting continued erosion of the Second Amendment, we can start work to EXPAND our gun rights as expressed by justice Scalia.
We should focus on his proposals
We should also focus on ... the motivations behind his totalitarian proposals.
Very good points and the key underlying focus and intent of this thread from the beginning that Spats McGee nailed right on the head.

And justice Kagan said the founders wrote the Constitution while looking “generations and generations and generations ahead” with specific rules, like that senators be at least 30 years old and the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures”.

To this layman, it warms my heart to know that the founders must have KNOWN that sometime in the distant future, there would be a time when some law makers will attempt to unreasonably "search and seize" our properties (specifically "arms" with which we could defend our freedom and liberty with) and amended the Constitution so as to ensure such attempt does not happen, as attack on any part of Bill of Rights is an attack on all of Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and such attempt is unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to rule against.

And it really gave me hope and prompted me to start this new thread (to share the revelation) when Gorsuch said in a recent interview "Originalists honor what's written ... and don't take things away" -

"I am an originalist ... We have a written constitution that our founder wrote down ... They made a charter among 'We the people' ... This is what we agreed to as to what the government's powers are and what they are not ... What our rights are. Originalists ... honor what's written there. Honor those words ... Don't make stuff up and don't take things away. That's the idea"

To all the antis, see you in court.
 
Last edited:
Starting at 4:00 minute mark of video, Schumer, Buttigieg, Manchin and even CNN's Cuomo ripped O'Rourke for saying what he said about gun ban/confiscation.
That web site ("The Young Turks" of Cenk Uygur) is unhinged. Uygur is so far left that he was thrown off MSNBC. The fact that he denies the Armenian Holocaust says it all. And also that he's one of the few defenders of Beto O'Rourke.
 
Starting at 4:00 minute mark of video, Schumer, Buttigieg, Manchin and even CNN's Cuomo ripped O'Rourke for saying what he said about gun ban/confiscation.
Only because it hurts their anti gun agenda to say it out loud, Schumer is a gun hater from way back and would jump at the chance to take all of our guns, he's just smarter than Beto. But if it comes up for a vote, Schumer and his ilk will vote for any anti gun bill that comes along.
 
Only because it hurts their anti gun agenda to say it out loud, Schumer is a gun hater from way back and would jump at the chance to take all of our guns, he's just smarter than Beto. But if it comes up for a vote, Schumer and his ilk will vote for any anti gun bill that comes along.
A definite rift has opened within the antigun side regarding their tactics. This is because of Beto's intemperate rantings. We see the emotional ones versus the more strategic, calculating ones. If we were smart we would exploit this rift.
 
Only because it hurts their anti gun agenda to say it out loud, Schumer is a gun hater from way back and would jump at the chance to take all of our guns, he's just smarter than Beto. But if it comes up for a vote, Schumer and his ilk will vote for any anti gun bill that comes along.
A definite rift has opened within the antigun side regarding their tactics. This is because of Beto's intemperate rantings. We see the emotional ones versus the more strategic, calculating ones. If we were smart we would exploit this rift.
And we have more than a year to "exploit" the rift. :) I am sure NRA and other pro gun/2A organizations along with RNC/pro gun law makers are in deep discussion/planning to maximize/optimize the "rift" effect heading into 2020 election.

When Beto O'Rourke said, "Hell yes, we are taking your AR15s and AK47s", my heart sank initially but quickly realized the cats out of the bag now and the antis won't be able to retract it (Voters just cannot "unhear" it now).

Short-term, it instantly galvanized gun owners for gun rights/2A regardless of their party affiliation as Walkalong posted, it exposed the true underlying intent of the antis and anti gun law makers. I see AWB now DOA with anti gun law makers in damage control mode trying to explain why they are not "taking our guns/gun rights away".

Near-term, it will force the 2020 presidential candidates to either support or not support gun ban/confiscation. Yes, not "reasonable/common sense" gun control but "ban/confiscation" as the gun control debate bar got pushed up so far and it is not going back down. And I am sure the gun control question will be front and center for 2020 presidential debates as socialist/progressive supporters of Warren/Sanders will be adamant while Trump will state the opposite.

Long-term, as we approach the final lap for 2020 election, I certainly hope the discussion will evolve/gravitate towards the realization and actualization by the voters that what Beto O'Rourke said goes far beyond Second Amendment in threatening the "general" freedom and liberty of Bill of Rights in its entirety. I mean, had he said, "Hell yes, we are taking away your Freedom of Speech and Private Property Ownership", the entire nation, including the media, would have opposed with disdain. But since attack on any of the amendments is an attack on the Bill of Rights, I am certain, in time, perhaps by 2020 election, that's how the voters will hear what Beto O'Rourke said.
 
Last edited:
Only because it hurts their anti gun agenda to say it out loud, Schumer is a gun hater from way back and would jump at the chance to take all of our guns, he's just smarter than Beto. But if it comes up for a vote, Schumer and his ilk will vote for any anti gun bill that comes along.

This is surely the truth. It took a really dumb Beto to drop the scales from so many eyes.

Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Blumenthal, and some many other "Progrssives" never saw a gun grabber bill they didn't like.

Thanks to the goofy Texan, all are exposed now for the power grab mob that they have always been and always will be.
 
And we have more than a year to "exploit" the rift.
I generally agree with your entire post, which I have snipped for brevity.

However, zero hour is approaching much more quickly here in Virginia. The legislative election is a little more than a month away. All the Democrats have to do is flip one seat in each chamber to have the "trifecta" of state government. They've already shown what they plan to do on guns. The worst thing is a complete ban (no grandfathering) on "assault weapons" and over-10-round magazines. They'll give us six months to move the offending items out of state. If we don't, then we'll be felons and all our guns will be forfeited. (No so-called "buyback." This is actually worse than what Beto is proposing at the federal level.)

And the thing is, they are proudly running on this platform! My email inbox is full of tens of messages every day. Gun control is the only thing they're running on! I don't understand it. Surely Virginians have not become rabid gun abolitionists overnight. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
All the Democrats have to do is flip one seat in each chamber to have the "trifecta" of state government. They've already shown what they plan to do on guns. The worst thing is a complete ban (no grandfathering) on "assault weapons" and over-10-round magazines. They'll give us six months to move the offending items out of state. If we don't, then we'll be felons and all our guns will be forfeited. (No so-called "buyback." This is actually worse than what Beto is proposing at the federal level.)
If what you fear happens, then we can support the 2020 presidential election win by Trump to push the Supreme Court bench pro gun/2A to overturn state's unconstitutional laws.
 
Probably the best takeaway here i that Bobby Frank is so convicned of his status in the Oppressor Class, that he has no pretense of having to coddle the lesser people to curry enough of their favor to be placed in his rightful place as their ruler. That he sees the people as little more than proles and plebians, to do as they are told by their betters.

Which makes it all the more telling when you notice the people going, "Well, he's right, but, that's not the way we would do it." We have seen the people behind the curtain; we need to make sure that everyone else needs to realize that the magic lights show is just that, theater.

That the people cavalier about one Constitutional right are likely to be as cavalier about all the rest, too.
 
Which makes it all the more telling when you notice the people going, "Well, he's right, but, that's not the way we would do it." We have seen the people behind the curtain; we need to make sure that everyone else needs to realize that the magic lights show is just that, theater.

That the people cavalier about one Constitutional right are likely to be as cavalier about all the rest, too.
Bingo! We have a winner.
 
Beto hasn't a chance to take the nomination BUT it wouldn't surprise me if Warren won the nomination and picked Beto as her running mate.
Her proposals on gun control are far, far worse than his.
And if she were to win the Texas Electoral College....it's game over.
 
I do believe it's the case of extreme socialist left infiltrating and ruining the Democrat party as we have known it and just as us "deplorables" have stood up against the RINOs (who also have infiltrated the Republican party) and voted for Trump, decent and lifelong Democrats can also stand up and take back their party.
The problem with that is that the decent lifelong Democrats are busy making a living and raising their families. The ones driving the party to the left make a career out of "resistance". Don't imagine for a moment that a huge percentage of those "protesters" aren't getting paid. Soros, Steyer and Bloomberg aren't running out of money any time soon.
 
A definite rift has opened within the antigun side regarding their tactics. This is because of Beto's intemperate rantings. We see the emotional ones versus the more strategic, calculating ones. If we were smart we would exploit this rift.
Suggestions for how to do so?
 
I generally agree with your entire post, which I have snipped for brevity.

However, zero hour is approaching much more quickly here in Virginia. The legislative election is a little more than a month away. All the Democrats have to do is flip one seat in each chamber to have the "trifecta" of state government. They've already shown what they plan to do on guns. The worst thing is a complete ban (no grandfathering) on "assault weapons" and over-10-round magazines. They'll give us six months to move the offending items out of state. If we don't, then we'll be felons and all our guns will be forfeited. (No so-called "buyback." This is actually worse than what Beto is proposing at the federal level.)

And the thing is, they are proudly running on this platform! My email inbox is full of tens of messages every day. Gun control is the only thing they're running on! I don't understand it. Surely Virginians have not become rabid gun abolitionists overnight. Maybe I'm missing something.
I don't think it's long-time Virginians, I heard Virginia has gotten a lot more lefties in recent years... some work in DC, some work in industries that have recently found the state welcoming.
 
Beto hasn't a chance to take the nomination BUT it wouldn't surprise me if Warren won the nomination and picked Beto as her running mate.
Her proposals on gun control are far, far worse than his.
And if she were to win the Texas Electoral College....it's game over.
Yes, Warren wants a full registry.

Do you honestly think she has any chance of taking Texas?
 
There is an interesting article in this month's Atlantic, focusing on the NYC public schools and how progressives are destroying that system to the horror of standard liberal folks. It's not on their website yet, but worth a read.

However, let's not wander into straight politics. Beto has to be the focus. Going once, going twice ....

Beto and Impeachment have sunk any new Federal gun laws unless some unspeakable horror produces a moral panic. Recall, the NRA claims (debated among its own hierarchy, if this is true) that Las Vegas was going to produce a total AWB that Congress would pass and Trump would sign. Or it would pass with a veto proof majority. Only Wayne saved the day. Again, this is debated as being the true story.

I think the best strategy is just to shut up about gun legislation and let the other arguments take hold and run out the clock till 2020. An illustrative story : When you go for a Ph.D you have to take oral exams at several points. They usually take an hour and are quite grueling and intense. One strategy was that if the examining faculty started to talk and/or argue among themselves, the candidate should shut up. Eat up the clock. Once I saw a candidate interrupt and say that he wanted to talk. Well, the faculty turned on him with intense questioning. Oops!

So let Trump be involved with the Impeachment, he certainly won't be sympathetic to Senators from the other side who want to can him. Why work with them?

Warren taking TX - again we are into general politics. I know it's tempting but ....
 
... let's not wander into straight politics. Beto has to be the focus.



A definite rift has opened within the antigun side regarding their tactics. This is because of Beto's intemperate rantings. We see the emotional ones versus the more strategic, calculating ones. If we were smart we would exploit this rift.
Suggestions for how to do so?
Just being "anti" Beto and this,
And we have more than a year to "exploit" the rift. :) I am sure NRA and other pro gun/2A organizations along with RNC/pro gun law makers are in deep discussion/planning to maximize/optimize the "rift" effect heading into 2020 election.

Now, my discussions with people post Beto "Hell yes, ..." rant has become much much easier. All I have to do when talking to voters (especially undecided) is inquire if they own a gun and ask what their response to Beto's "Hell yes ..." rant and it's automatic from there. :D:thumbup:

For non-gun owning voters, I segue into "What if Beto said 'Hell yes, we are taking your First Amendment and Fourth Amendment'?" and it's automatic from there. :thumbup::thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Now, my discussions with people post Beto "Hell yes, ..." rant has become much much easier. All I have to do when talking to voters (especially undecided) is inquire if they own a gun and ask what their response to Beto's "Hell yes ..." rant and it's automatic from there. :D:thumbup:

For non-gun owning voters, I segue into "What if Beto said 'Hell yes, we are taking your First Amendment and Fourth Amendment'?" and it's automatic from there. :thumbup::thumbup:
Yes, he certainly gave us some powerful arguments.

Now is the time to put some pro-gun measures on the table. But they have to sound reasonable, though. How about a measure to register those illegal, unregistered machine guns? Who could be against that?
 
I think our focus should first be getting Trump re-elected in 2020 to appoint more federal judges and Supreme Court justices to secure our judicial future for gun rights/2A.

After that, I believe things will fall into place one by one:
  • 50 state conceal carry reciprocity
  • Normal capacity magazines
  • Modern firearms like AR15s
  • Integral sound suppression / external suppressors
  • Binary triggers for ADA/elderly
  • Etc., etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top