In case there was any doubt about the “consequences” for noncompliance that he had in mind last night at the debate, this clip should resolve them.

Gotta give the guy credit: Somehow he found a gun-control position so radical that other Democrats were forced to tell him “dude, no” on national television.

Did he really not foresee when he endorsed a mandatory gun buyback that he would be asked endlessly about implementation? He looks constipated here admitting that, yes, of course police intervention might be required in some cases. It’s called a “mandatory” buyback for a reason. What’s the alternative, “Turn in your guns if you feel like it?” A law is only as good as its enforcement.

.@BetoORourke on his gun confiscation plan: “Has to be consequences” for noncompliance; "in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm" pic.twitter.com/U5PywOgw9D — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 16, 2019

I can’t tell if this is the same position he held last month or a new one. In September, when he first went all-in on gun confiscation, he assured skeptics that police wouldn’t go door to door confiscating guns. Instead, it seemed, assault weapons would be treated like other forms of contraband, e.g., drugs. The cops won’t randomly show up to your door asking about it, but if they happen to find contraband in your possession while they’re there on other business, you’re in trouble. Listening to O’Rourke now, it sounds like he does imagine the police being sent out in some cases, at least, for the express purpose of confiscating weapons.

Which isn’t really a surprise. Beto’s views on gun rights have been evolving at light speed since he was a Senate candidate in Texas.

It’s interesting to watch the skepticism he’s getting even from Democratic-friendly media over his gun proposal. It’s not just Scarborough. Check out the pushback he got from Alisyn Camerota of CNN this morning:

Shock: CNN’s Camerota calls out Beto — “you expect mass shooters to follow the law?” “Mass shooters by definition don’t follow the law.” pic.twitter.com/SwxdDFeLaO — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 16, 2019

There’s no upside, only downside, for liberals at this point in O’Rourke’s quixotic attempt to gain traction in the primary by venting the progressive id. Grab the guns, tax the churches, tear down the border wall — the media no doubt sees value in these ideas, but they also recognize how poisonous they might be in a general election. It’d be one thing if O’Rourke had caught fire among Democratic voters and now needed media protection from Republican attacks as the presumptive nominee, but not only is he going nowhere electorally, he’s handing the GOP ammo against Elizabeth Warren or whoever else happens to end up facing Trump. He’s so far out in left field that opportunists like Pete Buttigieg are now using O’Rourke’s radicalism as a foil to reposition themselves as moderate pragmatists for the benefit of Joe Biden’s voters:

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1184461603208454144

What is this guy’s long-term game plan? His presidential bid has failed and he’s so tainted by outlandish radicalism like “seize the guns” that the nominee won’t even want him as a prominent surrogate next year. Having him around on the trail will make it too easy for Trump to tar him/her by association. If he goes back to Texas, he’s finished for the foreseeable future as being too left-wing for what’s still a semi-solidly red state. Is he trying to establish himself as the most true-blue progressive culture warrior in the field ahead of a 2024 presidential run, believing that the party will have caught up to him by then? Or is this exactly what it looks like — a desperate candidate who made a high-risk bet that radicalism would generate momentum for him, and who’s now left with nowhere to go upon realizing that it hasn’t?