Debates 2020

Beto O'Rourke: 'Hell Yes, We're Going To Take Your AR-15'

Advocating for gun control is no longer enough. On Thursday night, the Democratic presidential candidates promised gun confiscation.


The days when Democratic candidates would promise to restrict gun ownership, but then quickly assure voters they didn't mean your guns seem to be in the past.

During the second hour of Thursday's Democratic primary debate, former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas cut to the chase.

"Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," he said.

To be fair, it's not the first time O'Rourke has displayed remarkable frankness on the topic. Debate moderator David Muir had asked O'Rourke about comments he made last month, shortly after the mass shooting at a Walmart in his hometown of El Paso, Texas, in which he promised that anyone who owned an AK-47 or AR-15 would "have to sell them to the government."

But O'Rourke also promised that he would make the process an inclusive one, saying that he would "bring everyone in America into the conversation: Republicans, Democrats, gun-owners, and non-gun-owners alike."

Other candidates on the stage Thursday night were less interested in what their opponents—or the Constitution—might have to say.

Moments before O'Rourke's comments, former Vice President Joe Biden had challenged Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) about the unconstitutionality of her promise to issue an executive order that would limit access to guns during her first 100 days in office. In response, the former prosecutor literally laughed.

Biden said a president has "no constitutional authority" to ban guns via executive order—a rare moment in which one of the candidates on stage admitted there are limitations to presidential power. "Some things you can [do with executive orders]; many things you can't," said Biden.

"I would just say, 'Hey, Joe, instead of saying "No we can't," let's say "Yes, we can,"'" retorted Harris, borrowing President Barack Obama's famous campaign line. Then she cackled hysterically while Biden responded "let's be constitutional."

Harris added that she would not wait for Congress to act because that was leaving Americans at risk from gun violence, and she pointed out how mass shooter drills are traumatizing school children.

On that second point, she's absolutely right. Mass shooter drills are terrible and should not be conducted in schools. But the reason why cuts directly against her first point. Mass shootings are exceedingly rare events—ones that do no justify traumatizing schoolchildren or seizing legal gun owners' firearms.

O'Rourke's idea of forcing Americans to sell their guns to the government has a similar gaping hole in it. What about the people who don't want to sell? As Jon Stokes, one of the founders of Ars Technica and one of the people behind, a post-culture war gun rights collective, recently wrote at Reason, gun buyback programs are mostly futile:

My point is that regardless of what you think of the gun owners who won't comply or the cops who'll inevitably let them off without even a verbal warning, there is no gun registration, gun ban, or gun confiscation that a U.S. Congress can pass and a U.S. president can sign that will be even close to fully complied with or enforced. Not one.

Promising to smash the Second Amendment and laughing at the right of Americans to protect their homes and loved ones, while being unable to fully think through the implications of gun confiscation plans? That's an interesting strategy for turning red states blue.

NEXT: Calling Out Kamala Harris' Record as a Draconian Prosecutor Isn't a 'Distortion'

Debates 2020 Gun Control Election 2020 Kamala Harris Joe Biden Beto O'Rourke Guns Second Amendment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

213 responses to “Beto O'Rourke: 'Hell Yes, We're Going To Take Your AR-15'

  1. “Promising to smash the Second Amendment and laughing at the right of Americans to protect their homes and loved ones, while being unable to fully think through the implications of gun confiscation plans? That’s an interesting strategy for turning red states blue.”

    It’s encouraging to see the Democratic Party embracing the common sense gun safety proposals advocated by longtime libertarian activist Michael Hihn.

    And if that won’t turn red states blue, no problem. You know what will? The Koch / Reason open borders agenda. We’re going to invite millions more black and brown bodies into this country, thereby creating millions more Democratic voters. In fact, Reason regular “Old Mexican” has been quite explicit that this is the longterm plan.

    1. As much as I dislike Trump, these people can’t help but talk themselves out of winning….

      1. “talk themselves out of winning”

        Nah. I guarantee a Democratic victory in the 2020 Presidential election.

        1. I admire your faith, as long as we AOC/Biden/Harris/Maduro/Yang libertarians stick together, we can win.


        2. I’m with you gun nuts on this one. If you all want to blow your heads off why should I talk you out of it?

          1. Well, we could overdose on anti-anxiety pills and box wine like you leftists, but where’s the fun in that?

        3. How many people said exactly the same think in 2016.
          You can guarantee nothing when it comes to elections and professing to be able to do so just makes you look stupid.

        4. What are you smoking, and can I have some?

        5. It is a sad commentary on some libertarians and the Democrats in general when even OBL’s parodies are so believable that newbies by his schtick.

          1. Much like OBL’s archetype, that only happens in your own head.

            1. Really? Considering two people just fell for his schtick and thought he was being serious. Is reading comprehension to hard for you?

        6. Seem to remember you making same guarantee in 2016

          1. I thought the OBL parody account didn’t start till after the 2016 election.

      2. Not a fan of Trump, either, not by a long shot. But the Dems look so, so much worse.

      3. Pretty much this. I really dislike Trump, but all these Democrats are nauseatingly atrocious,

    2. A modest proposal:

      Anyone who advocates for gun confiscation should be compulsorily drafted by the government into a gun confiscation squad, given a uniform – and a gun – and sent from door to door to confiscate guns from tens of millions of angry owners.

      Beta can have Jersey #1.

      1. I think the sidearms of such a squad should be airsoft guns. You know, to avoid bruising the principals of the squadmembers. But don’t tell them…we wouldn’t want to hurt their feelings.

      2. Few people mention this but one of the reasons for a Second Amendment is that the Founders felt that militias might be needed as a bulwark against tyranny. Are we so complacent that we believe that our “democracy” will never become a dictatorship? IF Americans ever had to revolt en masse or make revolution, I would hope that it could be achieved in a non-violent Gandhian fashion — but the world doesn’t always work that way.

        As Jefferson famously said, “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

      3. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! +1,000!!!

    3. Meghan McCain had a good zinger at Beta O’Rourke: The only man in Texas who would revise “Come and take it” to “Please, come and take it”.

      1. He already says that. Whilst wiggling his ass high up in the air. His damper, pen to all cummers.

    4. libertarian activist Michael Hihn

      Please direct all correspondence to Arkham Asylum.

    5. As Dana Loesch asked on Twitter…he’s going to use guys with guns to seize legal property?

      And is Beto even ALLOWED to own guns with his DUI record and all?

      1. He was never convicted.

    6. It’s getting serious now, y’all. OBL can’t even put forth a comprehensible mock-support of this.

      The candidates have gone so far off the deep end that you can’t even mock them.

    7. It’s not just a Second Amendment issue, Beto would crush the Fifth Amendment as well.

  2. I felt a great disturbance in the Force. As if millions of gun dealers suddenly cried out in terror and raised the price of 5.54 and 7.62mm ball ammo.

  3. I can’t help but notice nobody bothered pointing out the difference between an AR-15, an AK-47 and a BR-549 and how Beto doesn’t seem to know the difference. Which suggests none of the rest of them know the difference, either.

    1. Most of their followers are too lazy to work and too nervous to steal.

      1. Most felons identify as Democrats, so that’s clearly not true.

        1. ^missed the BR-549 reference.

          1. Junior Samples

            1. Thank you. I bought my last Rambler from Samples Sales.

      2. Don’t kid yourself.most of their FOLLOWERS are self-styled ‘intellectuals’. Many have jobs, of the sort one would expect from people with Bachelors’ degrees in Modern Lit.

        Most of their VOTES are electronic phantoms.

    2. Democrats not knowing the first thing about guns has never stopped them from trying to steal them.

      1. Hell, they have even argued knowing about guns isn’t a prerequisite to discussing gun control. That offering facts is a distraction from their goals.

        1. LOL, they call it “gunsplaining”.

    3. Beto doesn’t seem to know the difference.

      Not surprising. He doesn’t know much about anything else, either.


    4. He tweeted about having “a ban for that”.

      Showed a gun that is ALREADY quite illegal to possess.

    5. Or even BFG-9000.

  4. Beto simply must be a RNC plant.

    1. You’re at least half right.

      1. Because he’s a vegetable?

    2. Or being paid by gun mfrs. Hell – he prob managed to sell 1 million guns with that statement.

      1. Right?

      2. Barbara Streisand effect?

    3. I wish I thought the RNC was that clever.

  5. This “buyback” scheme requires:
    A), the theft of money through deadly force or threat of deadly force, then,
    B), confiscation of guns, enforced through deadly force of threat of deadly force, then,
    C), returning a portion of the money stolen in Step A, above, to the victim.

    1. The important thing is for Congress to set an example showing the initiation of deadly force is good. It sends those shooters a message… the same message they get in gubmint schools… Hmmm…

    2. D) spending more money on funerals for the dead victim from step A

  6. Flavored vapes though.

    That we gonna take.

    1. The flavored vape and outright vape bans like NJ is talking about show how bad government is at problem solving. The recently highlighted health problems were linked to black market sales. So government wants to ban them which will make the black market sales go up not down.

      It’s never about health, it’s about control.

  7. As Wilfred Brimley might have put it, “What do you plan to do after [your campaign] ends, Beto? Because you got 30 days.”

    1. I like another Wilford Brimley quote.

      Hi. This is Wilford Brimley. Welcome to Retardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I’m gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the retarded don’t rule the night. They don’t rule it. Nobody does. And they don’t run in packs. And while they may not be as strong as apes, don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

      1. The cake is a lie.

  8. It is almost like they want to see if they can lose all the states Hillary lost while also putting Minnesota (which was close and very likely could go Republican), Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and possibly Virginia Oregon and Washington into play. Hell, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine could also be up for grabs. Is the DNC holding it’s convention in Chicago by any chance? Because that would be the capstone if we had a repeat of that fiasco.

    1. I have two theories, which could both be in operation;

      1) I think the DNC, shaken by their screwup in 22016, nervous about their positions IN the Party, and aware that the Party has the bench strength of the Little Sisters Of The Poor tackle football team, have written off 2020, and are allowing the party rebels (who might otherwise try to oust the DNC from their in-party sinecures) to break themselves on Trump.

      2) I think that the Far Left of the Democrat Party still expects Trump to act like a Gentlemanly Republican Loser. You can see their shock every time he doesn’t. They are fully delusional and don’t learn. They think they can pull off a massive enough vote fraud that their lack of appeal with the vermin who disagree with their wonderful selves won’t matter. And they think that, when such a scheme becomes obvious, Trump won’t take the whole thing and ram it up their collective backside.

      Why the schemers in 1) haven’t called the twits in 2) is something I can’t quite figure out. Maybe the DNC wants the loons in prison for vote fraud and think the Party could re-brand as “We policed our own” and move forward. Maybe they are oblivious (it wouldn’t be the first time. After all they nominated Granny Maojackets von Pantsuit). Maybe the Far Left of the party is running fully amok and is becoming any ability they might have to rein it in.

      Or I may be full of hot air, and the whole Party really DOES think this idiocy is a winning strategy.

      1. I think it’s all three to some degree. The old guard who is playing the long game are in column 1 and 2, the newer breed is definitely column 3.

        1. Thing is, with social media there to simply amplify their mania (studies have shown that progressives consume basically ONLY leftist media while conservatives and actual moderates consume rightist and leftist media), I’m not sure they have a way to keep the rebels back. They have talking points that trump logic.

          It’s why some Dems can bemoan how gerrymandering cost Abrams her governor’s seat (and why no Democrat will outright say she lost). It’s why the same people who lord over their degrees from “elite” schools ALSO expect those they view as beneath them to cover the costs for those degrees they can do nothing with.

          Hell, AOC can actually call for Congressional payraises and sees nothing remotely untoward about it. She’s been in office for six months and is paid many times more than she has been.

          1. AOC is being paid many times her worth…but that was true when she was screwing up her customers’ orders as a Barista.

            1. Indeed.

              And if she decided to spend thousands upon thousands to attend BC and develop zero skills in the process…why should I have to bail out somebody who makes more than I do?

              I cannot fathom a more regressive program in the world than this.

              1. Social Security is more regressive. Take from the working poor to give to the idle rich.

      2. Maybe they have a plan to make the Electoral College irrelevant by 2020. Which I think would be too fast, even if it eventually happens.

    2. Californication has consequences: Colorado is a permanent pinko loss. I’d be gobsmacked if it ever again goes for an R presidential candidate.

      1. I’m hoping Musk hurries up with that Mars colony; When they try this stuff on Mars it will still be rough and tumble enough for throwing the SJW’s out an airlock.

      2. In some fairness, I’m pretty darn conservative and I just moved to Colorado from Texas. While I have to agree Colorado is pretty fucked up politically, we can hope Texans moving here helps to balance out the Californian’s moving here.

        Well, at least that’s what I tell myself at night. At least I live in one of the few conservative area’s of the state, so there’s at least some local support for more liberty. I also met Wayne Harlos recently, seems to be a pretty nice guy and he’s working locally to make the area a bit more libertarian.

        1. Who’s Wayne Harlos, and is he in El Paso County?

  9. A mystical heckler was baiting Beto for not forcing women to reproduce. The obvious comeback was “All persons born…” in the 14th amendment. But that would open the door for someone to bring up “shall not be infringed” in the Bill of Rights. Lyin’ Ted beat Beto on Bill of Rights and Energy, and crushed Neal Dikeman on Global Warming hysteria. The GOP really needs some competition.

    1. “A mystical heckler”

      So Dr. Strange was there?

      1. So is the DNC then Dormammu?

  10. I think this “confiscation plan” might “fly” in about four States. The others? Not so much. You know, I’ve always felt that, personally, I never had much of a use for a AR-type platform rifle. I might have to reevaluate that position.

    1. Which four states? They can’t even get New Yorkers to register their guns, New Jersey residents have refused to turn in their high capacity magazines, Washingtonians openly flaunt their universal background check laws (as do Coloradoans). Not sure which state this would actually work in.

      1. Yeah, in any state, once you leave the cities, you aren’t going to find many who will get behind gun confiscation.

        1. And they really have no way to know who has guns to confiscate, or if they do, how many guns anyone has. Even in states that have attempted registration I’m sure compliance is very low.

          1. I would bet they have a list of names based on background checks. I would also bet that they would comb through electronic money transactions for ammo and gun purchases. Then the government’s assumption is if you have a gun, you probably have more than one.

            1. That is assuming the government that had lost multi-million dollar probes because they didn’t convert imperial units to metric, couldn’t find bin Laden for a decade, who misplaced billions of dollars in war funding and defense funding and missed the build up to 9/11 is competent enough to do this.

              1. Don’t underestimate your adversary.

            2. there are plenty of single shot rifles on the market that use teh same ammo as all teh scary guns do. so buying ammo is not a precurser to owning an AR especially of teh 308 variety

              1. Of course. But do you think the government will consider that when going after gun owners?

                1. The government hasn’t been able to get more than a trivial number of firearms out of the hands of criminals, so why would it have more success against formerly law abiding gun owners?

                  1. We haven’t had anyone go full retard on gun control yet. Once the feds go full retard, they will use every federal resource to their advantage.

                    1. Beto seems qualified for the job.

            3. They cannot keep records of gun sales so if they have the records it is a violation of federal law. Also police cannot look at electronic sales records unless they have a warrant. Any move to create some type of gun “registry” was specifically prohibited by Congress in last gun laws passed.

              1. Unless the retailers willingly cooperate, like hotels and internet service providers and social media companies.

                1. The retailers will be held hostage by banks, Visa, MC, and Amex, who will revoke their merchant privileges unless they comply with their new policy of cooperating fully with BATFE.

              2. So we’re just pretending that the NSA doesn’t suck up vast amounts of patently illegal information for them to have? We’re also pretending they don’t turn around and mete that information out to the alphabet soup for parallel construction?

                When it comes to the law, there’s always a three letter agency there to go around it.

              3. “”They cannot keep records of gun sales so if they have the records it is a violation of federal law. “”

                If you purchase with credit or debit card the record of that transaction is kept. And the feds have already argued that banking records are administrative and they can get then with a National Security Letter.

                Also BYODB’s post.

      2. Actually, I was being generous. I am pretty sure that not even the DAs and cops in CA, outside of maybe a County or two, would be down with enforcing this law.

    2. I feel that you’re gonna have a lot of cops who’d at the very least be uncomfortable. Not that I’m gonna trust law enforcement to do the right thing, but if Oregon is anything to go off of, rural law enforcement might just tell DC where they can shove it

    3. Palmetto State Armory is a good choice for budget AR-15s:

      Still cheaper rifles are available, but these are a good price point (think Honda Civic).

  11. The man is aware of 3D printers, no?

    1. Should we tell him about the British Sten Gun? A machine pistol specifically designed so that it could be made with everyday parts found in a hardware store? Or the M3 grease gun machine pistol made from all stamped metal in a GM headlight factory?

      1. And even if you have no machining skills or tools, you can make a reasonably effective 12 gauge shotgun for about $25 of stuff from a hardware store.

    2. Can I be there when you print it out and then fire, oh, the 2nd or 3rd bullet? Do you have a ballistics shield by any chance?

      1. Yes, 3-D printed guns will always fail after the first or second shot, because technology never improves over time.

        1. Nah, that’s a fundamental limitation of the soft, low-melting point plastic that a true 3D printer uses. Soft, easily-melting plastic just doesn’t hold up well when you are putting literal explosions inside of it. Any 3D printed gun will be a single-shot hand cannon.

          1. A single-shot hand grenade that you can’t throw, more like.

      2. It’s like the Liberator pistol: You’re only supposed to use it once or twice, and then take a nice gun off the corpse of the government goon who came after you.

      3. Australian outlaw motorcycle clubs (“bikies”) went into the business of making copies of the MAC-10 submachine gun in their workshops after the Government of Oz confiscated legal and registered military-style rifle from the Australian public.

        Funny thing is, the number of registered SKS rifles was about half the number of known legal SKS imports.

        1. yea they believe there are now more full auto guns in Australia than before the ban

      4. You clearly have zero understanding of firearms or how they work. 3D printed lowers are just as reliable as machined aluminum ones. There is an entire pistol industry created by the polymer lower, it is called a Glock. Upper parts and barrels are not regulated and can be easily machines from bar stock. Guns, like everything else, are most reviled by those most ignorant of them.

        1. Meant for the fuck puppet troll, not Naaman Brown.

  12. If communities want to elect people who don’t want guns in their community why should some asshole lawyer be able to wave the 2nd amendment in their face and shout “uh-huh” Fuck off, slaver.

    1. Because federalism is dog whistle racism.

    2. Because rights are not subject to violation simply because ‘democracy’ says they are.

      If every single person in the US were to vote that some random person be killed, ‘democracy’ would not make the violation of that random person’s rights by any more justified than if a single person were to kill that random person.

    3. Cool. Now do abortion.

      1. I’ll try…

        Hey poor lady, we know that you got pregnant because you’re “boyfriend” got sick of waiting and decided to date rape you, but we can’t let you abort the kid you don’t want because some Jesus freak Taliban guy doesn’t want you to do it. Oh, and BTW, if you decide to do it the old fashioned way with a coat hanger and we find out about it we’ll cast you down with the sodomites. You’ll think you’ve been fucked by a train


        1. Woooosh

        2. That’s actually pretty good, brah. Really captures the mindset [I’m pro-choice, myself]. Too bad you’re a gutless anti-gun beta cuck. You’d think you wouldn’t WANT righties to be the only ones bearing arms [other than pigs, of course], but I guess some people are just submissive by nature…

        3. Yes, you have indeed proven that you’re an annoying retard.

    4. Because if South Carolina wants to maintain there peculiar institution why should they be forced to end it? Oh wait, I think this was settled in 1865.

    5. why should some asshole lawyer be able to wave the 2nd amendment in their face

      Because the Constitution supersedes State and local law in certain, specific areas.

      1. It’s funny how all you Libertarians use federalism when it suits you and almost in the same breadth talk about how you don’t like the government. How do you do that?

        1. You seem to miss the point of the written Constitution, which by design limits the government to a small list of activities. Disarming the populace is not one of them.

        2. Their inconsistent grasp of the central government securing abortion rights, with federalism securing drug rights, makes me completely sick of their hypocrisy.

          It’s almost like they see government as a means to an end, or something.

    6. Cool, now do Jim Crow.

    7. For the same reason that if communities want to elect people who want to outlaw all churches except the 7th Day Adventists some asshole lawyer will be able to wave the 1st amendment in their face and shout “uh-huh”. So yeah, fuck off slaver.

    8. Eloquent argument for racial segregation, there.

  13. Promising to smash the Second Amendment

    I,m actually for burning it and then throwing amendments 1, 3-26 in the fire along with it. This dumb country deserves to go the way of the Soviet Union along with its thousands of nuclear weapons and 19/20ths of its despicable military.

    1. “I,m actually for burning it..”

      Shut up you whiny asshole. Don’t you have something better to do, like shooting up a school or running for the democrat nomination?

      1. Meant as a reply to LTAL.

    2. This republic remains one of the few places on this planet that still has any true respect for the individual (rather than a collection of adult-sized infants looking to suck off of the public teat while willingly supporting their abusive provider).

      1. Co-dependence.

        1. Yes, that would be the clinical diagnosis, I believe.

    3. At least we pay our mortgages.

  14. As tempting as it is to believe that the brass at the Democratic Party are all either insane or a few standard deviations below average IQ I don’t think that’s the case. The chance of winning a presidential election from an incumbent in the last 100 years is less than 40%. Add in to that a pretty healthy economy, low unemployment across the board for all demographics, etc. and you have to assume their chance of winning is maybe 10-15%.
    So strategically if you are probably going to lose a fight what do you do? First, is you try to lose as little as possible. Second is you start looking for opportunities where losing is actually gaining you a bit in return. So to address “lose as little as possible”, they won’t put their all-stars in the wings up in likely losing battle. It makes no sense to open them up to a long bloody battle where their reputation could be sullied, they could make some big gaffes on TV, etc. To address the second point about “gaining a bit in return” this is a perfect opportunity for the moderate Democrats to let the far-left hang themselves with their own words. After an abysmal showing next fall the far-left Democrats will be removed from committees, the party will take a “new direction”, back to “fundamentals” and if the far-left members object their quickly be able to mention the disaster of 2020.
    Incidentally, this is similar to what happened 3 years ago. Hillary was finally “given her chance” during an election which was 90% in the bag for Republicans. She lost, and now is relegated to knitting, tweeting and doing book signings in blue states. The Clintons lost their power, exactly like the DNC brass wanted them to.

    1. “they won’t put their all-stars in the wings up in likely losing battle. It makes no sense to open them up to a long bloody battle where their reputation could be sullied,”

      So you’re saying that Sanders, Warren, Biden are NOT the all-stars after Obama (no longer eligible) and Clinton (she; he’s no longer eligible either)? Really? Who might these shining stars patiently biding their time be?

    2. “To address the second point about “gaining a bit in return” this is a perfect opportunity for the moderate Democrats to let the far-left hang themselves with their own words. ”

      This part may be true.

    3. good analysis, but the Dems’ “all stars in the wings” are the lady who lost the governor’s race in Georgia, the Beto who lost the Senate race in Texas, and AOC who is too young to run for PRez.

  15. Try it, Beto. SST. Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. O’Rourke?

  16. Mr O’Rourke, whose mandatory buyback programme is a part of his comprehensive gun control plan, has also called for a ban on assault-style guns and high capacity magazines, which he has also said would be required to be sold to the US government under his administration.

  17. After he confiscates your AR and AK he’ll want your handguns. Then your shotguns. Then your knives.

  18. Molon labe, Dems. Molon labe.

    1. Mid 1990s I watched the Waco hearings on CSPAN. Charles Schumer was OK with jack-booted thugs burning babies at in the gas and tank attack on the Davidians’ Mt Carmel Center outside Waco in the name of gun control.

      1970, gun controllers admitted that Ken Ballew, shot in an ATF raid over alleged illegal weapons that turned out not illegal, may not have done anything wrong, but they praised ATF for responding vigorously to reports of illegal weapons, and if us gun nuts did not like the prospect of having our doors knocked down in the night and shot if we defended ourselves, maybe we should rethink the wisdom of owning guns in their America. It was 1970, they passed the 1968 GCA giving them the power. They set gun policy not the NRA.

      Then after several election losses over gun rights issues, gun control became a dangerous untouchable “third rail” for the Democrats. With the 2020 election results, I guess we will find out if the third rail is still live.

      1. “As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
        There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
        That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
        And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;”

        Gun control is the Democrats fire, that they can never keep their fingers out of for long. They so desperately want it that they keep forgetting that it burns them at the ballot box.

  19. Reading US v Miller 1939, I noticed that the 1934 National Firearms Act was justified by the legal theory behind the federal Harrison Narcotics Act. The War on Guns is based on applying the tactics of the War on Drugs allegedly to reduce crime.

    Since UK gun laws are usually cited for decades as the example we should follow in this Democrat War on Gun Owners, I have looked at UK gun policy for years now.

    Gavin Hales, Chris Lewis and Daniel Silverstone, Gun crime: the market in and use of illegal firearms, Home Office Research Study 298, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate December 2006.

    Conducted about ten years after the much ballyhooed UK handgun ban 1996, this study into the criminal gun culture in England and Wales included a short survey of 80 incarcerated gun criminals and gives a good snapshot of the street criminal view of guns in the UK. UK inmates told interviewers that they could have a gun within a week of release, including submachine guns if they had the money and wanted one.

    I come away from reading Home Office Research Study 298 with the impression that banning civilian guns has not disarmed UK criminals, but created a class of criminal known as “armourer” who serves as a source for criminal weapons: trafficking stolen or smuggled guns, repairing or modifing old used guns, converting blank guns or deactivated guns to fire live ammo, or using replicas or air guns as frames for zip guns. It became easier to get an illegal handgun on the street than before the ban. It has also made having a functioning pistol of some sort a street status item among the people in UK emulating the American gangsta culture. Reminded me of the Michael Cain movie Harry Brown.

    1997 British Handgun Ban and British Murders and Robberies
    o Six years before the handgun ban (1991-1996):
    Total murders: 4,240, handgun murders: 176,
    Total robberies: 358,178, handgun robberies: 17,321.
    o Six years after the ban (1998-2003):
    Total murders: 5,103, handgun murders: 255,
    Total robberies: 576,218, handgun robberies: 17,047.

    One point I saw about the UK handgun ban: use of sawed-off shotguns in murder dropped after the handgun ban. Substitution of sawed-off shotgun for handgun is a measure of illegal handgun scarcity. ( I argue that the increase in handgun murders from 176 in the six years before the handgun ban to 255 after is a measure of illegal handgun availability.

    But after 1996 the British Olympic pistol team were forced to leave their handguns at gun ranges in Belgium and to commute to Belgium to target practice. What a victory for the gun banners.

    Colin Greenwood, Superintendent, West Yorkshire Metropolitan Police, writing in 1972 about the effects of half a century of UK gun control from the 1920 Firearms Act to the UK 1968 Firearms Act, in Firearms Control, (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1972):
    “No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this class of weapon in crime than ever before.”

    The Democrat national party (tone-deaf in its echo chamber) has branded itself the party of gun bans. These idiots make Donald Trump look like a better choice.

    1. I apologise, accidentally flagged this.

    2. …proving that guns don’t cause crime; criminals cause crime.

      The UK government banned guns, but imported more criminals and made the police force into useless hall monitors chasing thought criminals.

      The numbers show the result.

    3. Correct. At the turn of the 20th century, the UK had virtually no gun control laws and very little crime. Any person could buy and carry a revolver in his pocket anywhere in the UK. The right to keep and bear arms was slowly extinguished over the 20th century while the crime rate has soared. See page 14 of this UK parliamentary report for a fascinating graph. It shows that the number of indictable offences per thousand population in 1900 was 2.4 and in 1997 the figure was 89.1 – an increase of 37-fold. Since the early 1960s, the homicide rate has more than doubled.

      UK House of Commons Library: A Century of Change: Trends in UK Statistics Since 1900 (see page 14)

  20. But O’Rourke also promised that he would make the process an inclusive one, saying that he would “bring everyone in America into the conversation: Republicans, Democrats, gun-owners, and non-gun-owners alike.”

    A one-sided conversation to be certain. “Open the door or we’ll break it down!” at best.

    1. Beto believes that it’s time to start shooting gun owners in order to end gun violence. After all, it’s perfectly OK to kill terrorists and now that he NRA and most gun owners are terrorists, it’s time to declare open season on gun owners. Now the SWAT teams that have practiced by shooting dogs can start shooting people.

  21. There are two types of leftists, those who admit they want to take your guns and those who claim non-leftists who argue against this group are crazily fighting strawmen because no one wants to confiscate guns. Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic is one of the latter. I wonder what he has to say to dear Beto?

    However I do not wonder what he’ll say if it ever happens. He’ll say “great, this is entirely appropriate and anyone against it is a neanderthal”. This group’s position has been summarized as “that will never happen, and when it does you’ll totally deserve it”.

    1. Reference the outrage when Meghan McCain stated that O’Rourke’s gun confiscation would result in violence. Someone actually argued that her statement of fact proved that gun owners aren’t stable enough to own guns.

      1. To the author of the aforementioned article, to his credit he admitted that O’Rourke’s plan would not pass the legislature and even if it did, the courts would kill it.

      2. Usurping the 13th amendment should also produce violence.

    2. Beto sort of looks like the Straw Man though.

  22. And no one outside the lunatic right gives two shits about your assault rifles. Most Americans want those guns outlawed. Most Americans aren’t obsessed with guns. Fuck your guns.

    1. You know, if you troll here you could at least try to make your comment cogent or clever.

      It is revealing you want to fuck guns that generally have a barrel diameter between 1/4 and 1/3 of an inch. If your equipment is that small, I understand why you might be angry.

    2. What is an assault rifle? How is it different than my Savage A22?

      1. Anyone who uses that term doesn’t know what they are talking about.

        What I find funny is that they think people that don’t know shit about the subject matter should be front and center in the process. Yet they complain when Trump does this.

      2. In Washington state, it’s not different. I wanted to buy a Ruger 10-22 target rifle. Uh-uh, you haven’t passed the background check to own an “assault rifle.”

    3. Ahhh, show us on the doll where the lower receiver touched you.

    4. Most Americans want those guns outlawed.

      Then “most Americans” need to amend the Constitution of the federal government and those of the several States via the methods written into them.

    5. And no one outside the lunatic right gives two shits about your assault rifles. Most Americans want those guns outlawed.

      Virtually no Americans legally own assault rifles and effectively no one is arguing for any change to their legal status.

    6. Is this the same “most” Americans who want greater restrictions on access to abortions?

    7. And no one outside the lunatic right gives two shits about your assault rifles.

      Oh, and libertarians. But you could never understand the difference between the right and libertarians, could you Tony? Guess in your mind anyone opposing giving all power to your precioussss governmentsesss is right-wing.

    8. Also, you ignorant turd, “assault rifle” ownership is already de facto outlawed.

    9. Ooooh thcary gunth…. !!!! *limp wrist flippers flapping*

    10. if that were true it would be easy to repeal the Second Amendment. how’s that going so far?

  23. Well, so much for the “We don’t want to take your guns. We just want common-sense gun laws.” line from the Democrats. At least we can thank Beto for revealing their true colors.

    1. They’ve been saying shit like this for ages but when it’s pointed out they insist we’re being paranoid.

    2. Yeah, I was tired of listening to that “few reasonable gun laws” horseshit. I’d rather the wankers just be honest about it.

    3. I have noticed it’s been awhile since Brian posted no one is going to take your guns.

  24. You can try, Beto. I’d love to see you make the attempt personally.

  25. I like to ask gun-grabbers if this gun:

    Should be banned as an assault rifle under their definitions.

    Every single one so far has said yes. The see a magazine, barrel shroud, adjustable stock, and a scary black gun–military-style. Completely overlooking the manual bolt action.

    At this point, they are advocating banning things because they look scary, not on anything concrete albeit still ridiculous like caliber or rate of fire.

    1. Easier to ask them what gun they won’t ban. Maybe a radar gun?

    2. They.Do.Not.Care.

      Semi automatics are just the low hanging fruit as far as they are concerned.

      They will not rest until all such firearms – including bolt actions and single shot break actions are banned or otherwise restricted to the greatest extent possible.

      Picture having to check your rifle and ammunition out immediately prior to going hunting, and then checking it in immediately afterwards along with a formal accounting for piece of fired brass. Heaven help you if you do not return every unfired round.

      1. So you served in the Army too? Because they were so afraid of military grade ammo (btw US military ammo is so much shit that most our NATO allies forbid their troops from using it except in emergencies, the powder burns dirty) that we either had to account for every round checked out or fire every single round. So, if you were the last guy on the shooting line, after firing your required qualification rounds they’d start handing you every magazine that hadn’t been fired. At the end of an 3 day FTX that involved live fire I calculated I fired over 1000 rounds through my 16 being the last guy to fire at the last range. Hell they didn’t even raise the targets and we just fired away. My barrel was to hot to touch despite it being in the low 20s for about ten minutes after I left the range. The amount of waste was simply astonishing (not to mention the damage to the barrel and how much shit I had to clean out of my rifle the next day).

        1. “”how much shit I had to clean out of my rifle the next day””

          Neither myself, nor any other Marine I served with would fire blanks on training exercises for this reason. We would yell, bang, bang.

          1. Been there, done that, got the fucking t-shirt. We sometimes slap our miles sensors to, to trigger them rather than firing the rifle. I actually “killed” an Op-For this way once.

    3. I wonder if a Bushmaster XM15 varminter will fall under this regulation. It is easily a $1500 gun without much modification. BTW this example kind of dispels the idea that you can’t hunt with an AR style rifle.

  26. Out of curiosity, what is the fair price of a now-banned gun when it comes time for the government to buy it back from me? I cannot legally purchase a new one for any amount of money, effectively making it priceless to replace, right? They better be offering me tens of millions of dollars per banned gun for that to be even reasonably considered a fair market value.

    1. I’m pretty sure they take the position that, once they’ve banned a gun, it becomes contraband, and the legal value of contraband is zero.

      1. Yes, one of the first things the State does is ignores the laws of economics (which cannot be stopped by man’s laws). Economic law is as impossible to change as laws of physics.

      2. Hmmmm…. FDR and gold coinage comes to mind.

        1. Oh damn, reading about his manipulation of the gold market is still mind-blowing.

          Also how he could legally just force ALL contracts to be changed. Cause FDR sure as shit did so.

          1. The first generation or so of the republic would have never elected him, or impeached him had he somehow weasled his way into power.

            Personally, I’d like to see his picture replaced by Reagan’s on the dime. Not that Reagan was perfect, but he’s the best we’ve had in a long, long time.

            1. Reference Adams and his administration. Then see if you want to stand by that assertion.

              1. I considered that. Adams was a single-termer, deservedly so. So dropping my hyperbole, FDR would never have been re-elected to a second term. (He still should have been impeached for not understanding the limits of his job, and the authority granted the federal government.)

    2. I believe Beta is estimating at around $500 or half of what I paid for mine. So fuck him

  27. What a dummy.

  28. If you vote dem, you are my enemy

  29. I considered selling my guns to the government, but after a thorough background check I’ve determined that they have a history of violence and are a danger to everyone they interact with. Wouldn’t be prudent for me to sell firearms to such an entity.

    1. Ahahaha. Well said, man.

      1. Look, I’m just trying to be a responsible gun owner like the left wants. Don’t want any blood on my hands from lack of universal background checking. Particularly since some of my guns are of the Scary Black Gun variety, selling those to such a known violent entity would basically make me a child murderer.

        1. Yep, sell it to the government and it might end up in the hands of Mexican cartels.

  30. That’ll be an interesting day when the fascists go door-to-door in my neighborhood confiscating guns. Bloody, but interesting.

    1. It will be even more interesting when the neighborhood is the west side of Chicago. In fact, I think that’s where they should start.

      1. In point of fact, they won’t be going after ‘illegal guns’. Those would be dangerous to try and confiscate, and cops already fail miserably at that task right now today.

        What they are talking about are taking legal guns, and I would wager there aren’t a whole lot of those in Chicago.

        1. Welcome to Eastern Montana fed, where you can see your dog run away for a week. Oh like I like to say, a wide open field of fire.

    2. Is your neighborhood a predominantly black neighborhood?

  31. Maybe it is just me, but I have a much more practical outlook on this. Last night, we started with ten (n=10) Democrat candidates. Beto just blew himself out of the running with his mandatory gun grabbing. NFW he wins.

    So now there are nine. Please, if there is a God in Heaven…. please, please, please have 3-4 of these Communist Dwarves with roughly the same number of delegates head into a contested convention next summer.

    1. Castro and Harris are likely done too.

  32. Guess it’s time to buy another gun, more ammo and some high capacity mags. If the government isn’t going to respect my rights then I will have to defend them myself.

  33. Gosh, it wasn’t too long ago that gun control proponents were telling us ‘No one’s going to take your guns away.’

    Begs the question: were they lying then or is this a real change?

