I Guess I do Want Your Guns

I've been telling people here, liberals don't want your guns! and Beto proved me wrong.

He won't win and his gun confiscation plan is impossible. There would be Branch Davidians every day. The way you get guns out of circulation is generous buybacks. Unless you want a bloodbath.

But still. He got the biggest cheer of the night.

 

Cheer? Sounded more like bleating.

It's good to know your enemy. Nice to meet you.

 

Poll after poll show the vast majority of Americans want SOMETHING done about mass shootings

Most are sick and tired of hearing “thoughts and prayers”.

 

Why am I you enemy? I don't want your guns. I just would like you to sell them back to the govt, if they give you a good price. The choice is entirely yours.

 

Your personal desire is muted by the policies your party supports. I am not selling any of my guns to the government, or you. Should you, or the government, try to take my guns by force, be careful when you reach for them as the barrel(s) will be very hot.

You, and the government, need to get off my lawn.

 

Good price? From the government? Like the folks who get a 'good price' when they have to sell their property to a government entity? Give me one million per as to me that's a good starting price IFI decide to sell.

 

A year ago O'Rourke supported the people who owned "AR15s," (that's what he called them.) A mere year later he completely flipped. The gun violence the left should go after exists mostly in democrat controlled cities, but they remain strangely silent on those deaths.

In 2017 there were 403 murders committed when rifles were used and 7,032 by handguns. The left is ignoring the larger number, focusing on the lower number and blaming the NRA for it. This is called dishonesty, the left is using this to as a political wedge to divide the country (which they always do) and the sheep just obediently follow along.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

 

Why does the government think I need to sell back my guns to them when I never bought it from them to begin with? Is it because they "allowed" me to buy it in the first place?

 

The Lord maketh and the Lord taketh away.

 

If you offer fair market value for guns, only people who wanted to sell them anyway but werent motivated to do so will participate. If you offer more than that, people will sell their guns only to buy cheaper replacements. Both situations are nothing but a waste of tax payer dollars. Which I don't think makes supporters my enemy, but doesnt make them friends to responsible govt spending either.

By logical extension, buybacks will need to be accompanied by legislative restrictions to have the theoretical desired effect. Supporters of those restrictions can be considered an enemy because they seek to target innocent, law abiding citizens with the coercive, violent force of the state.

No less so than people who support imprisoning marijuana users.

 

And here we see the absurdity of your position: should people be allowed to own nukes? Of course not, that would be stupid. So how do we stop them from owning nukes? We use "the coercive, violent force of the state". Just like we use to enforce all laws.

So unless you're a crazy anarchist (in which case you're just another loon that will go on ignore), we've established:
A) There is at least one reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment: the right to bear tactical nukes. Are there other weapons that might also fall under the category of "reasonably restriction"? Hmmmm.

B) Laws would be impossible without the "coercive, violent force of the state." You know that, right? So either we're back to anarchy (stupid), or you made a stupid irrelevant comment to try and sell some point about the ebul govment

 

I would like to see this goofy, gutless, hyperlib bastard come and TRY to take my weapons away from me! How 'bout it, Beto -- just come busting into my front door and see how THAT goes....

 

He’d just wait till you went for a walk and run you over with his car.

 

He wants to buy back AK type weapons.

And, the idea that more guns makes us safer is just plain crazy.

 

You're of course skipping the part about banning the sales of those types of guns before any buyback can be implemented, otherwise the buyback simply won't work, people will sell their guns and buy replacement the same day.

And now we are deep in the slippery slope territory. Beto did not want to ban/take those guns just a few months ago, neither did you, nor did the Dem party. You all have "evolved" and do now. What will be the next type of guns that you'll want to take out of circulation when this Beto's confiscation fails to produce any results? and after that?

Sorry to break it to you but the left's ultimate goal is complete disarmament even if people like you don't even know about that yet. They are trying to do it piece meal but it's not fooling gun owners.

 

Beto f***ed up. I can't blame him because his district was the one that was targeted, but it was an emotional response that has no clear policy strategy and only fuels the idiotic meme from the Right that all Dems wants to do is take away your guns.

However, the NRA and the Repubs aren't supplying any real definitive solutions and only continue name calling and being obstructionist. They are creating the whiplash that is to come rather than engaging in a real debate to solve the dilemma of mass shootings. I can't read the future, but it is clear there will be more mass shootings and eventually the people at large will say enough is enough.

 

As a member of the hacking group Cult of the Dead Cow your boy Beto was likely a cyber terrorist and an anarchist. As someone here noted, Beto apparently wrote a short story about running over children. Maybe he should focus on banning cars.

 

If in restricting your guns, we save lives would that change your mind?

 

I don’t think so

He needs name recognition and there are a lot more people out there wanting to end gun violence than are sitting at home fondling a gun

Thats a whopping 60%


And each mass shooting just cranks that figure higher

 

I agree, and I think Beto should definitely fight for this as a representative of his state, I just don't believe he will be able to gain that traction for the presidency with it.

But hey, it's still early and he may find his voice and strategy along the way yet.

 

People who want to own nukes probably consider folks like you and I, who would see them attacked by the govt for doing so, as their enemy. Fortunately there arent many of them.

Not so with gun owners (or AR owners, or semi-auto owners, or w/e it you would see attacked by the govt simply for breaking new gun laws). There are a lot of them.

The bottom line is you want to make laws that will make criminals out of a lot of people who arent hurting anyone. That makes you their enemy.

 

If they wanted to take your guns there isn't a damn thing you would be able to do about it.

 

Here is a conservative view of the debate. ****LANGUAGE WARNING******
Don’t click the link if F-bombs bother you.

 

Trump promised that Mexico would pay for the wall and he got loud cheers. Did Mexico ever pay for the wall??

 

Making threats on a public forum ain't smart. The FBI might just come knocking on your door.