It all started with yet another gun control proposal from a sitting Congressman, which called for not just a return to the sun-setted “assault weapons” ban, but an expansion of it.
Some of the differences include a lack of grandfathering (under the previous version, if you liked your guns, you could keep your guns), and the inclusion of a mandatory buyback program. The price being a standard $200, which… if you’ve never purchased rifles might somehow sound like reasonable compensation. The new proposal called for literal criminal prosecution of any current gun owners who don’t turn in such “assault weapons” (a term which includes some of the most common hunting rifles in America).
The author of this proposal, however, wouldn’t stop there with threats of government punishment. Not even close, but we’ll get to that in a second.
There’s several legal problems with such a retroactive plan, though the most common complaint is obviously from second amendment grounds. Thankfully, Representative Eric Swalwell addressed just such concerns when making his pitch on the pages of USA Today, and gave us his rationale.
He claims the “right to live” is the “most important right”, and trumps anything in the second amendment or by extension elsewhere. He offered no explanation of such a philosophy being at odds with claiming himself to be not only pro-choice, but a firm believer in “no restrictions”. He also fails to address any loss of life that may result from attempted government gun confiscation from a group of individuals that popularized the expression “from my cold dead hands”.
Democrats for years have made statements along the lines of “no one wants to take your guns” and
“We want to protect the second amendment but… something something that is described as ‘common sense gun laws’” It’s as common a trope as “social contract” or “taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society”.
Given that Swalwell is an elected Congressman and is openly calling for taking away guns even from current gun owners, it no longer can be truthfully said, even if the implication is “well, nobody in office, anyway”. Given that he’s an elected Congressman (who has hinted at running for Commander-In-Chief, at that), the following off-hand twitter exchange is particularly, well… somewhere between wildly inappropriate and absolutely terrifying depending on how seriously one takes him.
In response to Swalwell’s statements, Joe Biggs on Twitter said “So basically Swalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power. “
Would that start a war? Would the government go to war over a desire to disarm? Would our military by and large actually fight in such a war, given it would involve unconstitutional orders and their affinity for the second amendment?
I don’t know, but Swalwell seems to imply the government would go much further than even Biggs might think in his response. And by “seems to imply”, I mean a sitting Congressman suggested the US government might just nuke sections of the American homeland as part of their war strategy against their own people who might dare resist.
He seems just as knowledgeable about how such a war might pan out as he is about guns, price signals, or morality.
“And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”
Obviously, the nuclear capabilities of the US military, which is the strongest military on the planet, is what lead to it’s success against a primarily civilian-lead guerrilla force, determined and dispersed throughout the country-side, armed primarily with so-called “assault weapons” or even less is how our military kept the war “short” in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
If that sounds like sarcasm, well… “sarcasm” is the Congressman’s official explanation as to why he’d imply mass murder via nuclear weapons against American citizens on American soil when talking to a constituent as a representative of the government.
If there’s one belief that Democrats in this country remained fixed on outside of universal healthcare and doubling the minimum wage, it’s the personal conduct of our current President. It seems consensus that we’ve risked enough with a President who is “sarcastic” or “jokes” on Twitter about shit as serious as nuclear war by someone in control of the arsenal already.
We’ll see how many on that side of the aisle condemn these remarks, and how many justify them.
“See, what he meant was…”