Beto O'Ruarke put it out there, center stage:
"Hell Yes we're going to take your guns away, your Ar-15s, your AK-47s . . ."
Regardless of how you feel about the issue of "assault " rifles, how do you think this will sit with non-progressive and anti-gun citizens?
A couple of Democrat pundits are rueing the day, saying this is the sound bite that will be replayed for years; "Hell yes we're going to take your guns away."
I think it will make it harder for gun control proponents to claim they aren't after your guns, just sensible gun control.
Unfortunately, to far too many "sensible" gun control means to disarm the American citizenry. He isn't the first one to honestly say what he means, and he won't be the last one.
It doesn't help to make the case that gun control advocates do not want to take away normal weapons, like handguns and rifles.
However, no regular person should need to own an assault weapon, so I'm torn on this one. As I've said, if you can buy an AK-47, why not a tactical nuke or a bazooka? There has to be a limit.
Ultimately, I think it will strengthen the argument against gun control and weaken those who support gun control.
I agree. I also think the qualifiers; AR-15 and Ak-47, will be forgotten and the quote will only be remembered as I put it the second time:
"Hell yes we're going to take your guns away."
Also, as your second comment and link show, it is not just NRA supporters that are or will be worried about that quote.
We should start a pool on how many times we will hear it in the next year. ;-)
The same people that think they need to own an AR-15 already think that all democrats are coming for their guns. So not sure it really changes all that much in terms of voters.
And you would set that limit on the most common gun in the country, and one that kills far fewer people than handguns (or other common, non-gun, weapons do).
Can you expound on your thinking? Is it just because it is used in most of the killings that bring the most tears or because the term has falsely been used until the public is frightened half to death by merely mentioning that faux label and the job is thus easier?
Or we could just make bazookas more common, I guess. And grenades. I should try hunting with a grenade some time or defending myself with one.
Nobody needs an AK-47.
They designed a gun shell for ducks. So, when you instantly hit the duck, it stuffs the duck at the same time.
Maybe they can stuff a deer, with a bazooka. Machine gunning down a deer makes cleaning out the lead messy.
Here is the stalemate again on the gun debate.
A lack of knowledge of guns from people on the left is always so obvious.
A "legal" AK 47 will only be a single shot weapon. You pull the trigger once, and one round is discharged. It is the same with all hunting rifles, target shooting rifles etc. An ILLEGAL AK 47 will have its automatic feature still intact. SO, a legal AK 47 functions the same as a standard rifle. You want to ban and make illegal AK 47s with the automatic feature. Now, guess what? They ARE illegal and have been for decades.
Also, there are no longer any such things as bazookas. That was a World War II weapon. I could talk about the current hand-held rocket launchers used in the military, but guess what? It is illegal to have one of those. It is also illegal to have a grenade.
When someone says "Nobody should own and AK 47" My side says "I can and should be able to own a legal AK 47. If for no other reason other than I'm a citizen who follows the laws, pays taxes and does my job. The government has no reason to tell me what legal products I can own."
So, another stalemate on the gun issue.
I don't need a lot of knowledge to know a death penalty is hipocritical. To kill someone to prove killing is wrong either from the Government or by an individual is simply wrong and unethical. My only 2 rules in life that I won't break for anyone is do not harm and be honest.
In order to kill someone, you break those two rules easily. What in this world can you do worst than kill someone. There is many more efficient ways to protect yourself than guns, like intelligence. Military intelligence is not intelligent nor is an AK 47 being a military rifle, not for citizens at all.
I think you are right that the knee-jerk reaction is not productive. It's impossible to keep somebody who is intent on killing from killing.
Perhaps one way we could draw some better conclusions is to study the issue and have data. Oh wait, the NRA opposes all of that science/data stuff.
Are we down to simply making illegal any weapon that can be converted into a semi-automatic or automatic weapon? Or does the purchasing of such legal weapons need to be different than purchasing a weapon that cannot be converted?
Or do we simply need to enforce existing laws better? (which would take more tax dollars)
I like the idea of red flag laws. However, in the state where I live, Colorado, many are pushing back to the point that law enforcement officials won't even enforce the law. So one might say the idea is nice, but not practical.
I think red flag laws should be deemed as unconstitutional. A person is accused of something by the government but not given due process to state their case in a court of law. Any red flag law should involve due process before taking a legal item from any citizen.
I don't have numbers, but strongly suspect that the vast majority of guns in the US, whether pistols or rifles (even a few shotguns) are semi-automatic.
There is no stalemate. There are only average Americans versus NRA gun fanatics who care more about guns than human life.
Speaking of our ignorance, does a Gen II AR-15 / M16 100 round dual drum magazine .223/5.56 with a reinforced feed fit into a .22 caliber Remington?
In case you forgot, these mass murderers love 40-, 60- and 100-round ammo drums for their "hunting rifles".
"Americans versus NRA gun fanatics who care more about guns than human life."
If your goal was to be provocative, you succeeded.
"Speaking of our ignorance, does a Gen II AR-15 / M16 100 round dual drum magazine .223/5.56 with a reinforced feed fit into a .22 caliber Remington?"
What in heavens name are you talking about?
I think this is a conversation between those who comprehend reality and those who are completely detached from it.
"A lack of knowledge of guns from people on the left is always so obvious."
You don't call that provocative?
Otherwise, you didn't answer my question because it shows the hypocrisy of gun fanatics.
An AR-15 with a 100-round drum is designed to kill people. It is an assault rifle.
The idea that semi auto isn't dangerous is just beyond absurd. Highly trained shooters can pull the trigger 20x in only 3 seconds.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/200 … nutes.html
"An AR-15 with a 100-round drum is designed to kill people. It is an assault rifle."
So? Bows and arrows are also designed to kill people. Should there be legislation that bans them? Try and ban crossbows. Good luck. Combat knives and bayonets are also designed to kill people, yet I know people who collect them and I also have them in my home.
"The idea that semi auto isn't dangerous is just beyond absurd. Highly trained shooters can pull the trigger 20x in only 3 seconds."
Never said they weren't dangerous. Ever hear of vehicular homicide? Maybe there should be legislation to ban the make and model of any vehicle used for vehicular homicide?
So a shooter can pull a trigger fast. I've been in shooting competitions where that was a good thing. There are combat shooting ranges that are quite fun and I don't see a problem with using a 100 round drum magazine on them.
I can't answer a question if there isn't one that makes sense.
Bow and arrow went out of style for warfare when the six shooter came in.
Now the AK 47, as long as we are always fighting, the wealthy walk away with the money because of it all the distraction with smoke and mirrors..
What doesn't make sense is thinking that an assault rifle with a 100-round clip is no more dangerous than a knife.
Some people simply love blood and violence. They get off on having weapons that can kill people in a flash.
I got mugged by three guys and a knife. I had skills to save my life.
Got my passport too.
Anyone of those maggots had a gun I would be screwed one way or another, probably dead because I don't bow down to bullies.
Any fool without a skill set can pull a trigger. I traveled the whole wide world only thing that makes me nervous is guns. Plus Authority kill more people than the public do.
I hope you never bring a knife to a gun fight.
Great example. I also have skills, and I know I'll have at least a 50% chance of winning against someone with a knife.
I'll have a 0% chance against someone with a gun.
Especially someone with an AR-15 and 100-round clip.
If you carried a gun, you would have a chance.
My 130 pound wife has no chance against a 230 pound punk with a knife.
But if she can reach a handgun that goes way up.
AR-15s should not be made illegal but they should be more restricted.
Its unfortunate that the focus is on the weapons.
The focus should be on the fact that the Orlando shooter was investigated multiple times by the FBI, but still allowed to purchase all the weapons and equipment required to commit mass murder, and the FBI never put a stop to it.
The focus should be on the fact that the Texas shooter, a Dishonorably Discharged violent criminal was able to commit multiple violent offenses and was still able to purchase weapons, when he should have been behind bars.
When violent criminals and those who espouse hate regularly are allowed to purchase weapons freely... that is where the problem lies.
You cannot defend your family from those intent on doing them harm with good wishes. And your skills to defend yourself from a knife won't do your wife any good when she is home alone against intruders breaking in.
Your more likely to kill someone you know with a gun. Than to kill that burglar, beside theift is not a capital punishment. Plus Killing someone causes part of your soul to die, ask the Vietnam vets, many are dead from suicide or homeless.
No matter your 250 pound or a wimp. If everyone carried a gun it would be like the wild West high noon(Jewish version).
I am a part-time private investigator and security supervisor. Their are countless better ways and safer to protect yourself and your family.
When disccusing about guns with many Americans it's certainly a different hypnotized blue pill of assume reality because most of the rest of the planet are not for guns.
AK 47 are used by military, police, security forces, revolutionaries, terrorists, criminals and civilians. AK47 is use in Marrijanna raids and police dress like US troops, some military RVs. One raid collected enough AK 47 to kill 14 million people. Only winners are lawyers, prison salvery and drug cartels. I talked on a military forum where they threaten my life then continue to talk about technological ways to kill poor people for their wealthy bastards.
Reg flags maybe have been use in every American war since Abe Lincoln Marsal law US corp was not put to rest.
Now red flags are spreading across America. So when dose the insanity stop?
Crankilicious, you seem to be basing your assault weapon opinion on appearances. If you looked at a souped-up mustang and a showroom floor Porshe, which one would you label as an unneeded too-powerful automobile?
If you took the scary-looking attributes off of an Ar-15 it would be just a semi-automatic rifle like so many others that are common hunting rifles.
There is no "need" determinant relative to AR-15's, there is only a perception of something. An incorrect perception. So bazookas and nukes aren't a valid part of the conversation.
To consider that point, you need only look at the current rules defining what is designated an assault rifle. They are all cosmetics, like; handgrips, barrel shrouds, etc. Not one, (excepting expanded magazines which are add-on components), have anything to do with firing capacity.
Buying an AK-47 is very, very difficult since it is a full-auto rifle and requires special permits...
An SKS on the other hand can be bought by the average citizen.
Semi automatic AK 47s are widely available.
And there is plenty of advice on how to convert a semi auto AK 47 to full auto.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=convert+ak47+ … amp;ia=web
Those are not AK-47's...just AK-47 style rifles...
Just like a AR-15 is not the same as a M-16...they look similar, but one is full-auto...the other is semi-auto....
And just about any gun can be modified to become full-auto...although that is illegal to do...as in...something a law abiding citizen wouldn't do.
Excellent point. There are .22 caliber rifles I know people use to hunt small game and look just as ominous as an M-16. They come with magazines, scopes and more.
I guess all of the companies that are selling AK-47s are lying about what they are selling.
Yet there are thousands of companies selling what they call AK-47s.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off& … amp;uact=5
CNN quite clearly realizes this too:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics … index.html
That was an unfortunate comment from Beto, that would hurt his chances at the nomination.
But, that was from Beto, not from the other Dem contenders.
Hey bud. I have heard more than one "source" that says it was a very calculated statement. And their logic makes sense - for Beto.
His statement was well received by most Democrats and extremely well received by activist/progressive Democrats. He is competing for the Democrat nomination, so it makes sense to go for that voter.
However, it should also be considered, (as many Democrat pundits are), that even if it worked to raise his profile with the voters that count, (to him), now, it will be a deal-breaker in a general election.
Given that, although I can see his logic, I agree with the Democrat analysts that worry about his statement's effect on all the other voters.
Bottom line, I think he blew it. I think he put Beto first with this Hail Mary comment.
Yes, I am a staunch Democrat, yet I am willing to address a middle ground between confiscating weapons and the current status quo.
Beto created alarm and brought unneeded controversy to an already contentious issue.
It was a grandstanding move to bring attention to himself. But, I require more than just a Robert Kennedy lookalike for my approval. In my opinion, he is inexperienced and untried relative to the challenge of the times.
I'm also a staunch Democrat. Guns are a part of America and it's not possible to confiscate them all nor should it. The idea of owning a gun for self-defense is built into this country. Even though I don't personally need to or want to own a gun, I respect those that feel they need one to defend themselves or to hunt or whatever. I would never advocate for the confiscation of guns.
However, when we veer off into the realm of weapons designed to inflict maximum damage, there's no need for human beings to own those. Where that line is, we can argue.
We are speaking the same lingo here, Crankalicious.
While we Dems can be all over the map on this issue, I am looking for middle road between outright confiscation and the current status quo which according to the Right, resort to prayer.
There is a vast chasm between the two. As a Democrat, for me neither extreme is acceptable. While the left and Right on this issue may never concur completely, a little give and take can bring us toward solutions at least not unacceptable to both.
I don't see a reason for anyone to have 100 round clips for any weapon whether for recreation or sport, for example. The difference between the minimum ability to defend oneself verses accessories that can only facilitate mass murder should not be so hard to distinguish.
What's sad is that the vast majority of gun owners hold a middle-of-the-road position on gun control and controlling automatic weapons. It's really only the NRA that stands in the way of sensible legislation.
Same as PrettyPanther: can you point to the constitutional phrase that gives you the authority to determine "need" in the phrase "shall not be abridged"?
Does that folding stock facilitate mass murders? The law uses it as a defining characteristic of an "assault rifle". How about that piece of tin, filled with holes, that surrounds the barrel - does that facilitate mass murders? Again, the law uses it as a defining characteristic.
It is just this kind of nonsense that gives the lie (for liberals as a group, not you specifically) to the idea that guns should not be confiscated. That and the utter refusal to provide hones, well reasoned, arguments rather than ones that are based on emotional outcries and fear.
As we know, the founding fathers did not write the law with automatic weapons in mind, so your argument applies to logic that did not exist at the time. If we are going strictly by the Constitution, perhaps the law should only apply to the weapons that existed at the time.
You have to know that automatic weapons are, and have been for a long time, already banned.
But they did not ban muzzle loaders in favor of blunderbusses or swords. They did not even ban cannon with grape or chain shot. The allowed every weapon known to man. Nor were they stupid enough to think that technology would never increase the deadliness of weapons.
This is not the action of men that believed in a right that was limited in any way.
Looking at your point of view, why ban automatic weapons?
Everything else is ok, why draw the line at fully automatic weapons?
Conservative believe these firearm based massacres are to be treated like a lighting strike , no point in trying to predict or control. Just say your prayers that it won't strike near you.
It is not realistic to believe that the founding fathers, even those with the greatest gift of foresight could conceive of a world far beyond ball and powder, single shot, muzzle loading, flintlock weapons.
That is why the Constitution has an amendment process to accommodate change for these men were smart enough to realize was inevitable. They could not possibly estimate in what direction the changes would come.
You don't have to be stupid not to be able to envision weapons of such firepower that a single man can massacre scores of people. Who would know about this in 1787?
When they wrote the Constitution, they considered the BEST weapons available at that time.
If AR-15s had been what they were using against the British, French, Spanish, etc. then that is what they would have been referring to.
Of course, an AR-15 is nothing compared to a Jet fighter, Tomahawk, Tank, or the wealth of weapons our enemies or even our government could bring to bear against people today.
That is why we have courts to interpret the Constitution, recognizing that this is the 21st century, not the 18th.
Conservatives mouths water over the fallacy that liberals want to take their guns, it is a obsession/compulsions sorts.
"Maximum" damage, or just "more"? Maximum would be a nuke or, given that few people can build one, perhaps just a plane loaded with explosives. Or you might lower the stakes even further; it could be a working tank or even the .50 cal machine gun from one.
But wherever you set that "maximum" damage it isn't going to be a simple, small caliber, rifle similar to the hunting guns we've used for a century. Not if you're honest, anyway.
I'm disappointed you are providing moral support and encouragement to gun extremists by promoting a minor comment by a minor politician.
You really misinterpreted that OP promisem.
Perhaps I am doing the same by commenting that a presidential candidate on a national stage declaring he will take your guns away, (see how easily the qualifiers are left off? - that was the point of my OP), which is a major statement - is not a minor comment by a minor politician.
