Texas Republican lawmaker to Beto O'Rourke: 'My AR is ready for you' (1 Viewer)

[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.

Well, I don't know what universe you are looking at, but people are very passionate about their right to defend themselves. Beto is obviously clueless as to American's feelings on self defense.

What is the first right that dictators take away? People's guns. Then freedom of speech/press. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that taking guns from law abiding citizens, and damaging their ability to defend themselves, will do nothing to stop mass killings.

But you know what it will do? Give the government more power and control over the citizens, and less freedom for those citizens.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Seems people are reading too much into this. His comment is essentially another way of saying if Robert Francis wants his gun to come and get them. Molon Labe is a common phrase Pro2a people say, it isn't an actual threat but a refusal to relinquish our weapons.

Beto isn't coming for anyones guns. He isn't going to be the democrat nominee much less the President. And if he did he were he wouldn't be coming for the weapon, he'd sent some police officer to do it for him because he's not going to risk anything. Beto is full of $#!+. Beto's campaign wants to make claims of threats but he doesn't mind making claims he cannot back up about the President of the U.S.

 

[austrianecon]

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?
​

Do you not realize Robert O'Rourke made the threat first? By saying he'll go after your guns? Last person to try that in the US was King George the 3rd.

 

[apdst]

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.

The only problem, is that Congress can't change The Constitution via legislation.

 

[Integrityrespec]

If you want to see real problems in the U.S. let Beto get elected and try to take those guns. He's full of crap.

 

[upsideguy]

The only problem, is that Congress can't change The Constitution via legislation.

They do not have to change to constitution to have some level of restriction on guns. Like all rights, the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, so says the SCOTUS. In fact, we already have limitations on who can have guns and where.

The Second Amendment allows for more gun control than you think - Vox
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and noted that future limitations ‘will have to be decided in future cases’ - New York Daily News
Second Amendment | The National Constitution Center

Well, I don't know what universe you are looking at, but people are very passionate about their right to defend themselves. Beto is obviously clueless as to American's feelings on self defense.

What is the first right that dictators take away? People's guns. Then freedom of speech/press. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that taking guns from law abiding citizens, and damaging their ability to defend themselves, will do nothing to stop mass killings.

But you know what it will do? Give the government more power and control over the citizens, and less freedom for those citizens.

No one is challenging gun ownership for self defense; they are challenging the need for persons to own guns that are designed for mass carnage. What Republicans are ignoring is that nearly 90% of the American people want some action on the subject. The Republicans have a capital opportunity to show leadership on the subject, but their continued reluctance to do ANYTHING will eventually backfire (excuse the pun) on them.

145 CEOs Call On Senate To Pass 'Common-sense, Bipartisan' Gun Laws : NPR
Assault weapons ban: 70% of US wants stricter assault weapon laws - Business Insider
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

 

[Aberration]

No one is challenging gun ownership for self defense; they are challenging the need for persons to own guns that are designed for mass carnage. What Republicans are ignoring is that nearly 90% of the American people want some action on the subject. The Republicans have a capital opportunity to show leadership on the subject, but their continued reluctance to do ANYTHING will eventually backfire (excuse the pun) on them.

145 CEOs Call On Senate To Pass 'Common-sense, Bipartisan' Gun Laws : NPR

3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. If you had that 90% support you better get to work organizing them.

I’ll be waiting with my AR. As SCOTUS was clear in Miller that it can’t be regulated. [emoji2369].

 

[upsideguy]

3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment. If you had that 90% support you better get to work organizing them.

I’ll be waiting with my AR. As SCOTUS was clear in Miller that it can’t be regulated. [emoji2369].

Fail. You do not need to amend the Constitution to have some restriction on guns. It is not an unlimited right. I suggest you actually read the cites from post 106. If you don't agree with them, show me some cites with a compelling contra-argument as your post does not rise to the level "compelling" as it seems to lack essential command of the issue to make it such.

Again, the political tide is turning on this. The Republicans have to decide whether they are going to lead on the subject or become political road kill because they continue to ignore it.

Meanwhile, I wonder what President Beto would do with his EO's, since the Republicans failed to keep Trump in check on his.

 

[Nap]

Fail. You do not need to amend the Constitution to have some restriction on guns. It is not an unlimited right. I suggest you actually read the cites from post 106. If you don't agree with them, show me some cites with a compelling contra-argument as your post does not rise to the level "compelling" as it seems to lack essential command of the issue to make it such.

Again, the political tide is turning on this. The Republicans have to decide whether they are going to lead on the subject or become political road kill because they continue to ignore it.

Meanwhile, I wonder what President Beto would do with his EO's, since the Republicans failed to keep Trump in check on his.

You may want to read the Heller decision again, in particular the part Scalia affirms the Miller decision that the 2nd amendment protects weapons "in common use at the time", semi-automatics make up the vast majority of firearms owned in the US so clearly any attempt to ban them would be unconstitutional.

 

[Aberration]

Fail. You do not need to amend the Constitution to have some restriction on guns. It is not an unlimited right. I suggest you actually read the cites from post 106. If you don't agree with them, show me some cites with a compelling contra-argument as your post does not rise to the level "compelling" as it seems to lack essential command of the issue to make it such.

Again, the political tide is turning on this. The Republicans have to decide whether they are going to lead on the subject or become political road kill because they continue to ignore it.

Meanwhile, I wonder what President Beto would do with his EO's, since the Republicans failed to keep Trump in check on his.

I never said it was unlimited. The Miller and Heller decision clearly set the boundaries of regulation.

And my comment was made in that context.

I’ll pay as much attention to Beto’s EO’s as I have Trumps. [emoji2369]

 

[Aberration]

You may want to read the Heller decision again, in particular the part Scalia affirms the Miller decision that the 2nd amendment protects weapons "in common use at the time", semi-automatics make up the vast majority of firearms owned in the US so clearly any attempt to ban them would be unconstitutional.

Not just semiautomatics. Specifically AR15’s. And if we were to be literal to the text and decisions, the M4.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Well, I don't know what universe you are looking at, but people are very passionate about their right to defend themselves. Beto is obviously clueless as to American's feelings on self defense.

What is the first right that dictators take away? People's guns. Then freedom of speech/press.

There are 42 countries in the world with a higher "freedom score" than the United States of America.

Did you know that the majority of those countries are NOT populated by people with more access to guns than the people of the United States of America do?

Did you ever stop to wonder "Why do some people who do NOT think that it is essential that everyone be armed to the teeth at all times have governments/societies which are freer than the ones we have in the US?".

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that taking guns from law abiding citizens, and damaging their ability to defend themselves, will do nothing to stop mass killings.

And anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that having even more guns floating around in the public spaces of communities will do nothing to stop mass killings.

Unfortunately, once you subtract the "PRO-Gun Nuts" and the "ANTI-Gun Nuts" from the total population you aren't left with a whole lot of people who appear to actually do have two brain cells to rub together - at least not on this topic.

But you know what it will do? Give the government more power and control over the citizens, and less freedom for those citizens.

Absolutely, that is why people who live in countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Australia, Uruguay, Denmark, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, Barbados, Switzerland, and Japan all live in societies that are between 10% and 16% "more free" than the people who live in the United States of America.

 

[upsideguy]

You may want to read the Heller decision again, in particular the part Scalia affirms the Miller decision that the 2nd amendment protects weapons "in common use at the time", semi-automatics make up the vast majority of firearms owned in the US so clearly any attempt to ban them would be unconstitutional.

Actually, that was a good post. Any post that makes me further read up on a subject is a good post, and yours did. That said, I do not agree with your assumptions as you are making a major leap in logic to suggest that banning "assault" weapons was covered by the Heller decision. They are not entirely clear about what "in common use at the time" means yet specifically cited

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/DCv.Heller.Opinion.07-290.pdf

The opinion states "....Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ......" and further states".....Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons....."


So, what is "dangerous and unusual weapons" and what constitutes "in common use", herein we have ambiguity. Here is what the ABA says in their analysis of this outlining a recent Maryland case. It likely gives more cover to your point than mine, though it suggests it remains an issue, not as clear as you would like to have it be.

Does the Second Amendment Protect Commonly Owned Assault Weapons?

Here is Giffords Law Center, an advocacy group for gun control has to say on the subject.

Assault Weapons | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Anyway, you raised an excellent point on the nuance of Heller that I should better understand (as you should as I do think you have made a leap of logic that isn't really there either). I nonetheless thank you for the intellectual challenge here. That doesn't happen often.

 

[Scarab]

United States. He won't get your vote, but with a little seasoning he could win big in a few years. He is smart, articulate and passionate. He has broad appeal and not afraid to say what he thinks. He has a future, as evident by his performance in the Texas US Senate race of 2018.

O'Rourke/Paul contest in our future perhaps?

 

[TurtleDude]

The POS is not fit for office, and should lose his right to own a weapon for 5 years.

I think you are right but can Beta even own a weapon after engaging in criminal behavior?

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually, that was a good post. Any post that makes me further read up on a subject is a good post, and yours did. That said, I do not agree with your assumptions as you are making a major leap in logic to suggest that banning "assault" weapons was covered by the Heller decision. They are not entirely clear about what "in common use at the time" means yet specifically cited

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/DCv.Heller.Opinion.07-290.pdf

The opinion states "....Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ......" and further states".....Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons....."


So, what is "dangerous and unusual weapons" and what constitutes "in common use", herein we have ambiguity. Here is what the ABA says in their analysis of this outlining a recent Maryland case. It likely gives more cover to your point than mine, though it suggests it remains an issue, not as clear as you would like to have it be.

Does the Second Amendment Protect Commonly Owned Assault Weapons?

Here is Giffords Law Center, an advocacy group for gun control has to say on the subject.

Assault Weapons | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Anyway, you raised an excellent point on the nuance of Heller that I should better understand (as you should as I do think you have made a leap of logic that isn't really there either). I nonetheless thank you for the intellectual challenge here. That doesn't happen often.

Scalia stated that the firearms that assholes like Beta call "assault weapons" are protected by the second amendment and are clearly under the protection of the Heller Paradigm. Those who suggest seizing such weapons are traitors and enemies of the US constitution and if they hold public office, violate their oath of office

 

[Nap]

Actually, that was a good post. Any post that makes me further read up on a subject is a good post, and yours did. That said, I do not agree with your assumptions as you are making a major leap in logic to suggest that banning "assault" weapons was covered by the Heller decision. They are not entirely clear about what "in common use at the time" means yet specifically cited

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/DCv.Heller.Opinion.07-290.pdf

The opinion states "....Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ......" and further states".....Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons....."


So, what is "dangerous and unusual weapons" and what constitutes "in common use", herein we have ambiguity. Here is what the ABA says in their analysis of this outlining a recent Maryland case. It likely gives more cover to your point than mine, though it suggests it remains an issue, not as clear as you would like to have it be.

Does the Second Amendment Protect Commonly Owned Assault Weapons?

Here is Giffords Law Center, an advocacy group for gun control has to say on the subject.

Assault Weapons | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Anyway, you raised an excellent point on the nuance of Heller that I should better understand (as you should as I do think you have made a leap of logic that isn't really there either). I nonetheless thank you for the intellectual challenge here. That doesn't happen often.

From your link:

The court concluded their analysis by holding that “semi-automatic rifles and [magazines for these rifles] are commonly used for lawful purposes, and therefore come within the coverage of the Second Amendment.”

Not sure how much clearer it needs to be.......

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Actually, that was a good post. Any post that makes me further read up on a subject is a good post, and yours did. That said, I do not agree with your assumptions as you are making a major leap in logic to suggest that banning "assault" weapons was covered by the Heller decision. They are not entirely clear about what "in common use at the time" means yet specifically cited

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/DCv.Heller.Opinion.07-290.pdf

The opinion states "....Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ......" and further states".....Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons....."


So, what is "dangerous and unusual weapons" and what constitutes "in common use", herein we have ambiguity. Here is what the ABA says in their analysis of this outlining a recent Maryland case. It likely gives more cover to your point than mine, though it suggests it remains an issue, not as clear as you would like to have it be.

Does the Second Amendment Protect Commonly Owned Assault Weapons?

Here is Giffords Law Center, an advocacy group for gun control has to say on the subject.

Assault Weapons | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Anyway, you raised an excellent point on the nuance of Heller that I should better understand (as you should as I do think you have made a leap of logic that isn't really there either). I nonetheless thank you for the intellectual challenge here. That doesn't happen often.

Since both "dangerous and unusual weapons" and "in common use" are SUBJECTIVE (unless specifically defined at law), that it the crux of the problem in getting people on both sides of the "PRO-Gun Nut"/"ANTI-Gun Nut" discussion to actually work on a solution (if one is actually needed).

Now, let's say that 10% of the semi-automatic weapons come with 5 round magazines, 80% of the semi-automatic weapons come with 10 round magazines, and 10% of the semi-automatic weapons come with (just to illustrate with REAL emphasis) 100 round magazines, it shouldn't be overly difficult to get people to agree that MOST of the semi-automatic weapons come with 10 round (or less) magazines. That would mean that the size of magazines "in common use" is "10 rounds, or less" - should it?

Well, that incredible leap of logic appears to be beyond the intellectual ability of a VERY large number of people (many of whom do not live under the delusion that the government of the United States is just waiting until the time is right to impose a police state dictatorship on the American people).

For PERSONAL PROTECTION, the odds that anyone would need anything more sophisticated than a Le Mat revolver with its 10 round (9 ball rounds and 1 shotgun round) capacity are really quite low. Allowing people free access to "cap and ball" revolvers like that would supply them with all of the PERSONAL PROTECTION that they would be likely to require and, due to the extra time it would take to reload, significantly reduce the ability of anyone to use them to slaughter dozens of innocent people - wouldn't it?

 

[TurtleDude]

Since both "dangerous and unusual weapons" and "in common use" are SUBJECTIVE (unless specifically defined at law), that it the crux of the problem in getting people on both sides of the "PRO-Gun Nut"/"ANTI-Gun Nut" discussion to actually work on a solution (if one is actually needed).

Now, let's say that 10% of the semi-automatic weapons come with 5 round magazines, 80% of the semi-automatic weapons come with 10 round magazines, and 10% of the semi-automatic weapons come with (just to illustrate with REAL emphasis) 100 round magazines, it shouldn't be overly difficult to get people to agree that MOST of the semi-automatic weapons come with 10 round (or less) magazines. That would mean that the size of magazines "in common use" is "10 rounds, or less" - should it?

Well, that incredible leap of logic appears to be beyond the intellectual ability of a VERY large number of people (many of whom do not live under the delusion that the government of the United States is just waiting until the time is right to impose a police state dictatorship on the American people).

For PERSONAL PROTECTION, the odds that anyone would need anything more sophisticated than a Le Mat revolver with its 10 round (9 ball rounds and 1 shotgun round) capacity are really quite low. Allowing people free access to "cap and ball" revolvers like that would supply them with all of the PERSONAL PROTECTION that they would be likely to require and, due to the extra time it would take to reload, significantly reduce the ability of anyone to use them to slaughter dozens of innocent people - wouldn't it?

the most common handguns sold over the last 30 years average 15 rounds in their magazines. The most commonly sold centerfire rifle over the last 30 years come with 30 round magazines.

and few things are more stupid than people who claim (given there are over a billion M16m magazines in circulation in the USA) that magazine limits will keep criminals from getting them

and such rifles-and their magazines are protected

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...5-133_7l48.pdf

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns.Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic fire- arms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citi- zens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768;Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

the most common handguns sold over the last 30 years average 15 rounds in their magazines. The most commonly sold centerfire rifle over the last 30 years come with 30 round magazines.

and few things are more stupid than people who claim (given there are over a billion M16m magazines in circulation in the USA) that magazine limits will keep criminals from getting them

and such rifles-and their magazines are protected

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...5-133_7l48.pdf

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns.Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic fire- arms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citi- zens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768;Heller, supra, at 628–629.

I don't dispute the "right", I do have some serious doubts about the "need".

 

[Deuce]

"I will murder cops if they try to take my guns" says a person who somehow thinks this is an argument in favor of him being allowed to own firearms

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"I will murder cops if they try to take my guns" says a person who somehow thinks this is an argument in favor of him being allowed to own firearms

Or, with even MORE of the sugar coating removed, "I will kill anyone who attempts to enforce a law in a manner that adversely affects me personally.".

So?

What else is new?

 

[OscarLevant]

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?
​

Such a statement especially from someone in a position of public trust is precisely why that person should not have such a weapon or any weapon, let alone hold office.

 

[Chillfolks]

Such a statement especially from someone in a position of public trust is precisely why that person should not have such a weapon or any weapon, let alone hold office.

I think both of their statements prove that point. Two wrongs don't make a left.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't dispute the "right", I do have some serious doubts about the "need".

need has no relevance in this discussion. no one needs most of the things they own.