Note What He Isn’t Saying

Politico has a story up about Eric Swalwell’s claim that the information about his connections with an apparent Chinese spy was leaked to hurt him because of his criticism of President Donald Trump. Maybe it was. If so, the leaker did it brilliantly by placing the story with an outlet like Axios where it would have more credibility than at a right wing website.

Swalwell has tried to spin it as old news and unimportant, but he hasn’t denied what was reported by Axios.

If I were a denizen of The Swamp, I might be concerned about what might be leaked or officially declassified between now and 12 noon ET, 20 January, 2021.

Talking About Something He Knows Nothing About

Breitbart has a post up about some of the more stupid ideas Eric Swalwell has advanced concerning gun control. Most of his proposals demonstrate that he has essentially no understanding of firearms in the Real World.

For example, he thinks that it’s a good idea to restrict ammunition ownership to no more than 200 rounds of any caliber. If he had walked through the ammo aisles at a Bass Pro or Cabela’s (or a Dick’s), he’d have seen that one of the most common package counts for .22LR ammo is around 500 rounds. In fact, the last box of .22LR rounds I bought contained 525, just enough for a weekend of plinking with a couple of friends.

I suppose that there are people who buy ammunition and horde it, but those of us who shoot for a hobby and/or train to maintain proficiency in shooting safely and accurately go through what we buy. Buying practice ammo in bulk saves money and makes it easier to train. Why would a thoughtful person want to make it more difficult to maintain a high level of proficiency in safe firearm handling?

BTW, given my collection of oddball firearms, I’d be able to keep over 4,000 rounds of ammunition under Swalwell’s proposed limit.

What Are The Odds?

One of the members of the Democrat Presidential Nomination Clown Posse has radical gun control as a cornerstone of his platform.I’m not sure how broad his definition of “assault weapons” is, but let’s pretend there are 15 million weapons that would be covered by reenacting the 1994 ban list. Let’s also assume that the average owner has a couple such weapons. That would mean that there are around 7-1/2 million people armed with such firearms. For the purpose of this thought experiment, let’s further assume that the compliance rate with such a ban would be comparable to compliance with the Connecticut registration requirements enacted after the Newtown school shooting or the New York SAFE Act. That would leave “assault weapons” in the hands of over 7 million freshly-minted felons.

Even if Swalwell tried to use all of the federal civilian police agencies, conscripted all the state and local civilian police agencies, used the federal naval forces (Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard), and found away around the Posse Comitatus Act to use the Army and Air Force to enforce such a ban, his force would be outnumbered roughly two-to-one. And that’s probably being generous in Swalwell’s favor. It might be that when push came to shove, many in law enforcement and the military might side with the Second Amendment and refuse to enforce what they saw as an unconstitutional law. (We’re seeing such resistance to state laws by sheriffs in several states and even prosecutors in rural New York counties.) Also, many people who own guns not covered by the ban might side with the resistance, pushing the odds further against a successful ban.

Of course, Swalwell may think that he could make his ban work. Given the federal government’s track record enforcing Prohibition and its performance in the War on Drugs, I wouldn’t bet that way. OTOH, neither Elliott Ness nor the DEA was willing to use nukes.


Omelettes, Eggs, Some Disassembly Required

“What’s your comfort number, Lefties?” asks The Phantom over at The Phantom Soapbox. Even before taking office, She Guevara has already threatened the President’s son with a subpoena because of an effective meme on Twitter, and Eric Swalwell has expressed a willingness to use nuclear weapons to enforce gun control. Both may be joking or speaking hyperbolically, but they tipped their hands. It’s clear that these socialists are willing to use government power to force through the social changes they want.

P. J. O’Rourke once suggested that we should not favor any government program that we were not willing to kill our own grandmother for. He reasoned that if she didn’t pay her taxes to support the program, the government would send an agent with a gun to collect the taxes and that further resistance could be fatal, so we only should support a government program if we really supported such an outcome. The Phantom wonders how many of our grandmothers these socialists are willing to sacrifice—

So there’s really only one question worth asking DemocRats in the USA and Liberals here: how many people are you willing to throw out of work to get your socialist plan enacted? How many will you imprison to enforce your regulation? How many senior citizens are you willing to freeze to death for your ecological fuel tax? How many resisters will you kill? Hmm?

Ten thousand?

The Communist’s answer was 100 million in the 20th Century. The entire nation of Canada, four times over, died for the myth of the Worker’s Paradise. The Chinese Communists are still at it.

Read the whole thing.