Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress
Eric Swalwell Published 3:15 a.m. ET May 3, 2018 | Updated 7:49 a.m. ET May 3, 2018
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.
Gary was 28 and working as a security guard at a taco truck in Oakland, Calif., in 2009 when he saw Dreshawn Lee carrying a sawed-off shotgun and reported it to police. Three months later, Lee took his revenge by shooting and killing Jackson with an AK-47-style semiautomatic assault rifle.
I was the prosecutor who persuaded a jury to convict Lee and persuaded a judge to put him away for 65 years to life. But Gary’s autopsy report still haunts me.
Trauma surgeons and coroners will tell you the high-velocity bullet fired from a military-style, semiautomatic assault weapon moves almost three times as fast as a 9mm handgun bullet, delivering far more energy. The bullets create cavities through the victim, wrecking a wider swath of tissue, organs and blood vessels. And a low-recoil weapon with a higher-capacity magazine means more of these deadlier bullets can be fired accurately and quickly without reloading.
An assault weapon, then, is a hand-held weapon of war, capable of spraying a crowd with more lethal fire in seconds.
So Gary didn’t stand much chance. First-graders and teachers in Newtown, Conn., didn’t either. Nor did dancers at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, nor concert-goers in Las Vegas, nor teenagers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High in Parkland, Fla., nor the people at the Waffle House outside Nashville. Like so many American mass-shooting victims in recent decades, their doom was all but assured by the murderer’s tool.
Nonetheless, we can give ourselves and our children the chance these victims never had. We can finally act to remove weapons designed for war from our streets, once and for all.
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.
There's something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands. 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.”
The Parkland teens have taught us there is no right more important than every student’s right to come home after class. The right to live is supreme over any other.
Our courts haven’t found a constitutional right to have assault weapons, anyway. When the Supreme Court held in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that this right “is not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Since that District of Columbia v. Heller decision, four federal appeals courts have upheld assault weapons bans. Many other firearms are available for self-protection, they found, and the danger that assault weapons pose to society is a legitimate reason for states and localities to ban them.
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.
America won’t get off that cheaply. Gun ownership runs so deep that we don’t even know how many military-style semiautomatic rifles are in U.S. civilian hands.
Based on manufacturing figures and other indirect data, there could be 15 million assault weapons out there. 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.
It’s no small sum. But let’s put it in context.
The federal government is spending an estimated $4 trillion this year; $15 billion would be 0.375% of that, not that we must spend it all in one year.
Meanwhile, the GOP’s tax “reform” — a giveaway to corporations and the rich that threw comparatively meager scraps to working families — is projected to increase the national debt by $1.9 trillion over the next decade.
What is it worth to American taxpayers to not see our families, friends and neighbors cut down in a hail of gunfire? Consider this an investment in averting carnage and heartache and loss.
When I think of Jackson, I think of all the others who died with wounds like his. I think about my dad and two brothers who put their lives on the line as law enforcement officers. I think about my 11-month-old son, Nelson, and the safe classrooms I want him to learn in.
America has a deadly problem, a problem other developed nations have avoided or addressed. Some say we’re already too far gone to take corrective action, but we cannot have a defeatist attitude about this. Fixing our problem requires boldness and will be costly, but the cost of letting it fester will be far higher — for our wallets, and for our souls.
Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California’s San Francisco Bay area, is co-chair of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, and serves on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Follow him on Twitter: @RepSwalwell
Wow, I like the plan. I support it. I do think you'd have to offer $1000 for the buyback program though. I mean, someone is more likely to cough up their assault rifle if they're getting about what they paid for it, and that's not $200.
I don't care about the cost. If only we had a gun registry though. That part is going to be tricky, getting an idea for who has what.
But I don't care. I'm all for the ban, buyback, and prosecution of those who refuse. I couldn't have written a better article.
And for those who complain about the cost, our great leader Trump is the best, everyone knows it, at managing money.
"You're gonna do WHAT?!" -Tim Robbins as Merlin in Top Gun
From the man who brought us "Trump would've ran into the Parkland shooting", here comes "I would totally murder and outlast law enforcement in a 'Rambo'-type scenario, if need be".
I think the real question is how much will it cost you to take them from our cold, dead hands?
$0.00 US. Because you'll be cold. And dead.
The rounds to make him dead would cost a couple bucks though...
Seriously, I don't want anybody dead.. but it boggles my mind that a person would even contemplate dying with the AR-15 in his hand that the government wants to take, when he has 10 other guns behind him that he is legally allowed to keep...
I guess we all draw our line somewhere as to when we are going to take a stand.
If they are buying AR15's and AK47's the people may sell. If they are suspected of buying those rifles in order to forcibly come for the rest later, it will be on.
How much do you guys think a second revolution would actually cost? I would say much more than pennies or a thousand bucks.
If they are buying AR15's and AK47's the people may sell. If they are suspected of buying those rifles in order to forcibly come for the rest later, it will be on.
How much do you guys think a second revolution would actually cost? I would say much more than pennies or a thousand bucks.
Another question I have for you guys... How would you be able to tell who did not turn in their AR15 when they swear they don't own one?
Articles that push arguments like this do become more compelling as time goes on. I started in the "cold, dead hands" camp when I because old enough to have actual opinions on political issues. But as time goes on, and shootings keep occurring while said shootings are more and more politicized, it's clear that inaction isn't getting it done.
I believe in responsible gun-ownership. I believe that I (and anyone else) has the right to own a gun... so long as we do so responsibly. It is a fact that the vast majority do so. But it's clear that, like so many things, the few are screwing it up for the many. We can debate the details behind those few (Parkland shooter, Pulse Shooter, Vegas shooter, etc), but that's a totally separate conversation. I said it before, but the Vegas shooting was a real eye-opener for me. Most (if not all) of the other shootings, you could point to somewhere in the timeline and say "there's a law against that... enforce the current law and this would've been avoided". I don't recall that being the case with Vegas. The guy, legally, was squeaky clean. Clearly he was one of the "few" that I've mentioned, but there wasn't anything leading up to the act that would've tipped anyone off.
I could keep going, but I'll just skip to the point. I still think the argument (ones like it) put out by Salwell are idiotic. They only make sense if you willfully remain ignorant on key points of the function and operation of firearms... and even then you need to be completely unburdened of common sense to justify ramming through this type of legislation.... but if the other side continues to do nothing, and fights tooth and nail against any sort of gun control measures (bump stocks, banana clips and certain types of ammunition), this idiocy is exactly what we're going to end up with. I think it's clear that something does need to happen to help prevent recurrence of Parkland/Newtown/etc. I still believe that it's possible to do this without a complete cancellation of a right that so many responsibly exercise.
"I'll take your word at face value. I have never met you but I assume you have a face..lol"
If they are buying AR15's and AK47's the people may sell. If they are suspected of buying those rifles in order to forcibly come for the rest later, it will be on.
How much do you guys think a second revolution would actually cost? I would say much more than pennies or a thousand bucks.
Another question I have for you guys... How would you be able to tell who did not turn in their AR15 when they swear they don't own one?
I don't think I'm speaking merely for myself when I say that we're still on pins and needles waiting to hear how many cops you think you would be able to kill before getting gunned down in your delusional and hypothetical last stand to keep your AR-15?
If they are buying AR15's and AK47's the people may sell. If they are suspected of buying those rifles in order to forcibly come for the rest later, it will be on.
How much do you guys think a second revolution would actually cost? I would say much more than pennies or a thousand bucks.
I think this may go over better if they said they would disarm the criminals first and rerun the data if shootings are still up maybe do the buy back program.
If they are buying AR15's and AK47's the people may sell. If they are suspected of buying those rifles in order to forcibly come for the rest later, it will be on.
How much do you guys think a second revolution would actually cost? I would say much more than pennies or a thousand bucks.
Another question I have for you guys... How would you be able to tell who did not turn in their AR15 when they swear they don't own one?
I don't think I'm speaking merely for myself when I say that we're still on pins and needles waiting to hear how many cops you think you would be able to kill before getting gunned down in your delusional and hypothetical last stand to keep your AR-15?
Half a dozen? Two dozen?
Me? I would simply sell my guns to the government and take a nice vacation.
If they are buying AR15's and AK47's the people may sell. If they are suspected of buying those rifles in order to forcibly come for the rest later, it will be on.
How much do you guys think a second revolution would actually cost? I would say much more than pennies or a thousand bucks.
Another question I have for you guys... How would you be able to tell who did not turn in their AR15 when they swear they don't own one?
I don't think I'm speaking merely for myself when I say that we're still on pins and needles waiting to hear how many cops you think you would be able to kill before getting gunned down in your delusional and hypothetical last stand to keep your AR-15?
Half a dozen? Two dozen?
Me? I would simply sell my guns to the government and take a nice vacation.
Well that was anti-climactic.
"I'll take your word at face value. I have never met you but I assume you have a face..lol"
If they are buying AR15's and AK47's the people may sell. If they are suspected of buying those rifles in order to forcibly come for the rest later, it will be on.
How much do you guys think a second revolution would actually cost? I would say much more than pennies or a thousand bucks.
Another question I have for you guys... How would you be able to tell who did not turn in their AR15 when they swear they don't own one?
I don't think I'm speaking merely for myself when I say that we're still on pins and needles waiting to hear how many cops you think you would be able to kill before getting gunned down in your delusional and hypothetical last stand to keep your AR-15?
Half a dozen? Two dozen?
Me? I would simply sell my guns to the government and take a nice vacation.
I feel like we abandoned the "cold, dead hands" and "second revolution" parts pretty quickly.
I think many saw the writing on the wall decades ago. For those who did, I believe they saw a law written in a manner to avoid all of this.
You can legally buy a weapon from another individual without any paperwork. The government won't be coming after guns they don't know you have. And it's been perfectly legal all along.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
But, the other side to that statement is: Is it just the AR 15? It fires a .223 round.
It would have to include the Ruger mini 14 as well as many other so called 'assault rifles'. The AK 47, the SKS, and others, that fire a 7.62 X 39 round.
Next is the .22 bolt action rifle that holds 15-18 rounds, or the AR-15 style rifle in .22 caliber, because it holds 30 rounds.
And, as I've noted before, Ohio has a bill to ban even handguns that can hold 10 or more rounds. will it pass? Doubtful. Today. Next year? Who knows?
So, when someone constantly says gun owners need to compromise in order to preserve their right it gets a bit fishy, so to speak.
I understand it, but, where will it end?
And you said "but it boggles my mind that a person would even contemplate dying with the AR-15 in his hand that the government wants to take, when he has 10 other guns behind him that he is legally allowed to keep... "
Bugs me too, as in, I agree. But those 10 other guns the person can now legally possess? What happens in a couple of years to those?
Oh, that handgun holds 10 or more rounds, you have to turn it in. Ok.
Hey, that Henry Golden Boy - in .22 cal? It holds 16 rounds. Yes, it's lever action, but we need to ban it.
Soon, all of those legal guns become illegal.
And in the mean time, the bad guys don't care.
If handing over an AR-15 becomes law, I'd do it, as I don't want to be a felon. I don't own one though. If the next step is handing over a handgun I may or may not own, due to the fact it could hold 10 rounds?
If I have to turn in my .22 Remington rifle, bolt action, made in 1946 that I got from my grandpa? Hmm....I'd have to ponder that.
Compromise is good, I get it. But it seems the 'compromise' is "give it up, or else'. "We're going to take them, or else you're a felon".
It starts with the AR-15. How many thousands of those are out there? And, why that gun? Because it's been in the news? Okay, get that gun banned. Next step is other guns that look similar. Okay. Next step...?
I wish there was a better way, but I can see in the near future (5? 15 years?) where these bans will become the norm.
Comments like this is why one should never talk about the guns that they own on the internet. Even innocent sites like an unaffiliated fan forum for a Midwest team, is not above the spying eyes of big data corporations and our own government.
Comments like this is why one should never talk about the guns that they own on the internet. Even innocent sites like an unaffiliated fan forum for a Midwest team, is not above the spying eyes of big data corporations and our own government.
That's cool.
Every single gun I own, which is somewhere between 0 and more than 0, was purchased legally.
And if any of those 0 to more than 0 guns become illegal, I will follow the law.
Comments like this is why one should never talk about the guns that they own on the internet. Even innocent sites like an unaffiliated fan forum for a Midwest team, is not above the spying eyes of big data corporations and our own government.
It kind of reminds me of people that brag about smoking illegal drugs on here. Doesn't it remind you of that?
It kind of reminds me of people that brag about smoking illegal drugs on here. Doesn't it remind you of that?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Comments like this is why one should never talk about the guns that they own on the internet. Even innocent sites like an unaffiliated fan forum for a Midwest team, is not above the spying eyes of big data corporations and our own government.
It kind of reminds me of people that brag about smoking illegal drugs on here. Doesn't it remind you of that?
Not really. I'm not afraid that the government knows I smoke weed. They don't need to read this website to find out that I smoke, they can check my twitter. I'm not holding 8 oz's, so it's not a felony in Ohio and decriminalized in Columbus. So it doesn't remind me of anyone on this forum.
But on other forums, hell yeah. Drug-forum always had a very strong anti self-incrimination guideline for posting. That's why terms like SWIM became popular, even if it's a weak case against self-incrimination.
But, the other side to that statement is: Is it just the AR 15? It fires a .223 round.
It would have to include the Ruger mini 14 as well as many other so called 'assault rifles'. The AK 47, the SKS, and others, that fire a 7.62 X 39 round.
Arch, I understand the fallacy that the left really doesn't know what they want to ban, they just want to feel like they banned something so they can claim a victory...
As best I can tell right now, most of the folks on the left want to ban guns that are scary looking and look like what they see in military movies.. basically anything that's all black, has a clip, and that little handle looking thing on top.. those are scary, they have to go.
Which is why I generally agree that we need to look into things we could do to make people safer and I often poke those on the right who are adamant there is absolutely nothing we can do.. but until they come out with an actual proposal of what they intend to try to ban that doesn't include the phrase "Assault style" or "Military style".. there isn't really much to discuss.
whats wrong with banning black guns when your people on the right keep trying to ban black people?
since we're stating a bunch of BS now.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
If they are buying AR15's and AK47's the people may sell. If they are suspected of buying those rifles in order to forcibly come for the rest later, it will be on.
How much do you guys think a second revolution would actually cost? I would say much more than pennies or a thousand bucks.
Another question I have for you guys... How would you be able to tell who did not turn in their AR15 when they swear they don't own one?
I don't think I'm speaking merely for myself when I say that we're still on pins and needles waiting to hear how many cops you think you would be able to kill before getting gunned down in your delusional and hypothetical last stand to keep your AR-15?
Half a dozen? Two dozen?
Me? I would simply sell my guns to the government and take a nice vacation.
Well that was anti-climactic.
I do however think there would be a Second Revolution if the government tries to confiscate guns from the people.
I do however think there would be a Second Revolution if the government tries to confiscate guns from the people.
Revolution or Civil War?
I am thinking Revolution as it involves Constitutional Rights being taken away from the People. Just like if the government passed a law banning free speech. The people rising up against the government. A Civil War to me involves States rising up against the Federal Government, like what California is going through.
start what? the same thing thats been stated over and over?
at this point, there's nothing left to discuss but just troll. i mean damn, its fairly obvious to anybody what the problem is.
what do i keep saying over and over on this board? everyone is a law abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren't.
a lot of liberals want a ban on certain style of rifles because those specific style of rifles are the mass shooter gun of choice.
on top of that, people keep hearing from guys like you and Arch about how gun control restricts the rights of law abiding citizens.....until you realize that the vast majority of mass shooting suspects bought their guns LEGALLY.
^^ that alone should at least make you aware of why a growing amount of people in the country are sick of the excuses.
and then to continue on, we hear the excuses "well, ummm, if you ban AR 15's, people will just use something else".
yea, but they ARENT using something else for the most part this past decade. its got to the point that 9/10, everybody correctly assumes which style of rifle was being used.
and by the way, the fact that its almost always an AR 15 the last few years, DESPITE the fact that there are more powerful rifles on the market, only further enforces the point i've made multiple times that certain weapons make people feel empowered and bad ass.
San Bernardino, Pulse nightclub, Las vegas, sandy hook, cinema in colorado, Santa monica, parkland, and i can go on and on.
they certainly aren't using a musket.
Last edited by Swish; 05/04/1804:40 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
How much do you guys think a second revolution would actually cost? I would say much more than pennies or a thousand bucks.
In your "Scarface"-like fantasy, how many cops do you manage to murder before they mow you down and take your gun from your cold, dead hands?
Every damn one that tries to take my guns! If you don't think this would cause a civil war you're blind and ignorant. Red necks here in Florida are armed and ready.
Your more likely to die crossing the street than to die in a mass shooting of ANY kind muchless a school. Yet, people seem to think it's a justification to take away our rights. It's complete and utter nonsense to think it is going to happen without a fight. Rural people and people from the projects especially won't tolerate it when they know they have zero protection from the police.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
Can somebody tell me the difference in a semi-auto assault rifle and a semi-auto regular rifle of the same caliper? The assault rifle is uglier and scares PDF but thats about it.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif)
