Stories
How Many Will They Have to Kill to Disarm Americans?
Next Post

Press {{ keys }} + D to make this page bookmarked.

Close
Photo: theodysseyonline.com/PrtSc

How Many Will They Have to Kill to Disarm Americans?

107

CALIFORNIA – December 7, 2018

Debates continue over the statements of California Congressman Eric Swalwell over disarmament of the American people. Three weeks ago, the politician confirmed that he favors confiscating guns and even had a “nuclear” take on what the government would do if it faced resistance.

It should be noted, Swalwell plans to participate in the presidential race in 2020.

In an op-ed published in USA Today, Swalwell (D-California) proposed a $15 billion buyback program for "assault weapons," as well as criminal prosecution of anyone who chooses to keep their guns.

One of the first who responded to Swalwell was airborne veteran and gun pundit Joe Biggs.

Now there is only one main question: How many people is Swalwell willing to kill to achieve his goal of disarming Americans?

First, to understand the question, let's look at history. Why is gun ownership so important to Americans?

In the United States, where about a third of the population owns firearms, for many years there have been discussions about whether or not to ban the sale and carrying of firearms. What are the rules of gun ownership in the country? And why are Americans so reluctant to give up guns?

Origins of the problem

Firearms were owned by the first American colonists. Skill to shoot allowed them to defend their family from enemies and to hunt, so it was a vitally necessary skill. Despite that most Americans today are not threatened by the dangers faced by their ancestors, they consider the right to own weapons their historical heritage, and even proud of it. It is worth noting here that only true Americans and patriots of their country know this history and honor it as the memory of their ancestors. Moreover, many Americans still love to hunt.

The second amendment to the US Constitution States: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This amendment dates back to the time when the US militia was used to wage war against the Indians and British troops in the War of Independence.

For a long time this amendment has been interpreted in different ways, but in recent years its significance has been clarified at the Federal Level.

The "District of Columbia V. Heller" trial in 2008 was a historic one when the U.S. Supreme Court officially recognized that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects the right to use arms for self-defense. Then the ban on the possession of a gun, which had been in force in the Columbia District since the 1970s, was declared unconstitutional and abolished.

In addition, the United States has a number of laws that to some extent restrict the right to acquire and bear arms. These include federal and state laws of New York, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, California and Illinois that have strict laws. Southern and eastern states traditionally support the right to own weapons: Montana, Washington, Idaho, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Alaska, etc.

In 2010, the Supreme Court, in the McDonald V. Chicago case, prohibited states from imposing stricter prohibitions on the use of weapons than those established by federal law earlier.

The current state of affairs

Today, according to various studies, 30-40% of American households have weapons. Because the free sale of various types of weapons is allowed in America, many crimes are committed with the use of firearms, although the percentage of murders with guns in the country is not the highest. In addition, for several decades now in the United States, a big problem is the mass shootings that occur periodically in schools and other institutions.

US citizens can own long-barreled, short-barreled and semi-automatic weapons. In addition, until 1986, it was possible to have automatic guns, but today there is a ban on their use in many states. However, automatic weapons registered prior to 1986 are not subject to this prohibition.

Weapons are not sold to persons with mental illness or a criminal record, fugitives, drug abusers or those who have been convicted of domestic violence. Guns are sold to those who have reached 18 years, pistols -- to those who are 21 years old.

In many states, the purchase of weapons does not require a license or registration, and you can purchase as many guns as you want. Most states also allow open and concealed carrying of weapons. In 1990, a law was passed prohibiting the carrying of weapons to schools and universities.

Today, according to experts, a complete ban on the use of weapons in the United States, most likely, will not happen, because in America there is a very strong and influential arms lobby, including major organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Gun Owners of America (GOA).

In addition, for Americans, the right to personal possession of weapons is a symbol of democracy and freedom, for which their ancestors fought. Many have a barrel and not one, and it is unlikely they will agree to give their weapons voluntarily.

Returning to the words of a Democrat Swalwell over disarmament of the American people, the politician addressed these arguments directly, saying he and other Democrats had been too deferential to Second Amendment activists and should follow the lead of teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting who have been more strident.

"There's something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers' demands," he wrote. "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."

Instead, he writes, "the right to live is supreme over any other."

According to Swalwell, his policy is modeled on Australia’s mandatory gun buyback laws, which were instituted under a conservative government after a gunman killed 35 people at a popular tourist site in 1996. Supporters credit the campaign with a broad reduction in gun violence and the country hasn’t suffered a similar mass shooting in the years since.

"Australia got it right," Swalwell wrote.

It is tempting for some to make that one-to-one comparison. It is also dangerous.

Banning the assault weapon in the US 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.

There are more guns than people in the U.S. -- 310 million according to an analysis by the National Institute of Justice, and surely many more today. Another most recent research indicates that American civilians own approximately 393 million guns.

Granted, not every household has a gun. The Federalist earlier reported that a third to half of the population packs heat in America, about 105 to 160 million people. Of those who were willing to shell out the money and go through the background check, a sizeable number won’t take kindly to being disarmed. Statistically, some of them are your neighbors.

Taking away their guns, doing what Swalwell admits is necessary, will require nothing but a military operation against millions of American households, as armed tactical units from federal law enforcement go from door to door. It would turn this country upside down, assuming it ever got past Congress, the President, and the courts.

There has to be a better way, a measure that actually reduces gun violence and doesn’t invite a civil war.

In this context, it is worth noting once again that having guns for many Americans is a way not only to protect themselves but also to connect to their own history.

Swalwell is a MSNBC stalwart, internet users say about him, who recently wrote an op-ed advocating that the government confiscate the guns that make people like him wet themselves and imprison those of us who decline to surrender the m. Millions of Americans own these basic tools of freedom, which the ignorant call “assault weapons,” and these loyal citizens keep and bear them to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. But Rep. Swalwell would make these citizens felons, though these patriots are only a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants.

Now, we know that some Americans would resist this kind of tyranny. People all over the world are resisting the elite’s commands. The Brits brexited. The French are rioting because they don’t want to sacrifice their livelihoods on behalf of the global elites' weird weather religion. And a decree that the Second Amendment is not a thing anymore would certainly provoke some serious pushback here.

What does the elite want today?

Disarmament is just an excuse; the issue's essence is much deeper. We live in an age when the authorities create conditions impossible for the existence of a person. "You have to be strong and independent," they say. Why?

"Your history is you," they tell us on TV. Society turns into a huge herd that is easily managed. The purpose of any power is the preservation of power. People who oppose should not exist, people who want to know their roots should not exist. Such people will turn to the roots, they want to know their history, and therefore they will interfere with the creation of a new history.

That's what the current elites do for us. Democrat Swalwell is one of them when he says we'll turn nuclear weapons against you. Even if it's sarcastic, he still said it.

Therefore, the question remains. Our liberal elite betters think Americans should be stripped of those scary bang sticks the Constitution protects, and they disagree. So, how many Americans is Swalwell willing to kill to fulfill his vision of a disarmed, defenseless, servile population of docile subjects?

Author: USA Really