Washington Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal earned swift criticism for making the absurd claim that buying a so-called assault weapon is somehow harder than acquiring tickets for a concert.
The lawmaker took to social media platform X on Monday and made the boldly incorrect assertion that “it shouldn’t be easier to buy an assault weapon than concert tickets.”
It shouldn’t be easier to buy an assault weapon than concert tickets.
— Pramila Jayapal (@PramilaJayapal) December 30, 2024
That claim was quickly picked apart by other social media users.
“Which concert requires background checks to get a ticket?” one commenter asked. “Also, where in the Constitution did our founders include the right to concerts?”
Which concert requires background checks to get a ticket?
Also, where in the Constitution did our founders include the right to concerts?
— Derrick Evans (@DerrickEvans4WV) December 31, 2024
“Never in history has tyranny been defeated by citizens armed with tickets to Blink 182,” another retorted.
Never in history has tyranny been defeated by citizens armed with tickets to Blink 182.
— Amiri King (@AmiriKing) December 31, 2024
“I realize you’re trying to be edgy and also appeal to your base, but did you even think this out before tweeting?” a third observed.
“Is there a waiting period for concert tickets? How about a NICS check? What about a permit (required in some states) just to purchase?” he continued. “We’re not sending our best and brightest to congress & it shows.”
I realize you’re trying to be edgy and also appeal to your base, but did you even think this out before tweeting?
Is there a waiting period for concert tickets? How about a NICS check? What about a permit (required in some states) just to purchase?
We’re not sending our best…
— TheFlynDutchman 🇺🇸🇳🇱🇺🇸 (@FlynDutchman466) December 31, 2024
Beyond the obvious falsehood and absurdity of the claim from Jayapal, firearm ownership is explicitly protected in our Constitution, as some of the commenters noted.
No tyrant has ever feared the ability of the citizenry to buy Taylor Swift tickets, but plenty fear the ability of the citizenry to secure their liberties through the right to bear arms.
Are there too many restrictions on gun ownership?
If law-abiding people do not need the state to defend themselves from tyrants and criminals, then they will not flee to the state at the first sign of societal chaos and surrender more of their liberties, which is why all governments would prefer to have a monopoly on defense.
That is why they are constantly seeking to regulate or restrict gun rights.
In Jayapal’s home state, Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee has enacted a “ban on assault weapons,” claiming that such an effort improves “the health, safety and lives of our residents.”
But even the term “assault weapons” reflects the disdain tyrants have toward an armed citizenry.
There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” All weapons could be used for assaulting someone else. That is the entire point. The only question is not whether assaults will happen, but whether everyday, law-abiding people will be able to defend themselves from such assaults.
The use of the term “assault weapon” is merely meant to cast the supporters of the Second Amendment as supporters of increased violence and mayhem, when in reality they merely want everyday people to maintain the ability to defend themselves from such violence and mayhem.
Jayapal’s post was likewise more of a propaganda tool than an argument for her favored political position on gun ownership.
Thankfully, that propaganda fell flat in tremendous fashion.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.