  34. I predict a uptick in ‘Molon Labe’ merchandise being sold.

  35. Presidential candidate promises to violate his oath of office before he’s even elected. People cheer. What did Padme say about how liberty dies?

  36. But O’Rourke also promised that he would make the process an inclusive one, saying that he would “bring everyone in America into the conversation: Republicans, Democrats, gun-owners, and non-gun-owners alike.”

    Inclusive, in this case, simply means everyone gets their guns taken away over their protestations I think. Starting from the position of ‘we are going to take your guns’ automatically makes this non-inclusive in terms of decision making.

  37. came here for the ammo sexual comments – wasn’t disappointed. Love all of the people who imagine themselves becoming the next Malheur standoff. derp derp, you won’t take my guns. jesus christ. like stereotypes of stereotypes.

    1. Another anti-gun person fascinated with other peoples’ genitalia.

      1. What was the compliance rate in New Zealand and Australia? Less than 50%? And we already know what happens when the government tries to confiscate guns. Ask Thomas Gage how that turned out.

  38. Robert Francis O’Rourke is a douche.
    And he is going to get innocent people and police killed.

  39. Really. Beto almost makes me ashamed to be a Texan. However — the price to the U.S. government for my AR-style long gun just went up to $2,500 and my AK-47 just went up to $2,000.

    Meantime, my Soviet and ChiCom 7.62x54R rifles, which actually ARE assault rifles, some potentially with actual battlefield service, remain unaffected by “assault rifle” laws, even though they ARE military-grade weapons and WERE released for service (unlike my consumer-market AR and AK).

    Neither my AR nor my AK ever got within a million miles of actual military use. But Beto can still pay me for them, if he pays me enough.

    Waitwait, what about my Taurus PT-9 9mm semi-auto pistol, which once was Brazil’s standard-issue military sidearm, and is a clone of the the US Army’s Beretta sidearm? Doesn’t it count as an assault weapon?

    Or my Vietnam-era surplus Navy SEAL dive knife?

    How about my Navy Colt 1851 revolver? I have provenance tracing this cool cap-and-ball pistol to an 1861 US Army contract … it surfaced in Texas in about 2005 with provenance potentially linking it to Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, but where it was between 1861 and 1899 — our best guess is that it was stolen off a dead Yellow Leg on a southern battlefield in the War of Northern Aggression. So it most unconditionally is an assault weapon!

    I think Beto needs a semester or two of military arms history before he flaps his gums again.

    Beto, if you or any of your people see this, please feel free to contact me.

  40. First things first. Gun violence. Two words. First word: guns. Pass a law that successfully takes all guns from the hands of private Americans. Voila! No more gun violence, only violence remains. Psychopaths who would have used guns turn to bombs (IEDs), trucks and perhaps chemical or biological weapons–all of which are readily available to anyone of average intelligence and potentially far deadlier. The greatest mass murder in a school in Bath, MI (google it) was by bombs, In Europe where gun control is strict, ISIS has been schooling its cadre in the construction and use of remote-controlled bombs triggered by cell phones. The school mass shooters in Santa Fe, NM, and Columbine, CO also had bombs, and the Parkland, FL, shooter has researched nail bombs on a school computer before settling for a gun.

    Second word: violence. If a law could be enacted that successfully eliminated violence, gun violence would be a thing of the past–even if every person in America owned a dozen “assault” rifles and a half-dozen automatic pistols.

    Logical conclusion: there is no gun-violence problem. The problem is violence. A ban of any type of guns is “just doing something” that won’t reduce gun violence and will certainly increase it because some gun owners, believing in the Constitution, won’t allow anyone to take their guns without a gun fight.

    More logic: Gun control is a euphemism for people control. People control by government is accomplished by force. Force is violence. Gun-control freaks are violent people.

    1. Your appreciation of the destructive power of explosives is reasonable. However, bombs can’t compete with guns for coolness and sexiness. There’s a reason James Bond went about toting his little pistol rather than a pair of grenades. His walther ppk was sexier and cooler than any grenade on the market, I’m confident in asserting.

      “won’t allow anyone to take their guns without a gun fight.”

      Just take the damn gun after the gun fight, when the deceased gun owner is no longer in a position to fire or fondle the thing.

  41. Correction to my previous comment: Pass a law that takes all guns from the hands of private Americans, and the only gun violence remaining is that committed by government agents, which is plenty. Undoubtedly, government agents kill far more people throughout the world than all private mass murderers.

  42. Kamala Harris is a cunt.

    Nothing more needs to be said about someone desiring to be the President, while laughing at their intent to violate the Constitution they would be asked to preserve, protect, and defend.


  43. Who is going to protect you better? A gun or government? At least with a gun you have a fighting chance. Beto is a Marxist along with the entire gaggle of Dem candidates. Nuff said.

    1. The government can kill you from the sky before you even know what’s happening.

  44. The “Five Steps” is missing one step (well a few).

    An amendment is also needed to grant Congress the power to regulate firearms which is not listed as a power they have in Article I, Section 8. The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that such regulation is therefore left up to the states and the people respectively.

    So, if just the Second Amendment is nullified, probably the 8 states who still basically ban concealed carry by ordinary, non politically connected, residents will ban guns — but it’s unlikely the other 42 will.

    To avoid the Interstate Commerce clause, it may be necessary to set up independent gun manufacturing business in each of those 42 states, but people would be free to cross state lines with guns they own (carrying something you own across state lines is not “commerce” and certainly not “interstate commerce”).

Comments are closed.