Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 16, 2019

Awesome response by an American. Beto just lost any election chance he had.



Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

And this is how reasoned debate should be done.


#1 | Posted by boaz at 2019-09-16 09:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Great video and a very articulate man.

#2 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-16 09:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

An idiot who thinks he should be able to tell parents all over this nation that we don't have the right to protect our children from idiots with weapons of war. I think I'm supposed to be swayed because he's black. I just don't care what color a gun nut is, they are still nuts.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-17 06:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Beto just lost any election chance he had."

Anyone who actually thought he had a chance is delusional.

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-09-17 07:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

A gun shop in AZ had a beto special and sold out before the day was over.

#5 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-09-17 02:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Conficated? Is that 'confiscated' in hairlip?

#6 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-09-18 01:25 AM | Reply

Beta can't run a gun buy back. He can't pass a background check.

#7 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-09-18 07:53 AM | Reply

"Anyone who actually thought he had a chance is delusional."

I think that's why he said it. It was a last ditch effort to get back in the game.

It's a safe thing to say. If it did come to legislation being passed, it would get shot down by SCOTUS, and he (or any other politician) could simply and truthfully say it was out of their hands.

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-18 01:38 PM | Reply

"Under the National Firearms Act (NFA), it is illegal for a private citizen to possess a sawed-off modern smokeless powder shotgun (a shotgun with a barrel length shorter than 18 inches (46 cm) or a minimum overall length of the weapon, total. including the 18 inch minimum barrel, of under 26 inches (66 cm)) (under U.S.C. Title II), without a tax-paid registration from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, requiring a background check and either a $200 or $5 tax for every transfer, depending upon the specific manufacturing circumstances of the particular sawed-off modern shotgun being transferred." en.wikipedia.org

If this is Constitutional (and it hasn't been ruled otherwise by SCOTUS), why can't "assault weapons" be defined a similar way and treated similarly without violating the 2nd Amendment? Why can't AR/AK type weapons be treated the same way? Nobody in the gun safety movement is talking about banning all guns. I don't care about guns in your home, where they are most likely to kill you and yours rather than the rest of us, but when you take them out into the public the rest of us have a right to be protected from you. Why is it that a relative handful of us feel the need to be armed everywhere they go?

Every one of the Rights in the Bill of Rights has exceptions. Why should the 2nd Amendment be any different than the rest?

#9 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-09-19 12:21 AM | Reply


I think you're on the right track. In fact, I think you could legally apply the NFA criteria to any firearm. But it's also important to remember that many of these weapons were subject to a grandfather clause, meaning if you owned them prior to the ban, you didn't need to do anything.

#10 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-09-19 05:28 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort