Former US Representative and current presidential candidate Robert “Beto” O’Rourke has built his entire campaign on the idea of confiscating or buying back American guns. For months he has gone on and on about just how his buyback policy would work, who it would affect, and what firearms would be affected.
And America has been furious about the whole idea. Thousands of Americans have even gone on a firearm buying spree, making sure they have something for Beto to try and take. Not that he will become president anyway.
But now he says he isn’t going to take them.
Which is it? Either he is, or he isn’t. It can’t be both. Therefore, he must be lying. And even the left-sided media is seeing the absurdity and calling him out on it.
Earlier this month, he apparently told a falsehood so bold that it was hard for even for PolitiFact to miss.
They reported on October 21, “Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke is not talking about confiscating Americans’ guns – except when he is talking about it.”
They then went on to describe a recent conversation the Texas lawman had with “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough.
Joe said, “Tell us about your plan on the confiscation of guns, which, obviously, many believe is unconstitutional, also very concerned that it plays right into the hands of Republican candidates.”
Beto then lied, tried to downplay the results of his policy. He said, “To be clear, I’m not talking about confiscating anybody’s guns.”
But he went right on to say that “(AR-15s and AK-47s) must be bought back or else each of them are an instrument potentially of terror in this country.”
Funny, these statements seem to be in direct opposition to each other.
And a few of his earlier statements on the issue confirm this.
Take his appearance on “Cuomo Prime Time” on CNN last month. Chris Cuomo asked him directly, “Are you, in fact, in favor of gun confiscation?” on September 18.
O’Rourke didn’t hesitate to answer, “Yes, when it comes to AR-15s and AK-47s.” And he reiterated, “So when it comes to those weapons, Chris, the answer is yes.”
Another example of this admission can be found just a few days earlier during the September 12 Democratic debate. The moderator David Muir asked him, “Are you proposing taking away their guns?”
And the former congressman replied, “I am, if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on the battlefield.” And he added in an all too rehearsed fashion, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take you’re AR-15.”
What we have come to understand is that he is trying to say that it is not about confiscation and instead all about his “buyback” proposal. However, when he states that this buyback would be mandatory and may require “a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm,” the word confiscation definitely comes to mind.
And the University of Wyoming law professor George Mocsary agrees. He told PolitiFact, “It is unreasonable to call what Mr. O’Rourke is proposing anything other than confiscation.” He went on to explain, “Imagine the situation when an owner of one of the weapons refuses to sell. He or she is issued a fine. The owner still has the weapon, however.”
“Does paying the fine mean that he or she can now keep the weapon, and it is perfectly legal? Certainly not,” Mocsary said.
No matter how he says it, what he is proposing is confiscation plain and simple. He and other liberal democrats can pour as much sugar on it as they want, but at the end of the day, Beto is still going to take your guns. No matter how you look at it, American citizens are going to lose their weapons to a government hell-bent on controlling them.
Thank God, even some progressives can see through his lies and understand what he really means.
But like we said before, it’s highly unlikely to matter in the least bit. O’Rourke is polling so dismally low that it would literally take a miracle to get him to the White House.