Beto O’Rourke: Ban AR-15 Sales in America

a reply to: narrator

I'm just curious why should we restrict someone's freedoms because what you think they own is stupid, and/or unsafe, dangerous?

I'm going to guess you won't answer my question because you cannot. It's a tough one, in my mind insoluble, because the question cuts to the heart of the debate between freedom on the one hand and safety on the other.

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

I'm just curious why should we restrict someone's freedoms because what you think they own is stupid, and/or unsafe, dangerous?

I'm going to guess you won't answer my question because you cannot. It's a tough one, in my mind insoluble, because the question cuts to the heart of the debate between freedom on the one hand and safety on the other.

Because......... FEELZ.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: dfnj2015

Stinger missiles and tactical nuclear weapons?
really?
and you wish people to take you seriously?

no thanks
there is a difference between "liberal scum" and "liberal dumb"

Its a question asking where the line should be drawn. Why be demeaning with your reply.

Its a valid question

a reply to: purplemer

Because civil liberty isn't negotiable.

Gunphobes wouldn't stand for treating our rights to speech and voting the same way we they do the second.

I think he’s a joke and other than the fact he has massive funding and media pumping him up, I don’t understand why people can’t see through it all.

Oh wait, I was wrong; he skateboards and was in a band once.
a reply to: neo96

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kurokage

Gun owners is the new 'black'.

Gun control IS institutionalised DISCRIMINATION.

So gun owners are going to be enslaved for several generations, beaten, hung, raped and treated like dirt??

It could happen, if they give up their guns. Personally I’ll keep mine.

a reply to: purplemer

Its a question asking where the line should be drawn. Why be demeaning with your reply. Its a valid question

my post was not intended to be demeaning
sorry if it was taken as such
the poster referenced "liberal scum", the reference to tactical nuclear weapons was imo dumb
the jump from ar-15 to tactical nuclear weapons is ridiculous
calling out that ridiculousness is not demeaning

a reply to: shooterbrody

my post was not intended to be demeaning sorry if it was taken as such the poster referenced "liberal scum", the reference to tactical nuclear weapons was imo dumb the jump from ar-15 to tactical nuclear weapons is ridiculous calling out that ridiculousness is not demeaning

Thank you for explanation.Its a valid question. It is asking at what point do you draw the line.

"No"

"We will just continue to make them at home, at CNC shops, purchasing them online (tax free?) or buying them from other owners who will not register them or follow any such blatantly illegal infringement of 2A."

Firearms simply aren't up for discussion, sorry Beta..Beto.

Besides, we have at least 400,000,000 firearms in circulation here. I can already tell you I would never register or surrender mine under any circumstances, and I'm sure I'm not alone

I would also gladly sell some extras to fellow Patriots should any more illegal gun acts ever manage to infest our law books.

We have more guns than people in this country, keep up the good work Americans We should re-double our efforts, however. The money from our gun sales allows manufacturers and advocacy organizations (such as NRA) to continue fighting anti-gunners tooth and nail on every single issue, and bankrupting their unjust causes.

originally posted by: JBurns
"No"

"We will just continue to make them at home, at CNC shops, purchasing them online (tax free?) or buying them from other owners who will not register them or follow any such blatantly illegal infringement of 2A."

Firearms simply aren't up for discussion, sorry Beta..Beto.

400 million in the hands of the people... Funny how they want to go different directions such as sue gun manufactures whenever a gun kills someone. Can't see how that could go wrong as people sue car manufacturers too and so on for the same thing...lol

I also heard about...Guns are a right, but ammo isn't, lets register each bullet...

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator

-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.

My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?

That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.

The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?

ETA: Just looking for a yes or no answer on that one.

Ugh. God no. My buddy had one and used an old work bench of mine for target practice. I don't know what he was shooting but the BBs from my BB rifle went deeper than his bullets. I'll take a 45/70 though. I was helping my father-in-law sight one in on my property a few summers ago and my shot went through the metal target and grazed the bottom of one of my Cypress trees, taking a chunk of wood out with it, and landed in another Cypress tree. And that was from 150 yards away after blowing through the metal target. I wish I still had the pictures. Funny that Beta doesn't mention anything besides an AR15.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

where can I get a stinger missile or tactical nuke? Please offer a link. I'd like both.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

where can I get a stinger missile or tactical nuke? Please offer a link. I'd like both.

Live over in the middle east.

they'll give you both for free.

Then lets limit mags to 10 rounds, so people can be less dangerous. Oops they went out and bought the .45 with only 8 bullets and of course the .338 Lapua Magnum mag holds 5 rounds even safer.

a reply to: Xtrozero

a reply to: neo96

I suppose you own one and know all about it?

a reply to: MisterSpock

I'm sure when it comes time to write a law he will have the right terminology and where fores in place.

For the record I know nothing at all about guns or rifles of any kind.

zero.... never even touched a gun. Only ever saw one up close once.