Beto’s gift to GOP: ‘Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47’

[austingirl]

A commentator this morning said Beto will never be elected to any public office after his latest antics, well, I'd think maybe the El Paso area might still elect him as a local but I do see the point.

Beto's been saying a lot of things for shock value.

Please don't go along with the skateboarder's cultural appropriation-use his given name Robert Francis.

[Bigun]

Please don't go along with the skateboarder's cultural appropriation-use his given name Robert Francis.

 

[PeteS in CA]

Please don't go along with the skateboarder's cultural appropriation-use his given name Robert Francis.

I'm lazy. I just use "Bobby". Brief and diminutive.

[Chosen Daughter]

Wish I owned a gun store today!  I'll bet business is brisk.

You know it is.

[Chosen Daughter]

The skateboarder may have inadvertently put a fork in red flag laws with his reporting Cain to the FBI, especially since RF is the one doing the threatening.

At least I hope so.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/youre-a-child-texas-state-lawmaker-tells-beto-orourke-after-dem-calls-his-twitter-message-a-death-threat

I think so too.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

If these jugheads are truly going to campaign on the "civilians should not have access to 'weapons of war'" argument, then they should be banning semi-automatic pistols from Glock, Beretta, Colt, etc., that are and routinely have been actually issued to the military in large quantities.  They are "weapons of war", and should be banned by their logic.

Let's see them defend that to the public.

For that matter, we issue shotguns to our military, so those should be banned for civilian use as well.

Truth is, the entire history of the development of firearms was to develop weapons for war.  From the original "hand gonnes", to matchlock rifles, to flintlocks, to Colt's first Paterson revolver, etc., they were all intended to be "weapons of war".  Except, bizarrely, the AR's they're trying to ban that were built specifically for non-military use.

The only true value in the "weapons of war" phrase is that it helps us highlight the ignorance of those who use it.

[Chosen Daughter]

If these jugheads are truly going to campaign on the "civilians should not have access to 'weapons of war'" argument, then they should be banning semi-automatic pistols from Glock, Beretta, Colt, etc., that are and routinely have been actually issued to the military in large quantities.  They are "weapons of war", and should be banned by their logic.

Let's see them defend that to the public.

For that matter, we issue shotguns to our military, so those should be banned for civilian use as well.

Truth is, the entire history of the development of firearms was to develop weapons for war.  From the original "hand gonnes", to matchlock rifles, to flintlocks, to Colt's first Paterson revolver, etc., they were all intended to be "weapons of war".  Except, bizarrely, the AR's they're trying to ban that were built specifically for non-military use.

The only true value in the "weapons of war" phrase is that it helps us highlight the ignorance of those who use it.

I can't imagine what would happen if the government started confiscation of people's firearms.  We would have another Ruby Ridge/Waco Texas in every American neighborhood.  Not because of white nationalism or cult but for whatever reason people bought their firearms.  They are not going to allow the government to come right in and take them.

[Cyber Liberty]

I can't imagine what would happen if the government started confiscation of people's firearms.  We would have another Ruby Ridge/Waco Texas in every American neighborhood.  Not because of white nationalism or cult but for whatever reason people bought their firearms.  They are not going to allow the government to come right in and take them.

They'll have to find Police and Sheriffs willing to risk their necks disarming their friends first.  The politicians and their useful idiots don't have the guts.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

They don't have to go door to door.  If they know you have them and won't turn them in, they can just do things like arrest you at work or when you're out and about with your family, or sweep your bank accounts, etc..  In other words, we'll never get the heroism/lightning rod of a siege.  They'll just ruin our lives otherwise.

The only way to prevent that is to ensure they don't know/can't prove we have them at all.

[Chosen Daughter]

They'll have to find Police and Sheriffs willing to risk their necks disarming their friends first.  The politicians and their useful idiots don't have the guts.

Right. I don't know why and don't care why people buy AR-15's.  But I imagine that many of the owners are law enforcement, military or ex military. 

[Chosen Daughter]

They don't have to go door to door.  If they know you have them and won't turn them in, they can just do things like arrest you at work or when you're out and about with your family, or sweep your bank accounts, etc..  In other words, we'll never get the heroism/lightning rod of a siege.  They'll just ruin our lives otherwise.

The only way to prevent that is to ensure they don't know/can't prove we have them at all.

Well that's a good point.  And you certainly would have people hiding it, and not buying legally.

[Applewood]

FWIW:

Fact check: Could a President Beto O'Rourke actually confiscate assault weapons?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/14/politics/beto-orourke-assault-guns-confiscation-fact-check/index.html

***

Short answer is NO.  He would need congress to pass a law.  Bobby did say, "we."  I guess he is anticipating the Democrats will retain the house and take control of the senate. 

Last I heard, Bobby's campaign was swirling the bowl.  His stated confiscation position should all but guarantee his campaign is dead. 

[Cyber Liberty]

They don't have to go door to door.  If they know you have them and won't turn them in, they can just do things like arrest you at work or when you're out and about with your family, or sweep your bank accounts, etc..  In other words, we'll never get the heroism/lightning rod of a siege.  They'll just ruin our lives otherwise.

The only way to prevent that is to ensure they don't know/can't prove we have them at all.

