Beto vs. Buttigieg In Sissy-Fight Over How Best To Disarm America

The cat fight of the century pits slacker doofus Beto O’Rourke against regular doofus Pete Buttigieg over the best way democrats can disarm the American people. It’s the “Flail and Wail of the Beta Males.” You see, O’Rourke wants to take our guns and then rip up the Constitution while Buttigieg thinks they should rip up the Constitution first and then take our guns. As you can see, there are some deep philosophical differences between the two.

CNN reports that there is a growing feud between second-tier candidate Buttigieg and third-tier candidate O’Rourke. This all started when Buttigieg made fun of the fact that O’Rourke tends to stand on tables, wildly swinging his arms while taking to potential voters.

“I hear the way you ingratiate yourself to voters is to stand on things,” Buttigieg said to O’Rourke earlier this year.

O’Rourke was seething from this bitchiness from Buttigieg, but quelled his anger by live-streaming himself getting a prostate exam. Unfortunately Buttigieg persisted.

As you know, O’Rourke has a plan to confiscate all semi-automatic weapons from law-abiding Americans under the guise of a mandatory “gun buyback.” At the MSNBC anti-gun forum in Las Vegas yesterday, Buttigieg was asked if supported O’Rourke’s unconstitutional gun-grab.

He called mandatory buy-backs “a shiny object makes it harder for us to focus” on reforms that are more politically viable in Washington, where any new gun control measures would require Republican support given the GOP’s Senate majority.

“As a policy, it’s had mixed results,” Buttigieg said. “It’s a healthy debate to have, but we’ve got to do something now.”

And now it’s on. O’Rourke is super-pissed at Buttigieg:

“I was really offended by those comments and I think he represents a kind of politics that is focused on poll-testing and focus-group-driving and triangulating and listening to consultants, before you arrive at a position,” said O’Rourke of Buttigieg.

This sissy-fight appears to be one-sided with all the early blows coming from O’Rourke. He hit Buttigieg with a “won’t somebody think of the children” shot:

“How in the world can you say that to March For Our Lives,” O’Rourke said.

March for Our Lives is that group of insufferable teenagers from Parkland, Florida who democrats have decided should set all of this country’s domestic policies. O’Rourke’s jab at Buttigieg is that he’s not allowed to oppose unconstitutional gun confiscation because a bunch of dumb kids want it.

It kept coming as honorary Hispanic O’Rourke played the race card as well:

“How can you say that to survivors of mass shootings across this country? How can you say that to the majority of Hispanics in America, certainly in Texas, who fear that they will be the victims of a mass shooting inspired by racism, hatred, that’s been welcomed into the open by this president, and has been armed with weapons of war?” O’Rourke said.

Now the argument has moved to: law-abiding Americans can’t be allowed to own guns because illegal aliens are against it. For some reason CNN chose not to fact-check O’Rourke’s assertion that the the opinions of teenagers and undocumented immigrants overrides the 2nd Amendment protections of the U.S. Constitution.

While this slap-fight between a couple of low-T dorks is kind of entertaining, it’s actually completely pointless. Buttigieg favors gun confiscation just as much as O’Rourke, he however thinks they should pass some other unconstitutional gun control laws before scooping up all the guns:

“We can get background checks done now. We can get red flag laws done now. We can get something done about the new sale of assault weapons now. We cannot wait for these other debates to play out — even if they’re healthy debates — to get that action done because lives are on the line,” said Buttigieg.

See, Buttigieg is down with taking our guns, he just wants to erode our rights away first.

Chances are these two will sit down over a couple of pumpkin spice lattes and settle their minor differences. There’s no point in fighting over semantics when they both have the same goal to disarm the American people.