Beto O’Rourke has gone so far left on gun control that he’s now blaming Democrats for mass shootings.
O’Rourke’s bold threat to confiscate AR-15s and AK-47s has been met with nervous apprehension by many Democrats, who think that the former Texas congressman is giving their game away. Now Beto is saying that Democrats who reject his sweeping disarmament plan are just as “complicit” in shootings as Republicans and the NRA.
“Listen, if they had made some progress already, I might buy that argument, but many of those Democrats are complicit in what we see right now,” he told CNN.
O’Rourke punches left on guns
O’Rourke sparked an uproar when he boasted during the third Democratic debate, “hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15.” While it certainly drew attention to Beto and his flagging campaign, the soundbyte became instantly problematic for his party. For years, Democrats have sought strict gun control while reassuring voters, however unconvincingly, that they are not trying to confiscate guns. Here, instead, was a presidential candidate saying the opposite.
Many Democrats have since come out against O’Rourke, saying that his mandatory “buybacks” (confiscation) will undermine their efforts to pass even modest gun control measures. Asked by CNN’s Chris Cuomo if he was hurting his party, O’Rourke ducked and punched left, placing Democrats on the same footing as the National Rifle Association.
“I mean, the Republicans are the most obstinate and the most obstructionist and the most in the pockets of the NRA, but it’s been a bipartisan problem that the Centers for Disease Control couldn’t even study gun violence, that here we are in 2019 and we still don’t have universal background checks or ‘red flag’ laws or we allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, even though it did so much good and saved so many lives,” O’Rourke said.
O’Rourke really ratcheted the fear knobs up to 11, saying that he could not allow “instruments of terror” to remain in the hands of millions of Americans — despite the fact that the vast majority of people who own AR-15s are innocent, law-abiding Americans. Beto, who has notably dismissed public opinion on gun control, mysteriously claimed that there is a public sense of urgency behind his plan that “needs to be reflected in their leadership in Congress. It will be reflected when I’m in the White House.”
“I can no longer escape the conclusion that if this gun is not right to sell, it’s also not right to own. And having 15 million of them out there, those are each and every one of then, a potential instrument of terror,” he said.
Dems shun confiscation pledge
O’Rourke has said that he plans to fine AR-15 owners in order to force compliance. While Democrats may not disagree with O’Rourke in principle, most of them are aware of the bad optics of his threat. Even O’Rourke has had to clarify that he does not envision federal agents going door to door to confiscate guns — but is that the conversation Democrats really want to be having?
Now, many Democrats are distancing themselves from the confiscation pledge. O’Rourke’s rival Pete Buttigieg suggested that the former congressman had played directly into Republicans’ hands, echoing Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), who said that O’Rourke’s plan would be “played for years at Second Amendment rallies with organizations that try to scare people by saying that Democrats are coming for your guns.”
For his part, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that he doesn’t know “any” Democrats who actually support O’Rourke’s extreme policy. Any? Even when “assault weapons bans” are one of the party’s most frequently-uttered talking points?
The “divide” between O’Rourke and his fellow Democrats is largely a strategic and optical one, not a substantive one. O’Rourke wanted to get attention by seizing on fear of mass shootings and articulating what the rest of his party is too afraid to say. But now Beto is learning a harsh lesson: after rejecting what the electorate has to say about gun control, his dismal poll numbers have hardly budged after his gun grabbing threat. Perhaps a more astute politician would have realized that running a campaign at odds with public opinion is rarely a good idea.
No comments: