Dem Rep. Swalwell Ban and Confiscate All Assault Weapons

Dem Rep. Swalwell Ban and Confiscate All Assault Weapons
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (Calif.) wrote an op-ed for USA Today and he made his intentions clear right from the start, writing:
Ban assault weapons and buy them back. It might cost $15 billion, but we can afford it. Consider it an investment in our most important right, the right to live.
In the article published Thursday, Swalwell argues that a measure similar to the 1994 federal assault weapons ban is not enough to combat gun violence, because it would only prevent new sales of assault weapons.

He wants the government to institute a buy-back program, which would take existing assault weapons out of possession. The congressman also advocates the prosecution of any individual who decides to keep their firearm.

"Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed," Swalwell writes. "This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come."

"Instead," he continues, "we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons."
Swalwell notes that law enforcement officials and shooting clubs would be exempt.
The Democrats who bring up the "federal assault weapons ban" always seem to fail to mention one very important fact. Various independent studies came to the same conclusion: the ban had no measurable impact on the number of shootings or the number of shooting deaths while it was in effect.
Of Course, He Leaves Out What Types of Guns
Throughout his op-ed, Swalwell never defines what he considers a "military-style semiautomatic assault weapon." Instead, he writes:

"An assault weapon, then, is a hand-held weapon of war, capable of spraying a crowd with more lethal fire in seconds."

"Assault weapon" is a political term that often refers to semi-automatic firearms with specific features and accessories.

Swalwell also discusses the February shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, admitting that he has used "moral equivalence" arguments regarding the Second Amendment.

"There's something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers' demands," he writes. "They dismiss the moral equivalence we've made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I've been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that ‘we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.'"

In other words, it sounds an awful lot like Swalwell will do away with the second amendment. Have you ever known a Democrat that will stop, once they get something they wanted? As soon as the assault weapons buyback, they will then miraculously say "Look at all the people being shot in Chicago and Baltimore, we need to ban handguns because the founding fathers only had muskets.

Swalwell uses Australia's gun buy-back program, noting his proposed U.S. program would be more expensive. That is an erroneous argument for one very important reason. Australia never had the 2nd Amendment so they never had the right to own a firearm.

Swalwell went on to explain the cost of his buyback program:

"Based on manufacturing figures and other indirect data, there could be 15 million assault weapons out there," he says. "If we offer $200 to buy back each weapon—as many local governments have—then it would cost about $3 billion; at $1,000 each, the cost would be about $15 billion."

He explains "The federal government is spending an estimated $4 trillion this year; $15 billion would be 0.375%" Amazing how the Democrats always pull out these "Look how little it would cost" equations. But the moment President Trump asks for $15 Billion for the border wall, they cry "OMG! That's so much money. America cannot afford to be spending that kind of money, especially after the Trump Tax Reform for the rich."

Like the Democrats never stopping after they achieved their goal, they are just as famous for another thing as well. Whenever the Democrats claim "It will cost this much." Expect whatever program they were talking about to cost at least triple what their numbers showed. Then, of course, they say "We will need to raise taxes for the unexpected expenditure."

Let's just remind folks what kind of Liberal loony toon moron Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell truly is.

Read the full article