Republican threatens Beto O'Rourke over gun confiscation pledge

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not only that, but I keep wondering about something else I keep hearing: all these people on this thread keep saying that modern rifles "are only made for killing huge numbers of people as quickly as possible"

If that's the case, why is there one in the trunk of literally every police car in America?


What huge groups of people do our police officers need to be equipped to kill as quickly as possible?!?!


Because I'm really puzzled about this one. And why are there different names for the same gun, depending on who's holding it?

Because the media would call an AR15 in *my* hands an "assault weapon".

But they call the exact SAME AR15 in a *police officer's* hands a "patrol carbine".


Same gun. Different verbiage, depending on who's holding it. One with a very negative connotation, the other with a very neutral one.

Anyone care to explain this?

First of all, I have never heard anyone use the term patrol carbine. I hear it referred to as an AR-15 regardless of who is carrying it.

If you want to know why cops often choose this gun then google it. There are many reasons and I’m not doing your homework for you. I will get you started though. One of the main reasons is that it has a greater chance of penetrating body armor. Those cops have to go through extensive training and pass tests to prove that they can handle such a powerful weapon. Then they have to demonstrate their skills at least once a year. So here’s a question for you. If highly trained and experienced law enforcement professionals have to prove they are qualified, why shouldn’t civilians need to do the same?

Most cops I know go to the range maybe half a dozen times a year, usually to practice right before their annual qualifying drill.

I go to the range at least twice a month, sometimes twice a week during competition season and in warm weather, if I can find the time.

In over ten years I've never met any law enforcement officer who could outshoot me, local, state or federal.

Just because it's part of your job to carry a gun doesn't mean you're proficient or some kind of expert. It just means that you've demonstrated you're capable of passing the absolute minimum standard for the job.

Why shouldn’t civilians need to pass that absolute minimum standard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would vote for him just for this. After all, R candidate is for violently taking land from Texans.

Actually eminent domain was created specifically to address this, so there'd be no need to violently take land away.

But thanks for checking in with your ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense.

What's with the e mojis? How old are you?

Here’s one for you cowboys:

That's silly. No pro closes their eye to bet a better focus...you use an eye blind. Silly emoji.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2020 is going to bring you another defeat. I will celebrate by buying another gun. You’ll be losing the sliver of what’s left of your mind.

Let's say Trump can't thread that needle (80k votes) again and gun control laws are passed. Will you obey the law? What controls would you follow or not? universal background checks? registration? mandatory buyback?

DP: As opposed to many Dems, Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do follow the law in peaceful ways.

I am pretty sure that in your scenario we would NOT see a Gunowners Matter "movement" rioting and inciting to violence across the land.

So almost all gun owners would obey the law? Even a mandatory buyback?

NJ just enacted a law six months ago that banned the possession of magazines over 10 rounds. Possession of even ONE magazine over 10 rounds is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in prison.

Residents of NJ were given 90 days to turn in all magazines over 10 rounds to the State Police.


Do you know how many were turned in?





None.


Not a single one.

Sounds like Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do NOT follow the law in peaceful ways.

On the contrary, a mass-act of nonviolent civil disobedience is THE MOST peaceful way to protest unconstitutional laws.

What are you going to do? Put all 5,000,000 NJ gun owners in jail?!?!

Who'd be left to do all the work?!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2020 is going to bring you another defeat. I will celebrate by buying another gun. You’ll be losing the sliver of what’s left of your mind.

Let's say Trump can't thread that needle (80k votes) again and gun control laws are passed. Will you obey the law? What controls would you follow or not? universal background checks? registration? mandatory buyback?

DP: As opposed to many Dems, Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do follow the law in peaceful ways.

I am pretty sure that in your scenario we would NOT see a Gunowners Matter "movement" rioting and inciting to violence across the land.

So almost all gun owners would obey the law? Even a mandatory buyback?

NJ just enacted a law six months ago that banned the possession of magazines over 10 rounds. Possession of even ONE magazine over 10 rounds is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in prison.

Residents of NJ were given 90 days to turn in all magazines over 10 rounds to the State Police.


Do you know how many were turned in?





None.


Not a single one.

Sounds like Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do NOT follow the law in peaceful ways.

On the contrary, a mass-act of nonviolent civil disobedience is THE MOST peaceful way to protest unconstitutional laws.

What are you going to do? Put all 5,000,000 NJ gun owners in jail?!?!

Who'd be left to do all the work?!?!

Criminals, felons. They shouldn’t have any guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not only that, but I keep wondering about something else I keep hearing: all these people on this thread keep saying that modern rifles "are only made for killing huge numbers of people as quickly as possible"

If that's the case, why is there one in the trunk of literally every police car in America?


