Elections Beto absurd and unconstitutional gun confiscation plan summed up in an MSNBC interview...

[BassAckwards]

Just comply

kind of like how criminals should just comply and not break the law. maybe if we just banned murder, then there wouldnt be any more murders

 

[KeepItRealist]

 

[D 1 Wrestler]

kind of like how criminals should just comply and not break the law. maybe if we just banned murder, then there wouldnt be any more murders

If owning an assault rifle is eventually considered a crime then they would be criminals too. And not everyone arrested or jailed is a criminal, did you miss the corrupt cop thread?

 

[KeepItRealist]

If owning an assault rifle is eventually considered a crime then they would be criminals too. And not everyone arrested or jailed is a criminal, did you miss the corrupt cop thread?

So for the record, the judges, politicians and law enforcement officers who refuse to enforce our immigration laws are all criminals, right?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Pro gun and pro Military style weapons are different. I’m not really sure where I fall in this debate actually but I know that the founding fathers didn’t mean ak-47s when they wrote the constitution

The writers of the Constitution had the 1790s corollary to the AK-47 very much in mind when they wrote the US Constitution. The Second Amendment is an argument in favor of civilians bearing military weapons, not an exemption for hunting or sporting rifles. Of course, very few Americans actually own or carry military style weapons. This is because the 2nd Amendment supporters have been so willing to compromise in favor of common sense gun control over the years.

 

[Kandyland]

So for the record, the judges, politicians and law enforcement officers who refuse to enforce our immigration laws are all criminals, right?

Damn, @D 1 Wrestler just got owned. It's funny when you turn their arguments against them they basically are stuttering fools.

But..but..but...Racism.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Its one guy desperately trying to become POTUS to no avail, his idea ain't going nowhere.

Kamala Harris and Corey Booker have already co-opted it. You could have said the same about Castro's decriminalize illegal border crossings, that it's just a desperate ploy for attention from a low polling candidate, but Warren the #2 runner has added that to her platform since then. The #4 has the mandatory buy backs, and the 1-3 have making them illegal but not mandatory buy backs but haven't said anything about a grandfather clause (so I'm really not sure how that ends up working).

Link below from a previous post

Via CNN so as to not get a biased right wing view on this issue
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/beto-orourke-guns-democratic-debate/index.html

O'Rourke is one of three Democrats, along with Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey to support mandatory buybacks for certain guns. Other Democrats would make them illegal but not require them to be bought back by the government.


You can't try to claim gun confiscation is a fringe edge view anymore.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

...but I don't know anyone with a 7x62 AR-15.

7.62x39 AR15s hit the market with a thud. A big reason was that early versions of the magazines were unreliable. Now reliable options exist.

and no it's not a right to bear all arms.

The 2nd? Let's say that's true. It's still an actual fact that it's there to protect some arms for some purposes. It's a fact that it protects arms suitable for militia use. How can one possibly think that it's no infringement to outlaw the firearms most chosen and useful for that purpose? There's no denying that any fighting unit would be at a great disadvantage having no semi-auto rifles. It's the most basic tool for taking up arms for the purposes of common-defense and law & order.

Great men deliberated and carved out no exceptions in the 2nd. They covered it as simply and broadly as they could. "Arms". I get that times have changed, but that's no excuse to make things up. So while we could argue nukes and missiles and other shit that isn't a weapon commonly used in battle or peacekeeping, there can be no argument against the necessity of a rifle. Don't you agree?

There are limits on freedom of speech such as perjury, fighting words, defamation, blackmail, threatening speech. All those are not protected speech.

Those are all harmful actions, and historically not considered a part of free speech. Those laws aren't prohibitions on using certain words or speaking certain languages. Similarly with weapons, the traditional limits are placed on what you can do with them (eg. murder, conceal, brandish, etc). There's no history, until recently, of prohibiting the simple ownership of certain weapons.

You might as well say that since there are limits on freedom of speech then presto we can outlaw certain religious faiths.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

"223 blows a hole out of you the size of an orange" and thus they should be illegal he says

Meanwhile this is the 3rd most common rifle round sold, a 30-06 (@tinker_190 corrected me that 308 (7.62x51) is the 2nd most.common)

(223, AR-15 most common round, vs 30-06, one of the next most popular rifle rounds sold)

His attempt at logic is just so baffling.

Beto just lost any chance he had lmao. What a dumb thing to say.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

And...

- Beto thinks AK47s and AR15s fire the same rounds.

Not sure if that's worse than Harris thinking that all ARs are imported or not.

 

[Kandyland]

LOL at Beto reporting Brisco Cain to the FBI. He just said "my AR will be waiting for you" was in response saying you were coming for his AR 15. He didn't say "I'll kill you". What a fucking cuck and a fake fucker Beto is.

 

[Don Quixote]

If the government wants to offer money that is well over the value price of guns, I’m sure most Americans will be willing to comply.

If the government really wants your guns they’ll have to pay a hefty price for it. No way around it.

 

[KeepItRealist]

LOL at Beto reporting Brisco Cain to the FBI. He just said "my AR will be waiting for you" was in response saying you were coming for his AR 15. He didn't say "I'll kill you". What a fucking cuck and a fake fucker Beto is.

What's worse is all the hacks in the media and politics pretending like that was a death threat.

They consider Come and Take It! And from my cold dead hands! A threat too. People are ridiculous.

 

[Kandyland]

If the government wants to offer money that is well over the value price of guns, I’m sure most Americans will be willing to comply.

Nah, this is the same government that goes to the ghetto in buy back programs and offers cheese burgers and blow for guns.

 

[Islam Imamate]

@KeepItRealist any response to this?

Conservatives seem to be all about law and order until the laws aren't designed in their favor. Then they become rebels and thugs #wewuzrevolutionaries.

I actually really liked his response to this and I'm not really in line with all the gun policies of the left. I grow weary of politicians being politicians and this was a very direct, honest answer. To gun owners: fuck you, we're taking your shit. This is what happens when people prove irresponsible, they lose privileges--and no it's not a right to bear all arms. I just wish Democratic politicians would do the same toward the left with their anti-gender science and complete lack of family values. The pandering is exhausting.

Whose been irresponsible? Certainly not the vast majority of gun owners, When we talk about mass shootings like Columbine and Sandy Hook, we're talking about exceedingly rare instances when compared to the general population of gun owners. And sure the 2nd amendment may not cover all arms but only a very uncharitable reading of it would lead one to believe that something like an AR-15 isn't covered.

Its a very silly policy, one that is almost certain to be struck down in the courts. But I did throw you a like because yeah it is funny to see the law and order conservative suddenly talk about "from my cold dead hands" or whatever silly shit they say. Just comply guys, such a law wouldn't last a day in court anyway.

Kamala Harris and Corey Booker have already co-opted it. You could have said the same about Castro's decriminalize illegal border crossings, that it's just a desperate ploy for attention from a low polling candidate, but Warren the #2 runner has added that to her platform since then. The #4 has the mandatory buy backs, and the 1-3 have making them illegal but not mandatory buy backs but haven't said anything about a grandfather clause (so I'm really not sure how that ends up working).

Link below from a previous post

Can't read the article but I believe you so fair enough. But I doubt any of them could get it done, just seems blatantly unconstitutional and with the court in conservative's favor I doubt they'd let this law slide.

 

[KeepItRealist]

Nah, this is the same government that goes to the ghetto in buy back programs and offers cheese burgers and blow for guns.

Some of those "buy backs" (which is not an accurate name) are a a golden opportunity for smart gun owners to get rid of their old guns for more than they could get selling them elsewhere. Because those idiots usually have set prices they will pay per type of gun and it doesn't matter what condition the gun is in.

I know a dude in New Jersey who sold a bunch of broken old guns that belonged to his grandfather that were rusting in his garage to a buy back for like $150-200 each. Even though he couldn't have gotten $20 for them in an auction.

 

[Leagon]

The 2nd? Let's say that's true. It's still an actual fact that it's there to protect some arms for some purposes. It's a fact that it protects arms suitable for militia use. How can one possibly think that it's no infringement to outlaw the firearms most chosen and useful for that purpose? There's no denying that any fighting unit would be at a great disadvantage having no semi-auto rifles. It's the most basic tool for taking up arms for the purposes of common-defense and law & order.

Great men deliberated and carved out no exceptions in the 2nd. They covered it as simply and broadly as they could. "Arms". I get that times have changed, but that's no excuse to make things up. So while we could argue nukes and missiles and other shit that isn't a weapon commonly used in battle or peacekeeping, there can be no argument against the necessity of a rifle. Don't you agree?

There are probably plenty of arguments against the necessity of a rifle, but here are two:

1. The 2nd amendment doesn't say we should be allowed to establish a militia. It says we should be able to have a "well regulated" militia. That's open for interpretation, but a well regulated resistance doesn't necessarily need a stockpile of high powered rifles any more than they need strategically placed explosives and sophisticated counterintel. I would rather content with a bunch of idiots with ARs than a polished militia of tech comm experts with hanguns and low powered rifles. One could argue that the well regulated part of the militia is key since there is no mention of the relative quality of the arms the militia bears.

2. Smart men aren't gods. Anyone who has ever created anything in their lives knows that when you look back on something after ten years and see all the places you can do better. These great men didn't have the moral courage to abolish slavery, even though many knew it was wrong. They tried their best, but they were only human and there's a 100% chance that if they all got together in a room today, they would look back on the original constitution and see countless flaws that need fixing. They created the amendment system because they knew they could be wrong, yet now people want to insist they couldn't be.

 

[Riptide]

The ambitious and opportunistic aspiring politician Robert Francis O'Rourke married this woman because he fell in love with her great beauty and not the fact that her father is worth half a billion dollars.

Would his wife while he looks from the other side of the window.

 

[Leagon]

Whose been irresponsible? Certainly not the vast majority of gun owners, When we talk about mass shootings like Columbine and Sandy Hook, we're talking about exceedingly rare instances when compared to the general population of gun owners. And sure the 2nd amendment may not cover all arms but only a very uncharitable reading of it would lead one to believe that something like an AR-15 isn't covered.

The American public has been irresponsible. Our gun violence is out of control. We're regulating vaping because 6 or 7 kids died. That's far rarer than mass shootings. How many shoe bombings were attempted before we changed shoe policy on planes? Have you seen the security at the Boston Marathon? It only took one time to change it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The American public has been irresponsible. Our gun violence is out of control. We're regulating vaping because 6 or 7 kids died. That's far rarer than mass shootings. How many shoe bombings were attempted before we changed shoe policy on planes? Have you seen the security at the Boston Marathon? It only took one time to change it.

I don't agree with regulating vaping either though. Nor do I think its fair or responsible to punish the vast majority of gun owners due to the actions of a few. People have a right to bear arms and any reasonable reading of that amendment would include firearms like the AR-15 or the AK-47. Those are firearms that are in common use and they're not even military arms for the most part, they're civilian versions. Do you see why gun owners complain about the slippery slope when military grade rifles were banned and only their civilian versions were allowed to be manufactured and sold and now Democrats want to go after the civilian versions as well? What's the end game here? No semi-auto rifles, only bolt/lever/pump action long guns? What happens when a mass shooting is committed with one of those? Only black powder guns?