A lot of conservatives and Second Amendment advocates vocally oppose “gun buyback” programs like the one Beto O’Rourke is proposing and have warned that enacting such policies could result in violence. And New York Times contributing opinion writer Wil Wilkinson is very concerned about their concerns. So, he’s written a whole piece to explain why gun rights advocates are such a threat to our democracy:

In my latest at @nytopinion, I argue that the truculent response to @BetoORourke's mandatory assault weapon buyback proposal betrays a disturbing hostility to democracy on the right. https://t.co/Hysuh3EVwP — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

This piece is primarily about democracy, not gun control. My claim is that a minority can't simply declare certain questions off the table of democratic deliberation, and try to enforce that declaration with threats. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

I support a legal right to own a gun in self-defense. But the recognition of that right poses real risks to others' safety. I think I'm obliged to persuade my fellow citizens that this is a right we ought to recognize. Trying to bully them into agreement just isn't okay. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

Way too much right-wing discourse is about why it's OK to immunize minority policy preferences from the scrutiny and authority of democratic majorities. It's a rejection of the republican ideal of popular sovereignty, the idea that political authority needs public affirmation. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

Deep and intractable disagreement about the good and the right is a basic condition of political life in a pluralistic society. Democracy is a tool for managing those disagreements to keep them from becoming violent. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

Dogmatic claims about inviolable rights are implicitly claims about the conditions for legitimate political authority and the proper scope of democratic decision-making. But people disagree about rights, and there needs to be space to peacefully negotiate those disagreements. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

Pounding the table and insisting that YOUR list of basic rights, and YOUR opinion about their shape, is definitive, that the conversation is closed, and if majorities try to legislate to the contrary, they'll have to have a conversation with your gun, is dangerously illiberal. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

If conservatives get to say "there will be violence" when somebody floats a proposal to take away especially dangerous guns , then liberals get to say "there will be violence" for taking away protections for pre-existing conditions, which will kill people. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

But they tend not to, because liberals are be wary of declaring disagreement out of bounds and withdrawing authority from democratic due process, even when they think those processes are unfair. This is civic virtue, not a tactical weakness to take advantage of. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

You can't say in good faith that it's JUST A PREDICTION that gun owners will wreak violence on cops enforcing constitutionally kosher, duly-passed democratic legislation if you won't to condemn it. You're endorsing it by dangling it out there to take a valid option off the table. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

Based on the above tweets, you can no doubt tell that Wilkinson’s piece is very thoughtful and that he has a very profound understanding of America’s foundational principles.

I am going to comment on this later as it's a poorly argued piece, especially as it relates to majority rule. But I am interested in what @charlescwcooke thinks as well. https://t.co/C9kKP31djU — Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) September 18, 2019

I think it’s lazy and ignores that ours is a mixed system that has as many limits on democracy as it has elements that make use of it. — Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 18, 2019

Leave guns aside for a moment. Across the board I will plead guilty to viewing my individual rights as “off-limits” and being prepared to threaten those who would encroach upon them. — Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 18, 2019

It's almost as if he doesn't understand (or care) why the constitution exists! — David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) September 18, 2019

“Stop being so truculent,” say people indulging the idea of using government force to confiscate your constitutionally protected property. — Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) September 18, 2019

I love how we went from "we don't want to take your guns" to "we want to take your guns, and frankly your objections to it are undemocratic." — neontaster (@neontaster) September 18, 2019

We’ve come a long way, baby.

Check out my thread. — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

I did you on better, I read the actual column! In which you described the viewpoint that some rights should not be subject to the democratic process as "seditious" and "genuinely alarming." — Robby Soave (@robbysoave) September 18, 2019

It seems you've misread. Here's what I said. pic.twitter.com/iiA3J5V9Nq — Will Wilkinson ? (@willwilkinson) September 18, 2019

I have not misread you. You have called people seditious for saying they will not allow you to deprive them of an explicit right that is granted to them under our governing documents. I'm saying that's wrong. Truly, it's absurd. — Robby Soave (@robbysoave) September 18, 2019

What’s even more absurd is that Wilkinson expects to be taken seriously.

LOL This idiot has been covering "the right" for how long? And he still doesn't know that we're against straight democracy BECAUSE of shit like some clown politician trying to force stuff that violates our rights? Also, remember when Californians voted against gay marriage? https://t.co/rNVMc7HYF3 — RBe (@RBPundit) September 18, 2019

Lot of tweets without saying a single thing. — Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) September 18, 2019

Erick Erickson is practicing sedition. I didn't think this debate could get dumber, but of course it got dumber pic.twitter.com/CCVXJZHZcH — Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) September 18, 2019

We’ll give props to Wilkinson for finding a way to cram so much wrongness into one piece.

Gov't that restricts constitutional rights after winning elections are automatically in the right–this is the clearest demonstration of white privilege I think I have seen in a very long time. — Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) September 18, 2019