Image 01 Image 03

Shortest Senate Race Ever: Beto O’Rourke Says He Doesn’t Think AR-15s Should Be Sold to the Public

Shortest Senate Race Ever: Beto O’Rourke Says He Doesn’t Think AR-15s Should Be Sold to the Public

That was fast

Ted Cruz’s Democrat opponent Rep. Robert O’Rourke just put a serious damper on his bid for a seat in the Big House (not that there was any serious competition before).

Speaking at South by Southwest in Austin, O’Rourke said he doesn’t think AR-15s should be sold to private citizens. Mind you, this is a TEXAS Senate race and us Texans have big love for our guns and our second amendment protections.

That kind of hogwash might play well to the SXSW crowd, and probably to all the Yankee and California transplants in Harris County (though some have fled to the Lone Star State to enjoy our freedoms, not stifle them), but outside of that? He’s toast.

Shortly after the Parkland school shooting, O’Rourke bragged about his F rating with the NRA. Because in today’s world, our politicians think it’s totes cool to stand in opposition to our Constitutional protections, but I digress.

There are reasons why Cruz garnered more primary votes than all Democrat contenders combined. Democrat values and culture are largely isolated to select pockets of the Lone Star State and despite the media wish casting, is not representative of the whole.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Here comes the Soros and Bloomberg money.

he’s right: the government should *give* one to every sane adult when they turn 18. 😎

One of my favorite t-shirts you see frequently in Texas:

“Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should not be a government agency… it should be a convenience store”

Go ahead Beta, keep spouting off your anti-2A nonsense. You’ve got little pink shoes to fill.

DieJustAsHappy | March 12, 2018 at 3:27 pm

With that he makes a case for considering to not sell firearms to certain persons OVER 21.

… as Beto spouts off to all 50 people in the audience….

Anyhow, as a faux Hispanic (Beto), Irish-American O’Rourke gets to celebrate diversity in his own, special way.

    Stan25 in reply to Oregon Mike. | March 12, 2018 at 4:08 pm

    Like Fauxcohontas

    AmandaFitz in reply to Oregon Mike. | March 12, 2018 at 5:46 pm

    I LOVE that he was always called Robert or Rob, UNTIL he started running for office. Maybe he and Pocahontas can be on the same ticket! A fake Native American and a fake Hispanic- all they need to top it off is Rachel Dolezal!

      Milhouse in reply to AmandaFitz. | March 14, 2018 at 9:49 am

      Not true. He’s been called Beto since he was a small child.

      The truth about him is damning enough; why do people feel the need to lie?

        Edward in reply to Milhouse. | March 14, 2018 at 11:16 am

        His real name is Robert Francis O’Rourke, not Beto. If the local kids had called him “Puta” when a child, would that still stick with him in place of his real name?

Bub-buy, Ba-ba-beto.

Does he think the electorate in the state of texas has evolved since the Wendy Davis won the governors race – As I recall Wendy Davis won with 38.9% of the vote. (sarc)

    Colonel Travis in reply to Joe-dallas. | March 12, 2018 at 4:28 pm

    Even if every single (D) won their election this year, the (D)s could not win the Texas House because there are about 20 seats with the (R) having no opponent.

    The (R)s lost no Texas Senate seats in 2016.

    It is impossible for Ted Cruz to loose to this clown, the state has too many (R) voters outside of the urban hellholes.

    It is impossible for Gov. Abbot to lose to whatever (D) gets thrown to the wolves, the state is thriving under his leadership.

    I don’t know where the Blue Wave talk started, but it is utter nonsense.

2nd Ammendment Mother | March 12, 2018 at 3:53 pm

Welcome to Texas….

Who’d this guy hire as a campaign manager….Justin Trudeau?

At least he is honest in his position. Now… if he was asked specifics about what an AR-15 is and isn’t…well that could be interesting. It will play in Austin but 15 minutes out of city limits it is tone deaf.

    rabidfox in reply to alaskabob. | March 12, 2018 at 8:44 pm

    He could be hoping that Austin and Houston will do to Texas what Chicago has done to Illinois or NYC has done to New York State.

Unless they close the Planned Parent, “fast and furious”, self-abortion (difficult but not impossible with a rifle), and criminal loopholes, it should be self-evident that these special and peculiar interests have clear and progressive ulterior motives, and it is not about “the children”.

smalltownoklahoman | March 12, 2018 at 4:31 pm

Busting out an old meme! Ahem: Well, it looks like Mr. O’Rourke just *puts on sunglasses* shot his campaign in the foot!

Now that is the face of Austin moonbat.

CNN and MSLSD are sure to indicate that the ‘tight race’ is a trump ‘bullweather’… In Texas it’s bulls..

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to jmt9455. | March 12, 2018 at 5:05 pm

    …and that it’s going to be another Yellow-Dog Democrat trickle….er….wave……

Beto is about 1200 miles too far east to being running.

this is a TEXAS Senate race and us Texans have big love for our guns may be good Texan talk, but in real English we say, “this is a TEXAS Senate race and WE Texans have big love for our guns.”

Handsome. For a beaver, anyway.

there’s no reason an AR-15 should be sold to civilians

To whom else should it be sold, then? I don’t think the military has any use for it.

    alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | March 12, 2018 at 7:25 pm

    Obama gave them out as party favors to cartels.

    Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | March 13, 2018 at 10:15 am

    Precisely. If a military, any military in the world, is going to issue a rifle based on the M-16 format it’s going to be an actual M-16 or M-4. AR-15s are civilian rifles; they’re not MILSPEC.

    They are not “weapons of war.” If you can go into Bass Pro Shops or Cabelas and buy it, it’s not a weapon of war.

Beto is the beta test site for all the progressive northeast liberal crap that only has support in failed urban shi!holes run into oblivion by Dems. Good luck with that outside of Austin ….

Remember when the crazy leftist was talking bad about Texans and our pickup trucks? Guns will really get us riled up.

This is death in Texas but probably violins in states that are getting overrun by California refugees, OR, WA, AZ, ID, NV. They bring their disease with them.

Yup, that was short! ROFL I don’t care how hard anyone tries, they just cannot fix STUPID!

That’s Democrat-speak for “being tough”.

With that line of thought,or in his case Feeling how does he expect if elected to uphold the oath of office,as in to protect the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic,such as he.

One great thing about free speech is that it encourages people to speak freely and show you that they should never be in public office of any kind!

Beto? Is that so he has more cred with Hispanics in Texas? Does it work?

    Milhouse in reply to tdg54. | March 14, 2018 at 9:51 am

    No, it’s been his nickname since he was small.

    Paul in reply to tdg54. | March 15, 2018 at 12:00 pm

    He grew up in El Paso, so I’m sure he had lots of Latino friends as a kid. Most Texans do… it’s a real mashup of Anglo and Latino culture here… it’s part of what makes Texas such a unique place to live. Contrary to what the progressives on the coasts constantly try to portray, the races by-and-large get along just fine here. If you have a Latino friend and they’re fond of you, they’re likely to give you a Latino nickname.

    But he’s still a progressive idiot with a lot of progressive ideas that just don’t work here (or anywhere else). And he’s still a buck-toothed pansie, so I call him Beta instead of Beto.

“Shall” is frequently misunderstood. In Black Letter law/Constitutional Law; Definition of SHALL: As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; it is not used in the permissive sense in the Second Amendment. Jefferson very carefully considered the use of many words in writing the Second Amendment, determined that SHALL in it’s strongest definition was the key to preventing any future govt from perverting the meaning of the Second Amendment. “The Federalist Papers” confirm this absolutely.
Therefore it is my understanding that the govt has no right to decide what arms I as a CITIZEN shall bear, or when or where. Remember the term arms is not just limited to fire arms, but all weapons a CITIZEN SHALL have the right to.
The Second Amendment does not give us the right to bear arms, The Second Amendment is an ADMONITION to government that it may not take away your right to bear arms, which is inherent.

Hope poor Beto never needs the police to protect him or his family considering they have no legal obligation to do so.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty ……...
Jun 28, 2005 · WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
AND yet the left would deny We the People the God given Right to defend ourselves and those around us in a crisis.

He knows he is going to lose. The statement is just virtue signaling to the commie party.

He may lose, but at least he has said what is logical and reasonable in the face of Texass attitudes.

    Milhouse in reply to Brien. | March 14, 2018 at 10:06 am

    How is it either logical or reasonable to ban so useful and safe a weapon as the AR-15. How is it either logical or reasonable to say that it shouldn’t be sold to civilians, who are the very people it was designed for, and the only people who could possibly be interested in it? How is it either logical or reasonable to treat the nation’s most important civil liberties organization, with five million members and many times that supporters, as if it were some sort of enemy of the people, all the while celebrating such relatively fringe organizations as the ACLU, NARAL, and the NAACP, none of which are nearly as significant or have such wide support?

The English language can be extremely precise leaving no question in the mind of the listener if they understand the subtleties and nuances of the power of the language.

A sentence has a subject clause for a reason – it is the subject of the sentence. That means that it is the part of the sentence that is being discussed; with an objective clause referring back to the subject clause.

‘’A well regulated militia, (comma)….’’ IS the subject clause of the sentence. All other clauses refer back to this clause….
‘’… being the best security of a free state, (comma)’’ refers to the ‘militia’…..
‘’…, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, (comma)’’ refers back to those in the militia.
‘’,… shall not be infringed.’’ Refers to the ‘right of the people’ IN THE ‘MILITIA’
Yes, we have a right to bear arms IF you are in ‘’A well regulated militia,…”

Our founders were the most educated people in our nation at that time –
Learn their English and you will understand their intent as it was meant to be understood.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Brien. | March 13, 2018 at 9:43 pm

    Yes, we have a right to bear arms IF you are in ‘’A well regulated militia,…

    SCOTUS has ruled otherwise, that the right to keep and bear arms exists independent of militia membership, in Heller v DC. They also ruled that it was not an unlimited right.
    That’s why we’re arguing now over what permissible infringements are allowed.
    If they had ruled that RKBA was for militia only, we would not have survived eight years of the Obama administration.

    Barry in reply to Brien. | March 13, 2018 at 11:44 pm

    “subtleties and nuances”

    Or, as otherwise know in your commie world, lies.

    The founders made it perfectly clear what they meant and why. They chose their wording carefully.

    You’re full of shit, like all commies.

      Brien in reply to Barry. | March 14, 2018 at 12:14 am

      For 60 years have fought against ‘commies’ – so obviously I must be something else – but that would make you look the fool considering your expertise in grammar and common sense. (the founders were quite clear – that part you understand)
      Y’all jest kip etin’ them thar smart pills, y’all heya..?…

        Milhouse in reply to Brien. | March 14, 2018 at 10:15 am

        For 60 years have fought against ‘commies’

        Really? I don’t believe you. What have you done against them?

    tom_swift in reply to Brien. | March 14, 2018 at 1:18 am


    The “militia clause” is the rationale for why they thought the matter important. It’s not about BATF’s beloved (and entirely spurious) “sporting use”.

    As a practical matter, the clause proves that the 2nd is NOT about a militia. Obviously they knew what a “militia” is and were familiar with the word; after all, they used it—there it is, in black & white. If they had intended to say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” they would have been able to do so. But they very obviously did no such thing. Use of both “militia” and “the people” in the text of the 2nd clearly indicates that the two are distinct concepts.

    Milhouse in reply to Brien. | March 14, 2018 at 10:11 am

    Wrong. “A well regulated militia” is not the subject clause of the amendment. The subject clause of the amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State” is a prefaratory clause, explaining why the RKBA ought not to be infringed.

    Milhouse in reply to Brien. | March 14, 2018 at 10:17 am

    Madison’s original draft, before it got chopped up and rearranged by committee, had the clauses in the other order: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country”. What does that do to your nonsensical grammatical theory?

      Brien in reply to Milhouse. | March 15, 2018 at 3:32 am

      Exactly – Have you noticed the final choice – Not the discarded ones.??
      Yes there was a reason for the Many many options and where to put all the commas….if you understood your English lessons from primary school…..

SCOTUS will rule otherwise again – Did you notice that it has never been unanimous.??…
It was a ‘conservative’ win, not based on common sense and logic – a packed bench….
Pathetic excuse….It will change….

    tom_swift in reply to Brien. | March 14, 2018 at 1:23 am

    The SCOTUS decision about the meaning of the 2nd was unanimous. It’s an individual right—9 to 0. Done deal.

    The decision about whether to take it seriously was 5 to 4.

    Milhouse in reply to Brien. | March 14, 2018 at 10:21 am

    That “the people” means everybody was not only unanimous in that one decision, it’s unanimous across time too. Every single time the Court has considered the 2nd amendment it has taken for granted that the right belongs to every individual. The cockamamie theory that it belongs only to members of a militia (which, incidentally, would be every able-bodied male between 18 and 45) was invented, as far as I can tell, in the ’60s or ’70s, and has never had judicial support.

His name is Robert Francis O’Rourke, the nickname Hispanic kids gave him “Beto” is his attempt to deceive Hispanic voters to believe he is Hispanic. How about some accuracy and use his actual legal name and not the name he tries to deceive with?

Many half-wits here try to lie their way out of this debate with absurd idiocies.
This semi-automatic rifle is only meant for war and for killing people.
Ask the creator: