California congressman and newly-announced presidential candidate Eric Swalwell recently stated that he would incarcerate gun owners who were not willing to comply with his gun confiscation tactics. Presidential hopeful Swalwell knows how to rile conservative Americans. One of the most tried and true ways to accomplish this is with the threat of taking away their Second Amendment rights. Swalwell understands this tactic and how to use it for media coverage. He knew that conservatives and Republicans would lash out swiftly with disdain for the candidate. Bad press from Republicans is good press for Democrats. Meaning, the more Republicans loathe someone, the better the Democrat must be. This strategy has earned him numerous television spots, YouTube hits, and online articles, making his name nationally recognized.
Swalwell has stated that he would mandate a buyback of “assault weapons,” whatever that means. If I pick up a bottle and hit you with it, is that an assault weapon? Nonetheless, I can only assume he is talking about semi-automatic rifles. For those citizens that refuse to comply, jail would be the inevitable punishment. He claims that law-abiding citizens will keep their guns, but I find that suspicious when he uses hashtags like #banandbuyback. Those first three letters make me very nervous: ban. Now, if he is willing to give me an excessive amount of money for my guns: SOLD! Now I can buy more guns! That plan sounds much more appealing. Something tells me that’s not how it would work. Who sets the price for these guns that are bought back? If the only other recourse is a prison, it’s likely the firearms could be priced as low as the government wanted them to be. Talking about blind submission to authority under the guise of a “buyback,” huh?
I have a question for Rep. Swalwell. He claims to love the police and even has a brother in the profession. But does he understand the danger he is placing law enforcement in across the country? Lives would undoubtedly be lost—citizen and officer. The irony is that although gun ownership has gone up over the past 20 years, crime had continued to drop until the post-Ferguson era, when violent crime went up in nearly every major city in America. Guess which party ran the most violent cities. Yep, the same one with which Mr. Swalwell aligns. I’m sorry, but people in these Democrat-governed cities can’t keep their own citizens safe from violence, and now they want to ban and take away guns. No thank you. Enact your gun laws in Chicago and let’s see how it goes first.
He claimed on Twitter that NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch would be beneath him to debate gun control. For those of you that don’t know who Dana Loesch is, she is a fierce and staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. After watching Swalwell converse embarrassingly with Tucker Carlson on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” my money is on Loesch. When volunteering for the debate after Swalwell was challenging the NRA, Swalwell was called out by Loesch saying, “I’ll be your Huckleberry.” Swalwell tried to act tough, but it felt as if he was that loud guy at the party: the one trying to appear tough who, when confronted by someone, runs to the car and speeds off while yelling insults out the window. That’s Swalwell. Here is the blip from Swalwell’s Twitter account:
👋🏼 Ms. Loesch — I see you’ve spent another day blowing up my Twitter. Thank you for following! But here’s the deal, you’re an @nra mouthpiece. I don’t aim down, so I don’t debate mouthpieces. But send me your president, @OliverLNorth. I’ll debate him anywhere. #EnoughIsEnough https://t.co/hu6eVkMIuL
— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) April 19, 2019
Swalwell’s hashtag is correct: enough is enough. Enough of the propaganda that gun laws will stop criminals from committing violent acts. Enough of the grandstanding at the expense of lives lost during tragic shooting events across the country. Enough of believing that police are just expendable pieces of government property for legislators to throw at their agendas. Indeed #EnoughIsEnough.
