Welcome to MGO's Internet Discussion Forums…Please Consider Becoming a Dues-Paying Member of the ORG…Click >>>>>HERE<<<<< for more info…………****DONATIONS**** can also be made toward MGO's Legal Defense Fund and/or MGO's Forums >>>>>HERE<<<<<

KROGER

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Mask free in the gunshine state!
    Posts
    20,586

    Teacher Tells Beto Seizing AR-15s Won't Pass Muster

    Teacher Tells Beto Seizing AR-15s Won't Pass Muster



    By Tim Graham
    Newsbusters.org
    October 12th. 2019

    NPR has a series called "Off Script," where regular voters question the presidential candidates. On Wednesday's Morning Edition, they aired audio of an El Paso school teacher suggesting to Beto O' Rourke that his proposal to take away "assault weapons" from Americans through a "mandatory buyback" program won't pass constitutional muster.

  2. #2
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downriver
    Posts
    756
    We need to stop accepting the lefts premise that we are not supposed to have "weapons of war", which is a very nice and succinct definition of "arms" as it applies to the wording of the Second Amendment.

    Thank you Francis.

    Don't like the Constitution? Fine, work to change it using the process given you by the Constitution. Anything else is unconstitutional and if we had justices and legislators with any real commitment to their sworn oath of office this matter would be put to rest immediately.

    The Second Amendment flat out forbids the government from infringing, limiting, restricting, etc., our ability, capability, capacity, etc., as Americans to wage war against our own government should it turn to oppression and tyranny. That is why it was written and that is what it says.

    Fun fact for Francis, at the time of the ratification of the 2A, and for a hundred years after, private citizens in this country owned their own warships. If I can afford a tank, I absolutely should be able to own a tank.

  3. #3
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Livingston Co.
    Posts
    19,770
    Quote Originally Posted by kbdm View Post
    We need to stop accepting the lefts premise that we are not supposed to have "weapons of war", which is a very nice and succinct definition of "arms" as it applies to the wording of the Second Amendment.

    Thank you Francis.

    Don't like the Constitution? Fine, work to change it using the process given you by the Constitution. Anything else is unconstitutional and if we had justices and legislators with any real commitment to their sworn oath of office this matter would be put to rest immediately.

    The Second Amendment flat out forbids the government from infringing, limiting, restricting, etc., our ability, capability, capacity, etc., as Americans to wage war against our own government should it turn to oppression and tyranny. That is why it was written and that is what it says.

    Fun fact for Francis, at the time of the ratification of the 2A, and for a hundred years after, private citizens in this country owned their own warships. If I can afford a tank, I absolutely should be able to own a tank.
    But the fact that you even believe that is PROOF you are mentally ill & shouldn't be allowed to own ANY weapon.

  4. #4
    MGO Board of Directors

    Trustee


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Now far south of the city: FAR.
    Posts
    11,433
    To which Beto generally replies with "Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion"
    Because his interpretation of the 2A is different, and that makes his opinion his truth and your opinion invalid. Because he's better than us.
    DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, DrScaryGuy. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of MGO, its board of directors, or its members.

  5. #5
    MGO Board of Directors

    Trustee


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Now far south of the city: FAR.
    Posts
    11,433
    ug. i can't even finish watching his garbage
    3 minutes to do 1 reload of a musket? I think he got that backwards. it's 1 minute to reload and fire 3 shots from a musket.
    And at the time, muskets WERE hunting guns AND weapons of war. Stop drawing a false distinction.
    His response for "how would a mandatory buyback be constitutional?" is "yes, i feel it is, because we have to do something."
    can't buy a bazooka or a tank? um... yes you can.
    DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, DrScaryGuy. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of MGO, its board of directors, or its members.

  6. #6
    This is the first I have heard of the "boyfriend loophole". Lol

  7. #7
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Mask free in the gunshine state!
    Posts
    20,586
    Quote Originally Posted by oldmann1967 View Post
    This is the first I have heard of the "boyfriend loophole". Lol
    ...That only works for Beto.

  8. #8
    I am a Forum User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    West Michigan
    Posts
    1,154
    Quote Originally Posted by oldmann1967 View Post
    This is the first I have heard of the "boyfriend loophole". Lol
    I have heard of the boyfriend loophole but not the Charleston loophole.

    In a nutshell-
    The Charleston loophole is if the NCIS check doesn't come back within 3 days the FFL "can" sell the firearm to the buyer. This was because the FBI has no incentive to process checks in a timely manner. So that no person is denied their 2nd amendment right to protect themselves. This was after a woman was murdered by her ex-boyfriend while waiting more than 40 days for a background check on a purchase.

    The boyfriend loophole refers to the fact that the Lautenberg Amendment only keeps guns out of the hands of convicted domestic abusers who are currently — or were at one time — married to their victim, live with their victim, have a child with their victim, or are a parent or guardian of their victim. That means stalkers and current or former boyfriends or dating partners can still buy and own a gun, even if they've been convicted of a domestic violence crime.

  9. #9
    MGO Board of Directors

    Trustee


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Now far south of the city: FAR.
    Posts
    11,433
    Quote Originally Posted by oldmann1967 View Post
    This is the first I have heard of the "boyfriend loophole". Lol
    yeah, it's a thing they're pushing, because i think federal requirements for bans on gun ownership due to domestic violence require live-in relationships. If somebody doesn't live with you, the ban doesn't apply. So now they call it a loophole, because all us gun owners are legal geniuses who find and exploit loopholes... the alternative is that lawmakers suck and can't write laws worth a darn... and we know they don't want to admit that when pushing for new laws.
    DISCLAIMER: Disclaimer. The opinions expressed in this post are those of the author, DrScaryGuy. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of MGO, its board of directors, or its members.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
only search Michigan Gun Owners Forums
MGO's Facebook MGO's Twitter