O’Rourke Leans in on His Gun Confiscation Promise: ‘Beto Has a Ban for That’

2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate Beto O’Rourke leaned into his promise for a mandatory assault weapon buyback program, promising that he has a “ban” for them.

Thursday marked the third Democratic primary debate in Houston, Texas, where 10 of the 20 Democrats running for president shared the stage to debate their policy ideas on topics ranging from health care to gun control.

O’Rourke is a staunch gun control advocate and his plan for gun control is a mandatory buyback program for assault weapons, which has been widely criticized since its introduction.

Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker bluntly said that the plan “won’t happen” during a recent interview with “Fox News at Night,” as IJR previously reported.

At the debate, O’Rourke was asked if he was proposing “taking away” American’s firearms and how the plan would work.

The former Texas congressman confirmed that he was in support of the government taking people’s firearms away “if it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on a battlefield.”

O’Rourke continued on to talk about how he met with the mother of a girl killed during the Odessa, Texas shooting before proclaiming that his administration would “take” American’s firearms.

“Hell yes we’re going to take your AR-15s, your AK-47,” said the Texas Democrat to applause from the crowd.

Watch the video here:

During the debate, O’Rourke’s campaign posted a tweet doubling down on his promise for a mandatory buyback of all assault weapons.

“Beto has a ban for that,” read the graphic in the tweet, which linked out to a donation page on the former congressman’s website.

O’Rourke has backed other progressive policies during the presidential primary race, as well.

As IJR previously reported, O’Rourke said that he would change housing policy to provide for more lower-income people to live near their jobs, claiming that the ability to do so was “a right.”


  1. Newsflash Beta. Bans haven’t worked in Canada, Australia, England, or Mexico. NJ, CT, NY tried registration and got low, single-digit compliance.

    That leaves confiscation. How will you know who, what, where? It will only take a few “tragedies” or another Waco before people either outright rebel OR force you to abandon your efforts. Most people are squeamish about slaughters.

  2. Genital,

    No duh. Using guns would not allow for resale of parts. It would also be contrary to “women’s healthcare”. No mention of the babies.

    Hmm….using bullets might be more merciful and quicker than the current methods of butchery.

  3. “IF this Bozo is so interested in preventing more murders, maybe he should be attacking Planned Butcherhood” Confused James

    James is confused. PP doesn’t use guns during a legal medical procedure.

  4. Bozo has proven himself to be an absolute moron!! IF he thinks for one second law-abiding Americans are going to surrender their legally owned firearms just because HE says so, he’d better get prepared for a shooting Civil War. America still has and will continue to have the Second Amendment which gives ALL Americans the RIGHT to Keep (own) and Bear (carry) Arms. He’ll also run face to face with some heavily armed, anti-establishment militias throughout the US; PLUS the Muslims and their Hamas funded CAIR units in training and preparing for their jihad.

    IF this Bozo is so interested in preventing more murders, maybe he should be attacking Planned Butcherhood who is now the Nation’s leader in MURDER; not the so-called “assault weapons” he knows nothing about nor the reduction in gun related deaths since the 1990’s (per FBI statistics).

Comments are closed.