Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke says a mandatory government buyback program for AK-47 and AR-15 rifles is needed because other gun control measures don’t do enough to remove weapons already on the streets.
O’Rourke spoke Thursday at Tufts University in his first campaign stop in Massachusetts. He said that while universal background checks and red flag laws that allow guns to be removed from those deemed a danger to themselves or others will save lives, neither will address the millions of assault-style weapons already in private hands.
He said the country needs to buy back those weapons.
“There are more than 10 million AR-15 and AK-47s on the streets of our communities today and so we must take the necessary though politically difficult step of saying that we have to buy those AR-15 and AK-47s,” O’Rourke said. “This is a mandate that every single American who owns one of them will have to fulfill.”
Last month, a gunman killed nearly two dozen people in O’Rourke’s El Paso, Texas, hometown using an AK-style rifle.
Other Democratic candidates for the White House have also vowed to crack down on the weapons.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, former Maryland Rep. John Delaney, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and California Sen. Kamala Harris are among those who have said they support banning assault weapons.
O’Rourke touched on a number of other topics including climate change, cybersecurity, Russian interference in U.S. elections and immigration.
He also defended his decision not to back a “Medicaid for All” approach to health care — a position favored by some of the Democratic candidates, including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Warren.
O’Rourke said he wants to expand health care to cover all Americans but doesn’t want to ban private, employer-sponsored health plans — including those negotiated by unions.
He also said he would look at breaking up big tech firms if needed and would require that social media companies change their user agreements to help protect online privacy.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
Finally, there is someone who suggests the sane thing to do: to take over-dangerous weaponry out of criminals hands. There is no constructive action that can be done with these military-grade assault rifles other than to commit terrorist acts. Anyone who defends the use of these kinds of guns has either not thought of the consequences of his decision, or will not ban their use solely for the reasoning that one is unable to agree with the rationale of an opposing party. Now is the time to discard those kinds of faulty thought processes, and unite all political parties behind the push to ban assault rifles.
First Democrats came for our guns, i did not protest, Then they came for our plastic stows, i did not do anything. Then they came for my meat hamburgers, i did nothing. Then they came for my gas power car, i did do nothing. When they came for my kids to control world population growth there was nothing left to take away from me. Welcome to New Democrat World Order.
1. It is unlikely the criminals will comply.
2. Both weapons are obsolete as it is.
vulgar, foul-mouthed imbecilic latino wannabe.
festabachurmibangeladash, what coincidence, I just checked my Junk Email folder and found there official DNC talking points letter:
“Finally, there is someone who suggests the sane thing to do: to take over-dangerous weaponry out of criminals hands. There is no constructive action that can be done with these military-grade assault rifles other than to commit terrorist acts. Anyone who defends the use of these kinds of guns has either not thought of the consequences of his decision, or will not ban their use solely for the reasoning that one is unable to agree with the rationale of an opposing party. Now is the time to discard those kinds of faulty thought processes, and unite all political parties behind the push to ban assault rifles.”
A buyback? You mean that the weapons will be sold BACK to the manufacturers or dealers who sold them, at the price paid for them?
Or – it’s mandatory, and the government will set the price?
If the latter, that’s called CONFISCATION. Anyone who is in favor of that (and thinks that criminals will participate) is sorely in need of a history lesson of the 20th century. (Guns, Jews, Germany, etc.)
The 2nd amendment was created to protect the public from government tyranny. Agree with it or not, and that’s the practical use of these assault weapons….
Yeah right. Ignoring that fact that just as criminals don’t follow laws, they wouldn’t participate in a mandatory buyback either:
First of all, buybacks don’t work. Even in Australia, where people were overall on board with the buyback, only 1/3 of the guns were turned in.
Second of all, AR-15s are not any more dangerous than any other rifles, but ignorant people who have never even seen a gun and know nothing about the subject want to ban them because they look scary. They are commonly used to hunt pests, dangerous animals (think a pack of coyotes), and for sport shooting matches.
Third of all, people are not going to turn them in. They just won’t. Ask any gun owner, they’ll tell you. You can try sending cops door to door, but that is incredibly expensive and half the cops are gun owners anyway and they aren’t going to arrest their friends (plenty of cops have made social media posts and videos saying that too).
Fourth of all, these guns are expensive. They range from $500- $3,000+. How exactly do you plan on paying tens of millions of people thousands of dollars each for their guns? Or do you advocate for just taking people’s possessions because they scare you?
Rifles are used in under 1% of crimes involving guns every year (AR-15s are a percentage of that), and more people are killed every year with blunt objects. If it’s actually the AR-15s themselves that are the problem, and millions of people own them, wouldn’t it make sense that there would be many more deaths each year? Let’s stop trying to make laws based on ignorance and mass hysteria.
You can’t buy back something you never sold in the first place. This is not a “buy back”, it’s confiscation with some token compensation offered, and it’s not only unconstitutional but must be resisted, if necessary by force.
“Festabestapesta”, you either have no idea what you’re talking about or you are deliberately lying. Every word you wrote is a damned vicious lie. Describing the most popular rifle in the USA as “over-dangerous”, and claiming that it has no constructive uses, just makes a fool of yourself.
And no, akuperma, they are not at all obsolete. The AR-15 continues to be THE most useful rifle for most purposes. True, as it comes it’s underpowered for hunting deer, but an attachment can fix that. But it’s good for hunting smaller game, for target practice, for home defense, and the main thing is that the adjustable stock means it can be used by the whole family, and the small recoil means it can be used by women and children. That explains its popularity.
aduperma: “unlikely”?????? For sure!