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

[SLC]

No you just hear the Dems whinnying and not backing up their whines with facts

 

[Nap]

The famous "cold dead hands" comment was about refusal. "My AR is ready for you sounds like a threat." If you want to make it clear that you won't relinquish your guns, say so plainly. Not it a threatening manner as this guy did.

The "Cold dead hands" is effectively the same comment as anyone that says that aren't going to sit by and let it happen. When you say that you are implying that they will have to kill you to do it which inherently means a conflict will take place should you try and do so.

 

[Nap]

I guess that is a reasonable answer, but shows that you weren't all that committed to your cause.
If I'm on the receiving side of that statement, I go full on the offence before the phrase is complete. ( I will probably just get beat up. But that's not the point....lol )
If I gotta say a phrase like come take them. I expect to be hit or shot or something, without delay. If I want to take a more mature course of action I use words in a manner that more respectful. Which is how I personally like to be.....just an opinion not a judgment or declaration of what is right or legal.

Well it isn't likely I would support a cause that takes away the property of others so I would not be in a situation where I am likely to hear those words.

Lol, you say to take a more mature course of action but earlier in the same post you state you would assault someone due to saying "come take them". Escalation into violence over someone simply speaking is incredibly immature.

 

[Nap]

Interesting article.

Of course you didn't happen to notice the "I couldn't get laid so I decided to kill people." bit, did you?

Not until your post, I was linking for the video. I didn't bother reading much of the article before posting the link.

 

[Cardinal]

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?
​

Briscoe was conveniently demonstrating why people shouldn't have assault rifles.

 

[CharisRose]

Not until your post, I was linking for the video. I didn't bother reading much of the article before posting the link.

I read it. It was an addition to the story not related to the actual video.

Brief Summary: The man who made that statement was on the second floor of a mall and threw a child over the rail and unto the floor below.

Roseann

 

[Nap]

I lost my mind-bet.

I thought that the FIRST response to the thread would be along the lines of "Oh he didn't really mean that he would kill him.".

Well I don't personally know if he really meant that he would kill him, I think most that make comments like this are merely bluffing however there is a considerable amount of people that would take it to that level should the government decide to do so. This is why I made the comment about Republicans trolling Democrats by making a bill that would outlaw them if those that voted for the bill would be the ones that go collect them as often times it seems politicians like to pass laws knowing full well they will not receive the negative impact of what they support.

 

[apdst]

Twitter just shows that politicians are regular idiots like everyone else without speech writers.

That's why their governing power should be limited

 

[Nap]

I read it. It was an addition to the story not related to the actual video.

Brief Summary: The man who made that statement was on the second floor of a mall and threw a child over the rail and unto the floor below.

Roseann

Yeah, I went back and saw it. I didn't bother with the article because of the author trying to tie the attack to Omar which seems rather ridiculous. I just happen to come across that article and saw the beating.

 

[apdst]

I lost my mind-bet.

I thought that the FIRST response to the thread would be along the lines of "Oh he didn't really mean that he would kill him.".

He meant he was going to excercise his right to self-defense. I don't see a problem.

 

[VanceMack]

Trump violates our constitutional rights every day. I don't hear any of the cucks on the Right whine about that.

By all means...demonstrate where your rights have been violated every day. And if you TRULY feel that way and havent done **** about it...well...you just embraced the cuck role.

 

[Casca XV]

Indeed it is.

I mean what could have been more justified than people rebelling against their legal government because their legal government insisted that they obey the legally passed laws which they had agreed to obey in order to persuade the legal government to allow them to immigrate and to induce the legal government to give them lots and lots of free land?

[Or don't you know what the Texican Rebellion was actually all about?]

Nazi Germany, USSR, Communist China also had Legal Governments and legally passed laws but with a disarmed population there was no way for the people to resist when the mass murdering horrors began.

Yes at first things were going well between The Mexican Government and The People of Texas. But that centralized authoritarian Govt. started changing the rules, when Texans complained Mexico tried to disarm them the Revolution began.

If Leftist ever obtain the power they want, they will try the same. I think that what will stop them there is another American Revolution is 90+% of cops unwilling to obey these orders. Political Law Enforcement Bureaucrats like Commey and McCabe are the exception not the Rule.

 

[Minty_fresh]

Well it isn't likely I would support a cause that takes away the property of others so I would not be in a situation where I am likely to hear those words.

Lol, you say to take a more mature course of action but earlier in the same post you state you would assault someone due to saying "come take them". Escalation into violence over someone simply speaking is incredibly immature.

I wasn't supporting Beto's idea of taking anything, so you know. And I tend to feel the same regarding other people's property as well.

And I only claimed to prefer the mature approach.
I'm as given to human fallibility as the next guy.

 

[Anthony60]

I am not talking about 2020.

...and, guns are a fading issue for Republicans. The populism on this issue is moving toward the Dems. Though O'Roake's statement yesterday may have been a tad bit too bold for 2020, he was smart to set himself up as a champion of reasonable gun reform.

A few more horrific mass shootings with the Republicans kowtowing to the NRA in response will not work in their political favor. They are already vastly out of step with the American people on this issue. All they are doing is building the potential energy of the political pendulum such that it will swing fast and far away from them. An arrogant disregard for the will of the American people is not a good game to be playing when you core constituency is shrinking.

He’s an idiot, he said something stupid, and the Constitution protects us from maniacs like him. It’s an arrogant disregard for our rights and liberties. Another moron that wants to punish law abiding citizens for political gain. And we still have shootings, since criminals don’t follow the law anyway.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap

 

[upsideguy]

He’s an idiot, he said something stupid, and the Constitution protects us from maniacs like him. It’s an arrogant disregard for our rights and liberties. Another moron that wants to punish law abiding citizens for political gain. And we still have shootings, since criminals don’t follow the law anyway.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap

Why is he an idiot? Is it because he said something that made you uncomfortable?

What would be idiotic would be to think that any single piece of legislation would eradicate all gun crime. Equally idiotic is to be against any legislation because the legislation would not completely solve the problem. What is also idiotic is to watch the incredible amount of deaths, wounding and heartache caused by mass shootings and doing nothing about it.

Something will change with guns. The Republicans need to decide if they are going to be the political beneficiaries of that change by taking leadership on that issue OR will they bear the political consequence for their inaction.

Beto O'Rouke is merely the voice in the wind reminding Republicans that grave consequences could be coming to them if they don't show courage and leadership on the issue.

BTW... as Trump is showing us, the Constitution protects us from nothing unless people work to protect the Constitution. Right now that ain't happening. Case in point, look what Trump has done EO's. Image what President Beto might do.

 

[trouble13]

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?
​

Actually yes there isnt much of a story. Its a big stretch to call that a threat.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[mrdeltoid]

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?
​

Robert Francis O'Rourke bragged "Hell yes we're gonna take your AR15". There's been a few democrat politicians that in effect said the same thing, like Diane Feinstein, ( I would ban them all if I could) in the past. I saw another T-shirt that was similar that had an AR pictured on it, and under it said "Come and get it!" Here in the wild wild west (America), our 2nd amendment is precious, and threatening to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, is political suicide. Especially in Texas. Ours is a pretty violent country, but it's home.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Agree. People in this country should be more concerned with another of Beto's despicable retorts where he called the POTUS a white supremacist who poses a mortal threat to people of color.

You do know that that opinion is NOT confined to a single person, don't you?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I didn't bother reading much of the article before posting the link.

That is not necessarily always a good policy.

Sometimes articles take unexpected turns once you get past the first couple of paragraphs (which support the headline) and end up saying almost the exact opposite of what the "click-bait" headline says.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I read it. It was an addition to the story not related to the actual video.

Brief Summary: The man who made that statement was on the second floor of a mall and threw a child over the rail and unto the floor below.

Roseann

And he was willing to kill someone because he had "issues" relating to the fact that he couldn't get laid - right?

Of course, it is always much more productive to deal with the MEANS whereby someone kills another than it is to attempt to grapple with why that person was WILLING to kill another person - right?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well I don't personally know if he really meant that he would kill him, I think most that make comments like this are merely bluffing however there is a considerable amount of people that would take it to that level should the government decide to do so. This is why I made the comment about Republicans trolling Democrats by making a bill that would outlaw them if those that voted for the bill would be the ones that go collect them as often times it seems politicians like to pass laws knowing full well they will not receive the negative impact of what they support.

I rather suspect that, if it were a "constitutional requirement" that every legislator who voted in favour of the conduct of combat actions was required to actually serve in the front lines, the number of combat actions authorized would be significantly reduced. If that "constitutional requirement" included the legislator's siblings, children, and grandchildren, the number of combat actions authorized would practically vanish.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Nazi Germany, USSR, Communist China also had Legal Governments and legally passed laws but with a disarmed population there was no way for the people to resist when the mass murdering horrors began.

True, but also totally irrelevant to the point under discussion.

Yes at first things were going well between The Mexican Government and The People of Texas. But that centralized authoritarian Govt. started changing the rules, when Texans complained Mexico tried to disarm them the Revolution began.

The "changing the rules" that you speak of was the fact that the Mexican government actually attempted to enforce the existing laws that the Texicans had agreed to obey. One of those laws was that slavery was not permitted in Mexico and the Texicans REALLY wanted to hand onto their slaves. When the Mexican government started making a point that slavery was illegal in Mexico and the Texicans had agreed to obey the laws of Mexico the Texicans did the only thing that people from a land based on freedom and equality could do - they rebelled against the legal government in order to protect their inalienable right to keep and beat slaves.

If Leftist ever obtain the power they want, they will try the same. I think that what will stop them there is another American Revolution is 90+% of cops unwilling to obey these orders. Political Law Enforcement Bureaucrats like Commey and McCabe are the exception not the Rule.

If the "(American) Leftists" (who are actually on the right-wing of the total political spectrum) ever do attempt it, all that you have to do is point them toward Canada and ask them to see how well it worked there?

HINT

Spoiler

It was a total fiasco. The bureaucrats never did get any accurate count of guns and got so far behind in processing applications that they had to bulk approve (read as "stamp the application as approved [without bothering to check it] as fast as you could take it off the 'incoming' stack and put it onto the 'outgoing' stack") just to keep up with the number of documents submitted. Not only did it not work, but it cost roughly ten times as much as it had been projected to cost.

 

[Nap]

I rather suspect that, if it were a "constitutional requirement" that every legislator who voted in favour of the conduct of combat actions was required to actually serve in the front lines, the number of combat actions authorized would be significantly reduced. If that "constitutional requirement" included the legislator's siblings, children, and grandchildren, the number of combat actions authorized would practically vanish.

I would be in favor of that amendment.

 

[Lursa]

I dont think that the OP's "threat" necessarily means violence.

When a law is passed and it's unconstitutional, or someone wants to challenge its constitutionality (state const or the US Const), you need to bring an actual case to challenge it before it can be overturned.

 

[CharisRose]

And he was willing to kill someone because he had "issues" relating to the fact that he couldn't get laid - right?

Of course, it is always much more productive to deal with the MEANS whereby someone kills another than it is to attempt to grapple with why that person was WILLING to kill another person - right?

I was simply providing information to another poster.

The attempted murderer could have lied about that "issue" for the willingness exhibited in that mall... an attempt to kill a helpless child... who is a person with a name.

The MEANS used was throwing a helpless child from a second story floor... to the floor below.

The video showed the MEANS used by a group to attack a helpless human being.

Murderers use multiple MEANS to kill helpless human beings. And, when any of those MEANS end in the killing or maiming of helpless human beings...

All of our grappling over issues or MEANS doesn't really help the helpless who suffered by the acts committed by murderers.

Murderers and group attackers are both cowards and they deliberately go after the helpless.

I think, the only "issue" for murders and group attackers is a sick pleasure feeling... due to the fear and suffering caused by whatever MEANS used.

Plus, a continued sick pleasure feeling knowing those actions will haunt their loved ones until the day they die.

Plus, the continued fear factor those actions will cause in the public at large.

They will continue to take pleasure in the fear and suffering of all who were touched by the actions committed.

They will also take pleasure in the grappling of the public concerning "issues" and MEANS.

Because, it's all about themselves and not anybody else.

imho Roseann