Congressman Eric Swalwell is famous for 2 things: farting on TV and threatening to nuke Americans if they refused to surrender their firearms. It is the later of those two things that is drawing attention today. The second biggest joke in the House Representatives, behind AOC, says that our 2nd Amendment Rights are a joke and that the government should confiscate our weapons.
Swalwell wrote a gun ban/confiscation manifesto in Newsweek because low-rent losers express their fascism in low-rent publications:
Assault weapons combine that deadliness with low recoil and higher-capacity magazines, so that more shots can be fired accurately and quickly without reloading. These weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible, as fast as possible.
They belong on battlefields, not in our communities as the murder tools of choice for hateful extremists or untrained law enforcement and military wannabes.
I can think of plenty of weapons that kill more people faster than a semi-automatic rifle that fires one round per trigger pull. I can also think of plenty of weapons our soldiers would rather carry on the battlefield than something you can buy at Bass Pro Shops.
Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 isn’t enough. This would prohibit manufacture and sales, but would not affect weapons already possessed. It makes no sense to ban future production yet leave millions of these weapons in our communities; it would take generations before they’d no longer be used to kill innocent Americans.
So in May 2019, I introduced the Freedom from Assault Weapons Act. My bill builds upon assault weapon bans that have been introduced previously in Congress, defining assault weapons in the same way. But it would not “grandfather in” weapons already in circulation; instead, after a period in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would develop a price, ATF would buy back the banned guns from people or businesses. All guns bought back would be destroyed.
Owners would have two years in which to sell their weapons in the buyback program; after that, the possession, sale and transfer of these banned assault weapons would become illegal and subject to criminal prosecution.
The next time someone from the liberal media or a democrat claims nobody is coming for our guns, please refer them to this.
Like all shitty democrat plans, this one comes with a hefty price tag:
Australia spent an estimated $230 million in U.S. dollars when it banned and bought back 643,726 rifles and shotguns at market value after a murderer used military-style weapons to kill 35 people in April 1996.
The United States will not get off as cheaply.
Based on manufacturing figures and other indirect data, there are about 17 million assault weapons out there. If we offer $200 to buy back each weapon—as many local governments have—then it would cost about $3.4 billion; at $1,000 each, the cost would be about $17 billion.
So we have to surrender our weapons or face arrest and all the government will give us is a measly $200? That’s a hard pass from me.
At this point many of you must be thinking: “How in the hell is this Constitutional?” Now worries, Swalwell has that covered:
Spare us the pearl-clutching about constitutional freedoms. We’re a joke if we don’t consider the right to survive supreme over any other, and we can defend our own lives and homes perfectly well without weapons designed for mass killing.
I’m sorry, I went through the entire Constitution and I couldn’t find an amendment that specifically mentions the “right to survive.” Swalwell believes that a nonexistent right supersedes the actual right to keep and bear arms and that’s why he’s a joke.
He is however not a funny joke because this is the kind of shit democrats will force on us if they win the White House and the Senate. In reality, Swalwell’s piece is a campaign ad for the Republicans, telling people not to vote for democrats if you value your Constitutional rights.