What huge groups of people do our police officers need to be equipped to kill as quickly as possible?!?!


Because I'm really puzzled about this one. And why are there different names for the same gun, depending on who's holding it?

Because the media would call an AR15 in *my* hands an "assault weapon".

But they call the exact SAME AR15 in a *police officer's* hands a "patrol carbine".


Same gun. Different verbiage, depending on who's holding it. One with a very negative connotation, the other with a very neutral one.

Anyone care to explain this?

First of all, I have never heard anyone use the term patrol carbine. I hear it referred to as an AR-15 regardless of who is carrying it.

If you want to know why cops often choose this gun then google it. There are many reasons and I’m not doing your homework for you. I will get you started though. One of the main reasons is that it has a greater chance of penetrating body armor. Those cops have to go through extensive training and pass tests to prove that they can handle such a powerful weapon. Then they have to demonstrate their skills at least once a year. So here’s a question for you. If highly trained and experienced law enforcement professionals have to prove they are qualified, why shouldn’t civilians need to do the same?

Most cops I know go to the range maybe half a dozen times a year, usually to practice right before their annual qualifying drill.

I go to the range at least twice a month, sometimes twice a week during competition season and in warm weather, if I can find the time.

In over ten years I've never met any law enforcement officer who could outshoot me, local, state or federal.

Just because it's part of your job to carry a gun doesn't mean you're proficient or some kind of expert. It just means that you've demonstrated you're capable of passing the absolute minimum standard for the job.

Why shouldn’t civilians need to pass that absolute minimum standard?

I have no issue with that. On one condition: that we put in place a similar minimum standard for voting. Just simple test, with a minimum score required. It would consist of the same questions on a US Citizenship exam. A failed test means no voting for you, until you retake the test after the next presidential election.

You can have your qualification test for guns if I can have mine for voting.


Deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2020 is going to bring you another defeat. I will celebrate by buying another gun. You’ll be losing the sliver of what’s left of your mind.

Let's say Trump can't thread that needle (80k votes) again and gun control laws are passed. Will you obey the law? What controls would you follow or not? universal background checks? registration? mandatory buyback?

DP: As opposed to many Dems, Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do follow the law in peaceful ways.

I am pretty sure that in your scenario we would NOT see a Gunowners Matter "movement" rioting and inciting to violence across the land.

So almost all gun owners would obey the law? Even a mandatory buyback?

NJ just enacted a law six months ago that banned the possession of magazines over 10 rounds. Possession of even ONE magazine over 10 rounds is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in prison.

Residents of NJ were given 90 days to turn in all magazines over 10 rounds to the State Police.


Do you know how many were turned in?





None.


Not a single one.

Sounds like Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do NOT follow the law in peaceful ways.

On the contrary, a mass-act of nonviolent civil disobedience is THE MOST peaceful way to protest unconstitutional laws.

What are you going to do? Put all 5,000,000 NJ gun owners in jail?!?!

Who'd be left to do all the work?!?!

Criminals, felons. They shouldn’t have any guns.

When laws are nullified, they're useless. Most new gun control measures post sandy hook have been nullified. NY SAFE act, nullified, CT's magazine registration, nullified. The list goes on and on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not only that, but I keep wondering about something else I keep hearing: all these people on this thread keep saying that modern rifles "are only made for killing huge numbers of people as quickly as possible"

If that's the case, why is there one in the trunk of literally every police car in America?


What huge groups of people do our police officers need to be equipped to kill as quickly as possible?!?!


Because I'm really puzzled about this one. And why are there different names for the same gun, depending on who's holding it?

Because the media would call an AR15 in *my* hands an "assault weapon".

But they call the exact SAME AR15 in a *police officer's* hands a "patrol carbine".


Same gun. Different verbiage, depending on who's holding it. One with a very negative connotation, the other with a very neutral one.

Anyone care to explain this?

First of all, I have never heard anyone use the term patrol carbine. I hear it referred to as an AR-15 regardless of who is carrying it.

If you want to know why cops often choose this gun then google it. There are many reasons and I’m not doing your homework for you. I will get you started though. One of the main reasons is that it has a greater chance of penetrating body armor. Those cops have to go through extensive training and pass tests to prove that they can handle such a powerful weapon. Then they have to demonstrate their skills at least once a year. So here’s a question for you. If highly trained and experienced law enforcement professionals have to prove they are qualified, why shouldn’t civilians need to do the same?

Most cops I know go to the range maybe half a dozen times a year, usually to practice right before their annual qualifying drill.

I go to the range at least twice a month, sometimes twice a week during competition season and in warm weather, if I can find the time.

In over ten years I've never met any law enforcement officer who could outshoot me, local, state or federal.

Just because it's part of your job to carry a gun doesn't mean you're proficient or some kind of expert. It just means that you've demonstrated you're capable of passing the absolute minimum standard for the job.

Why shouldn’t civilians need to pass that absolute minimum standard?

If you're referring to CCW I do think there should be a proficiency standard rather than a safety standard. Mandatory time spent on a simulator system would be a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Biden wouldn't pass the most basic cognitive health test.

Yet he's running for President I hear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2020 is going to bring you another defeat. I will celebrate by buying another gun. You’ll be losing the sliver of what’s left of your mind.

Let's say Trump can't thread that needle (80k votes) again and gun control laws are passed. Will you obey the law? What controls would you follow or not? universal background checks? registration? mandatory buyback?

Background checks? Doesn't bother me, I already get them when I buy a new gun.

Registration? Will not comply. The only thing registration is designed to accomplish is create a list of people who own guns for later confiscation. Fortunately, the dems have prematurely ejaculated over the whole confiscation thing, and have charged headlong past even talking about registration, and have gone straight to the confiscation-talk. So registration is sort of a moot point anyway now, since dems have already gone ahead to the next step.

Confiscation (what you call a "buyback")? ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT COMPLY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.



So there's some honest answers for ya.

Uh. How about tracking down straw purchases and cutting down the number of illegally-owned guns on the street?

PP here.

I'm totally fine with both of those.

But they won't be very popular with gun control proponents because neither provision will take guns away from the non-criminal public at large. And that's the real goal, as we've now seen.

So if registration helps with this would you still oppose it?

DP

History has shown that registration is used for confiscation. Its occurred here in the USA and abroad.

The way to deal with straw purchases is actually prosecuting them, and much stiffer penalties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden wouldn't pass the most basic cognitive health test.

Yet he's running for President I hear.

No worries. This guy has a few minutes to squeak out a letter for him.
“His health is excellent, especially his mental health.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not only that, but I keep wondering about something else I keep hearing: all these people on this thread keep saying that modern rifles "are only made for killing huge numbers of people as quickly as possible"

If that's the case, why is there one in the trunk of literally every police car in America?


What huge groups of people do our police officers need to be equipped to kill as quickly as possible?!?!


Because I'm really puzzled about this one. And why are there different names for the same gun, depending on who's holding it?

Because the media would call an AR15 in *my* hands an "assault weapon".

But they call the exact SAME AR15 in a *police officer's* hands a "patrol carbine".


Same gun. Different verbiage, depending on who's holding it. One with a very negative connotation, the other with a very neutral one.

Anyone care to explain this?

First of all, I have never heard anyone use the term patrol carbine. I hear it referred to as an AR-15 regardless of who is carrying it.

If you want to know why cops often choose this gun then google it. There are many reasons and I’m not doing your homework for you. I will get you started though. One of the main reasons is that it has a greater chance of penetrating body armor. Those cops have to go through extensive training and pass tests to prove that they can handle such a powerful weapon. Then they have to demonstrate their skills at least once a year. So here’s a question for you. If highly trained and experienced law enforcement professionals have to prove they are qualified, why shouldn’t civilians need to do the same?

Most cops I know go to the range maybe half a dozen times a year, usually to practice right before their annual qualifying drill.

I go to the range at least twice a month, sometimes twice a week during competition season and in warm weather, if I can find the time.

In over ten years I've never met any law enforcement officer who could outshoot me, local, state or federal.

Just because it's part of your job to carry a gun doesn't mean you're proficient or some kind of expert. It just means that you've demonstrated you're capable of passing the absolute minimum standard for the job.

Why shouldn’t civilians need to pass that absolute minimum standard?

I have no issue with that. On one condition: that we put in place a similar minimum standard for voting. Just simple test, with a minimum score required. It would consist of the same questions on a US Citizenship exam. A failed test means no voting for you, until you retake the test after the next presidential election.

You can have your qualification test for guns if I can have mine for voting.


Deal?

Start a new thread if you want to discuss voting policies. This is about guns.

If a gun owner is law-abiding & responsible surely they can pass some minimum standard.

“the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2020 is going to bring you another defeat. I will celebrate by buying another gun. You’ll be losing the sliver of what’s left of your mind.

Let's say Trump can't thread that needle (80k votes) again and gun control laws are passed. Will you obey the law? What controls would you follow or not? universal background checks? registration? mandatory buyback?

DP: As opposed to many Dems, Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do follow the law in peaceful ways.

I am pretty sure that in your scenario we would NOT see a Gunowners Matter "movement" rioting and inciting to violence across the land.

