THIS ARTICLE STOLEN FROM WELOVETRUMP.COM. Your IP address has been recorded and a DMCA claim has been filed based on your actions. You should immediately cease and desist copying articles from WeLoveTrump.com
Has Beto O’Rourke even read the Constitution?
We ask this because, apparently, according to Beto, his plan to take away AR-15s, AK-47s and other “weapons of war” is “constitutionally sound.”
This is where we need to bring up Columbia v. Heller – the Supreme court case that ruled only “dangerous” and “unusual weapons” could be taken away and exempt from the Second Amendment, but “common use” weapons could not.
Keep in mind that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. Definitely under that “common use” category.
So, banning AR-15s would go against this ruling, against the Second Amendment, and lead down a slippery slope towards “gun-free” (yeah, right) America, and we have plenty of examples of what “gun-free zones” really look like…
But, it’s not like Beto will get elected anyways; the Dems are practically handing 2020 to President Trump as it stands!
Anyways, here’s the clip of Beto O’Rourke declaring that his “mandatory gun buyback program” is constitutional:
Unfortunately for Beto, deplorables who actually own these guns that he is talking about taking away diligently disagree!
It doesn't take a genius to realize that the only people who would obey gun control laws are LAW-ABIDING citizens.
The only thing banning guns legally would do is keep guns in the hands of criminals and take them away from responsible gun owners.
Beto's checkered past certainly isn't doing him any favors as he calls to confiscate everyone's AR-15s!
The Washington Examiner has some more context into Beto's shaky claim that his proposed gun plan is constitutional:
Presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke defended his plan to confiscate AR-15s and AK-47s and said it would not run counter to the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
“This is something that we’re able to do through the Commerce Clause and this is something that is not prevented from — wouldn’t prevent the United States from doing by the Second Amendment. So this is constitutionally sound," O'Rourke told NBC's Meet the Press. "This is absolutely necessary if we care about the lives of our fellow Americans."
O'Rourke claimed he has had owners of AR-15s come up to him and say, "I own one of these guns, don’t need it to hunt, don’t need it for self-defense. This is the right thing to do, I would gladly give it up.'"
Townhall also gave some great insight into Beto's defense of his plan:
Beto needs a reality check. He doesn't seem to understand the difference between wanting something and actually having it. He can want a mandatory confiscation of AR-15s because "it's the right thing to do" but that doesn't mean that it's constitutionally sound. Just because he believes this policy proposal should become a reality doesn't mean what he's saying is legal.
He's naive if he thinks every single person is going to willingly turn in their guns. The Founding Fathers protected the right to keep and bear arms because they knew an armed society was a controlled society. They wanted to protect the people and keep the government from becoming tyrannical. Beto's plan is a step in the direction we were warned about.