Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:10 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,501

O'Rourke on gun confiscation, then and now (a.k.a. Francis' flip-flop)


Beto's campaign is floundering badly, and in his desperation he's decided that completely reversing his earlier position could be a savvy political move:

Then:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beto in April 2018
If you purchased that AR-15, if you own it, keep it. ... 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.
Now:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beto in September 2019
Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore!
The AP put it this way: Coming for your AR-15? O'Rourke scrambles Dems' gun message

Quote:
Beto O’Rourke’s “hell yes” moment at the Democrats’ presidential debate is scrambling his party’s message on guns.

The Democrats have long contended their support of gun control laws does not mean they want to take away law-abiding citizens’ firearms. But on Friday, they struggled to square that message with their presidential contender’s full-throated call on national TV for confiscating assault rifles.
I'd like to take a moment here and sincerely thank Francis for almost certainly single-handedly killing the chances of some new gun control measures passing through Congress, just at the precise moment that President Trump and Senator McConnell seemed to be going all wobbly on us.

What do you guys think of him though? Is the once-golden-boy of the Democratic Party now looked at like that crazy uncle that's muttering nonsense to himself (like how they used to look at Joe Biden)? Or has he got his finger on the pulse of the bleeding hearts of liberals, giving voice to your deepest desires? Was he lying then or is he lying now?
  #2  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:21 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,374
The more distant your odds are of winning the nomination, the freer you are to truly speak your mind.
  #3  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:52 PM
Twoflower's Avatar
Twoflower is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: South Oregon
Posts: 1,419
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the recent shooting in El Paso caused him to change his mind.
  #4  
Old 09-16-2019, 02:54 PM
Ukulele Ike is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 17,677
Hurricane Ditka:. I’m a comin’ to GRAB YOUR GUNS. Fear me.
__________________
Uke
  #5  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:15 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Strategy analysts seemed to think it was a good move, to varying degrees:
Quote:
"Will the debate have much effect on overall polling? Aside from small bumps for O’Rourke and Booker, probably not." [...]

"O’Rourke was the clear star of the night because he was authentic and honest about guns and what he intends to do about them. He has found his voice after the El Paso Walmart shooting, and I think that Beto will move into the top tier." [...]

"In top form were Booker, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and O’Rourke, all of whom can use this event to bolster their struggling candidacies." [...]

"O’Rourke emerged a second-tier victor, at least during the first half of the debate. You know you’re having a good night when virtually everyone else on the stage commends the way you’ve spoken about gun violence and the massacre in El Paso."
Personally, I'm undecided about the practical advantages of broadly-defined-type-based gun bans, so from a policy perspective I'm like "Hmmm, still thinking". But from a public discourse perspective, I think it's a good thing to have a wider variety of opinions on gun-control measures openly discussed. I don't want any constitutional and potentially practical strategies for reducing gun violence to be automatically taboo in the national conversation just because they're not popular with gun owners.
  #6  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:23 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twoflower View Post
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the recent shooting in El Paso caused him to change his mind.
You don't think it's got anything to do with the different constituencies he's trying to calibrate his message to appeal to: Texans then and dem primary voters now?
  #7  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:25 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Beto's campaign is floundering badly, and in his desperation he's decided that completely reversing his earlier position could be a savvy political move:
Why do you believe he is acting in desperation? Why can't it be that he really feels this way and has finally saw the light, and it's not just some political calculation? Because your statement here doesn't really allow for this possibility.

Quote:
I'd like to take a moment here and sincerely thank Francis for almost certainly single-handedly killing the chances of some new gun control measures passing through Congress, just at the precise moment that President Trump and Senator McConnell seemed to be going all wobbly on us.
Assuming that there was ever a chance of something passing with the Republicans in charge in the Senate (HA!), why do you feel this would kill it? What's the logic here?

Quote:
What do you guys think of him though? Is the once-golden-boy of the Democratic Party now looked at like that crazy uncle that's muttering nonsense to himself (like how they used to look at Joe Biden)? Or has he got his finger on the pulse of the bleeding hearts of liberals, giving voice to your deepest desires? Was he lying then or is he lying now?
If you want people to stop killing other people with the types of weapons O'Rourke wants to ban, it's not crazy at all what he is saying. You make think he's muttering nonsense, but that doesn't make it so. Finally, if wanting people to stop dying because of guns makes me a "bleeding heart" liberal, so be it. If we are going to stop 40K or so people from dying every year in this country because of guns, we're going to have to start banning them in considerable numbers. It's the only way.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 09-16-2019 at 03:26 PM.
  #8  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:29 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,029
Briscoe Cain is the one looking like a crazy uncle.
  #9  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:48 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twoflower View Post
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the recent shooting in El Paso caused him to change his mind.
I tend to be more cynical about politicians not only him. I'd guess it highly likely he believed in confiscation back when he denied it, or more likely still doesn't really care, just wants to get elected and his campaign is sinking to the point he might as well take a shot, any shot. But who really knows what's in other people's minds?

The point is how generally ridiculous it is when either politicians or people on the internet say 'who's talking about taking guns?!? we're not saying that *at all*, you're just paranoid from watching too much Fox News', etc.

But, trying to think of it objectively, nothing you do that only applies to new gun sales is going to make a major difference for a long time. Guns last a really long time with reasonable care, could be centuries assuming only moderate use, and even ammunition can be usable for decades if stored properly. So it only makes sense, if you value gun rights lightly relative to the societal benefits you see from fewer guns, to want to also take (certain kinds, at least of) guns away from people who bought them legally. The reason not to say so is to avoid inspiring such strong anti-gun control feelings (votes, fund raising, etc) that it could spill over to preventing even half measures like banning sale of the same types of new guns. There isn't really a principled reason to be in favor banning sale of X type guns but be against confiscation of existing X type guns.

But by the same token pro-gun rights people who see a slippery slope to confiscation are probably not being that paranoid actually.

Last edited by Corry El; 09-16-2019 at 03:50 PM.
  #10  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:50 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Briscoe Cain is the one looking like a crazy uncle.
Yeah. My (fairly neutral) opinion of O'Rourke hasn't really significantly shifted in response to this particular rhetoric, but my (previously nonexistent) view of this turd Cain is strongly negative.

On a side note, I was also unfavorably impressed to learn about Rep. Cain's sanctimonious Nyah-Nyah-Dead-Atheist response last year to the death of physicist (and atheist) Stephen Hawking: "Stephen Hawking now knows the truth about how the universe was actually made." Dumbasses who would be totally incapable of understanding the work of a groundbreaking scientist or intelligently discussing his work with him during his lifetime leap at the chance to act smugly superior about him once he's safely dead.
  #11  
Old 09-16-2019, 03:54 PM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twoflower View Post
I have absolutely no problem with the idea that the recent shooting in El Paso caused him to change his mind.
Absolutely.
  #12  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:05 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,011
I am not a fan of O'Rourke. Don't hate him. He's just not my top pick in this Democratic field. But I do appreciate his evolution on guns and the fact that he was bold enough to say what has to be said more often, and embraced by American society as a whole.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #13  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:12 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Beto's campaign is floundering badly, and in his desperation he's decided that completely reversing his earlier position could be a savvy political move: <snip> Was he lying then or is he lying now?
Whaddaya know - sometime over the course of a year and a half, he changed his mind.

Seems quite familiar - sometime over the past two or three years, I changed my mind in the very same way. Merely no longer selling assault weapons isn't enough, given the millions of them out there: mandatory buybacks are a necessity to stop the slaughter. And like I keep saying, feel free to call me a gun-grabber, because you've been calling me one all along. What are you going to call me that's any different, now that I'm actually for bona fide gun grabbing? Wolf, wolf, wolf!

So good for Beto. El Paso really did seem to change him - it was the moment he could not deal with the bullshit any longer:
Quote:
On Saturday, a gunman opened fire in an El Paso Wal-mart, killing 22 people and wounding dozens of others. Shortly before the shooting, the suspect is believed to have posted a manifesto on the website 8chan warning of a "Hispanic invasion" of Texas and writing that he was "simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion."

Late Sunday evening, a reporter asked O'Rourke, "is there anything in your mind that the president can do now to make this any better?"

O'Rourke, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, gave an impassioned and emotional response both calling out Trump's rhetoric and the media for continuing to question whether Trump was enabling racism.

"What do you think? You know the s--- he's been saying. He's been calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. I don't know, like members of the press, what the f---? Hold on a second, you know, I ... it's these questions that you know the answers to," he responded.

He continued, "connect the dots about what he's been doing in this country. He's not tolerating racism, he's promoting racism. He's not tolerating violence, he's inciting racism and violence. So, uhm, you know, I just ... I don't what kind of question that is."
And that's pretty much how he's been rolling ever since. For instance, he was asked about Biden's age on Meet the Press yesterday morning:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beto
Who the hell cares about Joe Biden's age? You have kids in cages. You have 10 years left to confront climate change. Millions who can't see a doctor. Nearly 40,000 gun deaths a year. A lawless president. We have to talk about the big things people in this country care about.
IOW, take your bullshit question and shove it.

An awful lot of Democrats have been waiting for a long time for candidates who aren't going to go along with talking about whatever the media think is important that week, who are going to say, look, I don't care what your issue du jour is, here's what really matters." Gimme more, Beto, gimme more!

Last edited by RTFirefly; 09-16-2019 at 04:14 PM.
  #14  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:23 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
But by the same token pro-gun rights people who see a slippery slope to confiscation are probably not being that paranoid actually.
Yeah, they're paranoid about losing their guns. We're paranoid about people losing their lives.
  #15  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:23 PM
not what you'd expect is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,898
He's no doubt been deeply affected by the many personal emotional interactions he has had with all of the victims in his district. I mean, if something like that can't change a mind, what the hell could?

It's completely unquestionable to me that his is not a cynical move.
  #16  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:29 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I am not a fan of O'Rourke. Don't hate him. He's just not my top pick in this Democratic field. But I do appreciate his evolution on guns and the fact that he was bold enough to say what has to be said more often, and embraced by American society as a whole.
Please do say it more often. For decades, Democrats have worked against the perception that any regulation of guns was just another step on the slippery slope to confiscation. Every time a Republican made that claim, the Democrats would rush out and say, "No, No! We don't want to take anyone's guns! We just want a modicum of common-sense regulation!". And that's worked, as about 70% of Americans are in favor of 'common sense' gun regulations. They just differ on what those are.

In one night, Beto O'Rourke destroyed decades of perception control by anti-gunners. Now, any time a Democrat says they don't want to ban guns, someone will hold up a Beto T-shirt that says, "Hell yes I'm going to take your AR-15", or quote the many Democrats who came out in favor.

By the way, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. As such, it is absolutely constitutionally protected. Beto might as well have made up a T-shirt that said, "Hell yes I plan to violate my oath to defend the Constitution!"

This is a setback for gun control.
  #17  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:33 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
Please do say it more often. For decades, Democrats have worked against the perception that any regulation of guns was just another step on the slippery slope to confiscation. Every time a Republican made that claim, the Democrats would rush out and say, "No, No! We don't want to take anyone's guns! We just want a modicum of common-sense regulation!". And that's worked, as about 70% of Americans are in favor of 'common sense' gun regulations. They just differ on what those are.
Was this before or after the number and severity of mass shootings in the U.S. increased almost exponentially?

That was then. This is now.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #18  
Old 09-16-2019, 04:39 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,374
I get the sense (at least, from the loud cheering for Beto's remarks during the debate) that for many Democratic voters, Beto's comments were at last a big breath of fresh air, where someone finally said out loud what they had been silently wishing for all along but that no other (D) candidate was going to say. Finally someone who wants the assault rifles confiscated.
  #19  
Old 09-16-2019, 05:18 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In one night, Beto O'Rourke destroyed decades of perception control by anti-gunners.
Well, as with most tipping points, there was doubtless a long slow build-up to the deceptively sudden moment of tip. What O'Rourke did AFAICT was not so much moving the needle on the actual likelihood of a legislative ban as daring to articulate how much most Americans have come to distrust a lot of gun owners, and to consider them not sufficiently responsible to have completely uncontrolled access to such dangerous weapons.

I don't see this as some kind of long-awaited slipping of the mask of "covert confiscationists", so much as a snapping point for many people who have lost faith that compromise is possible. The newly adversarial stance is expressing a lot of frustrated (and frightened) Americans' conscious loss of belief that they have a good-faith partner in gun-rights advocates when it comes to negotiating a path toward greater gun safety.

The feeling is not "Ha ha, yes we really are going to take your guns, we always intended to!"
It's "We've stood by and watched all this shit happen as your desired interpretation of gun rights has gone on expanding and your response to mass shootings and other gun violence has always been perfunctory 'thoughts and prayers' along with demands for more guns. It's finally dawning on us that you don't actually give a crap about people being killed compared to your self-image as a heroic rights-defending patriot. Fuck compromise any more, we're taking your guns away."

Mind you, I personally don't think that this mood of anger and frustration is the most constructive attitude for approaching discussions of deadly weapons, and it's unlikely to make any form of abolition movement more practically effective. But I think it's important to recognize that this is about a shift in most Americans' attitude and a loss of their trust, not about a sudden revelation of what they were really meaning to do all along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone
By the way, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. As such, it is absolutely constitutionally protected.
Probably so. I think we're more likely to see rapid movement on so-called "red flag" legislation than on broad-based weapon bans. After all, guns don't kill people, people kill people, and a large number of Americans are in favor of being more proactive in trying to identify and disarm the people who do. Of course, there are some constitutional-rights thickets to be negotiated there too.

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-16-2019 at 05:21 PM.
  #20  
Old 09-16-2019, 05:36 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
... how much most Americans have come to distrust a lot of gun owners... But I think it's important to recognize that this is about a shift in most Americans' attitude and a loss of their trust...
I think you're trying too hard to speak for "most Americans" here. Most Americans don't agree with Beto "Hell Yes, We're Going to Take Your AR-15's" O'Rourke:

Quote:
Are you for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?
___________For Against No opinion
2018 Oct 1-10 40 57 3
2017 Oct 5-11 48 49 3
2016 Oct 5-9 36 61 3
2012 Dec 19-22 44 51 5
2011 Oct 6-9 43 53 5
2004 Oct 11-14 50 46 4
2000 Oct 25-28 ^ 59 39 2
1996 Apr 25-28 ^ 57 42 1
^ WORDING: Would you vote -- for or against a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?
  #21  
Old 09-16-2019, 06:28 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I think you're trying too hard to speak for "most Americans" here. Most Americans don't agree with Beto "Hell Yes, We're Going to Take Your AR-15's" O'Rourke:
October 1st 2018, before the recent spate of shootings.

Try this more recent one instead.
Quote:
The majority of Americans support a ban on assault weapons in the wake of two recent mass shootings that killed a total of 31 people, a new Fox News poll found.

Two-thirds of Americans favor a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons as a measure to reduce gun violence, according to a poll released Wednesday. It is a 7-point increase from when the question was asked in March 2018.
Or this one
Quote:
The poll found that nearly 70 percent of all voters would back such a ban. Support for an assault-weapons ban was higher, at 86 percent, among Democrats, who have been pushing for new restrictions on the firearms in the wake of two mass shootings over the weekend.

Republicans typically are more reticent to support new gun restrictions, and Trump campaigned in 2016 on his strong support for the Second Amendment. But the poll found that 55 percent of GOP voters were comfortable with banning assault weapons, and 54 percent said they would support stricter gun laws more generally. Ninety percent said they would back universal background checks for gun sales.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 09-16-2019 at 06:32 PM.
  #22  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:01 PM
Babale is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,863
Finally, the gun nuts' strategy has backfired. For too long, they've spewed platitudes like "thoughts and prayers" and "now is not the time for politics".

It's a dark mark on our society that it took so many deaths, but the weight of all that suffering is finally reaching a turning point. If the democrats do well during the next election cycle, we'll get much harsher gun control than ever would have been possible in the past.

If, on the other hand, the Republicans gerrymander their way to victory again, they'll hold things off a few more years.... But when the pendulum does swing the other way, it's going to swing HARD.
  #23  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:17 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
By the way, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. As such, it is absolutely constitutionally protected.
Good to know that the right to massacre one's fellow citizens is Constitutionally protected.
  #24  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:19 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Good to know that the right to massacre one's fellow citizens is Constitutionally protected.
It's not, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, however, is.
  #25  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:24 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,866
I'm less interested in the question of whether it's right or wrong for people to be allowed to own "assault weapons", and more interested in how exactly a ban on their ownership would actually play out "on the ground", as it were. Not just their sale and manufacture, but also their ownership, which is the type of ban that O'Rourke has implied with his remarks. I get that the government would offer to buy them back. How many owners would actually turn them in and take the reward? For all of those who don't, how is the government going to enforce the ban? Are they going to go through the sale receipts of all the gun stores for purchases of AR/AK type rifles and go track down the people who bought them? Are they going to have cops go knocking on doors? Kicking down doors?
  #26  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:25 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
In one night, Beto O'Rourke destroyed decades of perception control by anti-gunners.
Did it matter? After Sandy Hook, after the slaughter of 20 first-graders, the pro-slaughter party wouldn't even go along with closing the background check loopholes.

What did we lose? Not a damned thing. What did we gain? The first major public statement of something that's transparently obvious: there are too many AR-15s and the like out there to stop the massacres just by banning their future sales.
Quote:
This is a setback for gun control.
This is a setback for the pro-slaughter faction in America.
  #27  
Old 09-16-2019, 07:33 PM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,398
Is "Francis" supposed to be a girly-sounding name, or something? It was obvious why Obamaphobes leaned on the "Hussein," but I'm having a tougher time understanding the pejorative value of this one.
  #28  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:26 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Is "Francis" supposed to be a girly-sounding name, or something? It was obvious why Obamaphobes leaned on the "Hussein," but I'm having a tougher time understanding the pejorative value of this one.
I think you're right. Also, a lot of Republicans (e.g., the death-threatening Rep. Briscoe Cain III and Sen. Rafael Edward Cruz) make a point of calling O'Rourke "Robert Francis" rather than his lifelong nickname of "Beto" in order to suggest that he's somehow "faking" being Latino or something.

But yeah, I think emphasizing the "Francis" is supposed to denigrate his maleness by suggesting the girl's name "Frances", as well as presumably the effete land of France, abomination of red-blooded patriotic conservatives throughout the land.
  #29  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:41 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's not, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, however, is.
From here.
Quote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

From the Heller decision.

Last edited by running coach; 09-16-2019 at 08:42 PM.
  #30  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:42 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Or has he got his finger on the pulse of the bleeding hearts of liberals, giving voice to your deepest desires?
The latter. No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.

And, when you think about it, nobody really has any use for more than one gun. A single hunting rifle or shotgun will do for your home-defense needs. But some people stockpile arsenals -- why?! Antique-gun collectors I can understand, it's a hobby, makes for a nice display in your den; but for actual use, well, you can't fire more than one gun at a time, can you?

N.B.: I am here assuming, and I hope all here will agree, that home defense and hunting are the only legitimate uses for firearms. Resisting public authorities is not.

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-16-2019 at 08:44 PM.
  #31  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:47 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You don't think it's got anything to do with the different constituencies he's trying to calibrate his message to appeal to: Texans then and dem primary voters now?
Well, he knows he won't get the nomination, and he is almost certainly planning in the future to run for senator from or governor of Texas.
  #32  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:49 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
... No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. ...
Nonsense. There are lots of legitimate uses for them. Your ignorance of that fact does not alter it.
  #33  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:53 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
... I am here assuming, and I hope all here will agree, that home defense and hunting are the only legitimate uses for firearms. ...
No, we don't all agree. For starters, do you recognize the legitimacy of self defense away from one's home, out in public?
  #34  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:54 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
By the way, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. As such, it is absolutely constitutionally protected.
"As such?" Quite a nonsequitur. Marijuana is the third-most (after alcohol and tobacco) popular drug in America. That does not make it constitutionally protected.

Anyway, I think handguns are far, far more popular than AR-15s, going by the numbers in private hands (and the numbers involved in firearms-related deaths). And if we're speaking of rifles alone, I think AR-15s are probably less popular than non-automatic rifles -- which are you likelier to encounter in a deer camp?
  #35  
Old 09-16-2019, 08:56 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, we don't all agree. For starters, do you recognize the legitimacy of self defense away from one's home, out in public?
I pretty much equate that with "home defense." Also, the need to go armed away from home can be obviated by avoiding certain neighborhoods, unless you happen to live in one. And even then, you don't need an automatic rifle. Only soldiers and sometimes cops need automatic rifles.

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-16-2019 at 08:58 PM.
  #36  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
I pretty much equate that with "home defense." Also, the need to go armed away from home can be obviated by avoiding certain neighborhoods, unless you happen to live in one. And even then, you don't need an automatic rifle. ...
Do you understand that people usually choose very different types of firearms for concealed carry vs home defense? A rifle such as an AR-15 is a poor fit for the former but an excellent choice for the latter.
  #37  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:05 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Do you understand that people usually choose very different types of firearms for concealed carry vs home defense? A rifle such as an AR-15 is a poor fit for the former but an excellent choice for the latter.
Why would you ever need an automatic rifle for home defense? Just the noise of cocking your shotgun should suffice to scare off a home intruder.
  #38  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:11 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
Why would you ever need an automatic rifle for home defense? Just the noise of cocking your shotgun should suffice to scare off a home intruder.
I didn't say anyone "need[s] an automatic rifle", I said a semi-automatic one, such as an AR-15 is an excellent choice for home defense, but a poor one for concealed-carry duties. Were you aware of that prior to posting "... when you think about it, nobody really has any use for more than one gun."?
  #39  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:26 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 8,105
You need the range of an ar-15 to shoot across your living room? Or do you sit up in a guard tower waiting for someone to trespass onto your compound?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #40  
Old 09-16-2019, 09:36 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
"As such?" Quite a nonsequitur. Marijuana is the third-most (after alcohol and tobacco) popular drug in America. That does not make it constitutionally protected.

Anyway, I think handguns are far, far more popular than AR-15s, going by the numbers in private hands (and the numbers involved in firearms-related deaths). And if we're speaking of rifles alone, I think AR-15s are probably less popular than non-automatic rifles -- which are you likelier to encounter in a deer camp?
Do you think the AR-15 platform rifle that is typically owned by millions of Americans is automatic? I'm trying to prove the depth or your ignorance. Basically everything you've opined relating to firearms has been mistaken or wrong in some fashion.
  #41  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:26 PM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,953
At the very least Beto may have reversed a downward trend in sales and PAC donations on the gunfan side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka
Or has he got his finger on the pulse of the bleeding hearts of liberals, giving voice to your deepest desires?
The latter.
Speaking for yourself, of course. I am all aboard for reproductive rights, LGBQT equality, mandated maternity leave, organized labor, universal health care, science-based climate policy and cultural diversity and yet I do not find ownership of an AR/AK pattern weapon by a lay citizen to be per se offensive or harmful.

Now, OTOH talk about some of the owners... and heck, sure, they include a cohort that should not be trusted to keep and bear soup ladles, never mind firearms, and I'd easily support making it hard for them to get their hands on one even if it means I just made it twice as expensive for my sensible neighbors. But as someone said upthread, maybe if we could have seen some willingness to address that?
  #42  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukulele Ike View Post
Hurricane Ditka:. I’m a comin’ to GRAB YOUR GUNS. Fear me.
That is precisely what Beto said.
  #43  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:46 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Was this before or after the number and severity of mass shootings in the U.S. increased almost exponentially?
.
Caused by the media, glorifying the shooters. Studies by sociologist have proven this. I have cited them four times in various threads.

There were plenty of guns before, it's not guns.
  #44  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
October 1st 2018, before the recent spate of shootings.

Try this more recent one instead.


Or this one
Generally, most people would think those bans are like the previous ban, a ban on selling or importing. Not a door to door confiscation. Most people are in favor of a ban on selling.

I read the polls- the questions are not clear.
  #45  
Old 09-16-2019, 10:55 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Do you think the AR-15 platform rifle that is typically owned by millions of Americans is automatic? I'm trying to prove the depth or your ignorance. Basically everything you've opined relating to firearms has been mistaken or wrong in some fashion.
Heh, that should have said "probe", not "prove".
  #46  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
The latter. No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.

And, when you think about it, nobody really has any use for more than one gun. A single hunting rifle or shotgun will do for your home-defense needs. But some people stockpile arsenals -- why?! Antique-gun collectors I can understand, it's a hobby, makes for a nice display in your den; but for actual use, well, you can't fire more than one gun at a time, can you?

N.B.: I am here assuming, and I hope all here will agree, that home defense and hunting are the only legitimate uses for firearms. Resisting public authorities is not.
You know, you have repeated this statement on several threads, and you have been corrected each time, yet you continue.

More or less civilians cant own automatic weapons in the USA. There is no big difference in "firepower" between a pump, lever action, bolt action gun, or semi-auto, all can be fired pretty fast. Watch "The Rifleman" sometime.

And of course Olympic shooters own quite a few guns, in fact the Olympics require several types of guns for their events.

Most Police officers own several and carry two.

There's also sports, skeet & trap shooting, Target shooting, collecting, cowboy action shooting, black power mtn man events, and many more.

Again the ignorance about guns by those who want to ban them is amazing. And you have no excuse. You have had this explained to you.
  #47  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:04 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
"As such?" Quite a nonsequitur. Marijuana is the third-most (after alcohol and tobacco) popular drug in America. That does not make it constitutionally protected.

Anyway, I think handguns are far, far more popular than AR-15s, going by the numbers in private hands (and the numbers involved in firearms-related deaths). And if we're speaking of rifles alone, I think AR-15s are probably less popular than non-automatic rifles -- which are you likelier to encounter in a deer camp?
Again the ignorance about guns by those who want to ban them is amazing. He was talking about a SCOTUS ruling. The AR 15 is in "common use".

Well, sure, since you are comparing 10000+ mades & models of handguns with one made of a rifle.

There are several very popular semi-automatic deer rifles. And no one hunts with a "automatic rifle" since they are effectively illegal.
  #48  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:05 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
Why would you ever need an automatic rifle for home defense? Just the noise of cocking your shotgun should suffice to scare off a home intruder.

"automatic rifles" are more or less illegal in the USA. You mean "semi-automatic", perhaps.

Again the ignorance about guns by those who want to ban them is amazing.
  #49  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:17 PM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
The latter. No civilian has any legitimate use for an automatic or semi-automatic rifle. That's much more firepower than you'll ever need for home defense, and it would be unsporting to use such a weapon to hunt.
No one has ever been able to explain to me why a semi-auto is unsporting compared to a bolt action or single shot rifle. How does that work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
And, when you think about it, nobody really has any use for more than one gun. A single hunting rifle or shotgun will do for your home-defense needs.
What about hunters? Can't hunt most birds with a rifle. Using a shotgun on big game is usually not so hot either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
But some people stockpile arsenals -- why?! Antique-gun collectors I can understand, it's a hobby, makes for a nice display in your den; but for actual use, well, you can't fire more than one gun at a time, can you?
I might wants various types of firearms for different kinds of hunting? Modern and primitive seasons exist. Handgun hunting is also a thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
N.B.: I am here assuming, and I hope all here will agree, that home defense and hunting are the only legitimate uses for firearms. Resisting public authorities is not.
What about informal and formal target shooting? Those Olympic and service rifle competitors didn't get that good by hunting and shooting burglars.

All I see in your post is extreme ignorance, it is not an asset at all
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
  #50  
Old 09-16-2019, 11:29 PM
MartinLane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkrapine View Post
Why would you ever need an automatic rifle for home defense? Just the noise of cocking your shotgun should suffice to scare off a home intruder.
That is complete nonsense. It if were true, then people would just download an app for their phone for the sound effect to defend themselves. Does it sound silly to you now?
__________________
Thou shall not lay the burden of proof upon those questioning the claim
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017