And this is why cries for "Reasonable Gun Safety" must be resisted at every turn.  Registration is at the top of that grocery list, without which they won't be sure where to look.

Are you listening, @Jazzhead?  (Awww, who am I kidding?!)

[austingirl]

I'm lazy. I just use "Bobby". Brief and diminutive.

@PeteS in CA
I understand. I sometimes use RF. Irish Bob, the skateboarder, and the manny are also acceptable.

[Bigun]

@PeteS in CA
I understand. I sometimes use RF. Irish Bob, the skateboarder, and the manny are also acceptable.

What???  Not Paddy?

[austingirl]

What???  Not Paddy?

@Bigun

Sure, why not.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Bigun

Sure, why not.

I just call him "Beta" because that's the kind of boy he is.

[austingirl]

I just call him "Beta" because that's the kind of boy he is.

How could I forget that one?

This well-planned stunt and the ready-to-go t-shirts has to be the last reboot of the skateboarders's campaign, please let it be so.

[Smokin Joe]

You know it is.

Walmart picked the wrong time to quit selling handgun ammo. They could have sold out their inventories first.

[Smokin Joe]

If these jugheads are truly going to campaign on the "civilians should not have access to 'weapons of war'" argument, then they should be banning semi-automatic pistols from Glock, Beretta, Colt, etc., that are and routinely have been actually issued to the military in large quantities.  They are "weapons of war", and should be banned by their logic.

Let's see them defend that to the public.

For that matter, we issue shotguns to our military, so those should be banned for civilian use as well.

Truth is, the entire history of the development of firearms was to develop weapons for war.  From the original "hand gonnes", to matchlock rifles, to flintlocks, to Colt's first Paterson revolver, etc., they were all intended to be "weapons of war".  Except, bizarrely, the AR's they're trying to ban that were built specifically for non-military use.

The only true value in the "weapons of war" phrase is that it helps us highlight the ignorance of those who use it.

Not exactly.

"Weapons of war" have included: pistols of every configuration, shotguns, rifles (fully automatic, semi-automatic, bolt action, trapdoor action, falling block, lever action, and muzzleloader), muskets, swords of all descriptions, knives, long sticks with a wide variety of blades and pointy ends, clubs, shovels, rocks tied to sticks and thrown by various means from hands to slings to trebuchet, boiling oil, animal carcasses,  and any means to inflict blunt force trauma, flammable liquids, vehicles, construction equipment, just about any thing which comes to hand in mortal combat.

So what is the flavor du jour that this nitwit wants to ban? Will it be the foldover camp shovel you take backpacking next (modeled on the entrenching tool)? How about your hunting and kitchen knives? Maybe the baseball bat in the closet, or the axe in your garage (or pickup). Glass jugs and gasoline with a rag on top?

See, we're just arguing with these fools now.

What they really don't get, despite all their hype about 'battles for whatever' and 'war on this or that', is that we have not yet begun to fight. We're still just talking.

It'd be nice if we can just settle this like civilized folks ("No, you can't just come and take my stuff.", end of discussion, done.).

But then, the basic rule of "If it isn't yours, don't take it." apparently wasn't taught in their sandbox.

[Smokin Joe]

They don't have to go door to door.  If they know you have them and won't turn them in, they can just do things like arrest you at work or when you're out and about with your family, or sweep your bank accounts, etc..  In other words, we'll never get the heroism/lightning rod of a siege.  They'll just ruin our lives otherwise.

The only way to prevent that is to ensure they don't know/can't prove we have them at all.

What this misses out on is that most gun owners know other gun owners.
Word travels fast, and bad news travels faster. A few might be grabbed unawares, but that would not continue. Even in Paul Revere's day, the word got out.
The news channels generally didn't show the crowd at the bottom of Ruby Ridge, (nor did they mention the machine gun emplacements in the tree line facing that crowd, dirtwork discovered by locals afterwards). 
Bundy Ranch was an example of what could happen, without the grim possibilities being realized.

It is best for all if such situations can be avoided, but that does not require capitulation on a fundamental Civil Right.

[Cyber Liberty]

How could I forget that one?

This well-planned stunt and the ready-to-go t-shirts has to be the last reboot of the skateboarders's campaign, please let it be so.

Those t-shirts could easily sell heavily if they were being sold by our side.  The words are damning, but I guess the Leftists think the slogan is a good one for them.

[verga]

There are millions and millions of young people out there who don't go for this garbage but are currently not able to speak their minds for fear of retribution but they WILL be heard eventually and no one will miss the roar!

QFT

[verga]

His campaign is selling a t-shirt with his quote:


Beto O'Rourke
@BetoORourke
Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15.

Buy your shirt now: https://store.betoorourke.com/hell-yes-were-going-to-unisex-womens-styles/

I swear (no pun intended) thought this was a gag, but they are really selling them. How stupid is he that he thinks this will drive people to him and the democrats.

[goatprairie]

If a President O'Rourke ( ) unilaterally declared he was going to start grabbing guns, he would be met with defiance by many leos like those in Washington state who defied some state gov. orders concerning anti-gun measures. The leos said they simply weren't going to enforce the unconstitutional state actions.
I suspect leos in many states would do likewise.