• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Republican lawmaker to Beto O'Rourke: 'My AR is ready for you'

TurtleDude said:
No, but pretending that criminal violence involving firearms is equally distributed in the USA is false
Click to expand...

So the solution is to get rid of the "unequal causes" of that violence is the answer, right?
 
TurtleDude said:
why do you think that 6% of the population causes over half the murders in the USA?
Click to expand...

Because those 100% of that 6% is WILLING to kill other people over trivial matters while only a much smaller percentage of the other 94% are?
 
akyron said:
FYI

There is no need for you to die on a long ago conquered hill.

He’s since confessed to both crimes.
Click to expand...

He admitted that he trespassed and that he drove after drinking.

He did NOT confess to any burglary.

He was never CONVICTED of either so that means that he is innocent (or it would if he were a "Republican" [whatever that means] as far as you are concerned). In fact if he were a "Republican" (whatever that means), to you it would mean that he is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
He admitted that he trespassed and that he drove after drinking.

He did NOT confess to any burglary.

He was never CONVICTED of either so that means that he is innocent (or it would if he were a "Republican" [whatever that means] as far as you are concerned). In fact if he were a "Republican" (whatever that means), to you it would mean that he is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**.
Click to expand...

Littering should be another charge. And he did threaten theft publicly.

Or did you miss the debate?

“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47"

What Will Happen to All Those Beto Signs?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
He admitted that he trespassed and that he drove after drinking.

He did NOT confess to any burglary.

He was never CONVICTED of either so that means that he is innocent (or it would if he were a "Republican" [whatever that means] as far as you are concerned). In fact if he were a "Republican" (whatever that means), to you it would mean that he is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T**.
Click to expand...

I will look forward to you noting to the TDS crowd that Kavanaugh is innocent as well
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
True, but that doesn't mean that they NEEDED that many rounds.



Different cultures, different terms for the same thing.



True, and the odds on you having multiple assailants such that your first 15 rounds that killed/disabled people weren't going to be enough are?

On the other hand, I would be in complete agreement that anyone who lived someplace where there was an actual and significant chance that they might be attacked by 40 or 50 people should be allowed to carry belt-fed fully automatic weapons and also to carry hand grenades. Would you say that (assuming such a situation did exist in the US) that would provide 100% of the rational argument that would be necessary to allow everyone to carry belt-fed fully automatic weapons and hand grenades when they went to the 7-11?
Click to expand...

unless you can absolutely guarantee that a private citizen will never face more than two assailants, then it is stupid to pretend they will never need a 15 or 20 round magazine.

Since you cannot make that guarantee, then there is no reason to deny a lawful citizen 15-20-30 round magazines
 
Lovebug said:
Please don't forget that not just the bad bad people on the other side own weapons.
Click to expand...

I am a lifetime multiple gun owner. I have never threatened anyone with a gun. So I am not sure why you are implying that gun owners regularly threaten others.
 
VanceMack said:
You have gun owners dicks on your brain. You shouldnt be offended by my pointing it out. And dont worry...you arent alone. A lot of anti-gun types also have gun owners dicks on THEIR minds as well (but I get it...YOU are a 'gun owner') And yet...there you are...thinking about gun owners dicks. Just like them.

Just so we are clear...I'm NOT offended by you thinking about my dick...just a little creeped out by it. But thats your right and you should be proud that when you think of gun owners...you go straight to thoughts about their dicks.
Click to expand...

You have now talked dicks almost 20 times after I made one insult about a congressman. Like I say, textbook projection dude.. Every post you had in response to it mentions dicks like half a dozen times dude...
 
Tipsy O'Rourke already exposed what the Democrat agenda how like he takes his Jack Daniels: straight. He told the whole country like how he told his wife to $#!t, except he didn't lie about it. If he's president, he'll run over anyone who doesn't give them up, like that guy he hit with his truck in his early years... I have a whole bunch of O'Rourke jokes, so I can do this all day.

