Anti-Police Beto O'Rourke Says He'll Send Cops Door-To-Door To Confiscate AR-15s

Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke said he would send police door-to-door to confiscate guns that weren't turned in.

Washington, DC – Presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke doubled-down on his plan to take legally-owned “weapons of war” away from U.S. citizens and said he would send police door-to-door to take the guns away.

O’Rourke has focused much of his campaign’s time and attention on promising to ban all “assault-style” rifles, such as the popular AR-15s, because they have been used in several mass shootings in the United States.

However, the candidate has been wishy-washy until now as to how he would actually take the guns out of the hands of their owners who purchased the weapons legally.

At first, O’Rourke claimed that American gun owners would “do the right thing” and turn in their guns if the laws were changed during his administration, the Washington Examiner reported.

But his opponents and members of the media have repeatedly asked the Presidential candidate how he would confiscate the guns that people did not give up voluntarily.

On Wednesday, O’Rourke told MSNBC that under his administration, AR-15s would be taken away by force, if necessary.

“To be clear, I’m not talking about confiscating anybody’s guns,” he said. “But I do think that for those weapons of war – AR-15s, AK-47s – these were designed and sold to the militaries of the world to kill people on the battlefield and there are more than 16 million of them in America, and we’ve seen the devastating effect they can have in Dayton, Ohio or El Paso, Texas, or Odessa, not too far from where I live. Those must be bought back or each of them are potentially an instrument of terror in this country.”

O’Rourke continued to insist that law-abiding citizens would willingly turn in their guns.

And for those who don’t voluntarily give up their “assault rifles,” he told MSNBC there would be consequences.

"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 said. "In that case, I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased - bought back - so that it cannot potentially be used against somebody else."

He failed to address how he would convince police officers to carry out his plan.

He continued to claim that people who own AR-15s and AR-47s have told him they don’t need their guns and they’re willing to give them up.

"My faith is in this country and in my fellow Americans following the law and listening to people who own AK-47s and AR-15s who acknowledge, who concede, they don’t need it for self-protection," the candidate said. "They don’t need it to hunt. Its real, true purpose and use is on a battlefield."

"When you talk to the people of Dayton, who saw nine gunned down in under 40 seconds, or in El Paso, 22 killed in under three minutes, it’s hard to answer their question as to why this continues to happen or why we would continue to allow more than 16 million of these weapons in our country,” he said.

Our partners at Warrior 12 are running a "Beto Special" and giving 10% off their Gadsden Snake shirt when you use code CRYBETO at checkout. Warrior 12 shares proceeds with Blue Lives Matter for the sale of all Blue Lives Matter products.

O’Rourke cited Australia as an example of successful gun ban without a door-to-door confiscation.

"We also have an example in Australia where those weapons of war were successfully bought back without going to a door-to-door confiscation - and where you’ve seen a dramatic reduction in gun violence and a dramatic reduction in mass shootings in that country," he claimed.

When it was pointed out that 70 percent of gun deaths in the United States are as a result of handguns, not so-called “weapons of war,” O’Rourke said he wouldn’t try to take away Americans’ handguns.

He told MSNBC there was a significant difference between the kind of damage handguns do inside the body and what “assault rifles” do inside the body.

Instead, O’Rourke insisted that “national system of universal background checks complemented with red flag laws” was the solution to the nation’s gun violence problem.

He also said the Founding Fathers never conceived of the kind of weapons we have today so the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t apply.

Comments (105)
No. 1-34
Littlekittykat
Littlekittykat

Good luck finding police to enforce your fascist schemes

flybynight
flybynight

Beato is running for president?

Demsaredumb
Demsaredumb

New headline....”Police resignations at all time high” stating they don’t want to confront law bidding gun owners because of an assholes agenda. When are these dumbasses going to realize that the good law-abiding people will of course turn in their guns but they’re not the ones that are carrying out the mass shootings in the first place. It’s already illegal to shoot people so making an AR 15 illegal changes nothing. So dumb. But....People tell him they’d gladly hand in their guns.....suurrreee, who are these people? Your ass grabbing liberal pals. What a joke. As an American I respect that everyone has an opinion I just don’t respect everyone’s opinion.

JBo
JBo

Idiots still can't figure out the difference between a true assault rifle and a scary looking semi-auto rifle.

Vodkabreakfast
Vodkabreakfast

This character is as cunning as a lavatory rodent....Harp on a contentious click bait issue - use deliberately inflammatory rhetoric to stealthily escalate tensions - hijack the image of law enforcement via associative media statements about shady plans - dismissively claim the moral high ground against the opposition he antagonised by using shrill vocal bumper stickers. He is morally elastic, and worst of all has a carnivorous ambition for higher office. He’s praying for a reaction of domestic strife, so he can point at the opposition he cultivated and say “I told you so, these people must be controlled and bridled.” Socialism is easier to enforce when the herd are unarmed and without media support.

flybynight
flybynight

Hey Beato, Booger's has volunteered so sign him up and send him to Chocongo!!!

oldbat
oldbat

and this asshole wants to be president. let's hope he doesn't need a cop

RetiredCorrections
RetiredCorrections

“He also said the Founding Fathers never conceived of the kind of weapons we have today so the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t apply“.

If they could have seen the future of the internet, Facebook, and all the other social media, they probably would have rethought the first amendment , but as it still covers the first , it should cover the second amendment as well

walkintall
walkintall

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. Nothing.

Jim H. - Virginia US
Jim H. - Virginia US

I watch every debate, Democratic or Republican, national, or local, in full.

Part of the justification for confiscation that Beto gave is that Hispanics are afraid of guns. He also expects Americans will simply follow the law. The guy is nuts.

Here is the recent Dem Presidential debate. The gun question is at right at the beginning of Part 3 here. Delete the spaces to view at CNN...

tinyurl.com / y 4 k v r 6 8 5

Skycastle
Skycastle

Beto is showing his abominable ignorance and obviously needs to learn the basics of Constitutional government. How can someone this clueless be running for office? He wrote: "the Founding Fathers never conceived of the kind of weapons we have today so the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t apply."

Shouldn't apply??? It isn't legal to just "not apply" the Constitution whenever we feel like it.The ONLY way to change the Constitution is by passing a Constitutional Amendment. Until that happens, we must completely abide by the 2nd Amendment. Get a brain, Beto.

Thinblueline
Thinblueline

1st off, luckily this guy will never be elected. 2nd, no cops are going to go get guns from citizens....now, if Francis would like to come and try to take mine, he’s welcome to try 🤣

Zoe.S.
Zoe.S.

Mein good little fuhrer.

Blueblood16
Blueblood16

Makes me sick when these skanks talk crap about LEOs when so many are closet criminals!!!

MSK
MSK

It is for this exact reason that we have our guns. Some psycho man-child politician who wants to throw out the constitution and “confiscate” guns.

LostAllSanity
LostAllSanity

When the government assures you that you don't need guns, you need guns.

NomonK
NomonK

BEATO WILL BE A BEATEN BASTARD IN THE DEMOCRAT PRIMARY. He has only one political position. TAKE GUNS BY ILLITERATEING THE 2ND AMENDMENT. He has only one problem. MOST AMERICANS ARE GUN OWNERS THAT SUPPORT THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

NomonK
NomonK

Liberals are so stupid. The scream that AR's are so dangerous, no one should be allowed to have one. First they have no idea what an AR is. They call it an ASSAULT RIFLE. A Springfield 30-06 can be an assault rifle when a deer is in the scope crosshairs. The socalled AR Assault Rifle comes in so many calibers one would have every one in this class, including Shotguns and shotguns aren't rifles at all. They are really talking about a style of gun STOCK.

Judid292
Judid292

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

I firmly believe the Framers couldn’t have dreamed of ARs, let alone let them into the hands of the public.

Ladyfluterby
Ladyfluterby

Let's be real, Beto is not even close to being a viable presidential candidate and the media only keeps his name in the game because he is so over the top in his beliefs. In short the guys a joke. I fail to understand the liberals who believe that if they take the guns away from law abiding citizens this will stop the actions of CRIMINALS. Do liberals really fail to understand the definition of a criminal? For those liberals plain and simple a criminal is a person who commits a crime. Beto states "the Founding Fathers never conceived of the kind of weapons we have today so the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t apply. He is correct on one point, the founding fathers never did conceive the guns of today. But what they did conceive and what's most important is the possibility of an overreaching government and the 2nd Amendment was written to give the people the right to defend themselves if the government became to overreaching like so many of the liberals of today.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno

Democrats like O'Rourke often have pointed to the deaths by firearm after the 1996 shooting in Tasmania. It’s too soon to see adjusted statistics for the May 2018 mass shooting of six family members plus the usual suicide in Osmington, Western Australia and the two recent incidents in the Northern Territory. Regardless, here are some obvious data points.

During the two decades prior to the 1996 shooting and 1997 buyback, Australia suffered 77 deaths by firearm and five by vehicle for 82 total homicides. During the two decades following the buyback, it suffered 39 deaths by arson, 16 by firearm, 13 by knife, six by vehicle and five by blunt force for 79 total homicides. Seems murderers changed their methods. I guess the Australian government now needs to prohibit fire, knives and blunt stuff.

Surely a man with O'Rourke's education knows the term "mandatory buyback" is oxymoronic because in a free enterprise system, buying requires the existence of a willing seller. Use of the term "mandatory" negates the need for a willing seller. Without a willing seller, the process is defined as theft. It demonstrates how utterly absurd democrat rhetoric has become. Not (ahem) buyin' it. Baito needs to surrender his crusade because confiscation simply isn't worth it.

In the 20th century, every decade before the 1970s had fewer than 10 mass public shootings. In the 1950s, for example, there was one mass shooting. And then a steep rise began. In the 1960s, there were six mass shootings. In the 1970s, the number rose to 13. In the 1980s, the number increased 2 1/2 times, to 32. And it rose again in the 1990s, to 42.

All but three mass shooters in recent history passed a background check. Two stole their firearms. The other one bought from a guy who assembled them from parts and sold them from home. They are used in less than 2% of firearm homicides. Since 1999, the statistical probability of a student being killed in school, on any given day by a gun has been one in 614 million. Let's face reality. Because it's so safe, spending money for such colossal confiscation would be silly.

RB2207
RB2207

Beto is a special kind of stupid. If he managed to get elected, which he won't and does manage to ban "Assault" weapons, does he really think everyone is stupid enough to believe that other types of weapons wouldn't be next?

ACSO-Charles-One
ACSO-Charles-One

Our Founding Fathers did believe that a Beto O'Rourke could come along one day and that's why we have the 2nd Amendment.

Iceman181
Iceman181

I welcome every new ridiculous statement by this guy. He seems to forget that the police are citizens too and a huge number wouldn't enforce this or would give lip-service only to enforcement...and all he's doing it stating what many always have thought the ultimate goal is...confiscation.

Cloudy
Cloudy

Waiting for you beto.

FuzzBall44
FuzzBall44

Someone please euthanize this dipshit!!

Farticus
Farticus

“He also said the Founding Fathers never conceived of the kind of weapons we have today so the U.S. Constitution shouldn’t apply“.

The first machine gun was patented on May 15,1718 by James Puckle.

They knew...

sgtstudmuffin
sgtstudmuffin

i will give you mine, buttstock first, to your forehead... hoohaa!!

61mouse
61mouse

ROFLMFAO ...... HE should be.. arrested he is definitely HIGH on some good illegal shit

Excalibr4
Excalibr4

It's very annoying when a convicted burglar says "I'm going to send cops door to door" As if he will be giving the orders. What a crock of shit. The same thing goes for that black city councilman who berated a cop in public for arresting his sorry ass years ago. Not sure why more people aren't on this site sticking up for law enforcement. I suppose it's because they have jobs and I'm retired, but mark my words. Everything on this site is CORE to the reason Trump was elected. It's also the reason he will be reelected. People just want to feel safe. No I'm not talking about snowflakes. I'm talking about hard working middle class folk that are see the real threat and want the protection they are paying for.

FLYBOYTIM
FLYBOYTIM

Lets say we had 20 incidents utilizing "weapons of war" in one year. Yes that is a sad thing, but in reality that would represent 0.00125% of all legally owned "weapons of war". So in other words by confiscating every "weapon of war" that would eliminate all mass killings. - Right. Lets say that it cost the tax payers $2000 per firearm to confiscate. This entails not only legislative action, but training, manning and equipping the personnel to do the seizures as well as disposal. You are talking $3,200,000,000 to handle the task. What seems to be the issue is the person behind the killings and not the firearm. This is the real problem. Taking the firearms will not deter someone bent on mass destruction, in fact it may make it worse.

eddiethekid
eddiethekid

If they're going to take away the AR-15's and AK'47's, they should start with the police.

Domestic goddess
Domestic goddess

O'Rourke is a big reason the Socialist Democrat party will fail in the 2020 elections.