Honestly, who wrote this? Yeah, I know it’s from Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), but who on this staff wrote this rather great piece of comedy regarding military-style rifles. He wants to ban them, buy them back, and prosecute anyone who doesn’t abide by his proposed law (via USA Today):
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. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.
Instead, 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. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.
Australia got it right. After a man used military-style weapons to kill 35 people in April 1996, that nation adopted strict new measures and bought back 643,726 newly illegal rifles and shotguns at market value. The cost — an estimated $230 million in U.S. dollars at the time — was funded by a temporary 0.2% tax levy on national health insurance.
So, again, we have another Democratic member of Congress saying they’re for gun control and they won’t be the last. In the media, the Boston Globe published an editorial that pushed for gun confiscation. Hillary Clinton said it was something to look into during the 2016 election. Vox added that for the U.S. to reach the European-levels of violence that Democrats consistently cite in their anti-gun speeches, gun confiscation has to be on the table. Let’s be clear: the Australian buy back program was a gun confiscation initiative. Those who did not comply were threatened with severe penalties from the government. This was not a voluntary measure.
Over here, there is no way American gun owners would comply with this nonsense. Yet, this is what could be set into motion should the Democrats win the House in 2018. It’s part of the semantics gymnastics Democrats play on this issue to hide their anti-gun disposition. They call for limiting magazines to ten rounds. That’s also a de facto gun ban, as scores of handguns would be put on the chopping block. Besides 1911s and carry guns, most handguns hold more than ten rounds.
Another funny line in this piece; “The right to live is supreme over any other.” That’s odd coming from the abortion party.
Luckily, in February, even Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said that his nation’s gun laws are good for them, but added it’s an entirely different situation for the U.S. Turnbull aptly noted that we have an amendment in our Constitution that permits gun ownership. It should be seen as a not so subtle way of telling anti-gunners that even Australians aren’t sure their way is the right path for their American allies on gun control. They’re right. It’s not. (via NYT):
“It’s a completely different context, historically, legally and so forth,” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said when asked about his country’s example during a news conference. “We are very satisfied with our laws,” he added. “But we certainly don’t presume to provide policy or political advice on that matter here. You have an amendment to your Constitution that deals with gun ownership. You have a very, very different history.”