Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 72
Like Tree46Likes

Thread: Swalwell Suggests Nuking America if Gun Rights Supporters Were to Resist Gun Control

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825
    Yesterday Congressman Eric Swalwell suggested that Americans should be stripped of their semi-automatic weapons or be nuked.

    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #22
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #23
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #24
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825
    "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."

    Rep. Swalwell Wants To Ban And Buy Back All “Military-Style Semiautomatic Assault Weapons” From Legal Gun Owners

    November 16, 2018




    CALIFORNIA — Democrats wasted no time giving us a preview of what’s to come now that they are going to be running Congress next year. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) wants to take away what he called “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” from legal gun owners.
    Rep. Swalwell would like to use big government to accomplish his goal and wrote an op-ed for USA Today to explain. He cited everything from Australia, the killing of Gary Jackson with an AK-47 in Oakland California, to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mass shooting for wanting the ban. Rep. Swalwell wrote, Via USA Today,
    “After a man used military-style weapons to kill 35 people in April 1996, that nation adopted strict new measures and bought back 643,726 newly illegal rifles and shotguns at market value. The cost — an estimated $230 million in U.S. dollars at the time — was funded by a temporary 0.2% tax levy on national health insurance.
    “America won’t get off that cheaply. Gun ownership runs so deep that we don’t even know how many military-style semiautomatic rifles are in U.S. civilian hands.


    “Based on manufacturing figures and other indirect data, there could be 15 million assault weapons out there. If we offer $200 to buy back each weapon — as many local governments have — then it would cost about $3 billion; at $1,000 each, the cost would be about $15 billion.
    “It’s no small sum. But let’s put it in context.
    “The federal government is spending an estimated $4 trillion this year; $15 billion would be 0.375% of that, not that we must spend it all in one year.”
    Rep. Swalwell also wrote,
    “Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.
    “Instead, 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.”
    So, there you have it, folks, if you don’t ‘abide,’ he wants to throw your ass in jail! Typical gun grabber! National Rifle Association spokeswoman, Dana Loesch picked up on Swalwell’s op-ed and tweeted,
    15K people are talking about this


    “High ranking Democrat Eric Swalwell calls for confiscation of semi-automatic rifles using $15billion of taxpayer dollars to do it and proposes criminally prosecuting those who don’t participate:” Somebody apparently thought that Loesch was lying in her tweet. Remarkably, Rep. Swalwell retweeted Loesch’s tweet and said,
    7,592 people are talking about this

    “She’s not lying. We should ban assault weapons by buying them back or restricting them to ranges/clubs. #EnoughIsEnough”
    Several users responded to both tweets like BigKahunaFl who tweeted,

    Rep. Eric Swalwell
    @RepSwalwell

    · Nov 16, 2018

    She’s not lying. We should ban assault weapons by buying them back or restricting them to ranges/clubs. #EnoughIsEnough


    BigKahunaFL @BigKahunaFL

    I STILL don't understand how you politicians thin you can "BUY BACK' something you've never purchased!?!

    277

    4:10 PM - Nov 16, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy

    27 people are talking about this


    “I STILL don’t understand how you politicians thin you can “BUY BACK’ something you’ve never purchased!?!” User Jeremy B tweeted,


    Rep. Eric Swalwell @RepSwalwell

    · Nov 16, 2018

    She’s not lying. We should ban assault weapons by buying them back or restricting them to ranges/clubs. #EnoughIsEnough


    Jeremy B @Geospatial_JB


    Thanks, I was on the fence about buying a new AR, but you’ve convinced me to buy two! Your stance is only going to drive more sales.
    5
    4:36 PM - Nov 16, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy


    See Jeremy B's other Tweets


    “Thanks, I was on the fence about buying a new AR, but you’ve convinced me to buy two! Your stance is only going to drive more sales.” User Mike wants Rep. Swalwell to be removed from office and tweeted,


    Mike @BadKarma5555

    Since this is a blatant violation of his oath of office & the constitution, he needs to be immediately removed from his job as a Congressman and can be under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution #2A
    420
    3:11 PM - Nov 16, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy


    150 people are talking about this

    “Since this is a blatant violation of his oath of office & the constitution, he needs to be immediately removed from his job as a Congressman and can be under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution #2A”
    What do you think about Rep. Swalwell’s plan? Do you think he is shredding the constitution with his proposal? Leave a comment and let us know.
    https://conservativehumorgoneawry.co...VEKDaJ883UVslE
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #25
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #26
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825


    Liberty Hangout

    Liberty Hangout will be live with Joe Biggs at 9pm to talk about Eric Swalwell threatening to nuke him. Tune in at https://youtu.be/W8xBJjbhTt4




    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #27
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825
    Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell actually made this threat - in the same Twitter breath as he mocked gun owners for thinking they may need protection from their own Government. Which is, Eric, pretty much the entire Premise of the Second Amendment, and which has unerringly been proven as an inevitability throughout the history of man from the time the first "ruling class," was conceived of.

    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #28
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825
    Democrat congressman says government should use nuclear weapons against Second Amendment supporters if they don’t give up their firearms

    (Natural News) Now that the mid-term election is over, Democrats are back to their usual insanity, threatening the use of deadly government force to murder American citizens who refuse to bow down to their authoritarian tyranny. Why any American continues to vote for any Democrat at all is beyond any rational explanation. California … [Read More...]

    Friday, November 16, 2018 by: Mike Adams
    Tags: civil war, Eric Swalwell, gun buybacks, gun confiscation, gun rights, insanity, Joe Biggs, left cult, Leftists, nukes, Second Amendment, stupid, violence, warfare

    5,670 Views


    (Natural News) Now that the mid-term election is over, Democrats are back to their usual insanity, threatening the use of deadly government force to murder American citizens who refuse to bow down to their authoritarian tyranny. Why any American continues to vote for any Democrat at all is beyond any rational explanation.

    2 videos at the page link

    California Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell — yes, of course he’s a California Democrat — called for nationwide gun confiscation from all lawful gun owners, then added that the government should “go after resisters” who refuse to consent to having their “assault weapons” taken from them by government force. When challenged on the total insanity of such a plan by patriot Joe Biggs (@Rambobiggs), Rep. Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) responded by saying the government’s war against its own patriots would be “a short war” because “the government has nukes.”

    Joe Biggs @Rambobiggs

    · Nov 16, 2018

    So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your ****ing mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.


    Rep. Eric Swalwell @RepSwalwell

    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.
    1,821
    3:22 PM - Nov 16, 2018
    Twitter Ads info and privacy


    23.7K people are talking about this

    Yes, a California Democrat — who probably stole his election in the first place — says that nuclear weapons should be used in America to nuke our own cities and towns in order to kill gun owners.
    This is the sheer genius of the Democrat mind at work, in case you didn’t notice. Maybe after all the cities are nuked by Swalwell, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can promote a multi-trillion dollar government “rebuilding” fund, then claim that Democrats are creating a “booming economy.”
    I don’t know about you, but it sounds to me like this psycho just called for the mass murder of American citizens. It’s just one more reason why you should never let Democrats have power over you. All they do is abuse their power, terrorize the citizens, and in Swalwell’s case, literally nuke their political opponents with nuclear weapons.

    Using other people’s money to terrorize the citizens

    Oh, it gets even better: Because Democrats always want to use other people’s money to carry out their tyranny against innocent citizens, Swalwell demands to use $15 billion in taxpayer money to fund “gun buybacks” which are really just forced confiscations at gunpoint.
    Anyone who doesn’t agree to hand over their guns to the federal government in exchange for Federal Reserve fiat currency notes will be arrested and prosecuted, according to Swalwell. This, say Democrats, is how they create “utopia” — a world where all the guns are monopolized in the hands of the very same government that wants to nuke you if you don’t comply.
    It’s all for your own protection, of course, since a government run by Democrats is incredibly peaceful and polite during those times when they aren’t threatening to nuke America’s own cities to exterminate patriots.
    In essence, Swalwell demonstrates exactly why the American people should never give up their guns, under any circumstances… but especially not to asshats like Swalwell.
    In fact, the Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect the right to shoot deer; it was written to maintain the right to shoot tyrants. That’s the whole point of it: Make sure the citizenry remains armed so that insane, power-hungry authoritarians like Swalwell never have a monopoly on firepower. And if they try to confiscate firearms from the citizens, it is the duty of citizens to protect the republic by invoking the rights and actions that are specifically described by the Second Amendment.
    By the way, it will never be Swalwell who personally tries to take your guns, of course. He will send police officers and sheriff’s deputies, and there aren’t enough of them in the whole country to survive the very first day of such an effort (nor do they wish to participate in such a silly thing). Who does Swalwell think is going to carry out this nationwide confiscation, anyway? Suicide volunteers? Antifa loons? The Russians?

