First let’s address the legal side of any order or legislation like this.
How would this be imposed? Congress, executive action? That faces significant hurdles right out the gate.
The supreme court (Heller vs DC) indicated that it is the individual’s right to bear arms. What has been held as law is that “commonly available” weapons are protected (no liberals, this does not include fully automatic weapons). The AR-15 is the most commonly owned rifle in America amounting for over 10 million in circulation … so yea, I would classify that as “common”.
Now with the recent overturn of the California high-capacity magazine ban as unconstitutional, I doubt that a ban on the gun would pass constitutional muster when challenged … and it would be immediately. Nevertheless, stranger things have been passed before.
Ok, let’s say they do pass some legislation, how about realistic compliance or further, enforcement? The attempt of banning items or registration has been tried many times before on state levels. Interesting that this has even stood up as the Tenth Amendment only grants powers to the states not enumerated in the constitution. But the Second Amendment clearly lays out how “arms” are to be legislated “The Right to keep and bear arms shall not infringed”. Pretty clear.
But I digress; New York tried to have people “register” their “assault style rifles” and here is how it turned out. Of the estimated 1 million in the state, only 44,000 were registered. Ok, so 4% of people complied. And this was just registration, not confiscation. Same in Connecticut, admittingly, 68% of law enforcement officers did not comply with the same registration requirements under the knee-jerk legislation after Sandy Hook (none of which would have stopped the shooter anyway).
“How could that be?” says King Beto, “we passed a law!”. Didn’t we do this with Drugs? Prohibition? Even Abortion at some point? What happened? People still did it, it just went underground. The only difference was that drugs, and alcohol are not in the constitution. The land of Twitter weighed in:
New Rule — you can’t call yourself a law abiding gun owner if your response to a mandatory gun buyback is “come and get it.”
Either you’d follow the law and turn it in (because that’d be the law), or you’re an irresponsible criminal who has no business owning an AK-47 or AR-15.
— Nathan H. Rubin (@NathanHRubin) September 14, 2019 
Ok, I’ll entertain this … Well Nathan, because you are infringing on my right to keep and bear that arm, I see your lunacy and raise you our founding document. Most gun owners do not recognize the governments right to take away their guns. More importantly, how does Beto and friends plan to impose their “courageous” legislation that got a standing ovation at the Democratic debate? Police, even the Military? Fat chance pal. We saw that two thirds of CT police officers didn’t even comply with the law; you think they will enforce it either?
Responses to Nathan’s comments on twitter were hilarious.
Lil millennial – this very statement shows you have no understanding of "the law" – we have a Constitution and that is the law – every proposal for "confiscation" is unconstitutional – how did you get this level of dense?
— Tony Shaffer (@T_S_P_O_O_K_Y) September 16, 2019 
Schooling courtesy of the Dept of Miseducation. pic.twitter.com/cOCevAg9MC 
— Rooster Pisces (@roosterpisces) September 16, 2019 
Some laws are illegitimate, like a law banning your twitter account. Would you shut up or would you be an irresponsible criminal who has no business tweeting?
— Matt Christiansen (@MLChristiansen) September 15, 2019 
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws, but conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." – Martin Luther King Jr.
— Sequential Treasures (@comicartlover1) September 15, 2019 
Never mind the irony coming from a party that has said to Trump “you can’t possibly go door to door deporting all 10 million illegal aliens” but sure … it’s possible to confiscate over 10 million guns from anyone of 200 million Americans.
What liberals fail to understand is that they never answer the question; “…And then what?” You are asking law enforcement officers, almost all of which possess their own guns, to stack on someone’s door, and forcefully remove millions of guns from law abiding citizens.
News for you Beto, 20 million of those gun owners are trained U.S. military veterans. No law enforcement in their right mind wants that because most of us gun owners will not exactly invite those serving that warrant in for cookies.
My point is; your policy is dumb and hypocritical.
Anti-gun liberal activist Alyssa Milano even admitted to owning a gun, the candidates on the democratic platform are protected by armed security. They say we don’t need guns, ok … lead by example.
I dare any of the democratic candidates to say: “I will not be guarded by armed men” that’s what Joe Biden did to our schools, made then gun free zones.
Lead from the front dems or quit your pie in the sky plans for the presidency you will never hold.