You are probably in for a lot more disappointment.
No, I read your intent quite clearly. You have been consistently against any type of gun control as far back as I can remember.
O'Rourke has only a 1% support in the polls. His comments are meaningless except to anyone trying to take advantage of them for the sake of opposing gun control.
GA, has got to tell us, it ain't so. It certainly is not any other shade except red, having that viewpoint
My answer to promisem will also answer your question Cred. My OP wasn't about any type of gun control.
Do you agree with him that Beto is just a minor politician and his statement is meaningless?
Beto, in my opinion, is a lightweight. He is seen as a rising star, but has risen too fast lacking the experience to deal with the realities of
the World of Trump.
His voice is only prominent because he is among the contenders for the Democratic nomination.
His statement is not meaningless, but I would not give it too much heft, just as the Right asks me to ignore the ramblings of congressman Steve King of Iowa as not representing the rank and file GOP.
Oh No! I have to agree with your comment Cred. Except for the part about comparing Beto to King. King is, in my opinion, a minor politician. Beto is a nationally focused candidate for the presidency. That, again in my opinion, elevates him to a major figure in the Democrat Party Who's Who.
If he falls by the wayside he will be a minor figure, but at this stage of the game, he is a major national figure vying for the nomination of the Democrat Party that has survived the first couple of cuts. I don't see anything minor about that.
Funny, GA, I flash back to 2016 and here is this TV celebrity clown with no political experience, a coarse and crude manner in addition to a sordid background. Like a Chatty Cathy doll, you pull the string and hell knows what it would say next. I could not believe that this man, Trump, could be a viable candidate.
I am telling you that the rank and file of Democrats DO NOT want to confiscate guns, but want reasonable gun control that the Right won't even discuss.
And while I may differ with my ideological kindred over the particulars of this issue, I say that Beto misspoke and allowed himself to be used as a tool for the Right winger, presenting a frightening possibility for all law abiding gun owners. Beto is on the bottom rung of consideration, he and his opinion will pass.
This is a very interesting statement.
I agree with you, " THE RANK AND FILE OF THE DEMOCRATS" may not want to confiscate guns, they may not want to surrender the Nation's sovereignty to International institutions, they may not agree with open borders...
But the leaders of the Democratic Party do.
This IS what the Democratic Party now stands for, and they have been OPENLY stating it on stage, debate after debate.
These are UN policies that I believe are at the heart of the Democratic Platform, this is what the party will strive to instill nationally:
The Global Compact on Migration
The Agenda for Disarmament
The Strong Cities Network
The Biodiversity Treaty
The 2030 Agenda
Credence, please review my previous (and only) comment in this thread.
Lets recognize what the Democratic Party is, lets accept what they are saying, they are telling you what they believe... why try to ignore it and say they don't really mean it?
You think you read my intent clearly:
Where is that "intent" you read? I clearly stated "Regardless of how you feel about the issue of "assault " rifles"
And I clearly asked a question: "how do you think this will sit with non-progressive and anti-gun citizens?"
And from that, you clearly read my intent as anti-gun-control?
As for O'Ruarke's comments being meaningless, maybe Google can help with that determination:
Hell Yes we're going to take your guns away 408,000,000, results,
Take it look; it is easier than listing all of the headlines from major news outlets, major Net publishers, Senators, Democratic strategists and pundits, and even international publications like The Guardian and BBC.
There is also page after page of youtube compilations from major sources.
Those results don't look like his statement was meaningless or from a minor figure.
I think you are as wrong about that "minor and meaningless" as you were about my intent.
You are at least half-right about my stance on gun control. I have consistently been against useless and unproductive feel-good gun control proposals that would penalize millions of gun owners for the benefit of placating those "We gotta do something, anything." people.
But, this wasn't intended as another gun control thread, and you have made your view of Beto's statement clear. There just don't seem to be many public media, Party spokesmen, or politicians that agree with you.
Why are you so stridently arguing it is a meaningless statement from a minor politician?
I have already explained why your intent is clear. I also explained why O'Rourke is a minor politician, why also is one reason why it is a meaningless statement.
You are using Google incorrectly. You have to put the entire quote in quotes. Otherwise, it returns all possible results for every individual word. When I do it correctly, I get 112 results plus "omitted results" because they duplicate the same information.
If the entire world disagrees with me, why isn't it a major story on FoxNews.com?
But it is, of course, on Breitbart.
Why are you continually arguing against gun control? Is it because you are a Libertarian?
If you aren't arguing against gun control, please give two gun control policies you favor implementing.
What part of my participation in this thread is arguing against gun control?
But you are right about the Google search. When I put in the first OP quote, (not the second one which is the one I stated will be used by anti-gun control folks), there were only 284,000 results, but the major sources seemed the same.
Do two Fox stories within 24-36hrs. count as major?
Beto's AR-15 flip-flop: O'Rourke once vowed 'nobody' wants to seize guns
Beto O'Rourke goes all-in on gun control at Democratic presidential debate
*as a side note, CNN is talking about Beto's comment right now, and has had segments addressing it and the Democrat response several times already today. It does seem to be a hot topic.
Even though it is a deflection, (this is not a gun control thread), I will answer your gun control questions. I am against useless gun control. Not all gun control. I may seem to be continually arguing against gun control because the thoughts offered are relatively useless efforts.
As for gun control options I can support:
I can support banning bump stocks because I think it affects so few people that the price to placate the public demand for some action is acceptable.
I can support banning high-capacity magazines, for the same reason as bump stocks. To placate the demand for some action.
I can support closing the "Gun show" loophole because I think it is a hole in our background check system.
I can support requiring all Internet retail and gun show-type firearm sales to include background checks.
I do have some problems with the Universal background check concept, mostly as noted by a previous response from Wilderness, but also because it would require selling an old hunting rifle to your neighbor to go through the background check system.
Is that enough for you, or would you like to test me with some of your favorite gun control ideas?
So now maybe you can stop doing what you too frequently accuse others of doing--deflecting, and get back to addressing the issue of the OP. It wasn't intended, (and even stated such), to be a gun control issue, it was intended to be a party and populace perception issue.
I don't think the world agrees with you that it was a meaningless statement, (why are so many Democrat politicians and strategists talking about it), and as a candidate on the national stage vying for the Democrat party's presidential nomination I don't think Beto, at the moment, qualifies as just a minor politician.
But that part is just opinion, so you are welcome to yours just as I am to mine. And we can both think the other is wrong. We can only look for public discussion for confirmation of either opinion. At this point, the media doesn't seem to be agreeing with you.
Is it a case of: anyone foolish enough to believe liberals want to take all their guns away, wouldn't need to be convinced by a misquoted comment; and anyone who isn't, likely wouldn't be.
No Don, it is a case of how the Democratic party feels about the explosive potential of Beto's statement. His statement can easily be construed to support those "foolish" folks that believe Liberals want to take their guns away.
At least that is what the OP was about. As the responses show, apparently this is a very sensitive topic with Democrats.
As I have CNN on most of the time as I am at the computer, and I am almost constantly hearing segments about Beto's statement, I think it is fair to say this is a very hot topic right now. Even to the point of perception being more important than reality.
If this was a meaningless statement from a minor politician, why is it dominating the media?
I don't think it's meaningless, I'm just not convinced the concern being expressed is wholly warranted.
The opposition don't need someone to actually say something to claim it's true. Reality is no longer that important sadly. They would have claimed this is what liberals wanted regardless of O'Rourke's comment. I think all this does is make some opposition content editor's life marginally easier.
I understand there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth about it on the left, but I think it's an overreaction. People are sensitive to anything that can even be seen as damaging. I think all the "traffic" being heard about it is just jitters because of what's at stake in the coming election. Just my take of course.
"The opposition don't need someone to actually say something to claim it's true. Reality is no longer that important sadly. They would have claimed this is what liberals wanted regardless of O'Rourke's comment. I think all this does is make some opposition content editor's life marginally easier."
