When they say ‘we’ are going to take your Ar-15s…who is ‘we,’ exactly?

by John Hawkins | September 16, 2019 1:57 pm

When Beto O’Rourke ran for the Senate against Ted Cruz in 2018, he very explicitly said that he had no intentions of trying to grab anyone’s guns:

“If you purchased that AR-15, if you own it, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly… If you own a gun, keep that gun. Nobody wants to take it away from you — at least I don’t want to do that.”

As his target audience moved from Texans in a Senate race to far-Left activists in a presidential primary, his position changed quite a bit:

“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore!”

Supposedly, Beto would accomplish this through an Australian style government “buyback.” This is nonsensical[1] and not just because the government never owned the weapons it would be proposing to “buyback.”

Australia made it extremely difficult to buy a new gun as it instituted a gun buyback. This means that in 1996, there were 17.5 guns per hundred people and in 2016, the number was only down to 13.7 per hundred people. So Australia’s big accomplishment was to decrease the number of guns in its nation by 22 percent. How much of a difference would that make in America where there are 101 guns for every 100 citizens and open borders that would allow illegal weapons to stream in if there were ever a large-scale demand for them?

So, what happens when the vast majority of Americans with weapons simply refuse to comply? Certainly, the government could try to prosecute citizens who say, shot people attempting trying to murder their families or women protecting themselves from rapists, but it would be extremely unpopular, embarrassing and in large parts of the country jury nullification and a refusal by local government officials to cooperate would make the law impossible to enforce. In other words, San Francisco and New York might throw a mother in jail for killing a pedophile for trying to abduct her child, but good luck getting a cop in the backcountry of Georgia to arrest her or a judge in rural Idaho or Oklahoma to put her in jail.

The open lawlessness and the fact that an assault weapons ban would do nothing of significance to stop gun violence or mass shootings since only a few hundred people per year out of a nation of 327 million are killed with any kind of rifle, would at some point naturally lead to an escalation by the government. That would eventually mean an attempt to ban handguns and door-to-door confiscations. Now, Beto O’Rourke claims he doesn’t support this because he believes people will “voluntarily” give up their AR-15s. This is of course, ridiculous. If the government declares guns illegal tomorrow, you’ll find that tens of millions of Americans, myself included, had our guns “lost” or “stolen.” That’s because if it comes right down it, most gun owners recognize that it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

You can read the rest at BizPac Review[2].

  1. This is nonsensical: https://rightwingnews.com/column-2/liberals-dont-understand-serious-attempt-gun-confiscation-lead-civil-war/
  2. BizPac Review: https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/09/16/when-they-say-we-are-going-to-take-your-ar-15s-who-is-we-exactly-826118

Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/column-2/when-they-say-we-are-going-to-take-your-ar-15swho-is-we-exactly/