You can say one thing about Kurt Schlichter: He isn’t about mincing words, particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment.
The retired Army colonel and conservative pundit, writing at Townhall.com in a piece published Thursday, asked a question about gun-grabbing that the left wants to avoid as long as possible. And he asked it in the title, no less: “How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing To Shed To Disarm Patriotic Americans?”
The question was addressed to “Congressjerk Eric Swalwell” — the California representative that has advocated for confiscating so-called “assault weapons” and joked around on Twitter about using nuclear weapons to target anyone who resists.
“Millions of Americans own these basic tools of freedom, which the ignorant call ‘assault weapons,’ and these loyal citizens keep and bear them to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution,” Schlichter wrote.
“But Rep. Swalwell would make these citizens felons, though these patriots are only a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants.
“Of course, he wants to make these patriots felons because they are a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants. After all, that’s what leftist Democrats like him are.”
Schlichter noted that there could be resistance to such a plan. And that, of course,
“Rep. Swalwell, some people are going to fight rather than cave in, so what’s the number of bodies you would be willing to pile up to win?” Schlicter wrote.
“Let’s put aside the right or wrong of resistance; it’ll be a thing. It’ll happen. You’re from near San Francisco, so you don’t know any real Americans, but even though I am from that hellhole too, I’ve met a few Americans in my travels. They are an ornery people who don’t give in to the kind of bullying you advocate. So, you’re going to have to kill some people to do what you want, and I just want to know how many you’re prepared to off to achieve your goal.”
And, as Schlichter noted, there was a recent precedent for this sort of thing.
“Remember Waco?” Schlichter wrote.
“The raid on David Koresh’s compound was because his weird band of misfits allegedly had scary, outlawed guns. That’s why Democrat Janet Reno initially decided to send in the troops. The government got four of our ATF agents killed, then slaughtered the resisters, including women and kids.
“Was it worth it? Maybe these creepy cultists were violating the law, but was making sure they didn’t have guns that were scary worth shooting or burning alive about 80 people, including four cops?”
And that’s really the idea behind the Second Amendment. No, obviously, a small band of AR-15 owners aren’t going to be able to beat the U.S. government should it become tyrannical. That’s hardly the point. The point is that it would be extremely troublesome — not to mention bad press — to have armed skirmishes in the United States. That’s not a good look.
But then, as Schlichter points out, Swalwell has an odd sense of what level of government intervention would be proper at this point.
“On Twitter, which is a wonderful thing because it makes people truly reveal themselves, one gentleman pointed out the not-so-far-fetched notion that mass gun confiscation (let’s leave the problematic logistics for the gun-hating fascists aside) would spark a civil war,” Schlichter wrote.
“But Rep. Swalwell was not worried; he observed that a bunch of citizens with rifles could not stand up to a military armed with nuclear weapons.
“Well, that’s a troubling notion.”
And even if you take Swalwell’s notion that he was just mentioning nuclear weapons as a jape, Schlichter points out, “he only put nukes off limits. What killing systems are still on the table? Infantry? Artillery? Bombers? Because his answer assumed that he would support prosecuting a war against those who failed to obey and submit to arrest.”
Coming from the place of a retired colonel who served in Kosovo — which he once called “a land where people rejected the rule of law in favor of the rule of force” — one might think he has a unique understanding of things like that. Mass gun confiscation, even if just of a type, is likely an impossibility in the United States, especially given the politically divisive nature of the cause. With that in mind, the question merely becomes how much violence politicians are willing to countenance.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.