Democrat Wants To Nuke Gun Owners

A top Democrat in Congress and already declared 2020 presidential candidate, Representative Eric Swalwell (D-California) recently wrote an article calling for a ban on “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons”, but he plans to take it one step further. Not only would Eric Shadwell ban weapons, but he’d “buy them back and go after resisters, who would not comply.”

 

Eric Swalwell thinks the U.S. should use nuclear weapons to exterminate gun owners who won’t voluntarily relinquish their firearms. This statement shows this man has become so intoxicated into the progressive liberal mentally, that he is willing to kill all gun owners, but also non gun owners. Nuclear weapons (even smaller ones) destructive radius is huge, and collateral damage is unimaginable.

 

Eric Swalwell is mentally unstable and should not even be a congressman. His thinking falls right in line with the likes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong, which is exterminate your opposers.

 

This shocking threat received widespread backlash, forcing Eric Swalwell to later claim he was being “sarcastic.” It is obvious he has been caught revealing what is in his heart about guns and gun owners.

 

Comments

opher goodwin Added Nov 20, 2018 - 9:08am
Yep - what's wrong with everybody having military style semi-automatics? If we issue all students with them it would stop those gun nuts from shooting up schools!
opher goodwin Added Nov 20, 2018 - 9:08am
Let's nuke the Democrats!! That'll show them!!
Liberal1 Added Nov 20, 2018 - 9:24am
Marty, spreading false information, so as to scare and "fire up" the masses into an armed revolt, counts as domestic terrorism in my book.  If nothing else, you should be arrested for incitement.
 
Stephen Hunter Added Nov 20, 2018 - 9:31am
From what I have read, the Dems are only slightly less anti-gun vs the Repubs. Common sense gun control in spite of tragedy upon tragedy, just does not seem to be something most Americans are interested in. Sort of like Universal Healthcare. Boggles my Canadian mind, however must accept the facts as they are, and not judge. It is what it is. 
FacePalm Added Nov 20, 2018 - 9:45am
L1-
Unfortunately for Swallow-well, his statement is absolutely accurate.  He's an idiot, either in the employ of globalist gun-grabbers, or allied with them...so he's useful...just not to Americans.
 
I feel that as a duly sworn public servant, he's given evidence of violation of his oath of office, and should be immediately arrested and prosecuted for perjury.  After all, his Oath is to "preserve, protect, and defend...against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic," not to "undermine, sabotage, and destroy."
 
See his statement here.
TexasLynn Added Nov 20, 2018 - 10:14am
I note that the first two leftist to comment don't really refute anything in the post... electing instead to just shoot from the hip with emotional responses and attacks.  Why not point out exactly what is not true in the post?  Why not specifically point out what assumptions Marty made that are wrong?  Nope... that's not the leftist way since facts are rarely on their side.
 
This was a good and factual post, Marty; though I will disagree on one point (objectively, not irrationally).
 
Fact: Eric Swalwell did write the editorial you mentioned.  Here it is... and it's pretty self explanatory.
 
USA Today (May 3rd 2018): Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters
 
Fact: If you look at the date, that editorial was some time ago... BUT it was recently referenced on an NBC news story, which was referenced by a conservative commentator (on twitter in particular).
 
Fact: Eric Swalwell replied to that Twitter thread with the following concerning those who resisted: "And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them."  (see the link)
 
Fact: Rep Swalwell later tweeted he was using sarcasm. (Here's the link)
 
Here is what I rationally and objectively deduce from all of this…
 
1) Eric Swalwell is indeed the kind of leftist who would follow through with confiscation as described in his editorial.
 
2) His reference to nukes concerning the process of dealing with resisters was "sarcasm" (though poor sarcasm at best).  As a matter of logistics, the idea is ludicrous and even the likes of Swalwell (and many on WB) could not seriously consider such a thing.
 
So "Eric Swalwell thinks the U.S. should use nuclear weapons to exterminate gun owners who won’t voluntarily relinquish their firearms... (the entirety of the 2nd paragraph)" is not true in my opinion.
 
3) BUT while he may have been "kidding" about the nukes.  He was not kidding about "it would be a short war"; there being zero sarcasm there.  Eric Swalwell's stance is clearly that violence (even lethal violence) is acceptable to him when it comes to his goals of gun confiscation.
 
With that in mind we can look at history to see those who shared those views.  "His thinking falls right in line with the likes of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong..." is true.  All three thought the same thing and followed through.
 
The overall premise of your post is spot on... "It is obvious he has been caught revealing what is in his heart about guns and gun owners."
 
Good post Marty... expect a lot of emotional backlash.  Rational refuting or debate?  Not so much.
Steel Breeze Added Nov 20, 2018 - 10:26am
reminds me of a virulent anti-gun congressman in the 80s i think,who,when confronted with an intruder,shot him in the face with an unregistered gun.....
i have friends who are anti gun and i ask ,if civil order breaks down and mobs rule the streets,what will you do? they all answer the same; "We're coming to your house"....
Rusty Smith Added Nov 20, 2018 - 10:31am
As some of the anti gun posters in this forum have illustrated so well, when it comes to guns they quite thinking logically and prefer emotional arguments.  
 
Some will even deny facts that are easy to verify, because they don't want to acknowledge them.
Bill H. Added Nov 20, 2018 - 10:52am
 
Yet another post designed to fuel even more hate and division.
Why is it that I am only seeing these type of posts designed to inspire and fuel a civil war from those on the Right?
TreeParty Added Nov 20, 2018 - 11:44am

This original post is not a "good and factual post".
The headline is "Democrat wants to nuke gun owners." That is false on its face and misleading on several levels. 
"Eric Swalwell thinks the U.S. should use nuclear weapons to exterminate gun owners who won’t voluntarily relinquish their firearms." That statement is false on many levels. Would it not be equally false to claim that "Joe Biggs ("rambobiggs") wants to take up arms against the United States Government!"? 
"Eric Swalwell is mentally unstable and should not even be a congressman." That statement is demonstrably false
Is that enough refutation for ya?!
"Civil order" is likelier to break down when people refuse to treat each other civilly, eg when people such as this author lie casually and demonize opposing points of view. 
Look at it this way: on the continuum of "arms", the right of which "to keep and bear shall not be infringed", where should we draw the line?
Should private citizens have the right to keep and bear nuclear arms?
Of course not. Should private citizens have the right to keep and bear anti-aircraft guns? Tanks? Mortars? No, they should not have that "right". Even Antonin Scalia, in his official capacity as a justice on the SCOTUS, wrote that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited". It is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." So "drawing the line" at "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons" is certainly a reasonable proposal. Private ownership of these weapons of war is not necessary to a "well regulated militia". 
And actually, the U.S.A.Today article by Swalwell is well-reasoned and thoroughly reasonable. 
Rational refuting and debate?! Absolutely!
FacePalm Added Nov 20, 2018 - 11:45am
Bill H.
Reminds me of a story.
A fella showed up to collect his unemployment check, and said to the job counselor, "Y'know, i hate taking these checks; i'd prefer to work."
"Really?" said the counselor, "Well, you may be in luck.  A wealthy client just called in to offer a job a chauffeur for his 18-yr. old daughter.  He's supplying the limo, the uniform, and free meals.  Oh, but his daughter is a nymphomaniac, so you'll need to be careful.  It pays 50 an hour.  Interested?"
"Oh hell yeah!" exclaimed the guy, "But seriously?  Are you pulling my leg?"
The counselor replied, "Well, you started it."
 
And there's Swalwell; you claim hate and division, well, Swalwell started it.  He's going to richly deserve all the criticism coming his way, and it is my sincere hope that he's tried for perjury and driven from office in disgrace.
Liberal1 Added Nov 20, 2018 - 11:45am
For God's sake, FacePalm, you'd have to dig long and deep to find a bigger conspiracy theory source then The Washington Free Beacon!  
 
TexasLynn, calling me a Leftist is fine (even if incorrect), but you don't get to classify me as "irrational" .  Trust me big guy, you ain't no Mr. Spock. (so stop trying to put words in my mouth).
 
As for what Swalwell did or did not ACTUALLY say is VERY specific. 
 
As you wellknow, but others may not, what Swalwell RESPONDED to was some idiot who suggested that he would commit treasonous insurrection against the government (which Marty is also inciting):
"So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power."
~  Joe Biggs
 
I personally think Swalwell was too damn nice, when he responded:
"And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."
~ Rep. Eric Swalwell
 
Swalwell's sense of humor leaves a lot to be desired, but anyone with a bit of sense (or who lacks an agenda) doesn't consider, "I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground" to be an impending threat of nuclear attack.
 
So, by truncating what he actually said vs. what you want people to believe he said, your "facts" aren't!
 
Let me add here that I have been a NRA member for 20+ years, am a NRA Training Counselor, think Swalwell is an idiot and have no issues with semi-automatic weapons, regardless of what shape they are manufactured in (for the uninitiated, an "assault weapon" is merely a weapon shape.  It is no more or less lethal than any other semi-automatic).  Trying to portray me as some anti-gun advocate is a major non-starter.
TreeParty Added Nov 20, 2018 - 12:58pm
FaceNaPalm,
"it is my sincere hope that he's tried for perjury and driven from office in disgrace."
Reelected two weeks ago by a 70% margin. Prepare to be disappointed....
TreeParty Added Nov 20, 2018 - 1:24pm
L1 - 
"A key defining law was the now-defunct Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. At that time, the United States Department of Justice said, "In general, assault weapons are semiautomatic firearms with a large magazine of ammunition that were designed and configured for rapid fire and combat use." No mention of "weapon shape". Mention of "combat use"...
And what evidence would you offer that Swalwell is "an idiot"? You understand that he is a well-respected, elected member of the House of Representatives with a law degree from University of Maryland and prior experience as an assistant district attorney, don't you?
opher goodwin Added Nov 20, 2018 - 2:22pm
Tex - there's no point. It is so daft that there is no purpose served in addressing it intelligently.
The very idea that it in any way OK for anyone to own a military semi-automatic is insane. Likewise to suggest nuking people is madness.
Liberal1 Added Nov 20, 2018 - 2:50pm
TreeParty , even low capacity magazines can be taped together, any weapon can be used in combat (just ask a few of the 620+ thousand killed during the Civil War ;-) ) and any weapon short of a muzzle loader can be fired rapidly (I've seen people consistently fire off 3 - 4 aimed shots a minute with a muzzle loader, so that's a non-starter too).    "Assault weapon" is strictly a "buzz term" that lets Congressmen with an agenda blow their anti-gun dog whistles. 
 
If you want effective legislation then what they need to ban are high capacity magazines (you can tape two of them together too) and things like bump stocks.  Even with that, as we used to say on the rifle range, "It's not the dope on the weapon, it's the dope behind the weapon that makes the difference!" ("dope" being the term for windage and elevation settings on the sights).  
 
As for Salwell being an idiot?:  Anyone who would joke about "nukes" or "war" is a dunderhead, his mandatory buyback program is sheer lunacy and being the Snapchat king (reminiscent of Trump the Twitter king) is ridiculous.  Dunderhead + lunacy + ridiculous = idiot.
TreeParty Added Nov 20, 2018 - 3:49pm
Completely weak arguments, L1. Wow.
Any weapon can be used in combat, but not every weapon is "designed and configured for combat use", as are "assault weapons" by definition. 
Three shots a minute is not rapid fire!
Weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible have their use; in combat! They do not belong in our neighborhoods. Sorry. What's your point? Who is objecting to banning high capacity magazines and "things like bump stocks"?!?!
As to Swalwell being an idiot:
1) While his reference to "nukes" was not the most felicitous expression of his point, his point was that the government possesses overwhelming force, and that point is certainly valid. I know it rankles the "Don't Tread on Me" contingent, but it is a truth that they need to bear in mind when they carelessly "suggest" armed insurrection. Swalwell wasn't "joking" about nukes or war; he was totally serious about contextualizing the comments of some other idiot who had claimed that "so basically [Swalwell] wants a war". Which was obviously a lie. A single verbal gaffe, if that is what we think Swalwell committed, does not a "dunderhead" make. 
2) His buyback program is not sheer lunacy. Did you not read the U.S.A. Today article? A similar program had some success in Australia, so the suggestion is not unreasonable, on its face. You may think that it won't work, or whatever; but we know from some precedence that it is not "sheer lunacy".
3) The meme of "Being the Snapchat king" is a creation of the media, and you have evidently fallen for it. Using Snapchat is no more "ridiculous" than using any other social media platform; what is ridiculous is for you to denigrate Swalwell for using it, or to fall for that silly media hype about the "Snapchat king of Congress", (not self-described I should emphasize.)
In summary: not a dunderhead + no lunacy + not ridiculous = not an idiot. Weak reasoning there, L1.
Meanwhile, you do understand that he is a well-respected, elected member of the House of Representatives with a law degree from University of Maryland and prior experience as an assistant district attorney, don't you? I'm calling that strong reasoning that he is not an idiot. 
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...
FacePalm Added Nov 20, 2018 - 4:07pm
L1-
For God's sake, FacePalm, you'd have to dig long and deep to find a bigger conspiracy theory source then The Washington Free Beacon!
 
i was GOING to link to a Washington Times article, but it asked for people to subscribe.
What?  Did the Beacon not report his quote accurately?
 
Dunderhead + lunacy + ridiculous = idiot
 
Thanks for the support in re: his mental condition, which i also mentioned.
As to his Oath of Office, do you think it IS or is NOT important to hold SWORN public servants to the terms of their agreement, yes or no?
 
As to Treep, *pffft*; as far as i'm concerned, just another gun-grabber, an ally with ChiComs or the UN or both, who have the confiscation of weaponry from American Citizens high on their agenda...and if he's EVER sworn the Oath, he's an Oath-breaking criminal, to boot, a perjurer.
 
In rebuttal to Oph, there are many situations in which military weaponry is advisable, like riots or general mayhem, say, after a hi-altitude nuke explosion which wipes out everything that uses a computer chip(and the subsequent consequences of backed up sewage, no food deliveries, no tap water, and no electricity, possibly for as long as 2-3 years) - or a solar flare which can do exactly the same thing. 
 
The Swiss all have military weaponry in the hands of their Citizens, and guess what their firearm murder rate is?  In America, it's confiscatory morons like Swillwell who engender resistance to tyranny and oppression, which he's apparently willing to advocate in violation of his Oath of Office.
 
If i was on Twitter, i'd be banned, probably within an hour, for informing Foulwell of his criminal activity, and the possibility of his being convicted of felony perjury...and it would not only serve HIM right for such a tweet to go viral, but put any/every OTHER sworn official on notice that the spirit of REAL resistance to tyranny is maintained by Citizens.
TreeParty Added Nov 20, 2018 - 5:45pm
FacePlant,
   Yet another emotional rant, devoid of facts or logic; all name-calling, no refutation of valid arguments. Fail....
Marty Koval Added Nov 20, 2018 - 5:49pm
According to the gun grabbers, assault weapons must be limited or banned. Let's take a look at what the word assault and weapon means:
 
Assault - Make a physical attack on.
Weapon - A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
 
Thereby an assault weapon is any tool or object that can inflict bodily harm or physical damage. Based on this clear definition, we must ban the following assault weapons:
 
Automobiles, trucks or motorcycles, fist, hands, feet, knees, elbows, gasoline, poison, knives, forks, spears, sling shots, bow and arrows, rocks, clubs, hammers, scissors, letter openers, screw drivers, awes, pushing a person off a cliff or building, explosives, bombs, fire, rope for hangings, pillows to suffocate, miscellaneous blunt objects and the list goes on and on. And I almost forget nuclear weapons.
 
If someone has the desire to kill someone, the weapons that are available is almost unlimited. Of course you do not hear anything from the gun grabbers wanting to ban these multitude of other weapons because they are only obsessed about guns.
 
The most deadliest weapon, which I left for last is mankind himself. Due to his sinful and evil nature, he is the most vicious, ruthless, unmerciful weapon that has ever existed. Maybe it is time to banned mankind, and this world will be a safer place for all the other creatures.
 
Rusty Smith Added Nov 20, 2018 - 6:42pm
Marty Koval gun grabbers are not after "assault weapons" any more than they were after "Saturday night specials", 30 years ago, they are out to ban guns... PERIOD.  Assault weapons, (whatever that is), are just the latest focus, they are for ANYTHING that might take away or restrict private gun ownership, and don't care if it makes any sense.  
 
If you look at it that way it's easy to understand why they suggest and vote for outrageously cumbersome and ineffective laws even when they don't seem to make a difference. 
 
If you proposed a law that said no one could own a gun unless they also own a pinstripe suit, they would vote for it.
Paul Sanders Added Nov 20, 2018 - 7:35pm
Rusty,
 
Great post!  Here is how I explain it.  The common argument is that it is "too easy to get a gun."  Let's break that argument down, shall we?
 
First of all, how "difficult" should it be?  Where in the Bill of Rights does it say the exercise of a right is allowed to be "difficult"?
 
Secondly, why does it matter how difficult it is to acquire a firearm?  What matters is how it is used.  Since we can't predict the future and since we don't know who is going to misuse a firearm, how do we only "make it difficult" for those will misuse them? The answer is simple:  We CAN'T.
 
Bottom line is, what they are really saying whether or not they realize it is that the only way we can prevent people from misusing firearms is to make it IMPOSSIBLE for EVERYONE to get one so NOBODY can misuse it.  There is no other logical conclusion to the premise. 
Paul Sanders Added Nov 20, 2018 - 7:42pm
Marty,
Your post is spot on the money.  I hate the talking point that guns "make it easy to kill."  Really?  A LOT of things make it "easy to kill."  This lame argument is a gross misrepresentation of human nature.  People don't just kill because it is "easy" or just because they can.  Simply making it "difficult" to kill is not going to deter someone who is determined to do so.
 
As you said, the decision to kill is a result of sinful mankind.  It has nothing to do with how it is done or ho easy it is to do it.  Cain certainly did not use a gun to kill Abel.
 
Think of it this way;  Are they saying that as long as it is "difficult" to kill someone they would be okay with it?  No, the real problem is as you already implied.  It isn't the killing that bothers them.  It is the fact that a gun was used to do it.
Paul Sanders Added Nov 20, 2018 - 8:24pm
opher goodwin:
 
"Yep - what's wrong with everybody having military style semi-automatics? If we issue all students with them it would stop those gun nuts from shooting up schools!"
 
So many things wrong with your sarcasm.  First of all, simply HAVING "military style semi-automatics" is irrelevant.  Just possessing something doesn't mean it will be misused.  I possess a penis.  Does that mean I will use it to commit rape?  Of course not.  You are falsely trying to imply that by simply having a "military style semi-automatic" firearm, that means somebody is going to go on a mass shooting with one.  That is patently false, and I believe you know it.
 
Secondly, nothing will stop people from an action.  You may stop people from shooting up schools if you could somehow magically keep them from getting a firearm, but you certainly will not stop them from committing murder any more than making me wear a chastity belt will stop me from sexually assaulting a woman.  You certainly understand that men were murdering each other long before the invention of firearms.  That is, if you are intellectually honest.
 
If you continue to focus on the method of violence instead of the reason for the action of it, you will continue to get the same failed results.
TreeParty Added Nov 20, 2018 - 8:26pm
I have not seen any of you "gun nuts" refute this argument:
Look at it this way: on the continuum of "arms", the right of which "to keep and bear shall not be infringed", where should we draw the line?
Should private citizens have the right to keep and bear nuclear arms?
Of course not. Should private citizens have the right to keep and bear anti-aircraft guns? Tanks? Mortars? No, they should not have that "right". Even Antonin Scalia, in his official capacity as a justice on the SCOTUS, wrote that "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited". It is "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." So drawing the line at "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons" is certainly a reasonable proposal. Those weapons,  designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible have their use; in combat! They do not belong in our neighborhoods, in our churches, in our schools, in our shopping malls, etc. Private ownership of these weapons of war is not necessary to a "well regulated militia", so I don't see a problem with the Second Amendment. 
Can anyone explain any defect in this argument?! No need to call names and demonize; just try to show why the argument is not valid. And, by the way, I am a gun owner; and I respect the right of each citizen to "keep and bear arms" for personal protection (which, by the way, is not even mentioned in the Second Amendment..) As a gun owner, I am certainly not a "gun-grabber." But, as Swalwell points out, if you are lusting for armed conflict with the Federal Government of the U.S. of A., you are not going to get far. You would do better to direct your efforts toward making sure that there is no breakdown in the social order. (If your imagination is too limited to suggest ways you can contribute to that, I can help..)
 
 
FacePalm Added Nov 20, 2018 - 8:48pm
Scalia was an ass that wanted to pretend that SCOTUS DID retain some control over arms.  Had he and the majority ruled on "precedent," like they CLAIM they are "bound" by, they would simply have cited Cruikshank, declared "res adjudicata," and moved on. 
 
To jog the memory, the relevant section reads:
 
"[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;...  This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,…". 
~U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
 
Please note the date; the Gatling gun and several forms of cannons and bombs had been developed by this time.
 
SCOTUS has a long history of pretending it has the right to rule on ANYthing, instead of saying to themselves, "Does the Constitution grant us the right to have jurisdiction over EVERYthing, or are their things which the Constitution clearly FORBIDS us to rule on?"  One of these things is Rights secured by the Constitution.  The Founders were VERY clear on the subject.
 
Have a gander at the Preamble to the Bill of Rights(if you can find it; it's been excised from most textbooks in the Public Fool system), and you'll soon see why, when it's read.  The relevant portion reads:
 
"In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of it's powers..."  Now, read the 9th and 10th Amendments.  Misconstruction means to "misconstrue," or to twist it's plain meaning into something else, like SCOTUS did repeatedly with the Commerce clause.
 
Even the most CURSORY reading of the papers of any of the Founders, including both the Federalist AND Anti-federalist papers, makes it evident to even the DULLEST understanding that they wholly despised Tyranny of any stripe, and wanted the People to ALWAYS retain the ability to defeat any attack on the Bill of Rights, any betrayal of the Public Trust, and any attack by anyone, whether USG or foreign invader.
 
That the Founders intended the powers of general government actors to be strictly limited AND DEFINED can readily be gleaned from the aforementioned Preamble + 9th and 10th - and if not there, i can certainly cite several of the Founders' words to this effect.  It was SCALIA who said that the idea of limited government was forever dead.  No, HE'S dead.  The Constitution is SUPERIOR to all branches of government, otherwise those NOT bound by it's dictates would not be required to swear allegiance to it and it's principles as a CONDITION of taking office.
Paul Sanders Added Nov 20, 2018 - 8:55pm
Tree Party,
I can easily refute your argument.  First of all, you can fire as many rounds just as fast with a semi-automatic pistol as you can with a semi-automatic rifle.  The functionality is no different.  NONE.
 
Secondly, you are attempting to make AR-15's a single purpose object.  They are NOT.  They are useful for hunting, competition, recreation, collecting, and entertainment, just as are revolvers, pistols, bolt action rifles, shotguns, etc.
 
 
Furthermore, you are attempting to assign a moral attribute to an object which is designed to fire a projectile.  Mind you, its design is no different than any other firearm which you clearly agree we have the right to own.  They are all designed to fire a single projectile with the single pull of a trigger. 
 
If INTENT to kill was designed into an AR-15, it would need to function differently than any other firearm which you apparently do not believe is designed with such "purpose."  Ironically, it would then be no more legal than any of those other weapons you mentioned which are after all, ONLY "designed to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible".
 
So, you see, you have actually defeated your position with your own argument.
 
If you are going to attempt to draw a line in the sand, at least be intellectually honest and choose something that does not function identically to other firearms which you clearly agree are acceptable for citizens to own.  Can't we just agree that the line should be drawn at weapons that are impossible to use for hunting, recreation, self defense, and competition without imminent collateral damage?
 
Finally, are you prepared to acknowledge that mass shootings have indeed been carried out with firearms other than those evil "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons" whose only difference is looks and not functionality?
Leroy Added Nov 20, 2018 - 8:58pm
"If we issue all students with them it would stop those gun nuts from shooting up schools!"
 
That's right.  The FBI shows that armed citizens are 94% successful in stopping mass shooting or reducing the number of people killed.
FacePalm Added Nov 20, 2018 - 9:00pm
Paul Sanders-
i take it you're a new guy.  First, welcome to the site, and nice rebuttal arguments.
A couple of things you should know first off; the number of characters that you can put in any one post is limited, so if you have a particularly long one, you may wish to copy'n'paste it to another doc before submitting it, or you may lose several cogent thoughts, like i did when i first came here.
 
And before our gracious host, Autumn Cote, gets around to it, it's against "the rules" to make more than 2 consecutive posts; just wait for another reply before continuing.  Now, finding the rules is rather difficult, as the Search function seems to be disabled for now, but if you find a post by Autumn, you can click on her profile, then click on the "Comments" tab, then look for a post where she provides a link to "the rules."  Now, you're well-ahead of the game, unlike myself when i first got here about 3-4 months ago, now.
Paul Sanders Added Nov 20, 2018 - 9:04pm
FacePalm,
I am absolutely DELIGHTED that you have referred to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.  In my opinion, that is a powerful text that is woefully underused to support our rights. 
 
In a nutshell, it is completely contradictory to claim that the government has the authority to legislate the rights enumerated within the very document that was put into place for the very purpose of restricting the government from infringing on those rights.
FacePalm Added Nov 20, 2018 - 9:39pm
Not only that; see below:
 
'When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.'
~Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
 
 'An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.'
~Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
 
This is what i relied upon when refusing to participate in the blatantly Unconstitutional ACA, aka "D'ohBamacare - well, that, and the fact that ALL BILLS FOR REVENUE(aka "taxes") MUST originate in the House; D'OhBamacare originated in the SENATE.  When SCOTUS ruled it was "legal as a tax," they deliberately neglected to mention this fact, thus suckering MILLIONS into getting fleeced due to their Constitutional ignorance...which is also how D'OhBama got elected and re-elected, but that's another story...
Rusty Smith Added Nov 20, 2018 - 10:10pm
FacePalm if taking away all the "assault rifles" didn't lower homicide or suicide rates, would you still want to do it?
Bill H. Added Nov 20, 2018 - 10:12pm
FP
It's been more than evident way before Swalwell "started it".
Deflect, Distort, Deny, Degrade, Dismiss, D...………, etc
FacePalm Added Nov 20, 2018 - 10:22pm
Bill H-
Swillwell spilled his bilge and revealed he intends to rip private property from gunowners BY FORCE, meaning that he's in violation of his Oath of Office and has betrayed the Public Trust.
 
He started it - the People will finish it.
 
Rusty-
Pretty sure you're mistaking me for someone else, probably Treep.(rhymes with creep.)  i favor being able to keep and bear any arms whatsoever that can be afforded.  Some of your wealthier people COLLECT tanks as a hobby, and SOME even have fighter jets.
 
Assholes who think Americans should be disarmed should gfto of this country to one that conforms more with their anti-Constitutional beliefs, like the UK or some other country filled with sniveling "subjects." 
 
"Among other causes of misfortune which your not being armed brings upon you, it makes you despised..."
-- Niccolo Machiavelli(1469-1527) Italian Statesman and Political Philosopher
Rusty Smith Added Nov 20, 2018 - 11:10pm
FacePalm good to hear, and if you'd said you only want to take away assault rifles or any other guns to save lives, I would have started presenting solid evidence that pretty much shows taking away guns doesn't lower homicides or suicides.
 
It's a little like what happens if someone took away your favorite kitchen knife, you'd just use another one.  Criminals and the people who commit suicide don't seem to stop if their favorite tool is taken off the table, they just switch to something else that does the same thing.  
 
There are all sorts of other factors with guns, like if you take them away you make more people into helpless victims, and on the other side a few criminals who are only bold enough to mug people if they have the advantage of a gun, might give it up, but the end result is no significant change when guns are taken away.  
 
The UK has done a pretty good job illustrating that, with Australia not far behind.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Nov 21, 2018 - 1:15am
where should we draw the line?
 
What part of "shall not be infringed" are you unable to grasp? 
 
No, they should not have that "right".
 
In quotes. Demonstrating you don't understand rights aren't granted. 
 
Off you go now gun grabber, mind the gap between train and platform. BUH-Bye. 
 
Flying Junior Added Nov 21, 2018 - 3:22am


In November 2018, Democratic U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell suggested launching nuclear weapons against gun-owners who refused to hand over or sell semi-automatic rifles to the U.S. government.




Rating


target="_blank">
Mixture target="_blank">About this rating





 

What's True
In a tweet on 16 November, Swalwell responded to a gun rights enthusiast who said the Democrats' proposal to confiscate or buy semi-automatic rifles would result in "war" due to resistance from the gun owners, stating "it would be a short war" because "the government has nukes."


What's False
Swalwell quickly insisted that his reference to the government's possession of nuclear weapons was intended as no more than a joke and emphasized that he was not warning gun owners about such a response to their (hypothetical) resistance to gun confiscation.





