Beto: I want to be clear: Americans who own AR-15s AK&-47s will have to sell their assault weapons

[riversedge]

Beto O'Rourke
@BetoORourke
·
11m
I was asked how I'd address people's fears that we will take away their assault rifles.

I want to be clear: That's exactly what we're going to do. Americans who own AR-15s and AK-47s will have to sell their assault weapons. All of them.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[bigtree]

1. k&r!

[madville]

2. This is probably a good indication

That Beto has no interest in TX statewide office like the Senate or Governor.

[MichMan]

3. To whom could they be sold?

[eShirl]

20. a metal recycler?

swords into plowshares

[LiberalFighter]

25. Back to the gun manufactureres who never should had sold them to civilians.

[Politicub]

26. Government gun buyback program

And then the weapons will be destroyed in some form or fashion.

[Newest Reality]

41. Which has been done

in Australia and the results were very good as far as gun deaths, (both shootings and suicides) were concerned. Ah, they didn't have a shamefully high murder gun rate like the US.

Ah, that was about 650,000 guns, BTW. Wow! Gee, I wonder how many thousands would be bought back here, and how much of a violent fuss the "protect my right to be paranoid" crowd would make?

Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

[paleotn]

47. I don't really care as long as they're never used again for their intended purpose.

Here's some cash in exchange. Now go find a less lethal hobby. You know, one that doesn't involve the deaths of 6 year olds.

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. Yep, and maybe someday we will get there. Right now we have people with mindsets

of "this is my hobby or my recreational venue, I want it and you better not take it from me"

If my toy caused these deaths, I would get a new one.

[pattyloutwo]

4. Yes!!

Thank you, Beto!!

[aeromanKC]

5. 10 years in prison for those who refuse

Or at least a felony. (yes, I know)

[MichMan]

8. Who would they be sold to?

If you order people to sell something, whom would it be sold to?

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Government buy back program

Cash for clunkers?

Cash for guns.

[MichMan]

17. $1 each?

[bucolic_frolic]

19. No, I think mid 3 figures has been tossed around

Government has a lot of power when you pass a law, or enact a policy. Put kids in cages. Send ICE to certain areas. There's always the possibility of selective enforcement, where the law is not applied equally, but then how could it?

Cash for clunkers forced clunkers to have their engines seized with glass pellets. Of course government destroyed a lot of alcohol during prohibition, you're seen the films.

[MichMan]

28. Cash for clunkers was a voluntary program

People were not required to turn in every car that fit
the criteria, it was voluntary with incentives. People that did not want to participate were perfectly free to keep their cars.

That is not what is being proposed here.

[bucolic_frolic]

67. Yes, lawmakers can write laws either way

voluntary or mandatory or confiscatory. That's the nature of laws and government and the social compact. Beto's proposal is involuntary with compensation.

Not everyone agrees with all laws, or most laws. But the lawmaking and enforcement is usually beyond the control of the governed.

We may not agree with babies in cages, but our government has at the moment caged some of them.

[DrToast]

12. The government buys them back.

[aeromanKC]

15. Pay per view the melt down

Government could recoup their money by pay per view the meltdown!! Win/win/win!!!

[DrToast]

111. They can use the scrap...

They can use the scrap to build Wayne LaPierre a new mansion.

[Tarheel_Dem]

6. K&R

[evertonfc]

7. agree but

there goes Texas. It's beautiful policy ( although it could never be implemented) but lousey politics.

[kimbutgar]

23. But maybe these two shootings and probably more in the future because of the new relaxed gun laws

Might change peoples minds. You can’t go to the store shopping, to the movies, drive down the highway, to your church or pick up your kid at school and not fear some gun humper who’s unhinged shooting you or a loved one.

[JohnnyLib2]

9. Gutsy.

Some future history book will probably use that quote about a shift in U.S. policy.

I hope!

[Newest Reality]

43. I have been pointing out that

Australia has already done that. It was successful. They bought back 650,000 guns.

