Beto: We Shouldn’t Be Selling ARs in this Country

Beto O'Rourke AR-15 Assault Weapons Ban

courtesy AP

Just an election season reminder this was said:

“I think banning bump stocks makes a lot of sense. I don’t know that we should raise the age for buying an AR-15 I just don’t think we should be selling AR-15s in this country.

“That weapon was designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill people as effectively and as efficiently as possible on the battlefield.” – Senate candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke in an interview with CBS News

comments

  1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    I don’t think ‘we’ should be electing anti-Second Amendment politicians in this country. I’m betting that the good people in Texas agree.

    1. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Let’s hope so…..the polls have been too close on this race. Of course, I probably shouldn’t put too much faith in polls.

      1. avatar barnbwt says:

        He’s up nearly 20% in most polls; how far do you think he should be with all the big urban enclaves & refugees pouring into the state? I think we’re doing pretty well, and I think election night turnout will turn ‘pretty well’ into ‘pretty ugly,’ for Beto.

        I suspect he loses by a larger margin than Wendy Davis, and has his political dreams ruined.

        1. avatar C.S. says:

          His political dreams ruined? The guy is making a fortune just running for office.

        2. avatar Five says:

          I’ve already donated to Cruz, I think I’ll buy some yard signs now and put ’em opposite Beto signs the day after the election. I was using the phrase ‘mass sycophanty’, but cult-like is definitely a better descriptor. Anyhow, I doubt folks of the cult of Beto have internalized the possibility of election defeat, at least not here in Austin.

        3. avatar Art out West says:

          Is it just me, or does this guy look remarkably like Napoleon Dynamite?
          I’d vote Pedro over Beto anytime.

          “…on the battlefield ”

          That is the point of a weapon for the militia.
          This evil doer hates “the security of a free state”. Therefore, he seems to disarm the people/militia. He and the other Statist minions mean to enslave us or worse. You can’t enslave a well armed people.

      2. avatar jwtaylor says:

        The polls were close back in the Spring when they weren’t counting likely voters. O’Rourke is now far behind. Folks are now just betting on how much he loses by.

        1. avatar TexTed says:

          Haven’t seen the new Cruz so gn anywhere. Beto signs are everywhere. Cruz better start campaigning someday. Beto is advertising everywhere. I have just started seeing the first anti-Beto ads in the last week, but they’re from a PAC. Cruz himself doesn’t seem to be doing anything near as I can tell.

          Veto Beto.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          Yard signs qty mean diddly squat , Betoff or other. Particularly when the demtards HIRE crews to put the signs up and to tear out those of the opposition.

          This election, even morons, have finally figured out that “social media” is just prog manipulation.

          TV ads are really not very effective. You throw piles of cash at your media buddies when leftard millionaires have given you piles of cash and you don’t know what to do with it. Direct mail has been massively over done in years past and today is not effective. A conundrum for the idiot left how to “reach” (lie to) the voter with their “message”.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          neiowa, TV ads still work. They are about the only thing that does. They may not work with people under 30, but since they rarely vote, they don’t matter. Negative TV ads work even better. But people have short memories, so spending lots of money before the last 3 weeks or so of an election is foolish.

        4. avatar Cory C. says:

          Regarding the yard signs, Cruz’s campaign ran out of yard signs a while back. Poor planning on their part, but hardly an indication that no one wanted them. Additionally, there has been an ongoing issue in my neighborhood with people stealing Cruz signs. No one’s stealing Beto signs. Go figure.

        5. avatar TexTed says:

          This time two years ago, pro-Trumpers were predicting a “monster vote” was coming, even though no polls or other data supported that notion. The only anecdotal evidence offered to bolster the “monster vote” idea, was that Trump signs were in everyone’s yard, and there was rarely if ever a Hillary sign.

          The “monster vote” guys were right.

          That’s why this trend has me concerned. There are Beto signs all over in my neighborhood, one of the reddest areas of Texas. Bumper stickers, TV ads, ads on video games and YouTube, Beto is everywhere. Cruz is invisible. I have not seen a single Cruz sign, I have not seen a single pro-Cruz commercial. Even the negative ads running against Kavanaugh are from 3rd party PACs, and don’t even mention Cruz.