Origin


In May 2018, U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell (representing California’s 15th Congressional district) wrote an opinion target="_blank">column for USA Today, calling for a ban on “military-style semi-automatic assault weapons” and proposing that the federal government buy such guns from their owners while criminal prosecuting those who refused to hand over their weapons:

We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

This policy proposal prompted something of a backlash from supporters of gun rights and led to a particularly significant exchange on Twitter more than six months later.
 
Grow up Marty.  Why do you post this inflammatory bullshit?  You're not stupid.  You're just full of shit.  Granted forcing gun owners to sell back their weapons to the government is a bit over the top even for advocates of various weapons bans, but honestly...
 
What.the.fuck?  I'm so fucking sick of reading about various heinous acts that will soon be committed by, "democrats."  Fuck you old man.  I'm a democrat.  I don't hold such views.





Jeffry Gilbert Added Nov 21, 2018 - 3:40am
When nukes are outlawed only outlaws will have nukes. 
Jeffry Gilbert Added Nov 21, 2018 - 4:15am
The Dems want more background checks on legal gun owners than they do on migrants. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. 
Mark Hunter Added Nov 21, 2018 - 4:59am
Well, Jeffry, maybe they want to nuke legal gun owners in order to have more room for illegal immigrants. What's a little radiation? It seemed like Swalwell was hinting that if gun owners don't give their weapons up, the military should move against them ... but hey, a little joke.
opher goodwin Added Nov 21, 2018 - 6:19am
Face - you really think that having lots of people with semi-automatics in a riot is going to make things better?
And you're really envisioning having a nuclear war, surviving and needing semi-automatic weapons?
Marty Koval Added Nov 21, 2018 - 8:35am
Flying Junior:
 
An American politician making a comment we have nukes and it would be a short war if other American's resist is not a joke. This statement came from his heart and is obvious that he detests guns and gun owners. After he made his remarks, he realize he made a fatal error in judgment. To cover his blunder, he said I was only joking.
 
A person with such hatred and rigidity should not be in politics, representing "We The People". Any politician, no matter what party they represent, are to represent all people, not just the ones that have the same beliefs and grease the politician palms.
 
Democrat Eric Swalwell, like many politicians are the ones who are inflaming all the anger and dividedness  in this county.  
David Montaigne Added Nov 21, 2018 - 8:44am
Good post Marty.  Good early comments from Facepalm and TexasLynn.  Swalwell sounds like a typical leftist nut case to me, trying to legislate through the judiciary like California so often attempts, with no regard for the Constitution, only for bigger federal and global government.
N=1 Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:37am
Slalwell -a strangely repulsive personality- was speaking metaphorically, rhetorically and hyperbolically. 
 
He was merely reminding someone that the government possesses the monopoly of force and has virtually limitless firepower at its disposal to enforce the laws of the land.
 
Should there be a law requiring surrender of semi-automatic rifles, and should the government determine to enforce it, resistance would indeed be futile.
 
In other words, he was stating what everyone already knows, and reminding us that people like him must be watched and kept as far away as possible from the power to enact such Draconian legislation.
Rusty Smith Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:52am
opher goodwin Oh I do know that if the right folks have guns including assault weapons, during riots, those guns save property and sometimes lives, just ask the Korean store owners who used them to save their stores during the Watts Riots.  In some places their stores were the ONLY ones not looted and burnt to the ground.
 
As for the criminals, their already not allowed to own or possess guns under any circumstances.  To bad those laws aren't effective.
FacePalm Added Nov 21, 2018 - 3:29pm
opher-
Face - you really think that having lots of people with semi-automatics in a riot is going to make things better?
As already mentioned, it'll certainly make things better for those expecting to be able to protect their property from looters...
 
And you're really envisioning having a nuclear war, surviving and needing semi-automatic weapons?
Nuclear wars are eminently survivable, provided one knows how, and especially if one lives in an earth-sheltered basement, or an underground home.
 
Of course, if you're in the blast radius, it's "coitins" for you, but even if one is just barely outside of that radius, survivability is a probability, so best to prepare for it.
FacePalm Added Nov 21, 2018 - 6:19pm
Sorry - got interrupted and closed commenting before i was done.
i wasn't talking about a nuclear STRIKE; i was talking about the high-altitude EMP burst.  This wouldn't kill hardly anyone - at least, not at first.
 
You may not realize how vulnerable EVERYONE is to either this weapon or a flare of solar radiation from the sun; one happened across Europe and the US ca 1850 or so, and was powerful enough to set several telegraph stations on fire, due to the induced voltages which ran down the lines.
 
A scenario such as this TODAY would wipe out virtually everything that people currently rely on.  Ever see the mass shopping that takes place when snow or a flood is expected, or there's contamination in the water supply?  There've been panics when as little as 3 DAYS are projected when people are out of water - multiply that panic by a month - 2 months - 3 months, and when it dawns on people that Uncle Sugar is not coming, and may not EVER come, then presto!  Societal breakdown for those completely unprepared to revert to 19th century living until power CAN be restored, which could take up to 3 or 4 YEARS.
 
What do you think will happen in the meantime, Opher?  You think everyone's gonna sing "Kum-buye-yah," join hands and live in peace and harmony?  Ever try to pry the iphone out of a teenager's hands for an HOUR, much less 3 years?  No teevee.  No radio.  No phones.  No computer, and everything on all of them wiped.  No  records at your bank, and no access to it. Nothing that currently works on electrical power.  No hot water.  No stoves.  No sewage disposal or trash removal, which will back up swiftly, and the disease which will accompany this, because there are no pumps working anymore.  No trucks or trains running, so no deliveries of food and drink to stores.  No cars on the roads except for those few poor people who can only afford ancient cars - or those rich who have several in storage.
 
I expect the Mormons to be hit after the stores are emptied by looters; most people know that a tenet of their religious faith is to keep 3+ years of food stored for their families...but if/when the mobs decide to raid a Mormon's house, they'd better be prepared to attack in waves, because the Mormon's WILL be well-armed...so lots of casualties.
 
“We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth and listen to the song of that siren, 'til she transforms us into beasts... I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.”
Patrick Henry
Marty Koval Added Nov 21, 2018 - 7:05pm
FacePalm:
 
My motto has always been to 'Plan for the worst and hope for the best'. The scenario you just presented in you post could actually come into being. The people who are not prepared will be the first to lose their lives. Many will suffer slow and painful deaths.
 
Other people who are desperate to live, will resort to their animal instincts and will do anything to get food, even if it means killing another person. The wise people who have guns and plenty of ammunition will be the ones who will be able defend themselves and their family members from these roaming human wolf packs.
 
Hope the scenario you presented will never occur, but if does, the ones who plan for it, will most likely survive.
FacePalm Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:03pm
Marty-
The old saw is: "Paranoid people live longer," but i think your outlook to be commendable.  It is those who refuse to prepare for the worst who complain the loudest when it takes them unawares...and in cases such as described above, would NOT "get the grease," but likely be permanently shut up.  Despite the saying "Misery loves company," those who whinge instead of making the best of their situation and actually LABORING to make their circumstances improve - like those who have falsely believed, perhaps for generations, that "life owes me a living."  That's a lie.  Life was here first, and owes us nothing.  The only helping hand anyone can rely on is at the end of our own shirtsleeves...and occasionally, "the kindness of strangers," but that's not reliable, especially for those who refuse to help themselves.
 
God can and does work miracles, and His assistance is invaluable; as best i recall, there's a Psalm which states something along the lines of "I have been young, and now i am old; i have yet to see the righteous forsaken or his children begging bread."  i don't think most people realize that Our Creator can and does motivate others to help, whether people or even animals.  If i recall, it was Jeremiah who was fed by ravens when he escaped Jezebel's wrath in the wilderness...but still, he had to accept the help, take action by his own hands at the ends of his own shirtsleeves, go down to the brook, as instructed.(Ok, i checked: it was Elijah.)
Ken Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:52pm
If we issue all students with them it would stop those gun nuts from shooting up schools!
 
Actually, it probably would help, since all of the school shootings have happened in gun-free zones.  But hey, our resident "scientist" never lets the facts interrupt a good left wing talking point, does he?
Ken Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:53pm
I can proudly state I voted for moronic Swalwell's opponent...
Bill H. Added Nov 21, 2018 - 10:23pm
 
Yea, Ken.....
Imagine the typical student these days getting bullied on FaceBook and coming to school the next day with an AR-15.
Back in my day, is was a simple case of beating the sh*t out of the bully at the park next to the school.
I beat up my share of bullies in Junior High School.
FacePalm Added Nov 22, 2018 - 12:13am
Hey, Ken!
Do you have a Twitter account, and can you access Foulwell's account?
Gregory S. McNeill Added Nov 23, 2018 - 6:50pm
Marty,
Your article is misleading and dangerous. Democrats don't want to nude Gun Owners, at all. What is the matter with reasonable Gun Laws? People like you prefer to have more shootings and deaths than a reasonable Gun Laws and serious background checks to prevent more tragedies which had recently happened from happening again. 

Having Guns in Schools and houses of Worship doesn't solve the problem! 
Marty Koval Added Nov 23, 2018 - 8:09pm
Gregory S. McNeill,
 
Refer to my most recent post dated 11-23-18, titled Historical School Gun Deaths And Injuries. You will discover that school shootings actually increased by 55% over the previous decade when the gun free zone act for schools went into effect in 1990.
FacePalm Added Nov 24, 2018 - 12:32am
Gregory-
Hate to tell ya, but liberty itself is dangerous...especially to certain interests which very much DO want to ban the ownership of firearms by Americans.  Here's one example (but i would have little trouble finding more, as Dianne Feinstein has been a gun-grabbing advocate her entire political career):
 
'Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.' 
-Sarah Brady, Chairman of Handgun Control to Senator Howard Metzanbaum
'The National Educator', January 1994 Page 3
 
If you'd like to research the subject yourself, websearch the "Safe Cities Initiative," a UN(ergo globalist)-sponsored program which would accomplish their desires, as well.