This is what I have been saying
I do like that the Democratic Candidates have essentially come out and said what they really are representing.
They want open borders and want to follow the U.N. mandates such as the Global Compact for Migration.
They want to provide Universal Healthcare for all, including non-citizens.
They want to confiscate all guns, starting with ARs, AKs, and their like.
They want to join the Paris Accord and create the Green New Deal.
At least they are being honest, and telling citizens where they are going. These points would hand over National Sovereignty to International bodies like the UN, IMF, WB, etc. they would essentially require the termination of a government based on the Constitution. We would be required to become a one party system in practice, a two party system in name only (something we had been essentially for the last quarter century anyways).
So I like it... let the people know what you really represent, where you are really taking the country, and let them accept it or reject it at the voting booth.
It seems context does not matter much, so I guess one could break his statement down to what they desire it to mean. I think Beto was very clear, and it is his agenda to take Ar-15s, your AK-47s. I must also say, and it is just my view... Gun control is one of the few things on the Dem's agenda's that is attractive to many on both sides of the aisle. Beto is not saying something others that are running have not also said. He is just saying it, very clearly. Not sure how his words have already been skewed due to his no-nonsense approach?
It could make it harder on gun control proponents to make their cases on sensible gun control. Beto's statement could be inflammatory to the second amenders and will have gun advocates seeing red. They will most likely adopt the twisted version of Beto's words - "Hell yes we're going to take your guns away." The NRA will pour ton's of cash into TV blurbs, that can be very deceptive.
Non-progressives, as a rule, don't care for change -: if it's not broke don't fix it. However, I think with all the problems with mass shoutings they may just agree with Beto? Times are changing...
The anti-gun advocates they espouse Beto's sentiment and would have been very pleased if Beto full out did say " "Hell yes we're going to take your guns away."
I hope new gun legislation does ban ownership of Ar-15s, your AK-47s. In my opinion, these are guns that were made for combat.
Finally some good news. YAAAHOOO less suicides and murder.
You don't needs these kinds of weapons for a war on deer, your car accidents with them is due to you invading their space like other poor countries. The only war US won ever was the US/ Mexicans war and the American natives due to six shooters and con games. Main reason for these too many guns in America is fear of the tyranny from their Government. Which will fullout never happen. It is the fear that owns you, not that wizard of OZ.
We hand out war weapons like Halloween candy all around the world without a single background check.and
in Charlie Wilson's war we put stinger surface-to-air missiles into the hands of eight-year-old mujahideen Afghan boys and trained them to be deadly accurate. we employed child soldiers to fight a proxy war for us.our military budget allows us to dump war weapons all around the world.I want some gun control too I want it to start abroad.
And the Americas were conquered with disease not a bullet.
So, he says that and then calls the FBI on someone who tweeted, basically, 'not without a fight'.
What a dweeb.
I think that the rabid anti-gun control people will claim Democrats want to take away all their guns, not because of what Beto said, but because that is what they always do.
Sure, they'll have their doctored soundbite, lying for the cause, but what's new? They've been doing that for years.
Beto is telling it like it is. Good for him. The pundits are not thinking about the millions of Americans who are fed up with the killing and the inaction.
Hey, you guys, why do we needlessly give the Right more red meat?
They are saying that the goal of the Left is to totally disarm them, but is that what we really want, or is it a common sense approach to gun control?
- Universal background checks: 97%
- Mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases: 83%
In other words, these two ideas have support by the majority of conservatives, liberals and moderates.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi … gh-n849686
Promisem, I support that as well, but that is not the same as confiscating weapons. I still think Beto misspoke with his words as they will be played and replayed by a rabid right and NRA.
I think it would be hard to make the case that Beto "misspoke." His statement was very clear. And he is not the first Democrat to propose this idea.
But I do think you are right that he has handed the NRA a gift. As for the "rabid Right," do you think they are the only ones that own semi-auto weapons? Do you think that no Democrats own semi-automatic guns?
GA, of course Democrats own semi autos, but only the Right will take Beto's words and use them politically against Democrats in general, is that not right?
Of course, that is right. You wouldn't expect the Democrats to use one of their own to beat-up on themselves, would you? Nor would you, (I expect), not do the same if a Conservative handed you such a gift.
However, as can already be seen by publicized comments, a lot of Democrats are lamenting Beto's words as not representative of their position.
The Democrats can't have it both ways. "Yeah buts . . . " aren't going to cut it on this issue.
"However, as can already be seen by publicized comments, a lot of Democrats are lamenting Beto's words as not representative of their position."
I am one Democrat that is lamenting Beto's words.
I am not surprised Cred. I have seen the Purple in your positions, ;-)
And that is not a bad thing.
No, not purple at all, most Democrats are not supporting just confiscating weapons, but we are for reasonable gun control as opposed to the Right's position of stubborn resistance to any discussion of reasonable precautions.
So, I remain true blue.....
They have been saying for years that it is the goal of Democrats to disarm them, and they will continue to say it. Beto says he'd like to confiscate AK-47s and AR-15s. So what? He is running for president and that is his position. Other Democrats will have different ideas. Ignorant people will think Democrats want to take all their guns regardless of what Beto says or does not say.
Honestly, Beto's remarks are playing well with every woman I know, some of them Trump supporters. Why does anyone need an AR-15 any more than they need a tank.or bazooka?
The right-wing position on guns has been ridiculous for years and more and more people are seeing it.
I didn't catch that "shall not be abridged" referenced "need". Can you explain that connection better?
Got it. Then "need" is nothing but political rhetoric to convince a gullible public that something false is actually true. "Need", in connection with gun control, has nothing to do with reality.
Do you need a bazooka? Do you want one?
Yeah, let's quibble over the word "need" because that's super helpful.
Oh, it's not a quibble at all. It's being used as an excuse to ignore constitutional law or make it say something it most definitely does not. It isn't about a word; it's about control of others using any excuse possible as a reason.
That's not quibbling; it's a refusal to use irrational and irrelevant excuses as an honest reason to exert controls denied by law.
Blah, blah,blah. Same old nonsense we're all sick of. With that rationale, any restriction on guns would be unconstitutional. Why aren't you arguing that you, a law abiding gun owner, should be able to enter the White House with your AR-15? It's your constitutional right! It's a free country!
The Right offers only fervent prayer and some specious mental health monitoring as viable solutions to this crisis. They have NO credibility.
What responsible entity would deny the need for background checks and waiting periods?
You are absolutely correct: it's the same old nonsense we're all sick of. "I don't think you need this so you can't have it, even though you are guaranteed the right to have it by the highest law in the land".
The same argument that can be applied to anything we don't want others to have or do. You don't want it and don't have/do it; no one else can have it either. Cars, meat, lawns...whatever you don't want but others do. Nonsense, of course...until it is applied to guns. Whereupon it is used as a valid reason to violate constitutional law.
Depends. How long do they take (anything over a few days is out of line), what events will be used to deny the right to buy a gun (Will a DUI cause a rejection? Shoplifting?) and who will pay for it (the person wishing to exercise their rights or the one wishing to be "protected" from criminals)?
These are all, IMO, very important questions - important enough that a blanked approval of Universal Background Checks, without definition of what that means, is not possible.
OK, let's try it on a higher level. In general, do you support the concept of background checks?
Yes. It would be wonderful if we could keep guns (and knives and bats and poisons and explosives and, and, and) out of the hands of killers. It might even save a handful of lives each year (perhaps 1% of the total murdered) if we could keep guns away from them.
"These are all, IMO, very important questions - important enough that a blanked approval of Universal Background Checks, without definition of what that means, is not possible."
So, let's get a definition crafted and apply it rather than continue to make excuses for doing nothing
Wilderness is one of those who will nitpick every action to death so that nothing ever gets done.
Unfortunately, the #1 premise among liberals is that anyone wishing to exercise their guaranteed rights must pay to do so, and pay a very high price.
Try carrying that lawfully obtained AR-15 into the White House and tell me how your constitutional rights are being violated when you're arrested.
LOL. I never thought of it that way, but you make a great point.
Likewise, try carrying an AR-15 into the Senate and House galleries to watch them in session during a gun control debate.
Or into a Trump campaign rally...
Yes, common sense seems to be MIA in these people who think it's their constitutional right to carry whatever killing machine they want and any restriction is a violation of their rights.
More and more people are sick of the BS.
Can you carry a sword into the white house? A package of unknown powder? Even a large kitchen knife?
The point being that limiting your discourse to an AR-15 is rather silly, and can only be used to give an impression that isn't true. That you can carry anything you want...EXCEPT one of those awful assault weapons.
Ah, but there is no constitutional right to carry a sword, an unknown powder, or a kitchen knife. Guns are special. My point is that, if you believe banning AR-15s violates your constitutional rights, then other regulations already in place must already be violating your constitutional rights.
*shrug* Some probably are. Certainly the writers did not distinguish between the most deadly of "arms" and the least; the right to bear those arms "shall not be infringed". That cannot be read as anything but that no laws shall prevent the carrying of any arms we wish to.
So...the constitution is violated (in spite of SCOTUS judges that have made the political determination that it hasn't); is that a good reason to do it some more? Is it a good reason to include common hunting rifles, low powered ones at that, as the next step in the long running goal? Is the banning of the most deadly forms of guns (real "assault rifles, not fake ones given the same label) an acceptable excuse for going after the most popular, but far, far less capable or deadly, class of guns?
What does doing that, or even asking the question, say about long term goals? Does it give a good indication of where the end point will be; which guns will be allowed to remain? Or does applying a scary, but lying, label and going after a weapon that cannot begin to compare to the truly military guns in capability or deadliness that are already banned say something else?
Lol, the way our system works, it is constitutional if SCOTUS says it is. We don't make our laws according to The Wilderness Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Agreed. And I accept that. Does that mean SCOTUS never makes a call, and no judge ever votes, on party philosophical lines? We both know that to be untrue; we both know that our justices very often DO vote along ideological lines. That doesn't make their decision correct; it just makes it the law.
Absolutely. That is why I asked why you're not crying about your inability to carry your AR-15 into the White House. Obviously, that is a violation of your constitutional rights, according to The Wilderness Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Whereas the PP interpretation means that we are all limited to a stick, not to exceed 1/2" in diameter and 2' in length. It is a weapon, and that's all that is necessary to satisfy the thoughts of the writers.
I understand that, I just disagree with it. With, IMO, more than a desire to disarm the public as reasoning.
There you go again. That is not my interpretation at all. That is you, absurdly mischaracterizing my position to make It easier on yourself. I own guns and I intend to keep them. Would you please point out where I stated I would like to disarm the public?
Really? What would be your end point - at what point is a weapon OK for the general public to own? Specifically, what gun is reasonable? The one that kills 95% of the homicide victims in the country or the one that kills 3% of the victims? A different one?
Can you support that call logically and with reason?
Not going there with you. Been there, done that.
Everyone's line will be different. Obviously, you're okay with prohibiting law-abiding citizens from carrying their lawfully obtained AR-15s into the White House.
I'm okay with mandatory buybacks of AR-15s.
We're undoubtedly widely apart on this issue but neither of us wants to disarm all citizens of all guns. That would be unconstitutional.
So you won't set a limit that you would not go beyond in confiscating weapons. While you go after the gun that is least used to kill people and want them gone. Presumably because the terminology has raised fear in people that think it is something it is not.
I trust you understand why no one believes there will be an end until disarmament of all law abiding citizens is accomplished.
(I'm OK with carrying an AR-15 (or any other weapon, gun or not) into the white house as much as I'm OK with shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater. You have to know your statement was completely false; why then did you make it?)
I won't set a limit because smarter and more knowledgeable people than me will hash that out. Generally speaking, my personal opinion is that weapons designed for mass killing during war should be banned from personal ownership. I'm sure you'll pick that general statement apart. Have at it, but I have no interest in debating the fine points.
As far as carrying your AR-15 into the White House, I thought you responded that just because your rights have already been violated doesn't mean you favor further violating them? If I'm wrong, my bad.
"my personal opinion is that weapons designed for mass killing during war should be banned from personal ownership."
You're right - I'll pick at it. You know and I know that the "assault weapons" that are the current target of confiscation are not weapons of war. We both know that no military in the world uses them, and that they won't. They are simply not deadly enough.
But that's not a "fine point" at all: it is simply a statement of fact that happens to discredit the emotional argument raised by using terminology that is false-to-fact. It is made in an effort to remove purely emotional responses (notably fear) from the discussion and stick to reason and reality.
I fully agree that we need to virtually ban (which we have) weapons of war from private ownership. I just disagree that it is useful, in an honest discussion, to use terminology implying that ordinary guns are used in military situations and should therefore be banned as a result. It is a lie and has no place in honest discussion.
As I said, you and I both know these guns being labeled as "assault rifles" and presented as military grade guns are not. But thousands/millions of people have swallowed this lie and fully believe it; they are ignorant about guns and will accept whatever they're told in the heat of the moment after a school, or other, shooting that is highly emotional. It is a highly effective tactic, but it is dishonest in the extreme for it presents an outright lie and is (successfully) intended to convince a listener that that lie is, in fact, truthful.
A little foggy on the AR-15/white house, but no, that rights have been violated in the name of safety does not mean that any further violations, even for the same purpose, are automatically "right" or "OK" somehow. Any time we lose rights, and particularly if we're taking them from someone else rather than ourselves, a good deal of soul searching is in order and there must be definite, great, good being done relative to the harm in losing rights. Making it illegal to shout "FIRE" is one such thing, as is barring weapons in the white house. Both promote great good and virtually no cost. The same cannot be said for confiscating the most popular rifle in the country in return for a hope that homicides will fall 2%. Especially when, IMO, that hope is a forlorn one and has almost zero chance of coming true.
AR-15 style guns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. There is a reason for that.
Homicides in general are a different story, but you already know that.
"AR-15 style guns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. There is a reason for that. "
And that reason is? If we can figure that out we might actually make a dent in the death toll. But simply assuming that if we take away that weapon of choice of a crazy killer means he will simply decide not to kill after all is more than a little shortsighted. IMO.
A homicide is a homicide when it comes to statistics and numbers. It doesn't matter if one dies or 50; it is still a homicide. But it is true that we're ignoring the truly massive number of single homicides in concentrating on only mass murders. Not smart, IMO, but hey - if the only way we can get attention to a cause is to raise emotions over it then that's what we'll do. And we'll ignore the 5,000 simple homicides in our efforts to stop the 200 from "assault weapons of war" because nothing will happen unless we scare people with lies.
Easy answer. AR-15s are good for killing a lot of people quickly. That's why they are called ASSAULT RIFLES.
I get tired of answering his silly questions.
I see it as a great chance to educate gun fanatics. For example, so many of them don't know the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle.
So we are doing the world a great favor by lifting them from the darkness, even if it's only one small step at a time.
As an opportunity to educate folks about the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle, what would you say about this comparison image from Double Scorpion's post:
Source: Double Scorpion post
*Text is part of image
It's more silly NRA propaganda designed to confuse the issue.
The Ruger Mini 14 is a semi-automatic assault rifle designed for military, police and civilian use and based on the original WWII carbine.
Or maybe the WWII carbine isn't an assault rifle?
It's also a joke to use an outdated definition about assault rifles to compare the two.
What I can see is that both have 20-round clips -- plenty to kill much more than just a deer.
It's enough to kill 1 deer and 19 people because 1+19 = 20.
Hi promisem, relative to the "out-dated definition," here is an excerpt from Feinstein's more recent, 2013, definition:
“(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
“(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
“(i) A pistol grip.
“(ii) A forward grip.
“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
“(v) A barrel shroud.
“(vi) A threaded barrel.
“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."
There doesn't seem to be enough difference to quibble about.
Using your WWII Carbine example, (M-14), it would seem that any semi-automatic weapon would qualify as an assault rifle. Do you agree? Do you think most folks would look at a picture of that Carbine and identify it as an assault rifle in the same sense they would identify an image of the Black Ruger Mini-14 as an assault rifle?
Also, Ruger says this about the concept of the birth of the Mini-14; "The Mini-14 exemplifies the overall business ethos of Bill Ruger which was to make simple and affordable firearms that borrowed design details from past firearms, bringing them to market using economically viable investment castings and leaving out fine fit and finish details that would dictate a higher price point.
The Mini-14 was a working man's rifle, pure and simple."
It's an NRA ploy designed to confuse and deceive average Americans who want better gun control.
It's meant to stop new policies that the vast majority of Americans want, such as waiting periods and universal background checks.
That s how I view it, too, but I don't view GA as the type to use those tactics so I am hoping he will wxplain, for himself, the point he is trying to make with that post.
In that case, I hope he also will say that he supports waiting periods and universal background checks.
Since this thread has been turned into another anti-gun control debate, and since you asked, I will explain.
When an argument is based on deception and misinformation, it cannot be a valid argument. If we are to have a serious gun control debate it should be based on facts and reality, not perceptions and falsehoods.
As has already been stated here, the public has been deceived into thinking rifles like the AR-15, (and the Black Ruger Mini-14), are military assault rifles, that they are rifles intended only for battlefield killing situations. That is not true.
The Mini-14 is a good example of this. The original version was intended as a Ranch rifle for varmint-shooting, (or other small game). Although a .223 round can be lethal to humans, it is still a small caliber round, smaller than the ammo the military uses in their true assault rifles.
The illustration clearly shows that no function capacity or performance enhancements were made to turn the Mini-14 into an "assault" rifle. The changes were market-driven, (because they are perceived as bigger and badder), cosmetic changes. So deeming it a military assault weapon is not correct.
I believe that if the Black Mini-14 is to be termed an assault rifle, then the Ranch Mini-14 should also be called an assault rifle. And if that is the case, then the only reason the Ranch Mini-14 is an assault rifle is because it is a semi-automatic and it has a detachable magazine.
If that logic is valid, then there can only be three reasons to want to ban these weapons; because they look scary, because they are semi-automatics, or because they are the choice of most mass shooters.
The first two reasons are true, but the third is not. Yet the majority of gun control arguments that propose banning these weapons are based on the first reason, (I haven't heard any arguments using the justification that they are semi-automatics), using the false claims and deception that they are military assault weapons that only belong in the hands of the military on the battlefield.
So, if you, (generic), are not willing to be truthful that you want to ban Ar-15s because they are scary looking semi-automatics, and you claim not to want to ban a Ranch rifle, (which is also a semi-automatic), then who is really using ploys and deception to validate their argument?
These "assault" weapons only look like military assault weapons. They do not have the same power or capabilities, yet the public has been deceived into believing they are military assault weapons that have no place off of the battlefield.
I believe a truthful argument would say they want to ban these weapons either because they look like a military assault weapon or because they have semi-automatic capabilities and a detachable magazine.
Why don't gun control advocates say these are the reasons for wanting to ban them? (of course, that is a rhetorical question)
Was the data with the image factual? Was the data in my response factual?
I say the answer to both is yes, which means the deceptive ploy isn't the work of the NRA.
It was directed at promisem's education point about the difference between what is being called an "assault" rifle and a hunting rifle.
As can be seen, by this example the difference is cosmetic.
Right. So, how is that relevant to the discussion of gun control? Let's say that particular rifle ends up falling within the definition of "assault rifle" in future legislation. Would that be a catastrophe for hunters? Would they have plenty of other perfectly good options for killing their game?
I, of course, am ignorant about guns, hence my silly questions. ;-)
If it, (the brown wood stock Ruger Ranch Mini-14), did become designated as an assault rifle, it could only be because it is a semi-automatic, or because it is a semi-automatic with a detachable clip.
Which means your question about hunters would be whether losing all semi-automatic rifles would be a catastrophe for them. I think you would get a resounding yes to that question.
Q: Estimated guns in america
A: The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms. This amounts to "120.5 firearms for every 100 residents."
Q: Estimated Gun Owners in America
A: In 2018, about 43 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in possession. Firearms command a higher degree of cultural significance in the United States than any other country in the world.
Based on these numbers I conclude that there will likely be no significant change to gun laws in our lifetimes. Trying to disarm over 40% of the population is something that could not be attained peacefully unless done in small increments and over the course of a generation or two.
"Firearms command a higher degree of cultural significance in the United States than any other country in the world."
Ken, why do think that is true, is that advantageous?
It may have something to do with the wild west, only a couple of generations behind us, when people were responsible for their own safety.
Or it might have something to do with the vast stretches of open land, facilitating hunting.
Or it might have to do with an innate distrust of government, where people do not trust their government to care for them rather than doing it themselves.
There are likely many reasons, and these are only guesses and possibilities. But advantageous? Only time will tell - if we are invaded (beyond unarmed people crossing the border) or if government decides to eliminate people (as we've seen done all over the world) then it is definitely advantageous. Of course, guns are also useful for providing meat, for protection from criminals, for entertainment, etc.
Thanks for the input, Wilderness, I forget of the vast frontier faced by early settlers where firearms were needed for food and protection.
I have to wonder if circumstances were similar in either Canada or Australia, for example. Nations today that was carved from vast frontiers, could their connection to the British commonwealth make for a more genteel view of things regarding firearms today, relative to the US?
This inherent suspicion of government for example...
It's easy to forget when we didn't go through it ourselves. But my grand mother was the first family to settle in the little valley they chose, where both protection and hunting were absolutely necessary. And that philosophy has been passed down even though we don't really realize how much of we picked up from parents and grandparents.
I suspect it does give rise to a difference between European and American (or Canadian) attitudes. Not sure about the Aussies; I'm not familiar with their history. And I'm also pretty sure that the long term relationship with government, even from a thousand years ago, has made a difference as well. Hundreds of years ago, as I understand it, Brits were getting "help" from government to make do in their daily lives - something that is pretty new in the US.
I'm sorry, but we both know better than that. They are called assault rifles because it is a military term and makes it sound as if they are military grade. It is quite disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise; they have been termed "military" since the word came into common usage for something that looks like, but isn't, an automatic weapon similar to what the military DOES use.
For shame. Is there no bounds to what the anti-gun crowd will say?
That explanation, Wilderness? People are more sophisticated than you give them credit for.
Apparently not. From a lady that absolutely knows better:
"Generally speaking, my personal opinion is that weapons designed for mass killing during war should be banned from personal ownership." (Discussion on the AR-15)
https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/345 … ost4095101
Lol, yes, this is what you do. Ignore the larger point in favor of quibbling over where the line is drawn. I already stated it is for people with more knowledge and expertise than me to set the standards. But, of course, you gloss over that. Your MO is to nitpick and find fault so as to avoid any forward move at all.
For shame? Look in the mirror. The majority of Americans have long moved past your lame, NRA-fueled positions.
Are there no bounds to how much gun extremists will mangle logic and the English language?
If a gun is designed to kill people, and it kills a lot of people in a matter of minutes, it is an assault rifle.
It says a lot about you when you are in the 3% of the population that opposes universal background checks.
It also says a lot when you are fine with felons and mentally ill people having guns.
Talk about shameful.
Holy cow! You own guns! Does your husband know? Now I understand why he changed parties.
Lol, yes, he bought most of them for me. I have even gone out shooting since I went legally blind. THAT should scare you!
That's rather comical: I am not a gun owner and haven't been since I left Oregon and quit hunting 40 years ago. I'm not even legally blind, though the eyesight is not what it used to be.
I can still hit a man in the chest at 30 feet. After my vision worsened this last time, we bought this:
https://www.remington.com/other-product … 870-tac-14
Yep, that will definitely do the trick. Looks like an assault gun to me.
But, wilderness, now you are making your point of view the standard of what is correct, isn't that a bit arrogant?
I don't care of the law of government control land when it come to guns. No-one is allowed in my tiny house community with a gun. A gun is a serious threat to our community.
Most reasonable. What is your plan when a traveler does so anyway? Will you politely ask him to leave, as he steals your car or empties your granary? Will you threaten him with the pillow from your couch?
You have to know that crime WILL enter your village sometime, and that it WILL be armed. It may take a decade but it WILL happen, and if you advertise that no weapons are in your village it will happen sooner.
What is your plan when it comes?
Part time I am an investigator and security supervisor for past 11 years.
Noboby has been harm ever during watch. The same will happen with my tiny houses community. Because I am world class at what I do, mostly art and building.
Ignorant people? That seems a bit harsh. Particularly when it only takes a little digging to find other prominent Democrat leaders saying the same thing.
All their guns? Who?
"Ignorant people will think Democrats want to take all their guns..."
He's doing that thing the right-wing gun nuts do, which is flat-out state that banning some guns or, in this caee, confiscating some guns, is taking away all guns.
I'm so over that crap, as are a growing number of Amercans.
No he isn't "doing that thing the right-wing gun nuts do."
Here is what he did do:
He asked a question:
"Regardless of how you feel about the issue of "assault " rifles, how do you think this will sit with non-progressive and anti-gun citizens?"
The point of the OP was to the reaction of Democrats. I think most of the Democrats I have seen making media statements is one answer to that question.
Of course, you can prove your statement by quoting where I did what you claim I did; ". . . that thing the right-wing gun nuts do, which is flat-out state that banning some guns or, in this case, confiscating some guns, is taking away all guns."
You don't think that is how Beto's statement will be heard across the nation?
Follow the point of the OP IslandMom. It wasn't a pro or con point, it was about how the statement will be used and heard by the masses.
Yes. That's how the GOP will use it.
But that wasn't the point of your answer to PP.
You are right, it wasn't. I disagree with her broad "ignorant" application.
From the tone of her and promisem's responses, it appears Beto's statement has struck a nerve. Or maybe it was my point that he has handed the anti-gun control crowd a gift.
Either way, to call an entire category of folks ignorant because they don't agree with you doesn't seem like a winning bid to me.
Excuse me, you are mischaracterizing my stance. I am saying that those who believe Democrats want to take all their guns are ignorant. Why? Because it has never been a stated position of the Demoratic party, at least in modern times (I don't know of any time this is true but I am covering my butt here) to take away all guns.
You are excused. I understand what you are saying, and so far I have been unsuccessful finding any salacious quotes to contradict you, but . . .
"We want to take all your guns" is a very real perception by many gun advocates. It may be a misperception, but it is still a real perception. And I would be very hesitant to call any that have that perception ignorant.
As one CNN pundit described it; They see almost any gun control measure as a sort of Trojan Horse, just a foot in the door that will allow them to push for the next step. First, it is assault-style weapons, then it is all semi-automatics, (which is really all an AR-15 is), then ...
So from that perspective, whether well-grounded or just fearfully speculative, I think your "ignorant" classification is off-base.
Consider how many other slippery-slope instances we could refer to: Snowden and the Patriot Act, the recent outrageous abortion law controversies, etc.
No Sandy, based on our history, I would not call such folks ignorant. l can think of a couple of other adjectives, but ignorant isn't one of them.
Not buying' it. I'm tired so my short response is I don't buy your excusing people who believe something that is flat-out false. And the biggest reason they believe that nonsense is they've been brainwashed and lied to by the NRA. Forty years ago, this erroneous and fanatical belief was not common. It is only prevalent now because of a concerted, money-fueled, years-long effort by the NRA to scare people. If that's not ignorant, I don't know what is.
"From the tone of her and promisem's responses, it appears Beto's statement has struck a nerve."
It is more accurate to say that you have leaped on Beto's statement as an opportunity to encourage opponents of gun control including yourself.
Come on promisem, why has this discussion of Beto's statement got your back up?
I 'lept onto" Beto's statement because of the firestorm I saw it igniting in the Democrat party. It had nothing to do with gun control issues, (as you have so quickly deflected to).
There is no mischaracterization, there is only your deflection, (oh lordy, now I am sounding like you).
I included a qualifying statement in the OP that was intended to keep this from being a yet another gun control thread, but, from your very first response that is what you have turned it into.
THE OP WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE A GUN CONTROL STATEMENT. IT WAS INTENDED TO BE A DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECT OF BETO'S STATEMENT ON THE DEMOCRAT PARTY.
And I think I can refer to the wording of the OP to confirm that statement. So tell me promisem, who has really deflected in their responses?
Here is your first one:
There were 20+ comments, (prior to yours), that were discussing Beto's statement until you came in with your "gun extemists" comment.
What do you want to call this response bud, deflection, distortion, mischaracterization?
It will be heard across the nation only by anti gun control people who try to shout it to anyone who will listen.
For that reason, and because of your past comments opposing gun control, the OP is a pro point.
Right-wing gun nuts have always said that Democrats want to take all their guns, and yes, they will dishonestly use Beto's statement to continue lying, and, yes, ignorant people will buy into it.
Yes, anyone who thinks Democrats want to take all their guns is ignorant.
UN AGENDA FOR DISARMAMENT ( a good read see link below)
2030 Agenda for Disarmament
https://unchronicle.un.org/article/adva … evelopment
Disarmament and Youth
And I could go on.
Obama supported these agendas with Executive Orders. Had Clinton won the election she would have carried on with this work, and fast tracked much more.
Trump reversed all such Executive Orders, he undid regulations, and walked away from the Paris Accord and TPP, undoing decades of work toward a different America.
I have no problems with politicians supporting and touting what is essentially 2030 agenda policies, so long as they are upfront and honest about it. Run on it, put it in the Party platform, and tell the American people this is what you want to do.
So I say kudos to these politicians that have stood up there and said openly they want open borders, they want universal healthcare for all, they want to confiscate weapons... its great, let the American people decide if they want it, and if they do, so be it.
What I despise, is when they feed a bunch of lies to the people, and then try to force these things through Executive Orders, and treaties and agreements that the people have no say in.
They have been saying for years that it is the goal of Democrats to disarm them, and they will continue to say it. Beto says he'd like to confiscate AK-47s and AR-15s. So what? He is running for president and that is his position. Other Democrats will have different ideas. Ignorant people will think Democrats want to take all their guns regardless of what Beto says or does not say.
Honestly, Beto's remarks are playing well with every woman I know, some of them Trump supporters. Why does anyone need an AR-15 any more than they need a tank.or bazooka?
The right-wing position on guns has been ridiculous for years and more and more people are seeing it.
Ignorant people? That seems a bit harsh. Particularly when it only takes a little digging to find other prominent Democrat leaders saying the same thing.
Are you not saying that multiple prominent Democra leaders are saying they want to take away all guns? That's how I read it, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
If you think forcefully taking fire arms from law abiding citizens equates to'common sense' that's your first problem.
So, Am I missing something?
The discussion is based on a quote from Beto..."Hell Yes we're going to take your guns away, your Ar-15s, your AK-47s . . ."(OP)
And while I agree that the right is going to spin his answer, that (the OP quote) is not what he said.
He said: "Hell yes! We're going to take your AR-15s, your AK-47s..."
So the "future" video clip campaign "Hell yes! We're going to take your guns away" is going to be hard to make.
I came back to post the same thing after checking the footage.
I thought this was a direct quote: "Hell Yes we're going to take your guns away, your Ar-15s, your AK-47s . . ." It's not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR4mNrW … e&t=55
What gives GA?
The latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal survey finds that 89 percent of Americans favor expanded background checks for gun purchasers; 76 percent support "red flag" laws to identify dangerous persons and deny them guns, and 75 percent favor a voluntary buyback program in which the government would purchase fire
arms from current owners.
I would say voters will favor Beto for his stand. I Rather a teaser, pepper stray, rubber bullets or salt gun than any guns of death on impact, exspeically AKs15 and AKs47
No. skin off my nose, I don't allow guns near me or politicians.
IslandMom, I agree with your point, and your linked clip does tell the whole story, but, my OP point was that is not the clip that is going to be promoted to anti-gun control folks, and that is not the clip the Democrat party is going to have to deal with.
They are going to have to cope with a sound bite: "Hell yes, we are going to take your guns away!"
The truth of that is already being validated by the discussions in the news. From the Right-wing sources that are playing that truncated quote, to the Left-wing supporters that are scrambling to say this is not the position of the Democrat party.
The proof is that the full Beto quote is the position of the Democrat party, but the truncated quote is not. So why are the spokespeople addressing the truncated quote if the OP point is not correct?
"What gives" is that the point of the OP was what quote will be used. As predicted by the OP, the quote has already been truncated, in the news reporting, from the full quote:
"Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore!"
To the OP's first quote:
"Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47 "
To the predicted quote that will be promoted by anti-gun control interests:
"Hell yes we're going to take away your guns."
Obviously the last quote isn't accurate, but it is in line, subjectively, with the first quote. And I think, as was the point of the OP, that it is the last quote that will be used. And it is close enough to Beto's comment to carry its weight with the general populace.
For all that may find fault with the OP's portrayal of the quote, what I see as validation of its point is the all day long discussion on CNN and other major news outlets. It is almost all they are talking about on CNN, and station after station has Democrat spokespeople on air explaining this is not the Democrat position.
Why would they need to do that if the point of the OP was not correct?
Yes, the NRA and other anti-gun control people will lie about what Beto said. Who will believe them? Those who already believe Democrats want to take all their guns because they've been lied to for years and lack either the motivation or the common sense to know the truth.
I feel confident in saying nobody has changed their view on this topic. It's the same arguments.
I do have a question.
I don't have a problem with universal background checks IF conceal carry permits are honored by all states. Right now, even having had a conceal carry permit for several years, I can't take a gun into other states. New York, Illinois, California, Minnesota, Maryland and others, will arrest me if I have a gun on my person in that state, even though my state has issued me a conceal carry permit. Funny, I think those are the states where you would really need a gun on your person, but that is another topic for another day.
How would you feel about requiring ALL states to honor the conceal carry permit of any state? I would like to travel in every state with my gun and not worry about being arrested and put in jail because that state doesn't honor my state's conceal carry permit laws.
What do you think? I think it would be fair.
It would make sense to have a nationwide stardard for gun checks and backgrounds.
I don't know anyone more worldwide adventurous than me. If I carried a gun on me all the time, I would have had it taken away a hundreds of times over. Plus killed a few time.
For me, can't imagine a purpose for a gun anytime, not yet anyways. The main reason is I can't imagine running out of idea to kill someone. Exspeically myself. Have not change my veiw since 8 years old where I threw my war toys away and man up over this insane mental illness.
I think a universal federal background check could solve that problem. I'm not up on how the laws vary by state, but if all states are doing the same background check, then I don't see a problem with your permit being valid n all 50 states.
I can tell you when this has been proposed, there are certain states who refused to give up their right to determine who can conceal and carry in their state.
So, that is a difficult issue. What do you say to a state who believes this infringes on their right to determine who in their state can conceal and carry a gun? New York, California, Minnesota and others want to have this right.
So, again, we have a stalemate on an important issue.
Yes, some may shoot their heads off, when they try to collect their guns.
Well....that's a sticky one, isn't it? As a liberal, I favor the federal government stepping in when states are, say, using their state laws to discriminate against a particular group. This is different, in that individual states are simply deciding for themselves how they want to regulate guns. As long as they are not violating discrimination laws or other federal laws, or the 2nd Amendment (which I assume would be determined by the courts), then I favor states being able to do that.
Sounds like the states that want the most control over its people are gung ho to have national laws supporting control but not so much when it comes time to compromise on the other end of the question.
Your argument is valid, but again, deters someone like me from supporting universal background checks. If my background check is "universal" I should be able to travel to any state with my conceal weapon permit. If you let the states maintain control, this won't be done and I won't see the reason for a "universal" background check.
Do you see how one should lead to the other?
I'm just curious. Why do you feel the need to carry a gun with you? I'm not disputing your right to do so. It's just, I've always lived in urban areas and just never even thought about it. I'd be most afraid of finding a reason to use it, honestly. There have certainly been times when I've been driving where I'd like to fire a weapon. And I've seen car accidents where, if the victim had a firearm in his car, I could imagine using it in a fit of rage.
So I'm genuinely just wondering.
I'm a person who was saved from a bad guy with a gun by a good guy with a gun. The bad guy had victims that night who weren't so lucky. I could go on, but, I feel better with it on me. Almost everyone where I live has a conceal carry permit. I know the consequences if you pull out your piece. It BETTER be for a good reason.
Interesting how the Beto commet has been a huge financial benefit to places that sell guns.
"One gun store owner in Tempe, Arizona, decided to capitalize on Robert
“Beto” O’Rourke’s pledge to “take your AR-15, your AK-47” at the third Democratic debate last week by running a promotion the next morning called “Beto Specials.”
“I saw the comments that he made, and I was kinda like, ‘You know what: the Hell with this guy,’” Alpha Dog Firearms Owner Matt Boggs told The HolloNet in an interview. "
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarko … f-n2553208
I love Ice cream and chocolate, NRA would sell a AK 47 like deserts to gun lovers. I know too much deserts will kill me faster than guns. Gun lovers tell me knifes or hammers can murder me as much as a gun, I say BS.
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the U.S. gun-related homicide rate is 25 times higher. Although it has half the population of the other 22 nations combined, the U.S. had 82 percent of all gun deaths, 90 percent of all women killed with guns, 91 percent of children under 14 and 92 percent of young people between ages 15 and 24 killed with guns.
You see, it's more of an American issue. To bring in more efficient killing machines like AK 47 is to simplified killing more Americans. Knifes and hammers have many more other uses other than for killing. Killing with them would be very personal, where with guns any fool can pull a trigger from much further away. Comparing guns to them, where guns only design to kill, is a horrible excuse just to kill more people.
I stumbled across a Canadian government source with some survey results that might add be food for thought regarding your early frontiers question.
Canada's overall gun ownership guesstimate is about 26% of all households. However, regarding the "frontier" aspect as a determinant, and, if the Yukon and Northwest Territories, today, might be considered similar environments to those early frontier days, then their estimated gun ownership rate of 67% might help answer your question.
Another number that might be relevant is the guesstimate for Ontario is only 15%. Seemingly an indicator that rural vs frontier vs high-density centers makes a difference in gun ownership and reasons for gun ownership.
It might be interesting to find a survey that looked at American gun ownership rates by similar "area" categories. I suspect it might be similar to Canada.
Here is the read: 2. Firearms Ownership in Canada
Yes, more hunters than hockey players in Canada. No fear of tyranny from the government especially with only 3 submarine and two of them in a amusement shopping mall.
These guns are registered and used mostly for hunting and protecting livestock. I train urban farmers better method like electronic fencing and bear stray works better on bears than guns. When Yukon and NWT with total population of under 100,000 is almost half the size of Canada with high density wildlife, makes sense for 67% with guns. The largest province in Canada is Ontario with 15% households have a gun.
Huge difference gun uses in the US, too many are used for man hunts and fear.
by strengthcourageme 6 years ago
I was just wondering everyone's thoughts on gun control, are you for or against?
by Cindy Vine 10 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
The shooting in Thousand Oaks is too close to home. I use to work in Thousand Oaks. Our thoughts and prayers are with you means nothing to those who lost loved ones. We are being attacked by domestic terrorism from within by mentally unstable people who have easy access to lethal weapons. Every...
by Don Bobbitt 5 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
by JustSimple Info 8 years ago
What do you think about gun control? Stricter or needs to be more lax?This issue always comes up during an unfortunate tragedy, I would like to know what people think. Keep it sensible and respectful please.
by Marcy Goodfleisch 3 years ago
Do you believe there should be tighter gun control laws?Should there be laws against selling or owning some types of guns? What do you think?
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|