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

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator


Yeah i am curious too.

Do we have a well regulated militia?

I know there are little militia type groups here and there.

But as per what it says do we have that?

We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.

This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...

The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.

I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.

See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.

That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.

You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?

I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.

I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.

First of all, what's my dogma? I'd be interested to know.

Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well.

Now, stop deflecting, and please answer this question directly: The SCOTUS case that you referenced, D.C. vs. Heller, SPECIFICALLY says that guns and gun ownership IS NOT UNLIMITED, and the government will continue to regulate firearms.

The SCOTUS said that. What is your response to what they said? Is that constitutional?

Again you are picking and choosing the rulings in that case....aren't you? That case was NOT just a ruling regarding the limitations of firearms. It ruled that the PEOPLE had the right, regardless of whether they are in a militia or not.

Now, I've stated that twice....please try to grasp that concept...as I will not say it a 3rd time to satisfy your willing ignorance.

www.foxnews.com...

Reuters is facing ethical questions after admitting that reporter Joseph Menn sat on an unfavorable story about media darling Beto O’Rourke until after his crucial Senate race against Ted Cruz.

It may now matter.
Seems "Beto" may be done anyway.

“So Reuters had evidence in 2017 that Beto may have committed multiple felonies -- which Beto confirmed on the record -- but deliberately withheld the story for over a year to help him win his Senate race? But when he’s running against Bernie etc, NOW it’s news?” Cruz tweeted.

lol
what filthy media
"no one thought he would lose"
where have we heard this before

“That was OK: I wanted the full story for my book, which spans decades, rather than 1 scoop ahead of a state vote. I offered O’Rourke the same terms. He accepted, and we spoke,” Menn wrote. “No one thought he would lose the Senate race & immediately enter onto an even bigger stage, but here we are, and the embargo is up. The book is out soon, O’Rourke is running for president, and people should hear the missing part of his story.”

wow
no one thought he would lose
that makes it ok

a reply to: neo96

I'll admit, this guy kinda worried me at first, but it only took about a week before I realized just how much of a joke he is. He's as bad as Ocasio Cotez. The more this slew of DNC candidates talk, the more ridiculous they look. Their last true beacon of hope was forced to fly the coop in 2015 when he made the comment that all lives matter and not just black lives during the first debate. Sorry, Mr. Webb, but 80's and 90's democrats that had the balls to hold true to their ideologies of those days are now considered far right radical Republicans.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator


Yeah i am curious too.

Do we have a well regulated militia?

I know there are little militia type groups here and there.

But as per what it says do we have that?

We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.

This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...

The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.

I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.

See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.

That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.

You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?

I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.

I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.

First of all, what's my dogma? I'd be interested to know.

Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well.

Now, stop deflecting, and please answer this question directly: The SCOTUS case that you referenced, D.C. vs. Heller, SPECIFICALLY says that guns and gun ownership IS NOT UNLIMITED, and the government will continue to regulate firearms.

The SCOTUS said that. What is your response to what they said? Is that constitutional?

Again you are picking and choosing the rulings in that case....aren't you? That case was NOT just a ruling regarding the limitations of firearms. It ruled that the PEOPLE had the right, regardless of whether they are in a militia or not.

Now, I've stated that twice....please try to grasp that concept...as I will not say it a 3rd time to satisfy your willing ignorance.

Come on Krakatoa, be honest with yourself, you QUOTED me agreeing with that part of the ruling for crying out loud! The SCOTUS ruled that individuals have the right to have firearms. 100%, I agree. It's incredibly frustrating to have you keep repeating something that I've already addressed multiple times, acting like I'm skipping over it because I don't agree. That's patently, 100% false. I am 100% in agreement with the SCOTUS that individuals have the right to own firearms.

Now it's your turn. Address the point I've brought up that you keep skipping over by falsely accusing me of ignoring something I've already commented on in at least 3 other comments.

For what it's worth, I own 7 guns, including an AR-15. So I'm not sure what you think my dogma is. I'm a gun lover, that is 100% pro-regulation of firearms.

Now that that's out of the way, please answer the question I've posed to you, as I've answered yours a couple times now.

ETA: For posterity in case you deflect again, here's my direct quote, that you quoted me saying: "Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well."

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: neo96 I don’t know that we should raise the age for buying an AR-15 I just don’t think we should be selling AR-15s in this country.”

Thanks to God all mine are M4s....

Just shows the stupidity of Beto. That gun looks violent and people talk about it all the time, let's ban it.

He doesn't even have the guts to take existing guns away from owners.

Maybe we should ban skateboards being owned by anyone over 40.

a reply to: pavil

He doesn't even have the guts to take existing guns away from owners.

I wouldn't bet on it.

That is their end game.

Get a gestapo to go house to house and take them by force.

a reply to: neo96

That would be a bloodbath.
I have a hard time seeing that happen, even in the bluest of the blue.
Too many vets still alive.

a reply to: shooterbrody

That would be a bloodbath.

It is what we can expect from the people that pass infantcide bills.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator


Yeah i am curious too.

Do we have a well regulated militia?

I know there are little militia type groups here and there.

But as per what it says do we have that?

We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.

This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...

The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.

I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.

See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.

That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.

You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?

I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.

I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.

First of all, what's my dogma? I'd be interested to know.

Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well.

Now, stop deflecting, and please answer this question directly: The SCOTUS case that you referenced, D.C. vs. Heller, SPECIFICALLY says that guns and gun ownership IS NOT UNLIMITED, and the government will continue to regulate firearms.

The SCOTUS said that. What is your response to what they said? Is that constitutional?

Again you are picking and choosing the rulings in that case....aren't you? That case was NOT just a ruling regarding the limitations of firearms. It ruled that the PEOPLE had the right, regardless of whether they are in a militia or not.

Now, I've stated that twice....please try to grasp that concept...as I will not say it a 3rd time to satisfy your willing ignorance.

Come on Krakatoa, be honest with yourself, you QUOTED me agreeing with that part of the ruling for crying out loud! The SCOTUS ruled that individuals have the right to have firearms. 100%, I agree. It's incredibly frustrating to have you keep repeating something that I've already addressed multiple times, acting like I'm skipping over it because I don't agree. That's patently, 100% false. I am 100% in agreement with the SCOTUS that individuals have the right to own firearms.

Now it's your turn. Address the point I've brought up that you keep skipping over by falsely accusing me of ignoring something I've already commented on in at least 3 other comments.

For what it's worth, I own 7 guns, including an AR-15. So I'm not sure what you think my dogma is. I'm a gun lover, that is 100% pro-regulation of firearms.

Now that that's out of the way, please answer the question I've posed to you, as I've answered yours a couple times now.

OK, I misunderstood your follow ups, which is why I thought I answered it already. So mote it be.

As for the related ruling on limitations, I personally do not agree with that aspect of the ruling. I think it is unconstitutional, and should be challenged with reference to the full context of the 2nd Amendment, as written. Especially focused upon the correction of the interpretation of the words "regulated" and "infringed".

Using modern interpretations of those words with regard to the 2nd Amendment is disingenuous at best, and outright wrong at worst. Aiding or abetting the use of laws to limit or otherwise slow the exercising of the 2nd Amendment are unconstitutional on their face. That is blatant infringement. Infringement, in the 18th Century vernacular, is not merely preventing something outright (i.e. banning) but also the slowing down or curtailing (i.e. banning in a limited fashion or putting $$$ or time roadblocks in place) the right.

a reply to: neo96

Just another leftist anti-Constitutionalist dirtbag.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Beto is a moron.

Beyond the fact that this will never pass, there are many other similar rifles that aren't AR-15 patterned(like the ar10) that would skirt by because of his inability to have any clue as to what he's talking about.

He skates though and was a hacker.

I feel like they're all in a contest of who can come with the dumbest things that'll never stand a chance at passing. Free college, free healthcare, ban guns, tear down border walls, green new deals. This is like the Twilight Zone mixed with Lowered Expectations.

DC. v Heller is nothing more than an inconsistent OPINION.

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the first clause of the Second Amendment that references a “militia” is a prefatory clause that does not limit the operative clause of the Amendment. Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service.To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people.

Because the text of the Amendment should be read in the manner that gives greatest effect to the plain meaning it would have had at the time it was written, the operative clause should be read to “guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

This reading is also in line with legal writing of the time and subsequent scholarship. Therefore, banning handguns, an entire class of arms that is commonly used for protection purposes, and prohibiting firearms from being kept functional in the home, the area traditionally in need of protection, violates the Second Amendment.

The dissenting opinion from the losing side.

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess guns for self-defense purposes. Instead, the most natural reading of the the Amendment is that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes but does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.

www.oyez.org...

Somehow the dissent means more?

Hell no it doesn't.

Because the full context of the other amendments that protect civil liberty was never applied.

Ip so Facto.

The Scotus is USELESS.

The best regulation of guns is not through government force and coercion, but through education and knowledge. Anyone who owns a weapon and does not immediately start shooting people knows this to be true..

Each of us has a natural right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life. Limiting our ability to defend these aspects by regulating the tools to do so puts all of us at risk.

I'm a gun lover, that is 100% pro-regulation of firearms.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: pavil

He doesn't even have the guts to take existing guns away from owners.

I wouldn't bet on it.

That is their end game.

Get a gestapo to go house to house and take them by force.

I know. He just acts like like we should trust him and he is all puppy tails and unicorns.

Dude couldn't even beat Cruz and the media's legs are trembling. No one in the press will ask him tough questions about this.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator


Yeah i am curious too.

Do we have a well regulated militia?

I know there are little militia type groups here and there.

But as per what it says do we have that?

We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.

This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...

The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.

I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.

See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.

That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.

You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?

I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.

I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.

First of all, what's my dogma? I'd be interested to know.

Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well.

Now, stop deflecting, and please answer this question directly: The SCOTUS case that you referenced, D.C. vs. Heller, SPECIFICALLY says that guns and gun ownership IS NOT UNLIMITED, and the government will continue to regulate firearms.

The SCOTUS said that. What is your response to what they said? Is that constitutional?

Again you are picking and choosing the rulings in that case....aren't you? That case was NOT just a ruling regarding the limitations of firearms. It ruled that the PEOPLE had the right, regardless of whether they are in a militia or not.

Now, I've stated that twice....please try to grasp that concept...as I will not say it a 3rd time to satisfy your willing ignorance.

Come on Krakatoa, be honest with yourself, you QUOTED me agreeing with that part of the ruling for crying out loud! The SCOTUS ruled that individuals have the right to have firearms. 100%, I agree. It's incredibly frustrating to have you keep repeating something that I've already addressed multiple times, acting like I'm skipping over it because I don't agree. That's patently, 100% false. I am 100% in agreement with the SCOTUS that individuals have the right to own firearms.

Now it's your turn. Address the point I've brought up that you keep skipping over by falsely accusing me of ignoring something I've already commented on in at least 3 other comments.

For what it's worth, I own 7 guns, including an AR-15. So I'm not sure what you think my dogma is. I'm a gun lover, that is 100% pro-regulation of firearms.

Now that that's out of the way, please answer the question I've posed to you, as I've answered yours a couple times now.

OK, I misunderstood your follow ups, which is why I thought I answered it already. So mote it be.

As for the related ruling on limitations, I personally do not agree with that aspect of the ruling. I think it is unconstitutional, and should be challenged with reference to the full context of the 2nd Amendment, as written. Especially focused upon the correction of the interpretation of the words "regulated" and "infringed".

Using modern interpretations of those words with regard to the 2nd Amendment is disingenuous at best, and outright wrong at worst. Aiding or abetting the use of laws to limit or otherwise slow the exercising of the 2nd Amendment are unconstitutional on their face.

Thanks.

Now that that's out of the way, here's my actual, completely sincere question: Should there be a limit somewhere in terms of what firearm a citizen can own?

I'm not going for a gotcha or anything like that, I legitimately want to have a conversation about this with someone who has different views than I do.

On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off.
So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.
Where should one draw the line? Personally, I think there really isn't a valid reason to own a semi-auto firearm, such as an AR. That's coming from someone who actually owns one. There's no real reason for me to have that rifle. The main one I hear is "protection", other than "it's my constitutional right to own it".
Protect my home from someone far away? My 30-06 would be much better.
Closer range protection? My 12 gauge would be much better.
Protection on the move? Either of my handguns would be better.
Protecting my home from the government? Let's be honest with ourselves, that isn't going to happen. If the government actually wanted to overthrow the populace, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hades of defending ourselves, because they wouldn't even send ground troops right away. They'd bring in said F-16s with missiles and wipe most of us out without ever stepping on our property.
(Not that I think that would happen, ever, because it won't).

So, why do I have the gun? It's fun to shoot. That isn't really a good enough reason to own it.

And since the SCOTUS ruled that the government can regulate weapons, I would be willing to give back my AR-15 if it came to that. It's just not worth the hassle. My hunting rifles and shotguns? I'd put up way more of a fight about it, as those serve actual purposes.
That's why I'm ok with regulating firearms. If it doesn't have an actual purpose, we don't need it.

On the 1st page, a poster was laughed off because they questioned if stinger missiles and nuclear weapons should be available to citizens. So clearly there is a line with what firearms, or else that wouldn't have been laughed off. So, where is the line? Do you feel that, if they have the money, a citizen should be able to own any firearm they desire? Shall not be unfringed technically means that, if they have the ability, a citizen should be able to buy an F-16 and the missiles that accompany it. That probably isn't a good idea, so it's "outlawed" or "restricted" or whatever the technical term is.

False equivalence fallacy.

a reply to: Quantumgamer1776

"Nothing drives up gun sales like a Democrat threatening to strip away your rights."

what about when republicans draft and pass laws restricting or confiscating firearms? does that drive up gun sales too?

originally posted by: knoxie
oh damn, y 'all better go out and get more guns!! use your last dollars if necessary - they're really coming for them this time!! you'll need 'em too, the big bad scary dems might get ya. lol

suckers..

The left is so easy to give up their freedoms... I would bet for a misally 1000 bucks a month that you could spend at the company store many on the left would give up all their rights...

Kind of sad...So instead of going after the 2nd how about something like the Patriots Act..

a reply to: shooterbrody

That's what I was saying earlier. The crime that Reuters helped Beto hide, is now added to his stack of evidence. No way Beto should be able to continue representing any part of the Democratic party, going forward.