[Tipperary]

11. I surely agree with him, but good luck in the rust belt.

That just will not fly with many.

[JanetLovesObama]

34. Fuck the rust belt.

They are the ones who gave us drumpf. Beto will carry Texas and that is all he needs for the win.

[Tipperary]

49. I agree with fuck the rust belt.

But Beto won’t carry Texas.

[Jake Stern]

61. Yeah fuck Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

The states we need back in our column to beat Trump.

[Amimnoch]

80. Sorry, not with this policy.

I’ve been saying since the beginning Beto can bring Texas in because of the freaky nationalism that Texas has, and “Texan” vs “New Yorker” campaign could well be the bump that brings in Texas 38 electoral college votes and probably a Senate seat with him.

I agree with this policy. I think it may be helpful in regaining traction with his primary campaign, but I do fear this may have just lost him his largest edge.. These words will be run in ad’s all over the Mid-west and Texas if he secures the nomination, and it could very well have killed off his chances both areas.

Have to focus on what gains the 270.. positions like this put it in jeopardy.

[LudwigPastorius]

46. I agree.

A more realistic approach would be to amend the National Firearms Act to require registration of these guns and to tax the ever living shit out of them, just like government does with fully automatic weapons. Failure to register would be a serious crime. A high capacity magazine ban and mandatory background checks on ALL gun sales are also crucial.

While advocating the seizure of these weapons is a bold stance for a presidential hopeful to take, that would be very unpopular with a good percentage of the American population.

[MichMan]

84. You think "taxing the living shit out of them" wouldn't be just as unpopular?

[LudwigPastorius]

97. Slightly less unpopular.

...as that couldn't be seriously argued by gun owners that it was a violation of the 2nd Amendment, like a confiscation program could.

Restrictions, registration, and taxes on certain high-powered weapons have been in effect for the past 85 years.

They'd grumble, but they couldn't trot out the hyperbole that all Democrats are "tryin' tah take away mah gunz!".

[hughee99]

109. Exactly, we need to send the message that these rights are only for

The wealthy who can afford them!

I’m sure that will be both wildly popular and effective.

[aikoaiko]

13. No we won't, Beto.

[yaesu]

14. My rightwing brother would love that after he spent $2200 to get the first run of an S&W ar-15

which is now worth about $500

[aeromanKC]

16. Well, you know what they say

a fool and his money.....

[yaesu]

37. yep. nt

[oasis]

18. That's it. Deal with it. nt

[MadDAsHell]

65. Ironically the "deal with it" approach with the ACA is probably what lost us SCOTUS.

A loss which will probably make an AR ban unsuccessful.

The "deal with it" approach to the nuclear option also completely backfired.

"Deal with it" politics are typically irrational and short-sighted.

[oasis]

85. In response to this years's massacre in New Zealand, 700 of their

citizens volunteered handing over their assault weapons prior to the buy back date.

American's are ready to step up.

There is nothing more "short sighted" than allowing needless slaughter for fear of voter reprisal.

[LanternWaste]

115. Your labeling is ironic

"Mislabeling doesn't help though. Actually labeling in general doesn't help"

[MadDAsHell]

118. :)

[kimbutgar]

21. Yesterday on msnbc they had Tim Ryan on who wouldn't answer the question of endorsing

Gun buy back programs. Friggin coward who should drop out. I applaud Beto for having the courage to say this.

[Traildogbob]

22. Buy back!

Build the wall on Northern Texas border, buy all the assault weapons in the remaining 49 states, sell them to Texans for pennies on the dollar and let Abbott and the rest shoot each other out of existence. God given right to eliminate yourselves. Maybe pay per view to recoup the buy back. Don't hate, this is sarcasm. But, they could care less who dies, as long as they can stroke the long guns. The ones God insisted they had the right to own. Will someone refer to the verse that states that right, in THE book?

[captain queeg]

24. Bold idea, will be a hard sell

They had a ban before, but no collecting existing guns. That’ll be the hard part.

[Mr.Bill]

31. They wouldn't have to "collect" them.

Just make it a very bad idea with serious consequences to not turn them in.

[Hoyt]

32. Make the penalty for getting caught with one high enough, most gunners will

turn them in. That’ll help. Then, when some poor pitiful gun-bumper gets caught with one, fine the heck out of them and ban them from owning even a B.B. gun or Whamo slingshot.

[oldsoftie]

38. Well, i doubt any of the 2 dozen+ owners I know would hand them over.

I imagine many would be "lost" in a boating accident. And I also doubt we'll spend a ton of money searching everyones home who "may" have one. Not to mention the Constitutional challenges involved.

[Mr.Bill]

52. Here's how it could go:

They would have 30 days to report how they lost their guns in a "boating accident" or however. Lying on the report would be a federal felony. Then 30 days to turn them in, whether for a buyback and whatever the price. After that possession would be a federal felony with mandatory prison sentences. If the guns are registered to them, and they do not follow through on this, then other penalties would ensue. They would lose any governmental licenses or clearances, state and federal, including their driver's license or any professional licenses. Fines could be levied and income tax refunds impounded or wages garnished to pay fines.

Now I'm not saying any of this is going to happen. But this is how it could be done with legislation alone, and nobody would have to kick down doors and physically take any guns from anybody.

[MichMan]

60. Sanctuary cities and townships if not entire states would be established

[Mr.Bill]

64. There's ways to legislatively deal with that, too.

Remember when the federal government mandated a 55 mph speed limit on every highway in the country?

[BannonsLiver]

116. That's fine.

Under the scenario O'Rourke lays out if they were caught with them for any reason they would face serious legal problems up to and including jail time. So they can keep them at their own risk, of course. I wouldn't want to be caught with one under that scenario but not everyone is as risk averse.

[Mr.Bill]

117. Besides fines and even jail time,

the penalty that would get their attention would be a lifetime ban on them owning any firearms.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

27. No thanks.

[USALiberal]

29. Paranoid? Scared? nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

30. Me? No, why?

[USALiberal]

33. I bet I know many like you! Need your assault gun! nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

35. Nah, just not a fan of unenforceable feel-good legislation, especially one that, if it did somehow

become law, would expand the already overly powerful carceral state.

[USALiberal]

36. LOL, ok, I understand you better now! nt

[oldsoftie]

39. Yes, it would likely be unenforceable. But current politics is a sound bite business.

[Newest Reality]

45. Like in Australia?

It was a big success, accomplished the goal and 650,000 guns were taken out of circulation.

Now, Australia is rather rugged, but is the US that violent and aggressive that it wouldn't work at all? I think most of us are tired of protecting "my right to be paranoid" rather than Second Amendment rights.

One of the most significant provisions of the NFA was a flat-out ban on certain kinds of guns, such as automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. But there were already a number of such guns in circulation in Australia, and the NFA required getting them off the streets.

Australia solved this problem by introducing a mandatory buyback: Australia's states would take away all guns that had just been declared illegal. In exchange, they'd pay the guns' owners a fair price, set by a national committee using market value as a benchmark, to compensate for the loss of their property. The NFA also offered legal amnesty for anyone who handed in illegally owned guns, though they weren't compensated

https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback

[WhiskeyGrinder]

57. With the larger population and legal issues of the United States, I don't believe what Beto is

proposing would be a success.

[paleotn]

50. Hmmm, lets see.....

Oh! Right! The same government that doesn't allow you to own a BAR or hand grenades for extremely good reasons? That overly powerful, carceral state?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

55. The very same.

[paleotn]

68. I get it...

The one that sets the rules when it comes to consumer and environmental protection, so there's at least some penalty for contaminating your neighbor's well water with arsenic and PCBs. And kids don't die as often from preventable respiratory illnesses caused by the company next door flexing their "freedom" out their smokestack. The one that sets health standards so that people don't have to freaking die before we recognize the producers that are cutting corners with meat contamination or the efficacy of pharmaceuticals. Some certainly slip through the cracks, but imagine what it would be like without those "onerous regulations." We can certainly go back to those times. Back to Upton Sinclair's jungle and patent "medicine". If your workplace is grossly unsafe, so what? You can always find a job somewhere else. Right? Of course, in that world, there's no rule that says somewhere else has to be safe either. Or that somewhere else can't work you 12+ hours per day, 6 days per week with zero overtime. Organize? They hire private armies to ensure you don't organize. Strike and you're automatically fired, if not arrested. Ah, "the good ole days" before that onerous government got all involved in our lives.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

93. The "carceral state" is not synonymous with "governmental regulations." What a world it would be if

it were! In the meantime, go off I guess.

[Newest Reality]

63. Gee,

Why can't we have hand grenades, rocket launchers, bazookas and even Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority to protect our freedoms? The government is obligated to secure the right to be very paranoid and prepared for guerilla warfare, no?

[paleotn]

51. Tough.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

59. Okay.

[Music Man]

40. Good for Beto. I'm glad to see a Democrat not being apologetic about gun safety.

Australia has the most well-known mandatory buyback program, and it was a rousing success.

The right to bear arms is a spectrum, and the federal government has every right to say what specific guns are allowed to be in circulation. You're not allowed to own a fully automatic rifle, and we're not changing that any time soon. What is the justification for owning even an AR-15 or AK-47? Instead of simply banning them, AR-15 and AK-47 owners are getting compensation. Sounds like a pretty gracious deal to me.

[sandensea]

42. They'd rather sell their mothers

What a quandary.

[oldsoftie]

44. Here's the thing everyone always forgets; the AR15 is not much different from a dozen other guns.

Probably even more than a dozen.
A better solution would be getting rid of high cap magazines. Its rate of fire thats the biggest threat, not style of rifle. NO HIGH CAP MAGAZINES!!
Not to mention a few simple modifications and an AR wouldnt qualify for a ban anymore. Same thing happened with the assault weapons ban; some cosmetic changes and voila, a legal gun!

We would certainly be safer if NO guns were ever here. But they are, 300 million of them, and they wont be turned in or sold or seized.The genie is out of the bottle, sadly. Its just like saying "get rid of all nuclear weapons!" SOMEONE will always cheat that ban and keep one. Or 12.

[LonePirate]

53. Add all of those others to buy back list before we start confiscating them.

[oldsoftie]

70. And they'll just make simple modifications to avoid being on "the list"

Its nice to think about but we really need to deal with reality.

[LonePirate]

72. Then we keep updating the list. You act as if you are not in favor of gun control. Shame.

[oldsoftie]

76. Not that at all. I just live in the real world. Look at drug laws. They've been illegal decades

I think strong red flag laws would get a lot of these people. And getting rid of high capacity magazines. THOSE are the real problem. Hunting rifles are far more powerful than an AR type weapon. But they dont fire 40 rounds at a time. ALL of these are "semi auto". You cant ban the TYPE, because almost every one out there qualifies as such.

[paleotn]

54. An even better solution is no semi-auto.

Then the magazine issue is mute. Full auto was banned and I don't see folks flaunting those laws. Simple reason is, you get caught with one, you're going to the pokey for a very long time. Same with semi-auto will get the point across. Or is taking extraordinary action to protect the lives of innocent people too much to ask? Might crimp someones style. Can't have that, can we.

[MichMan]

58. Banning full auto happened many years ago and very few had them

The number of people currently possessing semi auto firearms is much much higher

[paleotn]

62. So?

I can see the capitulation speech now. Well, there's just too many firearms out there for us to get off our dead asses and do anything about it. So many of you are simply going to have to die......sorry.

[oldsoftie]

71. 300 million IS a large number. If we could start over at 0 it would be different. But we cant.

Thats the difference between us and other countries. Most of them NEVER had the weapons to start with so its been much easier to control

[oldsoftie]

69. Thats silly. A pistol is "semi auto". It fires every time you pull the trigger

Thats the definition.

[calimary]

73. Be careful, though. Such an argument is a slippery slope

that leads to
Oh well, never mind...
Oh, really? Aw shit, back to the drawing board...
Hmmm... not a perfect solution...
Might not work...
But what about - ...
Probably won’t make any difference...
Yeah, but - ...
Don’t know if they can do that...
Meh, what’s the use?
We not gonna get them all...
They’ll just use another gun...

and any number of other discouraging words.

Screw that! Folks, it’s a START, dammit! WE’VE GOT TO START SOMEWHERE, DAMMIT!!!

Yes. I’m SHOUTING! And rather unapologetically at that!

I would answer all of the above with the following question:

“So then we do NOTHING????”

I just will not accept delivery of “there’s nothing we can do”. Ain’t doin’ it. Besides, that’s what the bad guys want. That’s what they’re banking on. Quite literally! They’ve spent hundreds of millions over years on perception management, influencing and steering and adjusting our views, opinions, reactions, and responses. Using advertising, talking points packaged for talking-heads-for-hire, wholly-owned public figures and celebrity shills, manufactured “news” and comment, billboards, hate radio, and Oy the Internet.

NO! I refuse. I won’t just do nothing. I won’t quit or give up or concede defeat or simply hand them the win. (That’s their goal: domination and conquest.) I sure won’t keep silent. (That’s what they’re wishing and hoping and strategizing and spending all that money to achieve.)

Beat them.

Or make ‘em defend it.

Make ‘em have to work harder and spend way more money than they’d expected or planned for.

Mess with ‘em, interfere in their plans, frustrate their ambitions, block their progress, ruin their day. And up-end their agenda. Keep getting in the way. Sugar in their gas tank and shortsheet their beds.

Destabilize the enemy. Now happens to be a pretty good time for it.

I think it’s starting to dawn on the GOP that their battle is increasingly uphill. They’re no longer standing on such smug, swaggering, cocky, we’re golden, I’m-gonna-get-away-with-it ground. Evidence is all around us: slumping poll numbers; shaky economy; uncertainty, problems, and chaos everywhere; not getting along with our friends anymore; promises broken or not kept; bad “policy” if you can even call it that - and worse “execution.” Add a so-called “chief executive” who is increasingly out-of-touch, manifestly losing his mind, and whose words and statements are worth nothing because the selfish idiot jerk lies all the time! AND he goes out to play golf while the coastal southeast is getting hit by what is now, literally, a killer hurricane.

AND now there’s lots of attention turning to the onslaught of 2020 Democrats, TOO!
AND not a week goes by that we don’t learn that more GOPers are resigning from both Congress and the Senate which means more seats to defend. And that gets expensive - something they probably didn’t budget for.

This is a CAPITAL idea to start destabilizing the enemy. I used to talk about it here and one time even had that phrase in my sig line.

Seriously. The current is flowing OUR way. It’s ours to exploit. The time is right, again. If we don’t seize it, and exploit it, then we don’t deserve this gift confluence of “downers for donald”. nor do we deserve to win.

[calimary]

74. Shit - sorry about the length.

[SunSeeker]

48. K & R

[warmfeet]

56. Fine by me.

I don't own one, and have no reason to.

No one else has a reason to own one either.

[aikoaiko]

66. When we lose FL, TX, GA, NM, AZ, CO, and the midwest, don't be shocked.

Literally promising to take away guns from law-abiding voters is going to make us lose for a long time.

This could impact 20 - 100 million people based on the definition of evil weapons from the last failed AWB legislation.

[Hoyt]

79. Same ole gunner threats. White wing GOPers are the majority of gun-"enthusiasts," who would

vote for trump and other GOPers over not being able to buy another AR15. I don't think those threats/fears are going to work much longer.

[aikoaiko]

82. We see. I think you'll find a lot of left leaning jndependents and some party members

..who may become disenchanted with our leadership.

I know you know, but this is a more extreme policy than our policy on authentic machine guns.

[Hoyt]

83. Have you, how about the other Gungeoneers?

[aikoaiko]

86. Yes. I'm very disappointed with this talk about forced buybacks.

I’ll have to fight such a policy with everything I have.

[Hoyt]

87. I'm sorry you are so attached to these weapons.

[aikoaiko]

90. I'm attached to a civil liberty.

I’m attached to not being betrayed by my government who Once agreed I could possess these firearms, done nothing to be a prohibited person, and still have them removed when I did nothing wrong.

But we shall see . It probably won’t come to that.

[Hoyt]

91. I'd say it's people killed by these damn things that were betrayed by their government and gunners.

[aikoaiko]

92. I'm sure do think that.

[J_William_Ryan]

75. As already correctly noted:

All that’s needed is a ten-round magazine limit – that’s it.

It’s not the pistol grip, collapsible stock, bayonet lug, or being semi-automatic that makes an AR 15 so lethal – it’s the 30-round magazine.

Otherwise, no such legislation will be enacted anytime soon.

And O'Rourke will not be the Democratic nominee; indeed, his advocacy for such a policy has ended his political career – at least in Texas.

O'Rourke likely knows this – hence his advocacy for such a naïve and untenable policy.

[oldsoftie]

78. Thank you.

[Hoyt]

81. I think it's detachable magazines that are the main problem. The other aspects do attract people to

these weapons.

Marketeers for Bushmaster -- their AR15 was used at Sandy Hook -- know what motivates these losers:

?ops=scalefit_720_noupscale



Truthfully, this may help O'Rourke.

[dalton99a]

96. And for COMPLETE home defense, don't forget hand grenades

Assault rifles are not enough to repel a burglar.

[Hoyt]

98. Yep. A lot of gunners are really afraid of a 20 criminal home invasion.

[dalton99a]

100. For that contingency, I recommend Claymore mines around the perimeter next to the sprinkler heads

[jcgoldie]

94. NO WE CANT!

Fuck that shit. Beto is right. And its about time someone had the balls to say it.

[NYMinute]

88. Beto rocks!!!! K&R nt

[Joe941]

89. This is a great first step...

Eventually it has to be all guns.

[samir.g]

95. Give them a dollar each

too bad so sad

[Devil Child]

99. No thanks Beto!

My position is "just say no" to so-called assault-weapon bans.

[Music Man]

103. Why?

[namahage]

105. Guess who else supports bans on assault weapons?

https://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the exception of a federal ban on assault weapons and instant background checks to prevent firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

https://www.tulsigabbard.org/tulsi-gabbard-on-gun-safety-legislation

Tulsi strongly supports a number of gun control measures, including:
A federal ban on military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines

[Devil Child]

106. I am aware, I will support my preferred candidate(Gabbard) and the eventual nominee

Even though I think they are dead wrong with meaningless "assault-weapon" bans.

[dalton99a]

108. +1

[hack89]

101. He certainly has an active fantasy life! Nt

[LanternWaste]

113. Lacking anything except bumper stickers, I'd allege as much too! Nt (part II)

[hack89]

114. A vivid imagination is a critical part of the gun control movement. nt

[BlueTsunami2018]

102. Well, that's the end of him.

He clearly no longer has statewide aspirations and he was never going to be the Presidential nominee. He’s pretty much ended his career by doing this.

[madville]

104. Yep, any chance at statewide office in TX is now gone

He could always move to another state if he wanted to continue his political career I guess.

[dalton99a]

107. Beto's position on gun control is well known in Texas

Gun control was part of his Senate campaign

[madville]

110. Which he lost to Ted Cruz

Excellent example.

[dalton99a]

112. He almost flipped the state. And Beto doesn't have to move anywhere.

Beto is highly popular among Texas Democrats. Further, he doesn't need a government job to support his family (or collect bribes)