    If Swalwell wants to nuke the gun violence zones, he’ll have to target all the Democrat-run cities where guns are already illegal

    If would-be tyrants like Swalwell ever try to wage nationwide gun confiscation against America’s law-abiding patriots, they’re going to find themselves in a shooting war they can’t win. Not even with nukes.
    What’s Swalwell going to do, nuke Los Angeles to stop the gun violence there? Nuke Chicago? Somebody needs to remind him most of the gun violence is taking place in Democrat-run cities like Chicago and Detroit. If he’s planning on nuking the gun violence zones across America, he would actually be taking out the Democrat strongholds that are already in a state of Third World collapse thanks to horrible mismanagement by Left-wing politicians. Some places are so bad that Swalwell might even skip them, thinking gosh, they’ve already been nuked by failed Democrat policies.
    It’s also quite telling that this Democrat has no interest in nuking America’s enemies (such as Iran or North Korea) but seems really, really interested in nuking American soil. That’s because Democrats hate America in the first place, so turning a thousand square miles of the Midwest into a radioactive dead zone falls right in line with the way Democrats think. As long as they can prevent the border wall from being built so that America is overrun with illegal immigrants who vote Democrat in every election, the elitist Dems don’t care what they have to destroy.
    Bottom line? The more Democrats win elections, the more firearms and ammunition you should probably accumulate. A day is coming when left-wing tyrants are going to attempt to criminalize the Second Amendment. That’s the day you have already been granted permission by the Founding Fathers to activate the Second Amendment in defense of our constitutional republic.
    The Second Amendment, after all, says you have this very specific right, and it says government may not “infringe” upon that right. Any bureaucrat who attempts to infringe upon that right is, by definition, a traitorous criminal who’s guilty of violating your constitutional rights.
    Plan accordingly.

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-...amendment.html
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #29
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  10. #30
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    66,825
    Go Ahead, Representative Swalwell: Make my Day

    Representative Eric Swalwell of California is championing the idea of an Australia-style “buyback” of “assault weapons” such as the AR-15. Judicial precedent suggests they are constitutionally protected.


    November 19, 2018

    By William Sullivan

    For the American Left, gun control has always been nothing more than a statist impulse in search of a reason to justify it.


    And there have always been reasons they’ve offered as to why the government should prohibit Americans from owning this type of gun or that one. Today, the talk tends to be about the AR-15, and the reason that is most commonly parroted tends to be along these lines, this one offered in a tweet by Max Boot:
    There is no reason why any civilian should own an assault weapon. And gun prohibition and buyback much more effective than a ban on further sale.
    Boot tweeted this in support of the “courageous and principled stand” taken by Democrat House Representative Eric Swalwell of California, who is championing the idea of an Australia-style “buyback” of “assault weapons” such as the AR-15.


    Colt AR-15 A3 Tactical Carbine (Source)

    Gun control advocates are tactically referring to this proposed effort as a “buyback” for the same reason restauranteurs call the Patagonian toothfish a Chilean sea bass on their menus. A government “buyback” of guns may sound much more palatable for the American public than a “forcible government confiscation” of firearms, but it doesn’t change the nature of the thing.
    The actual choice for Americans, under Swalwell’s proposal, would be to “sell” their guns to the government, surrender them with no recompense, or have the government forcibly confiscate them, with offenders facing prosecution or violence at the hands of government agents. This is, of course, not a choice at all, but it presents the veneer of choice, meant to hide the constitutional rights that would be stolen from American citizens.
    But what’s most amazing about all of this is the ease with which the confiscation of heretofore-legal firearms from millions of Americans is being proposed in open forums today. It is, after all, impossibly illogical to conclude that such an action by the federal government would not be in direct violation of the Second Amendment.
    The closest thing we can find to evidence suggesting that such a mass confiscation of “assault weapons” would be constitutional is offered by Swalwell in his op ed in USA Today. He observes that the late Antonin Scalia wrote, in the Heller decision of 2008, that the right to gun ownership is “not unlimited.” So, his logic goes, because the right is “not unlimited,” it must mean that it’s at least arguable that confiscation of “military-style” weapons by the federal government might be allowable, even though confiscation is the most egregious form of “infringement” upon firearm ownership, which the Second Amendment strictly prohibits. After all, “[o]ur courts haven’t found a constitutional right to have assault weapons, anyway,” he writes.
    Except… that’s not exactly true. Insofar as Swalwell uses “military-style” weapons and “assault weapons” interchangeably to specifically reference the AR-15, one could easily argue that the courts have found a constitutionally protected right for Americans to own them. In fact, it was the Supreme Court’s rationale in upholding America’s very first sweeping federal gun regulation in 1939.
    It might strike many Americans as odd that the first challenge to the first sweeping gun control regulation didn’t occur until 1939. That’s because for the majority of American history, no federal gun control legislation, imposed against all Americans, ever existed. Regulations upon firearms had been imposed by the various states, applying only within their respective dominions, since almost immediately after the founding of America, that’s true. But the notion of a federal gun law is a relatively new concept. The first wide federal gun regulation did not occur until 1934 with the National Firearms Act (NFA), and like most contraventions of constitutional principles, political subterfuge was the key to passing it.
    Though it is clear that the 1934 Act was meant to limit Americans’ ability to purchase certain dangerous firearms, and it was clearly a response to rampant Depression-era gangster violence, that was not the legal rationale for the law. A federal law limiting gun ownership, though obviously the Act’s purpose, was still believed to be entirely at odds with the Second Amendment. It was offered as legally acceptable not because the federal government had a right infringe upon Americans’ ownership of guns, but because the federal government had a broad, seemingly illimitable ability to tax.
    The Act was justified as a mechanism for federal revenue (and if you’ve studied New Deal legislation for more than five minutes, you should know that nearly every new federal regulation imposed in the Depression era was justified as a revenue mechanism for the government). It didn’t ban the Thompson machine gun outright, you see, because that could easily be construed to have run afoul of the Second Amendment. It simply levied a tax equal to its market value, doubling its cost and thereby making it less accessible, requiring that you had fingerprints to own one, permission from local law enforcement, etc. Because there were duties to be paid to the federal government by owners of this specific type of property, the government saw itself within its rights to regulate these weapons as a matter of ensuring the lawful collection of revenue. It was circumvention of the Second Amendment, and nothing more.

    But the law did, in fact, meet a challenge in United States v. Miller in 1939. The subject of that case was not a Tommy gun, but an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, which had a barrel shorter than eighteen inches (and therefore in violation of the new law), and was illegally carried across state lines.
    The finding of the Court is most interesting when you compare it to Swalwell’s claim that “our courts haven’t found a constitutional right” for “military-style” weapons.
    The central premise of the ruling was simple, and summed up nicely here:
    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
    The very first broad federal gun law was eventually justified by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the weapon in question for the specific case had “no reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” In other words, a sawed-off shotgun wasn’t “military-style” enough to be constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment. In the words of the Court’s opinion.
    However, the AR-15, due to its light weight, mild recoil, heavy payload potential in terms of ammunition, accuracy, and ready availability among citizens makes it the prime example of a weapon which might have usefulness in a militia comprised of citizens, should it ever be needed. There can be no logical rebuttal to that claim.
    Miller was a bad decision, I’ll admit. It was a bad decision because it suggests that the protections of the Second Amendment apply only to the subject of the “militia preface,” rather than the more substantive declaration that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    What has happened since 1939 is the danger of the “slippery slope” in federal gun regulation made practical and unquestionably real, and of which we should now be supremely aware. It was the inch that the federal government needed to steal miles of Americans’ liberty, as it later had become the inherited wisdom of Americans that declaring what guns should and shouldn’t be regulated was within the scope of the federal government’s power.
    But furthermore, beyond the previous points, Scalia’s Heller opinion didn’t necessarily abrogate the Miller decision entirely. It merely eliminated the specificity about only weapons useful in a militia being legally protected, expanding the understood constitutional protections of the Second Amendment to include weapons used for individual self-defense.
    There is absolutely no reason to believe that criminals will relinquish their “military-style” weapons with the advent of a new gun confiscation law. Undoubtedly, many criminals now own “military-style” weapons which were provided to them by the Obama administration in the scandal known as Fast and Furious. Those guns, and millions of others like them, will still exist, irrespective of any new gun law. As I’ve noted before, it is naïve and foolish to assume that issuing new gun-regulations upon the law-abiding will serve to regulate the lawless among us.

    So, not only is the AR-15 suitable for the purposes of a “well-regulated militia,” but they are suitable weapons for individuals’ self-defense against criminals who have, and will have, irrespective of new gun prohibitions, such weapons.
    According to both the Miller and Heller rulings, there is ample evidence to conclude that Supreme Court precedent does, indeed, protect the ownership of such weapons as the AR-15. But that will not stop gun control advocates from seeking to diminish the protections of the Second Amendment in new and radical ways like Swalwell’s proposed “buyback” in the future.
    Because, again, gun control advocates are driven by a statist impulse toward government control, and they will continue to be in search of a reason to act upon it.
    William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...ke_my_day.html
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Glenn Beck Suggests Trump Supporters Too Dumb to Know Better
    By Newmexican in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-16-2015, 03:55 PM
  2. Eric Swalwell (D-CA-15) US Congress Voted for Amnesty for illegal aliens
    By ALIPAC in forum Illegal Alien Amnesty Supporters To Blame
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2014, 11:10 AM
  3. 3 More States Propose Bills to Resist Federal Gun Control
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2013, 02:30 AM
  4. Nuking Our Defense: America Exposed
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-08-2010, 11:27 AM
  5. Gov. Perry on invoking states'rights to resist Health Care!
    By cjbl2929 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 03:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •