Miguel covered Beto’s admission that he will send police to take your guns away if you refuse to sell them back.

There has been a lot of flack directed at him for this, so his rapid response director had to jump in and earn her salary.

Here is that whole threat, unrolled:

If someone is publicly, flagrantly stating that they refuse to comply with the law, as in Joe’s scenario, of course there will be legal consequences. This is how it works with any law. Republicans are usually pretty in favor of that concept.

Beto couldn’t have been more clear last night, but for my Republican friends, this is how a buyback works: After the law is passed, people would be expected to turn in their assault weapons in exchange for payment…

Here is the logic that Beto and his team are pushing:

  1. You are a law-abiding gun owner with a legally purchased AR-15.
  2. The law is changed so that your AR-15 is no longer legal.
  3. You will surrender your AR-15 to remain law-abiding.
  4. Anybody who refuses to surrender their AR-15 didn’t intend to be law-abiding in the first place.

The gap in this progression is clearly between steps two and three.  Americans bought their guns legally, in good faith.  To ban then and not grandfather currently owned ones is the government operating in bad faith, and American’s don’t generally accept that.

An equivalent comparison to the IRS would be, people paying their taxes at the current nominal rate all year, then on December 30th, the IRS increasing the tax rate to 90% retroactively and demanding Americans pay their back taxes.  Americans just won’t do it.

Moreover the idea of “if you a really a law-abiding person, you will acquiesce to all of our laws, no matter what” is un-American.

This is the heavy-handed version of “if you have nothing to hide, you will consent to our warrantless search.”

If they did not, and they bring those weapons into public space or if a police officer discovers them in the course of their regular duties, the officer would take that assault weapon into custody….

So what happens when nobody turns them in, does the Fed-dot-gov stand around with their dicks in their hands saying “oh well…”

Beto would not send officers door to door to collect weapons – just as we do not send the IRS door to door to collect taxes.

I guess she is unaware that the IRS has a SWAT team, 4,500 guns and 5 million rounds of ammo on hand?  Maybe she should go watch the movie The Untouchables where Eliot Ness and his crew go around shooting Al Capone’s people in Chicago because when the execute a raid Eliot Ness announced that he’s a treasury agent from the Treasury Department.

With any law in this country, there are a few people who may not comply, but the overwhelming majority of Americans do voluntarily comply with our laws, even when they don’t like them, and we have every reason to expect that Americans would do the same with a buyback program.

Americans do voluntarily comply with our laws, even when they don’t like them” only goes so far.  I will pay my taxes.  I will not submit to the Gulags because some college socialist says I make too much money or submit to castration because some radical feminist is angry about the #MeToo movement.

Our Founding Fathers enshrined the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights as the last check and balance against tyranny.

This is one of those lines in the sand that Americans will not cross.

This is not a new idea. This buyback program was tried with great success in Australia – effectively ending mass shootings in the country.

Australia had neither our Bill of Rights or our culture.

Americans, by and large, comply with laws that they disagree with because that is the norm in civil society.  That only goes so far as the laws are relatively just and reasonable.

When those laws become grossly tyrannical or unjust, Americans don’t comply.  The compliance with the NYSAFE act, New Jersey magazine bans, and Florida bump stock bans show that.

The states of California and Colorado effectively told the Federal government to go fuck themselves and legalized Marijuana because they thought that was unfair.

We know that taking our guns is only the start of something much, much worse because the radical left has aired their hatred of Middle America and their fantasies of what they want to do to us a little too much.


Spread the love

By J. Kb

17 thoughts on “Team Beto doubles down on prove they understand nothing about gun owners”
  1. Yeah, Ms Hurt, tell me how Beto follows his own prescription regarding other laws, like, say, our immigrations law? Is your candidate fully supporting those right now as we speak?

  2. In Australia, criminals didn’t comply with the gun confiscation. And as a result of the victim disarmament, crime rates went up. Enough so that the government stopped publishing the statistics (at least for a while).
    Meanwhile, in that same period in the USA, crime rates went down as gun ownership among honest Americans kept climbing.
    I wonder if Robert Francis realizes it’s hard to send SWAT teams to gun owners when you don’t know who is a gun owner. Oh yes, that must be why they are trying so hard to push “universal background check”, not to mention a new insanely intrusive federal gun license scheme (S.2449 by Booker & Blumenthal).

  3. Now THAT is an interesting statement- Colorado and Califruitsnuts make dope legal because federal law is “unfair”. But taking millions of guns from those who broke no laws IS???

  4. So, let’s look at the facts concerning mass shootings in Australia since the 1997 gun ban:

    8 October, 1999 – Wright St Bikie murders – Hell’s Angels feud (mass shooting). 3 dead, 2 wounded.

    13 March 2000 – Millewa State Forest Murders – Barbara and Stephen Brooks and Stacie Willoughby were found dead, all three having been shot execution style and left in the forest.

    21 October 2002 – Two people shot dead and five injured in shooting during a tutorial at the Clayton campus of Melbourne’s Monash University. Man arrested.

    20 March 2005 – Oakhampton Heights Shooting – Mass shooting attack and familicide . Sally Winter uses a firearm to kill her husband, two children, and herself.

    18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.

    29 April 2011 – Hectorville siege – Mass shooting, siege and spree killing that took place on 29 April 2011, in Hectorville, South Australia. 3 dead, 3 wounded.

    28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.

    9 September 2014 – Hunt family murders – Mass shooting, 5 dead.

    23 October 2014 – Wedderburn shooting – A mass shooting and siege by Ian Francis Jamieson who shot a husband and wife, after stabbing their son to death.

    15 – 16 December 2014 – Sydney siege – A lone gunman, Man Haron Monis, held hostage ten customers and eight employees of a Lindt chocolate caf‚ located at Martin Place in Sydney, Australia. 3 dead, 4 wounded.

    4 January 2016 – Port Lincoln Wharf murder-suicide – Shooting drowning murder-suicide. 3 dead.

    11 May 2018 Osmington shooting 7 dead

    4 June 2019 Darwin Shooting 4 dead

    Waltzin Matilda

  5. Americans obey laws even when they disagree with them?

    The Underground Railroad?
    Immigration laws?
    Legalizing Marijuana in violation of Federal Law?
    Alcohol Prohibition?
    Or even the most widely violated law in the nation: Speed limits.

  6. “If someone is publicly, flagrantly stating that they refuse to comply with the law… ”

    I’m so old I remember when the left was in favor of civil disobedience when your rights were being violated.

  7. “Even CNN is humiliating Beto over his insane gun confiscation plan.”

    How about ”You’re such a commie leftard that you even lost the Clinton News Network” for 800, Alex?

    It only took CNN 18 months to admit that gun laws don’t work, and Dana Loesch is still waiting for them to apologize for that malicious farce of a *town-hall.*


  8. “If someone is publicly, flagrantly stating that they refuse to comply with the law, as in Joe’s scenario, of course there will be legal consequences. This is how it works with any law.”

    Noted above, but deserves repeating.

    When Beto and his ilk want to apply the same standard to every mayor of a sanctuary city, and governor of a sanctuary state, I will actually consider him something more than the clown he is.

  9. Robert’s current job is to be the Token Kook, someone for the other Dems to be able to throw zingers at and look more sane & rational.

    Think Washing Generals.

  10. Frame it in a way that progressives will reflexively agree with the victims, maybe they’ll have a lightbulb moment:

    My husband and I have a same-sex marriage. Thanks to the Oberfell decision, it’s recognized in all fifty states… What happens if President Pence packs the Supreme Court with fascist reactionaries and that decision is overturned?

    Under Team Beto’s logic, we’d rush out and get a divorce!?

  11. The whole legal argument breaks down at Step 2 where any firearm is declared illegal. This little thing called the Constitution does not give the government the authority to do that misdeed.

    As a citizen, I have the duty to reject unjust and unconstitutional laws and if the government tries to enforce them, they become the enemy of my freedoms.

    Recall that the government’s sole purpose is to protect my rights. Well, that act destroys any validity or authority of the government. Expect the full spectrum of RESISTANCE (not like soy boy Leftists with a bumper sticker on their Prius).

    1. That’s a great point.
      “…a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law…” — Marbury v. Madison.

  12. Beto assumes that most AR and AK owners will comply, because they will abide by laws they don’t agree with. If he believes that AR and AK owners are law-abiding, why does he want to take their ARs and AKs away from them? A tool owned by a law-abiding person won’t be used to break the laws against violent crime (which most people agree with), and can’t break the law on its own. So his whole argument is self-contradictory.

    1. Old 1811: Your comment sounds like one I made several years back on Linoge’s former Walls of the City blog (which I dearly miss).

      Here it is again, updated slightly:
      The philosophy of “gun control” revolves around two primary assumptions:
      a) That good, law-abiding people cannot be trusted to obey laws, and therefore must be disarmed for their own safety; and
      b) That criminals and the mentally-ill can be so trusted, and “Just One More Law” will fix everything.
      “Gun control” fails in practice because its primary assumptions are completely and utterly ridiculous.

      I’d add, not just ridiculous, but devoid of and debunked by reality at every turn.

      Feel free to share and re-use this. 🙂

  13. Lexington and Concorde – when Americans broke the law and killed government officials sent to enforce it.

Login or register to comment.