• Yes, Vows Beto, Police Would Be Sent to Get Your AK-47 if Necessary

    Surge Summary: Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke continues to stir the anti-2A pot: Yes, he says, as president he would send law enforcement officers to the homes of those who refuse to go along with his “assault weapon” confiscation/ buyback proposal. His non-response to a follow-up question, however, undercuts the entire rationale behind most gun control measures.

    I suppose if Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke really means what he says about forcing a confiscation/buyback of American gun-owners’ AR-15s, getting law enforcement involved possesses a certain kind of warped, Lefty logic. The hapless candidate admitted mid-week that under his federal gun “buyback” scheme, police officers would visit the residences of those who refused to co-operate in order to “recover” the banned firearms.

    Recall, the struggling Oval Office aspirant fueled a firestorm last month when he was asked during a Democratic presidential debate if he was proposing a government-launched assault-style weapons confiscation. He pledged in response, “H*ll yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47”.

    “What’s the next step for the federal government there?” Joe Scarborough asked O’Rourke on MSNBC, giving the example of a “rancher in Texas” who refuses to give up his AR-15.

    “I think just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law,” O’Rourke responded. “So in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and make sure that it is purchased, bought back, so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else.” [Mairead MCardle/National Review]

    Of equal consequence, O’Rourke was also asked an even more probing question on the Wednesday morning CNN interview: How would his buyback plan solve the gun violence problem when, presumably, murderous criminals would have no intention of following the law:

    “You expect mass shooters to follow the law?” CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota asked the former lawmaker. “They don’t follow the law by definition.

    O’Rourke nevertheless insisted that his policies, including a federal gun-confiscation program, “would have stopped many of the shootings.”

    “Would it stop every single shooting? No,” the former congressman added.

    “It doesn’t make sense that people are going to hand over their assault weapons if they’re mass shooters,” Camerota pressed. “So then what’s your plan?”

    “If we pass this law then I expect our fellow Americans to follow the law,” O’Rourke said.

    You might recognize the forty-seven-year-old Texas pol extends a non-answer to the host’s question. Why the dodge? Because there is no rational response to it and, to Camerota’s credit and whether or not she realizes it, her query lays bare the flaw behind virtually every gun-control proposal, to wit: Those who are committed to use their firearms illegally are unlikely to abide by any law that would hinder that option in the first place. By definition, they are inclined to be law-breakers. Don’t own a banned gun or don’t use a gun for nefarious purposes? What’s the difference to lawless men or women?

    H/T: Mairead MCardle/National Review

    Image: Adapted from: crockodile from Austin, TX – Beto Rally at the Pan American Neighborhood Park, Austin, TX, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=76415415


    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend