Republican threatens Beto O'Rourke over gun confiscation pledge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt they were “threats.” Promises more likely.

He referred to Beto as "Robert Francis" as in an assasinated Kennedy. The FBI is investigating.

That’s Beto’s real name, dolt. And no where does it say the FBI is investigating. It is being reported Beto cried like a snowflake baby to the FBI after telling everyone he was going to take their guns and someone told him come and get it. I don’t think it’s a crime to tell someone if they are going to break into your home and illegally take your stuff you will defend it.

Oh please. Yes, it is his name but you know that he pointed out that they share a name as a veiled threat. You don’t honestly think he called a guy by his first and middle name for the heck of it. Get your head out of the sand.

Telling Americans you're going to seize their guns on national TV isn't a veiled threat. It's an overt one.

And it needs to be responded to in-kind. That Texas legislator is merely saying what millions of rifle owners are thinking.


Don't want trouble? Don't make trouble.

You are unhinged and this is the proof. Some one passing a law to take your gun is threatening you? You don't know what a real threat to your life looks like. You sound soft.

I've endured things you didn't even know existed. I'm many things, mostly good, and maybe a few bad. But soft isn't one of them.

19-Delta

Behind enemy lines you can carry anything you want. Here in our neighborhood, you're the last person I want with an arsenal.

+1

Leave the war on the battlefield. Don't bring it home. That's what Al Qaeda wants.

We have been attacked by Al Qaeda on our own soil and now threatened by ISIS. They’ve brought the war to us.

You are completely ridiculous to feel that we should continue to allow weapons that take innocent lives by the dozens just because you have some weird notion that your guns are necessary and capable of protecting you from ISIS. Can you please explain the scenario you are imagining in which you will need to shoot ISIS? Are they going to show up at your doorstep? Sorry to tell you this, but if they decide to target you, they aren’t going to knock on your door and then shoot you when you answer. They are more likely to blow up your house or place of work.

Seriously, you MAGA gun nuts need to give up on this fantasy you have of saving the day with an old west style gun duel. Not gonna happen, gunslinger.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt they were “threats.” Promises more likely.

He referred to Beto as "Robert Francis" as in an assasinated Kennedy. The FBI is investigating.

That’s Beto’s real name, dolt. And no where does it say the FBI is investigating. It is being reported Beto cried like a snowflake baby to the FBI after telling everyone he was going to take their guns and someone told him come and get it. I don’t think it’s a crime to tell someone if they are going to break into your home and illegally take your stuff you will defend it.

Oh please. Yes, it is his name but you know that he pointed out that they share a name as a veiled threat. You don’t honestly think he called a guy by his first and middle name for the heck of it. Get your head out of the sand.

Telling Americans you're going to seize their guns on national TV isn't a veiled threat. It's an overt one.

And it needs to be responded to in-kind. That Texas legislator is merely saying what millions of rifle owners are thinking.


Don't want trouble? Don't make trouble.

You are unhinged and this is the proof. Some one passing a law to take your gun is threatening you? You don't know what a real threat to your life looks like. You sound soft.

I've endured things you didn't even know existed. I'm many things, mostly good, and maybe a few bad. But soft isn't one of them.

19-Delta

Behind enemy lines you can carry anything you want. Here in our neighborhood, you're the last person I want with an arsenal.

+1

Leave the war on the battlefield. Don't bring it home. That's what Al Qaeda wants.

We have been attacked by Al Qaeda on our own soil and now threatened by ISIS. They’ve brought the war to us.

So you have an arsenal in your home because you are worried about a terrorist attack?

I don’t have an arsenal in my home as you are not talking to the same individual you were. I’m simply responding to the comment that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. Never forget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m just glad the democrats have finally succeeded in (inadvertently) trampling their tired, old “no one is going to take your guns” lie they’ve been trotting out every election season since the 90’s.


Now, the whole damn country knows that “democrat = gun confiscation”, and there’s no walking this one back or pretending it didn’t happen. This isn’t a fart in the elevator. You can’t unring this bell. Everyone heard it.

Granted, most gun owners have always known this, but there are indeed millions of trusting, gullible gun owners that took dems at their word when they heard them say in the past “no one is going to take your guns away”. Now all those millions know for sure exactly what dems want.


So I offer my sincere thanks to Beta O’dork, for finally wrecking the democrat lie we’ve been hearing for almost 30 years.

Listen to the raucous cheers that were given in response to O'Rourke's comment. No one should be surprised that Democrats really feel that way despite their claims otherwise.

Expect campaign ads that include Beto's comment. Scare tactics like that work.

It keeps escalating. Personally, I would have been good with some common-sense gun control laws after Sandy Hook.

But then you sick f#%ks decided you wanted to keep your arsenals more than you wanted to protect first graders. Given your complete lack of morality - demonstrated after each massacre (how many bump stocks did you buy after Vegas?) - you can’t be trusted. Any gun owner who values gun control is responsible enough to own guns though.

Screech all you want. Call me names, it's just noise to me. I know you hate me, and I just don't care. I'm armed, and you aren't going to change that.

Buh bye.

Yes, we know you don’t care. And you’re armed. And you would kill to keep your guns.

That’s why you no longer have a say in the matter. You’re irrational.

Remember the Holocaust. Things would have been different if Jews were armed. They would certainly have killed.

It is in extremely poor taste to compare gun control supporters to Nazis. Hitler actually loosened gun control laws to make it easier for Nazis to acquire guns. The disarming of Jews was unrelated to gun control laws. Jews were a very small portion of the population. Discrimination against them was rampant, and the Nazis were very popular. You can’t honestly think that things would have worked out better for the Jews if they had started shooting at the Nazis. Please explain in detail how it would have helped for this very small portion of the population to rise up against the popular Nazi party. It is absurd and irresponsible to suggest that gun control is to blame or even contributed to the Holocaust.

https://www.independent.org/store/book.asp?id=106

Enjoy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt they were “threats.” Promises more likely.

He referred to Beto as "Robert Francis" as in an assasinated Kennedy. The FBI is investigating.

That’s Beto’s real name, dolt. And no where does it say the FBI is investigating. It is being reported Beto cried like a snowflake baby to the FBI after telling everyone he was going to take their guns and someone told him come and get it. I don’t think it’s a crime to tell someone if they are going to break into your home and illegally take your stuff you will defend it.

Oh please. Yes, it is his name but you know that he pointed out that they share a name as a veiled threat. You don’t honestly think he called a guy by his first and middle name for the heck of it. Get your head out of the sand.

Telling Americans you're going to seize their guns on national TV isn't a veiled threat. It's an overt one.

And it needs to be responded to in-kind. That Texas legislator is merely saying what millions of rifle owners are thinking.


Don't want trouble? Don't make trouble.

You are unhinged and this is the proof. Some one passing a law to take your gun is threatening you? You don't know what a real threat to your life looks like. You sound soft.

I've endured things you didn't even know existed. I'm many things, mostly good, and maybe a few bad. But soft isn't one of them.

19-Delta

Behind enemy lines you can carry anything you want. Here in our neighborhood, you're the last person I want with an arsenal.

+1

Leave the war on the battlefield. Don't bring it home. That's what Al Qaeda wants.

We have been attacked by Al Qaeda on our own soil and now threatened by ISIS. They’ve brought the war to us.

So you have an arsenal in your home because you are worried about a terrorist attack?

I don’t have an arsenal in my home as you are not talking to the same individual you were. I’m simply responding to the comment that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. Never forget.

Does the threat of terrorist attacks justify a home arsenal?

What if those terrorists are almost all homegrown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Bunch of sick f*^ks who also stocked up after Sandy Hook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Bunch of sick f*^ks who also stocked up after Sandy Hook.

Beto is a loser. How can you take this clown seriously? He’s not just a clown, he’s the whole circus. He wrote “stories” about running children down and killing them with his car.

[Anonymous]

I can imagine if there were photos of Brett Kav peeing himself drunkenly how utterly DISGUSTED the libs would be. But good old Beto. He gets a pass for fleeing a DUI scene and his robbery arrest and his general loser-ness. He’s a useful dummy for the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can imagine if there were photos of Brett Kav peeing himself drunkenly how utterly DISGUSTED the libs would be. But good old Beto. He gets a pass for fleeing a DUI scene and his robbery arrest and his general loser-ness. He’s a useful dummy for the left.

Oh - do the MAGAs care about laws now? And ethics?

You are a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt they were “threats.” Promises more likely.

He referred to Beto as "Robert Francis" as in an assasinated Kennedy. The FBI is investigating.

That’s Beto’s real name, dolt. And no where does it say the FBI is investigating. It is being reported Beto cried like a snowflake baby to the FBI after telling everyone he was going to take their guns and someone told him come and get it. I don’t think it’s a crime to tell someone if they are going to break into your home and illegally take your stuff you will defend it.

Oh please. Yes, it is his name but you know that he pointed out that they share a name as a veiled threat. You don’t honestly think he called a guy by his first and middle name for the heck of it. Get your head out of the sand.

Telling Americans you're going to seize their guns on national TV isn't a veiled threat. It's an overt one.

And it needs to be responded to in-kind. That Texas legislator is merely saying what millions of rifle owners are thinking.


Don't want trouble? Don't make trouble.

You are unhinged and this is the proof. Some one passing a law to take your gun is threatening you? You don't know what a real threat to your life looks like. You sound soft.

I've endured things you didn't even know existed. I'm many things, mostly good, and maybe a few bad. But soft isn't one of them.

19-Delta

Behind enemy lines you can carry anything you want. Here in our neighborhood, you're the last person I want with an arsenal.

+1

Leave the war on the battlefield. Don't bring it home. That's what Al Qaeda wants.

We have been attacked by Al Qaeda on our own soil and now threatened by ISIS. They’ve brought the war to us.

So you have an arsenal in your home because you are worried about a terrorist attack?

I don’t have an arsenal in my home as you are not talking to the same individual you were. I’m simply responding to the comment that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. Never forget.

Does the threat of terrorist attacks justify a home arsenal?

What if those terrorists are almost all homegrown?

Why does Alyssa Milano have two weapons in her house? Because she’s more special than the average American? Why did Feinstein carry a gun? Because she’s more special than the Average American? The very people trying to restrict guns are the ones who own them, because they clearly feel, THEY are not the ‘crazy’ ones. So tell me. How will you determine who gets to have a gun? What criteria? Who decides? These are the REAL questions.

Again, my point about Al Qaeda was to correct the idiot who seemed to have forgotten that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. It’s important to understand that we were attacked on our home soil. It has nothing to do with having a home arsenal. I’m merely correcting the idiot who tried to revise history. You can continue to harp on it, but that’s all I was doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt they were “threats.” Promises more likely.

He referred to Beto as "Robert Francis" as in an assasinated Kennedy. The FBI is investigating.

That’s Beto’s real name, dolt. And no where does it say the FBI is investigating. It is being reported Beto cried like a snowflake baby to the FBI after telling everyone he was going to take their guns and someone told him come and get it. I don’t think it’s a crime to tell someone if they are going to break into your home and illegally take your stuff you will defend it.

Oh please. Yes, it is his name but you know that he pointed out that they share a name as a veiled threat. You don’t honestly think he called a guy by his first and middle name for the heck of it. Get your head out of the sand.

Telling Americans you're going to seize their guns on national TV isn't a veiled threat. It's an overt one.

And it needs to be responded to in-kind. That Texas legislator is merely saying what millions of rifle owners are thinking.


Don't want trouble? Don't make trouble.

You are unhinged and this is the proof. Some one passing a law to take your gun is threatening you? You don't know what a real threat to your life looks like. You sound soft.

I've endured things you didn't even know existed. I'm many things, mostly good, and maybe a few bad. But soft isn't one of them.

19-Delta

Behind enemy lines you can carry anything you want. Here in our neighborhood, you're the last person I want with an arsenal.

+1

Leave the war on the battlefield. Don't bring it home. That's what Al Qaeda wants.

We have been attacked by Al Qaeda on our own soil and now threatened by ISIS. They’ve brought the war to us.

So you have an arsenal in your home because you are worried about a terrorist attack?

I don’t have an arsenal in my home as you are not talking to the same individual you were. I’m simply responding to the comment that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. Never forget.

Does the threat of terrorist attacks justify a home arsenal?

What if those terrorists are almost all homegrown?

Why does Alyssa Milano have two weapons in her house? Because she’s more special than the average American? Why did Feinstein carry a gun? Because she’s more special than the Average American? The very people trying to restrict guns are the ones who own them, because they clearly feel, THEY are not the ‘crazy’ ones. So tell me. How will you determine who gets to have a gun? What criteria? Who decides? These are the REAL questions.

Again, my point about Al Qaeda was to correct the idiot who seemed to have forgotten that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. It’s important to understand that we were attacked on our home soil. It has nothing to do with having a home arsenal. I’m merely correcting the idiot who tried to revise history. You can continue to harp on it, but that’s all I was doing.

What "war"? You think there is an ongoing "war" here in the US? That requires people to have some kind of arsenal in their home?

p.s. anyone who would illegally keep their arsenal shouldn't have one. AKA no criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt they were “threats.” Promises more likely.

He referred to Beto as "Robert Francis" as in an assasinated Kennedy. The FBI is investigating.

That’s Beto’s real name, dolt. And no where does it say the FBI is investigating. It is being reported Beto cried like a snowflake baby to the FBI after telling everyone he was going to take their guns and someone told him come and get it. I don’t think it’s a crime to tell someone if they are going to break into your home and illegally take your stuff you will defend it.

Oh please. Yes, it is his name but you know that he pointed out that they share a name as a veiled threat. You don’t honestly think he called a guy by his first and middle name for the heck of it. Get your head out of the sand.

Telling Americans you're going to seize their guns on national TV isn't a veiled threat. It's an overt one.

And it needs to be responded to in-kind. That Texas legislator is merely saying what millions of rifle owners are thinking.


Don't want trouble? Don't make trouble.

You are unhinged and this is the proof. Some one passing a law to take your gun is threatening you? You don't know what a real threat to your life looks like. You sound soft.

I've endured things you didn't even know existed. I'm many things, mostly good, and maybe a few bad. But soft isn't one of them.

19-Delta

Behind enemy lines you can carry anything you want. Here in our neighborhood, you're the last person I want with an arsenal.

+1

Leave the war on the battlefield. Don't bring it home. That's what Al Qaeda wants.

We have been attacked by Al Qaeda on our own soil and now threatened by ISIS. They’ve brought the war to us.

So you have an arsenal in your home because you are worried about a terrorist attack?

I don’t have an arsenal in my home as you are not talking to the same individual you were. I’m simply responding to the comment that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. Never forget.

Does the threat of terrorist attacks justify a home arsenal?

What if those terrorists are almost all homegrown?

Why does Alyssa Milano have two weapons in her house? Because she’s more special than the average American? Why did Feinstein carry a gun? Because she’s more special than the Average American? The very people trying to restrict guns are the ones who own them, because they clearly feel, THEY are not the ‘crazy’ ones. So tell me. How will you determine who gets to have a gun? What criteria? Who decides? These are the REAL questions.

Again, my point about Al Qaeda was to correct the idiot who seemed to have forgotten that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. It’s important to understand that we were attacked on our home soil. It has nothing to do with having a home arsenal. I’m merely correcting the idiot who tried to revise history. You can continue to harp on it, but that’s all I was doing.

Yes. Lots of liberals own guns. This should be proof that gun control advocates are not anti-gun or pushing for a total confiscation.

Dh owns guns. He is in favor of universal background checks even though he knows the dui he got many years go could cause him to fail the background check. Human lives are more important to him than his guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I highly doubt they were “threats.” Promises more likely.

He referred to Beto as "Robert Francis" as in an assasinated Kennedy. The FBI is investigating.

That’s Beto’s real name, dolt. And no where does it say the FBI is investigating. It is being reported Beto cried like a snowflake baby to the FBI after telling everyone he was going to take their guns and someone told him come and get it. I don’t think it’s a crime to tell someone if they are going to break into your home and illegally take your stuff you will defend it.

Oh please. Yes, it is his name but you know that he pointed out that they share a name as a veiled threat. You don’t honestly think he called a guy by his first and middle name for the heck of it. Get your head out of the sand.

Telling Americans you're going to seize their guns on national TV isn't a veiled threat. It's an overt one.

And it needs to be responded to in-kind. That Texas legislator is merely saying what millions of rifle owners are thinking.


Don't want trouble? Don't make trouble.

You are unhinged and this is the proof. Some one passing a law to take your gun is threatening you? You don't know what a real threat to your life looks like. You sound soft.

I've endured things you didn't even know existed. I'm many things, mostly good, and maybe a few bad. But soft isn't one of them.

19-Delta

Behind enemy lines you can carry anything you want. Here in our neighborhood, you're the last person I want with an arsenal.

+1

Leave the war on the battlefield. Don't bring it home. That's what Al Qaeda wants.

We have been attacked by Al Qaeda on our own soil and now threatened by ISIS. They’ve brought the war to us.

So you have an arsenal in your home because you are worried about a terrorist attack?

I don’t have an arsenal in my home as you are not talking to the same individual you were. I’m simply responding to the comment that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. Never forget.

Does the threat of terrorist attacks justify a home arsenal?

What if those terrorists are almost all homegrown?

Why does Alyssa Milano have two weapons in her house? Because she’s more special than the average American? Why did Feinstein carry a gun? Because she’s more special than the Average American? The very people trying to restrict guns are the ones who own them, because they clearly feel, THEY are not the ‘crazy’ ones. So tell me. How will you determine who gets to have a gun? What criteria? Who decides? These are the REAL questions.

Again, my point about Al Qaeda was to correct the idiot who seemed to have forgotten that Al Qaeda already brought the war here. It’s important to understand that we were attacked on our home soil. It has nothing to do with having a home arsenal. I’m merely correcting the idiot who tried to revise history. You can continue to harp on it, but that’s all I was doing.

Yes. Lots of liberals own guns. This should be proof that gun control advocates are not anti-gun or pushing for a total confiscation.

Dh owns guns. He is in favor of universal background checks even though he knows the dui he got many years go could cause him to fail the background check. Human lives are more important to him than his guns.

He sounds responsible enough to own guns. Not some wild west 2A gun slinger who doesn't care about the law or other lives.

[Anonymous]

I considered selling my weapons “back” to the government, but after a background check and thorough investigation into the buyer, I determined the buyer has a history of violence and is mentally unstable. Big risk to everyone around it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I considered selling my weapons “back” to the government, but after a background check and thorough investigation into the buyer, I determined the buyer has a history of violence and is mentally unstable. Big risk to everyone around it.

Preach.