The bottom line is this, the government wants us to disarm so they can take over. That's how an oppressive regime starts, making it's citizens that they swore to protect defenseless. See, these so-called moderates and brainwashed Leftists want to put all sorts of regulations on guns because believe that all this gun violence will magically go away. I saw the Cruz/Milano debate with those 2 other guys. they were not reasonable nor living in reality because here's the truth:

No matter what regulations you put on guns, criminals and crazy people will find a way to get them and they'll find ways to have high capacity magazines. Murder has been around since the beginning of time and it's going to be here, whether or not guns are still around. The number one area we need to look at is the home because that's where it all starts. Number two is mental health. Those are the two areas we need to look at if we want to reduce violence in our country. Taking away our protection is the dumbest and most idiotic thing you could ever do. Limiting the amount of bullets and the type of magazines is also very stupid. It solves NOTHING. Australia has had shooting during their gun ban. It's just their media NEVER reported on it internationally. All these other proposals are useless as well. If you have half a brain, armed citizens are the equalizer against not only criminals and violent animals but also, more importantly, the government. So to you people that think more gun regulations will solve all our shooting problems, keep living your fantasy because it'll never happen.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
You have now talked dicks almost 20 times after I made one insult about a congressman. Like I say, textbook projection dude.. Every post you had in response to it mentions dicks like half a dozen times dude...
Click to expand...
That should turn you on...right? I mean...that HAS to be the reason you are still going on about this...you just LIKE seeing all those 'dicks'...which is the first thing that you blurted out in this thread when you started talking about gun owners. I get that you think of mens dicks when you think of gun owners.

And projection? My dood...its ONLY YOU and your fellow like minded gun banners that AUTOMATICALLY rush to thinking about gun owners dicks when you start thinking about gun owners. Ive NEVER seen a gun owner make that connection...but I have seen a BUNCH of the anti-gun types...well...and YOU of course because you 'own guns'...that just almost dreamily gush over gun owners dicks when they start talking about guns.

Holy...hold on....that WAS you...right? That WAS you that rushed to make the comparison of a gun to a dick...right? I want to make sure I'm not getting you folk crossed up. Ohmiheck...did I? Sheesh...if I did I owe you an apology. Hold on...I'll check.


NOPE...sure enough, there you were...jumping right out there and into a thread...in fact the first thing OUT of your mouth was gun owners penises. Hey...is that IRONIC? First thing OUT....first thing.....

Well...anyway...Like I said man...I dont judge you for thinking about my dick. You be you.
 
VanceMack said:
That should turn you on...right? I mean...that HAS to be the reason you are still going on about this...you just LIKE seeing all those 'dicks'...which is the first thing that you blurted out in this thread when you started talking about gun owners. I get that you think of mens dicks when you think of gun owners.

And projection? My dood...its ONLY YOU and your fellow like minded gun banners that AUTOMATICALLY rush to thinking about gun owners dicks when you start thinking about gun owners. Ive NEVER seen a gun owner make that connection...but I have seen a BUNCH of the anti-gun types...well...and YOU of course because you 'own guns'...that just almost dreamily gush over gun owners dicks when they start talking about guns.

Holy...hold on....that WAS you...right? That WAS you that rushed to make the comparison of a gun to a dick...right? I want to make sure I'm not getting you folk crossed up. Ohmiheck...did I? Sheesh...if I did I owe you an apology. Hold on...I'll check.


NOPE...sure enough, there you were...jumping right out there and into a thread...in fact the first thing OUT of your mouth was gun owners penises. Hey...is that IRONIC? First thing OUT....first thing.....

Well...anyway...Like I said man...I dont judge you for thinking about my dick. You be you.
Click to expand...

And now, in response to my one post insulting a congressman in Texas, you have mentioned dicks like 30 times. What would Freud say about this?
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
And now, in response to my one post insulting a congressman in Texas, you have mentioned dicks like 30 times. What would Freud say about this?
Click to expand...
He would say "you must be making that Southern Democrat doods day mentioning mens dicks so much since the first thing out of his mouth when he started talking about gun owners was dicks."

Say...SINCE YOU bring Freud up...what WOULD Freud say about you comparing guns to mens dicks? Or your fellow like minded anti-gun types (I mean your antigun friends...not that you are antigun because YOU own guns) that ALSO think about dicks as soon as they think about guns. I mean...I suppose for you he COULD say sometimes a gun is just a gun...but I reckon SINCE you think about dicks when you think about guns he would probably say well...dood has maybe some mommy (or GASP...DADDY ISSUES...hold on...we should maybe come back to that) and that explains why every time he thinks about guns he thinks about mens dicks.

What do you think? I think thats a pretty squared away analysis. You think about guns...you think about mens dicks...Freud would say............
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From United Press International
and
from The Texas Tribune.

Texas Republican lawmaker to Beto O'Rourke: 'My AR is ready for you'
​

Sept. 13 (UPI) -- Republican Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain drew fierce ire Thursday night for a gun-related tweet that many considered to be a death threat against Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke.

Twitter took the comment down within hours because it violated a rule forbidding threats of violence and O'Rourke's campaign planned to report the tweet to the FBI, according to CNN. It's against federal law to threaten "major candidates" for president.

The online conflict came on the heels of two mass shootings in Texas and on the night that O'Rourke debated fellow Democratic presidential candidates in Houston. O'Rourke, a former congressman from El Paso, touted his proposed mandatory buyback program for assault weapons at the debate and said "hell yes" he plans to take Americans' AR-15s and AK-47s.

"My AR is ready for you Robert Francis," Cain tweeted, calling O'Rourke by his full first and middle names.

COMMENT:-

Taking enlightened political discourse to new levels, eh wot?

Of course, he "was only exercising his First Amendment Rights in defence of his Second Amendment Rights" so there is "Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along." - right?
​
Click to expand...

Briscoe Cain is a dick.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
No one is going to take your guns away dude. Moreover, if somehow, someway, as unlikely as it is, the government banned the ownership of AR-15s and the like, and required you to sell them to the government or face a criminal charge, you would comply with the law, just like damn near everyone else would.
Click to expand...

Is that what’s happened in States and cities that have passed registration?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I neither support nor oppose "a 10 round limit". I was giving an example of how "in common usage" could be calculated.
Click to expand...

It would be a much better method than the arbitrary decisions currently made.

TU Curmudgeon said:
Considering that I have no idea whether your firearms skills are even sufficient for you to hit a 50 gallon barrel if you were inside it, I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I know. That was the point. So how do you know the risk of needing more is small?

TU Curmudgeon said:
Please define your terms.
Click to expand...

I understand the terms as SCOTUS has defined them.

TU Curmudgeon said:
I can but conclude that you consider 1875 to be "not long ago" and that you also consider "The American Civil War" to be some sort of whacko conducted crime in "protest" over the "fact" that the whacko had "issues". If that is the case then, according to your definitions, you are quite correct.

To anyone using definitions that are even tenuously connected to reality, you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

I was referring to Wounded Knee.

Wounded Knee is reality. It happened.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
From United Press International
and
from The Texas Tribune.

Texas Republican lawmaker to Beto O'Rourke: 'My AR is ready for you'
​

Sept. 13 (UPI) -- Republican Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain drew fierce ire Thursday night for a gun-related tweet that many considered to be a death threat against Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke.

Twitter took the comment down within hours because it violated a rule forbidding threats of violence and O'Rourke's campaign planned to report the tweet to the FBI, according to CNN. It's against federal law to threaten "major candidates" for president.

The online conflict came on the heels of two mass shootings in Texas and on the night that O'Rourke debated fellow Democratic presidential candidates in Houston. O'Rourke, a former congressman from El Paso, touted his proposed mandatory buyback program for assault weapons at the debate and said "hell yes" he plans to take Americans' AR-15s and AK-47s.

"My AR is ready for you Robert Francis," Cain tweeted, calling O'Rourke by his full first and middle names.

COMMENT:-

Taking enlightened political discourse to new levels, eh wot?

Of course, he "was only exercising his First Amendment Rights in defence of his Second Amendment Rights" so there is "Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along." - right?
​
Click to expand...

It's not a threat, if that's what you're alluding to?
 
That's precisely why these guns are not something that should be in the hands of citizens.... we see what type of mindset we are dealing with in those who lust for war weapons.

Anyone making such a comment, should certainly not own or ever own a permit for any type of gun.

We need some charges leveled against the manufacturer of this and other like type of weapons. Supplying, Aiding and Abetting Terrorist Minded Types.

We have more than enough lost lives and acts with the usage of these type weapons to make the charges stick!!!
 
Last edited:
Shooting tyrants and traitors is only considered terrorism by tyrants and traitors.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am a lifetime multiple gun owner. I have never threatened anyone with a gun. So I am not sure why you are implying that gun owners regularly threaten others.
Click to expand...

Read again?
 
akyron said:
Littering should be another charge. And he did threaten theft publicly.

Or did you miss the debate?

“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47"

What Will Happen to All Those Beto Signs?
Click to expand...

I see, so your version of reality is "Running for political office if I don't agree with you should be illegal." and "Passing a law that allows the government to appropriate an item is the same thing as theft." - OK, I can accept that that is your version of reality.
 
TurtleDude said:
I will look forward to you noting to the TDS crowd that Kavanaugh is innocent as well
Click to expand...

