world

O'Rourke's 'hell yes' vow to take away rifles worries U.S. lawmakers pushing for gun limits

29 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

He just killed any prospect he has of becoming president. Time to exit the race instead of draining money and attention from viable candidates.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Good. Under the 2nd Amendment. Y'know, the part that says a WELL REGULATED militia.

Well regulated means just that: WELL REGULATED!

2 ( +6 / -4 )

He's crazy. Only a majority of Americans support that position and we often see guns like this in mass shootings.

I mean, what was he thinking?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

He never had a chance and it just goes too show how delusional these candidates are.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Well regulated means just that: WELL REGULATED!

Yes, and in order to have a “well regulated militia” the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, no guns in the hands of the citizens, no well regulated militia. The guns aren’t the thing that is being regulated- the militia is. That said, like all rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to individual ownership of a gun is not unlimited - just can’t be ‘infringed’. Might I suggest a Constitutional amendment in order to disarm all Americans.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

@CSHe just killed any prospect he has of becoming president. Time to exit the race instead of draining money and attention from viable candidates.

Exactly.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Another "Law abiding gun owner" who fantasizes about shooting people he doesn't like with his AR15.

Sound familiar?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

In other words, no guns in the hands of the citizens, no well regulated militia. The guns aren’t the thing that is being regulated- the militia is.

If guns are necessary for a militia to exist, regulations of guns is necessary to regulate the militia.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Leading candidates for the highest office in the land talking about taking firearms away from law-abiding citizens

Pence is dense. Prohibit them and their owners are no longer law abiding. After all, just as no law abiding citizen is permitted to possess pipe bombs, none should be permitted to possess an asault rifle.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Beto just auditioning for anti-Trump cable news network contributor for Trump’s 2nd term.

there will definitely be some openings as people start going to jail. (Hi McCabe and CNN)

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

The slow creep of authoritarianism continues in America. In fact, it already is authoritarian and is just getting worse. And those who cannot see it and who slept through history class will insist the U.S. government will never come for your freedom so the people don't need guns.

Does everyone even realize the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that police have no duty to protect you?

America needs gun control yes. But not done by the government directly and certainly not gun bans and confiscations.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

This was just yet another desperate attempt by Robert Francis O'Rourke to get any kind of attention for his failed campaign. The sad thing is that his ridiculous, profoundly unserious remarks will not only haunt the Democrat nominee in 2020, but will also make any real legislative process to improve gun laws less likely. This was a totally selfish move and O'Rourke deserves the scorn he will get from Democrats who are actually engaged in meaningful work to reduce gun violence.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

there will definitely be some openings as people start going to jail. (Hi McCabe and CNN)

Still holding out hope and spinning these conspiracy theories, I see.

You assured us Clinton was going to jail (you sure you don't mean prison? Know the difference?)

You assured us the Podestas were going to jail.

You assured us Comey was going to jail.

You assured us a lot of people that are still walking around free would be incarcerated, but none have.

Too funny.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This was just yet another desperate attempt by Robert Francis O'Rourke

Not his full name! That will cut him like nothing else. Lmao.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

He and the Democrats just got ?Trump elected again. Thank you, Beto!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

He and the Democrats just got ?Trump elected again. Thank you, Beto!

Making prediction again. Your track record is poor.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

O'Rourke is like the polar opposite of the rabid Republican's Tea Party.

On the other hand, it is rather hard to believe that there are so many Americans who would be so protective and more in favor with leaving AK-47s on the streets than those in favor of taking them off of the streets. It's certainly a crazy world!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Making prediction again. Your track record is poor.

No, it actually isn’t. Anyway, Beto has zero chances of becoming President, but he just woke up a hornets nest with that comment and that’s going to bite the Dems very hard, even Democrat voters in the Northeast That are gun owners and may not even like Trump.

Beto, my man....lol

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Will never happen, I dare, I double dog dare any Democrat to try and do that. I hope they try!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Yes, and in order to have a “well regulated militia” the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. In other words, no guns in the hands of the citizens, no well regulated militia. The guns aren’t the thing that is being regulated- the militia is. That said, like all rights in the Bill of Rights, the right to individual ownership of a gun is not unlimited - just can’t be ‘infringed’. Might I suggest a Constitutional amendment in order to disarm all Americans.

Democrats wouldn’t dream of doing that. It would be political suicide for them. But I get it, they’re playing to their base, can’t blame them.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Just how would the US Government go about banning and confiscating all AR and AK rifles? It's one thing to say you will, or even to go so far as to pass legislation. But how is that going to look in practice?

First thing is figuring out where all those affected firearms are and who has them. The Feds should be able to get the low down on a lot of them through their own records but there are a bunch more to be identified in the individual State's record systems. The Feds will need open and complete cooperation from all the states, if not voluntarily, then through judicial action. It might take some time and effort but in the end, it can be done.

So now what? Now that the Feds have the skinny on the contraband, how do they go about rounding it up? The best case scenario would be the Feds notifying the owners of their legally mandated obligation to comply and then facilitating the orderly surrender and subsequent confiscation of the banned firearms. Best case.

So that takes care of the legally purchased and/or registered illegal guns. But what about the ARs and AKs that are not registered, were not purchased legally and do not show up in any state or Federal databases unless related to crime statistics. How are they going to get them? They can only estimate how many there are or who has them. Maybe a nationwide multimedia campaign would help to influence some of these illegal gun owners to surrender their weapons and maybe encourage others to help identify uncooperative violators.

Something like this will only be doable if everybody involved gets on board. Anything less will invariably end badly. In order for a mandate to have power it needs to be enforced, noncompliance needs to be addressed in a manner that reflects the level of resistance. It might be necessary to suspend the 4th and 10 amendments along with the 2nd for a while to achieve the goal. Ultimately, the most stubborn criminals will need to be rooted out and eliminated. It might require some killing, but they would be bad people by then, so maybe it would be for the best.

I guess my biggest question is who is going to do it. Police? National Guard? Federal Agents? US Military? private contractors? Bottom line is, the best case scenario ain't going to happen. There will be pushback, there will be resistance. If it comes to kicking in doors, forced searches, mass arrests and even killing people for exercising and defending what they believe is their constitutionally guaranteed right, it might not be that easy to find willing accomplices from the local population. Probably private contractors and/or foreign mercenaries would be the most effective.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The anti-2nd Amendment echo chamber is working, as expected.

Most Americans aren't against firearms according to surveys. About 2/3rds either own or consider owning a firearm. They believe in reasonable restrictions, with everyone have a slightly different line of what "reasonable" means. Almost everyone wants background checks without any loopholes. The vast majority of gun sales go through background checks, so it won't make much difference, but the loopholes need to be closed. I'm surprised when people are against red flag laws, training and licenses being required for the most dangerous firearms. Seems like good sense. Mandatory trigger locks or a gun safe should also be required so no accidental discharges happen.

I'd like to see firearm lockers required for people who cannot prove they have a safe place for storage.

The SCOTUS has ruled on firearm restrictions and a few other related things people seem to have forgotten.

Some of the rulings have been for both pro-gun and anti-gun laws. Complete bans have been blocked. Some restrictions have been allowed. It is a mixed bag, plus each state has slightly different laws based on their local needs and local culture.

Cities definitely have different needs than rural places far away. That will be the place where Americans need to compromise the most.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Kuya 808 - Just how would the US Government go about banning and confiscating all AR and AK rifles? It's one thing to say you will, or even to go so far as to pass legislation. But how is that going to look in practice?

First thing is figuring out where all those affected firearms are and who has them. The Feds should be able to get the low down on a lot of them through their own records but there are a bunch more to be identified in the individual State's record systems. The Feds will need open and complete cooperation from all the states, if not voluntarily, then through judicial action. It might take some time and effort but in the end, it can be done.

The first thing you'll have to do is elect enough Democrats, in a sufficient number of state legislations, and in Congress, to alter the U.S. Constitution.

In order to accomplish your "figuring out where all those affected firearms are and who has them", You'll need to pass legislation to register all those firearms. As many people are aware, registration will lead to confiscation.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

O'Rourke is not gonna become president.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites