Beto - Hell Yes We're Going to Take Your Guns Away

Jump to Last Post 1-12 of 12 discussions (212 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 22 months ago

    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.

    GA

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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. ;-)

        GA

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Agree.

        2. DoubleScorpion profile image81
          DoubleScorpionposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          https://hubstatic.com/14680228.jpg

        3. Valeant profile image86
          Valeantposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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.



          https://hubstatic.com/14685707.png

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image77
            Castlepalomaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. aware profile image67
              awareposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Gutted a deer in the snow

              1. Castlepaloma profile image77
                Castlepalomaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                Oooouuueahhhck

          2. Readmikenow profile image97
            Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image77
              Castlepalomaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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.

            2. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  Anyone who thinks red flag laws should be unconstitutional are clueless about what happens when police have to respond to a mental health crisis.

                  You are proposing certain death for a lot more people.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

            3. profile image0
              promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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".

              1. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                "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.

                1. profile image0
                  promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  "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

                  1. Readmikenow profile image97
                    Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    "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.

                2. Castlepaloma profile image77
                  Castlepalomaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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?

      3. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          We can move onto automatic weapons, but I'm generally of the opinion that nobody needs one.

      4. DoubleScorpion profile image81
        DoubleScorpionposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Semi automatic AK 47s are widely available.

          https://www.atlanticfirearms.com/taxons/ak47-for-sale

          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

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
            DoubleScorpionposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Readmikenow profile image97
              Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. Castlepaloma profile image77
                Castlepalomaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                No wonder only 4% of the mammal weight mass on earth are wildlife. Worst than the fish finding radar and drag nets taking out 90% of the large fish from the oceans.

            2. profile image0
              promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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

    3. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      CNN quite clearly realizes this too:

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics … index.html

    4. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. crankalicious profile image94
                crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image89
                    Ken Burgessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                2. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              "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.

    5. profile image0
      promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      I'm disappointed you are providing moral support and encouragement to gun extremists by promoting a minor comment by a minor politician.

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

            GA, has got to tell us, it ain't so. It certainly is not any other shade except red, having that viewpoint

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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?

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

          2. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            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?

            GA

            1. profile image0
              promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                GA

    6. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. GA Anderson profile image93
        GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        GA

        1. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            That sounds like a reasonable "take."

            GA

          2. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            "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

      2. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        Exactly.

    7. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 22 months agoin reply to this



      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.

    8. Sharlee01 profile image83
      Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  2. Castlepaloma profile image77
    Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago

    Finally some good news. YAAAHOOO less suicides and murder.

  3. Castlepaloma profile image77
    Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago

    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.

    1. aware profile image67
      awareposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. aware profile image67
      awareposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      And the Americas were conquered with disease not a bullet.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image77
        Castlepalomaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        The top ways to die are mostly disease related. It is the big bang and fear of guns of a slave master who keep their sheep dogs and sheep inline.

  4. Live to Learn profile image78
    Live to Learnposted 22 months ago

    So, he says that and then calls the FBI on someone who tweeted, basically, 'not without a fight'.

    What a dweeb.

  5. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 22 months ago

    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.

    1. profile image0
      promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Well said!

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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?

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Support for:

          - 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

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. GA Anderson profile image93
              GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              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

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    "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.

        2. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            I didn't catch that "shall not be abridged" referenced "need".  Can you explain that connection better?

            1. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Extremist nonsense.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  Do you need a bazooka? Do you want one?

                  Yeah, let's quibble over the word "need" because that's super helpful. roll

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

          2. GA Anderson profile image93
            GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            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.

            GA

            1. IslandBites profile image90
              IslandBitesposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              All their guns? Who?

              "Ignorant people will think Democrats want to take all their guns..."

              1. profile image0
                PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image93
                  GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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."

                  GA

              2. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                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.

                GA

                1. IslandBites profile image90
                  IslandBitesposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes. That's how the GOP will use it.

                  But that wasn't the point of your answer to PP.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image93
                    GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                    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.

                    GA

                2. profile image0
                  promisemposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

                3. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                  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.

            2. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, anyone who thinks Democrats want to take all their guns is ignorant.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                Ken Burgessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                UN AGENDA FOR DISARMAMENT ( a good read see link below)

                https://www.un.org/disarmament/sg-agenda/en/

                2030 Agenda for Disarmament

                https://unchronicle.un.org/article/adva … evelopment

                Disarmament and Youth

                https://www.un.org/disarmament/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.

            3. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

              PRETTYPANTHER WROTE:
              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.

              GA WROTE:
              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image93
                GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

                You read it correctly. Now I have to back that up, don't I? I will get back to you.

                GA

        3. Live to Learn profile image78
          Live to Learnposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          If you think forcefully taking fire arms from law abiding citizens equates to'common sense' that's your first problem.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 22 months agoin reply to this

            Did you hear me, L to L?

            I said no such thing, read my past comments and come away with the correct position that I am taking. I DID not promote confiscating weapons, your interpretation and perspectives are of your own making...

  6. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 22 months ago

    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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vEnTjs2RV0

    1. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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?

    2. Castlepaloma profile image77
      Castlepalomaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

    3. GA Anderson profile image93
      GA Andersonposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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?

      GA

  7. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 22 months ago

    "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?

    GA

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

  8. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 22 months ago

    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.

    SO,

    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.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image77
      Castlepalomaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Readmikenow profile image97
        Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image77
          Castlepalomaposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, some may shoot their heads off, when they try to collect their guns.

        2. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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.

        3. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. Readmikenow profile image97
            Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

            PP,

            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?

    3. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Mike,

      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.

      1. Readmikenow profile image97
        Readmikenowposted 22 months agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 22 months agoin reply to this

          Wow. That is a very good reason.

  9. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 22 months ago

    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

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, it's easy to rile up certain people to get them to buy guns. The NRA is a master at this.

  10. Castlepaloma profile image77
    Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago

    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.[16] 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.

  11. GA Anderson profile image93
    GA Andersonposted 22 months ago

    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

    GA

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      Such a survey would be interesting.  Pretty sure you would find more guns, in general, in rural areas.  I'd also suspect that high density centers would lean towards pistols rather than long guns, while rural areas would be the opposite.

  12. Castlepaloma profile image77
    Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago

    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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)