What did you think of Beto O'Rourke's idea of confiscating AK-47s and AR-15s?

[Straw Man]

68. The explanations are weak and muddled. They answer nothing.

Australia & New Zealand both did buybacks. Lots of U.S. cities also hold voluntary buyback programs

Australia and New Zealand had nothing like the sheer numbers of weapons in circulation, nor did they have anything like the entrenched gun culture of the United States.

Some interesting reading here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187769/

Voluntary municipal buybacks are where one goes to get a $100 gift card in exchange for granddad's rusty old .38 Special. Nobody is bringing in high-quality modern weapons.

Beto's program will apply to all AK & AR-type guns - weapons specifically designed to kill as many people as efficiently as possible

This is either ignorance or obfuscation. AK and AR are only two of dozens of designs of semi-auto rifle with various combinations of modular and ergonomic features. To ban those two only would be absolutely futile. To ban all of them would require either an exhaustive list, needing frequent updating, or would have to rely on lists of features and capabilities, leading back to the old "define an assault weapon" conundrum. Unless, of course, the plan is to ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, but that's going to be an extremely hard sell to the American gun-owning public -- hence the obfuscation.

‘What happens if someone refuses to voluntarily turn in their weapon of war? Couldn't that lead to violence?’

No. If you don’t voluntarily turn in your weapon of war, you will be fined.

Say what? How are going to confiscate that weapon and collect that fine without some form of state-sanctioned violence?

‘Bad guys aren't going to turn their guns in’

Like New Zealand and Australia, Beto’s program would create a window of amnesty, allowing individuals to turn in their weapons anonymously, without compensation, no questions asked.

Again, huh? What would prompt "prohibited persons" to turn in their weapons without compensation? They have already demonstrated a willingness to flout the law by possessing the weapon in the first place. Sudden attack of conscience?

This all smacks of back-pedaling to cover a rash and divisive statement. Bad, bad idea.