From left, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, businessman Tom Steyer, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, entrepreneur Andrew Yang, former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and former Housing Secretary Julian Castro participate in a Democratic presidential primary debate hosted by CNN/New York Times at Otterbein University, Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2019, in Westerville, Ohio. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Larry Keane

Democratic candidates gathered in Ohio to agree on how much they can’t stand lawful gun ownership, disagreeing only on who was the most deeply offended. Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Congressman Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-Texas) scuffled about whose furrowed brows over law-abiding gun ownership was more courageous, but that masked the slips on stage.

AR-15 = Terror

O’Rourke took the first question on guns out of the gate and ran straight to the far left. After rattling through gun control talking points to mischaracterize modern sporting rifles, like the AR-15, he took it a step further.

“Every single one of them is a potential instrument of terror,” he said.

Deductive reason concludes therefore, O’Rourke believes every law-abiding American who legally owns one is a terrorist. O’Rourke stuck to his pledge to confiscate more than 16 million semiautomatic rifles but waffled on how to do it. He said he expected Americans to follow the law but ignored the fact the murderers who committed the horrific acts ignored laws.

“We don’t go door to door to do anything in this country to enforce the law,” O’Rourke explained. “I expect Republicans, Democrats, gun-owners, non-gun-owners alike to respect and follow the law.”

In another attempted answer he said the rifles would only be confiscated when someone uses it in an unlawful manner, which is already illegal. He defaulted to saying police would be called in to enforce an unconstitutional gun grab.

“If they persist, they will be other consequences from law enforcement,” he concluded, without elaborating on those consequences or repercussions of forced disarmament, the very reason the Founding Fathers recognized the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. This nation was literally founded on fighting back against a tyrannical government that sent armed forces to disarm Americans.

O’Rourke glossed over it earlier when even anti-gun MSNBC couldn’t fathom how mass confiscation would work. He said it’s easy, that, “… there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm…”

Warren’s Admission Slip

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said she wouldn’t forcibly confiscate AR-15s, instead she parroted the anti-gun Giffords’ position, saying she’d regulate them like machine guns. That’s where she stepped in it.

“I want to use the method we used, for example, with machine guns,” Warren said. “We registered them, we put in a huge penalty if you didn’t register them, and a huge tax on them, and then let people turn them in, and it got machine guns out of the hands of people.”

Until now, she’s conflated AR-15s with so-called “assault weapons.” She’s purposefully confused semiautomatic rifles, which fire one round for each trigger pull with automatic military rifles that fire continuously or in three-round bursts when the trigger is pulled.  But, her idea to regulate them like machine guns was an admission she’s been lying all along.

There goes the “weapons of war” label.

Please, No More Truth

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) stumbled on to the truth without knowing it when she admonished her competitors for giving away the grand plan. CNN moderator Anderson Cooper threw her a softball about “mandatory buybacks” which is more correctly known as confiscation. Her answer was more like a foul-tip into the grass than a grand-slam into the bleachers.

“And I just don’t want to screw this up,” Klobuchar said. “When I’m president, I do want to bring in an assault weapon ban and I do want to put a limitation on magazines so what happened in Dayton, Ohio, will never happen again. But let’s not mess this up with this fight.”

That’s almost exactly what Sen. Cory Booker(D-N.J.) was saying when he scolded Buttigieg on social media for calling a confiscation exactly what it is.

“Calling buyback programs ‘confiscation’ is doing the NRA’s work for them, @PeteButtigieg— and they don’t need our help,” he tweeted.

Nate Madden of the Conservative Review noted that gussying up confiscation by labeling it as a “mandatory buyback” doesn’t really help.

“A mandatory buyback is when the government uses coercion to strip people of their once-legally-owned property, even if there is compensation offered in return.” Madden wrote.

Interestingly, the answers all focused on taking away guns from law-abiding Americans. Not one answer was given on getting guns out of the hands of criminals. We checked.


Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel at National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Previous Post
Next Post


        • Lots of big words but very little action when gun control is enacted. Remember the first assault weapons ban? Oh, sure, you can say “well they’re not doing door to door confiscation” but it’s always just moving the goalposts. (if you’re wondering, the reason I don’t put myself in the category of big words and little action is that I don’t for a moment think there will be any significant action, because there hasn’t been for more than a hundred years and people will continue to not do anything)

  1. Well, now do you see just what these nuts want to do? forthe most part they are lying out both sides of their mouth’s , disgusing their real objective , to confiscate all guns, and be like the uk, the problem is if someone wants to kill someone or some people they don’t need a gun ,any type, it has already been done cars trucks knife’s bombs ropes hell even your dog. so this farse of gun control wont stop anyone killing .

    • at least hillary never said she would take our guns, she was just going to appoint judges that would do her dirty work. she was a much better politiction (sp) than these bozo’s. trump judicial appointees are the best part of him. lets get at least one more appointee from trump

  2. “Not one answer was given on getting guns out of the hands of criminals”

    Did they say anything about universal background checks? I think that’s their (ignorant) answer for keeping criminals from getting guns.

    “Calling buyback programs ‘confiscation’ is doing the NRA’s work for them”
    Gotta get with the propagandist terminology Pete!

    These people are such fools, I think Hillary would have a good chance at the nomination.

    • True, but she would feel free to carry the torch of confiscation becuse the cat’s out of the bag.

      No more need to pussyfoot around for ANY Demwit, as it is pretty much accepted as part of their platform now.

      Even Obama wouldn’t have to hold his nose now and spew “I’m not going to take your guns”.

    • Gee, I guess if we had UBC, we could release all the rules on machine guns and all, then, right? Somehow I doubt that.

      • Give it time, and the left will be pushing for legalization of beastiality, incest, and pedophila. Some time ago, I personally witnessed a far left professor in a leftist university give a speech on sexual social norms and that the “ideas of consent” for both children and animals were “changing”.

        • I can attest that particular shit has been going on for decades, and I suspect centuries. If we ever got access to true records of the catholic priesthood, it would keep us entertained (?) for many years. The quantity is increasing simply because we no longer hang them.

        • Not that I am expressing an opinion, to each his/her/it/pronouns of choice, but they managed to legalize “sodomy.” Try it you might like it?

        • To merle o
          The Libertarians Liberals and the Left legalized sex with animals, bestiality, decades ago in Washington State. That was there first successful attempt.

      • Daffy, Goofy, or any of the rest of them have far better taste and standards than to get involved with any of these Dem knuckleheads.

  3. At the root of everything lib/progs do is this immutable fact: They don’t trust ordinary people. Libs/progs don’t think normal citizens are capable of living “correctly” unless they are guided/nudged/bludgeoned by their moral superiors.

  4. Question for Beto in next debate.

    Mister O’Rourke, you previously stated as one of your positions. “I expect Republicans, Democrats, gun-owners, non-gun-owners alike to respect and follow the law.” Does the law that you expect Americans to hold in such high regard, include the 2nd Amendment?

    • Many Americans didn’t respect the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). It’s called “Irish Democracy”, or the right of the people to ignore stupid laws. O’Rourke (presumably Irish) should know this.

  5. A bunch of grifters exposing their ignorance and venality for all to see is not a debate.

    In any decent country, those jackalopes wouldn’t be posed against a backdrop. They’d be against a wall.

  6. Great question for the next Democratic Primary Debate

    The 2nd Amendment is 27 words long. Would you please explain what it means according to your understanding of it, in one minute or less.

    This is one of the major issues in the next election. Simple question.

        • @Garrison,

          “Well regulated” means regulation. “Free State” mentions the State, not the Individual. “Right to keep and bear arms” is for military and peacekeepers such as Sheriffs. “Shall not be Infringed” means nothing because the Founders were using language from 250 years ago that is not part of our modern lexicon.


      • Well regulated means well trained in the use of arms. This is what the term meant when it was written in the common language of the day, as is the entirety of the Constitution itself. The founding fathers were educated gentlemen, and they purposely wrote in the language of the time so it would be understood by the common people of the time. One of the reasons we have a judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court is to make sure the meaning of the document is not lost. Subsequent generations have not done due diligence to assure the original meanings are not lost, and we now have liberal activist judges who not only remold the law’s meaning but they even invent new meanings to bolster their political views. This is not the job of federal judges, but they seem to be incapable of resisting the impulse of altering the language or re-interpreting it to the point it creates a situation where it is obviously an incorrect interpretation of what was in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to begin with.

        We can thank Woodrow Wilson for the ballooning of administrative bureaus that regulate nearly every aspect of life – something that did not exist before his presidency. He created liberalism, which in turn brought us to where we are now, along with the efforts of FDR, and BHO.

        Everything we are dealing with in the federal government today is rooted in that liberalism school of thought, including the push toward socialism – despite the abject failure of socialism everywhere it has been tried throughout human history. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome, and that is what these democrats want the country to do. Every major city in the nation that has been governed under the democrats is degenerating into places no decent person wants to live, into a third world or worse status.

        Many states are following this pattern, all run by democrats. So now they have turned the House of Representatives into an echo chamber of rabid insanity, screaming impeach, impeach, impeach with no legal cause for it – and it has been proven in the past three years of attempts they have no justifiable reason other than Trump beat Hillary in the electoral college. Now they come, a dozen at a time, all vying for the job of President, and none seem to have any idea what the job is about.

        The President is subjected to the raining of craziness every day, but in spite of it he has brought us back an economy which is unrivalled anywhere on the planet, and we lead the world in prosperity once again. There isn’t anything he has done to merit the scrutiny of the democrats except beating Hillary in the 2016 election and they can’t handle the truth of that, so here comes the entire gaggle of democrat loonies hurling false accusations and blowing more whistles than a career traffic cop. All that is noise and intended to confuse us, the people, who voted and elected him President of the United States of America.

        I think we did a good job of denying them in 2016, and I’m looking forward to doing it again in 2020. This three year long hissie fit has proven they are not fit to lead this country, in fact they aren’t fit to be street sweepers.

        • “Regulated” also includes “equipped” as part of the meaning, along with trained. And since it defines a personal right, I am expecting my free equipment, select fire thank you very much, in the mail any day now.

          We need to continue to casually mention that we expect Trump to be President until at least 2028, it makes them CRAZY!

  7. You left out an important happening during the “Debate,” the “Freedom FROM Religion” commercial featuring athiest Ron (Twinkle toes) Reagan. Anyone who has not seen it, google it. It speaks volumes of the twelve twits who were on the stage…..Godless ones all. Remember, the democ-rat party platform removed any reference to God. The commercial was geared to the democ-rat Godless base.

  8. The Dumborats are totally out of touch with the real world. Not one of them has the common sense of a breadstick. Starting with Pelosi and the Jackass squad and these other clowns claiming to be Patriots. Strip off all of their citizenships and start with the Dumborats presidential candidates.

  9. The democrats and some republicans want the USA to be like Europe. If you look at there policies they want 2A eliminated , no God in government , socialized medicine, open borders, and a weak military. All these policy exist in Europe!

  10. O’Rourke explained. “I expect Republicans, Democrats, gun-owners, non-gun-owners alike to respect and follow the law.” Well we do follow the law. The Bill of Rights which states that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So my question is, Why do YOU not follow the law?

  11. What bothers me is that Beto is no longer really running for President. He is actually fund raising on a national scale for another run at the US Senate or possibly for Texas Governor. Prior to 2018 midterms, I would have said that was impossible, but he did come close to ousting Ted Cruz. There are a lot of Urban Women in this state now and they just can’t get enough of Beto.

    • He said yesterday that if he does not get the nomination he will quit politics. I wonder if that was for real or one of those “if Trump is elected I am moving to Canada” kinds of things.

      • He is a politician, and a liberal Democrat, and his lips were moving when he said that. What does that tell you?

    • Reverse the gender roles, and it makes sense. After all, Tulsi Gabbard is much more foxy…ahem…I mean, capable of leading than the likes of Warren or Harris, no?

      I know all of you dudes here see a photo of her and say “damn, if she just weren’t a Democrat…”

      • Which one of the candidates can you imagine being President? Which one can you imagine having sex with? At least Tulsi wins one.

  12. Kamal Hairis at least qualifies as an Oklahoma 2 bagger. 1 for her head and 1 for your head in case hers falls off. Klobuchar is a chubby and Williamson is just plain nucking futz. As an old guy once told me. Never complain about the looks. Cause you’re only using a small part of it. Sick but so true.

  13. How about that they are running for a position in a Constitutional Republic they are all diqualified as they are all Communists,thus ineligible for office.

  14. As we approach the 2020 election, let’s examine our options for who will lead this country for the next 4 years. On the Republican side of the issue we have a guy who has lead this country back from the brink of dissolving into some ONE WORLD ORDER bullshit science fiction dreamworld controlled by foreign billionaires that would leave us as mindless obedient worker ants with no individual rights while being dictated to about what to eat,how many babies we can produce what we can watch on government controlled media channels and pretty much every aspect of our lives will be controlled….meanwhile,back at the ranch..we have on the Democratic side of the fence…..(1) A guy who can hardly remember his name (2) A habitual liar who thinks she is the last of the Mohicans (3) An ex-Attorney General of the Great State of Crapafornia who violated peoples civil rights for her own agenda(4) A character of dubious sexual orientation who thinks the rainbow coalition will sweep him into office while ignoring the fundamental Christian Beliefs of most of America and last but not least is contestant No. 5 who think eating a bowl of dirt from New Mexico will cleanse him of impurities and make him leap tall buildings in a single bound while confiscating millions of legally owned firearms and violating the 2nd Amendment…there is a bucket full of other minor cartoon characters who aren’t worth mentioning…..This coming election should be a real Knee-slapper…Bring it on!!!!

  15. I don’t ask most people to understand certain concepts of violence or firearms. But do these people realize they are advocating for the start of the second American civil war? They can’t possibly be so fucking naive as to think that these policies will go over peacefully. Do they think that all of the police and military of this country can stand up to even one percent of the American population? Do the math, and keep in mind we don’t have a stellar track record of dealing with insurgencies. Do they think that all of the police and military will enforce the law, or fire upon American citizens when they do not comply?
    The only explanation that makes any sense is they’re making wild promises they know they can’t keep for the sake of attracting votes. Which means they’re either intentionally lying to their voter base and feeding off of their ignorance, or they put far too much faith in the idea that the current government will always hold power.
    No one can win in a civil war like that. We risk losing every ideal that makes this the United States of America if we meet that extreme measure. We risk millions of innocent people, American citizens, being caught in the midst of violence which most people cannot even comprehend, within our borders. And most armed citizens will survive, but the government will damn sure lose.

    • Or, simply look at how hugely he has outperformed the previous TWO presidents, especially the last, and stop caring about his personal life, which is none of your business, and vote for the best world which can possibly exist in 2028. That is “Donald Trump”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here