Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Beano O'Rourke: Police Wouldn't Go Door To Door To Confiscate Guns Under My Plan
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Bradley K. Shurman
Sep 16, 2019, 6:15:03 AM9/16/19
to
The money quote: “Much like we don’t go door-to-door to enforce
almost any law in the United States, in fact I don’t think we do
that for any law in the United States, this would not be
something that we would do.” Presumably he’d treat an assault
rifle like any other form of contraband. No one will come
looking for it, but if you’re caught with it in your possession,
you’re cooked.
But I don’t know that he’s thought that far on the subject. He
keeps coming back to the point that he has faith that Americans
will comply with the law after it’s passed and surrender their
AR-15s without a fuss, which is sweet and all but unrealistic.
Some will comply. Most, perhaps. Not all. What happens one day
when a cop pulls some guy over for speeding, sees that he has an
AR-15 in the backseat, demands it, and the guy says no? If a
shootout follows, how many cops nationwide will want to risk
confronting people about their guns after that? Conversely, how
many gun-control fans will begin demanding a more aggressive
effort to seize contraband AR-15s than just waiting around and
hoping owners hand them over?
Another hypothetical: There are so many assault rifles in
circulation that it’s a fait accompli some will be used to carry
out new mass shootings even after a buyback plan takes effect.
What’s the political fallout from that when it happens? Gun-
rights advocates will say, “See? We told you the buyback
wouldn’t end mass murder.” Gun-grabbers will say, “See? We told
you the policy of asking people nicely to give up their guns
wouldn’t work.” What then?
To make the hypothetical extra zesty, imagine that a mass
shooter turns out to hail from a rural area in a red state where
local cops have effectively decided that they won’t enforce the
buyback. Reporters sniff around and find out that no one caught
with an AR-15 is being arrested by the sheriff’s office as a
matter of policy. What’s the White House’s reaction to that?
Does President Beto call for quadrupling the size of the ATF and
sending agents out into those rural areas to compel compliance?
I think it’d end up like Prohibition, which is … not known as
one of America’s shining policy successes.
Watch to the end of the clip below and you’ll see that he’s
asked about Chris Coons’s criticism that Beto has set back the
gun-control movement by pushing such a radical idea. I’m not a
radical, O’Rourke insists, I’m where most Democrats are on this
issue and it’s time our leaders in Congress caught up. Is he
right? Some Dems agree with Coons that mainstreaming the idea of
a buyback does the party more harm than good…
By all accounts, Trump needs to run up the score in rural areas
to win reelection next year. The 2020 outcome is expected to
depend heavily on a trio of Rust Belt states — Michigan,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that have large numbers of rural
voters, many of whom are gun-owners or sympathetic to owners on
this issue. And Democrats’ hope of winning control of the Senate
rests on states with high rates of gun ownership, like Arizona
and Texas…
“The lines like, ‘We’re gonna come and take your AR-15,’ just
play into the fears that the NRA has been stoking, and a
proposal like that is just going to make rural Iowa and I think
probably rural areas elsewhere more red,” [Democrat Warren]
Varley said. “I think that’s just a bridge too far for most
rural folks, and it conjures up images of the government coming
in and invading your home and images of big government trampling
over the rights of individuals.”
…but then again, polls like this keep trickling out:
https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/y.jpg
Sixty-three percent of Democrats claim that it’s “mostly
accurate” to describe the NRA as a domestic terrorist
organization. Yesterday I flagged a WaPo poll from earlier this
week that showed 74 percent of Democrats(!) favor a mandatory
buyback. Last year after the Parkland massacre, one poll found
74 percent of Dems in favor of banning all semiautomatic rifles
(not just “assault rifles”) while another found 82 percent
support for banning all semiautomatics. Not just rifles — all
semiautomatics.
They’re pretty farking radical. Which is not to say that Coons
et al. are wrong: Getting crazy with the gun-control cheez whiz
may play spectacularly well in California, say, while killing
Democrats in Michigan. Guess which state is more important next
fall.
Exit question via Drew McCoy: Isn’t Beto giving away the game
here by stressing his belief that Americans will comply
voluntarily with the law? People willing to surrender their
weapons upon a lawful demand by the feds are by definition “law-
abiding.” If you’re worried about mass shootings but unwilling
to go door to door to look for assault rifles, it’s inevitable
that virtually all of the people whom you end up disarming are
people whom you didn’t need to worry about in the first place.
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/09/14/beto-orourke-
police-wouldnt-go-door-door-confiscate-guns-plan/
almost any law in the United States, in fact I don’t think we do
that for any law in the United States, this would not be
something that we would do.” Presumably he’d treat an assault
rifle like any other form of contraband. No one will come
looking for it, but if you’re caught with it in your possession,
you’re cooked.
But I don’t know that he’s thought that far on the subject. He
keeps coming back to the point that he has faith that Americans
will comply with the law after it’s passed and surrender their
AR-15s without a fuss, which is sweet and all but unrealistic.
Some will comply. Most, perhaps. Not all. What happens one day
when a cop pulls some guy over for speeding, sees that he has an
AR-15 in the backseat, demands it, and the guy says no? If a
shootout follows, how many cops nationwide will want to risk
confronting people about their guns after that? Conversely, how
many gun-control fans will begin demanding a more aggressive
effort to seize contraband AR-15s than just waiting around and
hoping owners hand them over?
Another hypothetical: There are so many assault rifles in
circulation that it’s a fait accompli some will be used to carry
out new mass shootings even after a buyback plan takes effect.
What’s the political fallout from that when it happens? Gun-
rights advocates will say, “See? We told you the buyback
wouldn’t end mass murder.” Gun-grabbers will say, “See? We told
you the policy of asking people nicely to give up their guns
wouldn’t work.” What then?
To make the hypothetical extra zesty, imagine that a mass
shooter turns out to hail from a rural area in a red state where
local cops have effectively decided that they won’t enforce the
buyback. Reporters sniff around and find out that no one caught
with an AR-15 is being arrested by the sheriff’s office as a
matter of policy. What’s the White House’s reaction to that?
Does President Beto call for quadrupling the size of the ATF and
sending agents out into those rural areas to compel compliance?
I think it’d end up like Prohibition, which is … not known as
one of America’s shining policy successes.
Watch to the end of the clip below and you’ll see that he’s
asked about Chris Coons’s criticism that Beto has set back the
gun-control movement by pushing such a radical idea. I’m not a
radical, O’Rourke insists, I’m where most Democrats are on this
issue and it’s time our leaders in Congress caught up. Is he
right? Some Dems agree with Coons that mainstreaming the idea of
a buyback does the party more harm than good…
By all accounts, Trump needs to run up the score in rural areas
to win reelection next year. The 2020 outcome is expected to
depend heavily on a trio of Rust Belt states — Michigan,
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — that have large numbers of rural
voters, many of whom are gun-owners or sympathetic to owners on
this issue. And Democrats’ hope of winning control of the Senate
rests on states with high rates of gun ownership, like Arizona
and Texas…
“The lines like, ‘We’re gonna come and take your AR-15,’ just
play into the fears that the NRA has been stoking, and a
proposal like that is just going to make rural Iowa and I think
probably rural areas elsewhere more red,” [Democrat Warren]
Varley said. “I think that’s just a bridge too far for most
rural folks, and it conjures up images of the government coming
in and invading your home and images of big government trampling
over the rights of individuals.”
…but then again, polls like this keep trickling out:
https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/y.jpg
Sixty-three percent of Democrats claim that it’s “mostly
accurate” to describe the NRA as a domestic terrorist
organization. Yesterday I flagged a WaPo poll from earlier this
week that showed 74 percent of Democrats(!) favor a mandatory
buyback. Last year after the Parkland massacre, one poll found
74 percent of Dems in favor of banning all semiautomatic rifles
(not just “assault rifles”) while another found 82 percent
support for banning all semiautomatics. Not just rifles — all
semiautomatics.
They’re pretty farking radical. Which is not to say that Coons
et al. are wrong: Getting crazy with the gun-control cheez whiz
may play spectacularly well in California, say, while killing
Democrats in Michigan. Guess which state is more important next
fall.
Exit question via Drew McCoy: Isn’t Beto giving away the game
here by stressing his belief that Americans will comply
voluntarily with the law? People willing to surrender their
weapons upon a lawful demand by the feds are by definition “law-
abiding.” If you’re worried about mass shootings but unwilling
to go door to door to look for assault rifles, it’s inevitable
that virtually all of the people whom you end up disarming are
people whom you didn’t need to worry about in the first place.
https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/09/14/beto-orourke-
police-wouldnt-go-door-door-confiscate-guns-plan/
Klaus Schadenfreude
Sep 16, 2019, 8:49:13 AM9/16/19
to
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 12:08:55 +0200 (CEST), "Bradley K. Shurman"
<bksh...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/09/14/beto-orourke-
>police-wouldnt-go-door-door-confiscate-guns-plan/
There is no "plan." This is just O'Rourke's mental masturbation. There
will be no AR confiscation, no AR "buyback," no AR ban.
<bksh...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/09/14/beto-orourke-
>police-wouldnt-go-door-door-confiscate-guns-plan/
There is no "plan." This is just O'Rourke's mental masturbation. There
will be no AR confiscation, no AR "buyback," no AR ban.
BTR1701
Sep 16, 2019, 12:18:08 PM9/16/19
to
In article <884fcc5959f5c7bd...@dizum.com>,
possess overnight, either.
> But I don't know that he's thought that far on the subject.
There's a surprise.
> keeps coming back to the point that he has faith that Americans
> will comply with the law after it’s passed and surrender their
> AR-15s without a fuss, which is sweet and all but unrealistic.
> Some will comply. Most, perhaps.
Perhaps not. Even the much-vaunted Australian confiscation only got
about a third of the guns. And that's a country that didn't have a 2nd
Amendment or the passion that comes from defending the Bill of Rights
from government encroachment.
> Another hypothetical: There are so many assault rifles in
> circulation that it's a fait accompli some will be used to carry
> out new mass shootings even after a buyback plan takes effect.
Speaking of, what are the details of Beano's buyback? He never seems to
provide them.
Every buyback I've ever seen doesn't compensate for the actual cost of
the firearm. They just hand out $100 Walmart gift cards in exchange for
the gun or something.
That's fine when the buyback program is voluntary. But a mandatory
program falls under the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause and has to
compensate for the actual value of the property taken by the government.
Most firearms are between $800-$1000 dollars. That means a $240-300
billion price tag to buyback all the guns.
Somehow I don't think Beano O'Rourke plans on coughing up that kinda
dough, but if he doesn't, his confiscation program will be
unconstitutional.
The irony is, even if O'Rourke got elected and passed his confiscation
law, he couldn't even take possession of the guns he confiscated. He
couldn't pass the background check to possess a firearm with his DUI and
burglary record.
> To make the hypothetical extra zesty, imagine that a mass
> shooter turns out to hail from a rural area in a red state where
> local cops have effectively decided that they won't enforce the
> buyback. Reporters sniff around and find out that no one caught
> with an AR-15 is being arrested by the sheriff's office as a
> matter of policy.
You mean the same way we routinely find out illegal alien murderers and
rapists and DUI killers are from cities where no illegal caught by the
local cops is being detained for ICE as a matter of policy?
If sanctuary cities for illegals are okay-- as the 'progressives' tell
us they are-- then sanctuary cities for gun owners are also okay.
> Exit question via Drew McCoy: Isn't Beto giving away the game
> here by stressing his belief that Americans will comply
> voluntarily with the law? People willing to surrender their
> weapons upon a lawful demand by the feds are by definition "law-
> abiding".
Not if those government demands are illegal. Then they're just being
cowed sheep.
If the government decided that since most mass killers use social media,
that from now on social media will be censored by the FCC, would
complying with such a blatantly unconstitutional order make one
law-abiding or a just a coward?
> The money quote: "Much like we don't go door-to-door to enforce
> almost any law in the United States, in fact I don't think we do
> that for any law in the United States, this would not be
> something that we would do."
We've never made a commonly-owned piece of private property a felony to
> almost any law in the United States, in fact I don't think we do
> that for any law in the United States, this would not be
> something that we would do."
possess overnight, either.
> But I don't know that he's thought that far on the subject.
> keeps coming back to the point that he has faith that Americans
> will comply with the law after it’s passed and surrender their
> AR-15s without a fuss, which is sweet and all but unrealistic.
> Some will comply. Most, perhaps.
about a third of the guns. And that's a country that didn't have a 2nd
Amendment or the passion that comes from defending the Bill of Rights
from government encroachment.
> Another hypothetical: There are so many assault rifles in
> circulation that it's a fait accompli some will be used to carry
> out new mass shootings even after a buyback plan takes effect.
provide them.
Every buyback I've ever seen doesn't compensate for the actual cost of
the firearm. They just hand out $100 Walmart gift cards in exchange for
the gun or something.
That's fine when the buyback program is voluntary. But a mandatory
program falls under the 5th Amendment's Takings Clause and has to
compensate for the actual value of the property taken by the government.
Most firearms are between $800-$1000 dollars. That means a $240-300
billion price tag to buyback all the guns.
Somehow I don't think Beano O'Rourke plans on coughing up that kinda
dough, but if he doesn't, his confiscation program will be
unconstitutional.
The irony is, even if O'Rourke got elected and passed his confiscation
law, he couldn't even take possession of the guns he confiscated. He
couldn't pass the background check to possess a firearm with his DUI and
burglary record.
> To make the hypothetical extra zesty, imagine that a mass
> shooter turns out to hail from a rural area in a red state where
> local cops have effectively decided that they won't enforce the
> buyback. Reporters sniff around and find out that no one caught
> with an AR-15 is being arrested by the sheriff's office as a
> matter of policy.
rapists and DUI killers are from cities where no illegal caught by the
local cops is being detained for ICE as a matter of policy?
If sanctuary cities for illegals are okay-- as the 'progressives' tell
us they are-- then sanctuary cities for gun owners are also okay.
> Exit question via Drew McCoy: Isn't Beto giving away the game
> here by stressing his belief that Americans will comply
> voluntarily with the law? People willing to surrender their
> weapons upon a lawful demand by the feds are by definition "law-
> abiding".
cowed sheep.
If the government decided that since most mass killers use social media,
that from now on social media will be censored by the FCC, would
complying with such a blatantly unconstitutional order make one
law-abiding or a just a coward?
FPP
Sep 16, 2019, 6:38:03 PM9/16/19
to
On 9/16/19 12:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> If the government decided that since most mass killers use social media,
> that from now on social media will be censored by the FCC, would
> complying with such a blatantly unconstitutional order make one
> law-abiding or a just a coward?
How was social media used to kill someone again?
> If the government decided that since most mass killers use social media,
> that from now on social media will be censored by the FCC, would
> complying with such a blatantly unconstitutional order make one
> law-abiding or a just a coward?
--
There are three inescapable facts from the Mueller report that Mitch
McConnell can't hide:
1. A foreign government attacked our elections in order to help Donald
Trump.
2. Trump welcomed that help.
3. Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into his actions.
-Elizabeth Warren
RichA
Sep 16, 2019, 7:54:16 PM9/16/19
to
All the Repubs have to do is pin-down the top Dems on gun control, get them to admit what their plans are. Which we know is the eventual confiscation of all guns.
trotsky
Sep 16, 2019, 9:41:19 PM9/16/19
to
On 9/16/2019 11:19 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <884fcc5959f5c7bd...@dizum.com>,
> "Bradley K. Shurman" <bksh...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> The money quote: "Much like we don't go door-to-door to enforce
>> almost any law in the United States, in fact I don't think we do
>> that for any law in the United States, this would not be
>> something that we would do."
>
> We've never made a commonly-owned piece of private property a felony to
> possess overnight, either.
>
>> But I don't know that he's thought that far on the subject.
>
> There's a surprise.
>
>> keeps coming back to the point that he has faith that Americans
>> will comply with the law after it’s passed and surrender their
>> AR-15s without a fuss, which is sweet and all but unrealistic.
>> Some will comply. Most, perhaps.
>
> Perhaps not. Even the much-vaunted Australian confiscation only got
> about a third of the guns. And that's a country that didn't have a 2nd
> Amendment or the passion that comes from defending the Bill of Rights
> from government encroachment.
Holy balls, are you telling me in that pile of pig shit you call a mind
> In article <884fcc5959f5c7bd...@dizum.com>,
> "Bradley K. Shurman" <bksh...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> The money quote: "Much like we don't go door-to-door to enforce
>> almost any law in the United States, in fact I don't think we do
>> that for any law in the United States, this would not be
>> something that we would do."
>
> We've never made a commonly-owned piece of private property a felony to
> possess overnight, either.
>
>> But I don't know that he's thought that far on the subject.
>
> There's a surprise.
>
>> keeps coming back to the point that he has faith that Americans
>> will comply with the law after it’s passed and surrender their
>> AR-15s without a fuss, which is sweet and all but unrealistic.
>> Some will comply. Most, perhaps.
>
> Perhaps not. Even the much-vaunted Australian confiscation only got
> about a third of the guns. And that's a country that didn't have a 2nd
> Amendment or the passion that comes from defending the Bill of Rights
> from government encroachment.
you think people need to carry weapons to "defend the Bill of Rights
from govt. encroachment"? So you really are a card carrying neo Nazi
white supremacist asshole after all? I fucking knew it!
I got jock itch once, and felt the govt. was encroaching on my balls.
Is this possible?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
trotsky
Sep 16, 2019, 9:43:46 PM9/16/19
to
On 9/16/2019 5:38 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 9/16/19 12:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> If the government decided that since most mass killers use social media,
>> that from now on social media will be censored by the FCC, would
>> complying with such a blatantly unconstitutional order make one
>> law-abiding or a just a coward?
>
> How was social media used to kill someone again?
If words could kill I would've turned Thanny into a pile of hamberder a
> On 9/16/19 12:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> If the government decided that since most mass killers use social media,
>> that from now on social media will be censored by the FCC, would
>> complying with such a blatantly unconstitutional order make one
>> law-abiding or a just a coward?
>
> How was social media used to kill someone again?
thousand times over.
trotsky
Sep 16, 2019, 10:05:05 PM9/16/19
to
On 9/16/2019 6:54 PM, RichA wrote:
> All the Repubs have to do is pin-down the top Dems on gun control,
Is this before of after they get Mexico to pay for the wall?
> All the Repubs have to do is pin-down the top Dems on gun control,
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0 new messages