Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Firearm Related' started by Nemo, Oct 22, 2019.
Beto says so!
Geo. Michael says you gotta have faith.
I've wanted to have Faith for 20+ years. And having Hope would be nice, too.
What world does he live in
Biden tops all the polls today (and pretty far ahead of the next two). O'Rourke is 6th or 7th place, depending upon the poll.
Of course polls don't mean everything, but these "I will confiscate" statements are not helping him with Democrats.
I'm going to be blunt here and state that normal Democrats don't really want to confiscate, and a candidate like this turns them off. Most Democrats are in the "ban on future sales" camp for AR15s and do not understand why you own one, but will be willing to concede that they do not want to send a SWAT team to your house to get yours. Some small percentage of them would, of course, but that is not the dominant theme.
So why does he continue to make these statements? I guess once having said it, perhaps it becomes to difficult to backtrack even when you see the poll results?
I believe all Democrats would confiscate if they thought they could with no negative impact to their campaigns. Any time we give an inch, they want a mile.
They are mad at O'Rourke because he let the cat out of the bag too soon for them.
What is the saying? “50 +1 percent. Turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America!”
I think they’re past the point of even thinking in terms of guns particularly. It's a tribal thing they've latched on to as a thing to win to show they're in control.
I fear for they day they get 2 branches.
I'd love to play poker with this guy. Throwing down all his cards like that. I personally am the worst poker player, but I could clean up here.
You're being far to kind to the loyal opposition especially when a vast percentage of them willingly embrace socialistic/communistic ideologies.
Bebo just stated, openly and publicly, what a good portion of the commie democrat presidential wannabes really think. Some of the others, eg Kamala Harris, are letting it slip out also.
Half the country is Democrat. I am not just talking about the persons running for President. Outright confiscation of existing arms is a minority viewpoint, perhaps even a very tiny minority.
Let's hope you are right.
A tiny minority of all citizens who profess to be Democrats. A not-so-tiny and rapidly diminishing minority (for now) of national politicians who are Democrats.
I hate to defend Beto O'Rourke, but the truth is that if you ban "assault weapons" and forbid their sales at all stores, and over any internet sites (including parts and accessories that can be used to turn a regular gun into an assault gun)...
... and THEN confiscate them from law-abiding gun owners, with either a carrot (buy-back) or stick (felony prosecution) approach...
EVEN IF YOU DON'T IMMEDIATELY DISARM A SINGLE VIOLENT CRIMINAL TODAY, eventually those armed criminals will lose their guns, and the new law and recent gun confiscation will make it very difficult for them to find replacements.
Criminals will lose their existing guns in a variety of circumstances. Some will be confiscated by cops, parole officers, probation officers. Some, the bad guy will throw off a bridge when he thinks his parole officer is about to search his house and vehicle. Some will get lost or stolen from them, and only "some" (but not all) of them will end up in the hands of other equally-dangerous criminals. Some will be turned-in for coupons for Air Jordans and other athletic apparel. Some assault guns owned by criminals will break down and need repair, but they won't get repaired. Gunsmiths won't work on them and spare parts may be restricted.
In the long term, criminals will want assault weapons but will not easily find them. They won't just have to burglarize 3 houses and know that out of those 3, at least 1 will have a small gun collection featuring either an AR, or an AK, or both.
I'm not saying gun banning or confiscation is "worth it." I'm saying it can be done, and it can be pretty effective, if it's done on a national level, with no loopholes, no grandfather clause, and no selling spare parts used to build your own assault weapon in your garage.
I hate that you feel the need to.
I think that this is an often unspoken aspect of gun control. Gun owners typically respond to gun control ideas with the simple statement that there are 100's of millions of firearms in the US already. While that is true, new regulations that prohibited sales of firearms and parts, required confiscation with strong penalties for holdouts, etc. would eventually have an affect over time (multiple generations) to significantly reduce the volume of firearms and related firearm violence. As for reducing violence as a whole, that's a different story altogether.
The problem I see is it would take a couple of hundred years to actually reduce the amount of firearms available to the criminals. That is if it could even be done at all. IMHO criminals will always have them and will always have access to them.
A ban should be all inclusive. The police claim they need them because the public has them. Take them from the public and the need for the police to have them vanishes. Lets see how well that flies...
It "can be done" only if the "law abiding" are willing to go along, as O'Rourke assumes. I make no such assumptions, because I already know what my response would be to a federal "confiscation" law. I'd share it with you, but, well, you wouldn't like to hear it.
I just got back from Puerto rico where you are familiar what the laws are like. This happened 2 miles from me. Doesnt sound like handguns to me...
Full-auto grease guns are not hard to make. Is the government going to ban pipes and metal-working tools.Yeah some of the nice semi-autos may get swept up during confiscation, but that will trigger a frenzy of diy guns like you've never seen (and plenty of Mosin Nagants out there can be rather effective. People will be preparing for war, I'm afraid, if tyranny gets that far.