Beto Thinks Americans Will Voluntarily Hand Over Firearms To The Government If Asked

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
"No, I don't see law enforcement going door to door," O'Rourke told reporters while at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. "I see Americans complying with the law."

"I see us working with gun owners, non-gun owners, local, county, state, federal law enforcement to come up with the best possible solution," he continued. "I have yet to meet an owner of an AR-15 who thinks it is ok that we have these kind of mass killings in this country."


https://www.dailywire.com/news/51559/watch-beto-thinks-americans-will-voluntary-hand-molly-prince

:killingme



I do not think we should be having mass shootings, but I am NOT Championing for giving up defense against a tyrannical gov
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
"No, I don't see law enforcement going door to door," O'Rourke told reporters while at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. "I see Americans complying with the law."

"I see us working with gun owners, non-gun owners, local, county, state, federal law enforcement to come up with the best possible solution," he continued. "I have yet to meet an owner of an AR-15 who thinks it is ok that we have these kind of mass killings in this country."


https://www.dailywire.com/news/51559/watch-beto-thinks-americans-will-voluntary-hand-molly-prince

:killingme



I do not think we should be having mass shootings, but I am NOT Championing for giving up defense against a tyrannical gov

Do you think we are not as intelligent, thoughtful, cooperative , smart or willing to find a solutio to gun violence as Australians and New Zealanders?
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Do you think we are not as intelligent, thoughtful, cooperative , smart or willing to find a solutio to gun violence as Australians and New Zealanders?
How come the main solutions proposed involve taking away legally obtained guns from law abiding citizens and not concentrating on the problem of illegal guns and killing by people not legally allowed to possess guns?
 
Reactions: BOP

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
How come the main solutions proposed involve taking away legally obtained guns from law abiding citizens and not concentrating on the problem of illegal guns and killing by people not legally allowed to possess guns?
I don’t know, why did trump ban bump stocks?
He sure thought people were going to destroy or turn them in or he would have included confiscation in his ban
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
How come the main solutions proposed involve taking away legally obtained guns from law abiding citizens and not concentrating on the problem of illegal guns and killing by people not legally allowed to possess guns?
Because it's never been about criminal activity... It's about control.
 
Reactions: BOP

This_person

Well-Known Member
Do you think we are not as intelligent, thoughtful, cooperative , smart or willing to find a solutio to gun violence as Australians and New Zealanders?
I absolutely think we are.

And, I think the vast majority (say, 99+%) of people who legally own guns understand that making themselves defenseless against people who illegally own guns is not even close to a solution to gun violence. It is, in fact, a catalyst to MORE gun violence, not less.

Since you like to talk statistics, tell me Sapster, have the vast majority of mass shootings been in firing ranges, or gun-free zones?
 
Reactions: BOP

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
Australia and New Zealand didn't "find a solution to gun violence" they found a solution to disarm the potential victims.
 
Reactions: BOP

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
How come the main solutions proposed involve taking away legally obtained guns from law abiding citizens and not concentrating on the problem of illegal guns and killing by people not legally allowed to possess guns?
Because they generally don't understand the issue beyond "guns are bad". They propose a solution repeatedly that has been clearly shown not to work and has never worked HERE, in the United States (they will refer to places like Australia as experiencing a drop in gun crime, but on a graph it shows that gun crime was already going down and has gone downward at the same rate before as after - indicating that it had zero effect).

You can't ban guns - the horse is out of the barn, the genie is out of the bottle - it is just too damned late. You don't even have to bring up the Second Amendment, you can just point to the fact that there's hundreds of millions of guns already out there - and the fact that guns are almost as easy to make as most drugs are.

In the discussion however is that an overwhelming number of gun owners do not point guns at people and shoot, just as most people who own knives don't stab people or most people who drive don't mow down pedestrians. You don't ban those; it's pointless.

The left wants to treat EVERY gun owner as a potential mass shooter. Imagine if our schools - to address bullying - decided to treat every student as a potential BULLY. You know, take all free time away from every kid; keep them all under the watchful eye of a teacher; heck, even punish them all after an incident. You'd object because the problem is the kid doing the bullying, and your SOLUTION needs to be how to deal with that kid - NOT to address "bullying" as an issue. Deal with the kid. I just read a long article about how the Parkland shooter - Nicholas Cruz - was KNOWN FOR YEARS to be a deeply disturbed and violent child - and people did NOTHING.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The only thing a gun ban or confiscation will do in this country is to make millions of Americans criminals overnight.



And it could possibly get a lot of people killed.
Those who refuse to give up their guns, and those who are stupid enough to try to take them from those who refuse.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Gutsy high-schooler harassed, bullied over Trump support

The high school senior provided school officials with a 200-page packet of screen shots of hostile online comments she had received on account of her conservative views.

As it stands now, Zirkle is being permitted to finish her senior year by taking her classes online.


So, the school addresses the problem by making her stay home and take classes online rather addressing the bullying..typical.
 
Reactions: BOP

PsyOps

Pixelated
Do you think we are not as intelligent, thoughtful, cooperative , smart or willing to find a solutio to gun violence as Australians and New Zealanders?
I think as long as we have a constitution and the subsequent 2nd amendment (unlike Australia and New Zealand), we are smart enough not to comply with so-called 'laws' that violate our constitution.

What's interesting is Beto says this "voluntary" hand-over of firearms is premised under law. There is nothing voluntary about laws. You must comply with the law or face consequences. What happens when someone doesn't comply with the law? Tell us Sap, what would you like to see happen to people who refuse to turn in their illegal firearms?
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
Because they generally don't understand the issue beyond "guns are bad". They propose a solution repeatedly that has been clearly shown not to work and has never worked HERE, in the United States (they will refer to places like Australia as experiencing a drop in gun crime, but on a graph it shows that gun crime was already going down and has gone downward at the same rate before as after - indicating that it had zero effect).

You can't ban guns - the horse is out of the barn, the genie is out of the bottle - it is just too damned late. You don't even have to bring up the Second Amendment, you can just point to the fact that there's hundreds of millions of guns already out there - and the fact that guns are almost as easy to make as most drugs are.

In the discussion however is that an overwhelming number of gun owners do not point guns at people and shoot, just as most people who own knives don't stab people or most people who drive don't mow down pedestrians. You don't ban those; it's pointless.

The left wants to treat EVERY gun owner as a potential mass shooter. Imagine if our schools - to address bullying - decided to treat every student as a potential BULLY. You know, take all free time away from every kid; keep them all under the watchful eye of a teacher; heck, even punish them all after an incident. You'd object because the problem is the kid doing the bullying, and your SOLUTION needs to be how to deal with that kid - NOT to address "bullying" as an issue. Deal with the kid. I just read a long article about how the Parkland shooter - Nicholas Cruz - was KNOWN FOR YEARS to be a deeply disturbed and violent child - and people did NOTHING.

Firstly, your statement about Australia is false. Once guns were removed there has only been one mass shooting in Australia and none in New Zealand.

Why you believe Americans are less civilized than a country founded by prisioners is baffling.

So to use your bully example imagine your kid is hit with a rock at school by a bully. Are you gonna send them to school the next day with more rocks?

Since guns are already out there you claim it would be impossible to solve the issue ( have you neve reward of buy back programs?) Should we also stop trying to solve the drug problem since drugs are already out there?

If you take away guns with the ability to shoot multiple rounds without reloading you drastically reduce the possibility of a mass shooting and greatly increase the amount of time a firs responder has to disarm the shooter. Its really that simple.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Firstly, your statement about Australia is false. Once guns were removed there has only been one mass shooting in Australia and none in New Zealand.
The law was in 1997.

  1. On 8 October 1999, there was the Wright St. Bikie murders
  2. 21 October 2002 saw the Monash University shooting
  3. 20 March 2005 there was the Oakhampton Heights shooting
  4. 11 May 2018 saw the Osmington Shooting
  5. 4 June 2019 had the Darwin shooting
So, while there haven't been that many, there have been a lot more than one. They have about 300,000,000 less people than us (roughly 7.5% of our population) on about 80% of our total landmass. You'd kind of guess that they'd have a smaller number, by a factor of about 13-15 times.

So, it would appear YOUR statement about Australia is the one that is wrong.

Why you believe Americans are less civilized than a country founded by prisioners is baffling.
So, you don't acknowledge the aboriginals?

So to use your bully example imagine your kid is hit with a rock at school by a bully. Are you gonna send them to school the next day with more rocks?
Would you tell the kid to be defenseless?

Since guns are already out there you claim it would be impossible to solve the issue ( have you neve reward of buy back programs?) Should we also stop trying to solve the drug problem since drugs are already out there?
No, we should go after people who use them (guns, drugs, cars, alcohol, knives, matches, fists, sledge-hammers....) illegally.

If you take away guns with the ability to shoot multiple rounds without reloading you drastically reduce the possibility of a mass shooting and greatly increase the amount of time a firs responder has to disarm the shooter. Its really that simple.
Which means, and there's just no getting around this, you make citizens far less able to defend themselves or their homeland against enemies, foreign and domestic.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
The law was in 1997.

  1. On 8 October 1999, there was the Wright St. Bikie murders
  2. 21 October 2002 saw the Monash University shooting
  3. 20 March 2005 there was the Oakhampton Heights shooting
  4. 11 May 2018 saw the Osmington Shooting
  5. 4 June 2019 had the Darwin shooting
So, while there haven't been that many, there have been a lot more than one. They have about 300,000,000 less people than us (roughly 7.5% of our population) on about 80% of our total landmass. You'd kind of guess that they'd have a smaller number, by a factor of about 13-15 times.

So, it would appear YOUR statement about Australia is the one that is wrong.

You should look up the definition of mass shooting. You might learn something none of those are consistent with the definition of a mass shooting


So, you don't acknowledge the aboriginals?

Oh so now you recognize texas as belonging to Mexico? and the Native Americans being the original occupants of the US. Careful there you re starting to make some sense and sound less racist

Would you tell the kid to be defenseless?



No, we should go after people who use them (guns, drugs, cars, alcohol, knives, matches, fists, sledge-hammers....) illegally.


Which means, and there's just no getting around this, you make citizens far less able to defend themselves or their homeland against enemies, foreign and domestic.

So a lot more nonsense which equals I am a pussy and need a gun to feel safe from strangers and the big scary government

None of those are reasons that hundreds of children nd innocent people should be slaughtered
 
Top