Let's not mince words: Eric Swalwell is advocating for Civil War.
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.
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.
Right here, Mr. Sawlwell is advocating for a civil war -- right now.
He is claiming as justification exactly the same argument made for keeping slaves -- that some people are superior to others.
Mr. Swalwell claims that the right to live is supreme over any other.
The problem is that without disarming everyone -- including every weapon, and that includes the police, he is declaring that this right only exists for certain people and not others and he intends to murder anyone who disagrees with them.
Let's not mince words: All laws are ultimately backed by homicide. If you refuse to respect the validity of the law the guns will come out and they will be used on you. That's homicide and those arguing for laws are in each and every case arguing for homicide. We thus must debate for each and every law what category that proposed homicide falls into. I remind you there are several categories of homicide, including:
1. Meritorious (e.g. shooting someone who is raping your daughter)
2. Justifiable (e.g. shooting someone who breaks into your home -- but has not yet attacked you.)
3. Accidental (e.g. you lose control of your vehicle due to black ice on the road, etc.)
4. Negligent (e.g. your car has terribly bald tires and hydroplanes, etc.)
5. Felonious (e.g. you stick up a bank and shoot a teller)
All homicide, in other words, is not equal. Some is punishable, some is regrettable, some is just bad luck and some is worthy of cheering. But make no mistake -- all laws are in fact declarations of intent to commit homicide upon those who disagree with them and the category of that homicide must be debated and agreed upon as that intent is inherent in the passage of any law.
The Constitution, however, is not the "10 Suggestions." It is the supreme law of the land. It trumps all other laws and cannot be changed by Statute or by judicial fiat. The 14th Amendment says its protections and divisions of power extend to the State and local level, and denies the States any ability to infringe on its requirements.
The Second Amendment is clear on its face: Shall Not Be Infringed means what it says. In addition the word militia means what it says too: All adult males physically capable of rendering armed resistance in the event of need who are expected to have their own arms and ammunition. Go ahead and include the gals if you wish; works for me, but that's not the historical context. In other words the gals are free to show up and render such resistance but able-bodied men are expected to. There are exactly two ways to overrule those words: 1) Revolution or secession, at which point the Constitution ceases to exist entirely, all at once (that's the point of either of those events, duh) and 2) Amendment by the process set forth in the Constitution.
That many people will honor a law, ordnance or regulation that is expressly in violation of the Constitution does not obligate anyone else to do so. That someone in any branch of government claims that the clear words written in said Constitution don't mean what they say does not obligate anyone to agree. The Constitution is not a debate society; it is a set of facts and a contract between the people and the government.
The people have no obligation to honor a violation of that contract today or tomorrow irrespective of whether they have in the past.
If you wish to read the actual arguments made before the 2nd Amendment was adopted (along with the rest of the Constitution), along with what militia actually means go read both The Federalist and Anti-Federalist. They set forth in black ink the debate that was held and why the elements of the Constitution exist along with the hierarchy of law that is inherent in this nation's governance. They're not debatable either; they're historical fact and were in fact the elements of the debate, penned and presented, for the express purpose of making sure nobody could misunderstand their intent, the arguments presented and the outcome.
Now let me point out both why the Second Amendment actually exists and why the ordinary person needs to own not just one but at least two high-capacity, high-accuracy rifles -- like AR-15s.
This first permanent settlement in America is arguably Jamestown, in 1622. It is now 2018. That's 396 years. In that time we have had two serious internal Civil Wars; one of which was successful in its aims (the Revolution) the other not (The Civil War or, if you prefer The War of Northern Aggression.) That is one incident per 198 years, on average. In other words there is a 0.51% chance per year of violent civil war or uprising intending to render moot the entire existing government across a material section of the nation's landmass. May I remind you that America is in fact one of the best large land-masses in regard to this risk; Continental Europe has had two serious internal wars in the last 100 years, for a per-year risk of 2% or four times ours. Some parts of Europe have been much worse than that, as has most of the Middle East, South and Central America, Africa and a large part of Asia. We can argue over the reason for that later -- and the 2nd Amendment might be part of it.
0.5% per year is a very low risk, but it's definitely not zero.
An average adult lives to about 80, and is an adult at 18. He or she is therefore an adult for approximately 62 years.
Now let me ask the question: What risk of calamity do you believe justifies your personal holding of insurance against the risk of your death in the event the bad thing happens?
If you live in a "100 year" flood plain this means on average over very long periods of time it floods once every 100 years. Your mortgage is for 30 years. Your mortgage company will require you to buy flood insurance because the cumulative risk of a flood during that 30 years is about 26%. That is plenty for the bank to require you pay for that insurance -- or they won't write your mortgage.
What is the risk of, for example, contracting cancer during your lifetime? The answer is about 38.5%.
What is the risk of needing an AR-15 to survive a severe civil conflict (defined as revolution or civil war) during your 62 adult years, given the history of such conflicts on the landmass known today as United States since people of white European-ancestry have been in permanent residence upon same?
The math is simple: 1 - (cumulative odds of NOT having it happen over 62 years), or in arithmetic notation 1 - (0.9949 ^ 62)
Ready for the result?
It's 27.17% -- higher than your house flooding if you live in a 100 year flood plain.
What if we keep taking in immigrants who refuse to assimilate and we become more socialist much as Europe has done over the last several hundred years -- and our risk in fact looks like theirs based on the last 100 years? What is the risk you will need that AR-15 during your adult lifetime in that case, which I think is a fair argument on the risk we take today given that we refuse to secure our borders and expel those who are here illegally now, never mind taking in "refugees" who are not required to demonstrate their respect for and intent to honor our Constitutional protections?
That's right -- there is a 71.4% chance that Europe will suffer a war of similarity to WWI and WWII during a person's adult lifetime, based on the two World Wars. It's not much different odds, incidentally, if you start enumerating all the other wide scale wars (civil and otherwise) on the European Continent all the way back to the time of the Roman Empire!
You are reasonably close in odds to needing that rifle as you to are to getting cancer during your lifetime. Indeed, it's about 70% as likely.
You're also more likely to need that AR-15 than your home is to flood during a 30 year period if you live in a 100 year flood plain.
Both of those risks are the best-case scenario and require an immediate 100% "about-face" on expelling all illegal immigrants currently here and requiring 100% of those who wish to immigrate legally be verified as to their intentions to respect and honor our Constitution and its requirements.
If we do not get rid of all the illegal invaders in this nation and keep admitting those who have no respect for or intent to follow our Constitution, along with putting people with rank disrespect for same in Congress and our Executive like Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Eric Swalwell and both Presidents Obama and Trump then it's a fair bet that your odds are not 27.1% but far closer to 70%.
In other words, it's odds-on you're going to need those guns.
If the bad happens while you might need a pistol, a hunting rifle or .22 for secondary defensive or eating purposes your primary weapon requirement is going to be a high-powered rifle like the AR-15. You will also need a nice-sized stack of high-capacity magazines loaded and ready to go, a case (or more) of ammunition to reload those magazines with and two rifles, because in such a situation you will not be able to get parts or spares for your gun and thus two is one and one is none.
Further, in such a situation just like in every other similar situation over time there will be plenty of people who have nothing EXCEPT said rifle and will attempt to take everything you have from you, using the complete breakdown of ordinary civilization as their excuse, murdering you and your family in the process. We see myriad examples of this all over the world today, including in Syria right now. You will either be able to attempt to stop them because you personally posses a high-power rifle and ammunition for it or you will be murdered, anyone who happens to be female will likely be raped first and everything you own will be confiscated or destroyed.
There is utterly nobody who has graduated from High School who should not have been able to within seconds compute these odds and understand both how the math works behind this and why. That there is any uptake among the people of this country for such an act as confiscation of these weapons from civilians is proof positive that our government has intentionally failed to educate our young people for decades and has intentionally failed for the explicit purpose of making them unable to calculate the odds of such an event and thus understand why it is absolutely critical that these weapons not only be perfectly legal for ordinary people to posses but that their possession and proficiency in their use must be encouraged.
Indeed it is likely that the pre-NFA state of the law prior to the 1930s is why America has a risk of such war or revolution that is one quarter of that of other developed and similar cultures and nations -- specifically, the entirety of Europe, Central and South America, Africa and most of Asia. That's the vast majority of land-mass on this planet.
But in today's world with people like Eric Swalwell in Congress and our de-facto refusal to demand that any who wish to immigrate to the United States do so only under the expectation and belief that they agree with the Constitution in all respects the risk in the United States of you needing that rifle today is much more-likely to be akin to that of someone who lives in Europe.
You don't need one AR-15, in short.
Every adult in fact needs two or more of them because during your adult life you're odds on to experience the very unfortunate set of events that will require you own and have a working one, right now, or you and all of those who you love will be dead.