Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Good. He will be prosecuted.

Beto has zero right to go to this man’s house and take his weapon. If he tried to do so, he, Beto, would be shot or prosecuted.

Beto has no right or authority to enter anyone’s home and take ANYTHING.

He’s the criminal for threatening to take people’s guns.

If he was president. And there was a ban on these weapons with a buyback provision, he would be following the law. Or more likely, the ATF would be enforcing the law.

"Buy back?"
The government did not sell these people their weapons to begin with. How can they "buy them back?"

Huh? You've never heard of gun buy-backs?

Either you've lived your entire life under a rock or you're disingenuous. I honestly don't know which.

Anonymous wrote:So the FBI is investigating a crime that would take place IF Beto were president? Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Ha! Haha! Ha! What a bunch of maroons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a gun store in Fairfax a few minutes ago and they are completely sold out of AR15s. I decided it was probably time to buy one while we can still get them, and they're already gone. The man at the store said there were people waiting in the parking lot when they opened this morning. He said one couple bought six, at a thousand dollars each.

What do you need an AR-15 for?

More concerningly, why 6???????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a gun store in Fairfax a few minutes ago and they are completely sold out of AR15s. I decided it was probably time to buy one while we can still get them, and they're already gone. The man at the store said there were people waiting in the parking lot when they opened this morning. He said one couple bought six, at a thousand dollars each.

The debate last night was the best to happen to that gun store owner since the latest school massacre, huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Good. He will be prosecuted.

Beto has zero right to go to this man’s house and take his weapon. If he tried to do so, he, Beto, would be shot or prosecuted.

Beto has no right or authority to enter anyone’s home and take ANYTHING.

He’s the criminal for threatening to take people’s guns.

If he was president. And there was a ban on these weapons with a buyback provision, he would be following the law. Or more likely, the ATF would be enforcing the law.

"Buy back?"
The government did not sell these people their weapons to begin with. How can they "buy them back?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Good. He will be prosecuted.

Beto has zero right to go to this man’s house and take his weapon. If he tried to do so, he, Beto, would be shot or prosecuted.

Beto has no right or authority to enter anyone’s home and take ANYTHING.

He’s the criminal for threatening to take people’s guns.

If he was president. And there was a ban on these weapons with a buyback provision, he would be following the law. Or more likely, the ATF would be enforcing the law.

"Buy back?"
The government did not sell these people their weapons to begin with. How can they "buy them back?"

Anonymous wrote:I went to a gun store in Fairfax a few minutes ago and they are completely sold out of AR15s. I decided it was probably time to buy one while we can still get them, and they're already gone. The man at the store said there were people waiting in the parking lot when they opened this morning. He said one couple bought six, at a thousand dollars each.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Good. He will be prosecuted.

Beto has zero right to go to this man’s house and take his weapon. If he tried to do so, he, Beto, would be shot or prosecuted.

Beto has no right or authority to enter anyone’s home and take ANYTHING.

He’s the criminal for threatening to take people’s guns.

If he was president. And there was a ban on these weapons with a buyback provision, he would be following the law. Or more likely, the ATF would be enforcing the law.

Anonymous wrote:Cold dead hands!

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Good. He will be prosecuted.

Beto has zero right to go to this man’s house and take his weapon. If he tried to do so, he, Beto, would be shot or prosecuted.

Beto has no right or authority to enter anyone’s home and take ANYTHING.

He’s the criminal for threatening to take people’s guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are vile and violent, part a million

https://www.france24.com/en/20190913-republican-threatens-beto-o-rourke-over-gun-confiscation-pledge

A Republican lawmaker from Texas issued a barely veiled threat against Beto O'Rourke after the Democrat presidential hopeful said he would seize assault rifles behind many mass shootings in the country.

"My AR is ready for you, Robert Francis," Texas state legislator Briscoe Cain tweeted after O'Rourke's pledge in the Democratic presidential debate late Thursday, using O'Rourke's given name.

Asked in the debate if he is for confiscating assault weapons -- one of which was used to kill 22 people at a Walmart store in his home town of El Paso, Texas on August 3 -- O'Rourke replied:

"I am, if it's a weapon that was designed to kill people on the battlefield."

"When we see that being used against children... 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."

After Cain's tweet, O'Rourke doubled down on his plan.

"This is a death threat, Representative. Clearly, you shouldn't own an AR-15?and neither should anyone else," he said on Twitter.

Well threatening to take private property and violate the bill of rights without due process is the definition of tyranny and is the very purpose the second amendment was meant to guard against.

Guns are regulateable. That's not tyranny. Sorry.

+1. We’ve had assault weapons bans in this country that have survived legal challenge. Seems like a Rep saying he wouldn’t follow the law. With violence.

Par for the course for a Republican, of course.