William Sullivan, writing at the American Thinker today, has already done much of the work for me, in an post entitled Dem Congressman: Government can always nuke resistant gun owners. Sullivan notes that the reason for the Second Amendment is that government might one day become so tyrannical that the citizens would need to be armed to preserve their freedom. Swalwell's tweet makes clear that is exactly the case he would have us face:
Here's the most mind-boggling part of all this: he expresses that belief while simultaneously arguing that the federal government should infringe upon the rights of gun-owners and should confiscate and outlaw ownership of Americans' deadlier weapons, making them less capable of defending themselves against a ruling class that views itself as capable of forcing the citizenry to do whatever it deems best for them.
In short, Eric Swalwell accidentally makes a brilliant case for gun rights. It's hard to imagine how the existence and exact purpose of the Second Amendment could be better justified, or why Americans' right to keep and bear arms must be protected at all costs.Just so.
Mr. Swalwell is probably well aware of the fact that by and large, it is criminals who are committing the murders, armed robberies, muggings, and other crimes with guns. He must also know that criminals are not going to give up their guns, and they are not going to buy them through the legal commerce in guns, which requires a background check. These background checks of course remain on the books, and the government can inspect them at any time an know who owns what guns and where they live. Criminals, on the other hand, obtain their guns from theft and the black market. He probably also knows that people generally don't just snap, unless they have a history of mental instability. He must know further that guns don't just "go off." Given what he knows, therefore, the intention is clearly to disarm the law abiding while leaving the criminal and mentally unbalanced armed to the teeth.
Further, underlining Mr. Swalwell's bad faith is his insistence on calling his proposed confiscation a "buy back" program. I don't know about you, but I did not buy my guns from the government. And, contrary to Mr. Obama's assertion that U. S. companies "did not build that!," they did indeed without any help from Uncle Sam. Therefore, what the government did not build and did not sell, the government can not buy back.
Also, I would note, while the price paid for the gun in question is a negotiable amount when done in the private world, in which both the buyer and seller receive value for the transaction, this so called "buy back" will be entirely at the government's bidding. The government will name the price, and you MUST give up your weapon for that price, or men with guns will come and force you, or kill you as the case may be. This is not buying and selling in the traditional sense, but yet again an illustration of the relationship Swalwell sees between the government and the people. In Swalwell's eyes, the people are the subjects of the government, but the Constitution was written to place the government at the people's command, not the other way around.
Swalwell, therefore, is either a megalomaniac wannabe tyrant himself, or else unhinged. In either case, he should not be anywhere near the levers of power. And what does this say about at least 50% of those who voted for him. Are they willing to put themselves into bondage to Mr. Swalwell? Are they also willing to speak for their children, their heirs, forever? Because if they vote away their rights, they will never get them back.
Finally, for those calling Mr. Trump a "tyrant." please note that Mr. Trump trusts the people with guns. He has not indicated he wants to take them away. Remember that when the government does not trust the people, it is probably because the people should not trust that government.
Update: Scott Morefield had an interesting take on the exchange between Dana Loesch and Eric Swalwell yesterday at Townhall.com entitled The gun control question that stopped Eric Swalwell in his tracks. Either Swalwell doesn't know the relative power differences between 5.56/.223 and 30.06 or .308 or he uses the fuzzy term, "assault weapons," to mean banning all semi-auto rifles. . She suspects he does indeed know the difference, but wishes to cover up his real intent to ban all semi-auto rifles and hand guns with a fuzzy term "assault rifle," which describes nothing.