Beto’s Gun Confiscation Push Has Damaged the Cause of Gun Control and Could Ensure Trump’s Reelection

Beto O'Rourke gun confiscation ar-15

Democratic presidential candidate former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

Along with the far left wing of the Democrat party’s insistence on pushing for impeachment (which ended any chance of federal legislation on background checks or red flag laws), Second Amendment supporters have been given a huge, beautifully wrapped early Christmas gift in the form of Robert Francis O’Rourke’s all-out, unapologetic, full-throated declaration that he and his party are coming for Americans’ guns.

Those of us who care about the right to keep and bear arms owe him and his pals who signed onto the idea a debt of gratitude we may never be able to fully repay.

“For years liberals have said we’re not coming to take your guns and now Beto O’Rourke has said we’re coming to take your guns,” says Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles and the author of “Gunfight: the battle over the right to bear arms in America”. Long after Mr O’Rourke has dropped out of the race, he says, the main pro-gun lobbyist, the National Rifle Association (NRA), will continue to elide Mr O’Rourke’s confiscation plan with the more moderate gun-control proposals of other Democratic candidates. That is liable to boost turnout for pro-gun candidates—including Mr Trump—in 2020.

Democrats have tended to tread carefully on gun-control in order to avoid that prospect. Until recently, they avoided talking about it much in the run-up to elections. Many in the party believed campaigning for gun-control cost them control of the House in 1994 and the presidency in 2000. But even before Mr O’Rourke’s intervention Democrats had been more outspoken on the issue. All the party’s candidates for the presidential nomination say they want to make background checks universal, make it easier to remove guns from people who appear to be unstable, and ban the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

But most believe that forcing Americans to give up their weapons would be a big mistake. Mandatory buybacks in other countries, including Australia, have drastically cut the number of gun deaths. In America, the scale of gun ownership makes such a law near impossible to implement. There are thought to be up to 20m assault weapons in circulation in the country, but with no central registry of guns or gun owners, no one really knows how many there are or who has them.

A bigger problem for Democrats is that such a proposal is disastrous politically. George Mocsary, a law professor at the University of Wyoming and an expert on the Second Amendment, says gun owners in America feel so strongly about the idea of having their guns confiscated that NRA need not work particularly hard to generate concern over Mr O’Rourke’s plan. Of Democratic candidates touting more moderate gun-law plans, “gun owners will be thinking, we just don’t believe you, we don’t believe that you don’t want to confiscate our guns,” he says.

– The Economist in How Beto O’Rourke has helped America’s gun lobby

comments

  1. avatar Huntmaster says:

    You’re damned right we don’t believe them.

    1. avatar napresto says:

      It’s not just that we don’t believe them; we understand that the right to bear arms is codified in the second amendment specifically to PREVENT them from doing what we know they want to do.

      They really ought to keep that in mind.

    2. avatar Newshawk says:

      Not just “We don’t believe you,” but “We’ve NEVER believed you!”

  2. avatar Gary says:

    And if you clicked the link to read the full article from the economist (the finest example of journalism) /sarc, you’ll read: “Mr O’Rourke declared that as president he would force all owners of AR-47s and similar semi-automatic firearms to sell them to the government or face a fine.”

    1. avatar Scott says:

      That’s what I want an AR-47 and the pistol version too. The Economist that used to be a respectable publication like many others has fallen to a new low in the age of globalism vs populism, mostly propped up by it’s former reputation. Journalism is truly dead!

      Seriously, right up until the time Robert Francis “Paddy” O’Rourke becomes unrecognizable to the gun owning community and that is guaranteed to be a very long time O’Rourke has given the gift that keeps on giving.

      1. avatar Karl says:

        Hmmm… is that why PSA is putting out 100s of different named lowers? “This isn’t an AR15.”

        1. avatar Jerry says:

          That started in 1994 when the Colt AR-15 was banned by name. But an identical rifle with no flash hider/grenade launcher/bayonet lug called the “JimBob’s Guns JG-15” would have been legal.

      2. avatar Rad Man says:

        Agreed, the AR-74s are underpowered and never really caught on.

  3. avatar D.B. Cooper says:

    “Democrats have tended to tread carefully on gun-control in order to avoid that prospect. Until recently, they avoided talking about it much in the run-up to elections.”

    What planet have this writer been on???

  4. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    nothing will ensure brumpstok’s reelection.
    get to the ballot.
    i saw a dang warren sign on a lawn not far from me. very pretty blue, helvetica. they’re entitled, but i don’t want to look at it for 13mo’s…

    1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      “He’s going to drop out any day”.

      “Hillary Clinton so far ahead in polls that she ‘doesn’t even think about’ Donald Trump anymore”

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “Hillary Clinton so far ahead in polls that she ‘doesn’t even think about’ Donald Trump anymore”

        How I *wish* there was a video camera to capture the moment Huma told her she *LOST*… 😉

      2. avatar wise owl says:

        THEY CAN HAVE MY GUNS WHEN THEY PRY THEM FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS

        1. avatar Sam Hill says:

          I really don’t think that they will have a problem with that. It’s been done many a time.

        2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          We need to pry their guns out of the cold dead hands of anyone who tries to take our guns.

        3. avatar Lee H Hilton III says:

          GO FELLOW PATRIOT!
          I am with YOU…
          How dare these so called politicians to even venture into this hallowed ground!
          LHH

  5. avatar Mad Max says:

    Hope it works out in our favor.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Just make sure by going out and actually voting.

      Otherwise the Democrats will be performing their election time miracle of having the dead vote for them.

  6. avatar DaveL says:

    Of course we don’t believe them. Their supporters don’t believe them either. That’s why the reaction of O’Rourke’s “more moderate” fellows was alarm that he had spoken so plainly.

    1. avatar HP says:

      Beto jumped the shark. We all know that all the Democrats agree with him, but he was way ahead of his time. My guess is the mainstreamers wouldn’t have started speaking like Beto until at least 2024, but more likely 2028.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Especially after a few more mass-shooting incidents. The momentum has to be kept going.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Well, thank goodness he’ll still have Trump opposing his lunacy!

  7. avatar DaveL says:

    I also have to wonder how this is supposed to be “disastrous politically” for Democrats. They (and their obedient media) keep telling us how a majority of voters support these policies. Do they mean to tell us that was a lie?

    1. avatar Dude says:

      And Trump is a treasonous Russian agent controlled by Putin. Plus, if you investigate the Russia farce investigators, then you don’t support law enforcement. Just shut up and believe what we tell you to.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        The FBI have already made it clear they are on the side of the Democrats. Do they have plans to be the American Stasi, the ANTIFA as their street level goons?

    2. avatar Lace says:

      The dems main purpose in taking our guns is not so much fun violence it’s about control and taking away our freedom and our lives there’s dems are filingvpeoles,heads with crap and making promised they will never keep look at the states they are suppose to be taking of they are all shit holes and there’s more homeless than you can count these promises are just hot air to get vote and destroy this country and kill 95%.of the US population ,,do research check it out agenda 22 depopulation of us will tell you and also article 302 of the green new deal nap so talks about killing most of us …this is why the second amendment is so,important and we must fight ton
      Keep it..there is a way it’s called the convention of states we are in every state..we have 4.1 million supporters..there are 50 states we need 34 states to go clean out the federal government.,set term limits,cut federal spending we do t be their epersonal piggy banks any more,and we can fix our school and. Put a stio,to,fake news,and more but we need your support you can contact the convention of states on face book or on line let them,know you support them then contact your state legislature and tell them to support the convention of states and support them ..right now we areb15 states strong and on our side we have 3 pending Pa.michigan,and maine while we wait on tgem,we are still working around the clock to get more states on board but we need help from people like you that are sick,of the crap we are being feed by our government and we can demand changes remember there supposed to be working for us not us for them we are the only onea who can change this and all of us together we can’t go wrong save your selves your children and grand children give them the best future you can make a difference to help save a future for ourvchilsren help save your country…

      1. avatar E-Man says:

        Jesus Christ Man; learn how to Fukking write—

  8. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “Beto’s Gun Confiscation Push Has Damaged the Cause of Gun Control and Could Ensure Trump’s Reelection”

    Well Duh !

  9. avatar Dude says:

    Shh! Don’t tell the peasants what we really want to do.

    This is a clear sign of how out of touch Bob really is. He’s used to getting applauded for saying such things.

  10. avatar HEGEMON says:

    democrats, the party of gun confiscation, heroin addicts and the defecating homeless. No, thanks.

    1. avatar Shire-man says:

      Don’t forget castrating 7 year olds.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      In fairness to the homeless, we all defecate.

      Unless you’re an android.

      Just not in the street.

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        i, however, do not donkeycrap.

      2. avatar Dude says:

        “Speak for yourself” – Kim Jong-un

  11. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Historically the Democrat Party has never believed in private property rights. In any form they take. They have not changed.

    1. avatar GomeznSA says:

      Chris T – I think you forgot that the dems were in favor of private property back in the day – especially when that ‘property’ consisted of people.

  12. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Of course the $400 trillion in new taxes on the middle class to provide free feminine hygiene products for transgender illegal aliens might be a bridge too far for non gun owners as well.

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      Only the ones who are evil Nazi white supremacists.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      The dishonest media won’t talk about such things because they aren’t interested in informing their viewers. So most people will never hear about that. They’re interested in only talking about whatever helps the democrats.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        While I agree that the media is dishonest and will only push their preferred narratives what I fail to understand is why this statement, “So most people will never hear about that.”, continues to be true. (I’m not saying it isn’t true just that it blows my mind.) In this day and age of readily available information, on demand, from a variety of sources (not necessarily without bias but, available from multiple viewpoints), why does anyone still look to the mainstream media for their information? Why on earth would anyone turn on a television and listen to the talking heads prattle on while occasionally slipping and letting an actual fact cross their lips when, with the click of a button, one can find reams of information on whatever particular story one wants to pursue. The only times I have bothered to watch television news in the last several years is when I’m stuck in an airport and my batteries are all dead.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          Most people aren’t voracious consumers of news which means when they hear something, it’s likely coming from the 90% of the media that is biased toward the left. Even when they don’t watch any news, these days they’re likely to hear their favorite celebs, athletes, authors, professors, etc. sounding off against the right. People still watch network evening news thinking they’re just receiving unbiased facts.

        2. avatar MyName says:

          @Dude

          “People still watch network evening news thinking they’re just receiving unbiased facts.”

          Yes, they do. I just don’t know why they do. And, yes, many people just believe whatever they hear – also, I don’t understand why. Even if one is not a voracious news consumer I don’t understand why people are not skeptical news consumers.

          I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m lamenting the fact that you are probably right.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          This has less and less to do with the TV news. More and more it has to do with what comes across Twitter and Facebook feeds. (All numbers from Pew for this post.)

          A shockingly high percentage (~20%) of people, even over 50 (23% Facebook, 18% Twitter), get nearly all their information from social media.

          Around 70% of adults overall get their news from these sources and surprisingly close to half (42%) of the public believes them to be “largely accurate”. The worst are “POC”, 18-29 with “some college” education who have a shockingly high percentage that admit to using Snapchat, fucking Snapchat!!!!!, to get their news (75%).

          And these are just the people who voluntarily admit to this level of idiocy. Even if we cut these numbers in half we’ve easily got election changing numbers.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          What in the world makes you think that anything (I mean, ANYTHING) you find on the Web is the truth? That is just childish. Absolutely NOTHING on social media is verified in any way.

      2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Well yes, people who live in airports tend to vote Dem no matter what, but the other 320 million people know better, or at least they should.

  13. avatar Baldwin says:

    “Those of us who care about the right to keep and bear arms…” are not particularly visible on a national scale at voting time . Beta Beto’s slip of the tongue is not the gotcha moment we want it to be for the broad spectrum of voters. We can brag all we want about being single issue voters ourselves, but most voters don’t understand the cascading effect of the abuse of the 2nd Amendment. Lost RKBA is not an issue to most voters as they just don’t see themselves being affected by this. Until we convince those indifferent voters that our loss of and infringement of RKBA is their loss too because it sets the stage for further abuse of all rights…we will all lose in the long run.

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” Lost RKBA is not an issue to most voters as they just don’t see themselves being affected by this. ”

      Yes and No. This is something that breaks along party lines.

      Democratic and liberal independent voters do not put gun control very high on their list of priorities, so to them RKBA is not an issue. Thus, they are not likely to vote based solely on this issue, and that makes support for gun control pretty weak in that voting bloc.

      Republican and conservative independent voters are on the flip side of the coin. Gun control is generally pretty high on their priorities, and they are much more likely to be single-issue voters on RKBA.

      So maybe that works in our favor and maybe not. Gun control comes with the Democratic candidates as a package deal, so even if the D voters are voting on some other issue, 2A infringement comes along for a piggy-back ride anyway. On the other hand, the more the Democrats poke a stick in to the hornets’ nest, the more likely the R voters will get off their asses and go vote.

      So, we’ll just have to wait and see.

  14. avatar Phil Wilson says:

    “Mandatory buybacks in other countries, including Australia, have drastically cut the number of gun deaths”

    I haven’t seen any clear evidence of this. And it certainly hasn’t tended to reduce murder rates overall.

    1. avatar David Lesperance says:

      There’s a reason they say “gun deaths” as opposed to, say, homicides. There is one clear, reliable, consistent result you can derive from research on firearm-related death, and that is that when you make it harder for ordinary people to own guns, they kill themselves with guns less often. In general, this means more hangings. But the Left knows it doesn’t sell well to say “we expect you to sacrifice your rights so we can have more hangings,” so they say “fewer gun deaths”.

    2. avatar CliffG says:

      It is interesting that the writer drops something that is patently untrue into a column supposedly news oriented. He/she/xir, whatever, could have mentioned that most estimates place the number of guns in Australia at a higher level than before the ban. And only about 20-25% of gun owners ever complied anyway. At least then the article would have been no worse than half right. As a past consistent reader and subscriber to the Economist, goodness, has that publication deteriorated over the 20 years.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        To say nothing of the fact that the reduction in gun deaths in Australia parallels the drop in gun homicides in the US., and that the crime rate of other violent crimes is the same or higher.

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The reduction in deaths was barely a statistical blip that in the long term was considered a part of the general downward trend in murder rates.

      Criminals still have to crime.

  15. avatar Darkman says:

    Beto is maneuvering for a justice department position. In a democratic administration. The only way he becomes relevant is if President Trump isn’t reelected. This why he is a one issue can’t i date. If this doesn’t work out for him. He’ll show up as one of Bloomberg’s sycophants.

    1. avatar aircooled says:

      Note that election finance rules allow funds raised for one election campaign to be carried over and used in a completely different election campaign. Beto’s raising ten’s of millions of dollars from gun control groups nation wide so he can go back to Texas and make a run for Governor or maybe Cornyn’s senate seat. Yes, I know he has said he is not running for the senate again, but his lips were moving. BTW, he spend $70M on his not quite successful Senate run.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        And his father-in-law will expect a return on the investment.

        1. avatar GomeznSA says:

          SC – for sure – I don’t imagine papa (and the rest of bobby’s backers) will be satisfied with him getting a court house named……………….

  16. avatar Huntmaster says:

    It seems that every Presidential Election some people forget what the number one job of the President is. That is to provide leadership. That kind of leadership can be found in men and women. You are not going to find it in Beto.

  17. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    This is not news. We already knew that each h step the Democrats take is one step closer to confiscation…this is just a filler article, but oh well…

  18. avatar Swarf says:

    As someone who for years has tried to work from the inside to change the Democrat’s idiotic gun policy plank, I completely agree with the headline.

    I have given up on the Dems. They appear to be beyond redemption.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Democrats can’t change their position on gun control. Public disarmament is necessary step in implementing of their “fundamental change” towards socialism. They know we will not stand still for it, therefore we must be rendered defenseless first.

  19. avatar Wally1 says:

    Most Dem voters are delusional or disingenuous. The only safeguard to the constitution is the second amendment. Without it, the entire bill of rights is worthless. It’s not that hard to understand. The bill of rights is in jeopardy when a political class of people (Dems/Socialists) think they have the authority to take away a citizens right to possess a firearm or weapon. These are the same people who want to be in control of your healthcare. I doubt many of the elected politicians have even read the constitution.

  20. avatar Harley Hays says:

    I spent my entire working life serving in the defense of this country. I didn’t do it just to watch a bunch of lowlife know it all Dems pick apart the bill of rights.

  21. avatar Behindenemylines says:

    You mean telling the truth is bad for Democrats election chances?

  22. avatar GS650G says:

    The mere logistics of rounding up 300 million guns is too much. I’d like to see who volunteers to go into West Baltimore or Chicago and disarm the locals. You would need terminal cancer patients for that duty.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Criminals will be exempt from disarmament. Who do you think will the community level collectors?

  23. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Let us not forget that it is not the implements but the concept and state of existence that is most important. The Constitution uses the word “inalienable” but I like the word “Unalienable” from the Declaration of Independence because it implies an existent prior to human nature.

  24. avatar former water walker says:

    Mmmm…yeah. On s lighter note did anyone see The Good Doctor on tv Monday. A surprisingly even handed neither pro nor anti gun storyline presented. A chick resident even said she carries a Sig 365😏

  25. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Second Amendment supporters have been given a huge, beautifully wrapped early Christmas gift in the form of …

    … a favorable decision forthwith coming from the United States Supreme Court in the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus. City of New York?

    I can dream.

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      Strict scrutiny, yo.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Preach it brother! Can I get an amen?!?!?

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          A-Fuck’in men.

          I sure hope Thomas has some ideas on phrasing the decision to cool the ardor of Leftists harassing gun owners with more and more infringement…

  26. avatar Timothy says:

    Australia’s murder rate has been cut by 9% in the last 30 years. USA’s murder rate has been cut by 50% in the last 30 years. Maybe the gun confiscations haven’t been quite as effective as these brain dead Dems like to claim

  27. avatar LibertyToad says:

    RE: “Mandatory buybacks in other countries, including Australia, have drastically cut the number of gun deaths.”

    That claim was debunked a long, long time ago. Nice try.

  28. avatar DaveP. says:

    Shorter version:
    “OMFG, how dare he tell the truth!”

    This is the Economist, the same magazine that announced that if “President McCain” died in office the smartest thing VP Palin could do would be to resign her position so that Harry Reid could become President and appoint her VP again… so she could gain experience.
    The Economist is an expensive joke.

  29. avatar MGD says:

    This dovetails with an article in TTAG a few weeks ago wherein it mentioned that the democrats were angry with Beto and going as far to call his plan dangerous and his words irresponsible. I think they were just mad that he told the true platform and he himself has damaged the DNC brand.

    I have a friend who sat out the 2016 election because he just doesn’t like Donald Trump-never has. He told me that he will be voting for him next year. I asked why. He said, “The Democrats are just too friggin’ crazy and dangerous.” Like DJT or hate him, it’s too dangerous not to vote for him. Yes, I know he has done some things that we gun owners disagree with, but when you look at the alternative…

  30. avatar joefoam says:

    ‘Mandatory buybacks in other countries, including Australia, have drastically cut the number of gun deaths’. This quote from the article should not be left untouched. Yes gun deaths have been reduced, but only at the steady rate of decline that preceded the confiscations. Additionally gun deaths have been replaced by other methods: knives, acid attacks. So the deaths by violent causes continues regardless of guns. I’d like to thank O’Rourke and his dem cohorts for finally admitting what their long game is. I’m awaiting the poll results to see how many people side with them.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Most of so called ‘gun deaths’ are suicides. Those were lowered and replaced with ‘rope deaths’.

  31. avatar hugo says:

    Hey Beta…nice going! You must be the dumbest sack of road apples ever to run for President. I bought another AK, a case of ammo and a bunch of hi cap mags the day after you started running your mouth.

  32. avatar RCC says:

    As has been mentioned on this site many times by others and myself there are still mass shootings and killing in Australia by the usual knife, vehicles, blunt weapon etc.

    The second and third biggest mass murders in Australia (one before and one after the gun grab) were by fire. I have asked numerous people when talking to them about crime what was number two mass murder and NONE of them has got the question right yet. The media only ever mentions the Port Arthur shooting.

    There are officially over a million more firearms now than before the gun grab. Up from 3 to 4 million. Unregistered is still estimated to be in the million plus.

    Three more gun shops opened in the two years within 90 minute drive of where I live. Plus a few others in further away. I can’t imagine that happening without there being a demand.

    Bolt action rifles etc plus ammunition and powder is still made in Australia. Sold here and exported.

    Do I like the current laws NO. Is Australia gun free hell no.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The aim of the post-Port Arthur national gun laws was to make the license process so onerous and difficult existing gun owners would give up the sport and prospective new gun owners would be deterred from taking up the sport.

      But the process became the new normal and people would persevere with the process. As more more guns, it is not exactly a sellers market so most people don’t bother to sell old guns. I have several that have not been used in timeframes from 6-20 years. I might decide to use it as a later project or perhaps sell it. Others are collector items I might use occasionally.

      1. avatar RCC says:

        Southern
        Yes the process in most states is a pain. Even the 4 days for my last firearm in Qld is too long compared to just walking in and out like I did for years.

        Yes you can definitely get safe queens. Some firearms I’ve had for over 40 years some just this year. I try to use them all at least once a year.

        Never had a problem selling firearms but need room for a third safe if I get any more.

  33. avatar Chuck says:

    Just like the myth that ERPO’s reduce suicides by firearm. They do by around a 10% drop, but don’t start cheering yet, because there’s a corresponding rise in suicides by other means of around 10% increase. The analysis is there’s no statistically significant change in the number of suicides. Why? Because the whole purpose of ERPO’s isn’t to see you get the help you need, it’s sole purpose is to confiscate and disarm you.
    Culo O’Dork will never be elected for anything except as the towel boy in gay bar bathrooms.

  34. avatar Robert Messmer says:

    Quote: “Well yes, people who live in airports tend to vote Dem no matter what, but the other 320 million people know better, or at least they should.” Of that 330 million, only about 231 million were eligible to vote. Out of that, less than 138 million did vote. What we really need to do is to convince that other not quite 100 million to vote to keep the 2nd amendment.

  35. avatar Sam Hill says:

    I’m screwed! I can not in good conscience vote for some candidate I don’t like and unfortunately includes the entire current presidential field. So unless someone else comes along I won’t waste my time going to the polls

    1. avatar Someone says:

      That will teach them!
      If a gun grabbing Dem wins and then comes for your guns, remember that you voluntarily gave up your vote and don’t bitch about it.

  36. avatar Top says:

    And…BINGO!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email