Beto O'Rourke says he still supports denying Texans their civil rights

A win in Texas literally changes everything. It shows that Dems can be the party of working people from all walks of life
 
Be pretty hard to smuggle it in the country, so as you make asinine comparisons let think for a moment and realize people can not and will never own a nuclear bomb ( unless dirty or briefcase ) as private citizens, so why try to compare the two?
You seem unable to grasp the principle that if owning a pistol has no victim, neither does owning ANYTHING else, including a nuke. I'm talking forest, you're talking trees.
 
The drunk Irish burglar's campaign is DOA. But a ton of out of state Dimtards will send him a bunch of money.
And he is an expert at knowing how to take that money, bank it legally and also legally siphon it off to his personal accounts over the next several years. Why the hell shouldn't he campaign? it's extremely lucrative....

Rarely have I seen so shallow and mentally unfit a candidate who amounts to little more than a loosely gathered bundle of euphemisms and populisms.
 
Do you realize there's a difference between rifles & handguns and nuclear weapons?

Because it doesn't look like you do.
Do you realize there's a similarity between rifles & handguns and nuclear weapons?

Because it doesn't look like you do. Neither has a victim until they are actually used. If you go back through the thread, you'll see that was my point.
 
The AK-47, or Kalashnikov, is the most popular weapon in the world today, with an estimated 70 million currently in existence. Numerous countries manufacture local variants of the ubiquitous assault rifle and while a new Chinese-made AK-47 might cost you $500, you can easily purchase one in many former conflict zones for as cheap as $50.

Whole fucking countries can't afford a 50 buck rifle?

You're retarded.
Go to England and try and buy that $50 rifle.
 
The citizenry generally don't get involved in shoot outs with gang members and drug dealers (a good thing as this should be left to the professionals), it is the police that have to do that and the fewer assault weapons they have to face the better. IMHO.
WTF?....You must be one of those transplanted "Virginians".....Either that or you need to get your head on straight. :/
 
Your comparison is total bullshit

As a nation we just saw a guy kill people with a car, so by your ignorance cars should also be banned!
Banned? No. Regulated? Yes. There should be limits on what kind of cars are legal to drive and there should be limits on who can drive them. Oh wait, we already do that and the casualty rate is way less than for our unregulated guns.
 
You're moving the goalposts.

You said "Rape has a victim. Owning a rifle or handgun does not."

How does owning a nuclear weapon have a victim?
...

No, I am not moving anything. I am explaining to you that your reductio ad absurdum is exactly that.

That you want to cling to an absurdity that is definitionally outside of my point,

If I said owning a rifle does not have a victim it does not follow that you can pull something else out of your ass and try and replace owning a rifle with that thing. Try again.
 
Banned? No. Regulated? Yes. There should be limits on what kind of cars are legal to drive and there should be limits on who can drive them. Oh wait, we already do that and the casualty rate is way less than for our unregulated guns.
Unregulated?

You cant be serious. Gun ownership is MASSIVELY regulated - one of the most regulated activities you can partake in.

From construction to purchase to where and when you carry to how you carry to the ammo and to the use of the weapon, ALL OF IT is heavily regulated.
 
Unregulated?

You cant be serious. Gun ownership is MASSIVELY regulated - one of the most regulated activities you can partake in.

From construction to purchase to where and when you carry to how you carry to the ammo and to the use of the weapon, ALL OF IT is heavily regulated.
Lost cause, bra. :banghead:

Though you're of course correct.
 
If I said owning a rifle does not have a victim it does not follow that you can pull something else out of your ass and try and replace owning a rifle with that thing. Try again.
OK, how about a fully automatic rifle? An M2? A mini-gun? A mortar? A howitzer? An M65? Draw me a line that is NOT arbitrary.
 
Unregulated?

You cant be serious. Gun ownership is MASSIVELY regulated - one of the most regulated activities you can partake in.

From construction to purchase to where and when you carry to how you carry to the ammo and to the use of the weapon, ALL OF IT is heavily regulated.
"Massively" is a relative term but we do seem to be going in the opposite direction, at least in some places.
 
OK, how about a fully automatic rifle? An M2? A mini-gun? A mortar? A howitzer? An M65? Draw me a line that is NOT arbitrary.
I don't know what M65 you are referring to but you can own pretty much all of the above, I guess you never heard of the NFA (National Firearms Act). Just jump through the paperwork hoops, pay Uncle Sugar his $200, and you can purchase/own Class III restricted arms and destructive devices.

Now if you go the black powder route then you can own shoot ML cannon/mortars with no federal paperwork/fee.....Let me assure you that a round of homemade canister out of a 12lb Napoleon is no joke. ;)

You really need to do your research before spouting off.....It makes you look ignorant.

a474ba6ae1e0aaa9377ba1688aa73385.gif


The main thing is being able to afford to purchase/feed them.....
 
Banned? No. Regulated? Yes. There should be limits on what kind of cars are legal to drive and there should be limits on who can drive them. Oh wait, we already do that and the casualty rate is way less than for our unregulated guns.
Untrue, when you subtract the suicide by firearm you are more likely to die by some stupid driver than by firearm but you know this already…

The fact is you support a complete ban on something you do not even own nor have ever used while being ignorant about how many people are truly killed by a firearm in a crime.

Fact is I am more likely to die from automobile than being shot and let get down to something those like you ignore and the fact you driving kills more people than you know or will accept.

Your driving pollutes the air and land which causes cancer and lung disease, so let add in those factors and you can see my chances dying from a firearm is less likely…

So let be clear you are willing to kill people just to have the luxury to drive but demand society to be without firearms that kill far less people…
 
I don't know what M65 you are referring to but you can own pretty much all of the above, I guess you never heard of the NFA (National Firearms Act). Just jump through the paperwork hoops, pay Uncle Sugar his $200, and you can purchase/own Class III restricted arms and destructive devices.

Now if you go the black powder route then you can own shoot ML cannon/mortars with no federal paperwork/fee.....Let me assure you that a round of homemade canister out of a 12lb Napoleon is no joke. ;)

You really need to do your research before spouting off.....It makes you look ignorant.

a474ba6ae1e0aaa9377ba1688aa73385.gif


The main thing is being able to afford to purchase/feed them.....
Thanks, I feel safer already.
 

Forum List

Back
Top