Beto said the government would “take” peoples’ guns. That word “take” (as opposed to all the other words he could have used, such as “buy back”) clearly was meant to emphasize the threat of government force. (Watch the video and substitute “buy back” for “take” and see if the tone still works.) The assertion relies, for its rhetoric effect, on the threat of government violence against lawbreakers.

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.

Watch the video: 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.

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?

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.

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.

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/excl...

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?

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.

because the BLM and ATF totally went in against Cliven Bundy with guns blazing (oh wait...)

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

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?

> At no point was there ever a threat of force from Beto, especially not with armed police.

"In that case, I think that there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back, so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else," O'Rourke told the Morning Joe co-hosts. [1]

I certainly wouldn't expect we'd be sending unarmed law enforcement to a recalcitrant gun owner's home to force him to surrender his firearms.

https://www.newsweek.com/beto-orourke-gun-buyback-assault-we...

And what if you didn't hand it in at that time -- if you didn't comply with the law? The answer is that you would be subject to arrest and imprisonment for up to 14 years: https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/1996/46/part3/...

I think there's a large difference between threatening arrest and threatening direct violence. For one thing, arrests ostensibly may lead to review and double-checking of the case with lawyers and judges and the chance to defend yourself. Mistaken or invalid arrests may be undone. Direct violence can not be reviewed and then taken back.

If someone threatens you with arrest, they are threatening to send a group of armed men to your house. If you don't let them in, they will break down your door. If you don't let them physically restrain you with handcuffs, they will grab you and perform pain compliance holds, pepper spray you, or tase you, then chain you up with handcuffs or other restraints. If you resist to the point where you threaten their life, they will shoot you. Then they will physically remove you from your home and put you in a cell. Is this not violence?

With this logic, there's no difference between "our cops will enforce speed limits by pulling people over or sending fines to later" and "our cops will immediately beat or shoot anyone on-sight that [the cops say] are breaking the speed limit".

In the first case, if I choose not to resist (which I definitely won't if I believe I'm in the right and I trust the review/court system), there's much less risk of direct bodily harm, permanent injury, or death, even if I get jailed. If violence happens during the arrest, presumably that will be considered unusual and the cops will be at risk of being in trouble from that, so they have an incentive to not be violent. In the first case, if I'm wrongfully accused, I get to have my day in court, have a professional represent me, and present my evidence to a judge before anything more irreversible happens to me than losing some time. In the second case, I have no recourse if a cop abuses their power because they're reckless or have it out for me specifically. In the second case, it's already established that direct violence is expected, and because it won't be seen as unusual, the cops have little need to restrain themselves.

No threat of use of fore?

> Now's the time to hand it in without penalty

What do you suppose is implied?

It really doesn't matter, anyway, because there a regular and frequent shootings at the Chapel Street clubs.

I wonder how you would have it. Do you propose disallowing use of force entirely? If so, how do we deal with noncompliance?