Put another assault rifle on the barbie.
At least Rep. Eric Swalwell is honest about his authoritarianism.
The California Democrat writes in USA Today that it’s not enough to ban so-called assault weapons. Reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, Swalwell correctly points out, would leave “millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”
It’s time to institute a buyback program instead, he argues. And to “go after resisters” who refuse to sell their rifles back to Uncle Sam. But the arithmetic and the character of the country makes that proposal especially authoritarian.
Like many advocates of gun confiscation, Swalwell points to Australia as an example. They banned assault weapons in 1996 and then proceeded to buy back 643,726 rifles and shotguns. Confiscation was pulled off without a shot a fired in anger.
It is tempting for some to make that one-to-one comparison. It is also dangerous.
Banning the assault weapon in the U.S. like in Australia requires defining them, an already daunting and arbitrary task. Although Swalwell would make allowance for assault weapon ownership by gun clubs, plenty of law-abiding citizens would bristle to discover that their legally purchased firearms had become illegal overnight.
They would do what Swalwell expects. Plenty of people without any criminal record would suddenly own criminal weapons. Armed with pocket Constitutions and recently-banned assault weapons, they would become “resisters.”
HT: Huck Funn
via Weasel Zippers
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us