Dem Rep: It’s Time to Ban the Sale AND Possession of ‘Assault Weapons’ – Quote of the Day

courtesy HuffPost

“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.” – Rep. Eric Swalwell in Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress [via usatoday.com]

comments

  1. avatar Mr. savage says:

    I didn’t buy anything from you to “buy back” dumbass!

    1. avatar nativeson says:

      It’s past time to ban all assaults on the 2A by mini-tyrants like Swalwell. He’s advocating nothing less than the end of individual liberty in this country because the demise of the 2A will inevitably lead to the demise of all other civil liberties.

      1. avatar Art out West says:

        I was thinking that we should ban all media outlets, politicians, and Congressmen from even proposing gun control legislation. We should then arrest, prosecute, and imprison those criminals. Furthermore, all of their assets should be seized, and sold. The funds being used to help buy AR15’s for the needy.

        The 2nd Amendment clearly prohibits what he is proposing.

        I’m half joking of course. The 1st Amendment gives this wretch the right to free speech. Still, he is calling for the end of the Republic, and he should be called out for his vile treachery

        1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          The 1st Amendment does not protect treason or sedition.

        2. avatar Art out West says:

          Kroglikepie
          Should the Congressman be arrested for sedition?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Should the Congressman be arrested for sedition?”

          No !!

          Congresspeople should be arrested on general principal. To wit: “There is no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress” (S.Clemmons)

        4. avatar JasonM says:

          The first amendment does protect sedition. It’s arguably the most important element of the first amendment. If it didn’t, the feds could lock half of us up for saying we won’t comply with gun registration or confiscation.

          Treason is making war against the several states or supporting their enemies. I doubt you, or anyone else, could convince a jury that this is treason.

          The Constitution protects the rights of communists, nazis, klansmen, nation of islam, progressives, etc. to say the reprehensible things they say. As soon as they act on any of those ideas, however, their rights stop and our rights to defend our lives and freedom from their aggression begin.

        5. avatar Jason says:

          Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
          This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

          This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

          Acts under “color of any law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

          Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

        6. avatar Stuart K says:

          Jason, thank you for sharing that!! That is the first law i’ve read that i would call beautiful… I may have to print that out and hang it on a wall!

        7. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          JasonM and Art Out West, when you hold a position of power (or seek to) and plan to use that position to destroy the Constitution, the people it protects, and the fabric of this nation, then no, you are not protected by the 1st Amendment. You are openly stating your intentions of war on the people, and to use their blood and treasure to wage it on them. So again, no, you are not protected.

          It isn’t about saying reprehensible things, or being disagreeable or contrarian. It is about openly conspiring to start a civil war.

          Jason, USC 18 section 242 is a law that DRASTICALLY needs to be enforced.

        8. avatar Ron Oliver says:

          Thanks for posting your thoughts on the subject but let’s take it to where it REALLY needs to go. This liberal clown has just declared himself as the “DOMESTIC” enemy. Most all of us who served in our nation’s military right along with THIS clown who took the same oath, should know that the oath which states, “I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against al enemies, both foreign and domestic,”: means that we will fight and kill anyone from another land who seeks to destroy our way of life and I will fight and kill anyone within our own borders who seeks to do the same. THIS IS WHAT THAT OATH MEANS AND REPRESENTS. Perhaps it’s past time for us to get off our butts and start honoring that oath. Do you think that would get their attention? I believe these liberals know about this but continue pushing their agendas and testing our lack of action because no one has done anything to prove that oath means anything serious. I think there should be some serious dialog on one of our leading media stations and this fact should be brought up and these politicians should be made aware that they have put their heads on a chopping block.

      2. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        Try the for treason, (advocating the overthrow of the constitution), strip of citizenship and drop in Iran, central Africa, North Korea, Venezuela, or ……

        so they can enjoy the benefits of a dictatorship like they advocate.

      3. avatar Show Trial says:

        Word for the day …. STIGMA — Guns and gun owners are the new ‘ Colored ‘ to be segregated and marginalized . It’s certainly not by accident as Eric Holder called for …” Brainwashing ” … young people at an early age to view guns like smoking and smokers —- ‘ All Bad , All The Time. ‘
        The 2ND Amendment is the Pinnacle of Freedom , if we continue to allow is erosion it will soon be GONE ! — No other Right in The Bill Of Rights is as regulated, and tied down. Can you imagine needing a permit to comment here ? The main danger we now see is both Democrats and RINO’s want to GUT Due-Process and strip guns from people based only on a flimsy allegation and with – NO HEARING. These ‘ ex-parte ‘ Soviet tactics called ” Extreme Risk Protection Orders ” would be abused almost instantly, from a jilted ex lover to the state using it to silence opposition…… Bad Precedent.
        Equally disturbing is the B.A.T.F. simply changing definitions of firearm terms to magically ” Justify ” banning any part or gun it wishes. – A bump – stock is now a machine gun … because we say it is …. WTF ? — No matter your opinion on bump stocks , if they can do this they can BAN anything . No Abuse potential here ./s/
        Read the A.T.F. Kafkaesque reasoning here ;

        https://www.regulations.gov

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “Guns and gun owners are the new ‘ Colored ‘ to be segregated and marginalized .”

          That is *exactly* what I have been saying.

          Being a conservative gun owner today is to be Black in the 1950’s pre-civil rights.

          All the same arguments are being used – They claim they don’t feel “safe” with guns around – Sounds just like the white woman who claimed she wouldn’t feel ‘safe’ if the Black man would sit beside her at the front of the bus. So he should ‘know his place’ and sit in the back.

          Well, guess what? She got over it. So can they.

          I am a *peaceful* American citizen. I will not tolerate being told to ‘sit at the back of the bus’ for being ‘uppity’ about exercising my civil rights any longer.

          ‘Progressives’, you are on notice : I will not tolerate being discriminated against against any further.

          This is a civil rights issue. We had better treat it like that or we will lose it…

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “This is a civil rights issue. ”

          Wrong, Binky!

          A civil right is whatever the civil rights politicos say it is. The second amendment violates the fourth: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures….” Having guns seizes the right of people to be secure in their persons and houses. Widespread gun ownership frightens millions into curtailing social interaction for fear of being killed by a gun owner who just “goes off” and starts killing people. Not to mention schools. The fourth amendment is supposed to prevent people from living in fear of crazy people with guns. The fourth amendment nullifies the notion that people should be able to buy and keep guns unless and until there is a general call-up of the militia.

          Now that we are talking about amendments, it is time to repeal the third amendment. If you are a fiscal conservative, if you are serious about reducing government expenditures, quartering the US military in private homes will save millions and millions each year.

        3. avatar Art out West says:

          Saul Alinsky 101
          classic “Rules for Radicals ” playbook
          Very evil

        4. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “A civil right is whatever the civil rights politicos say it is.”

          And a solid 50 percent (if not more!) of Americans say it is a civil right. And it is #2 on the ‘Top Ten’ list of rights called the ‘Bill of Rights’.

          Currently something like 70 percent of Americans agree owning a handgun is protected under the 2A. Looks to me that the ‘Politicos’ consider it a civil right…

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Currently something like 70 percent of Americans agree owning a handgun is protected under the 2A.”

          If those 70% were voting that way, we wouldn’t be having much of a discussion about “gun rights”.

        6. avatar Geoff PR says:

          The current ‘discussion’ involves rifles that look ‘scary’…

        7. avatar Gary Daniel says:

          It’s just a matter of time that they start calling Muskets firearms.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Gun confiscation, open borders, higher taxes, more government intrusion into the lives of citizens . . . The Left is happily handing prime campaign issues to republican candidates. It is coercion that links all of these issues together. Americans seriously do not like coercion.

  2. avatar Soylent Green says:

    burn the witch

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      This guy is the representative from the modern day equivalent of Sodom and Gomorrah.

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        The area he represents (the area where I grew up and am raising my family today is more like Boulder, CO; a safe place where rich liberals go to raise their kids away from the liberal Utopias of Oakland, Berkley, and San Francisco….. The people here are very conservative, but live in denial and fight tooth and nail to convince people that they are good little liberals. And if you have to throw us plebes and public school kids under the bus to prove all the better! It’s a reasonable sacrafice to appease their liberal consciousness!…. Have a bum walk down the street in Dublin, Peasonton, or San Ramon (Swalwell’s district) and we’ll see how liberal these people really are. They are hypocrites, and idiot Swallwell is their elected champion.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      I went to school with this deuchebag (and he graduated in my wifes class of 99′ from Dublin High School)…. He was a dumbass fu**tard back then, and he obviously hasn’t changed since.

      1. avatar Gene H says:

        Since this idiot is young enough, I would like to see him placed in the Military, given a fully dressed out AR-15 as mean looking as it could be just like one that can legally be purchased at a gun store, then sent to the front line of battle. Then, if he should accidently survive, tell us if he was out gunned by the enemy or would he much prefer a full automatic M-16 or one of it’s equal. These fruitcakes really don’t know one weapon from another. Only what others with equal knowledge are saying. Just like a news reporter from one of the fake news networks at a range reporting on so called assault rifles that I heard myself say. They fired the weapon which was an AR-15, and he stated. Now that was a full semi-automatic rifle fireing. He didn’t know. It’s either full automatic or semi-automatic. This is the kind of leaders and lawmakers we have for our country. It’s no wonder we are in such a mess. We conservitives have to finally stand up, grow a set, and say this is enough. Not just say it, but do something about it. the laws on the books, (Constitution) work for us all, not just a select group.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “These fruitcakes really don’t know one weapon from another.”

          They don’t care. Every configuration of firearm you can create or imagine means only one thing: gun. Social calculation: guns bad. Political calculation: anti-gun good.

          There is an old saw: “Anyone who would want to own a gun is reason enough to deny them one. Update: “Anyone who would want to run for political office is reason enough to prevent them.”

  3. avatar pwrserge says:

    Ok kiddo… you start “going after” people, and they will start going after you, your supporters, and your families. Once you cross that line, you become legitimate targets of war.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Notice how in the article its mentioned that there would be a nice carveout for LEO’s willing to do his bidding. How very convenient.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        If these are strictly weapons of war,

        Who are the police at war with, that they need such items?

        Hmm.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          The people, of course.
          Police in the US have never existed as a means of protecting the people from crime. The people were able to do that themselves pretty well. The professional police force came about as a means of protecting the government and connected elites from the people.

      2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        I imagine that even most of the LEOs here would participate in such an effort and justify it with the needs of their families. Am I wrong?

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        People are over-thinking this.

        Yes, there is a carve-out for LE. There is also a big carve-out for “shooting clubs”. Ever see that proposed before? I think this guy is a shill for some organization of shooters wanting to drive up membership, and more money for the clubs. Join a “shooting club”, keep your weapon of war. Elegant.

        1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          You really think this SF Democrat is proposing such draconian legislation as an agent of shooting clubs or are you being sarcastic? I can’t tell.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I think he carved-out shooting clubs for a reason. We should be very interested in that. If all it would take is joining a shooting club to get around the ban, why not join a club?

          Of course, he is talking about legislation, so the “shooting club loophole” can be closed with more legislation.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “I think he carved-out shooting clubs for a reason. We should be very interested in that.”

          Fuck that noise!

          The next step will be a late-night law passed for the seizure and destruction of the weapons stored at that club.

          Oh, and what a tasty target of theft will those ‘clubs’ be…

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I don’t think he carved-out shooting clubs for no reason. There is something going on there, and we should be interested in whatever it.

        5. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam: (apologies for the length here)

          In my OP I’m simply ignoring the suggestion because he doesn’t bother to explain it. Which, very conveniently leaves the suggestion open to interpretation by the reader/viewer/hearer. Generally when I see that I know off the bat that the speaker/writer is either stupid, lying or unserious. However, let’s examine the idea here for a moment because the devil is always in the details and logistics is a serious concern for any proposal. As the voice asks in Biggie’s song “Kick in the Door”; How are you gonna do it?”.

          Some people say “Don’t come to me with problems, come to me with solutions”. strych9 says “Fuck your “solutions”, explain to me how you’re going to accomplish them. I don’t want bullshit objectives. I want to know how you’re going to accomplish the task at hand.”

          Consider the following:

          What does his suggestion about “gun clubs” mean? Well, it’s an opaque, Obama-esque suggestion that brings up a lot of questions and issues.

          1) Does it mean we get to “keep” our MSR’s but we have to leave them at a “gun club” somewhat like rules in Great Britain where you can own it but not keep it at home or transport it?

          2) Does it mean that the “gun club” can have MSR’s which we plebs can then rent from them?

          3) Does such a law come with storage requirements, and if so, what would they be?

          4) About a zillion other questions that he doesn’t bother to address either.

          Then there’s the logistical and future problems such a proposal creates. IF we’re allowed to “keep” our MSRs but have to have them at a gun club how are those millions and millions of guns going to be stored? Massive military style armories? What’s that going to cost? What requirements would be imposed for a “proper armory”?

          Of course there’s then the issue of theft. Storing all those scary, dangerous, deadly MSR’s in one place is an invitation to thieves. Those who pay careful attention will note that actual assault rifles, real M4 and M16 rifles get stolen from National Guard armories on a shockingly regular basis and the crimes are rarely, if ever, solved. Happened in Rio Rancho, NM just a couple of years ago. Hoodlums made off with five or six M4 rifles after cracking open that portion of the NG armory.

          Then there’s the Lexington & Concord issue where all the MSR’s being stored in one place makes government confiscation easy-peasy if things go pear-shaped. Of course the government can also simply regulate those armories out of existence and then, for safety, take possession of all the MSRs “until necessary upgrades are made” or just forever. For safety.

          Then there are questions of cost. Will there be a cap on the price of joining a gun club? What happens when joining a gun club becomes like one of the gun clubs, which has a shooting range, in Boulder where the wait list, I shit you not, over 50 years at this point? I mean a gun club needs a lot of land even just for shotgun ranges so this shit ain’t gonna be cheap when millions of people suddenly need to join by a certain date. Those who can’t join are likely gonna be SOL unless there’s a carve-out where you can keep your MSR while you’re on the wait-list. Oh, and how do you get on the wait-list for the gun clubs that aren’t in existence yet?

          For new clubs, there are zoning and other considerations that could set back construction/operation by years and millions of dollars. Not to mention sub-divisions and towns that will fight like hell to keep these operations out and away from the sub-division/town.

          This isn’t really a carve-out and it’s not “elegant” (unless you think pulling the wool over some people’s eyes is “elegant”). It’s bullshit. A Red-Russian 1917/18 style lie. It’s saying “Here’s the solution” but in reality, without special connections and a fuckton of money, you probably can’t get there from here. At the same time it makes future confiscation way easier.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You are illustrating why I said the “shooting club” carve-out was interesting, and we should be curious. We have not seen anything in the past that could even be mistaken for a carve-out of gun control for gun owners.

        7. avatar Ing says:

          Then there are questions of cost.

          The insane cost of the gun-club restriction isn’t even a question. And all those other details are irrelevant. To the rich and well-connected progressives, it’s simply a given that no matter what their “solution” does to the proles, they themselves will continue to enjoy all those otherwise bad and icky things as high-priced, exclusive hobbies.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “To the rich and well-connected progressives, it’s simply a given that no matter what their “solution” does to the proles…”

          And doing what is necessary to move from prole to rich and well-connected is disdained because, why?

        9. avatar strych9 says:

          Actually Ing these things are the nuts and bolts of what you’re saying and that makes them i.portant for people to understand.

          The point is that to a large number of people the “gun club” solution seems totally reasonable but in reality it simply cannot work. That’s why he doesn’t explain it at all but merely throws it out there as a “solution”.

          He has no intention of letting people keep their MSRs. None. He’s just baiting a hook.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Agree, we do not have any details, but it seems like it may be an opportunity for horse-trading.

  4. avatar FedUp says:

    Oh, how original.
    He wants to copy Australia.
    Does he want to pay market price like AU did, without regard to condition, and with no quantity limits?
    If so, I know where the money for my retirement is coming from.
    A few guys in AU were smart enough to import scrap metal barreled actions and sell them to the government for $800 each, which adds up, even in AU funny money.

    1. avatar Ross says:

      Australia paid market value for firearms, this fool wants to give $200 per firearm, in reality he wants to force noncompliants he would rather jail gun owners.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Is he going to use “shock-and-awe” tactics to ensure compliance?

        Forget the BATF using Bronco counter-insurgency aircraft. Instead they will use B-52s. There’s plenty available in the bone-yards.

      2. avatar FedUp says:

        Intended Consequence:
        Destroy the ‘gun culture’.

        Unintended Consequence:
        After the first raid, the raiding agency’s uniforms become shoot on sight targets, and officers can no longer sit down for lunch in a public restaurant and expect to live to the end of their shift.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Sit down in public? How about go to sleep in their beds, next to their wives and just down the hall from their children? Same can be said for those that would give such orders and those that would codify these policies.

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          I anticipate that as part of such an effort, personal information about all of those involved will be, to the best it can, be protected from distribution. A law making it illegal to even identify them at all may come at the same time. Protecting on one hand and distributing on the other this information will be part of the struggle effort. It is fairly easy to get now. If I was skilled in such things I would create mechanisms to keep the information available. It has value even if it never turns into a shooting war. It has deterrent value.

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ” If I was skilled in such things I would create mechanisms to keep the information available. It has value even if it never turns into a shooting war. It has deterrent value.”

          The ‘mechanism’ exists, And it is called the internet.

          That data is already being collected, and will be distributed when needed.

          So I have heard… 🙂

  5. When he comes to take mine, and first takes my bullets at around 2400 fps he can then talk about it. In HELL because he would leave in a body bag!

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Cowardly vermin like this scumbag never consider doing the dirty work themselves. I’m sure they will find plenty of brownshirts to kick down doors for them.

      1. avatar John in AK says:

        “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
        –Alexandre Solzhenitsyn.

        1. avatar TroutsBane says:

          I’m reading Gulag Archipelago now, it’s a powerful takedown of collectivist tyranny. John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Civil Government is also quite good.

      2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        The ” brown shirts” will be the ones imported from the middle east by the ex mulim brotherhood emperor that we had for 8 years.

      3. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I’m sure they will find plenty of brownshirts to kick down doors for them.”

        Speaking of ‘brownshirts’ (Mueller’s ‘collusion investigation), there is *huge*, *HUGE* news today :

        “Manafort’s lawyers had asked the judge in the Virginia case to dismiss an indictment filed against him in what was their third effort to beat back criminal charges by attacking Mueller’s authority. The judge also questioned why Manafort’s case there could not be handled by the U.S. attorney’s office in Virginia, rather than the special counsel’s office.

        Ellis has given prosecutors two weeks to show what evidence they have that Manafort was complicit in colluding with the Russians. If they can’t come up with any, he may, presumably, dismiss the case. He said he would also like to see the letter signed by Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein outlining the scope of the Mueller probe.

        Such a dismissal would set precedent and be nothing short of groundbreaking. It would potentially make it much harder for Mueller to turn witnesses against the president.”

        “Uh-oh precedence if this gets dismissed…. The Judge may single handedly end the cat and mouse games by the special council and would make it much harder for Muller to turn any other parties to his side (because all charges are unrelated to Russia so far)….”

        https://twitter.com/WRRob/status/992424621101154306?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

        https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-04/judge-mulls-dismissal-manafort-charges-concerned-mueller-overreach

    2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

      If you wait until they are at your door you have made a grave strategic error. Those that don’t take the war to their enemies where and when they are most vulnerable are called “the defeated”.

      1. avatar SheepDog says:

        That’s a Razor thin line to decide if it’s “GO Time” or not.
        There are Monumental consequences if your’re wrong.

        1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          That is a logical fallacy. The consequences are equal. How it will be remembered depends on who wins in the end.

          George Washington crossed the Delaware is a prime example of how barbarity is morphed into a heroic feat by history.

  6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    It’s time to take all the congressmen who violate their oath to protect and defend the Constitution out and treat them like the traitors they are.

  7. avatar CTstooge says:

    I’m starting a national “shooting club”. Membership fee is $2.00 for life. Join today and get a free sticker.

  8. avatar fiundagner says:

    Firearm confiscation kicked off the first american revolution, and will more than likely kick off the second

    1. avatar Ross says:

      Maybe…

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        There is no “maybe” about it. There are quite a few people waiting for a pretext to violently air their grievances against a government that is determined to be fascist. Gun confiscations are more than enough to push A LOT of people over the edge.

        1. avatar Ross says:

          There are a lot of gun owners out there that talk a big game but they won’t even pick up the phone or email their representative and fight for their rights & if they can’t even fight for their rights they certainly will not kill or die for them.

        2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          The number of people who email their congressmen but wont have the balls to pick up a rifle when they come to take the guns is equal.

          Actually I would wager that those willing to actually fight, care very little about sending a form email to their congressmen.

        3. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Oh I 100% agree that many people talk a big game, but many people also see the writing on the wall and realize that when you have senators and congressional representatives who openly advocate against the Constitution and pander to illegals, picking up a phone or writing a letter who do jack. They’ll just dump it in the trash without reading it. There is no point in trying to talk to someone who doesn’t acknowledge your existence, but demands that you support theirs.