I have absolutely no doubt that,

  1. to the partisans of "Party A" everyone who is a supporter of "Party A" is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** until such time as they
    *
    • have been indicted,
    • have been tried,
    • have been convicted,
    • have been sentenced,
    • have exhausted all of their appeals to no avail, AND
    • have publicly admitted that they deliberately and maliciously committed the deed for which they were convicted and did so in the full knowledge that it was an illegal act to commit; while
    *
  2. to the partisans of "Party A", however, anyone who is even remotely associated with someone who is sort of linked to "Party B" is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** from the very first moment that they hear a hint of a possibility of a rumour that there could potentially be a slim chance that that person might be being accused of something that could potentially look like it had a theoretical shot at being considered to be illegal.

The same, in reverse, of course applies to the partisans of "Party B".
 
TurtleDude said:
unless you can absolutely guarantee that a private citizen will never face more than two assailants, then it is stupid to pretend they will never need a 15 or 20 round magazine.
Click to expand...

Quite right, and I can NOT absolutely guarantee that a private citizen will NEVER face more than 1,000 assailants some of whom have tanks, so it would be equally stupid to pretend that they will NEVER need belt-fed, fully automatic, weapons with rates of sustained fire over 1,000 rounds/min and armour piercing capabilities - wouldn't it?

TurtleDude said:
Since you cannot make that guarantee, then there is no reason to deny a lawful citizen 15-20-30 round magazines
Click to expand...

For some reason you appear to think that I support denying a lawful citizen some type of magazine, why is that?

All I did was point out that there was an objective way to measure whether or not something was in "common use".

Would you deny someone a 100 round magazine?

How about a 200 round magazine?

How about a 300 round magazine?

How about a 400 round magazine?

How about a 500 round magazine?

How about a 600 round magazine?

How about a 700 round magazine?

How about an 800 round magazine?

How about a 900 round magazine?

How about a 1,000 round magazine?​

If so, why? After all, your argument is just as valid if applied to magazines larger than 30 rounds.
 
Herkamer63 said:
Tipsy O'Rourke already exposed what the Democrat agenda how like he takes his Jack Daniels: straight. He told the whole country like how he told his wife to $#!t, except he didn't lie about it. If he's president, he'll run over anyone who doesn't give them up, like that guy he hit with his truck in his early years... I have a whole bunch of O'Rourke jokes, so I can do this all day.

The bottom line is this, the government wants us to disarm so they can take over. That's how an oppressive regime starts, making it's citizens that they swore to protect defenseless. See, these so-called moderates and brainwashed Leftists want to put all sorts of regulations on guns because believe that all this gun violence will magically go away. I saw the Cruz/Milano debate with those 2 other guys. they were not reasonable nor living in reality because here's the truth:

No matter what regulations you put on guns, criminals and crazy people will find a way to get them and they'll find ways to have high capacity magazines. Murder has been around since the beginning of time and it's going to be here, whether or not guns are still around. The number one area we need to look at is the home because that's where it all starts. Number two is mental health. Those are the two areas we need to look at if we want to reduce violence in our country. Taking away our protection is the dumbest and most idiotic thing you could ever do. Limiting the amount of bullets and the type of magazines is also very stupid. It solves NOTHING. Australia has had shooting during their gun ban. It's just their media NEVER reported on it internationally. All these other proposals are useless as well. If you have half a brain, armed citizens are the equalizer against not only criminals and violent animals but also, more importantly, the government. So to you people that think more gun regulations will solve all our shooting problems, keep living your fantasy because it'll never happen.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your view through Track 6 of "The Final Cut".
 
Aberration said:
It would be a much better method than the arbitrary decisions currently made.
Click to expand...

True, and it would also be a much better method of simply hanging big scary labels on things that are NOT what you want to call them.

Aberration said:
I know. That was the point. So how do you know the risk of needing more is small?
Click to expand...

By counting the number of cases in which the number of assailants was very large and the number of cases in which someone who didn't have a clue what they were doing with their gun was successful in "fending off an attack" by (essentially) firing wildly until they ran out of bullets.

Aberration said:
I understand the terms as SCOTUS has defined them.
Click to expand...

OK, so what are the Supreme Court definitions of "adequate" and "strict scrutiny"?

Aberration said:
I was referring to Wounded Knee.

Wounded Knee is reality. It happened.
Click to expand...

Indeed it did, it also happened in 1890 and "cap and ball" revolvers had gone out of service in the US Army in 1875.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom