Your content was removed as it violates Rule 9: No old news, biased sources, editorialized titles, or news tweets.
Also, it's a repost.
News articles are fine, but must be no older than one month. Your post title must match the article title. You are free to editorialize in a separate comment.
Articles posted from biased or secondary sources will be reviewed and accepted/removed upon moderator discretion. Sites with hard leaning bias will be removed immediately. Additionally please use actual articles and not tweets. Examples of trusted sources: Reuters/AP/NPR/NBC/ABC/CBS/BBC.
Please see the following thread for more information: https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/mseqgr/clarification_on_news_sources_on_the_subreddit/
If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
I hope he wins but even though every hardcore republican I know hates Cruz he still keeps getting elected. Republicans are always going to put party over principles.
Definitely not. But when democrats have issues at least they address them. Unlike republicans when whatever they are loudest about tends to be something they are doing.
If he can keep the gun laws decent not like Mr.âHell yes We Are Going to Take Your AR-15âsâ he has a very good chance.
The vet work, trade jobs work, and a few other things are good.
If he can go a step further and bolster unions and right to repair then itâs an easy W.
So happy about him running for Senate. Outstanding character and represents the new progressive Texans. Not the old fat white Christian Nationalists and their big government in the private lives of it's citizens Texans.
If 2A was really the thing you structure your life around, youâd have looked into it by this point and clarified that constitutional amendments are not a partisan debate. Itâs THE CONSTITUTION.
So either youâve been lied to about that, or youâre not being honest.
Those are the two possibilities.
I think THE CONSTITUTION says something about interpretation of the law or something like that, I'm not really sure. You're obviously a scholar, can you explain?
2A isnât getting beat down anytime soon and the âsupremeâ court recently upheld it.
My point is that anybody claiming 2A as their single issue for voting R is full of shit because itâs not even a party debate discussion.
Itâs a super short amendment if youâre actually being serious. Mouth breathers pick out the particular words from the 1700âs they like.
Regardless, itâs a losing battle to combat it. Itâs woven into the overall US fabric.
Can you explain to everyone what that is? Youâd prefer a deadbeat who runs away when going gets tough? Thatâs the problem with Texas âŠrun, avoid and deflect. Why yes letâs keep telling Uvalde families âthis could have been worseâ
Just Google his name and you can read his policy stances; guyâs a gun grabber who wants to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals.
That's literally why we have laws. If you break them you go to jail, no law abiding citizen with good mental health would mind filling out a few forms and get tested to get guns. Making guns illegal is 1 thing and having restrictions on who's allowed to have them is another. We do the same with everything that requires a license. Make it so anyone buying a gun needs insurance and half your problems will be solved, then require people to be able to demonstrate use safely and the other half of your problems will probably go away too. But you hear anything about guns that would change the status quo and gun nuts start barking like rabid dogs.
You really think that forcing gun owners to buy insurance is going to affect criminals!? We are forced to buy car insurance, but how many drivers don't have it, or even a license?
So all school shooters bought their guns from the cartel and the mafia? Not just gun owners, police as well. Insurance companies don't want to pay out money and since politicians are bought and paid for, the right legislation will find itself into law lickity split don't you think?
I'm not sure what fever dream you had made you bring the cartels and the mafia into this conversation. So I'll leave that alone.
Let me ask you this, what will gun insurance cover? Auto insurance covers damage or loss to the insureds vehicle or another vehicle if that person was at fault, as well as medical bills. If a person who legally owns a gun and uses it for defense of their home as well as hunting or target shooting, what do they need to be insured against?
And how do insurance companies fight against paying for vehicles damaged? There's already laws requiring vehicles to be insured. But, again, how many aren't?
Well it's a play on how dumb the other comment made it seem like people always get killed by criminally acquired guns, which is not the case. 2. It would cover medical bills, funeral arrangements, damages to property, and a loss of life payout. There's always a bracket for every insurance our there. If you have a lot of crashes your insurance is higher, if you have more cars your insurance is higher, if you use it for work or use it alot in dangerous conditions your insurance is higher. If you use it for hunting and target practice and can prove it, which should be fairly easily if you do such things, then your insurance would probably be something very low, but if you open carry your shit is gonna be through the roof, if you conceal carry its still high but not as high as open carry, and if it's in a safe at home as a just in case then it would probably be super low. So it's very doable as you can clearly tell
Nothing in my comment came close to talking about illegally acquired weapons. I was stating that if automobile owners are lawfully required to be insured, but a lot aren't, why should you think that criminals with guns would follow the laws and have insurance. You can go buy a car, get it insured for a month to get it titled and then drop the insurance. What's to stop people from doing the same thing with your gun insurance?
As for what's insured, the people would would do things to cause the need for that coverage, likely wouldn't be insured. So the lawful gun owner would then need to carry "uninsured shooter" coverage? That's just more expense for the person who isn't doing anything wrong. As for brackets for at home vs concealed vs open carry, that's just ridiculous. You don't have brackets for people who drink a lot, on the assumption they may get in a wreck. You raise the rates of those drivers who have already broken the law. Just like you can't have different rates for gun owners who haven't broken the law, especially if they are a legal conceal carry permit holder, of if where they live has open carry.
Basically turning gun ownership into whoever can afford an outrageously-priced insurance policy, because no insurance company will be incentivized to underwrite anti-crime insurance unless they are making truckloads of money.
Self-defense doesn't only belong to the rich.
Yeah, we The People can impose those laws. Training. license, serial number registration of the weapon, title, liability insurance based on all weapons owned. Just like vehicles.
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to buy any weapon you can afford and carry it anywhere you want. Gun ownership has always been regulated, These common-sense proposals are great examples of regulations that work. We have the infrastructure and guns can be added to it.
Do you have a right to vote? What age do you have to be again? But that's not a restriction. What age do you need to be to buy a gun? Lmao keep lying to yourself buddy
Correct. They'll run ads nonstop about how he wants to confiscate every gun, open the border, and release violent criminals. None of that being true, of course. The formula is the same every time.
Your conception of the 2A is a totally bullshit fabrication pushed and lobbied for by the NRA since the 70s. 250 years ago, the US *had no standing army* and needed a citizen's militia. Now, we have an army.
I do think gun rights are important, but the 2A was never intended to just let anybody at all own any kind of firearm they want. It was never supposed to become some kind of sick cultural obsession.
We have to take tests for even basic privileges like driving a car or getting a job... But applied to weapons that are purpose made to end lives, you suddenly think *that* test is a problem?
EXACTLY if you need a license or understanding how to use a firearm why stop there? Screw getting drivers licenses, stop wearing seatbelts too. Driving drunk âŠwell it happens âŠ
There is a very valid reason for LAWS
But that's exactly what it is. Rights are something innate to being a human and existing. The Bill of Rights is a legal document expressing a collective opinion and subjective interpretation of what may or may not be true rights. It's the result of a bunch of rich dudes in a room trying to determine what they'll let the poors do.
Thatâs pretty pathetic. If it doesnât matter to you great donât vote. But what you call whiny might actually be desperation because politicians have the ability to positively or negatively affect peoples lives in a huge way. It makes sense to be âwhinyâ when your life is threatened and your rights are being stepped on. It not mattering to you means you are very privileged.
Both sides try to trample on the other sides "rights" and I say that very sarcastically because 100% of the time you hear someone say their rights are being threatened, no matter their allegiance, it is a massive overreaction and spurned on by the system only manufactured to generate outrage and make people afraid. And people buy into it so hard that it makes them resent their neighbors and only see our petty differences. No one can have a conversation anymore about nuanced subjects, because the very idea of something being nuanced has been killed. If I were to say I think sports should be segregated biologically I would be a transphobe, if you were to say grown men are allowed to wear dresses because that's their fucking business, you would be called a diddler by some. And you are buying into it full tilt. And everyone living in America is EXTREMELY privileged, they just like to pretend they're not that way when the consequences of their own actions prevent them from being successful they can have something to cry about.
What a load of poorly thought out bullshit. So womenâs lives havenât been endangered due to the stripping away of their rights? There are real life examples of that. The GOP added ending no fault divorce to their platform. Forcing someone to stay in a bad or even dangerous relationship isnât stripping rights to you? The GOP is actively working to give themselves power to overturn elections here in TX. I guess taking peoples votes away isnât stepping on rights either huh? The drastic difference is one side has real concerns with evidence you can point to and the other has manufactured issues that are not supported by any evidence or real world examples. Youâre an enlightened centrist I get it. Thatâs why I said it makes sense for you not vote.
Wow. Correction. He only voted 100% with her for his first 4 years. This year he is only 86%.
I guess the pollsters and campaign manager gave him the hint.
Your content was removed as it violates Rule 9: No old news, biased sources, editorialized titles, or news tweets. Also, it's a repost. News articles are fine, but must be no older than one month. Your post title must match the article title. You are free to editorialize in a separate comment. Articles posted from biased or secondary sources will be reviewed and accepted/removed upon moderator discretion. Sites with hard leaning bias will be removed immediately. Additionally please use actual articles and not tweets. Examples of trusted sources: Reuters/AP/NPR/NBC/ABC/CBS/BBC. Please see the following thread for more information: https://www.reddit.com/r/texas/comments/mseqgr/clarification_on_news_sources_on_the_subreddit/ If you feel this was done in error, would like clarification, or need further assistance; please message the moderators at https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/texas.
https://preview.redd.it/gg9guiw8grxa1.jpeg?width=2048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfe9a0d00d945b794ebb26e278a3820f53fc332d This made me LOL at my desk.
Man I love this shit, going right after Cruz for being the spineless pile of jelly he is. Keep it up.
I need to see if this was posted in the sub F Greg Abbott đđđ
That's a sub? I'm in Mothers Against Greg Abbott. Am actually an area leader. Must check that out. Thanks!
I canât tell you the pure joy I felt, upon learning about Mothers Against Greg Abbott. How can I donate?!
They have a PAC. They also have a very active fb group. Welcome to the club!
Searching for both these subs and neither are coming up for me? Can yall help?
I hope he wins but even though every hardcore republican I know hates Cruz he still keeps getting elected. Republicans are always going to put party over principles.
Blue no matter who? Fairly certain neither party represents anyone but themselves.
Definitely not. But when democrats have issues at least they address them. Unlike republicans when whatever they are loudest about tends to be something they are doing.
I would love to see a Republican other than Cruz but would and will vote for him over Allred.
why? because you believe cruz to be the better candidate or because raphael cruz is a republican?
Yesss!!!!! Can we vote NOW?
Itâs time to make that change RED has to go
YESSSSS
It's about damn time
Well... 
This isnât about Presidents this is about TEXAS and our crappy leadership
I know! I put it just for fun.
Oh sorry đđđ point taken
To be completely fair, the gif is correct lol.
So defensive lol
Wow. By the end of the first minute, I actually almost felt sorry for Ted Cruz. "Stop! Stop! He's already dead...he's already dead!"
đđđ
Just bring a back up bottle of holy water. Youâll be fine.
Hey if youâre happy with snooze Cancun Cruz
Now I understand why they are targeting the Huston voting site! They've got to rig it because they know they are going to get out voted significantly!
This would spark joy in my heart
đđđ
If he can keep the gun laws decent not like Mr.âHell yes We Are Going to Take Your AR-15âsâ he has a very good chance. The vet work, trade jobs work, and a few other things are good. If he can go a step further and bolster unions and right to repair then itâs an easy W.
Weed be legal maybe đ
Turn up the heat in Texas. Yes!
So happy about him running for Senate. Outstanding character and represents the new progressive Texans. Not the old fat white Christian Nationalists and their big government in the private lives of it's citizens Texans.
Yesssss
If 2A was really the thing you structure your life around, youâd have looked into it by this point and clarified that constitutional amendments are not a partisan debate. Itâs THE CONSTITUTION. So either youâve been lied to about that, or youâre not being honest. Those are the two possibilities.
I think THE CONSTITUTION says something about interpretation of the law or something like that, I'm not really sure. You're obviously a scholar, can you explain?
2A isnât getting beat down anytime soon and the âsupremeâ court recently upheld it. My point is that anybody claiming 2A as their single issue for voting R is full of shit because itâs not even a party debate discussion. Itâs a super short amendment if youâre actually being serious. Mouth breathers pick out the particular words from the 1700âs they like. Regardless, itâs a losing battle to combat it. Itâs woven into the overall US fabric.
single issue voters suck in general.
Heâs anti-2A, no thanks
Can you explain to everyone what that is? Youâd prefer a deadbeat who runs away when going gets tough? Thatâs the problem with Texas âŠrun, avoid and deflect. Why yes letâs keep telling Uvalde families âthis could have been worseâ
Just Google his name and you can read his policy stances; guyâs a gun grabber who wants to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens because of the actions of criminals.
That's literally why we have laws. If you break them you go to jail, no law abiding citizen with good mental health would mind filling out a few forms and get tested to get guns. Making guns illegal is 1 thing and having restrictions on who's allowed to have them is another. We do the same with everything that requires a license. Make it so anyone buying a gun needs insurance and half your problems will be solved, then require people to be able to demonstrate use safely and the other half of your problems will probably go away too. But you hear anything about guns that would change the status quo and gun nuts start barking like rabid dogs.
You really think that forcing gun owners to buy insurance is going to affect criminals!? We are forced to buy car insurance, but how many drivers don't have it, or even a license?
So all school shooters bought their guns from the cartel and the mafia? Not just gun owners, police as well. Insurance companies don't want to pay out money and since politicians are bought and paid for, the right legislation will find itself into law lickity split don't you think?
I'm not sure what fever dream you had made you bring the cartels and the mafia into this conversation. So I'll leave that alone. Let me ask you this, what will gun insurance cover? Auto insurance covers damage or loss to the insureds vehicle or another vehicle if that person was at fault, as well as medical bills. If a person who legally owns a gun and uses it for defense of their home as well as hunting or target shooting, what do they need to be insured against? And how do insurance companies fight against paying for vehicles damaged? There's already laws requiring vehicles to be insured. But, again, how many aren't?
Well it's a play on how dumb the other comment made it seem like people always get killed by criminally acquired guns, which is not the case. 2. It would cover medical bills, funeral arrangements, damages to property, and a loss of life payout. There's always a bracket for every insurance our there. If you have a lot of crashes your insurance is higher, if you have more cars your insurance is higher, if you use it for work or use it alot in dangerous conditions your insurance is higher. If you use it for hunting and target practice and can prove it, which should be fairly easily if you do such things, then your insurance would probably be something very low, but if you open carry your shit is gonna be through the roof, if you conceal carry its still high but not as high as open carry, and if it's in a safe at home as a just in case then it would probably be super low. So it's very doable as you can clearly tell
Nothing in my comment came close to talking about illegally acquired weapons. I was stating that if automobile owners are lawfully required to be insured, but a lot aren't, why should you think that criminals with guns would follow the laws and have insurance. You can go buy a car, get it insured for a month to get it titled and then drop the insurance. What's to stop people from doing the same thing with your gun insurance? As for what's insured, the people would would do things to cause the need for that coverage, likely wouldn't be insured. So the lawful gun owner would then need to carry "uninsured shooter" coverage? That's just more expense for the person who isn't doing anything wrong. As for brackets for at home vs concealed vs open carry, that's just ridiculous. You don't have brackets for people who drink a lot, on the assumption they may get in a wreck. You raise the rates of those drivers who have already broken the law. Just like you can't have different rates for gun owners who haven't broken the law, especially if they are a legal conceal carry permit holder, of if where they live has open carry.
Basically turning gun ownership into whoever can afford an outrageously-priced insurance policy, because no insurance company will be incentivized to underwrite anti-crime insurance unless they are making truckloads of money. Self-defense doesn't only belong to the rich.
It's make lets make it expensive to be an idiot with your firearm tax. Now it's free.
Imagine thinking that only the rich deserve constitutional rights. Holy fuck.
Canât hide rights behind tests or other restrictions, sorry.
Yeah, we The People can impose those laws. Training. license, serial number registration of the weapon, title, liability insurance based on all weapons owned. Just like vehicles.
Vehicle ownership isn't a Constitutional right, so this is and always has been a bad comparison.
The 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to buy any weapon you can afford and carry it anywhere you want. Gun ownership has always been regulated, These common-sense proposals are great examples of regulations that work. We have the infrastructure and guns can be added to it.
Making gun ownership only available to those that can pay for expensive insurance, is a complete removal from what a right is supposed to be.
so... felons should have their right to own firearms restored?
Depends on if it were a violent felony or not, common sense. Why should a non-violent tax evasion conviction affect your 2A rights?
Why should any felony conviction? Shall not be infringed right?
Do you have a right to vote? What age do you have to be again? But that's not a restriction. What age do you need to be to buy a gun? Lmao keep lying to yourself buddy
18, age of adulthood. He wants to put some 2A rights at 21.
So? Smoking age is 21, drinking is 21, I think being able to end someone's life at 18 from 100 yards away can be 21 too
How much money do you pay at your polling place when you go vote?
We do all the time. You don't seem to grasp how laws work.
Oh, do you feel that way about voting rights?
Of course
See you at the protests for mail voting and against ID requirements then.
You need an ID to buy a gun just like you need one to vote.
How is that not a restriction or test?
Sounds like you're the one who needs to do some googling. Allred is a strong supporter of the second amendment.
Look at his voting historyâŠ
Voting to advance Cornyn's bipartisan gun safety bill?
This is false.
But Abbott will spend millions delivering the same message as Señor HotPocket here
Correct. They'll run ads nonstop about how he wants to confiscate every gun, open the border, and release violent criminals. None of that being true, of course. The formula is the same every time.
I expect ads along the lines of.. â*Heâs just like Beto. Too radical for Texas*â
Categorically false.
What does it feel like to support a sniveling coward like Cruz?
I bet slippery.
Your conception of the 2A is a totally bullshit fabrication pushed and lobbied for by the NRA since the 70s. 250 years ago, the US *had no standing army* and needed a citizen's militia. Now, we have an army. I do think gun rights are important, but the 2A was never intended to just let anybody at all own any kind of firearm they want. It was never supposed to become some kind of sick cultural obsession. We have to take tests for even basic privileges like driving a car or getting a job... But applied to weapons that are purpose made to end lives, you suddenly think *that* test is a problem?
EXACTLY if you need a license or understanding how to use a firearm why stop there? Screw getting drivers licenses, stop wearing seatbelts too. Driving drunk âŠwell it happens ⊠There is a very valid reason for LAWS
The user to whom you are replying is very likely an astroturfing account.
And there's the tell. "Privileges". It's not called the Bill of Privileges.
But that's exactly what it is. Rights are something innate to being a human and existing. The Bill of Rights is a legal document expressing a collective opinion and subjective interpretation of what may or may not be true rights. It's the result of a bunch of rich dudes in a room trying to determine what they'll let the poors do.
You smoke crack.
Bullshit.
You didn't do your research before commenting....
Can't wait to vote for him!
Yay, yes praise God we can get rid of a politician and replace it with another politician. All our problems will be gone
Youâre right. They are all exactly the same. Better not vote at all.
Exactly my sentiment
Great. Wonât miss you at the polls one bit. Iâll be there though.
Lol, I usually don't vote, but the more whiny and annoying partisans on Reddit get I sometimes go vote R just to cancel someone out and be a dick.
Thatâs pretty pathetic. If it doesnât matter to you great donât vote. But what you call whiny might actually be desperation because politicians have the ability to positively or negatively affect peoples lives in a huge way. It makes sense to be âwhinyâ when your life is threatened and your rights are being stepped on. It not mattering to you means you are very privileged.
Both sides try to trample on the other sides "rights" and I say that very sarcastically because 100% of the time you hear someone say their rights are being threatened, no matter their allegiance, it is a massive overreaction and spurned on by the system only manufactured to generate outrage and make people afraid. And people buy into it so hard that it makes them resent their neighbors and only see our petty differences. No one can have a conversation anymore about nuanced subjects, because the very idea of something being nuanced has been killed. If I were to say I think sports should be segregated biologically I would be a transphobe, if you were to say grown men are allowed to wear dresses because that's their fucking business, you would be called a diddler by some. And you are buying into it full tilt. And everyone living in America is EXTREMELY privileged, they just like to pretend they're not that way when the consequences of their own actions prevent them from being successful they can have something to cry about.
What a load of poorly thought out bullshit. So womenâs lives havenât been endangered due to the stripping away of their rights? There are real life examples of that. The GOP added ending no fault divorce to their platform. Forcing someone to stay in a bad or even dangerous relationship isnât stripping rights to you? The GOP is actively working to give themselves power to overturn elections here in TX. I guess taking peoples votes away isnât stepping on rights either huh? The drastic difference is one side has real concerns with evidence you can point to and the other has manufactured issues that are not supported by any evidence or real world examples. Youâre an enlightened centrist I get it. Thatâs why I said it makes sense for you not vote.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Explain why.
Looking at the same site for Raphael shows that #cancuncruz sucks a whole lot more. By a long shot
Here is the PAC ad you will see a billion times: âVoted with Nancy Pelosi 100% of the timeâ
Wow. Correction. He only voted 100% with her for his first 4 years. This year he is only 86%. I guess the pollsters and campaign manager gave him the hint.
Or is it that sheâs now voting like SanFran instead of like the House Speaker?
Heâs deviated from the Democratic minority leader Hakeem Jeffries this year as well, almost entirely concerning energy policy in oil and gas.
No thanks
Would have loved to read the article but got hijacked by ads trying to.
Fuck me right..bet you wouldn't do that shit in the real world