Rep. Lauren Boebert has been accused of being the AOC on the right.
To be fair, she’s a bombastic personality who takes a position the other side views as radical and does so unapologetically. The difference, at least in my opinion, is Boebert actually knows what the hell she’s talking about, particularly when it comes to the Second Amendment.
Unsurprisingly, though, the left treats her in a way they’d decry as misogynistic if she were a Democrat and we all know it. Salon is just the latest to do so.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is facing sharp criticism for her recent, baseless attempt to shift Russian President Vladamir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine into a political argument on gun control, reports HuffPost.
On Monday, March 1, the conspiracy theorist lawmaker tweeted a reference to Ukraine’s nuclear demilitarization that occurred at the close of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union. “Remember. Ukraine gave up their nukes in exchange for promises of security.”
She added, “We see how that turned out. This is why we must NEVER give up our guns to any government.”
The comparison actually makes some sense. We’re told if we give up our guns, we’ll have security, but the very people we’ll be forced to rely on for that security may well turn on us.
Unsurprisingly, a lot of people missed the point.
Almost immediately after Boebert shared the remarks, Twitter users began criticizing her for her claims. One Twitter user slammed Boebert’s argument explaining why it’s ridiculous to compare firearms to nuclear weaponry.
“Comparing rifles to nukes is an extreme comparison considering that fact individuals can’t just walk into their local Walmart or bass pro shop and purchase a nuclear weapon,” that user argued.
That argument might make some sense if we were talking about individuals with nuclear weapons, but Ukraine already had them. They opted to give them away because they were promised they wouldn’t need them, that they’d be taken care of.
Just as we’re told that if we didn’t have guns, we would be taken care of by the police.
What you have to consider is that the comparison is one of scale. Think about why many people are against enforcing a no-fly zone over Ukraine. Such a measure would help the Ukrainians a great deal, but it would mean tangling with a nuclear power in Russia. We’re hesitant to do it because we’re afraid of a nuclear confrontation.
If Ukraine still had its nukes, that likely would have curbed Russian aggression or, at a minimum, would have been something Putin would have needed to at least consider.
That’s at the international level.
Down in the grit and grime, though, the same thing is happening, though on a different scale. Would-be American tyrants cannot begin to do the things they’d like because they have to account for the guns in the hands of private Americans.
Much like Ukraine’s nuclear weapons, these guns serve as a deterrent.
Also like Ukraine’s nukes, we’re told that if we give them up, we’ll be promised peace and security by the very people who are most likely to violate that peace as security.
But Salon has filled an entire piece with people who simply don’t get it. They don’t see it because they don’t think the same way you or I might. Boebert, however, does, and she’s completely correct about the comparison.
Granted, Twitter might not have been the best place for it due to the limitations of a tweet, but she wasn’t wrong in anything she said.
What Salon has actually done is highlight just how ignorant the left is on Second Amendment issues and how things play out at various levels.