So almost all gun owners would obey the law? Even a mandatory buyback?

NJ just enacted a law six months ago that banned the possession of magazines over 10 rounds. Possession of even ONE magazine over 10 rounds is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in prison.

Residents of NJ were given 90 days to turn in all magazines over 10 rounds to the State Police.


Do you know how many were turned in?





None.


Not a single one.

Sounds like Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do NOT follow the law in peaceful ways.

On the contrary, a mass-act of nonviolent civil disobedience is THE MOST peaceful way to protest unconstitutional laws.

What are you going to do? Put all 5,000,000 NJ gun owners in jail?!?!

Who'd be left to do all the work?!?!

Criminals, felons. They shouldn’t have any guns.

When laws are nullified, they're useless. Most new gun control measures post sandy hook have been nullified. NY SAFE act, nullified, CT's magazine registration, nullified. The list goes on and on.

The law is the law.

You sound like a criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2020 is going to bring you another defeat. I will celebrate by buying another gun. You’ll be losing the sliver of what’s left of your mind.

Let's say Trump can't thread that needle (80k votes) again and gun control laws are passed. Will you obey the law? What controls would you follow or not? universal background checks? registration? mandatory buyback?

DP: As opposed to many Dems, Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do follow the law in peaceful ways.

I am pretty sure that in your scenario we would NOT see a Gunowners Matter "movement" rioting and inciting to violence across the land.

So almost all gun owners would obey the law? Even a mandatory buyback?

NJ just enacted a law six months ago that banned the possession of magazines over 10 rounds. Possession of even ONE magazine over 10 rounds is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in prison.

Residents of NJ were given 90 days to turn in all magazines over 10 rounds to the State Police.


Do you know how many were turned in?





None.


Not a single one.

Sounds like Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do NOT follow the law in peaceful ways.

On the contrary, a mass-act of nonviolent civil disobedience is THE MOST peaceful way to protest unconstitutional laws.

What are you going to do? Put all 5,000,000 NJ gun owners in jail?!?!

Who'd be left to do all the work?!?!

Criminals, felons. They shouldn’t have any guns.

When laws are nullified, they're useless. Most new gun control measures post sandy hook have been nullified. NY SAFE act, nullified, CT's magazine registration, nullified. The list goes on and on.

The law is the law.

You sound like a criminal.

When massive numbers of people do not comply with the law and the government doesn't enforce it, said law is meaningless and rendered null.

Guess what, most blasphemy laws are still on the books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:2020 is going to bring you another defeat. I will celebrate by buying another gun. You’ll be losing the sliver of what’s left of your mind.

Let's say Trump can't thread that needle (80k votes) again and gun control laws are passed. Will you obey the law? What controls would you follow or not? universal background checks? registration? mandatory buyback?

DP: As opposed to many Dems, Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do follow the law in peaceful ways.

I am pretty sure that in your scenario we would NOT see a Gunowners Matter "movement" rioting and inciting to violence across the land.

So almost all gun owners would obey the law? Even a mandatory buyback?

NJ just enacted a law six months ago that banned the possession of magazines over 10 rounds. Possession of even ONE magazine over 10 rounds is a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years in prison.

Residents of NJ were given 90 days to turn in all magazines over 10 rounds to the State Police.


Do you know how many were turned in?





None.


Not a single one.

Sounds like Rs and Is and responsible Ds with guns do NOT follow the law in peaceful ways.

On the contrary, a mass-act of nonviolent civil disobedience is THE MOST peaceful way to protest unconstitutional laws.

What are you going to do? Put all 5,000,000 NJ gun owners in jail?!?!

Who'd be left to do all the work?!?!

Criminals, felons. They shouldn’t have any guns.

When laws are nullified, they're useless. Most new gun control measures post sandy hook have been nullified. NY SAFE act, nullified, CT's magazine registration, nullified. The list goes on and on.

The law is the law.

You sound like a criminal.

A
So then you agree that Rosa Parks was a criminal then? Because the law required her to sit in the back of the bus and give up her seat for a white man.

So then you agree that Norma McCorvey was a criminal then? Because the law prohibited her from having a choice about her own body.

So then you agree that the patrons of the Stonewall in NYC were criminals then? Because the law made homosexuality illegal.

So you agree that it was lawful that Dr Charles Drew was required to bleed to death then? Because the law clearly stated that blacks could not be treated in white hospitals.




As you said - "the law is the law"..... therefore, all those people are criminals according to you.




And now we know what you are, too.

[Anonymous]

Interesting move by Colt

https://apnews.com/fbdf5e5f6d654332bbedfaffe3663154

Free market capitalism.