Swearer sounds off on push for "assault weapons" ban

Swearer sounds off on push for "assault weapons" ban

Joe Biden’s oft-repeated demands for Congress to enact a ban on “assault weapons” don’t appear to be moving the needle on Capitol Hill, with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) admitting over the weekend that the votes to enact a ban simply aren’t there, even in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

While Murphy acknowledged during an appearance on “Face the Nation” Sunday morning that “there are not the votes” in the U.S. Senate as it stands to pass an assault weapons ban, which President Joe Biden has been pushing for since last year, the congressman discussed possible steps forward to increase gun control.

“After Uvalde, I want to ban assault weapons. I think it’s just absolutely unconscionable that we allow these weapons of war to be in commercial circulation,” Murphy said.

“But there’s not the votes to do that. So, what are there the votes to do? Let’s explore the potential of what’s possible,” the senator continued. “And so what if we said before you get an AR-15, you have to show that you are responsible, that you know how to operate it, what if we applied background checks universally, simply to the purchase of those weapons?”

Murphy said that while he ultimately wants assault-style weapons “off the street,” he also believes that “we’d be a safer nation if we required just a little bit of training before you bought the most dangerous weapons commercially available.”

Some anti-gun groups see Murphy’s admission as “caving to the gun lobby”, and are ready to throw him under the bus or at least try to bring a primary challenge against him for acknowledging the political reality in Washington, D.C.

For a less hyperbolic response to what’s happening on Capitol Hill, I invited the Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer to join me on today’s Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, and we had a great conversation that touches on a number of issues from school security to the insanity of gun prohibitionists’ attempts to ban modern sporting rifles.

On the latter issue, Swearer raised an excellent point when she brought up the fact that the very same anti-gun activists and politicians who routinely declare that “battlefield weapons of war shouldn’t be on our streets” generally have no issue whatsoever with police owning them, even off-duty, despite proclaiming that “police violence is gun violence.” In fact, the officers who responded to the shootings at Covenant School were carrying “scary” black rifles of their own.

“You have peace officers who are undertaking to stop a civilian threat in suburban America; not in a warzone, not in combat, but in suburban America a threat against civilians and they’re showing up with what? That AR-15 rifle… Why? Because they are useful. It is so useful for them that we routinely exempt them from these ‘assault weapons’ bans, even in their personal capacity. Now let me ask you, if it is so useful for them who are showing up after I’ve already called them to the same threat that I initially faced, well how much more useful is it for me who is facing that threat and who’s waiting fourteen minutes for them to show up with the same gun that I’m being told I can’t have because it’s too dangerous. It makes no sense whatsoever.”

It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever, but I’ve long given up on trying to find the logic in the ideology of the anti-gunners. I am, however, eternally grateful for the work of advocates like Amy Swearer, and I greatly appreciate her joining me on today’s program. Be sure to check out our conversation below, and I look forward to continuing our conversation in the very near future.