Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

"
Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Weapons of War, Beto?

Beto O'Rourke wants to ban "weapons of war".

How about these, Beto?









These were all, at one time or another, weapons of war.

So was this, by the way:


And this:


As far as I know, the first metallic cartridge used in war was the fearsome .22 short, fired from this:


Saying you're going to ban "weapons of war" is intellectually dishonest, Beto. But I suspect you both know that and don't give a shit.

I also suspect that Beto is too young to remember what happened on November 8, 1994.


12 comments:

DWW said...

I’ll give you that he doesn’t give a shit, but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t know either.

As a fellow Texan, I’m pretty sure Beto is one of those guys who glides through life on Daddy in Law’s largesse and deep down, is ignorant and borderline stupid.

I think he’s found out the same thing Rick Perry did a few years ago... running for political office on a national stage is a whole other ball of wax compared to our relatively genteel elections (recently at least) down here. He’s finding that these guys mean business, and he’s in WAY over his head.

Beto is grasping at any straws he can to stay in the news cycle.

Dark Avenger said...

God knows you need that AR-15 in case a marauding band of 30-50 pigs threatens ones’ children.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/2019/8/6/20756162/30-to-50-feral-hogs-meme-assault-weapons-guns-kids

Have fun with your bang toys this weekend, folks.

Dark Avenger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dark Avenger said...

Nothing like standing up for your 2nd Amendment rights:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/beto-texas-state-representative-threatens-ar-15-fbi

In a since-deleted tweet, Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain (R) retweeted O’Rourke, who reiterated a point he made during the debate about getting rid of AR-15 and other military grade weapons if he were elected president– the strongest gun control stance yet exhibited by Democratic candidates. O’Rourke has reframed his campaign around the issue, following a mass shooting massacre in his hometown of El Paso, Texas last month that claimed 22 lives.

“My AR is ready for you Robert Francis,” Cain tweeted, harping on a petty conservative talking point that O’Rourke’s real name is Robert, but he goes by his childhood nickname “Beto.”

Just another concerned citizen, am I right?

CenterPuke88 said...

Well, the “Robert Francis” also matches “Robert Francis Kennedy”, so it has a threatening meaning.

Intellectually dishonest, er, IDK. It IS hyperbole to make his point, he wants an Australian style buyback. Not judging that, simply noting it...and, yes, it’s very unlikely anything like that could work. What should worry gun owners more is that a moderately competent politician running for President has calculated that opposing gun rights is no longer a third rail.

Eck! said...

The problem is military grade weapons are not AR15! I know of no army that used or uses an AR15!

The dipwit is effectively conflating a H1 Hummer as being the same
thing as the military HMMV, other than boxy not the same.

Like the pictures well, MA limits AR15s yet a M1 Garand is just fine.
Its the same one that many a dad carried in Italy. There is a list of
others many higher power and actually used by armies.

The problem is still feral humans. So its a lot of lies and smoke.

No one has proposed a working law that can prevent one of those
shootings yet. Confiscating AR15s does not stop that or even slow
it as there are many other things that are equally dangerous or
worse out there. I suggest nothing specific as then people will
maybe take it as an idea.


Eck!

CenterPuke88 said...

Eck!, not to be picky, but we actually have no basis for the statement "Confiscating AR15s does not stop that or even slow it..."

We could, in fact, suggest that it might chnage something, pro or con...but unless it was studied, we can't say anything about the results of doing just that unless it was done. Just saying.

Comrade Misfit said...

CP88, ye, we do, sad to say. Some Asshhole shot up his school with a pump 12 gauge andd a .38. Guess we’ll have to ban those evil speedloadeers and moonclips.

Eck! said...

CP88 yes that's picky.

First of all these mass shooting how many actually used a AR15?
Of those was any other firearm at hand for criminal use, if that
is not clear what else did the bad guy bring? Also consider what
might still be available if an AR15 was not.

As to study, yes, sure go ahead that should take years and be at
best inconclusive and with the threat lingering there will be
maybe another few million sold. I like studies as they take
time, money, and actually do nothing.

I'll bet the loss rate (fell out of the canoe) will be unusually high for
those asked to turn them in. Also with the compliance rate for magazines
in NY and "banned" rifles in CT, have they gotten to 15-20% yet? Do they
know where they are and how many are not compliant?

But while everyone is running in circles about AR15 the same states that ban
or restrict them allow a long list of semiautomatic former military arms that
do not have removable magazines. I'd think that sorta points to evil black
gun panic created by the gun banners. They don't want the AR15, they want
all of them. Save for those in the hands of criminals that have committed
crimes and criminals that have not committed no crime other than owning a gun.
To the gun banners legal gun owner ship become a crime. We call it a feature.

As to the current legislation on criminal check system, all for it. An
honest law that does that is a good start. However like many other proposed
laws it has "features". For example if you want to teach your wife or friend
to shoot before you can hand him the gun? A background check might be required
or you become a criminal. Don't take my opinion on that read the law passed by congress and tell us if loaning a gun for non criminal use to a known person
without a prior background check would be a crime.

We have many thousands of laws and "regulations" on firearms none consistent
from state to states and even from one part of a state to another. Clearing
that to a set of consistent and enforceable laws across the country would be
start. As to criminal use that should invoke the existent laws covering
robbery, assault, and homicide.


Eck!

Comrade Misfit said...

As an aside, I don't know what ol' R.F. O'Rourke is going to do, now. He's not going to win the nomination. For the foreseeable future, he's not electable in Texas. About all that's open to him is an "academic welfare" position at some university.

Meanwhile, O'Rourke has hurt every Democrat running for office in almost every place outside of the coastal cities and Chicago. That "hell yes, we're going to take your guns" quote is going to be played for decades.

WLP must be rubbing is hands with glee.

CenterPuke88 said...

I simply pointed out that we have no study says WHAT removing AR-15’s would do. It might increase or decrease gun crime...we can posit results, but we cannot know without doing it, or without a real look at the results if we do something. I’m not suggesting doing it, unless we have some data that proves its true impact.

For instance, we could harden schools by issuing all students AR-15’s. No one in their right mind would suggest this, we all feel it would be a terrible idea...but we have no real data to base that judgement upon. We have to results of leaving kids in a room with a hidden (realistic, but unfireable) gun...they play with it, including pointing it at each other. This suggests it would be a bad idea, but would need fleshing out.

As for the thousands of contradictory and unenforceable/unenforced laws, I’m in favor of fixing that shit too.

0_0 said...

I oppose universal background checks as practiced in California.

Leaving aside the family/ friend/ inherit issues, I oppose laws that are equivalent to making me sell my car through a dealership. I had to pay over $100 in fees and Cali safety testing to mail order a firearm.

At the very least, let me make the fucking NICS call on my own.