  9. avatar Loki says:

    The old joke comes to mind, ” Why does an Australian pour oil on his garden? To keep his guns from rusting.” Considering the low compliance rate of New York citizens registering their “assault weapons” after the passage of the SAFE Act I’m guessing their wouldn’t be many that turned their’s in but there will be a great increase in boating accidents.

    1. avatar Ross says:

      But if one does this they can no longer enjoy using their firearms and the other side has wone.

  10. avatar John in AK says:

    This is in actuality a watershed moment, the moment when there is a literal, verifiable, documented and sincere proposal by a Democratic legislator serving at the national level to confiscate, by force and violence if necessary, firearms from literally millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens.
    This isn’t a theoretical musing by a retired Supreme Court judge; It’s not the mouthings of an elderly Senator from California from several years ago. It’s something completely different: A statement of intent, a statement of desired policy, as fresh as tomorrow.
    No longer is it possible for the Leftist Disarmists to claim, “No one is talking about taking your guns!”
    Here is the proof: We are NOT paranoid, because somebody IS out to get us.
    Mark it well.

    1. avatar Concerned steward says:

      Quite disconcerting in its implications. If a person is willing to go down in a blaze of glory are they willing to put their family in the crossfire? Lose your job? Have your tax refund confiscated? Home destroyed ala Waco style? The leftists are putting the squeeze play on.
      I just picked up a CZ at my FFL last week. I asked him if the government is keeping all NICS inquiries in their database despite supposedly destroying that data in a reasonable period of time. Obviously, he did not know. We have to make decisions that are personally cataclysmic in scope. Make plans for many options.

      1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Actually, they are putting their own lives and the lives of their family at risk. There are only 1 million law enforcement officers, nationwide, on the federal, state and local levels. There are 100 million gun owners. If only 3% are ready, willing and able to DEFEND ourselves against the “War of Leftist Aggression”, I’d say it portends for a literal genocide of Liberal Terrorists™️.

  11. avatar Raptor1 says:

    The list just keeps getting longer. Gotta buy/build another 338 La pua (damn spell check won’t let me spell it any other other way[controllers gotta control]) cartridge.

    Nous Defions

  12. avatar Pawl from Florida says:

    I just finished reading a story about and ATF agent getting shot in the head in Chicago. It seems that law enforcement cannot control the situation there. Why not Swalwell , Hogg , Spaceman Kelly , and the other grabbers go in there and confiscate the gangsters guns first. You’re certainly compensated better than the people in law enforcement. Let’s see how you do ?

  13. avatar BLAMMO says:

    I’ve seen this guy on Tucker Carlson a few times. He makes the most obtuse arguments, so he’s either trolling for a reaction (or overreaction) or he really does suffer from diminished intellect.

  14. avatar How_Terrible says:

    I hope thus guys chokes on his next meal, but I do have to give him credit for being honest about his intentions.

  15. avatar Ironhead says:

    You want to buy my msr’s back????? I didnt get them from you. So no.
    For $200 you can have the the buffer spring off one of them.
    However if you wish to make a purchase of the entire rifle i will cut you a deal… $500,000. Each. You want them and there is a limited supply.
    I have the supply, and you are demanding it. I set the price, not you.
    If that doesnt work for you, go scratch.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      They can have my ammo. And yes, I’m serious.

  16. avatar Hank says:

    And by “shooting clubs”, he means congressional outing playgrounds funded by lobbyists.

  17. avatar FedUp says:

    Few things are more evil than Demoncrat legislators.
    Persecuting Attorneys are one of those things.
    Guess what Eric’s job was, back when he worked for a living?

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    /ignores Constitutional arguments for a moment

    And who’s going to pay for this? What’s that, you want to use my tax money to “buy back” something that you never owned, the government never owned and for which no one else ever worked for? Isnt that effectively making me, at absolute best, pay for it twice? And who’s going to make me do this? The government agents and representatives THAT WORK FOR ME!?

    Yeah, no. Fuck off.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      His cost estimation his a hilarious low-ball, too, accounting only for $200 per gun, not the cost of personnel to collect them, cost of destruction, cost to replace the personnel who encountered non-compliance, cost to hunt down non-compliant owners, and cost of personal protection for himself, his staff, and his family from the non-compliant who were run out of their homes by jackbooted thugs.

  19. What makes him think the government has the right to “buy back” Constitutional rights?
    Can the government “buy back” your freedom of religion, freedom of the press, or right to vote?
    Hell no. Civil rights are not for sale, including 2nd Amendment rights!

    Every time someone suggests an Australian-style, forced “buy back” of guns, tell them this: It’s like the government saying they’re going to “buy back” your right to vote, and put you in prison if you refuse to give up that right.
    That’s not democracy, it’s tyranny.
    Civil rights are not for sale, and a forced “buy back” is not a sale, it’s an illegal seizure, so it’s doubly wrong.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      but they’re not taking ALL your guns so it’s ok.

      Right?

      And face it if someone were to pay people $200 to not vote in ‘just the next election’, there would be millions lining up to give up that right.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        I would support the idea of buying people not vote. I’d wager that Democrats would be out of a job real quick.

  20. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Is this traitor going to take point stacking up outside my door, or is he going to send someone else’s children? And how many of these raids will happen before patriotic Americans start stacking up outside the front doors of traitors like this? I say about a dozen.

  21. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    Make no mistake, these filthy, subhuman, Liberal Terrorists™️ WANT a Civil War. He should know that there are 100 million gun owners, and that conservatively 3% of us are ready, willing and able to defend against their “War of Leftist Aggression”. And the concept of “prisoners of war” will be considered quaint and obsolete.

  22. avatar Mark F says:

    The amazing thing about leftists is that they always show all their cards and are so often completely oblivious to it. I went from the usatoday article to a source article in the Mercury News about the case the prog congressman mentioned. Here’s what appears:

    “Lee was arrested in September 2009 in the gun case in which he was accused of carrying a sawed-off shotgun to the taco truck. Jackson was a witness in that case and identified Lee to police as the man carrying the shotgun.

    But Lee was released from jail in October 2009 when prosecutors decided they did not have enough evidence to convict him and Lee immediately began plotting his revenge against Jackson, deputy district attorney Eric Swalwell said.”

    So, why was the eventual murderer not prosecuted for the sawed off shotgun? Had he been, he would not have been around to kill the security guard with the dreaded AK-47.

    A key enabling action is that a likely gang member (based on location, name, etc.) was let off on a gun charge that was deemed unworthy to prosecute within the leftist hell hole of Oakland, that the said lawmaker helped create. Sounds like Chicago’s “reluctance” to prosecute gun charges. Somehow, this seems prevalent only in leftist run cities.

  23. avatar Fred Lead says:

    Sure, they can “buy back” modern sporting rifles as soon as they raise the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars it would take to run the program from their (Democrat) constituents. In addition they will return the hundreds of billions of dollars taxpayers pay to support their constituents and future payments will be ended.

    Removing modern sporting rifles wouldn’t do anything, as we all know they are used in very few crimes. We also know the people that would comply with the law are not the ones committing crimes. There is a high degree of correlation between the homicide map by county and the 2016 election map by county. Guess which party correlates more frequently with homicides.

    It takes nothing short of insanity or insidious goals to equate lawful gun owners with career criminals and psychopaths. They have policies they want everyone to follow yet their constituents living under their policies are the ones committing the vast majority of the crimes they try to pin on lawful gun owners.

  24. avatar Joe R. says:

    Heard on the radio today (and I suppose it’ll be a mantra until November) THE BULLSHIT MSM LINE THAT THE U.S. IS IN A “NINE-YEAR RECOVERY” ECONOMICALLY.

    FU ALL LYING STUPID SHITS PUSHING THAT.

    It’s time to ban the MFn evil POS (D).
    ALL OF THEM [especially their MFn stupid voters] They are not just satan’s latch-key kids THEY (like the UN) FUCK UP ALL THAT IS GOOD AND RIGHT AND JUST

    IN
    THE
    WORLD

    , AND

    because it’s very near election time. . .

    ARE

    VERY

    VERY

    VERY

    VERY

    BAD

    FOR

    THE

    ECONOMY. (and FU if you really needed anything more then the POS (D) Fing with America).

    Kill a commie for mommy.

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      AND I’M NOT OFFERING A BUY-BACK FOR THEIR PELTS.

      YOU CAN CONVERT ALL OF THE POS (D) TO BOLT-ACTION, AND I’LL STILL BAN THEM.

  25. avatar Mike says:

    Let the battle begin not many Leo’s that I know want to go door to door and risk a shoot out at almost every door they go to serve a warrant or even a no knock warrant it’s sad that there will be high casualties on both sides of this issue .
    I say just drop the gun ban nonsense and get over them selves.

    1. avatar Sian says:

      The more they spout off on this, I mean, Democrat leaders are sweating because they know what happened the last time they showed their whole hand. 1995 and they got SHELLACKED in the elections.

      So I say keep it up. Keep saying how you’re going to ban all guns and throw everyone with a MAGA hat into prison. We’ll see how that turns out for you in November.

  26. avatar Felixd says:

    It’s time to ban Democrats. They are a danger to society. We can no longer live in fear of anyone who endangers our civil liberties. We need to do this now for the future of our children.

  27. avatar former water walker says:

    Tou can have my guns over YOUR dead body…

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      You can have my guns . . .

      When my great, great, great, great grandchildren sell them to purchase something more modern. (if you can afford them, and someone hasn’t needed to kill you in the meantime)

  28. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    Well, I’d certainly call that a Prelude to the start of a 2nd American Civil War for sure! OUTRAGEOUS! He should be dragged out of office in chains! How dare he threaten the Citizenry of the USA!

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Not so much civil war as second American Revolution.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Well, I’d certainly call that a Prelude to the start of a 2nd American Civil War for sure! ”

        “Not so much civil war as second American Revolution.”

        Third.

        The American Revolution was also a civil war.
        The Second American Revolution began in 1861 (civil war)
        The American Revolution was the first revolution
        The Civil war (1861) was the Second American Revolution.

        The next one will be the “third”, whichever way you look at it.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          It won’t be a civil war (among the states). It’ll be a street to street door to door fight in blue areas of the country.

          Check the map: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/11/report-donald-trump-to-hang-portrait-of-electoral-college-landslide-in-white-house/

          We’re going to F some sh_t up, then.

          It’ll be like G.W.B. taking Iraq in less than 90 days.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          A civil war is not defined by political structures: states. Civil war is defined as citizens of the same nation taking up arms against each other. In the first American Revolution, the colonies did not formally take arms against other colonies (as with the second American Revolution). The people within the colonies took up arms against each other while a portion of the population of the colonies were waging war against the English government.

          If a third civil war/revolution happens, it will be similar to both the first and second civil wars: in each state there will be conflict between “red” and “blue” adherents. The battles may flow across boundaries and end up being commonly called a war between the states. Or it may get a different name (providing, of course, it is Americans writing the history).

  29. avatar Larry says:

    If it comes to civil war, I hope it starts before I’m too old to fight.

  30. avatar Ogre says:

    Congressman Stalwell (D) represents a district in San Francisco, and this idea is typical of the right-think in that progressive/liberal saturated area, so he’s grandstanding for his electoral base. Has this flake come up with any other good ideas, like maybe how the government can live on the money it takes in, and not on funds it has borrowed? And how it can just butt out of peoples’ lives and leave them alone? But we must take note and make sure his idea never sees fruition, or maybe the Bay Area mega-government will form the 1st Civilian Police Division to try to take guns away from non-compliers.

  31. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Rather It’s Time to Ban,Socialist,Communist,Anti American politicians, many problems solved.

  32. avatar Will says:

    Mολὼν λαβέ, bitch!

  33. avatar bryan1980 says:

    What if we say “no”? Better yet, why don’t you lead the charge when it comes time for confiscation? You might have to, because the lowly civil servants that you lord over might say “no”, also.

  34. avatar Oliver says:

    The way I see it, as an NRA member, our organization has an unaddressed existentialist crisis that will be exploited in the end, and Swalwell knows it. Namely, our argument is that the second amendment expresses our inherent right to be armed, prinarily against tyranny. At the same time we are supposedly the most law-abiding of citizens. Additionally,, the NRA has also always been pro-law enforcement. As a result, The NRA has always advocated for everyone to obey their local gun laws. But if the local laws force dusarnament and we conply, then the second amendment is useless. If on the other hand a member would return fire when asked to turn over their weapon by a state agent, most likly your local poluce officers, most gunowners and the NRA leadership would throw said gun owner under the proverbial bus and said gun owner will be guaranteed a swift spot on death row. And if more than one gun owner does this, well, forcible disarmament will happen, again (like in New Orleans). And again most gun owners will go along, because they are law abiding of course. Unless we honestly address and reconcile this fundamental dilemma, then we, as a force for meaninful resistence, have already lost before any battle has started. Thoughts?

    1. avatar Last Mango in Paris says:

      The N.R.A. will take your money and TALK a good game …… right up until your door is kicked in , in large part due to their non- stop CAVE – INS and …’ Compromise ”

      N.R.A. is strangely SILENT about Pennsylvania , it’s pending 36 Anti Gun Laws and the upcoming MAY 15 Primary for Governor. — ( Paul Mango is the most Pro 2 A , Wagner voted for Toomey – Manchin bill , Laura Ellsworth supports Gun BANS )

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Negotiating Rights Away,Stand and Capitulate since 1934.

        History
        1791: The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is ratified.
        The amendment reads:

        “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
        the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        After That
        1871: The National Rifle Association was formed by Union Army veterans Col. William C. Church
        and Gen. George Wingate.

        After that, they start going the other way

        1934:  http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/nfa.htm

        1939 http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

        1968: http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/gca.htm

        1986:  http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/46hard.pdf

        1993 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

        1994 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

        What is a inalienable individual right and what is a privilege?
        What does “shall not be infringed” plainly mean?
        Does the NRA support the unalienable individual right of the individual to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed by government or does the NRA support government privileges?

        The answer to those three questions prove my point. The are self-evident. Do you understand what self-evident means? No further discussion is required.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Wondering why the NRA leadership ignores this, but a mere member understands fully. The upshot is the NRA is taking a stance that you should exercise your second amendment protected civil rights only in a manner that is convenient to government.

      The NRA was founded on the basic premise of the second amendment, in that if “the people” have the RTKBA, they should become and remain proficient. The NRA was established as a facilitator of the second amendment, not a defender. Torquing the NRA into a premier second amendment defender was a mistake.

      The NRA should have stayed in its own lane, taking no political position on gun ownership. Essentially, the NRA had a purpose so long as the RTKBA functioned. If the RTKBA ceased to exist, the NRA would have no purpose. Asking an organization not wholeheartedly, and staunchly designed to fight off “infringements” of the second amendment meant depending on an organization that was not committed to the mission in the first place. The NRA is an “uncertain” trumpet, and we should expect nothing more of them than internal conflict of interest.

    3. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      “At the same time we are supposedly the most law-abiding of citizens. Additionally,, the NRA has also always been pro-law enforcement. As a result, The NRA has always advocated for everyone to obey their local gun laws. But if the local laws force dusarnament and we conply, then the second amendment is useless.”

      Until we are Trod Upon then all bets are off.

  35. avatar DD says:

    Just make sure he is one of the door breachers when they come to collect!

  36. avatar Thomas says:

    I took this very serious, right up to the point I found out he was from California. Then I went oh, that explains it.

    Nothing to see here folks, just move along.

  37. avatar burley says:

    If most, and I DO mean MOST, of us showed up at our respective capitals, openly carrying our long guns, silently holding signs with simple phrases like: “shall not be infringed” and “infringement is treason” and “treason earns a hanging”, while legislative bodies are in session, this whole discussion would disappear overnight. Imagine the look on the politicos’ faces when 100,000,000 long guns are carried openly on capital grounds by folks they don’t employ. We need but display our resolve to retain liberty once. But; it must be resolved and it must be displayed with the full intent to lay waste to any further unlawful incursions.

  38. avatar burley says:

    What it’s time for is for Americans to storm their capitals and dispose of any who have uttered such treasonous words. Period.

  39. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    Maybe its time to hold legislators accountable for their oath to uphold the Constitution. These are the same folks who tried to make “being black” illegal, and who pass the kinds of silly laws which create unnecessary conflict with police. These politicians look down at black people and black guns.

    There’s no such thing as an “assault weapon” except a weapon used in an assault. This makes this rep another in a line of assault politicians- those who want quick PR points without actually controlling the root cause of crime- lack a economic opportunity, criminally bad public schools, and going too easy on repeat violent offenders.

    We need to bring back “tar and feathers”.

    1. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

      +1 tar and feathers.

      I advocate black urethane used to put on car windshields and spun glass insulation. I’ve never found a way to get black urethane off hands.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I’ve never found a way to get black urethane off hands.”

        The 3M solvent they recommend for surface prep to ensure proper bond won’t clean it?

      2. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

        I’m not a professional installer and I have no experience with a 3m solvent. I’ve only done 2 and watched a horrible third one where the guy got the stuff in his beard.

        It will come off smooth painted surfaces with a rag and solvent before it dries. But get it on fingernails or any body hair and forget about it. Spun glass should discourage any vigorous scrubbing.

        I’m not violent enough to think it’s a good idea to haul someone out back and put a bullet in their head for something they said. But tar and feathering is just a temporary mark of shame for a week or two and I’m ok with that. But then again, I’m ok with horsewhipping thieves and vandals too.

  40. avatar Joe R. says:

    Don’t let the (D)1<k heads, THAT CANNOT EVEN PROTECT THEMSELVES, ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, TAKE AWAY YOUR OWN MEANS TO PROTECT YOURSELF

    ESPECIALLY

    FROM

    THEM

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/atf-agent-shot-in-head-in-chicago-sparking-manhunt/ar-AAwJCMX?OCID=ansmsnnews11

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      FBI gets ‘droned’

      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/3/gang-used-swarming-drones-to-attack-fbi-high-speed/

      From the people who can’t even protect Obama and Hillary from what’s (legally) coming.

      Can’t un-fuck their own shit, but they can use their full faith and credit of the American people and the [thereunder] purchased, full force and might, to fuck with a U.S. Citizen running for office, and the President of the United States. I’m sure they pride themselves on being able to flex their muscle on you however they see fit too.

      F em.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Joe, the FBI will just buy a drone jammer for the next raid.

        it will suck if your 1,000 drone is airborne if someone near you gets an FBI raid, tho…

  41. avatar W says:

    If disarming is so simply done, then how about disarming the criminals first?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If disarming is so simply done, then how about disarming the criminals first?”

      Criminals and gangers do not pose an existential threat to government, or its agents. Besides, “nice” people don’t shop or live in areas where criminals are prominent.

  42. avatar craig k says:

    I do believe this type of action combined with a soft coup(Trump) will change the current cold civil war into a warm then hot one…..

  43. avatar ironicatbest says:

    NWO, Embrace the pain citizen.

  44. avatar EWTHeckman says:

    You want it? Come and take it. No, I don’t mean sending your goons. You do it. Personally.

    Doing so would make the world a better place for all of us.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      He’s a sniveling coward.

      HE isn’t going to come to take ANYTHING.

      The question is, what will he do when the goons he sends in his place don’t come back.

  45. avatar Johnny108 says:

    I’ve never seen a more comprehensive plan to start Civil War 2.

  46. avatar Chris Morton says:

    NO, I REFUSE.

  47. avatar d9 says:

    The whole “cop carve out” sands my a$$ every time I see it. Sorry NO.

    1. Why do cops need a carve out?

      Because they gun down unarmed black men?

      If so, the Crips should get a carve out as well.

  48. Instead of banning assault weapons, why not ban gangs?

  49. avatar Craig in IA says:

    Swalwell is from CA. Instead of bantering and debating all of this around here, we should be directing these comments to the people in his district and get him voted out of office in 2018. This sort of “debate” makes us all feel good, and some of us feeling smart, but it doesn’t do much to actually address the problem. CA couldn’t come up with the money to “buy back” all the ARs, AKs and other semis in their own state unless the rest of us paid for it, it’s also possible they couldn’t house all those they arrested for not complying.

  50. avatar Alan says:

    This man’s proposal is obviously beyond the pale, as is he.

  51. avatar Alan says:

    I remain curious as to the following. Exactly what is the “Assault Weapon” this congresscritter seeks to ban and require the buy back of. The term Assault Rifle is precisely defined in technical and military manuals, “a selective fire capable rifle or carbine chambered for intermediate cartridge. That said, EXACTLY what is the Assault Weapon this congressman addresses? If a law maker is unable or unwilling to precisely define that which he desires to legislatively address, there is something seriously amiss with the legislator as well as their proposal.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Here is the Californication definition (upon which the Feinstein bill is based/copied)

      “A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

      A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
      A thumbhole stock.
      A folding or telescoping stock.
      A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
      A flash suppressor.
      A forward pistol grip.

      A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
      A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
      A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

      A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.
      (B) A second handgrip.
      A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
      The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

      A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
      A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

      A folding or telescoping stock.
      A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

      A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
      Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

      “Assault weapon” does not include any antique firearm.
      The following definitions shall apply under this section:
      “Magazine” shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
      “Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds” shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
      “Antique firearm” means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899. “

  52. avatar Birdie says:

    He should be banned for not fulfilling his path to protect and defend the Constitution. Probably doesn’t even know what it says. Certainly doesn’t understand the meaning of “shall not be infringed” .

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email