- Joined
- Oct 1, 2018
- Messages
- 10,048
- Reaction score
- 3,321
- Location
- Southlake, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
No you just hear the Dems whinnying and not backing up their whines with facts
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.
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.
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?
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?
Not until your post, I was linking for the video. I didn't bother reading much of the article before posting the link.
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.".
Twitter just shows that politicians are regular idiots like everyone else without speech writers.
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
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.".
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.Trump violates our constitutional rights every day. I don't hear any of the cucks on the Right whine about that.
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?]
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 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
Actually yes there isnt much of a story. Its a big stretch to call that a threat.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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?