          I sure hope Cruz decides to start campaigning. Otherwise, the drunk-driving thief who pretends to be Hispanic looks like he is following the 2016 Trump trajectory.

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Despite all of the media hoopla, Beto has never led in the polls, and Cruz is slowly starting to pull away (with polling data largely prior to the Kavanaugh debacle).

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      The polls are agenda driven until it comes down to the last week or so when the pollsters have to start reflecting reality to keep their credibility. That’s why it always looks like the Republican surged in the last week. He was actually way ahead all along.

      1. avatar Five says:

        The really great thing about the Cruz/Beto race is how much money O-Rourke has siphoned off from other more competitive Democratic candidates to fund his Great White Irish Hope campaign.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        Actually Gov that generally isnt true.

        Republican voters are an odd bunch when it comes to polling because they are notoriously difficult to catch and talk to. See, they tend to have this thing called a “job” which, strangely enough they seem to take seriously.

        They also don’t generally like to gab with pollsters.

        Vote numbers tend to firm up right before an election for reasons too numerous for me to type out on a phone but a major one is that people have often shifted from “I might not have the time to actually vote” to knowing what their schedule is so that they become likely voters.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          ‘Republican voters… are notoriously difficult to catch and talk to.’

          The pollsters know this, but don’t account for it until the last week or so.

    4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      The interesting thing about Betty O’Rourke is that he’s had the same haircut since he was 6 years old (1978).

      1. avatar Danny Mann says:

        You know, I was thinking something very similar. How our president’s hair. which shouldn’t even be addressed, much less become an issue in such an important process as election of the POTUS, looked, versus this Beto character’s mop. At least Mr. Trump’s hair ALWAYS looks clean and well groomed. Either this guy just got out of bed, or hasn’t washed, or even combed in several days. js…..

    5. avatar SoBeCarlos says:

      Well said. And, re: anti-2A politicians “That weapon [an anti-2A politician] was designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill people as effectively and as efficiently as possible.” by denying self defenders their constitutional right to self defense. BTW, a) since when do any of our troops carry AR 15’s into combat? b) why do some states not allow or discourage AR 15’s for deer hunting yet allow .308 and 30-06 (because the latter are less lethal maybe, ROFL)?

  2. avatar Alex Waits says:

    The man is ignorant of firearms. Just another feel-good statement, that has no substance behind it.

    1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      Not ignorant is being kind. He is an idiot. His opion on the purpose of an AR is of no importance.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        ” His opion on the purpose of an AR is of no importance.”

        You need to care, Jay.

        Florida governor ‘Progressive’ candidate Andrew Gillum has stated he will ban AR-15s if he is elected, and he will do it by decree.

        1. avatar Michael says:

          He can say that’s what he’s going to do, but it isn’t actually possible to pass laws without the approval of the state house/senate. He’s just all talk no game. Even IF it were possible to do so, I doubt it would stand due to multiple lawsuits.

        2. avatar Ardent says:

          Fortunately the Kavenaugh confirmation puts the whammy on such maneuvering. Banning the AR likely wouldn’t pass muster as a legislative act, as an executive edict, it doesn’t have a chance, and that was pre-Kavenaugh. That garbage, banning the AR, is just stuff they get to say now. They don’t have to deal with the fallout of actually banning them, since it wont work. Heller spells it out quite nicely. Thus, politicians of a certain stripe get to pander to low information antis, but without the massive fallout of actually doing the thing. That is, he can say he will ban it now, but later gets the safety of claiming he can’t because…he can’t. Its the best of both worlds for lefties. All the support of the lunatic fringe, without the consequences of actually following through on something so insanely unpopular among a group who actually vote, and often single issue at that.

          One wonders though, what it is that those who wish to be the AR think comes next. As mass shootings go, an AR isn’t much better than say an AK or a Mini14, or any of a plethora of other arms. I suppose the plan is to ban those next, sure, but what of the AR ban on and of its self?

          Do they legitimately think such will have a beneficial real world impact on…well anything? Im inclined to think that wishing for a ban on the AR is a bit like wishing for a law requiring every gun owner to receive one stroke from a paddle: It doesn’t accomplish anything useful, but it does annoy the heck out of gun owners. However, if that is the level to which American politics has descended, what, one wonders, do they expect we on the right side of things are apt to do that annoys them, given that in a majority of states and at the national level, we control the levers of power? True, ‘we’ don’t usually behave that way, and I suppose that makes them feel safe. However, the Kavenaugh confirmation showed a different face of the GOP. They performed more like seasoned brawlers and street fighters than the surrender monkeys they have typically been.

          I’m no advocate of infringing on rights either for myself or my opponent. That said, there must be something that, while not rising to the level of infringement of natural rights, is both doable, and would disproportionately annoy hell out the progs and lefties. Any ideas? What ought we be petitioning our Congress people and senators on? What would boil the blood of the left, while not harming either the Republic or its citizens? How about a fuel tax applied at the point of purchase on economical vehicles to offset fuel prices for those with higher consumption vehicles, applicable as a tax write off? Or we could just end funding to public broadcasting. Perhaps a tax exemption for purchasing ones first gun, or the same for a certain amount of ammo each year? How about public assistance, on a sliding scale, to assist lower income citizens in acquiring concealed carry permits?
          I’m not necessarily saying these are good ideas, but as a thought experiment:

          I’m really interested to hear what ideas the armed intellegencia can come up with. What do you think would most aggravate them, while not actually damaging the Republic and its citizenry?

        3. avatar Jay in Florida says:

          I do care. I’m doing all I can to not give Gilliam a chance. But he will eventually somehow screw himself. He is well known for not exactly being trustworthy.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          Ardent:

          You ask why ban the AR, what would be the point?

          Here’s the point:

          We in the pro gun community often overlook the fact that there ARE smart anti gunners. The smart ones want to get the camel’s nose under the tent not in regards to look but in regards to internal function.

          Semi auto rifles are generally pretty damn similar in terms of actual function in terms of loading the next round etc. If you can ban one, say the AR, then you can go after the whole class based on the way they work. Then, as Kavanagh himself pointed out, the rifles are not that substantially different in function from semi-auto pistols and you can go after those. And on and on.

          Combine that with something the antis have been pushing forever, banning everything that was originally a military design OR is substantially similar to a military design OR borrows from a military design and you’ve pretty much banned everything except a few oddball designs, derringer and single shot break open shotguns.

          That’s the point. Causing a slow death, like a constricting snake, but ultimately winning via a series of rules that, when combined ban virtually everything.

        5. avatar Ing says:

          @Strych9, that’s exactly right.

          If you look at the anti-gun initiative that’s on the ballot in Washington state, they have done exactly that. ALL semiautos are treated the same in that dumpster fire of a law, and you’ll be subjected to the same registration, restrictions, and constant monitoring whether you buy a tube-fed Marlin Model 60 or an AR-15.

          I can virtually guarantee you they know what kind of net they’re casting here. It’s no accident, and it’s not ignorance.

          It was planned this way years in advance.

          They’ve been moving it through the steps provided by state law, knowing it wouldn’t pass in the early stages, just so that they could qualify it as a statewide initiative and use their multimillion $ PR machine to con low-info voters into giving their own rights away…again. And again and again and again if they can get away with it.

          Beto O’Rourke’s opinion by itself is worth less than the crap I flushed down the toilet a few minutes ago…but progtards like him give master manipulators access to the levers of power, and that’s something we should be very afraid of.

        6. avatar Ing says:

          Replying to Ardent, all of those things would be awesome ways to make progtard heads explode.

          I like the idea of subsidizing a first firearm purchase, especially for low-income people. Require it to be an AR-pattern rifle, hunting rifle, or shotgun, because those are less likely to be misused by criminals and are useful for militia purposes under the 2A.

          Or make all ammo and/or firearm purchases tax-deductible, say up to $700 per year.

          Also, establishing a functioning militia would be awesome. (This would burn people’s biscuits on both side of the aisle, but still…) Join the citizen militia, go to at least one training, get your AR-15 and a yearly ammo allowance paid for by the gov’t.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Would he like to do that while standing in my doorway?

      2. avatar Danny Mann says:

        I remember when the words Democrat, liberal, progressive, and statements to effect of outright banning a constitutional amendment right were never even close to being synonymous.

        1. avatar Danny Mann says:

          Larry in Texas, Well said.

    2. avatar Cz Rider says:

      He’s probably neither, and is doing it to advance the party line. He strikes me as more Feinstein than DeLeon.

  3. avatar n64456 says:

    You misspelled “Beta”…

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Nice!

  4. avatar L says:

    And we shouldn’t have rights-hating senators in this country, yet here we are.

  5. avatar The Rookie says:

    “I just don’t think we should be selling AR-15s in this country.”

    The Ted Cruz campaign thanks you for his forthcoming re-election, Beto.

  6. avatar John says:

    1) Banning bump stocks is silly. You can bump fire with a piece of string, a rubber band, a stick, a belt loop or even just your finger.

    2) “to kill people as effectively and as efficiently as possible on the battlefield” is a statement which shows an astounding degree of ignorance. This is a guy who is in charge of our country? Maybe he doesn’t know much about guns, but why does he not consult with someone who does before opening his mouth to prove himself a fool?

    a) the AR-15 is not designed for the battlefield and has never been used on the battlefield. The M-16 meets this criteria, and they are very tightly controlled and no new ones can be made after 1986, which means if you want one, you have to shell out $60,000 and jump through bunches of hoops.

    b) the AR-15 fires a small, pointy bullet very fast, which means that unless it hits a bone or tumbles, it is very penetrative, not imparting a lot of energy to the target. As such, it does not reliably “kill” or even “stop” an attacker. What it does is allow a lot of ammo to be shipped, stored and carried, and the low recoil makes it easier to train people to shoot, and it’s more fun to shoot.

    1. avatar Pretorius says:

      In the early days of Vietnam before the m16 was adopted, SF men had AR-15 marked rifles, never mind civilian contractors in various places.

      AR-15 is the type whether semi only or select fire, M16 is merely the military designation.

      (Note: I am not at all arguing that the AR-15 is unsuitable for private Citizens)

      1. avatar Ardent says:

        Well put. Technically speaking the AR is the thing and M16xxx is simply its US military designation. That being said, I dont know of any modern army that issues a non select fire rifle as its standard infantry weapon.

        I think though that the more salient and altogether more considered argument is that the 2A specifically protects exactly that which is at question. Clearly if the framers meant the 2A to ensure a well armed militia then military style rifles most suited to battlefield use are what was/is being protected, the 34 and 68 laws and Huges amendment not withstanding. One doesn’t argue constitutionality based on the number or duration of unconstitutional laws. If that were the case, there would be a strong argument for reinstating slavery or revoking women’s right to vote. To argue that a constitutionally questionable law is constitutional by citing other constitutionally questionable laws demonstrates circular reasoning.

        Furthermore, to argue that because that which was meant to be protected has been banned then the next closest approximation must also be banned results in a reduction to absurdity. That is, if the AR must be banable and ought to be banned for being too much like the M16, then at some point a muzzle loading musket ought to be banned for being to much like whatever preceeded it in the chain of things linking back to the M16. Allowing that this is what the antis want in no way makes it any more logical to a non partisan observer.

        Given that these “weapons of war” kill fewer people in the US each year than fists and feet, common household tools and myriad other innocuous items that none suggests banning, what then is the logic behind wanting or proclaiming to ban the AR? Symbolism? I’d like to see a politition own that; “This law is absolutely useless, but serves as a symbol of…something, oh, and it’s probably unconstitutional and, at least in this case, will have us sued and almost certainly losing “.

        The only overarching solution I can come up with for this sort of problem is an intelligence test as a prequalification to voter registration. That’s also very likely unconstitutional, but that never seems to stop the antis. Maybe it’s time we demanded all sorts of unconstitutional, absurd and unlikely things, then insisting on “compromise”. Of course we will back off demanding an IQ Test to vote…if you’ll just agree to photo ID being required nationally…

    2. avatar Burner says:

      You have obviously never seen m193 destroy a block of gel, let alone the absolute death machine that is m855A1

      1. avatar John says:

        Nope, never seen a m193 destroy a block of gelatin. I have heard Viet Nam vets relate seeing several puffs of dust on running Vietnamese soldiers and them keeping running. Furthermore, I have not been attacked by a block of gelatin, nor have I heard of anyone else that has happened to.

        m855A1 is still a solid, .22 caliber, pointed projectile which does not expand. How is it any more of a “death machine” than any other military 5.56 loading?

        1. avatar rdsii64 says:

          Because the M855A1 uses a three part slug. The first part is an exposed Tungsten penetrator that is designed to punch through barriers. The second is a copper base that is designed to crush tissue, the third is a copper nose thats designed to fragment and cause secondary tissue damage. The M855A1 solves the ice picking issues of its predecessor. Now if you really want to see that round on steroids, look at the M80A1

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “Zat right? I thought the 855 was the one with a steel BB inside.

  7. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

    I don’t think politicians should be allowed in office when their agenda is to rip up the Constitution and take away my rights, but there we are.

  8. avatar barnbwt says:

    If you wanna win in Texas, you shouldn’t have a bassist in the band

    1. avatar troutbum5 says:

      But you gotta have a fiddle

  9. avatar Bob Jones says:

    Beto is as cute as a puppy and about as careless as a puppy. Congresspersons are barred from participating in IPO’s for the obvious reason of access to insider information and pending legislative actions. Beto didn’t pay attention and participated is seven IPOs (despite a specific additional instruction over the Twitter IPO). Chris Collins got booked and charged for something that is no worse than what Beto got a slap on the wrist for.

    He also lied about his DUI, claiming he stayed at the scene, the police report noted that witnesses stated he was trying to flees the scene in his badly damaged car. He should have simply said he was too drunk to remember anything instead of lying.

    If he wins, it will probably do some damage to Texas’s current status of being a business friendly state and scare off new ventures. Poor Magpul might have to move again, maybe to Oklahoma.

  10. avatar barnbwt says:

    don’t BET On it

    1. avatar Danny Mann says:

      LOLOLOLOL!!!!! GOOD ONE!!!!! HAHAHAHA!!!!!

  11. avatar Sian says:

    “That weapon was designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill people as effectively and as efficiently as possible on the battlefield.”

    So I should take this as your explicit support to remove such weapons from all local, state, and federal agencies, as they are not and will not conceivably be on any battlefield.

    god I’m so sick of this BS argument of theirs.

  12. avatar Texheim says:

    Robert Francis O’Rourke is a white Irish Catholic that has appropriated Latino culture. He’s a disgrace and reviled in his own district.

    1. avatar Evey259 says:

      Honestly. He wants to appeal to Hispanics SO BAD. It’s pathetic.

    2. avatar Five says:

      Cultural appropriation is apparently a big sin on the UT Austin campus these days. So, I wonder where O’Rourke’s outrage pass is coming from. Unless those folks don’t actually care about cultural appropriation and just use it as an excuse to profess outrage.

      1. avatar Texheim says:

        Bingo, front row!

      2. avatar Ardent says:

        I believe there is a very strong argument to be made that the American left reveres outrage for its own sake. I won’t delve into the why, such as why it’s useful to them, but suffices to say that progressive leadership often enough declares outrage, calls for outrage or refers to some normal process of government as an outrage. I suspect it’s a logical enough (as such illogical things go) extension of valuing emotions over facts and logic. It’s as if they believe (feel) that their outrage is somehow valuable or in some way validates or elevates their possition.

