13 ms·

I disagree that the average person can genuinely believe that "take" is a strong word of force and should be banned from twitter. It's definitely not equal to "

by tonyhb 6y ago

I disagree that the average person can genuinely believe that "take" is a strong word of force and should be banned from twitter. It's definitely not equal to "they'll be met with serious force" in terms of threat. This is the original point: "We'll take your guns" isn't inciting violence anywhere near the level that trump does. The comparison doesn't stand. If you can make that argument with a straight face, I take my hat off to you.

rayiner 6y ago
Watch the video: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/13/beto-orourke-abc-news-democratic-debate-guns-ar15-orig-js.cnn/video/playlists/2020-democratic-debate-abc https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/13/beto-orourke-.... Listen to Beto’s tone and the crowd’s reaction. “Hell yes, we’ll [accept your AR-15 in a buy-back]” would not have had the same rhetorical impact because that’s not what he meant. The crowd cheered because they knew what he meant.
- tonyhb 6y ago
  Bro, 1-800-JUNK is going to say they'll "take" or "not take" things from you when you phone them up. Are they inciting violence to the same degree as trump here too?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tekknik 6y ago
    Except if I say no, and they try to take it anyway, they are breaking and entering. When the government says no, and it’s in violation of a law written by them, we have to revolt to have them step down. Further listen to his definition of a gun he’ll take. First off the AR-15 is not and never has been used on a battlefield, it’s a civilian gun. Most people don’t own M16’s due to the licensing required. Second is they want to take guns that can be used to kill people, this is all guns. He is frothing at the mouth to take guns that look scary.
    - tonyhb 6y ago
      No-one is forcing entry to take guns! If the time comes: 1. You'll be asked to hand in guns 2. You can choose not to. You can say it's in the trash. You threw it away. Whatever. The US gov't will need a warrant to come in and search property. All for a gun that you might own? But that you now know is an "extra" crime to use? That's not going to happen. Manpower, cost, trouble, the chance of escalation - it's not worth it. So yes, keep it locked away if you so choose. I get your point, but it's an assumption to say that the police are going to _force entry and remove everyone's guns_. That will not ever happen. I just want to disclaim that I genuinely don't care about guns whether people keep them or not. After being in the UK with acid attacks, keep em. No horse in this race. Just do not understand why people are so determined to say that you'll have them forcefully stolen from you, when just a tiny bit of thinking - and precedent! - shows you that it's not going to happen.
      - refurb 6y ago
        But the US federal gov't already forcefully takes guns away from people when they are breaking the law.[1] If that law is changed to include guns that are now legal, why would you think the ATF won't seize those guns too? Not long ago the ATF determined that certain airsoft guns were "machine guns". They pretty quickly asked the seller for a list of customers, followed up with each and seized them. [1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/04/exclusive-feds-issue-4-000-orders-seize-guns-people-who-failed-background-checks/901017001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/04/excl...
      - harryh 6y ago
        Drugs are currently (mostly) illegal in the US. If the police have good reason to believe that you have illegal drugs in your house they can and will force entry and take the drugs. And arrest you. Sometimes while doing this they end up killing people. Happens all the time. Why would you expect laws making guns illegal would be any different than the laws we already have making drugs illegal?
      - tekknik 6y ago
        I choose option 3, try and take it. It's in direct violation of the second amendment. They do not have the power and if they attempt to this will most definitely turn ugly as there are millions in the US that will not stand for this. You need to understand that one of two reasons we have the second amendment right is protect us from a government that could turn totalitarian or not "for the people". So when a politician says they want to take guns, this is step one of totalitarian regime stepping in and this one act alone has the power to start another civil war.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  because the BLM and ATF totally went in against Cliven Bundy with guns blazing (oh wait...)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stepstop 6y ago
The word has a lot of history. Those with guns actually fear them being “taken” and wave an old american flag that says “come and take it” (meaning I will defend my rights). For Beto to say “Hell yes, we will take” is playing in the same rhetoric. He lives in TX and knows exactly what the word meant & so did his voters. Your argument is silly
curryst 6y ago
So the government bans private ownership of firearms, and I refuse to turn mine in. I assume some series of fines accrues, which I ignore. Does the government simply allow me to keep them because I'm refusing to comply?

by tonyhb 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

Watch the video: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/13/beto-orourke-abc-news-democratic-debate-guns-ar15-orig-js.cnn/video/playlists/2020-democratic-debate-abc https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/13/beto-orourke-.... Listen to Beto’s tone and the crowd’s reaction. “Hell yes, we’ll [accept your AR-15 in a buy-back]” would not have had the same rhetorical impact because that’s not what he meant. The crowd cheered because they knew what he meant.

tonyhb 6y ago
Bro, 1-800-JUNK is going to say they'll "take" or "not take" things from you when you phone them up. Are they inciting violence to the same degree as trump here too?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tekknik 6y ago
  Except if I say no, and they try to take it anyway, they are breaking and entering. When the government says no, and it’s in violation of a law written by them, we have to revolt to have them step down. Further listen to his definition of a gun he’ll take. First off the AR-15 is not and never has been used on a battlefield, it’s a civilian gun. Most people don’t own M16’s due to the licensing required. Second is they want to take guns that can be used to kill people, this is all guns. He is frothing at the mouth to take guns that look scary.
  - tonyhb 6y ago
    No-one is forcing entry to take guns! If the time comes: 1. You'll be asked to hand in guns 2. You can choose not to. You can say it's in the trash. You threw it away. Whatever. The US gov't will need a warrant to come in and search property. All for a gun that you might own? But that you now know is an "extra" crime to use? That's not going to happen. Manpower, cost, trouble, the chance of escalation - it's not worth it. So yes, keep it locked away if you so choose. I get your point, but it's an assumption to say that the police are going to _force entry and remove everyone's guns_. That will not ever happen. I just want to disclaim that I genuinely don't care about guns whether people keep them or not. After being in the UK with acid attacks, keep em. No horse in this race. Just do not understand why people are so determined to say that you'll have them forcefully stolen from you, when just a tiny bit of thinking - and precedent! - shows you that it's not going to happen.
    - refurb 6y ago
      But the US federal gov't already forcefully takes guns away from people when they are breaking the law.[1] If that law is changed to include guns that are now legal, why would you think the ATF won't seize those guns too? Not long ago the ATF determined that certain airsoft guns were "machine guns". They pretty quickly asked the seller for a list of customers, followed up with each and seized them. [1]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/04/exclusive-feds-issue-4-000-orders-seize-guns-people-who-failed-background-checks/901017001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/12/04/excl...
    - harryh 6y ago
      Drugs are currently (mostly) illegal in the US. If the police have good reason to believe that you have illegal drugs in your house they can and will force entry and take the drugs. And arrest you. Sometimes while doing this they end up killing people. Happens all the time. Why would you expect laws making guns illegal would be any different than the laws we already have making drugs illegal?
    - tekknik 6y ago
      I choose option 3, try and take it. It's in direct violation of the second amendment. They do not have the power and if they attempt to this will most definitely turn ugly as there are millions in the US that will not stand for this. You need to understand that one of two reasons we have the second amendment right is protect us from a government that could turn totalitarian or not "for the people". So when a politician says they want to take guns, this is step one of totalitarian regime stepping in and this one act alone has the power to start another civil war.
selimthegrim 6y ago
because the BLM and ATF totally went in against Cliven Bundy with guns blazing (oh wait...)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

stepstop 6y ago

The word has a lot of history. Those with guns actually fear them being “taken” and wave an old american flag that says “come and take it” (meaning I will defend my rights). For Beto to say “Hell yes, we will take” is playing in the same rhetoric. He lives in TX and knows exactly what the word meant & so did his voters. Your argument is silly

curryst 6y ago

So the government bans private ownership of firearms, and I refuse to turn mine in. I assume some series of fines accrues, which I ignore. Does the government simply allow me to keep them because I'm refusing to comply?