Assault Weapon Ban

Vicious Scapegoating Is the Whole Point of Beto O'Rourke's Gun Grab

The "assault weapons" that the presidential contender wants to confiscate are not especially deadly, but the symbolism of that policy is poisonous.

|

So it turns out that the Democrats are coming for your guns. Well, maybe not yours. Not yet, at least. Then again, it is not always obvious which guns Democrats have in mind when they talk about bans and mandatory buybacks. What's clear is that they view the people who own those guns as useful scapegoats for horrifying acts of violence.

During last night's Democratic presidential debate, ABC's David Muir asked former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke about his response to a reporter's question during his visit to Charlottesville, Virginia, last month.

"How do you address the fears that the government is going to take away assault rifles if you are talking about buybacks and banning?" the reporter asked.

"I want to be really clear that that's exactly what we are going to do," O'Rourke replied. "Americans who own AR-15s [or] AK-47s will have to sell them to the government. We're not going to allow them to stay on our streets, to show up in our communities, to be used against us in our synagogues, our churches, our mosques, our Walmarts, our public places."

Last night O'Rourke, responding to Muir's question, doubled down on that pledge. "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," he said, eliciting wild applause from the audience. "We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore." That was quite a turnaround from last year, when O'Rourke was running for the Senate and assured a radio host, "If you own a gun, keep that gun. Nobody wants to take it away from you—at least I don't want to do that."

In his new incarnation as a gun grabber, O'Rourke favors a ban on "the manufacturing, sale, and possession of military-style assault weapons," with no exceptions for guns people already own. But since "military-style assault weapons" are in the eye of the beholder, that description does not provide very clear guidance to gun owners who wonder whether O'Rourke is intent on seizing their property.

Consider the Assault Weapons Ban of 2019, introduced in January by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Calif.), who also sponsored the 1994 federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004. Feinstein's bill bans more than 150 models by name, but it also includes a general definition that covers semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and one or more "military-style" features. Those features include barrel shrouds, which would seem to condemn one of my guns, an Iver Johnson M1 carbine:

Yet Feinstein's bill specifically exempts this rifle, as long as it does not have a folding stock. (Thanks, Dianne!) Does a folding stock make this gun more deadly? No, it does not. With or without a folding stock, the gun has the same ammunition capacity, and it fires the same rounds at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.

Feinstein's distinction makes no sense. Neither did O'Rourke when he said an "assault weapon" ban would cover guns that fire "high-impact, high-velocity round[s]," since the legal definition of "assault weapons" has nothing to do with the size or velocity of the ammunition they fire.

These are not quibbling details, since "assault weapons" are an arbitrary category that means whatever legislators decide it means. The original federal ban applied to semi-automatic rifles with two or more military-style features; Feinstein's new bill says just one is enough to qualify for prohibition. But the list of features is still mainly cosmetic and has little or nothing to do with a gun's suitability for mass shootings, which are usually committed with handguns.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, like all the other Democratic presidential contenders, wants to ban "assault weapons." Yet he concedes that the 1994 ban had no impact on the lethal capacity of legal firearms, since gun manufacturers could comply with the law by "making minor modifications to their products—modifications that leave them just as deadly." That is equally true of the new version proposed by Feinstein. Politicians like O'Rourke are basically saying that they reserve the right to take your gun if they don't like the way it looks.

O'Rourke promises he will "bring everyone in America into the conversation— Republicans, Democrats, gun-owners, and non-gun-owners alike." But if a gun owner says he'd prefer to keep his property rather than surrender it to the federal government, that's too bad.

The gun owner might point out that Americans own more than 16 million "assault weapons," and almost none of them are ever used to kill people. In 2017, according to the FBI, all rifles combined—only a subset of which would qualify as "assault weapons"—accounted for just 5 percent of gun homicides where the type of firearm was specified, while handguns accounted for 89 percent.

The gun owner might wonder why he has to surrender his rifle simply because mass shooters occasionally use a similar model. By that logic, the government should first confiscate handguns, which are used in the vast majority of gun homicides, including mass shootings. But that argument will be of no avail in the "conversation" that O'Rourke imagines, because he has already arbitrarily decided that features such as barrel shrouds, folding or adjustable stocks, pistol grips, and threaded barrels cannot be tolerated.

The federal government, of course, does not know who owns the guns that O'Rourke does not like. So you might wonder how he plans to carry out his confiscation scheme.

As Reason Contributing Editor J.D. Tuccille notes, history suggests that voluntary compliance would be the exception. A year after New Jersey banned the possession of unregistered "assault weapons," a grand total of 18 had been surrendered or confiscated, out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 guns covered by the law. California, New York, and Connecticut met with similar success when they required registration of "assault weapons" owned before those states banned them: Only a small minority of the targeted guns, ranging from 2 percent to 15 percent, were actually registered.

Since O'Rourke has already announced that he plans to confiscate "assault weapons," and not merely register them, he can expect even wider defiance. A mandatory "assault weapon" buyback program therefore would be symbolism on top of symbolism: an ineffectual attempt to enforce arbitrary distinctions.

The symbolism is not just about seeming to do something that will stop mass shootings. It is also about demonizing the sort of people who own the guns that O'Rourke and his fellow Democrats detest. Notwithstanding O'Rourke's promise of a civil "conversation" with gun owners, his campaign is now selling this mocking/threatening T-shirt:

O'Rourke supporters who wear this shirt are obviously not interested in a calm, rational discussion about gun control. They already know who the enemy is: people who own AR-15s and people who defend their right to do so.

The owner of an AR-15 must turn it over to the government, O'Rourke says, because "we're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore." But O'Rourke wants to take guns from peaceful, law-abiding people who have never used those firearms against their fellow Americans. In his mind, they are nevertheless implicated in mass murder.

That attitude is of a piece with the poisonous mentality that gave us the resolution in which the San Francisco Board of Supervisors condemned the National Rifle Association, which has 5.5 million members, as a "domestic terrorist organization." If you oppose the gun control laws that O'Rourke and San Francisco's supervisors favor, they seem to be saying, you might as well be shooting down schoolchildren or Walmart shoppers.

Applauding O'Rourke's position last night, Sen. Cory Booker (D–N.J.) also slyly suggested that the former congressman is a Johnny-come-lately on gun control, having been awakened to the need for extreme measures by last month's mass shooting in El Paso, his hometown. "I'm sorry that it had to take issues coming to my neighborhood or personally affecting Beto to suddenly make us demand change," Booker said. "This is a crisis of empathy in our nation." On that much I agree.

NEXT: Remember the Vallejo Cop Who Tackled a Veteran for Filming Him?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Since O’Rourke has already announced that he plans to confiscate “assault weapons,” ”

    That is actually false.
    He wants to confiscate those of citizens who are not in the police or the military , etc !

    A pretty obvious point that Reason misses.

    It also constitutes a violation of equality under the law and therefore probably violates protection under the law – a part of due process.

    1. If you are going to get all pedantic about the truth of a statement, you should at least get it right. The sentence you quote doesn’t say that he plans to confiscate all “assault weapons” from everyone who has one. So it isn’t actually false in the way you claim.

    2. “He wants to confiscate those of citizens who are not in the police or the military”

      He wants to confiscate all PRIVATELY owned firearms, even those privately owned by police and military.

    3. My Whole month’s on-line monetary profit is $2287. i’m right now prepared to satisfy my fantasies basically and live home with my family moreover. I work only for two hours every day. everyone will utilize this home benefit framework by this link……… =============>>http://2cashpin.com

    4. My Whole month’s on-line monetary profit is $2287. i’m right now prepared to satisfy my fantasies basically and live home with my family moreover. I work only for two hours every day. everyone will utilize this home benefit framework by this link……… =============>> http://2cashpin.com

  2. continuance of the Office Space theme, notgonnabepresidentanyway

    1. He’s the fax machine.

        1. I agree. You don’t think.

    2. It still matters that a democrat presidential candidate so clearly and boldly announces his intent to violate his oath of office.

      1. An intentional action to violate the oath of office is illegal. They can be charged with violating EO 10450, 5 USC 3333, 5 USC 7311, and penalized under 18 USC 1918.

        Of course, you need a compliant DOJ to actually write out a writ of arrest, too. That’s the tough part–enforcement. And this filth knows it, and knows the laws are toothless.

        A separate enforcement organization is now needed to address this moral and legal leadership deficiency. A well-trained and equipped paramilitary security service, at least two divisions in strength, plus its own independent Art. III court system, would solve this problem in a month.

        1. That’s what the militia and drumhead courts-martial are for.

  3. Gun lovers, instead of offering petty responses about how “assault weapon” is a term that means nothing, how about offering solutions that you can stand? If you don’t offer a sane alternative, Beto’s side will eventually win, and denying that there is a problem is not a sane alternative.

    Personally, I go for the “treat guns like cars” idea, and favor licensing, registration, and liability insurance requirements. But if you can’t take that, you’ve got to offer something.

    1. Fuck off, slaver.

      Personally, I got for the Second Amendment.

      But why don’t you set an example for us? Register your printers, computers, phones, and crayons; make sure you get permission first to even own them. Let the government buy back you assault 64-pack of crayons.

      Then do the same for your vote. Make sure you only vote for the non-militarized candidates.

    2. How about enforcing laws we have? If someone lies on a 4473 and gets flagged in a background check maybe someone should investigate the attempt to buy a gun

      If someone says they want to shoot up their school, maybe instead of letting them back in school we put them under psychiatric evaluation

      If someone commits a violent felony, instead of letting them plead down to a misdemeanor we convict them of the felony and put them in jail for a while

      Also, FWIW, none of that is required for cars, its only for driving on public roads, making it more akin to a concealed carry permit than merely owning a gun

    3. You don’t need any of that stuff to own a car or drive one on private property, or transport it on a trailer.

      1. No, you don’t. And you shouldn’t need it to keep a gun on your property to defend it. But to take it off your property, to carry it in a public place, yeah, you should.

        1. Have you ever, you know, BOUGHT a gun in your life?

          Because you’re writing like somebody who has not.

          1. Liberty Gibbet is clearly a child. Their teacher told them these ‘rules’ they are now parroting.

        2. Need a permit to exercise the BEAR part of an enumerated right? I don’t think so!

          Need a permit to publish or speak your mind off your own property? I don’t think so!

          Fuck off, slaver!

          1. He should also get insurance for his speech in case it offends someone to the point of suicide.

        3. Get a free speech permit or get off this site.

        4. I’m not sure why you feel that a person’s right to self defense doesn’t apply on property they don’t own. But that’s not how current self defense law works in any state, much less when the constitution gets involved.

          I understand your argument that not offering alternatives is not likely to be persuasive to the apparent majority who support gun control. But one of the core functions of the constitution is to defend individual liberties against majoritarian tyranny.

          The masses have been whipped into a panic about a very rare way to die, and the demagogues responsible are attempting to use this to undermine an explicit constitutional right. The correct response to this, for those that care about liberty, is not appeasement. I don’t think “fuck off, slaver” is a politic way to put it, but definitely an uncompromising stance that firmly asserts our constitutional rights is the correct way to go.

          1. Very well said!

          2. Seems to me Joe Horn shot people in the street who were robbing his neighbor’s house in Pasadena TX and was no billed so Texas may be the exception. God bless the great State of Texas!

        5. “And you shouldn’t need it to keep a gun on your property to defend it.”

          When we have presidential candidate threatening to send armed me to my house to violently take my personal property, I do, in fact, NEED “a gun on your property to defend it”.

          “But to take it off your property, to carry it in a public place, yeah, you should.”

          Again, promising to violate people’s fundamental human rights isn’t a winning argument.

          1. Fundamentally, the “Why don’t we treat Guns the way we do Cars” argument is dishonest. Were it honest, they would be accepting a National Reciprocity law, which would make it legal for someone with a Concealed Carry permit from, say, Georgia, to carry concealed in California.

            And the Left would rather eat a pound of ground glass.

            They just want to get you to debate them on terms that assume you are willing to see the Second Amendment infringed upon. Because if it comes down to Amending that Amendment, they know goddamned well they don’t have the votes.

            1. “And the Left would rather eat a pound of ground glass.”

              Then let them eat it. Bon appetit!

    4. how about offering solutions that you can stand

      How about buy any own any gun you want, as codified in the U.S. Constitution? I could live with that.

    5. “Personally, I go for the “treat guns like cars” idea, and favor licensing, registration, and liability insurance requirements. But if you can’t take that, you’ve got to offer something.”

      There is no license required for purchasing a car. There is also no licensing or registration required for operating an automobile on private property. Just an FYI, not all states require liability insurance for automobiles driven on public roads. Most do. However, in several States, like CA, one can also post a bond instead of purchasing insurance. In New Hampshire, neither posting a bond or purchasing insurance is required.

      My homeowners is MOSTLY about two things: fire, and liability.

      More to the point: What, exactly, would your proposed liability insurance cover? Serious question.

      1. And what would the premiums be? Yikes!

        1. The reason I asked the question is because of what I have heard on this topic before: most seem to think it would be insurance to cover you if someone stole your guns and did something bad with them. This assumes, of course, that you can somehow be held personally liable for the intentional, criminal acts, of another person.

          1. It would also require a fundamental change in the laws governing insurance, since deliberate, illegal acts are not insurable. That’s why the NRA’s CarryGuard got axed, they called it “murder insurance”

            But perhaps that’s part of the overall plan, make gun ownership dependent on a nonexistent insurance policy and then no one can own guns anymore

            1. “perhaps that’s part of the overall plan, make gun ownership dependent on a nonexistent insurance policy and then no one can own guns anymore”

              Yep. That occurred to me, as well. Circling back to “let’s treat guns like car, it would be the same as holding one liable if someone stole their car and caused personal and property damage with it, or robbed a liquor store, or whatever. Not gonna happen.

            2. “That’s why the NRA’s CarryGuard got axed, they called it “murder insurance””

              No, it got axed because NY threatened hostile regulatory action against any bank or insurer who did business with the NRA.

              “The NRA’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, follows a $7 million fine on May 2 imposed by NYDFS against insurance broker Lockton Cos LLC, which administered an NRA-branded insurance program known as “Carry Guard.”

              On May 7, NYDFS fined insurer Chubb Ltd and its Illinois Union Insurance Company unit $1.3 million for having “unlawfully provided liability insurance to gun owners for acts of intentional wrongdoing,” the regulator said.”

              But, of course, Carry Guard did not indemnify you for any illegal acts, so it was just a pretext.

        2. The cost of such insurance would be zero, since no insurance company will offer it.

      2. Serious answer. Make a gun owner liable, and financially responsible, for the damage his gun does, including medical bills, lost income, etc. And don’t let him escape that financial liability by suicide.
        The Las Vegas shooter was responsible for 58 deaths and millions in associated damages, lost wages, etc. His liability insurance should cover it. If he can’t get a policy to cover his gun collection because he doesn’t meet whatever tests an insurer would put in place to avoid insuring crazies, then he can’t have a gun collection.

        1. “Serious answer. Make a gun owner liable, and financially responsible, for the damage his gun does, including medical bills, lost income, etc.”

          Even if its stolen?

          We don’t do that to cars and cars, again, aren’t a God given right in the first place.

          “His liability insurance should cover it.”

          Feel free to list any insurance carrier who’d cover an illegal act with the policy. If you burn your own house down, home insurance isn’t going to help. If you get money, they will just sue you for fraud and recover all of it.

          “If he can’t get a policy to cover his gun collection because he doesn’t meet whatever tests an insurer would put in place to avoid insuring crazies, then he can’t have a gun collection.”

          And if the insurance won’t cover anything done illegally…then what?

          1. “If he can’t get a policy to cover his gun collection because he doesn’t meet whatever tests an insurer would put in place to avoid insuring crazies, then he can’t have a gun collection.”

            My insurance company DOES cover my “collection,” Most do, both for fire and theft. One will never, ever, get coverage for a willful, criminal act which they commit.

            Making me, personally responsible, or liable, for the criminal acts, much less “possible” acts, of others, is repugnant to the very essence of law.

          2. You are trying to have a rational conversation with a concern troll. The objective of mandatory liability insurance for firearms is to eventually price the owner out of possessing firearms. Same for licensing fees (NJ just raised their license fee to own from under $20 to $400 (IIRC, I’m sure of the $400, unsure of the initial low amount, I’m actually thinking the fee was five or ten).

            Given history, both in the world and in the US, of registration being used for confiscation, why would any gun owner not currently in possession of registered firearms register them? World history in Europe and Communist nations informs our view that the eventual end of registration is seizure of all firearms not adequately hidden. And there are stories, perhaps apocryphal, of Nazi troops collecting firearms and shooting the family if a registered firearm could not be found or otherwise accurately documented as being transferred to another. Even in the US – NY City introduced long gun registration with so-called “Assault Weapons”, promising that the rifles would never be banned and registration would NEVER be used to confiscate those firearms. Move forward a few years and the City Council passed a ban on possession of the rifles and the NYPD used the registration lists to visit people who had registered the rifles and were not logged as having turned them in to the NYPD. The home visits were to ensure the weapon was removed from the city limits, transferred to a licensed FFL or the Officers would seize the rifle(s) there and then.

            Registration is THE necessary element of disarmament and confiscation because house to house complete searches are not cost effective or even very effective in finding weapons the owners wish not to be found.

            1. +
              California seems to be also raising tariffs … er.,, taxes… on both firearms and ammunition. By banning internet sales of ammunition, as well as requiring licenses to sell ammo, they have also artificially increased the price of such items.

            2. “You are trying to have a rational conversation with a concern troll;”

              Yes, Ed, I know. But the A’s aren’t playing yet, and my fingers are sore from playing mandolin, and TV sucks, and it’s cheap entertainment!

              1. People need to remember the Betos of the world are not anti-gun. Their plans for the country require guns and lots of them. They are just against guns in the hands of their planned victims. People should assume in the interest of safety that those wanting to make them helpless probably have something unpleasant in mind for them. Why else would someone bother?

            3. Ironic that the same people, who would advocate house-to-house searches for the estimated 15,000,000 “assault weapons”, would recoil, in horror, of the suggestion of doing the same for the, in their claims, 11,000,000 illegal aliens, violating our immigration laws.

              1. Well, I could say that I am rather more supportive of immigration than some here, especially those fleeing “s**th**e countries, and would not support such searches either. But let’s just say I don’t support door-to-door searches for guns, prostitutes, pot sellers, moonshiners, and a whole bunch of other things. In fact, almost ANYTHING.

        2. You can make the person liable, certainly. His liability insurance does not cover willful, criminal acts. No insurance company ever will.

          What “tests” could the insurance company do? If the entire medical and legal profession cannot even come close to predicting who, precisely, might commit a homicide, no matter what personal information they would have, why should we assume that an insurance company can do so?

          1. Any group can pool their assets and assume joint financial responsibility. It doesn’t have to be State Farm or Geico. It could be the NRA, or any group of sufficient size that wishes to form a mutual insurance compact.
            I expect that the magnitude of the tests would scale up and the quantity of firepower insured scaled up. I don’t know how the army decides who gets to carry a bazooka around and who doesn’t, but I’m sure they have some idea.
            You all seem determined to avoid responsibility for the damage you could do. I’ve never injured anybody with my car, but I don’t whine about my insurance premiums. I could, if I went nuts, kill at most 7-8 people with my car. You seem to want the ability to kill an army of 50 invading your home, or 22 eating at Luby’s, or 58 watching a concert, and accept no financial responsibility whatsoever. You read the second amendment carefully, once you get past the well-regulated part. I’m just looking for some regulation here.

            1. You don’t seem to be ignoring the issue, you ARE ignoring the issue:

              Why single out guns? Why pretend there is no difference between legal and illegal acts?

              What the fuck does it mean to have insurance in case someone else steals my property (which is illegal) and harms somebody else (which is illegal)?

              You are just a fucking slaver. Fuck off.

            2. 89 were killed with a truck in Nice.
              Maybe you’re too inept to pull that off, but not everyone is.
              And since you’ve displayed reckless ignorance, I think – according to your idea of reasonable – that your votes should be tracked and you should be held personally liable for the actions of any and every candidate you vote for.
              That Obama vote is likely to bankrupt you

            3. “‘You all seem determined to avoid responsibility for the damage you could do. “”

              No one here has demonstrated this.

            4. “You all seem determined to avoid responsibility for the damage you could do.”

              “… for the damage I COULD do”?

              Oh, cool. Somewhere out there, the next Ted Bundy is graduating from college. Who are we hold responsible for that? Virtually every human being on the face of the earth has the potential to kill or to seriously physically harm another person, or many people. How would that insurance work?

              By your own estimation, you could kill a whole bunch of people by intentionally running into a crowd of people. And true, you could. But that is not an “accident,” and, if found to be deliberate, your insurance company doesn’t have to pay a cent.

              I prefer to Make Orwell Fiction Again, thanks very much.

            5. I could, if I went nuts, kill at most 7-8 people with my car…

              If you did, your insurance company would not pay out a cent to anyone.

            6. “Any group can pool their assets and assume joint financial responsibility.”

              For CRIMINAL actions? No, they will not. Nobody would be stupid enough to insure somebody who commits crimes.

              “It could be the NRA, or any group of sufficient size that wishes to form a mutual insurance compact.”

              So, UNLESS people are willing to say they’ll cover CRIMINALS…they should have their rights restricted? Good idea. Really.

              “ou all seem determined to avoid responsibility for the damage you could do.”

              Doctors pay malpractice insurance. If they INTENTIONALLY injure a patient, it is not going to cover that. Your idea is that for me to exercise MY right, I have to cover SOMEBODY ELSE? That’s fucking insane.

              “I’ve never injured anybody with my car, but I don’t whine about my insurance premiums. I could, if I went nuts, kill at most 7-8 people with my car.”

              And they would still make YOU pay for it if YOU decided to do that.

              “ou seem to want the ability to kill an army of 50 invading your home, or 22 eating at Luby’s, or 58 watching a concert, and accept no financial responsibility whatsoever.”

              Keep forgetting that ALL gun owners do that. Nobody is innocent.

            7. I don’t know how the army decides who gets to carry a bazooka around and who doesn’t, but I’m sure they have some idea.

              *facepalm*

              Basic research – it can be your friend.

              You seem to want the ability to kill an army of 50 invading your home . . . and accept no financial responsibility whatsoever.

              I’m leaving out your bad-faith examples of Luby’s or the concert and I’m going to pretend you didn’t just casually equate self-defense with mass murder.

              If an army of 50 invades my home and I manage to kill all of them, what insurable “financial responsibility” do you feel I should face for that?

              1. He desperately wants to avoid dealing with the Constitutional issues, because he knows he will lose. So he is spinning what he considers outlandish fantasy scenarios that – he thinks – will cast the gun owner as either wrong or futile.

                He doesn’t look at how many potential mass shooting events were stopped by armed citizens. He thinks such events don’t happen because his carefully spun media don’t tell him about them. He doesn’t remember Ruby Ridge, or if he does he thinks the fact that the Federal shooter was cleared of wrongdoing means the operation was justified.

                (No, I don’t agree with White Separatists, but when you are defending the First Amendment, you end up defending the Larry Flints of the world. When you descry law enforcement overreach, you end up defending other kinds of lowlifes.

                Because “We know he’s a baddie, trust us.” Doesn’t cut it.

                Anyway; don’t get sucked in to the “You have to be reasonable” argument. He wants to eviscerate on tenth of the Bill of Rights. Until he answers the question, “Why should we trust you with the other nine?” he is evading the issue.

        3. Why single out guns?

          Why not, just, you know, hold people responsible for ALL their actions?

          Or is it your thought that kicking someone, clubbing them, knifing them, running over them in a car, or other assaults, are not actually as harmful as guns?

          1. of course not, because… you know.. guns.

        4. Make a gun owner liable, and financially responsible, for the damage his gun does, including medical bills, lost income, etc.

          For a criminal act or negligent firing? THEY ARE.

        5. “Make a gun owner liable, and financially responsible, for the damage his gun does, including medical bills, lost income, etc.”

          This is nothing, but pure evil. Holding person A responsible for person B is a fundamental violation of justice.

    6. how about offering solutions that you can stand?

      Solutions to what?

      denying that there is a problem is not a sane alternative

      What is “The Problem?”

      My preemptive answer to the anticipated response:

      Why is “gun violence” uniquely worse than other forms of violence?

      and

      How is it useful to classify “suicide by gun” as a more urgent social problem than “murder by knife?”

    7. “you’ve got to offer something.”

      We (I) offer to remain peaceable if you stop taking from us. Keep pushing and the offer is null and void.

      1. I have no real standing to accept your offer – but I accept regardless.

        *nudge*

      2. Good for a laugh, and is at least semi-relevant
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8SVcNZz8w4

    8. “”Personally, I go for the “treat guns like cars” idea, and favor licensing, registration, and liability insurance requirements. But if you can’t take that, you’ve got to offer something.””

      You don’t have a constitutional right to a car.

      Also I don’t think liability insurance covers criminal activity. So what’s the point of getting that insurance?

      Since it’s a right, it should be treated like voting, or speech.

    9. “”But if you can’t take that, you’ve got to offer something.””

      We have allowed waiting periods for handguns and background checks for most purchases. But you want to act like the anti-gun has not received any concessions from the pro gun crowd.

      1. Notice he asks for what we will give up but hasn’t offered anything in return?

    10. Personally, I go for the “treat guns like cars” idea, and favor licensing, registration, and liability insurance requirements. But if you can’t take that, you’ve got to offer something.

      Sure, I’ll go for that–on the condition that I can buy any gun I want across state lines without a background check, just like cars, the license renewal is a simple vision test, just like cars, the license is reciprocal across all 50 states, just like cars, and the license is “shall issue,” just like cars, and you aren’t allowed to take someone’s gun away just because you think they *might* be dangerous, just like cars.

      Treating guns like cars would immediately nuke a lot of draconian gun control laws, so sure, let’s go for it.

    11. Gibbet….You ask a fair question, …how about offering solutions that you can stand? I shall answer.

      Red Flag laws that require due process before seizure is one option. I personally think this is an option that would survive SCOTUS scrutiny. The key is, you must have the administrative proceeding first, with the gun owner given an opportunity to have an attorney present; and, the right to appeal (while keeping their firearm). It would also need to be paired with severe penalties for false and malicious prosecution (e.g. the angry ex-spouse looking to screw you over would get gobsmacked by the Court).

      Pretty extreme, huh? Well, anything like this should be. If you are going to deprive an individual of their rights, it should not be easy to do….which is the not case in many states presently (it is way to easy to confiscate guns).

      You asked a fair question. It deserved a response.

    12. Compromise: both sides give up something and get something in return to amends their respective agreement to incur a loss.

      Concession: one side gives up to make the other happy [for now]

      Either way it’s not gonna happen.

      1. ALL necessary compromises related to the Second Amendment were taken care of in 1789.
        Via Heller, SCOTUS advises such.

        Oh, and FUCK OFF HIHN.

    13. If you don’t offer a sane alternative, Beto’s side will eventually win, and denying that there is a problem is not a sane alternative.

      That’s a gangster’s cop-out. Let’s say somebody was trying to rob you at knifepoint. And then a cop comes up and sees exactly what was going on. Now, imagine if his response was “Well, you’ve got to give him something. Otherwise, you’re just not offering him up a sane alternative to handing over all the contents of your wallet.” I’d hope you’d want that cop to be unemployable. How is this any different.

    14. One solution that might work is incentivizing personal responsibility for one’s own safety. Maybe both sides can come together with a compromise that includes some kind of individual armed resistance during those incidents of gun violence, on a case by case basis.

      1. A bounty paid to whoever stops a crime (and is not otherwise employed in law enforcement), that scales based on the extent of the crime?

        Stop a robbery (even in your own home), get $1k
        Stop a public shooting, get $1,000k

        Then at least the incentives align correctly.

    15. I’ve been hearing for 30 years now that I’ve got to offer the antigunners something. But this implies that once they’ve been given “something” that will be it.

      It never works that way. After they get “something” they come back for “something more”.

    16. Fuck off Hihn. You’ve got one foot out the door. If you had any pride or dignity you’d buy a gun and shoot yourself in the face.

      1. This guy doesn’t have the spittle-flying, insane malevolence of a Hihn post. He may just be a passing NPC.

    17. Democrats: “We want to chop off your arm!”

      Everyone else: “We don’t want you to chop off our arms!”

      Liberty Gibbet: “Well, how about your hand then? You’ve got to offer something!”

    18. “Gun lovers, instead of offering petty responses about how “assault weapon” is a term that means nothing, how about offering solutions that you can stand?”

      “Free speech lovers, why not offer solutions you can stand?”

      “Abolitionists, stop with the whole ‘slavery is wrong’ thing and, instead, offer solutions that you can stand”

      Is this more of what you had in mind?

      ” If you don’t offer a sane alternative, Beto’s side will eventually win, and denying that there is a problem is not a sane alternative.”

      My sane solution is a bullet between the eyes of anybody attempting to seize property illegally.

      “Personally, I go for the “treat guns like cars” idea, and favor licensing, registration, and liability insurance requirements. But if you can’t take that, you’ve got to offer something.”

      Well, care aren’t an unalienable right as it is now. So your analogy is shit. Fuck off.

    19. Bad ideas do not require alternatives.

      1. When the only idea is a bad one, opt for the status quo.

    20. If you don’t offer a sane alternative, Beto’s side will eventually win, and denying that there is a problem is not a sane alternative.

      Oh, there’s a sanity problem, all right.

      Once upon a time (35 years ago), the gun controllers in America were basically sane. Their target for control was handguns, because handguns were what were used in most gun violence, and they were careful to talk about the legitimate interests of America’s millions of hunters and sportsmen. There was opposition, of course, but they were focused on the weapons that were killing the most people while minimizing the number of citizens/voters who would be inconvenienced. That was sane both in terms of policy and politics, and was the path to success gun control had followed in the entire developed world; handguns first, sport rifles later.

      Now, of course, y’all’ve gotten that exactly reversed. The guns you’re attacking are almost never used for murder (whether you measure the percentage of of the guns in the class that are used in homicides or the percentage of homicides in which guns in the class are used), but are routinely used by millions for recreational purposes like hunting. That’s insane in terms of both policy and politics.

      Which is why “Beto’s side” isn’t going to “eventually win”. Threatening to take away the guns of millions of hunters to maybe reduce the number of homicides by a single-digit percentage is just a good way to make sure the hunters in the swing states of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (#5, #8, #2, and #3 in number of deer hunters in 2017) turn out to vote, and vote Republican.

    21. The only alternative is you people stop infringing. Now.

      Otherwise, well… That’s an awfully nice Federal Building you have there. It would be a shame if something were to happen to it.

      1. Buildings are useful.

        Gun grabbers are useful only as fertilizer and chum.

        1. What have you got against sharks?

    22. I might offer a solution after you admit your real goal. Your intent, admitted or not, is to eliminate all legal guns. While you offer what to you seems like simplistic alterations, even if implemented as you suggest will be abused and executed in ways unintended. The simple sample of this is the horribly named Patriot Act. Even the author says it is executed far in excess of how it is written. The nature of government is to aggrandize power by any means necessary.

    23. Well, we all know that violence comes from the inner cities.

      Why not periodic sweeps of public housing projects for contraband, like what was done in early 1990’s Chicago?

      http://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-04-08-mn-43649-story.html

    24. Cars aren’t enshrined in the constitution. Guns are.

      My rights come from God, not government

      My rights aren’t up for debate

      My rights aren’t up for negotiation

      Infringe upon my rights at your peril. Should you attempt to do so, I don’t like your odds.

    25. I don’t have to offer you shit.

      You have no right to my property or what I do with my time.

    26. “how about offering solutions that you can stand?”

      Fine. Take the 2A seriously and repeal all gun laws.

      “If you don’t offer a sane alternative”

      Us 2A advocates offer solutions all the time, but since they don’t begin and end with denying people their fundamental human rights, dishonest pieces of shit label them not “sane”.

      “Personally, I go for the “treat guns like cars” idea, and favor licensing, registration, and liability insurance requirements.”

      Exactly. You, personally, prefer to deny people their basic human rights.

    27. My solution?

      Same as my solution to Obamacare – get the Federal government’s paws off of things they have no business touching.

      IOF

      Fuck off and leave me alone.

      “Treat guns like cars”

      You mean, since I have a carry license from my state of residence, then I can freely carry my weapons in New York City or Washington DC?

      Yeah, sure that’s exactly what you meant.

    28. No. How about the Gun Grab proposers come up with a consistent definition of the term they came up with? Because vague goals always seem to result in massive mission creep, in government and elsewhere. Because politicians who are allowed to get away with using meaningless terms to stir up emotional responses cannot be trusted.

    29. how about offering solutions that you can stand?

      Let’s do a little math. There are close to 400 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States.

      Since 1980 there have been something like 1.2 million total gun deaths in the US. That counts accidents and suicides.

      So even if you assume that each one of those deaths came from one an only one gun (obviously not true), and even if you assume no guns going in and out of circulation (also not true), you still find that <1% of all guns in the US have actually been used in a gun-related death (again, including accidents and suicides).

      So the problem is not with guns per se, and any so-called solution that only tries to address access to guns is not really a solution.

    30. “If you don’t offer a sane alternative, Beto’s side will eventually win, and denying that there is a problem is not a sane alternative.”
      What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand? Why does anyone need to offer an “alternative”? The bill of rights is not a set of starting points to a discussion. It is a set of decisions that end discussion. It is the shit you clowns do not get to vote on.

    31. No liability insurance policy covers intentional acts, so … you’re a fucking retard.

    32. We could make it illegal to kill people and shoot up schools and Walmarts.

  4. Perusing my 20th-Century Small Arms illustrated pocket book, I came across a prototype US machine gun called the XM-214 – a 6-barrel that fires a 5.56mm round that has tremendous fire suppression.
    It failed because its high rate of fire expanded ammo so fast that it was a problem keeping up with supply.

    1. Yeah. The only way to keep it in ammo was to mount it on a vehicle, but as soon as you were putting a weapon on a vehicle, the question became why you would stick with 5.56mm instead of going with a round that had more range and punch.

      1. If shooting the zombies within a couple hundred yards is good enough, then you can carry a lot more 5.56 ammo.

    2. I have that book; great little reference.

  5. Reposting – Beto on Morning Joe this AM

    Runs from 18:45 to 26:45

    1. “I have an AR-15, and I agree with you completely”

      Yeah, sure that happened.

      1. I am sure he managed to find someone who would say that. I feel confident that I could find some really down-and-out homeless person to let me say he said that, say, for a ten spot lol

  6. Beto just looks like an asshole, doesn’t he?

    1. Is, not looks.

    2. Asshole is as asshole looks.

    3. He looks like he has a raging clue. Just look at those fucking teeth. Goddamn.

      Nothing a good punch couldn’t take care of, though…

  7. Beto’s tweet during the debate showing a fully automatic rifle with suppressor and grenade launcher was hilarious. Already banned by FCA.

    1. And, as Crowder has pointed out, the claim that the Founders only had muskets in mind with the 2nd Amendment with the whole issue of CANNONS being sold to individuals in the 1700’s for use.

      1. There is actually an argument against bombs and cannons as being covered. The founders uses the term ordnance , correctly, for explosives. Arms was generally a personal weapon. Many states and cities stored gunpowder in shared facilities under control of the town government.

        1. And “bear” generally means carry ready for use. I say if Arnie wants to bear a cannon, who am I to argue?

          1. But there were government documents stating that people were permitted to possess and use cannons if needed. This was in the 18th century.

            1. If there were government documents allowing for it, it meant government could restrict it. Just because they allowed doesnt mean they couldnt ban it under 2a.

              1. No, there was never any restriction on the ability to own cannon. In fact, you can own a blackpowder, muzzle loading cannon of the type used at the time of the founders all the way up till the Civil War even today, with no permit or even a background check required, because federal law doesn’t count them (or any other muzzle-loading blackpowder implement) as a firearm.

                The only thing you need a government “permit” for were if you wanted to be a privateer, aka a legal pirate. You could own a ship armed with cannon no problem, you just couldn’t use it to run down other ships unless you had a Letter of Marque, and those were typically given only during wartime and required you to only target and harass enemy ships and merchantmen.

                1. That brings up what my interpretation of the 2A allows:
                  “The people” can keep and bear any arms, whatsoever; it is what is done with them that can be made illegal.
                  Pointing a weapon at someone, to intimidate them, is illegal in most places – brandishing – as are most efforts to actually shoot someone, absent any life-taking threats to themselves or others – assault, murder, etc.
                  Someone could own a cannon, a machine gun, a bazooka – maybe even carry them around – but once the laws, which govern what one can do with them – pointing at, or actually firing – is violated, then the right has not been infringed by enforcement.
                  Preventing someone from keeping and bearing any weapon is an example of prior restraint, especially when such is specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. We don’t allow that, for other laws.
                  Should the need arise, that patriots would rise up to overthrow a tyrannical government, most such laws would be forgotten until the situation resolved itself. Then, whomever was the winner, would decide who would be held to such laws.

  8. I don’t even own an AR-15, but I might go ahead and buy one just to spite this fish-mouthed fuckhead and his chowderhead supporters.

    1. You wouldn’t be the first to do that.

      Try a site called Gun Deals; good information on what is for sale and price comparisons. Decent “entry level” rifles like the Ruger .556 and the S&W M&P are going for around $500; don’t forget to stock up on “standard capacity” mags [30 rounds] those are going for about $8-$9 each for pack of 10; if there is another AWB those will be the first things to go. Of course all of these sellers are “in the business” and your purchase will be shipped to your designated FFL [you can look one up in your area; cost for NICS should be around $25; don’t pay more than that if you can help it].

    2. Amusingly enough, I’ve been thinking the same thing. I don’t own any guns at the moment, but having recently moved to a state with constitutional carry I’ve been meaning to get a handgun. But with all this assault weapon hullabaloo I’m thinking it might be useful to buy a carbine while I’m still able to.

      I know that gun sales typically increase when bans on certain types are being proposed, so we’re hardly unique.

      1. I bought my first AR15 the day after Obama was elected. I had been eyeing one for several months. Two weeks before the election sportsman’s Warehouse in Anchorage was stock full. The day after I went in, there was one so called assault rifle left (luckily it was the XM15 Sportster I wanted). I asked the clerk to see it. He and the other guy started laughing. I asked what was so amusing?
        “This is our last AR, we just took it out of the box and put it in the display case ten minutes ago and had a bet how long it would last?”
        The answer was ten minutes, BTW.

        1. It took me three months though to find ammunition for it and Sportsman Warehouse remained out of stock for about three months also.

          1. Buying ammo was a bitch the first few months after Obama was elected. I ended up having to order from Cabela’s for a while until things settled down around 2011.

    3. I’m thinking of getting a lower receiver and building a predator/varmint rifle with it. Then when they show up I’ll say it is a hunting rifle, right?

      1. I’m debating on learning particle physics so I can invent a plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

      2. The day they start trying to confiscate guns from otherwise peaceful people is the day I go on the offensive. Varmint rifles indeed.

        1. Yes, the other nice thing is a varmint rifle is designed for accuracy at range.

    4. I did that after either the first or second debate, can’t remember which. 5.56 isn’t too expensive either, compared to .308

  9. Beto is pandering to the folks who don’t really care about protecting people from firearms, but feel that by confiscating firearms, they will be hurting conservatives, since hurting conservatives is much more important.

    1. He’s pandering to his main constituency, which is Gen-X housewives with kids.

      1. Well Gen X housewife’s with kids in suburbs maybe. My wife would never vote for an idiot like this.

      2. Beto’s basically the stereotypical embodiment of the hyper, manic Gen-X douchebag. Sorta like early 90’s Eddie Vedder writing on his arm with a black marker in the middle of a fucking concert. Obnoxious as hell, LOL. Not to mention the whole PC thing basically started with Gen X [although my people, the Millenials, have most certainly refined it].

        You also had the whole “born for this” Vanity Fair rock star treatment. Another parallel brought to mind. Jesus fucking Christ…

        One difference, though: I actually like Pearl Jam. I do not LIKE Beta. He has NO redeeming qualities. None.

  10. “The gun owner might point out that Americans own more than 16 million “assault weapons,” and almost none of them are ever used to kill people. In 2017, according to the FBI, all rifles combined—only a subset of which would qualify as “assault weapons”—accounted for just 5 percent of gun homicides where the type of firearm was specified, while handguns accounted for 89 percent.”

    Doing the numbers here:

    Less than 500 gun homicides are committed by long guns of all guns; this includes everything from a SCAR 7.62 to a .22 caliber rifle to a shotgun [.410 to 12 gauge], and the ones Beto hates, being AK 47 [7.62 X 39mm] and the AR [5.56mm/.223 caliber]; so if half of these are committed by such “assault type” weapons that means that out of some 10,500 gun homicides a year, at most about 2.5% of all gun crimes could be connected. Out of the total of 16,000,000 privately owned, 0.00001575% are miss-used.

    So what, it makes for a great talking point for an ignorant bullshit politician, right?

  11. “I’m sorry that it had to take issues coming to my neighborhood or personally affecting Beto to suddenly make us demand change,” Booker said. “This is a crisis of empathy in our nation.” On that much I agree.

    Well, sure, no one gives a shit about a bunch of useless gang-bangers killing each other. Oddly enough, the poor white communities where this happens aren’t “demanding change,” either.

    This is just the latest middle-class social hysteria being mined for votes and donations to various “non-profit” grifter orgs.

  12. Apparently people think they can’t be elected without scapegoating a group of people that the base will vote him or her in to rid the nation of. It didn’t start with Trump and it won’t end with the Betos of the world.

    1. Even politicians can live in echo chambers.

  13. Funny: I’m finishing up work for the day and checking website intermittently; got a call from the Second Amendment Foundation and happily renewed my membership.

    I suggest anyone who values their 2A rights do the same, with an organization of your choice [NRA, SAF, GOA, to name a few].

    1. The SAF has wasted all my donations and more on telephone calls and inane junk mail. I’ll not send them a dime more.

  14. I dislike Robert “Beto” O’Rourke very much. He is a lying, despotic coward.

    1. But how would you distinguish hm from other politicians?

      1. He doesn’t understand that most people don’t like lying, despotic cowards and that he needs to pretend he isn’t one.

  15. “we’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

    Not even if that ‘fellow American’ is a criminal who is looking to kill us? I should be able to defend myself.

    1. Which is far and away the most common use of personally owned firearms.
      Massively outpacing their use for “mass shootings”, which has been re-defined as one involving two or more victims – drive-by shooting, anyone?

  16. I dislike most politicians.

    I VISCERALLY hate Beto.

    If Kim Jong-Un came here and stabbed him, I’d be hard-pressed to not applaud. If the entire cast of mullahs from Iran raped and then killed him, I’d also applaud.

    A thoroughly loathsome shit. And that he thinks he’d have a prayer against Cornyn for the Senate after this shit show of a run is laughable.

    1. The dude’s got a Hillary Clinton-like sense of entitlement, which makes him easy to despise.

      No wonder Hollywood and Big Media love this shithead. What’s ironic is that Trump floated running for President (and already did once, as a Reform candidate, although that was more of a joke than anything else) in interviews for YEARS, yet he managed to not come off sounding like he was owed the position simply for existing. Robert Francis had his ass kissed in 2020 as a new Kennedy/Obama type of politician, and the little fucker clearly let that attention go to his head.

    2. In re Robert Francis… I’d be willing to give El Paso back to Mexico if they’d take him in the deal.

      1. It’d cost too much to re-route I-10 and relocate Fort Bliss.

    3. Oh, come on. He’s scarcely worth that much bile. And I don’t give a fat damn about ‘how such talk makes us look’; I’m concerned about what it does to YOU.

      Having galvanized 99% (there are always some idiots in every group) of gun owners, ensuring that they will turn up at the polls to vote against him at all opportunities, Beto is a dead issue. Oh the Democrats MIGHT be daft enough to nominate him, but I doubt it. There are a lot of gun owners registered as Democrats, and for this they will turn out in the primaries.

      That the denizens of the Democrat Candidate Clown Car are talking about this level of confiscation signals to ME that the DNC has written off 2020 and are letting their troublesome loons break themselves on Trump.

  17. Come heavily armed and send bachelors.

  18. O’Rourke supporters who wear this shirt are obviously not interested in a calm, rational discussion about gun control.

    Copsuckers.

    1. copsuckers

      Oh no, that’s the funny part. The people cheering to send mass waves of police out to confiscate all the evil deplorable assault weapons are the same ones who chant fuck da po-lice, cheer for antifa milkshake-throwers and maybe throw some milkshakes or bike locks themselves. They are living completely inside their own heads.

      1. Alternatively, they know exactly what will happen with widespread attempts at deprivation of civil rights, and actively seek that outcome?

        Probably giving them too much credit, but there’s at least one clever totalitarian out there.

  19. Not only are modern sporting rifles only a part of the total number of rifles used in homicides each year (where the type of firearm is known), but according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, homicides involving rifles are consistently fewer than the number of homicides committed with “Personal Weapons” (Hands, feet, knees, elbows and pushing). In fact homicides using both rifles and shotguns (long guns) are consistently fewer than said Personal Weapons.

  20. And they’ve already come for our grenades, RPGs and tanks — the horror!

    1. I bet you think that was amusing as opposed to inane. Here’s a clue it was the latter.

      1. I wonder if you realized assault weapons first appeared on the battlefield in large numbers during WW2 and they made an immediate impact so much so that had they been deployed sooner and more aggressively the outcome of the fighting on the eastern front may have been very different. These weapons were designed for war and they don’t belong in the hands of people who are intent on committing mass murder. You don’t cry about not being able to own a RPG and you’ll soon similarly feel likewise about assault weapons.

        1. Except those assault rifles were actual assault rifles, capable of automatic fire. The ones your referring to are falsely labeled assault rifles and function no differently than any other semi-automatic hunting rifle or shotgun.
          Additionally, there are a number of rifles that were designed for “war” that are used now a days for hunting. Before World War I the bolt action rifle was primarily a military rifle. In fact semi-automatic rifles were far more common for hunting then bolt action rifles. The first bolt action rifles were designed by the Prussian Military for combat use in the mid 19th century.
          Following WWI the US Military had so many surplus military bolt action Springfields and Enfields that they sold them surplus for less than $25 a rifle. The very fact that bolt action rifle are popular is because they were designed for war and very useful. They were so effective in combat that they changed the style of warfare that had dominated for centuries. They replaced all other styles of combat rifles within just a couple of decades of introduction. They are so effective that to this day, they still see Frontline service with certain troops. So, your analogy is both jejune and not well thought out.

          1. I’ve shot my friend’s AR and my grandfather’s bolt action and there’s no question in my mind which one allows for greater firepower.

            1. Define firepower. My .270 wsm has a hell of a lot more firepower than a 5.56 mm and my Savage A22 fires as quickly as an AR but neither is considered an “assault rifle” under a purely idiotic definition.
              Also Google the British Mad Minute. A 100 rounds a minute with a bolt action rifle firing a .303 Enfield round. Far more firepower than an AR. I so noticed how you moved the goal posts. You were talking about weapons of war and when pointed out that the venerable .30-06 and bolt action rifle were originally designed as weapons of war, you began talking firepower (which generally refers to the power of the round btw). The 5.56 mm is far less powerfully than 95% of hunting cartridges.

            2. There is nothing exceptionally deadly about the AR15. In fact many consider it underpowered. The US Army and Marine Corp have long considered replacing it with a 6.5 mm or 6.8 mm round, or going back to the 7.62 NATO. The close cousin of the 5.56 is the .223 Remington (the 5.56 has slightly higher case pressure but you can fire the .223 out of 5.56 but it’s not advised to go the other direction). The .223 is considered adequate for varmints up to coyote size. It is considered to light for deer. The fact is if these shooters used hunting rifles you would probably have more deaths. Or sawed off shotguns or self defense shotguns loaded with 00 or 000 or some of the defense loads that are a combination of 00 and larger bird shot. Besides most mass shooters use pistols.

  21. From 1994 to 2004 there was an assault weapons ban. If you compare the number ban mass shootings before and after the ban, it is clear that there are far more now than there were before 1994. There were for far more mass shootings from 2004 to 2019 than from 1980 to 1994. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_deaths_in_US_mass_shootings.png

    Something in society has changed that is independent of guns, and that is what we should be looking to. There was a time in America when they were almost unheard of. What has changed? Social cohesion, mental health care, Internet-induced alienation and hatred, economics, etc.? We need to think about human behavior, not the tools of death. That’s not to say that reasonable regulation doesn’t have a part. Increased regulation might have some small impact and should be considered in a cost-benefit way.

    1. What changed? They banned something that was considered perfectly ordinary, thereby making it attractive to certain people with low self esteem. What happens when you ban a book? What happens when you ban a drug? Answer: usage of the banned item increases, and a corresponding percentage of bad actors… act out.

      1. That might explain someone like the Columbine killers, but not Adam Lanza, who was probably at borderline Rain Man levels of social awareness, or the STEM shooters in Colorado, who used handguns.

        The AWB has been over for 15 years now. That’s far too much of a time window to bring “forbidden fruit” levels of attractiveness into it. When these guys pick an AR-15, they do it because they think it will be easier to kill a lot of people in the arena they pick. The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns because it would have been tougher to get off several shots with a long rifle in such a small space before getting taken down.

  22. During the next debate, Beto will beat a disabled veteran senseless and take away his AR-15. The Democrat crowd will cheer. “Finally, someone has done something!”, they will say.

  23. We all know where AR-15s will be taken away. It will not be in Bayside, Queens, New York or Bel Air, Los Angeles, California.

    It will be in places like Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn New York and Watts, Los Angeles, California.

    When the first black man is killed in a confiscation campaign, how will Beto deal with #BlackLivesMatter?

    1. So if the Black people in Brooklyn want to get rid of the guns by confiscating the weapons that are making their neighborhoods dangerous they should be subject to the dictats of some rube gun nut who wants to hoard his weapons so he can have a shootout with the guv’mint?

      1. Tell us, shrieky-poo, where is the evidence these neighborhoods want to get rid of their guns?

        Because if that was the case, south Chicago wouldn’t turn into a shooting gallery every weekend.

      2. That’s what I heard.

  24. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Who wrote this shit? Two 3rd graders? {checks google} oh… no… my mistake. It was written by 18th century White guys who owned slaves and didn’t want to pay taxes. Libertarians should pay attention to these shitty rubes?!? Fuck that!

    1. You deserve rape.

    2. It’s like getting fucked in the ass by a guy dead for 250 years.

      Over and over again.

      In and out.

      I’m so butthurt at this country I just keep shitting my shorts.

    3. The same guys who wrote “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Maybe we should ignore that one too. I propose we make everyone join the Quakers, they are non-violent that will end all violence.

      1. They got the first one right, but the 2nd was such a let down— especially the grammar. Geesch. English, motherfuckers.

        1. It was English of the time period and Grammar of the time period. Oh your stupid enough to think that language is static? Read Dickens or Blackstone or Webster. And I love how you want to pick and choose which amendments we should follow.

    4. BTW the 2A was based upon English Common Law. So it wasn’t written by some slave owning white guy who didn’t want to pay taxes. They just adapted it for our Constitution. Learn some history.

    5. Yeh. You’re right. Americans should just rip it up like Homer did The Hallowed Sacred Parchment and get on with it. Things change!

      I’m sure Beto and the nut jobs infesting the DNC will come up with something better and more betterer.

      1. I say we take the best of the 20th century examples. The Dutch Constitution, for example, guarantees that taxes adequately redistribute income. The South African Constitution provides recognition of the rights of everyone. Plus, maybe we should throw in something about gay and women’s rights. I don’t know… i’m Neither a writer or a lawyer, but something has to be better than the scribbling of these English malcontents who didn’t want to pay taxes on tea and stamps.

        1. There was a lot more to it than that including the British government wanting to take away the legally owned guns of the “colonists”.
          It wasn’t something that just popped into their heads, one day, you imbecile.

          1. Patrick Henry led a rabble to take arms from the Governor’s armory. I believe this was Lord Dunmore’s turf, and his lordship got worked up about it–before the Declaration of Independence.

        2. “i’m Neither a writer or a lawyer, ”
          But you are annoying and an idiot so you’ve got those going for you.

  25. The dude eats dirt.

    Get real.

  26. What is worse? Trump’s imperious imposition of tariff taxes on Americans, or Beto’s promise to take our guns? What’s a libertarian to do? Move to…oops, it may be worse there.

    1. Pfft… for these GOP suckoffs here in the comment page? They’re amongst the most enthusiastic Trump boosters you can find.

      1. Trump is an arrogant moron, but you are so much worse. Think about that for two minutes before responding. Ya, never mind.

        1. Yes, but for all my awfulness, I can’t launch thousands of nuclear weapons at my adversaries.

          1. But you and Trump have both been bankrupt.

            Similar, yet, different.

            1. No, i’ve Never asked the government to protect me from my creditors.

              Can you give me the top ten reasons Libertarians should vote for Trump again? I’m not, but I want to know why you are.

              1. That sounds so boring and overdone.

                How about we talk about how stupid George W. Bush is?

                1. There sure are a lot of things government bureaucrats can inflict upon us and still maintain the affections of the modern libertarian. As long as I don’t talk about taxes or how I don’t really care about guns I could pretty much fuck any of one of you, I figure. At least you are the fickle type.

                  1. Aren’t. Fuck me.

                    1. Ok. I’ll tell you why a libertarian like you should vote for Trump:

                      1. Trump’s the kinda guy who spends big on credit but skips the bill when it’s due.

                      Doesn’t that make him so relatable to you?

                    2. Are we still talking about my awesome financial instincts 10 years after the fact? Talk about boring and overdone. It’s ok… I know i’m Smart, ok?

                    3. 2. He spends a lot of time commenting on the internet, acting like a dumb jackass troll because he’ll take any attention he can get, even if it makes him look crazy and stupid.

                      You see your resemblance? Are you starting to warm up to him?

                    4. You’re warming me up to this idea of running for office. I’m an Incredible asshole. Check. Narcissist who likes to read his posts over and over again. Check. Now all I have to do is talk about how Dems are all gun-grabbing socialists who want to turn the country over to ISIS and the Mexicans and i’ve Got your vote. Wow!

                    5. But come on… be in the legislature amongst country-fried Hicks like Tom Cotton and these bigoted dicks from Buttfuck, Kentucky? Meh… no thanks. Thanks for telling me how much Trump, the person you go out of your way to luv and defend, reminds you of me. That’s very sweet. I’m touched.

              2. As opposed to openly socialist candidates that want to force me to pay for other people’s health care, want to punish People who earned their wealth and the corporations that employ many Americans, who support naked power grabs like the Green New Deal, who support job killing regulations, the public school monopoly that locks the poorest Americans in failing schools, that supports taking away rights and letting the government decide what is and isn’t okay for me to do with my own property?

                1. Let’s talk about something new. How about abortion?

                  1. Losing so you change the subject, I see. Generally speaking most Libertarians support, while not support but are opposed to laws forbidding abortion. There is, however those who believe that there is a libertarian argument against abortion, i.e. it violates the rights of the infant. Many compromise by supporting ending access to abortions at viability, with a few exceptions. The Libertarian leaning conservatives that post on here prefer either the latter to stances.

                2. Wait… sorry… one more thing. I’m wondering how many checks a soldier medic libertarian has cashed from the Defense Department that I American commies like me have paid taxes for. Do you have a round number?

                  1. You can’t even pay your mortgage, much less pay taxes.

                  2. You think you are making some sort of point? What, that a libertarian leaning conservative caring enough for the Constitution is willing to put his life on the line to defend it is somehow odd? There is a hell of a lot of libertarian leaning veterans out there, part of it is our personal experience with how bad and inefficient the government really is.

              3. No, i’ve Never asked the government to protect me from my creditors.

                Because your meth stash isn’t considered a good enough asset to borrow against, mortgage-welsher.

  27. First, a little known history. During WWII Japan actually landed in America. Another little known truth is that Japan decided NOT to invade America specifically because of the millions of individuals who had guns and would fight against them.

    This a major reason why we have the second amendment. In addition the founders were correct on another point. That is the people must be allowed guns in order to protect themselves from their government. Beto is an example of the corruption of the politicians.

    Message for Beto, I would not recommend you try to enter any home in America to steal the guns.

    1. I like the story about the German general trying to intimidate Switzerland in WW2. When the Swiss leader warned him that Switzerland had 3 million armed citizens, the German general asked him what they would do if he invaded with his 6 million man army? “Shoot twice” was the reply.

  28. This was my first real exposure to the man and it was surprising how ignorant he was. His answers seemed almost to be satire. I can’t believe he has gotten this far

    1. Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of proggie thought.
      Did you hear the thunderous applause he got when he said he would seize those guns?
      Forget the Russians™, those are the real enemies of America.

  29. there should be certain strict rules for using guns imo
    درمان افسردگی بدون دارو

    1. 1. Always treat every firearm as though it is loaded. …
      2. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. …
      3. Keep your finger outside the trigger guard until ready to shoot. …
      4. Always be sure of your target and what is in front of it and behind it.

  30. Let’s face facts. First, baito doesn’t know the difference between an “assault weapon” and a semi-automatic sporting rifle, e.g., AR-15. Secondly, he cannot define “assault weapon” as a term or even describe how its function is different from any other semi-automatic sporting rifle.

    He’s never seen an assault weapon “in our streets” because they’ve been severely restricted since 1934. He’s never even seen a semi-automatic sporting rifle “in our streets” because the infinitesimal few that are used in crimes are never revealed until the crime occurs. And peaceable, lawful owners keep them in their homes.

    Seems he’s just another party liar reading his lines. He’s completely oblivious to the fact that gun control is working precisely as planned. Intimidation has dissuaded peaceable, lawful owners from carrying firearms. The result is adult on-site reprisal never changes — NOBODY RETURNS FIRE!!

    And democrat reaction never changes — GRAB THE GUNS, GRAB THE GUNS!! We all should ask, WHAT GUNS?!! Nobody there had any. I’d also ask whom they hope to disarm. The victims invariably were rendered defenseless by their own elected misanthropic morons like baito.

    Baito majored in English literature and fled from a DUI but was detained by a news reporter. He burglarized a college. Worked as a manny. Failed as a musician. Sweats a lot. Fidgets. Skateboards. He uses incredibly vile language in public but doesn’t seem able to read even one constitutional amendment. He’s a democrat and wants to be president anyway. What a guy.

    Someone needs to tell him the Supreme Court isn’t about to jeopardize its own reputation by reducing the ability of private citizens to defend themselves. It’s especially important because currently, half the nation’s murders occur in only 63 counties while the other half are spread across the other 3,081 counties. Said another way, 15 percent had one murder and 54 percent of the nation’s counties had no murders at all.

    1. By the plain text, historical explanatory publications, and clear logic of the Second Amendment, even true assault weapons shouldn’t be restricted either. The Amendment is clearly talking about arms of military usefulness.

  31. This is a good article Jacob. It is helpful to remember that this urge to purge goes way back in the western human body politic. To the Hebrew it was an actual goat, but for ancient Greeks it was a human beings – the pharmakos – who was driven from society.

    More and more I see that Cicero was largely correct – there really are just few forms of governance and no matter what we try it is inevitable that we will slip back towards those forms and their associated practices.

  32. An attempt to disarm the unorganized militia (as defined by 10 USC 246) is an act of treason.

    DOJ must begin investigating whether this speech by O’Rourke meets the standard of “aiding the enemies of the United States” in attempting to disarm one of the nation’s defense formations.

    If so, arrests need to start, along with public trials. Political considerations are irrelevant (and immoral). If guilt is found, the sentence under 18 USC 2381 must be carried out. Our Nation’s #Liberty must be defended.

    On an organizing note, there should be a lottery to volunteer to staff the firing squads.

    1. Nonsense. Nixon signed the Strategic Arms Infringement Treaty with Soviet conservatives in violation of 2A and Article VI, Section 2. In fact, the very last clause of Section 10 in Article 1 allows the States to defend themselves if “…actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.” Nothing in the Constitution supports the conclusion that the treaty-making power is arbitrary and unlimited and supersedes all individual rights guaranteed us by the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But Nixon got away scot-free, right?

  33. So Beto is scapegoating legal gun owners for the crimes of a few miscreants. Huh. Where have I heard that story before.

    1. True, MS-13 and Latin Kings members should probably be lined up against a wall and shot for their crimes. Think of the tax savings.

    2. What about cars? How does the number of folks killed by cars and trucks compare to gun deaths? And there’s nothing in the Bill of Rights that says it’s OK to endanger humanity with a fossil-fuel vehicles, right? What’s wrong with a gradualist approach to the big tent that starts off banning the major offender, vehicles, then moving on to guns after thus earning the thanks of a grateful Republic?

  34. Beto and those like him are exactly the reason that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.
    It is there to restrict the power of government.

    1. You’re somehow wrong in such a way that you get the right answer. The bill of rights was enacted because the anti-federalists were afraid that without one the new federal government would take actions that oppressed the people, while the federalists argued that no such powers were granted in the first place, so there was no need for a bill of rights in the first place. After all, if the government doesn’t have the power to do something in the first place you don’t need a separate restriction to say, “and you explicitly can’t do that thing you don’t have the power to do.”

      Turns out the anti-federalists were right on this.

  35. One thing is sure, Bonzo is not a student of his own state’s history. In 1835, the Mexican Army attempted to seize a cannon that was used by the Texican to defend against Native Indian attacks. The residents of Gonzolas were ready for them, successfully defending the cannon and flying a battle flag that carried forward the immortal words of the Spartan King Leonidas to the Persians when the Persians demanded he turn over his troops’ weapons – Molon labe or Come and Take it. Until Bonzo understands this he is not fit to hold any public office and as a Texan, I am ashamed to acknowledge he is from the same state.

    1. Texas is changing but it hasn’t changed that much. His gun grabber pledge means he has no chance to carry Texas in the general election, which makes him worthless to the Dems, even as a VP option now. Maybe they’ll give him a Cabinet post for trying to move the Overton Window a little farther to the left.

      1. “Texas is changing but it hasn’t changed that much. ”

        The days when men like Ian Fleming (author of Casino Royale and other James Bond novels) would claim that Texans were the greatest people on the planet are long over. Bond made do with a modest walther ppk. He wouldn’t have touched the whorish AR rifles with all their tassles and trimmings so beloved by today’s faggy Texans.

        1. James Bond was fictional in highly unrealistic stories. Real spies usually don’t carry any fire arm at all. In most cases, if a spy gets caught, trying to shoot his way out would fail, but would turn an embarrassment for his country into a major incident.

  36. “Vicious scapegoating” isn’t the point of O’Rourke’s gun grab.
    The point is to promise to “do something”, and to promise to do more than the other Democrat candidates, in hopes of reviving the dead corpse of his chances in the primaries.

    1. It’s also a means for the Dems to gauge how popular such a proposal might be.

      Beto is running at 2% in the polls and isn’t going anywhere. But he can throw this out as red meat for the base and start to get them on board the confiscation train.

  37. Remember when Obama said nobody wants to take our guns away? And his audience clapped.

    And Beto says “yep, we do,” and the audience claps.

    Sure, nobody wants to take our guns away… except for you, and many people you know.

    And that’s how you know they’re mendacious cunts.

    1. Remember how many guns Obama took away when he was President?

      1. I remember how many guns Democrats said they wanted to take during his administration: 0.

        What a difference 3 years makes. How fickle.

  38. As the saying goes: “If you want to disarm me, why would I trust you?”

    1. This is the difference between a friend and an enemy. When a friend uses you, they try to make you stronger. When an enemy uses you, they try to make you weaker.

      Anyone trying to make you stronger is (probably) your friend, because they want an ally, not a servant.

      Anyone trying to make you weaker is (probably) your enemy, because only your enemy wants you to be weaker for them to control.

  39. We know from the debates on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which were extensively documented, that the Second Amendment was passed expressly to protect the ordinary citizens’ legal access to military arms. So if Beto was interested in preserving the integrity of the Second Amendment, he would have to offer to swap a fully operational M-16 for every AR-15 confiscated.

    Since we also know this isn’t what he proposes to do, he needs to be asked what OTHER parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights he proposes to ignore.

  40. Whenever I push my gungrabber friends about the arbitrary and irrelevant way assault weapon is defined, they see the point and completely agree: Just ban all semiautomatic rifles period. That’s where this complaining about the definition is going, not the other way where they give up.

    1. Beto pulled the mask off of the entire gun control debate. All of this hubbub about background checks and registries, much as they wish to claim otherwise, is simply to allow easier confiscation.

  41. The Left: “The police are inherently racist and brutally mistreat minorities. ALSO, they should be the ONLY ones allowed to have guns”

    1. “The Left: ”

      Would probably approve of those weapons provided that they remain in the hands of members of well-regulated militias. Like the Taliban or Hezbollah.

      1. Taliban: “We killed more Americans in a terrorist attack than anyone else… with box cutters.”

        1. Come on… these Taliban goat fuckers can’t compete with these cow Tucker’s in the US Army in terms of KIA.

          1. With any luck, you’ll be their next target.

    2. Also: Trump is worse than Hitler, while also wanting all guns confiscated. I seem to have read a few books about how that works out….

  42. ★★★★I am developing a first rate half of time financial advantage from home with the aid of using running my PC . I even have used an internet system and presently I clearly have created $18987 This month. all of us of you’ll be Able to use this home income device and earn extra from intention Half Time. test this website for added data regarding developing cash….but earlier than this you need to visist the following website online …★★★★

    ►►HOME► MEDIA► TECH►AND more thank you…..Read More

  43. Well, it is good of him to make it clear. Dems usually like to say that they’re only for “Common Sense gun regulations” and that “Nobody wants to take your guns away”. We all knew that they were lying about that, and now it’s out there for everyone to see,

  44. Last year a search on “nazi gun control” yielded Wikipeedya cant about extreme right wing liars with fallacious arguments. After the 12,851,633 votes cast for LP candidates in 2018 were tallied, you can suddenly find the translations of National Socialist gun laws without adding “American Rifleman” to the search. The nationalsocialists at the Wiki still bleat their screed, but NOW people can more easily find and read simple English translations of altruist nazi “reasonable gun control laws.” This illustrates the zeitgeist-changing power of Libertarian spoiler votes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.