        As example, consider this: A reasoned and logical, fact based assessment is presented, with policy recommendations following from it in a logical and orderly fashion. This, whatever it is, disagrees with some cannon of American Leftist ideology, though it is, in fact, factual and logical, even effective and perhaps necessary in its way. Lacking any factual basis for objection, or any logical argument to the contrary, the leftists express ‘outrage’, and insist that the proposal, such as it is, is an affront of some sort, and therefore invalid, as if disliking the current state of reality or effective responses to it were somehow valid or valuable. Somehow this passes for debate or considetation on the left, as if strongly disliking something emotionally somehow informs on its truth or value. I strongly dislike the waste of war, but that in no way informs me as to whether any particular war is valid or necessary. I also strongly dislike theft, but that doesn’t in any way curb theft. I also strongly dislike the waste of prisons, but imprisonment ends up being an effective deterrent to theft. Whether I like it or not isn’t salient, rather whether or not it is necessary or useful. That’s logic, and it’s anathema to the left.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I believe there is a very strong argument to be made that the American left reveres outrage for its own sake. I won’t delve into the why, such as why it’s useful to them, but suffices to say that progressive leadership often enough declares outrage, calls for outrage or refers to some normal process of government as an outrage.

          It’s simple, really: people acting through emotion rather than reason and logic are much easier to manipulate and control. Appeal to emotion also circumvents the need for rational justification of one’s ideology, policy, and actions.

          George Orwell would readily recognize the American left of today. He wrote about their type at length in 1984.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “Canon”. Sorry.

  13. avatar Travis says:

    “That weapon was designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill people as effectively and as efficiently as possible on the battlefield.” – Senate candidate Robert Francis “Beto”

    Your point is???? The bolt action rifle, smokeless powder, revolvers… All were designed for the battlefield, all were designed to be more tactical. Also, most anything can be a weapon whether it was designed to be one or not, the issue is not firearms, the issue is evil, and despite popular belief, evil will exist until there is heaven on earth, and man will not be the ones that make heaven on earth.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      His statement is incorrect to start with, as the infantry rifle is far from the #1 casualty causer on the battlefield.

      The infantry assault rifle is designed as it is for convenient, lightweight ease of use for defense and attack in the ranges of 10 to 400 yards, and the ability of the soldier to carry a significant ammo load.

      There are designs that are far more lethal and efficient for killing people, but those do not fulfill the role infantry primary arm as well.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    And you shouldn’t give yourself a spanglish nickname when you AIN’T…

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      It was given by his illegal live-in nanny who raised him instead of his parents.

  15. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    He always reminds be of a prep school villain in a bad 1980s movie. He shouldn’t be in Congress. He should be in a Walmart discount DVD bin.

  16. avatar Tom Edwards says:

    One Word! IDIOT!
    He has no idea what a AR-15 is! He better go back to Mothers Basement!

  17. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Why should ‘we’ be electing or even taking Marxists such as Beto and his deadbeto’s seriously,as everything the proffer is Anti American.

  18. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Seems to me that a well regulated militia ought to have weapons designed for the battlefield. Just sayin’.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      US v. Miller (1939)

  19. avatar W says:

    Reminder, there is a substantial difference between Dims and Republicans.

    Beto, thanks for reminding us what “common sense gun reforms” means.

  20. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    Actually, the 5.56mm ball round isn’t all that efficient at killing people.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Military rounds, by Geneva Convention, are not supposed to be designed to kill. No military wants it’s small arms rounds to kill, they want it to wound. Then the enemy must expend resourses tending to the wounded.

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        That’s actually a fallacy.

        The ‘Geneva Convention’ has nothing to do with such things, being concerned with the treatment of prisoners and the like; The HAGUE Conventions of 1899, however, DO, in Article 3, and only specify that projectiles not be of an ‘expanding’ type or of such a manner as to cause unnecessary suffering. The US, by the way, has not signed on to the Hague Conventions, and can use whatever it wants to use.

        Military ammunition is NOT intended to wound, it is intended to kill. It is true that a wounded combatant will occupy a few people involved in his care. On the other hand, simply killing him outright is equally effective, and precludes his ever returning to the battlefield after recovering, because one doesn’t get ‘better’ once dead. It also doesn’t do his comrades any good, psychologically.

        If you look at most military ‘ball’ ammunition, how it’s designed, you will quickly find that the projectiles are just as nasty as they would be if designed to be ‘expanding;’ They are made so that they are stable flying through the air, but UNstable when they strike flesh; They are made with light tips and heavy bases, with air spaces and different weight metals, with ‘weakened’ or thinned areas of jacketing so that they bend or break, or fragment. The whole idea of their design is to cause as much damage as possible; It surely isn’t intended just to ‘wound.’

      2. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

        Got a cite for that?

  21. avatar Docduracoat says:

    We are supposed to have weapons of war in civilian hands
    That is why we have the second amendment
    We are supposed to fight the government on an equal basis when it becomes tyranny

  22. avatar Gman says:

    Arguing that the AR-15 is not a military weapon is specious. Those who make the claim that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war” or whatever such nonsense are simply doing us all a favor. US v. Miller (1939) decision makes clear that the 2nd Amendment protections must apply to weapons of war for the People to keep and bear. Eventually SCOTUS will be inclined to weigh in on this one and the NFA will be nullified and we will finally put an end to all this nonsense. Virtually all firearms, either directly through use (1911) or indirectly by simple functional type (revolver, semi-auto, auto) trace their origins to military use. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic, magazine fed, rifle. So is the M1 Garand, an actual battle rifle. So is the Ruger 10/22 which no one in their right mind would suggest as being a battle rifle. And yet they are all the same. So do us all a favor, agree with them, the AR-15 is a rifle suitable for use in the military or militia and thus must be protected.

  23. avatar Dave says:

    Shut up Napoleon

  24. avatar Dondondondon says:

    Percent of AR owners who have fled the scene of a drunk-driving accident = very low.

    Percent of Beto who fled the scene of a drunk-driving accident = 100%.

    Peddle your hypocrisy elsewhere fake White Hispanic.

  25. avatar Michael says:

    NEVER give up your bumpstocks, and NEVER allow them to be outlawed. Remember why they were created in the first place, it was because of the NFA.

    1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Either the “gun community” really doesn’t understand this or they really do support the NFA and are just afraid to say it in public.

      If anybody really believes that the second amendment was written to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government, then you would have to support the bump stock.

      Ensuring everyone has access to rapid fire weapons just as Government does, would protect the people.

      The Bundy Ranch standoff was successful because the citizens have the same fire power or better than the government.

      1. avatar John says:

        The bump stock supports firing faster, as does a long list of other, “everyday” items. But how does this make a weapon so accessorised any better for conflict with similarly armed attackers? Full auto encourages “spray and pray” marksmanship, which is not effective in many confrontations. Unless hordes of attackers are running at you, or you are providing cover fire for your team mates to move to a new position, how is your effectiveness improved by full auto fire?

    2. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      The bump stock was invented as a ridiculous range toy for those who want to make a large amount of noise in a short amount of time and post videos on YooToobe, but not actually hit a target smaller than a barn door at 50 yards.

      I am not advocating for their prohibition, but they have nothing to do with the NFA. And if I ever needed to use my AR in a combat situation, the last thing I would do is put one of those stupid bump stocks on it.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        All true, Curtis, but I would go farther than “I am not advocating for banning bump stocks”, directly to “no government (federal, state, or local) has the authority to ban bump stocks or select fire, that is unconstitutional. Pass an amendment or kiss it off”.

  26. avatar Ralph says:

    We shouldn’t be driving drunk in this country or trying to flee the scene of an accident, but that didn’t stop O’Rourke.

    It’s a good thing there wasn’t a bridge involved, or Beta would have been the next Ted Kennedy.

  27. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    I’ve heard on the radio that the polls have the race here in Texas within a few points. I’m definitely voting for Cruz. I can’t stand these Democrats with their releasing criminals from jail and then criminalizing ownership of firearms and also wanting to legalize drugs. Doesn’t make any sense.

  28. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Sadly, Many people on TTAG totally agree with this democrat. They took their masks off and supported banning rapid fire weapons from poor people. Bump Stock less than $200.

    Machine Gun rights for only rich people! Private ownership of MGs will NEVER be outlawed.

