Beto was really hurt by "Hell yes we're......

[Prosper]

The standard for gun control comes from Hillary. The most radical statement on gun control by Hillary: “"I don't know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at," Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.
That pales in comparison to Beto’s hell yes we’re going to take your guns.

Hillary has a history of dealing with gun control and the results. Beto should have learned from her instead of blasting into the spotlight light with his version of an apparently newly discovered solution to gun control:

“Beto O'Rourke On Gun Control: 'Hell, Yes, We're Going To Take Your AR-15' : NPR
Sep 12, 2019 · Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke gave a staunch defense of his gun control plan during Thursday's Democratic presidential primary debate, ...”

No matter how sincere he felt, he was lacking in foresight when he siezed the 3rd rail of politics barehanded. The Democratic Party and politicians have a history of negative results when even touching the third rail with insulated rubber gloves. Fortunately he dropped out soon enough to isolate the rest of the party from “confiscation”.

The undeniable solution to gun violence is to remove guns. Confiscation is one sided. Legislation to offer protection against the fears rooted in gun possession is a two sided compromise. The solution to simply tell people you don’t need guns and then take the guns won't work. It didn’t and doesn’t work with alcohol, legal drug, and opioids , among a plethora of drugs when obtained illegally.

[aikoaiko]

1. Even people who hate guns started to distance themselves from him.

I liked some of the things I heard from Beto in the beginning but he lost me.

[BlueStater]

3. Not me.

There's zero reasons to own those sort of guns. You don't need them for protection because a simple handgun fulfills the same purpose and you don't need them for hunting because a normal rifle can still get the job done. Using the argument of lunatics, they wouldn't even help fight off the government since the military (i.e. trained soldiers who actually know what they're doing unlike ignorant bumpkins) has the exact same weapons and more.

They serve no use to common citizens other than for weirdos to either feel better about themselves or so they can fetishize them.

[Prosper]

14. "There's zero reasons to own those sort of guns"

Or any sort of gun. There are zero reasons to believe a gun offers personal protection against a felon or any protection against any attack. Normal people don’t have the disregard for life to pull the trigger against a threat. The felon enters the scene prepared to shoot at the slightest resistance. Guns are virtually useless for personal protection. But that has nothing to do with broadcasting “Hell yes we’re going to take your guns”.

That was the wrong thing to broadcast irregardless of the righteousness of the thought.

[customerserviceguy]

37. So, if it comes down to your life or that of an attacker

you will do the noble thing and accept death rather than save yourself?

Maybe you live in a place where you believe that the police will swoop in like Superman to save you, but people in rural areas know damned good and well that the sheriff or even the deputy is probably a half hour away, in the best case scenario.

O'Rourke was flaky from the start, and when he went on a rant against guns, he screwed himself completely.

[Prosper]

55. I think most people could not pull the trigger

when confronted with a threat.” Now you attempt to discredit my generally directed post by asking me what I personally would do in your presented situation. I will reply with similar logic and simply say “ Shockwave, crimson trace and xd” and let you draw your own conclusion.

[LanternWaste]

70. Yours is an accurate example of 'absurdum ad reductio.' Again.

Well done.

Well done, indeed!

[NoMoreRepugs]

78. How many times a year does the scenario of "it coming

down to your life or that of an attacker?"..... occur in the United States?

[Kaleva]

81. One can tell if a person is concerned about his and his family's safety by looking at the doors

The exterior doors should be solid or if it has glass, the glass should be far enough away from the deadbolt and door knob so a home invader should not be able to break the glass and reach in and unlock the door knob and deadbolt. Solid doors will have peep holes or there ought to be a camera device that allows the homeowner to see who is outside the door. Next is look at the latch and dead bolt strike plates. They should each have at least four screws in each with at least two of them more to the center of the door jam so longer screws placed there can reach the wall stud.

It's a very good indication that a homeowner out in a rural area who has the above is concerned about security. Not having reinforced doors indicates that family security isn't much of a concern.

[aikoaiko]

20. An AR-15 is perfect for home self-defense or defense of others in many situations.

It's not very long compared to other long-arms, shouldered for better aim, easily decked out with light, and a single 5.56 round can stop a threatening person.

The useful qualities of an AR15 are why police use them.

[BlueStater]

21. "a single 5.56 round can stop a threatening person"

A bullet is a bullet and it's going to be extremely devastating to human flesh regardless of what machine of death it's launched from. Again, I don't see why an ordinary pistol can't get the job done. You don't need to turn the threat into swish cheese to neutralize it.

Why don't we just let citizens have machine guns and rocket launchers? Those have to be even more effective at stopping threats than AR-15s, right?

[aikoaiko]

24. Please allow me to explain a few things so that you might understand my position better.

A bullet is not just a bullet.

As a general rule, rifle bullets transfer more energy than bullets from pistols. Rifles are shouldered which usually makes them easier to aim than pistols (fewer missed shots is a safer situation).

Machine guns and rocket launchers, you ask. It is totally legal to own machine guns. It just takes money and completing the NFA paperwork and background check. Rocket launchers aren't regulated, but the rocket grenades are impossible for civilians to purchase.

That is what is bizarre about Beto's confiscation plan -- he would have made it easier to own machine guns than AR15s.

Here is a link to a machine gun dealer with full-transferrable machine guns.
https://dealernfa.com/product-category/machine-guns/all-transferable-machine-guns/

[BlueStater]

32. I don't think "less energy" means much in regards to humans getting hit by them.

It's like saying getting dismembered by a chainsaw is worse than getting dismembered by a machete. The human is still dead either way. I wouldn't want to be hit by bullets coming from an AR-15 or a pistol.

So people can just use common rifles if they're easier to aim than pistols. Again, no one needs an AR-15.

Certainly seems like it's much harder for ordinary citizens to obtain machine guns than it is assault rifles then. I can't say I've read dozens of stories in the last ten years about innocent people being slaughtered en masse by psychos toting machines guns.

[aikoaiko]

35. You're right. No one uses legal machine guns to kill people.

Which is why the same solution should have been applied to AR15s at the most. Beto wanted to do something more extreme and it was a bad idea.

And no one wants to be shot by either a pistol or rifle, but it does matter. Its physics. All things being equal, pistol shots do less damage.

[Marengo]

58. What is your definition of a "common rifle"?

[BlueStater]

62. This, I guess?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_rifle

Something that doesn't look like only United States soldiers should be using?

[Marengo]

64. You must be joking. Are you seriously arguing a tube fed, manually lever action is as effective...

For self defense as a magazine fed semiautomatic?

[BlueStater]

65. Pretty sure a human is equally as dead or incapacitated if hit by a bullet from one.

I don't think there's much more of a metric for how effective a gun is than its target being deceased. I guess if you want to leave the target a bloody, unrecognizable mess, the AR-15 would win hands down.

[Marengo]

68. The metric is neutralizing the threat, and the AR15 is more effective at achieving that than a...

Manually operated lever action. Whatever the appearance of the threat once it’s down is of no concern.

[BlueStater]

72. You neutralize a threat by putting a bullet in it.

Again, the rifle I showed you (or similar ones) can adequately do that. Some minor operating differences is not enough of a justification to own an AR-15.

[Marengo]

82. Hahahahahaha! "Minor operating differences"????

Never mind, thought I was conversing with someone having knowledge on the subject. Seems I was wrong.

[BlueStater]

85. Never claimed I knew much about guns.

In fact, I'm quite proud that I don't know much about them. I don't like guns and this country's and people like you's weird fascination with them is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen, so your childish ridicule doesn't affect me whatsoever.

Having said that, I know enough that a gun's singular purpose is to shoot something and the rifle I mentioned can achieve that purpose just fine. People like you apparently think life is like some sort of action movie where the type of gun has a significant affect on human beings ability to dodge or withstand bullets.

If a human being gets hit by a bullet from a Winchester rifle, if they're not dead then they're not getting back up. If these guns can kill 1000-pound animals, they're certainly more than enough to take out a human.

It makes little more sense than them constantly producing more and more advanced guns for hunting, in the which the animal they're killing whether for food or their own sick pleasure still is completely unaware someone is trying to kill them and hasn't evolved to better combat guns since guns were first created. The guns evolve, but deer are exactly the same as when muskets were around. How incredibly fair.

[Marengo]

89. You admit you are not knowledgeable, but expect to be taken seriously when you posit a...

Manually operated, tube magazine fed, lever action rifle is as effective for the purpose of self defense of magazine fed, semiautomatic carbine? Now, THAT is bizarre. Equally so is your conflation of hunting with self defense. Are you arguing a firearm suitable for killing deer is equally so for self defense, against armed human aggressors armed with firearms?

[BlueStater]

93. They shoot and kill criminals. In this circumstance, that's all you need to know.

A long as a gun fulfills this purpose, which a Winchester rifle is more than capable of doing, then it is a successful tool for self-defense. Having a more powerful gun is simply unnecessary. It's like wanting a sledgehammer to kill a fly when your hand is more than all you need, so spare me more of your monotonous gun knowledge because it's irrelevant here.

I'm suggesting that it's ridiculous to develop more and more powerful weapons to kill a deer when the deer hasn't evolved the slightest bit to better withstand them. It's not like deers are now immune to bullets from Winchesters. You don't need an AR-15 to end one's life. Same with a human being. Intent and brainpower are irrelevant because if a human is still somehow able to outsmart and defeat you if you have one kind of gun, they're capable of doing it with all kinds.

[Marengo]

99. How can you not understand that in a self defense role the AR is SUPERIOR to a lever action rifle?

Hunting deer and self defense are entirely DIFFERENT situations. Deer don’t carry firearms, whereas a good number of humans aggressors, just as in the incident I cited, do. I’d also like to know what definition of “powerful” you’re working off of in the context of your comparison.

[BlueStater]

110. Why are you so obtuse?

AR-15s can mow down dozens of people within seconds whereas other guns cannot. That fits the criteria of being more powerful I would think.

It's redundant. Life is not like an action movie. "Semiautomatic" will not be a factor in most self defense situations. Most people who are willing to break into houses are low-level thugs, not highly trained criminal masterminds who are experts at dodging bullets. Maybe once in a blue moon it'll be a factor, but I think I'd rather take that risk than have to read stories every two weeks about innocent people just minding their own business being shot to pieces by lunatics wielding these weapons.

[Marengo]

132. If volume of accurate and effective fire is your metric of power, the AR is clearly the superior...

Choice. Magazine capacity, terminal ballistics, effective use under stress, etc. all lean in the ARs favor. How many rounds can you place on a target in a given measure of time with an AR15 vs a lever action? You’re welcome to place your trust in the gentleman civility of “low-level thugs”, but I’m more than happy to cite numerous examples of why I don’t.

[BlueStater]

139. Why do you need "multiple" rounds fired at once to stop a criminal?

I would think one bullet would be quite sufficient.

[Marengo]

140. How often do you shoot? What type of firearm do you shoot? Have you shot an AR platform...

And a lever action? How do they compare in rate of fire, rapidity and accuracy of follow up shots, ergonomics, etc.? At the range, or under the stress of an self defense situation?

[Marengo]

133. Another example of one individual armed with an AR15 defeating multiple armed intruders, one...

Armed with a handgun, the other with a shotgun.

https://www.ocala.com/news/20190711/summerfield-homeowner-injured-kills-2-intruders-with-ar-15

[Hoyt]

127. More gun-lover BS. Christ, this is not a war zone. Get real.

[Marengo]

134. If it were not for folks like you Hoyt, many people probably wouldn't be armed at all...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

[Hoyt]

137. More gunner BS, taking things out of context to protect your gunz.

[Marengo]

142. The only relevant context is that if folks like you didn't rob others homes, it's likely fewer...

People would feel the need to be armed.

[Hoyt]

144. Is that why you are armed and promote gunz?

[Marengo]

149. Having had two of my homes burglarized, in part. Has the possibility of encountering an armed...

Occupant ever influenced your target selection?

[AncientGeezer]

152. You'll get hit by lightning before you get an answer..I asked the same question..Zip

[Kaleva]

91. It appears most experts say the shotgun is the most effective long gun for home defense

[LongtimeAZDem]

103. A shotgun is heavier, harder to aim, more destructive to things around the target, and has

far more recoil and a lower capacity than a semi-automatic carbine.

If this woman had been using a shotgun, she would have blown holes in her house in winter:

[Kaleva]

109. I don't think you know much about shotguns

The weight of a Mossberg Maverick 88 and an AR-15 is about the same. The recoil of a shotgun loaded with home defense shells is minimal. Smooth bore shotguns, loaded with slugs, are accurate out to 50 yards. Shotguns with rifled barrels are accurate out to 100 yards and more. Accuracy out to 35 yards is achievable with buckshot.

The only reason I can see why one would choose the more expensive AR-15 style carbine for home defense over a pump shotgun such as the Mossberg Maverick 88 is one expects to get into a firefight with multiple home invaders or engage bad guys at ranges of greater then 35 yards. Situations which are extremely rare and about as common as being struck by lightning.

Based on your comments, I'd think a pistol with magazine capacity of 10-15 rounds would be a better choice for you then an AR-15.

[LongtimeAZDem]

117. I own three, and I've been shooting since I was 6. I can handle my SXP with no problem.

[Kaleva]

118. Then you would know that what you said previously wasn't accurate.

[LongtimeAZDem]

119. A 12-gauge loaded with slugs would kick the woman in the video I posted through the wall

If you've ever fired one, you would know that.

[Kaleva]

120. Why would you have a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 3" magnum rifled slugs for home defense?

IMHO, a better choice for a woman of slight build would be a 20 gauge loaded with home defense, reduced recoil or managed recoil shells.

Edit. That is what I plan on getting for my wife to use.

[LongtimeAZDem]

121. If you honestly believe she needs a firearm for home defense, then why would you limit her

rate of fire, accuracy, and capacity?

Seriously?

[Kaleva]

123. Because for the following

She doesn't need to shoot beyond 20 feet at the most and a shotgun at that range is capable of being very accurate. As for capacity, I'm unaware of any situation within a couple hundred miles from where I live where capacity, or lack of it, was an issue in a home defense situation. Rate of fire is subject to variables and the effective rate of fire for any weapon depends on the situation. A pump action can be just as fast as a semi-auto if there are multiple targets as the pump action can be worked while transitioning from one target to the next.

I don't see the logic in spending more then twice as much for a home weapon that has capabilities that I or my wife will never need.

[LongtimeAZDem]

126. Best of luck to you both

[Kaleva]

129. Everybody's situation is different. There is no one correct answer.

For someone, an AR-15 style carbine may be a great choice but it isn't for me.

[Marengo]

135. I decided on a pistol caliber carbine as the primary for home defense.

[Kaleva]

143. I've considered that myself and might still do so.

A .38 Special/.357 magnum lever action to go with the .38 Special revolver I have. Right now it's outside of my budget and the priority is for a 20 gauge shotgun. And it's going to be awhile before getting the shotgun as I've spent a few hundred on reinforcing the doors which included replacing the door knobs knobs and deadbolts.

[Prosper]

56. The ballistics of an AR 15 are similar to the guns available

at the time the 2nd amendment was passed.

[Kaleva]

94. The AR-15 can fire anything from .22 cal. to shotgun shells

[AncientGeezer]

111. Not "out of the box" ..and certainly not w/out changing uppers & barrels

And you aren't running .12ga shells through an AR lower

[Kaleva]

112. It's becomeing more and more popular for people to build the AR-15 they want.

So one can buy an AR-15 that comes "out of the box" chambered for the .50 Beowulf. Assembly required.

[AncientGeezer]

114. It would come assembled..."out of the box"

$16-1700 dollar rifle.

[Kaleva]

115. There is that option for people with money. To buy one preassembled.

Assembling one at home can reduce costs by %50.

[AncientGeezer]

122. Where do you buy your parts....50%...send me a link.

In case I was vague....not buying the 50% claim

[Devil Child]

148. Start with Palmetto State Armory

Plenty of options out there. Especially when Black Friday hits.

[AncientGeezer]

151. I know of Palmetto....on their site they don't claim to be 50% lower priced

than say ...Cheaper Than Dirt, or GunPartsCo. or Midway....

[Kaleva]

161. My error.

When you mentioned $1200, I was thinking you can build one that's 50% less but it wouldn't be comparable to a 1200 dollar gun. It'd be comparable to a $600 out of the box gun. The advantage of building your own is you can get the gun you want but there isn't a cost savings.

My statement of a 50% savings isn't true when comparing apples to apples.

[AncientGeezer]

163. Got'cha

[Marengo]

57. Two men armed with handguns enter an occupied home, woman with AR15 kills one and drives...

The other off. Pretty effective I’d say.

https://www.baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2019/11/01/victim-of-violent-home-invasion-speaks--credits-wife-with-saving-his-life#

https://nypost.com/2019/11/04/pregnant-florida-mom-uses-ar-15-to-kill-home-intruder/

[BlueStater]

63. You're just nitpicking.

And you're ignoring factors like the personalities of the people wielding the weapons and the layout of the house.

[Marengo]

66. Nope, the example effectively destroys your argument, but I understand your need to minimize it

[BlueStater]

71. How? What did you prove?

That an AR-15 can also stop criminals? That wasn't my point, but nice strawman.

[Marengo]

83. For a strawman to exist, a valid point must be made. You failed in that regard, and I failed to

Recognize how clearly unknowledgeable you are on the subject.

[BlueStater]

86. The point was that other, less devastating guns can be used effectively for protection.

Thus rendering the AR-15 redundant for that purpose.

And you responded with some bullshit that had nothing to do with anything. You proved nothing.

[Marengo]

90. How does someone who proudly admits to lacking knowledge have the credibility to declare...

An AR15 “redundant” for self defense? I suppose that would explain why you characterize a citation which clearly discredits your point as “some bullshit”.

[BlueStater]

92. You proved an AR-15 can kill a criminal.

A point I never argued against ONCE in this thread.

Apparently, you're not as strong in literacy as you are in gun facts.

[Marengo]

98. Nope, you argued handguns are the equal of an AR in a self defense situation. In the citation, ONE..

Person armed with an AR defeated TWO aggressors armed with handguns. The outcome of the incident would suggest your position is not universally correct.

[BlueStater]

108. You have ZERO evidence that the same thing couldn't have happened with a Winchester.

You weren't there and you have no idea how this situation played out.

[Marengo]

131. LOL Wut? We know exactly how this "played out", and how it did is not favorable to your argument.

[BlueStater]

138. You have a news piece. It's not the same as actually being there and it never will be.

You don't know the personalities of the people involved, you don't know what objects (i.e. walls and furniture) could have been in their way, the article never specified whether it's a one-story or two-story home, etc.

If you don't think those things are factors in these stories, you're delusional.

You cite this story because it appeals to your emotional side about a pregnant woman saving her husband from violent thugs, but it doesn't make a strong case about the AR-15 not being redundant because there's no evidence the same thing couldn't have been done with any other gun.

[Marengo]

141. They are real-life incidents that suggest your claim of "redundancy" may be unfounded. A claim...

You admit is based on limited knowledge. So, what exactly is that based on then? I think emotion.

[mainstreetonce]

101. I totally agree

I know Beto hurt his chances with that statement.
To me it said something very important about Beto as a person. He cares more about innocent gun victims than about politics.
I am for Joe all the way,but I contributed to Beto after his reaction to ElPaso.
Very few politicians are as genuine as Beto.

[Hoyt]

10. I liked his condemning "assault weapons." I get, you like them.

[TexasTowelie]

22. I think that the RFing came long before Beto made his comments in the September debate.

I also know where the RFing began.

[aikoaiko]

38. Beto had more advantages than most. Money, media darling, RFK aura, good exposure from senate race.

Beto just didn't translate well on the national stage.

What incidents are you calling ratfucking?

[TexasTowelie]

39. I'm certain that you would like for me to answer

so that the post will get hidden. You know as well as I do what I'm talking about.

[cwydro]

47. I, for one, have no idea what you're talking about.

I saw no evidence of ratfucking. If anything, the other candidates seemed to ignore Beto because he never polled high enough to attract attention.

[aikoaiko]

52. Are you talking about the Sirota's criticism about Beto's donations from oil company employees?

Sure, it was an ungenerous presentation of the facts, but Sirota was also criticized by many immediately.

If that's all it took to hobble Beto, then he was definitely not ready for the national stage.

[Tipperary]

69. Several have asked the same question,

but no answers.

[cwydro]

44. Beto's campaign woes were not the result of ratfucking.

He wasn’t organized, and he had no clear message.

[dalton99a]

2. Bullshit. His poll numbers didn't change much after that statement.

Of course, his standing among gun humpers plummeted from F to F

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

12. Exactly! In my book, Beto became an even more attractive candidate after his strong anti-gun stand.

Bernie/Elizabeth or Elizabeth/Bernie 2020!!
Either way, they're stronger together!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Prosper]

16. Copied " Bullshit. His poll numbers didn't change much after that statement."

Didn’t go up or down??

[dalton99a]

17. You made the assertion, you provide the evidence.

[Prosper]

18. What hurt Beto?

At a debate in September, he said: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”
But it gifted an attack line to Republicans. O’Rourke also began lashing out at fellow Democrats, claiming that the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, had achieved “absolutely nothing” on gun control. He was in danger of becoming a liability to the party rather than an asset.
For that reason, Democrats will probably be more relieved than Republicans to see the back of Beto.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/01/beto-o-rourke-us-election-2020-democrats

[TexasTowelie]

34. Pardon me because I try to avoid using this language,

but that is complete bullshit.

There was a concerted effort by various RFers to oppose Beto from the time when he announced. I am also aware of which candidates and their supporters did the RFing. There will be no rewriting of that history.

[Kaleva]

60. "Beto O'Rourke unfazed by weak poll numbers" Aritcle published 06/09/2019 01:09 PM EDT

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/09/beto-orourke-iowa-polls-1358442

"Unfazed by sinking poll numbers, Beto O'Rourke keeps plugging away on presidential bid
By Todd J. Gillman

9:30 AM on May 10, 2019"

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/05/10/unfazed-by-sinking-poll-numbers-beto-o-rourke-keeps-plugging-away-on-presidential-bid/

From your post:

"O’Rourke’s campaign flickered back to life late on in tragic circumstances. After a gunman opened fire at a Walmart in his hometown of El Paso, killing 22 people, he seized the issue of gun violence, vowing to take assault weapons away from existing owners. At a debate in September, he said: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.” "

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/01/beto-o-rourke-us-election-2020-democrats

According to the article you quoted, Beto's comment about AR-15s actually benefited his campaign. Briefly.

The assertion you made in your OP isn't supported by the facts.

[AncientGeezer]

150. But he got no benefit from it..even amoungst Democratic Primary voters..it didn't help

[BannonsLiver]

4. Reads like something's from an NRA "we're not that bad" propaganda operation.

I’m not impressed, or interested in a response.

[Eliot Rosewater]

8. This area here is starting to look and sound like 2016 and we know

what happened that time.

I am spending as much time with the family I like to be around as I can, I am truly convinced the end is near as in fascism full time and forever and possibly world wide war.

We know who is working here and there to make sure no Democrat wins...

[Stuart G]

5. Beto has got time. He is 47 years old. I thnk there will be more opportunites..

[MustLoveBeagles]

6. +1

[onetexan]

30. +1 -K&R

[brush]

7. Agreed. That applause line felt good at time but it wasn't worth it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

25. Absolutely not true. It wasn't an "applause line" nt

[brush]

42. Applause line or not, it wasn't worth it. He's out and there was much hope for him.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

51. "wasn't worth it" implies conscious purpose. He expressed

something honestly and instinctually. It just so happens that it scared too many rednecks.

But agree with your main point. That's the problem when you have candidates that speak from their heart with passion (off the top of their head) in an overall political focused environment. Although trump pulls it off from the opposite end of the spectrum. The way he gets away with it is that he has dismantled the press. He never has to answer to the American people. (Without helicopter noise that drowns out the question and allows him to obfuscate and riff).

[Kaleva]

61. Beto was struggling in the polls as far back as May

[McCamy Taylor]

9. No he wasn't. Beto has won the "purity" award for the Dem 2020 primary season.

He is now a civil rights icon, something none of the other contenders has achieved.

[DownriverDem]

11. If we don't win

we won't get anything.

[cwydro]

13. He certainly didn't do himself any favors with that stance.

But he was polling very low even before that.

He just never gained any traction. He never had a chance imo.

[onetexan]

31. Beto is young. He has lots more opportunities, such as being VP

Guy is smart, articulate, passionate & connects well with both millenials & older age groups.

[cwydro]

43. Time will tell.

I’d bet he’s got no chance to be VP.

[onetexan]

48. Sheez a bit judgmental aren't we

[cwydro]

49. Not a judgment, simply an opinion.

Which is what we all post here.

[Kaleva]

15. If anything, Beto should have gotten a boost from the more ardent pro-control types.

But that didn't happen.

[wildflower]

96. I thought he would too

It seemed at first like his stance helped him in some corners and hurt him in others. But then his poll numbers didn't rise much.

[MustLoveBeagles]

28. Hi TexasTowlie

How are you holding up? I just wanted to thank you for all the articles you've posted here and in the Beto group. It was appreciated.

[TexasTowelie]

33. I'm undecided at this point.

I have several candidates that I've completely disqualified and I'm down to only a few that remain in consideration. I've pretty much dismissed the possibility that any Democrat will win Texas in 2020 and I'm pessimistic as to what that means for Democrats winning in statewide elections. The thought that Republicans will remain in power in Texas for another decade makes me want to .

[MustLoveBeagles]

41. I always thought that Texas was a long shot for us even with Beto in the race

Texas staying red for the foreseeable future is very bad news. Gerrymandering is a terrible thing.

You've always been a great advocate for him while not being afraid to post articles that were critical of him. And so was Indygram. I haven't seen seen her here in months. Don't know what happened to her.

Most of Beto's supporters seem to be laying low at least on this forum. I'm still disappointed that he didn't do better even with what he had going against him. I'm not happy with the way he's been treated. I can deal with constructive criticism. Even I was scratching my head over his defense of Tulsi. It's the mockery I'm having a harder time with.

There's no rush in picking another favorite. There's still plenty of time til the primaries start. For me, picking Joe was a no brainer as he was a very close second place choice for me.

Hang in there.

[cwydro]

46. Wow, bitter much?

Your candidate of choice is out so you insult other candidates? Smh.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. There was absolutely zero bullshit

In Beto. It came straight from the heart. We need more of that and less politics.

[MustLoveBeagles]

29. +1

[LonePirate]

27. Beto was right to say that. We need to start taking guns and removing them from the streets.

Yes, it may take an amendment to Constitution to achieve it; but that does not negate the need to do so.

[Celerity]

75. 'We need to start taking guns'

coming soon to dark money bankrolled RW advert near you (if you live in or near ay remotely swing district)

smdh

The US is a massive gun fetish society, and to sabotage actually getting common sense, realistic gun legislation through Congress and signed by a Dem POTUS by going full and open

'We need to start taking guns'

is a path to failure at both legislative levels, but also (and far worse) electoral levels as well

[LonePirate]

76. Except your commonsense, realistic gun legislation won't solve the problem or even come close.

But feel free to believe in your fantasy solutions that have no chance at working. Good luck with that. You want a law change. I want a culture and Constitution change.

[Celerity]

77. So work to repeal the 2nd Amendment, I hope you are younger than me (I am 23) as I will not see

it happen in my lifetime. The constitutional system, at some many levels, is gamed an starting to truly show systemic weaknesses, perhaps fatal ones. Welcome to the long-wave (centuries out from its writing) flaws of the instrument of government the founding fathers wrought.

[Baked Potato]

36. He should have stayed out of this one, but was pressured on social media

He could have beat Cruz next go around. Now, it may be tough.

[jcgoldie]

40. bullshit.

...

[Voltaire2]

45. Evidence?

Oh right you’ve got none at all.

[hack89]

50. It was an act of desperation.

He was already spiraling down the drain.

[cwydro]

53. This.

Agree.

[Prosper]

54. Beto has absolutely positively the right frame of mind

but he expressed it at the wrong time. The biggest radical complaint from the pro gun side is that anti gun people want to confiscate guns. Beto verified that attack.

[AncientGeezer]

158. It can't be a radical complaint if it's varified...you said Beto verified it

As you say.." Beto has absolutely positively the right frame of mind"....as I read that you seem to agree with Beto.
How'd that work out for Beto in a Democratic Primary race?

[OliverQ]

59. I agree with his message and I don't think civilians should own AR-15s, AK-47s, etc.

Even the inventor of the AR-15 said he didn't design it for civilian use.

But, I knew Beto's outright call to confiscate guns was not going to go over well in this gun worshipping society.

[TidalWave46]

67. I thank him for saying it.

I thank him for his position on guns. Things don’t become normal until brave public figures start talking about them.

[Joe941]

73. Where is the evidence of this claim?

[liskddksil]

74. There is none. Polls were on Beto's side nationally and in Texas

This thread is mostly just a bunch of gun-humpers and Beto hater's gloating.

[Tipperary]

80. Wait, polls were on his side?

If that was the case, why did he quit?

[liskddksil]

87. This thread is referring to a specific policy of mandatory buybacks that Beto proposed

which all the actual evidence so far from public opinion (for cowards who need a weather vane) shows support for.

[Kaleva]

95. But that support did not translate support for Beto

[Tipperary]

97. Huh?

[liskddksil]

106. I don't know how to respond to this one? nt

[Tipperary]

107. I asked why did he quit.

I found your answer confusing

If he was doing so well, why give up?

[dalton99a]

88. +1. It is revisionist bullshit

He is gone from the scene, and they are still bitching

[k2qb3]

79. Democrats have sacrificed WAY too much to bad gun control policies already.

There are millions of otherwise liberal people, certainly people with no other strong ties to the right, that will never vote Democrat because of the gun issue.

The real problem, which goes all the way back to the NFA in 1934, is the exemptions in all our gun laws for agents of the government operating domestically. Those exemptions are offensive to the letter and the spirit of the constitution and have completely poisoned the debate on what is or is not an appropriate civilian weapon.

People won't comply with a confiscation order. States won't comply, LEOs won't comply. It won't be everyone who ignores it, just enough to ensure enforcement gets expensive, bloody and tragic enough to swing public opinion the other way again.

It's a pipe dream. With extremely high opportunity costs.

It always has been.

[myohmy2]

84. I said it before...

...we live in a society that values guns more than little children's lives...

...that says it all...

...as a politician, that calculus should enter your mind before you open your mouth...

...

[Cosmocat]

102. Reality backs that sentiment up

I think to help move the needle on that we need to be more assertive in our language and not just run and hide in the corner as Ds have since Rs got rolling on this in the early 90s.

BUT, it's poker and you don't shove all your chips in the middle of the table and go all in on it.

Gotta protect your chip stack while making the moves ...

[robbedvoter]

100. He was hurt by the media because he is not courting

🍊's white males. Once this became obvious, the media dropped him and went on to the next B boy - Buti.

[dlk]

104. Beto took a bold and long-overdue step forward for rational gun safety

We are the only country in the planet with routine gun massacres What is wrong with selfish Americans and their guns? This is the real right to life issue. I applaud Beto’s courage.

[Katalino]

105. He might be selected vice-president candidate

I think he would be a reasonable choice.

[gopiscrap]

116. welcome to DU

[MustLoveBeagles]

124. Who knows

Anything's possible. And welcome to DU.

[Tipperary]

130. No. nt

[AncientGeezer]

159. I'll decalre Now... No.....he won't be.

[sacto95834]

113. I know this was political suicide for Beto...

but he spoke his mind and I found that so refreshing. After his hometown of El Paso was targeted who can blame him. In some ways I think he said what a lot of progressives (and perhaps others) think but dare not say. How many more of our fellow citizens have to die before the nation acts? I know we aren't New Zealand, but all it took was ONE awful tragic incident before their Parliament said enough.

Please spare me the comments about our freedoms enshrined in the constitution. Look how fast we have given up so much of our privacy and due process rights in the name of safety when the Congress passed the Patriot Act. Are we safer? Maybe/maybe not. I'm sure many other acts of terror may have been stopped that I/we just don't know about. But what a price we have paid. Am I cynical? Yes probably. But I still believe in the heroes and patriots that work in our government to keep the US safe and for them I am grateful.

My view will be widely unpopular here, but I applaud Beto. It may have ended his political career, but I hope he sleeps better every night for standing up for something he believed in. No other politician would dare utter what he did otherwise. I speak only for myself.

[MustLoveBeagles]

125. Your view may not be as unpopular as you think

I was and am a Beto supporter. I greatly admired his candor about the gun issue. As for this being the end of his political career? I certainly hope not. I'm thinking we haven't heard the last of him.

[Hoyt]

128. Popular here, except for a few gunners.

[AncientGeezer]

153. But it didn't increase support in the Democratic Primary voter base outside of here.

You know....where it matters..actual voters and contributors.
Not all (let alone most)Democrats hold your view and certainly not your past "professional" prospective.

[Hoyt]

154. Ah, go oil your gunz, Old Geezer. You'll get more agreement on the Discussionist.

[AncientGeezer]

155. My stuff is fine....I'm obsessive about maintenance... ATV's, trucks, boat, anything

You were asked a question that you seem to be ignoring....I'm curious as to why(not really)?
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=339518
You keep claiming a discussionist deal for me....why? Did someone call you out someplace and you blame me for it?
I'd hope not....that would be unfair.....like you locking doors so the police couldn't gain access while you were plying your trade. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=338183

[Hoyt]

156. More out of context links from a gunner.

[AncientGeezer]

157. "More out of context links from a gunner."

You wrote it......it's not edited...it's NOT out of context. I read the entire thread...just now...2012. Nothing was out of context


For the jury.....it's his words.... https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45202

[Blue_Tires]

136. So why hasn't Tulsi been hurt by any of her comments??

??

[Gothmog]

145. There is a phone conference tonight for Beto suppoters

I made a good size donation on first day of his campaign. I RSVP for the call

[MustLoveBeagles]

146. This the first I've heard of this

Has it already happened?

[Gothmog]

147. I miss the call but here is a story about this call

Link to tweet

?s=20

[MustLoveBeagles]

162. Thank you

I read the article linked in the tweet. I didn't bother with reading the comments. No doubt it's a cesspool of hate.