The first round of Democratic Presidential Debates is over, and the first casualty has been listed. Gun control zealot, Rep. Eric “Nuke’em if they won’t turn them in” Swalwell, dropped out shortly after the first debate.

The second round is on the way, as the large – and growing – field of candidates continues to jockey for position. During the first debates, the candidates made it pretty clear that even the most “moderate” of their number, are seeking support from the far-left, socialist/communist, anti-rights element of the Democratic base.

This makes sense because this is the most vocal and vindictive segment of the party, credited, in large degree, with abandoning Hillary Clinton, resulting in Donald Trump’s victory. It’s not all just political gamesmanship though. A couple of these candidates may be just pandering to the hard-left, while actually holding positions that are more moderate, but it appears that the majority has committed to “progressive” policy positions like free healthcare for illegal immigrants, decriminalization of “undocumented border crossing,” and taxpayer funding of student loan payoffs and healthcare costs.

And while these positions might be unpopular among the majority of GunVoters, they are, of course, not the issues that are most important to us.

What really matters to Second Amendment advocates is their positions on the right to arms, and the lengths to which they are willing to go to advance those positions.

While not all of the candidates in the debates got a chance to express themselves on Second Amendment matters, those that did, were frankly frightening, and the others took no opportunity to offer any push-back on the radical ideas that were put forward. All of the candidates have publicly embraced the basic gun control planks of the Democratic Party platform: banning “assault weapons,” criminalizing private firearm transfers, and confiscating guns based on unsubstantiated claims of a family member, angry ex, or feuding neighbor. Most have called for even more extreme measures, and it’s pretty clear that, if elected, any would immediately sign any gun control bill that might make its way through Congress.

Several, like Sen. Kamala Harris, have declared their intention to use executive orders, if Congress fails to give them the gun control they want.

In the debates, Joe Biden, the current Democratic Party’s version of a “moderate,” was representative of the entire field when he declared that the “enemy” is the firearms industry. Biden, who has in the past pointed to his expensive Italian, over-and-under shotgun as proof that he supports the Second Amendment, sponsored a ban on “assault weapons” during his time in the U.S. Senate, and as Barack Obama’s VP, was the administration’s point-man on gun control. During the debates Biden agreed with others that there should be a mandatory government “buy back” of scary semi-auto rifles, then suggested that it should be illegal to sell any gun in the United States that isn’t equipped with mythical “smart gun” technology, to prevent it being used by anyone not authorized to do so.

In classic Biden style, “Uncle Joe” said; “No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure could pull that trigger.” (Can your biometric measure pull a trigger Joe?)

While Biden might be an expert of sorts on “biometrics,” he’s got no clue about guns or economics. But ignorance of the basics never stopped a gun control zealot before, so why should we expect logic and fact-based rationality to guide them now? Even a conservative estimate for “buying back” the 16 million or more “assault-style rifles” currently in circulation places the cost at around 10 billion dollars, and that’s just paying for the guns, not the cost of administering or executing the plan, not to mention the cost in human lives lost or destroyed in the process as formerly law-abiding gun owners are turned into outlaws at the stroke of a pin. If you think it can’t happen, consider that fewer than a thousand semi-automatic rifles have been turned in by somewhat compliant Kiwis in New Zealand.

As to “smart guns,” you first, Joe. Order your Secret Service security detail to only carry “smart guns.” After they have proven their efficacy, move on to mandating “smart guns” for all police and licensed security personnel, Hollywood bodyguards, and such. Maybe after that, we’ll consider a thoughtful discussion about bringing them into the public market as a serious option.

The other candidates who got a chance to talk about gun control, seemed to be competing for the title of “Most Anti-Rights,” though none could top Swalwell’s past threat to nuke non-compliant gun owners. Now that he’s out of the race though, the others will no doubt continue pushing his idiotic ideas.

In the entire field of 25 “credible” candidates, only three have ever said anything supportive of the right to arms, all while they were running for, or holding offices in heavily pro-gun jurisdictions. All three of those candidates have publicly repudiated those statements, now that they are seeking higher office. I don’t know which is worse, a politician with a long record of opposition to the right to arms, or one who “used to believe” in the right to arms, but abandoned that position when their political ambitions dictated.

At this point, it is pretty clear that GunVoters will have a choice in 2020 between a Republican who has betrayed us while claiming to support the Second Amendment and might do so again, and a Democrat who has promised to work to criminalize our rights actively. Given the importance of court appointments and the good that has been done in that regard over the past three years, I think GunVoters must choose the “maybe” over the “definitely,” but much more important will be making sure that whoever is in the White House, doesn’t have an anti-rights-dominated, Democrat-controlled House and Senate to work with. That would be a very bad thing for individual rights.