    1. avatar Big E says:

      Sadly you are right. Way too many expressing how “silly” bump stocks are, as if their preferences are the deciding factor. That is my only real beef with Trump.

  29. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I believe Texas will reject Beta Boy and elect Cruz. Remember at this point in 2016 Hillary was going to win by almost 20 points!

  30. avatar Chadwick says:

    Pretty sure this clown’s real name is Robert and he is from an Irish family. So he’s a white male… Exactly what the dims claim to hate right now. Vote Dem if you are dim.

  31. avatar m. says:

    what do you mean “we” do you have a t**d in the pocket of your lawyer suit?

  32. avatar Nanashi says:

    You shouldn’t have to buy them. Congress is to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”, who are the whole people. Those old M16s should go to the people instead of some terrorists in the middle east.

  33. avatar KBonLI says:

    “That weapon was designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill people as effectively and as efficiently as possible on the battlefield.”

    And that is what the 2A was meant for.

  34. avatar Big E says:

    Who is the “we” this cock-gobbler is talking about? For the record I’m NOT selling any AR’s.

  35. avatar EWTHeckman says:

    There is a way to severely constrain the sales of AR-15’s and eliminate the sales of bump stocks. This can even be done in a way that is 100% legal under the Constitution and would survive a Supreme Court challenge. All they would have to do is repeal the unconstitutional law known as the National Firearms Act.

    Some people might still buy an AR-15, but its sales would most definitely drop off in comparison to the M-16 and M4 variants. And no one would buy an bump stock for the same reason.

    Do you think that would make “Beto” happy?

  36. avatar burley says:

    BETO needs to STFU.
    However, I think we need to prove a point: every liberty loving POTG needs to show up at the capitol with ONLY their shotguns are revolvers. Then, simply shoot every politician who has ever voted on restricting 2A rights. Of course, there will be other casualties, but the point is, there are so many more of us than there are of them and that once we decide we’ve had enough, the weapons we bring to bear will be inconsequential to the force of our collective will.

  37. avatar arc says:

    The idea of communism killed over 100m people. Ideas are dangerous, we should ban ideas.

  38. avatar Scoutino says:

    When he says: “We shouldn’t be selling AR15s.” I cannot but agree with him. If he doesn’t want to sell them, who are we to make him and his nearest to do it?

    Oh, I see now, by “we” he actually means everybody else. Funny how no one ever says: I should be forbiden doing what I want to do. It’s always other people who needs to be restricted or restrained, even if he calls them “we”.

    He is perfect example of why we, the people, need modern arms. When our Founding Fathers wrote the 2A, they had politicians like Beta in mind.

  39. avatar el Possum Guapo Standartenfuher " they think we're making pizza's Oberst von Burn says:

    America shouldn’t be selling a lot of things, mainly land to foreign nations

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Or uranium!

  40. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…That weapon was designed for one purpose and one purpose only,”

    considering how of them there are and how few people get injured or killed really makes me wonder why a tool with such a low “success rate” for its supposed sole purpose, why would it be so popular?

  41. avatar big dick says:

    cruz is a total fuck tard. if he wasnt no one would even consider anyone else. he is the equivalent to hillary. no one likes that fuck except for religious fanatics. so people will vote agaist him. fuck him. fuck beto. please someone come to the table whobis real.

    1. avatar ollie says:

      Your post is as phony as your screen name.

      Cruz is highly intelligent and professionally qualified to argue cases before the SCOTUS.
      Beto is barely qualified to sit in the Peanut Gallery of the Supreme Court.
      .

  42. avatar Nuffsaid says:

    I don’t think we should be electing politicians that have not fired an AR15.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      In combat.

  43. avatar Sprocket says:

    “That weapon was designed for one purpose and one purpose only”… and here you are.

  44. avatar Brett A Shipman says:

    I think we should start giving them away instead of selling them. I dont understand how none of my ars have ever even been pointed at someone 1000s of rounds and never killed one person. Just unbelievable.

  45. avatar joefoam says:

    “That weapon was designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill people as effectively and as efficiently as possible on the battlefield.” Is he talking about the same weapon that LEOs are issued? Our police are out to kill us?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email