• Their Cover’s Blown: Dems Coming for Your Firearms

    Surge Summary: Beto O’Rourke and other Democratic presidential candidates have made it abundantly clear: they are coming for Americans’ firearms. No longer can Leftists’ blithely guarantee their gun-control plans are anything less than that.

    As if there was any real doubt, at the Democratic-primary debate in Houston last Thursday, presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke summarily took off the table one of the gun-control movement’s favorite dismissive claims. No more can they insist nobody is “coming for the guns of law-abiding citizens”. Asked directly whether he was endorsing confiscation, O’Rourke tossed caution to the extremist winds and militantly affirmed, “H*ll yes,” he said, “we’re going to take your AR-15.”

    Being Beto, of course, he had to toss in the curse word.

    “O’Rourke’s plan has been endorsed in full by Cory Booker and Kamala Harris,” relay National Review’s editors,  

    and is now insinuating its way into the manifestos of gun-control groups nationwide. Presumably, this was O’Rourke’s intention. But he — and his party — would do well to remember that there is a vast gap between the one-upmanship and playacting that is de rigueur during primary season, and the harsh reality on the ground. Prohibition has never been well received in America, and guns have proven no exception to that rule. In New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey, attempts at the confiscation of “high capacity” magazines and the registration of “assault weapons” have both fallen embarrassingly flat — to the point that the police have simply refused to aid enforcement or to prosecute the dissenters.

    Don’t miss that detail: “New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey”? Three of the bluest of blue states in the union refused to yield to gun-confiscation machinations? The writers then formulate the follow-up question:

    Does Beto, who must know this, expect the result to be different in Texas, Wyoming, or Florida? Earlier this week, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives was unable to marshal enough votes to pass a ban on the sale of “assault weapons” — let alone to mount a confiscation drive. Sorry, Robert Francis. That dog ain’t gonna hunt.

    And nor should it, for O’Rourke’s policy is spectacularly unconstitutional. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America by a considerable margin, and is therefore clearly protected by the “in common use” standard that was laid out in D.C. v. Heller. Put as baldly as possible, confiscation is not a program that the federal government is permitted to adopt.

    On its own merits? It is also disastrously unworkable.  First, any attempt to forcibly gather millions of guns would, as stated, face widespread non-compliance. Furthermore, “semi-automatic” rifles provide an odd target for the controversial proposal: long guns of all types are used less frequently in murder than many other weapons of choice, including hands and fists, handguns, and knives.

    Not emphasized sufficiently, however, is that such a gun-grab can’t be reconciled with some of O’Rourke, Booker, and Harris’s favorite portrayals of life in this Republic.

    If the trio’s testimony is to be believed, America is a deeply unequal place in which minorities and the poor bear the brunt of draconian legislation while wealthier and better-connected people romp scot free — which, if true, would lead one to expect a little less bravado in defense of what would be the most significant federal crackdown since the start of the War on Drugs than a self-congratulatory “H*ll yes.”

    Critics frequently – and sometimes properly – question the wisdom of President Trump’s floating policy ideas via tweet.  Well, per O’Rourke’s gun-confiscation declaration, there are perils of making policy by T-shirt slogan, as well.

    For years, Second Amendment guardians have intuited confiscation was Leftists’ endgame all along but have been condescendingly rebuffed as being paranoid. Thanks to the candidate from El Paso, that assertion is no longer tenable.

    If it ever was, “Nobody is coming for your guns!” is no longer true — which means that a host of commonly posed inquiries now have the same simple answer. “Why do you oppose federal licensing?” Because leading Democrats are threatening confiscation. “Why do you oppose ‘universal’ background checks?” Because they would create a registry. “And why do you oppose a registry?” Because leading Democrats are threatening confiscation. Unwittingly or not, O’Rourke and his acolytes have stuck a dagger into the exquisitely calibrated gun-control messaging on which their party has worked for the better part of 20 years.

    Voters, you’ve been warned.

    And you’ve gotta wonder if Dem Bigs are lately wringing their hands and wishing the wunderkind from West Texas never became one of their standard bearers in the first place.

    H/T: Editors/ National Review

    Image by OpenClipart-Vectors from Pixabay 


    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend