Rep. Eric Swalwell Creates Nuclear Firestorm With Gun-Grabbing Tweets

Rep Eric Swalwell guns nukes confiscation

courtesy Facebook

One of the great things about the anti-gun left is that they eventually show you exactly who they are and what they want. The talking points are always flowery at first, waxing about “national conversations,” “gun reform” and everyone’s favorite, “common-sense gun safety” measures.

But wizened, calloused Second Amendment advocates who’ve been through the gun control wars for years know that’s only so much civilian disarmament wrapped up in a pretty, focus-group-tested candy coating meant to sound reasonable and taste good to Mr. and Mrs. Middle America who don’t pay attention to such things.

So whether it’s a former Supreme Court Justice, an ostensibly conservative columnist or a charter member of the Parkland Funky Bunch, make no mistake…they really do want to take your guns. All of them. That’s always been the endgame toward which the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex has been so diligently working for all these years.

The latest case in point: California’s Rep. Eric Swalwell. As we pointed out yesterday, the man who represents California’s 15th congressional district is one of the more enthusiastic gun-grabbers in Congress. As NBC News reported back in May:

Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

But as Swalwell revealed in a telling tweet, simple prosecution of those unwilling to turn over their guns doesn’t really go far enough for the Congressman.

That’s right, the honorable gentleman from California figures that if he and his fellow members of the Congressional Gun-Grabbing Caucus ever manage to get a civilian disarmament bill passed into law, resisters wouldn’t stand a chance. After all, the US government can use a little thermo-nuclear persuasion to convince America’s gun owners that trying to hold onto their firearms would be a bad idea.

Swalwell’s position can be summed up this way: Americans don’t need guns because the government isn’t tyrannical. And if you disagree with us, we’ll blow you all to Hell.

And Democrats say the President uses inflammatory rhetoric and needs to elevate the level of the national discourse. Can you imagine if a Republican Conresscritter had proposed dropping tactical nukes on, say, abortion clinics, the crowd of illegal immigrants headed for our border, or mobs of rioting Antifa thugs in Portland?

In response to the uproar, Swallwel naturally tried to blame the other side for their inability to perceive his rapier wit and cutting sarcasm. He tried to claim they’re ginning up a kerfuffle where none really exists.

Same as it ever was. The takeaway: Yes, Virginia, they really do want to take your guns. And given the opportunity, they’ll do it by any means necessary.

comments

  1. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    Let’s get to it then. I’m not getting any younger.

    1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

      True that. I’m past the point where I can effectively hump a pack and run around. But I got a lawn chair, a pile of magazines and a jug of iced tea.

      1. avatar bontai joe says:

        I would be honored to park my lawn chair and bag of loaded mags next to yours and I’ll bring a jug of lemonade.

        1. avatar YuGo HuGo says:

          Going down in a flame of Glory! Count me in………

      2. avatar Rad Man says:

        If you have enough space for my motorhome in the driveway, it’s a great perch from which to shoot prone.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

          “If you have enough space for my motorhome in the driveway, it’s a great perch from which to shoot prone.”

          With that motorhome, small holes, nearly impossible to see from a distance, could be created in it so a rifleman could be standing or sitting, in air-conditioned comfort, with a refrigerator and a toilet close at hand, to restore the sacred Constitution of the currently-occupied United States of America.

          You’re going to be a popular guy when the revolution goes down, Rad…

          *Snicker* 😉

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          A motorhome weighing 25,000lbs or more would make a better battering ram than a snipers nest. Heck, some weigh almost twice that. But that’s just conjecture…

      3. avatar Anonymous says:

        1) I propose a buy-back of assault weapons

        2) Gun owner says he’ll go to war with USA if that happens

        3) I sarcastically point out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century)

        4) I’m called a tyrant

        5) 0 progress

        Of course 0 progress, you tyrant. To make any progress, you have to be a tyrant.

        And when the war starts, who do these people think are going to get it first??? LOL That’s right.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      idiots like this are immensely helpful to our side…we should encourage him to keep talking….

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        I agree. We need more Demoncraps giving shet shows like he does.

    3. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Right. At this point I’m like fuck it. Go ahead use nukes. That’ll just make the party that more interesting. And I garuntee none of you soy boy liberali warriors are going to do too well in the wasteland.

    4. avatar MARK says:

      What we really need is a “buyback” for idiots such as Swalwell. He is far more dangerous than any so called “assault weapon” ( a classification that is not used in the commission of crime) anywhere.
      If we went to war with England for our freedom, not yet codified, should we do less with these people? IF we declared war against any sovereign nation for a stated reason that it was a threat to freedom and our country should we do less with these people. If we ban some from social media for making threats should we do less with these people?
      We have a legislator who is advocating, indeed warning or threatening, to use weapons of mass destruction. If someone on this board advocated this against the government or Swalwell he would be investigated and possible receive a 0500 visit form some SWAT team to take his guns because he IS a threat. Why isn’t this being done with Swalwell? Why has someone not obtained, or at least sought, a restraining order, involuntary commitment order for mental eval etc. on Swalwell.
      WHY DOES HE GET A FREE PASS???????????

      1. avatar Mad Max says:

        Stalwell should be censured and kicked out of Congress for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution.

        In Pennsylvania, the State Constition says “….shall not be questioned” but we have plenty of liberals in the PA House and Senate questioning it. They should also be removed from office for violating their oath of office.

  2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    When they finally force us to defend ourselves and our Constitutional Republic against their “War of Leftist Aggression”, the subsequent genocide of these leftist domestic enemies is going to be horrific. They forget or don’t realize they’ll be fighting an insurgency numbering in the 10’s of millions with whom they share the same soil. After a few dozen assault teams commit organized raids, in the dead of night, who will protect these tyrants as they sleep besides their wives and down the hall from their children? It’s time for “winner take all, once and for all”.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      There’s a reason why 4Chan has a concept called “The Day of the Rope.”

      Once and are taken up, the only restraining force will be that of their own consciences. If they’re not feeling merciful and they knock on your door, you’re SOL.

    2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      “After a few dozen assault teams commit organized raids, in the dead of night,…”

      Teams? Maybe a half-dozen people, *tops*, with scoped hunting rifles, in the dead of winter, cut the high-tension powerlines feeding New York city.

      In 3 days tops, NYC will be a very dark, cold, hungry, and unpleasant place with no flush toilets. And the only way out will be on foot… 🙂

      1. avatar Bob Jones says:

        With that and similar strategies, the war would be short indeed. Every big blue city would suffer that same fate.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          With vulnerable targets living in the wild, and not inside a closed and protected base, eliminating these tyrants won’t be difficult at all. After the first dozen or so liquidations, how many subordinates are going to be eager to fill these newly vacated positions? I’d venture to say none. Especially if their predecessors are dealt with barbarically, as is required.

    3. avatar New Continental Army says:

      You know, this got me thinking. If North Korea can build a nuke… who’s to say an organized group of American rebels couldn’t? I mean the original Atomic bomb tech is over 70 years old, and was bassically just a giant gun that fired a uranium bullet into another chunk of uranium. The only hard part really is making uranium 235, and of course the delivery.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        I remember when the government tried to prosecute a man for publishing a booklet on how to construct a nuclear weapon, claiming that he was committing espionage or some such. The case was dismissed when he proved that all of the information in his booklet was publicly available at the library. The only real issues are gathering the specialized equipment to build the core, and of course, obtaining the U 235 or plutonium. Delivery is not a problem–a van will do the trick. Or build it where you want to detonate it, and then trigger it remotely.

      2. avatar Kenneth says:

        But that is a very high hurdle to clear. It is difficult to enrich uranium, since U-235 is chemically identical to U-238. Lacking the giant centrifuge needed for enrichment, plutonium is a good substitute, and easier to get a hold of since it’s a waste product of nuclear power.
        The delivery could be as easy as driving and parking a vehicle, but only for an underground group. To get a bomb to a well secured location would require a missile or a bomber. OFC, few locations would be THAT secure, as even a small nuclear detonation will take out buildings within a mile or two. But one would find it hard to just drive up to within a few miles of, say, Groom Lake.

        1. avatar Wyantry says:

          Well, Groom Lake might not be the place to drive up to. There are more lucrative targets…

          At the risk of being labeled a “domestic terrorist” it would appear the locality of the origin of nuclear terroristic threats —like proposed by this alleged representative—would be a better choice.

          Why has nobody started a recall effort?

          Why hasn’t the House of Representatives voted to censure this cretin?

      3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        Oh heck, the soy boys could not even put out a really big conventional fire or survive without electricity in the winter. Nukes are unnecessary. and U238 is not readily available to the surfs.

  3. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    the californica idiot voters need to send this cockroach down to venesuela for a re-education . the first thing that a communist calls for is firearms confiscation. the second thing is lying about the confiscation. JUST ONE MORE COMMUNIST COCKROACH IN THE CALIFORNICA ZOO DUNG PILE..

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      I grew up with this idiot and went to school with him. He represents the vapid, detatched, hypocrit, limosine liberals that make up the old guard democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein. He grew up in a conservative area (Dublin/Pleasanton), but its the kind of conservative that has a thin veneer of progressive liberalism IOW elitist 1%ers who ACTUALLY BELIEVE they represent the 1%. Send him to Venezuela and he’ll drink the koolaid and convince himself its paradise.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Add Governor Elect Gavin Newsom to that list. We used to have “Slick Willie” Brown, now we have Greaser Gavin.

      2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

        I heard Swallowwell was really short – a tiny manlet. Is that true?

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          I suppose 6′ is short for the NBA.

  4. avatar Bugs Nasty says:

    Swalwell should breed with Ocasio-Cortez. Their babies would be so stupid that even Chimpanzees would regard them as morons.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      I’m sure I have some kind of casserole leftovers in Tupperware in the back of the refrigerator with green fuzzy mold growing over it that I would readily regard as a more intelligent life form than that complete and utter imbecile Ocasio-Cortez.

    2. avatar MyName says:

      Don’t even joke. That could cause a stupidity singularity and we’d all be sucked into a black hole of idiocy. (Hmm, “Black Hole of Idiocy” might be a good name for the DNC)

    3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Swalwell should breed with Ocasio-Cortez.
      Yeah, but Cortez is leading the charge to get rid of white people in the Demoncrap Party so essentially the latinos, blacks and muslims will all feed on the little white privilege liberals in charge of it. I figured that sooner or later the latino, black, and muslim hordes would start feeding on the LGBT, limousine liberals, soy boys, and the white privilege university set.

  5. avatar HP says:

    His remark about using an actual nuke might have been unserious, inasmuch as a nuke isn’t precise enough and would damage too much property. His attitude of “the government will murder you if you don’t comply” is absolutely serious, however. His attempts to deflect from that reveal that he’s a coward.

    1. avatar DaveDetroit says:

      You nailed it. The democrats have a set pattern of “comply with our ideas or we will murder you”. Look at ANTIFA. Look at Portland. Look at what happened to Tucker Carlson. The majority of the people in this country recognize the tyranny of the left- and they just keep doubling down on violence where they can’t win with votes. Unless there is a reformation on the left, and soon, they WILL go too far and start an uprising. It’s a pattern that’s repeated itself in every civilization. Technology changes, human nature doesn’t.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Dave and HP, you are both correct – There are those in government (mostly on the left) who believe that their role in life is to force whatever rules they wish upon the public and to crush all who won’t comply. Obviously, there is a role for government in maintaining law and order but some of these officials have taken that to mean that they have been elected as overlords, not representatives.

        I am certain that the people who agree with this twit about gun control will crow on and on about how he is not serious about the nuke thing but, in their next breath, they will cheer any effort to violently subjugate any citizen who dares disagree with them about any policy.

        I don’t think nut jobs like Salwell realize that, while he might think he is being poignantly hyperbolic, there are many in the public, both those who agree with him and those who oppose him, that will take his remarks at face value. Those who support his position agree that forcing the “other’s” to comply with threats of violence is reasonable and those of us who disagree with him will accept that he would as soon kill us as listen to our objections.

        By staking out his position in this way, he has materially added to the division and vitriol in the body politic vis-a-vis the issue of gun control. I don’t think he realizes that a notable portion of the population regard comments such as his to be a direct threat to their lives (not merely a threat to their freedoms) and, as such, will assume a defensive posture as a result.

        1. avatar Ed in North Texas says:

          And he meant exactly that. He would use force (short of nuclear destruction – at least as long as his government wasn’t losing) against American citizens in order to force his will upon all who disagree. I’m not even sure that physical resistance is necessary for him and his ilk to use force, to include deadly force, against those who disagree. A couple of NY politicians want the state government to review at least the previous three years of social media posts to identify and exclude those with “objectionable” views before granting permission to any remaining citizens so they may exercise their “right” to buy a firearm. The people escaping the Socialist-Democrat asylums like the Northeast, NY, WA, OR, Chicago and CA are as likely as not to bring their Socialist-Democrat ideas with them.

        2. avatar Defens says:

          Not entirely true, Ed. Any fellow Washingtonian I know who wants to escape to Idaho is a full-on 2A supporter. Like most of the blue states, we’ve had our state flipped out from under us by intensely blue cities, filled with extremist liberals. If/when I move to Idaho I’ll be bringing zero liberal politics with me.

        3. avatar Mad Max says:

          Defens:

          I think you need to pass a verbal and written test on the Bill of Rights to purchase (or even see) real estate in the redoubt in Idaho.😀

      2. avatar PistoleroJesse says:

        How many folks do they want to be thinking like this?
        https://youtu.be/uCoo08z_f30

    2. avatar arc says:

      Politicians do not get to joke about these things. They can, but they shouldn’t.

    3. avatar NM says:

      Power corrupts… especially the weak and those who lack self-awareness.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        And, in this case it would appear, the remarkably stupid.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Power corrupts…”

        PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.

        1. avatar MyName says:

          Had a corrupt PowerPoint once, had to re-boot.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Had a corrupt PowerPoint once, had to re-boot.”

          Precisely

        3. avatar arc says:

          Nuuuuu death by powerpoint presentations…. 4+hr sexual assault awareness briefings by the battalion commander!!!

          (Got so many of them we just started power clicking through them and got em down to about 1.5-2Hr, esp with skipping breaks)

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “(Got so many of them we just started power clicking through them and got em down to about 1.5-2Hr, esp with skipping breaks)”

          One of my wing commanders declared that if you cannot explain yourself in five slides, or less, you don’t know what you are talking about. Always tried to hold my presentations to three slides.

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    Bring it on dipsheet…guess who controls nukes right now?!?

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      And it’s hilarious to remember when the left and the rino anti trumpers said that Trump couldn’t be trusted with the nukes. Trump is loud and bombastic, but as far as I’ve seen he’s only threatened using anything close to a nuke against enemy nations. Nations that threatened us I might add.

      1. avatar dragos111 says:

        And, he has not lost the “football” codes, like Clinton did. Yeah, that happened.

        And then there was Joking Joe Biden giving a campaign speech. He went and pointed out, in public, on TV, the agent who was carrying the “football”. Jeeze, just paint a target on the guy already!

    2. avatar Rocketman says:

      Exactly what I was thinking. When you join the military you take an oath to fight against America’s enemies foreign and “DOMESTIC” and the military are the ones with the nukes. After the announcement that your illegally seizing Americans guns the military just might start looking into that “DOMESTIC” part a little closer and then Swalwell, you worthless POS are totally SOL.

      1. avatar LazrBeam says:

        To piggy back onto your comment, what makes this clown so convinced that his trigger men will so readily participate in a domestic attempt to subvert the Constitution they’ve sworn to defend? On the other hand, as a member of Congress he had to take the oath as well. Maybe they won’t have lied where he did.

  7. avatar GunnyGene says:

    The Left have always been the masters of hyperbole, but it does seem they are upping their game lately.

    And Swalwell is wrong about it being a short war. It would last for decades if not generations. And would involve a variety of foreign intervention. He has no clue what he is “sarcastically” inviting.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      As the Bard advised us, these violent delights have violent ends. He can backpedal all he wants, but the thrust of this twit’s tweet holds. He would love for someone to attempt something so that he could watch the government crush them in response.

      Personally, I don’t know anyone who harbors insurrectionist ambitions. Nobody is trying to wage armed war against the government. If, however, through whatever series of unfortunate events such a scenario came to pass, I wonder whether it has occurred to this congressman just who might be among the first people targeted by such insurgents and what form that might take. My own speculation is that it might look quite different from mere mau-mauing of politicians out of restaurants.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Anything resembling a real war, very, very short, I would estimate days. But it would not be over until lots of noncombatant congressmen and their families had their chance to make good on their threats, and were buried.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    So all this time they were right. They really don’t want to take our guns. They only want us all dead. I’m glad that’s settled.

    1. avatar BLAMMO says:

      We’ll have to nuke the country in order to save it.

  9. avatar zhook57 says:

    “A Short War”???? Are you freaking insane or just the most ignorant sob imaginable? Do you have any clue what 4GW waged by even a tiny fraction of American citizens who resist your tyranny would do? ‘A Short War”? This dude is nothing short of dangerously delusional and I’m afraid that in their ignorance, they are going to start something that neither side can stop. And let’s just say, it sure doesn’t end the way they would imagine it.
    I highly recommend everyone read this: https://ammo.com/articles/asymmetrical-warfare-4gw-americas-domestic-viet-cong

    1. avatar GunnyGene says:

      Good article, hits all the high points. 🙂 What’s lacking is that there is no mention of what comes after. It likely would not be a “sea to shining sea” future society.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        There is a novel about a modern day civil war, North and South (rather than coastal/rural) that features one nuke used by each side. The “what comes next” is a breakdown in everything for both sides. They both lose. Not a well-written novel, but an interesting take on the political and military developments.

        (did an internet search; cannot find the name of the novel)

        1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          North and South civil war ain’t happening.
          Try Left Coasts versus Mid America.

      2. avatar zhook57 says:

        Agree, Gunny. That does not describe a ‘happily ever after’ ending….

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      The anti-gunners develop little counters to pro-2nd people that they think are pithy and accurate because all their anti-gun friends chuckle and nod sagely at cocktail parties when they repeat them. No history or analysis required. After all, they’re the smartest guys in the room!

      1. avatar MyName says:

        Yeah, I think that is an accurate assessment as evidenced by the complete inability of the vast majority of them to have any sort of reasoned, fact based debate with anyone who counters one of their ‘focus-group-tested’ quips.

  10. avatar Me says:

    If one is enough, I definitely have enough sighted in and ready to rock, let just get it overwith..

  11. avatar Department of Voter Miracles says:

    The US govt is supposed to be bound by the Constitution. This guy is not a legit representative – he’s a hijacker.

  12. avatar zhook57 says:

    …at LEAST half (if not much more) of those people that he thinks that he is going to command to KILL those citizens who resist his tyranny, are going to quickly be on the other side ….WITH their “nukes”.
    This Congressman is openly calling for WAR on his own people. A war that would likely last for generations, kill untold millions of people, and likely collapse the entire ‘world order’ in the process, if not lead to WW3 (you think our enemies would not want to take advantage of an America in all out civil war)? The sad thing is that at this point, this almost seems inevitable. These delusional Leftists have are caught in a pathological echo-chamber of unreality. And now that they have a little power back, they are eager to wage war against their ideological foes – the American people who still believe in the Constitution.

    1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      zhooh57…….. I truly believe that they would be satisfied with tearing apart our country to get their own way. For some reason ( or delusion ) they think that they would be exempt from any harm or discomfort if this scenario came down. As long as they think that they will still be in charge they would welcome it for power. My question is, who would want to be in charge of a devastated, ruined country ? Can’t decide if they are insane or just plain evil, maybe both.

      1. avatar NM says:

        Half of the richest country in the world is still a very attractive target… especially to the misguided, petulant, anything-but-facts Left.

        1. avatar zhook57 says:

          I don’t disagree, but I would hope they would know that it would not be they themselves who would personally inherit any power or gains from such as conflict, as they would surely be the first targets in any such 4GW. That doesn’t mean their foolish enough not to understand that however.

    2. avatar BruceT says:

      The left counter the idea of the militia taking on the gov because “they have tanks and stealth bombers”. It is not that easy. Would you send a stealth bomber after four guys sabotaging infrastructure in the country side? No. Would you send an armored force (because you dont just send one tank, and it includes infantry with APCs) in response to a squad of sappers striking infastructure in a large city? That is a lot of logistics and flexability that just does not exist.

  13. avatar Kman says:

    The only thing that stops a good guy with a legal gun is an asshole politician with nukes.

    1. avatar Chadwick says:

      Here here.

  14. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    The modern democrat party are THE domestic enemies our Founders warned us about. They believe their “Liberal Bubble” is a force field that will protect them when Patriots start hunting tyrants.

  15. avatar Joatmon says:

    It’s coming one day. It may not be this year or next but sometime in the near future, some politician or president will fold and laws will be passed.
    One side will fire the first shot and after that and it’ll be on.
    I can say in all honesty that my home is not easily defended but it’ll be slick for the late comers.

    1. avatar HP says:

      I expect it sometime after 2024. Trump will probably win in 2020, the Democrats will presumably be able to find a candidate who is a good enough liar and can come across as moderately sane for 2024. Of course, it will only be a mask, as it was with Obama, but if that person gets elected and has a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress, the endgame will begin.

  16. avatar Darkman says:

    Sub MOA…Nuff Said.

  17. avatar NM says:

    Vote D, you get the D…

  18. avatar Hannibal says:

    Unsurprisingly, the man appears to have absolutely no military experience. Now, that’s not abnormal among politicians or even that generation, but at least do a little reading so you figure out why talking about nuclear weapons in the context of some sort of insurgency or civil unrest is so stupid that it should disqualify you from public office.

    I’m sure destroying a much of and irradiating the entire country would be a fine price to pay for an assault weapons ban.

  19. avatar Karl says:

    3% of 325.7 million is 9,771,000.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Even 3% of the 100,000,000 gun owners would be one of the largest armies in the world, and certainly more than our military and nationwide law enforcement combined (even though the overwhelming majority of those would be “on our side”, too).

      1. avatar Karl says:

        I thought about that but likely the 3% already own arms or got a buddy who has. And the military? Who cares? Only have a few thousand… gallons… to “Drain the swamp.”

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          The military will contribute our leaders, 9mm, 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, and air support. Although they may stand down at first.

  20. avatar Ash says:

    The most appalling piece of word vomit promoted by Mr. Stroke Mouth is not the piece about “we have nukes” it’s the following treat he made shortly after:

    “Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law.”

    If Congress bans certain weapons based on arbitrary criteria, “I’M SURE YOU’LL FOLLOW THE LAW”.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      What this fool and his ilk haven’t yet figured out is that the vast majority of the people wouldn’t turn in their guns. They learned nothing from the failure of the registration laws in CT and NY, with less than 10% participating in that nonsense. The AR is by far the most popular rifle in the country, widely owned, and with new people buying them just to make sure they have one before the Democrat party bans them. These people aren’t going to just meekly turn in their guns, no matter what themes idiots think.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        The anti-gun politicians clearly don’t understand that many of us have guns saved up for the day when they say we can’t have those guns. We purposely keep those guns to *not* hand over. I’ve had people say, “I’m sure you’d turn em in”, to me before and, I don’t think they really believe me when I say, “No I won’t.”

        1. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          There may come a day where they kick in my door and take what they can find, but that is all they will ever get…what they can find that is.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You need to advise “friends” like that of your first line of defense. That would be, tell the armed thugs that you have long ago given all your guns to *him*. And ask if he has a plan for when they then come to *his* door.

  21. avatar Mandingo says:

    6.5 creedmoor can deflect a nuke if the shooter does his/her part of the job.

  22. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Eric Swalwell is just a not too bright, loose lipped version of the generic Schumer-Pelosi plan to hold a gun to your head and kill you, if you don’t do exactly what they tell you to do when they tell you to do it.

    It still isn’t time to water the tree of liberty, but they keep trying to push us all down that road.

    1. avatar Mandingo says:

      The GOP is in it as well, otherwise they would do something when they have the option to act. I think a martial law, civil war etc is in the general interest of what many call the globalists, be it left or right they do not serve We, the People

    2. avatar MyName says:

      He certainly is a dim bulb and, regardless of how sarcastic he was being (trying to be), he has revealed that he is fine with threatening death against those who oppose his side’s agenda. Salwell is not the first to voice this notion that the government has the might to kill any and all citizens who rise up but, he has done so in an awfully flippant way which indicates that he has no sense of the gravity and moral implications of wielding that degree of power. I have mentioned to people before, when they pull out the observation that the U.S. military can kill all the gun nuts if they want to, that if the government were to deploy it’s military forces against the citizenry then, at that point they are in breach of the contract between We The People and the government laid out in the constitution. If they breach that contract then We The People are no longer obliged to uphold our end. In other words, at that point, there is no law and all bets are off.

      (In fact, once upon a time, a little revolution started that way)

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        If you read the Federalist Papers, our founding fathers were explaining how the new government would function. In this explanation one of the things explained was that if your representatives , or senators were not doing as they should be ( will of the people ) you write or visit them and tell them. If that doesn’t work then you vote against them. If the government is still not listening then you remove them by force. So where are we now ?

        1. avatar RMS1911 says:

          🚫 ballot box
          🚫 jury box
          ➡️ Cartridge box

  23. avatar Mandingo says:

    We are becoming a banana republic. It’s insulting.

  24. avatar Richard Steven Hack says:

    What this moron doesn’t understand is that nukes need people to launch them (unless you’re willing to trust an AI computer like Skynet). And people have trouble launching nukes when they’re shot in the head by some guy with an ancient Afghanistan-bought AK-47… 🙂

    The same applies to all these idiots who think the US military can overwhelm 80 million Americans owning 400 million firearms – many of whom have the same training the US military has because they were IN the US military – because the government has “tanks and planes” – all of which run on gas that can be blown up.

    I can’t wait for the gun ban. Because every ban of an object in demand sparks an efficient black market which guarantees you can buy the banned object on any street corner for a decent price. Witness the drug market. And in that market you don’t go through a background check.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      In the first Chechen war in the 1990s the Russian Military were up against Chechen militias who had done their time as conscripts in the Soviet Army. Because they knew how the Russians would attack they worked out the counter the Russian Army and isolate the units as they attacked in Grozny.

      If a bunch of wannabe jihadis can resist the US Military, imagine what could be done by those who have the inside knowledge on doctrines and methods.

  25. avatar HoundDogDave says:

    What these fools on the left fail to understand is that they would lose power in a civil war even if they succeed in taking all the guns away from it’s citizens. The nuclear threat is not the only reason there has not been a military attack us on US soil since Pearl Harbor. The militaries of the world are rightfully fearful of the armed US citizen soldiers. In Afganistan, the world has seen what a handful of dedicated simple farmers with mostly old busted up rifles and homemade bombs can do to fend off a well-armed large professional military (first the Russian and now the US). There are more than 9 times as many guns in civilian hands in the US than there is active military in China, Russia, and N Korea combined. “We The People” ARE the deterrent. Go to war with your own people and plan on an invading foreign army to follow shortly behind. YOU LOSE either way.

  26. avatar forp says:

    My guess is that swallwell is unarmed, protected only by the people he burdens with the occupation of protecting him. The sad thing is that his guards are probably tax-payer funded.

    He doesn’t have the ability to use nuclear weapons. those come under presidential order. He’s essentially saying that his daddy (who doesn’t like him) has a faster car than you so he wins.

  27. avatar Ash says:

    From my glowing, radioactive hands

    1. avatar zhook57 says:

      …and on a serious note, I think we should change that to’ “from OUR glowing, radioactive hands”. Something like this would not go down as 100 million individual ‘Police/ATF/Military’ raids to confiscate, with everyone waiting their turn. It would quickly degrade into open conflict both intra and inter-state.

      1. avatar MyName says:

        I’ve pointed out to people before what a monumental task confiscation would be. Let’s say that if, after some supposed turn-in period, the government were to try to confiscate some portion of the remaining guns, say a quantity just 10% of the current total, that is around 40 million guns. Let’s say they average one confiscation per second, that is 11,111 hours, 463 days, 1.27 years. During a period that long, do they honestly think there would be no organized resistance.

        1. avatar zhook57 says:

          …and that’s even assuming that the Govt is efficient in anything that they do 😉 All that it takes is for one of those confiscations to go ‘horribly wrong’ to change the whole dynamic – forcing people to take sides that would not have otherwise been in the conflict. Not to mention, there would be entire States that wouldn’t comply, causing a true ‘civil crisis’. Plus within states, there would be counties that refuse to enforce, then coming into conflict with neighboring counties… There will be many people who took the oath who will quickly defect to the ‘other side’. There is no way that it would not quickly degrade into open conflict, with offensive actions being taken, open skirmishes, all out battles ….quickly igniting a war. And nothing is off the table in 4GW. It certainly wouldn’t be a ‘short war’, as is Swalwell’s fantasy …and ‘his side’ certainly wouldn’t be the only ones with “nukes”. So Swalwell and his gang of loons might want to get their heads out of their pathological echo-chamber asses of naive delusion for a minute and try to understand what exactly the implications of such an action would be before they shoot their freaking mouths off

        2. avatar MyName says:

          That’s why I used the absurd figure of one confiscation per second (which would require tens of thousands of confiscators working around the clock). Even at that ridiculous rate, confiscating just 10% of the guns would overwhelm law enforcement. Any meaningful resistance at all just makes the task even more intractable. In short, it just could not be done. Hell, it would take years for the government to confiscate 40 million coffee mugs and most people won’t shoot a cop over a coffee mug.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We all love our imaginings of dying with our boots on, protecting the Second Amendment. We conjure scenarios ranging from SWAT team assault, to TROs, and how we would defend to the last bullet our home and our guns. It is good to think ahead, make and re-make defensive plans. But what if….

          What if the Supreme Court decides Charles Nichols is correct – only the right to openly bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment? What if the SC rules that the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home and immediate landscape, unless formally called up for official militia duty? What if we are only legal defending our homes and family with firearms? The cries from POTG of “RTKBA”, “Shall Not Be Infringed”, “Cold dead hands” could become meaningless if we expect to carry firearms outside the domicile.

          If the SC ruled only open carry for militia duty, and firearms protected only for home defense, the implications would be stunning: damage to the gun industry; damage to the gun lobby; making every gun owner no longer a law abiding citizen if they carry firearms away from home; permitting never-ending local regulation of transport and use of firearms outside the home; and state regulation of how the members of the unorganized militia maintain their weapons in preparation for use as a called up militia member.

          If such a scenario unfolds, confiscation would not be needed to effectively reduce the utility of personally owned firearms. Maybe preparing for confiscation is diverting attention from the real threat.

        4. avatar zhook57 says:

          Sam – I personally don’t have any dreams of that, nor do I hope for any of the chaotic scenarios i’ve described to become reality, or advocate anyone going out in a blaze of fury at your doorstep, in a time/place/manner of their choosing…. but I do understand the point you are trying to make and I do agree that there are other ways for our civil liberties to be degraded to the point of non-existence. I also think that other such actions are likely to be serve as a ‘flashpoint’ as well and it would be difficult to slowly ‘boil the frog’ without at some point, the frog jumping out of the pot. But I’m not claiming to be Nostradamus. My only point is that people like Swalwell are dangerously deluded to think that such an action as he is advocating for in his fantasy represents a declaration of war and the ensuing chaos would mostly certainly not be a ‘short war’.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Thanx for the response. I think we disagree about the frog. Look at where we are. Don’t know if you have been participating long, but here is a record that should have alerted the populace, and didn’t:

          -Bonus Army march 1932
          -Waco 1993
          -Ruby Ridge 1992
          -Bundy 1 and 2

          The government response to the Bonus Army belies the “Posse Comitatus” act – the US Army was sent against the veterans.

          Cannot imagine the founders shrugging such events off.

          The frog is in trouble.

        6. avatar CZ Rider says:

          I don’t think the scenario would go any differently if it was judicial tyranny instead of legislative tyranny. You probably aren’t going to have someone ready to kill or die for their rights just be like “huh okay now the SC says it means militia service only i guess I’ll just keep it in the house”.

        7. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Sam, if SCOTUS makes those decisions, then they are wrong, and I will ignore them, they and their minions may attempt to catch me, if successful attempt to survive me. Given today’s rate of success, I would theorize that process would take 30+ years, I will be long dead.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam, if SCOTUS makes those decisions, then they are wrong, and I will ignore them, they and their minions may attempt to catch me, if successful attempt to survive me.”

          Which raises the conundrum for the most law-abiding people in the country. Ignoring the published law puts everything at risk if you need to use your weapon outside the home. The net result of the scenarios is that the vast majority of people will not risk everything against the minuscule risk of actually needing to use a gun in defense outside the home.

          Only point is preparing for the SWAT team has us looking in the wrong direction.

        9. avatar HP says:

          So every available member of law enforcement is going to be committed to rounding up guns? Sweet, I’m gonna get out there and drive drunk like it’s the 1950’s!

        10. avatar Geoff "Member, Florida State Militia, Propaganda Corps" PR says:

          “…If the SC ruled only open carry for militia duty,…”

          A number of states have thought that one through already. They have declared all adult citizens are members of their state’s militia.

          And watch how fast more states soon follow with declarations of their own…

        11. avatar frank speak says:

          their attacks are subtle…and designed to slowly disarm the public…one method, of which…is to turn us all into convicted felons…on that level, at least it’s slowly working

        12. avatar strych9 says:

          The only problem with the idea of a “militia only” type law is that the composition of “the militia” is already codified in Federal law by 10 U.S. Code § 246 (1956).

          If one bothers to look into this you will find that 10 U.S. Code § 246 means three things.

          First, every man in this country 17-45 can be “drafted” into the militia so long as they are a citizen or have the intention to become one. All women in the National Guard are, likewise, eligible for what is effectively conscription. 246 also references 32 U.S. Code § 313, which notes that people up to the age of 64 can theoretically be “drafted” into the militia if they have prior military service.

          Secondly, anyone who does not fit the parameters outline above can volunteer for the militia. The law doesn’t provide for exclusions other than as follows: 32 U.S. Code § 313 (1956) applies to the “National Guard” not the militia. As such, referencing back to 246 we find that anyone over the age of 17 who is a citizen or has declared the intention to become one can join the militia if they choose because the militia “…consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia”.

          Thirdly, not only are there no age based prohibitions on joining the militia once you’re 17 or older, there are also none based on health conditions either. So just because someone is medically ineligible for official military or National Guard duty doesn’t disqualify them from being part of the militia, nor does it prevent them from being drafted into a militia that’s active so long as they are between the ages of 17 and 45 (64 for prior service members). In fact there are very few people who, if between 17 and 45, cannot be drafted. IIRC that’s the POTUS, VP, and a few other high ranking members of the government.

          So, to recap: Everyone 17-45/64 and those older than 64, who wish to be, is a member of the “unorganized militia” unless they are currently serving in the military, the National Guard or the Naval Militia in which case the gov’t considers them part of the “organized militia”. As long as you’re over 17 you can join the militia if it becomes active and, by law, you are already considered part of the “unorganized militia”. The only questions are if SHTF are you in an age range that prevents you from being drafted into service and, if so, do you want to sit on the sidelines?

          Ergo, unless someone is over 45/64 AND has voiced the opinion that they would never join the “unorganized militia” were it to become active they are, by default, members of the militia and could openly carry arms under such a silly disarmament scheme.

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…they are, by default, members of the militia and could openly carry arms under such a silly disarmament scheme.”

          I would construct a law that declares only members of the military, organized and unorganized, are guaranteed by the Second Amendment the right to keep and bear arms. As such, all members of the militia may obtain and retain firearms not prohibited by other law in and around their domicile and lands. Members of the militia are not guaranteed the right to carry or bear arms in other locations unless specifically permitted by state law. Municipalities shall not establish any law contrary to, or further restricting, the rights of militia to obtain and maintain firearms in their homes or lands. Nor shall any municipalities establish laws less restrictive than state law governing arming the militia.

          Or something like that. The constitution places States in control of their militias. If the States establish restrictive laws that retain the ruling of the SC in “Heller”, such laws would be constitutional.

        14. avatar strych9 says:

          Sam:

          While I may not agree completely with your solution I do agree that the several States have rights under the Constitution that we no longer honor. We should honor those rights.

          That said, I have quoted federal law here. In 1956 this is what Congress decided to do, effectively nationalizing “the militia” as a system outside the military and National Guard. In doing so they provided clear definitions of who is and who is not “the militia” and in doing that they made it clear that everyone over 17 either “is” the militia or can be part of it if they choose to be.

          That’s how it stands today. Gun grabbers have no legs to stand on, at least not in the way they think they do, when they say “only the militia/National Guard should be allowed to have firearms” because the federal government has seen fit to define those groups as basically being all encompassing unless the person in question is past retirement age AND expresses a desire to stay out of the militia.

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The “sweet” part of declaring every living person a member of the militia is that laws restricting gun ownership to the militia is both constitutional, and effective. Every one with a gun, or wanting one could face state laws that follow “Heller”, and declare home defense, and supporting the militia are the only protected forms of RTKBA. This would allow states to declare that no transportation of firearms beyond purchase and return to home is allowed (maybe transport for maintenance), and be quite constitutional. Such laws would have the effect of making people think they will not encounter the random law-abiding gun owner who just “snaps” in public (which is the real fear of Dimwitocrats). Being law-abiding, gun owners (militia) would not just grab a gun and attack a school, a mall, or a sidewalk full of people. It is the fear of the random “gun nut” that drives the sheep of the anti-gun movement.

        16. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          Sam, I’m sorry to have to tell you this but your logic is wrong. The right to bear arms belongs to the individual and shall not be infringed. The militia is allowed to form from a collection of these individuals. The choice of weapon lies in the hands of the individual, not the militia. The leader of the militia that a person may belong to may decree what weapons may be used in a particular battle but he has no say as to what weapon the individual may see fit to keep for himself for his own defense.

        17. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Let me explain it again, to you.

          If everyone is considered to be “the militia”, then the militia consists of every individual; totally consistent with Heller. If “everyone” is considered to be “the militia”, then the State can control the training and equipping of “the militia”. Control of “the militia” is control of the individuals who are “the militia”. Restricting where the militia may be armed remains within the power of the States.

          BTW, “shall not be infringed” has no effective meaning. If it did, the very first gun control law would have been invalidated by the courts. It would be a tough argument to present the idea that Heller does not permit restrictions on where and when firearms may be carried. Slap a new SC ruling that the Second Amendment protects only individuals (now “the militia”) right to keep firearms at home, and we will have a perfectly constitutional law.

        18. avatar HoundDogDave says:

          Wrong again. The constitution gives the State the duty to train and equip, not to regulate the militia. The control of the militia remains within the militia its self.

  28. avatar DrDKW says:

    Interesting how politicians say what they’re going to do FOR the people before they’re elected, then what they’re going to do TO the people after!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Interesting how politicians say what they’re going to do FOR the people before they’re elected, then what they’ll do TO the people after!”

      Bravo !!

    2. avatar MyName says:

      Almost like the founders should have put a note in the constitution establishing that the people should have some means of projecting power back at the government – Oh, wait.

  29. avatar zhook57 says:

    I think the important take away in all of this is that Swalwell and his ilk understand that any attempt at Australian-Style Gun Confiscation equates to a Declaration of War on the people, which would quickly degrade into open conflict.

    They have in fact already been trying to declare this war at a state and federal level with their attack on civil liberties and the Constitution…. Attacking Due Process (red flag laws, proposed no fly lists), attacks on Free Speech (corporate censorship, propaganda/information warfare by corporate media), media sanctioned mob violence on their opposition (antifa), open defiance of existing law (sanctuary cities), an attempted soft coup by the deep state …. the list goes on and on.

    Any such action, as is Swalwell’s fantasy, is likely to quickly fan a smoldering ember into open conflagration which would then consume this country for decades to come. The outcome would not benefit any of those who started it, as they would most certainly be targets in any 4GW scenario.

    All citizens should be aware of this reality.

  30. avatar Quasimofo says:

    “3) I sarcastically point out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century)”

    Really, dude? How well has the USA been doing in Afghanistan? How did we do in Vietnam? Now imagine going against 15 years worth of professionally trained military veterans who have combat experience in counterinsurgency, the vast majority of whom don’t agree with your politics. SMDH…

    1. avatar MyName says:

      “The most powerful military in the world would never lose a shooting war to a rag-tag bunch of farmers and colonists armed with hunting muskets.” ~Some redcoat general, March, 1774.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        “They’re peasants…with guns…how can peasants have guns?”….Burgoyne.. before his defeat at Saratoga…

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I suggest you should capitalize “vast”, above.

  31. avatar HEGEMON says:

    Socialists have always been willing to use violence to get their way. It doesn’t matter how many people are murdered. Salwell views us as incorrigible and beyond rehabilitation, therefore our liquidation is the only means by which to spread their false gospel. Salwell is no different than Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Castro. Salwell is a dangerous wannabe tyrant, and his rancid ideas must be repudiated.

  32. avatar fteter says:

    This is a great example of the need for a dumbass vaccine.

    First, you can’t arrest the people who don’t accept the buyback. Unless you overturn the 2nd Amendment. Which would, among other things, require ratification by 3/4 of the States. Good luck with that.

    Second, it’s beyond all bounds of reason that an official who was legitimately elected to participate in governing the citizens of the United States would be a proponent of turning nukes on those very same citizens.

    Third, someone should point out to the Congressman that nukes are not exactly precision weapons. And using them has long-term impacts. He is threatening a huge number of people, including his constituents, his loved ones, even himself.

    And this asshat is going to Congress??? God help us all!

    1. avatar MyName says:

      If you can find a way to make a dumbass vaccine you will, in short order, be the wealthiest person in the history of the world. (and I can recommend several people to be test subjects)

      1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

        make sure to get some bauxite in there.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Unless you overturn the 2nd Amendment. Which would, among other things, require ratification by 3/4 of the States. Good luck with that.”

      Government seems to be quite successful overturning the 2nd Amendment without bothering to propose a repeal by further amendment.

  33. avatar TheSophist says:

    Had an interesting conversation last night with a grizzled old man, who was still hale and healthy, who turned out to be a Vietnam vet and a former air force flight instructor.

    He said that he knew at least two dozen men personally of his generation who, as he put it, no longer give a $&@? and have little to lose if push came to shove.

    We think mostly about younger veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq as potential rebels against a tyrannical government. But it occurs to me that there might be a large OFWG contingent who are hardly FUDDS and whose aim is as steady as it ever was.

  34. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m always amused by pansies like Swalwell who threaten to take away our guns when that punk couldn’t take candy from a baby. What he really means is that he will sick his jack-booted fascist pigs on us.

    To paraphrase Solzhenitsyn: “What would things be like if every Security operative, when he goes out at night to make an arrest, would be uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?”

    If Swalwell has his way, we will find out the answer to that question.

  35. avatar AlanInFL says:

    Can anyone say: “dumbass”

    His words are going to come back to him in the future.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      i’m sure putin is enjoying this….

  36. avatar CZJay says:

    Once they know where those guns are: Fire for effect.

    He is obviously being hyperbolic. What he really meant was he’s willing to do anything to get those rifles out your damn hands. The SWAT and FBI teams would be their preferred choice.

  37. avatar MAGA says:

    Your enemy can’t push the button if you disable his hand.

    https://youtu.be/EmUIfX9TSJs

  38. avatar Phil says:

    Nukes are so 20th century, I’d rather get a MOAB! Or a drone coming through my mouth and exiting through my butt!

  39. avatar Crabbyoldguy says:

    A few random thoughts when I read this shitsacks comments.

    Is anyone going to offer to return his nukes one electron at a time?
    Does the house actually control the deployment of nuclear weapons? Clearly, he should be ineligible for anything requiring a background check. But, seems like he is qualified to be on the receiving end of some red flag laws.
    Does anyone else think his tweet is worthy of censure or expulsion?

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the bull, get the horns" PR says:

      “Is anyone going to offer to return his nukes one electron at a time?”

      Neutrons, actually, are the primary result of a nuclear detonation…

  40. avatar Salty Bear says:

    I’m not surprised. This is, after all the entire purpose of government: comply or die. In today’s world, you either have your rights or you are dead. There is no in between, because the state enforcers do. not. stop. until you either comply (by choice or by force) or until you are are full of bullet holes. It is not hyperbole to say that every law is a death threat.

  41. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Its not just this one pro gay, high tax, pro marijuana, anti civil rights, tyrannical, ELECTED, and Mulford Act supporting, California leader.

    It’s the tens of thousands of California voters who support him.

    Historically southern political leaders made similar statements about keeping the “peculiar Institution” alive and well.

  42. avatar Fred Lead says:

    We didn’t even nuke ISIS and everyone hates ISIS.

  43. avatar Defens says:

    I think it’s interesting that the first insult to the lips of an anti-gunner is that we all own guns to compensate for small genitalia. And SMALwell comes out swinging with commentary about all the nukes he controls. HA!

    Hey Eric, skin that smokewagon and throw down. See where it gets you.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      It was actually Oklahoma City that got their attention…and 10 additional years of employment for me…i’m sure that’s a scenario they don’t want to revisit…

  44. avatar Gun Owning American says:

    Can this idiot.

  45. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Wants to tyrannically use the full power of a standing military to take guns from people who say they need guns to oppose tyranny.

    Not clear on the concept.

  46. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Nobody “needs” an “assault-style” “weapon of war” because we’re coming for you with even bigger weapons of war.

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      His threat should be justification to repeal the NFA and GCA.

  47. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Why do I want to arm myself? Well, to protect myself from people you won’t bother nuking to keep me safe.

  48. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Well, it seems that Rep-Himself would know about indiscriminate weapons of mass killing. Fortunately for us all, the tens of millions of armed citizens in the US are somewhat more measured.

  49. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Space Marine: “The whole place is infested with those gunny people. My god, what do we do, sir?”

    Rep-Himself: “Nuke it from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure”.

  50. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    So, citizens shouldn’t have arms, because sometimes, some of them using arms doesn’t work out so well?

    Well, then, I look forward to Rep-Himself’s bills removing the feds the authorities for environmental regulation, taxation, drug enforcement, surveillance, war powers, tariffs and commerce, health policy, energy policy, land management, and dietary recommendations. To start.

    He should probably ban himself from speaking, as managing that seems to be beyond him, sometimes.

  51. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Rep-Himself, doing a public service, demonstrating again why it’s called “twit”-er.

  52. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Government official “joking” about nuking citizens is … not a good look. Just sayin.

  53. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Rep-Himself, having discovered citizens’ firearms after >400 years, wants to respond to this “crisis” with a power the government has had for >40.

    Right on top of things, there.

  54. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    When they nuke the guys guarding Rep-Himself, or where he works, or a congressional softball practice, he might get caught in the blast radius.

    I don’t think he thought this through.

  55. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    Rep-Himself is free, along with Candidate Kamala, DiFi, Pelosi & Governor Moombeam, to confiscate all the guns they want in The People’s Republic of California, and nuke anyone who resists without Federal help.

    How about they try that, and show the rest of us how it works out. Like Chicago. Baltimore. Etc.

  56. avatar balais says:

    I dont think he was literally serious, although seeing comments on NYTs and Wapo in regards to wishful things being done to gun owners (‘oh we’re just going to vote your rights away anyways’, ‘airstrikes!”, and ‘repeal the 2A. screw your rights!” “gun owners deserve to die”), I take it as a serious threat.

    I hope more dumbf–ks like him come out of the woodwork with their comments. It will validate every concern and fear gun owners have and illegitamize the gun control cause.

    Carry on. And still think we’re a cohesive, united nation?

  57. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    Against a serious tyranny (such as nuking the citizens), the government would be very hard-pressed to put down a national-scale uprising. There are only so many places that you can send tanks and troops, and only a fraction of those troops are actual infantry, meaning most would not be much better trained than the average citizen in terms of shooting.

    You also could sabotage certain infrastructure the military would need. That said, I think the comparison with Vietnam and Afghanistan are way over-simplified. Vietnam was lost due to bad tactics on America’s part because of the idiots in Washington who decided to micromanage the war. It was very much winnable. But they didn’t do heavy bombing at first or attack the Ho Chi Minh trail, which would have cut off the supplies from China and the Soviets. If they had, the North would have collapsed. Instead, they did very gradual bombing, increasing in severity bit by bit, which made it very easy for the North to adapt.

    With Afghanistan, the U.S. is trying to fight an insurgency without harming the regular population, very different from a tyranny trying to oppress a whole country.

  58. avatar sound awake says:

    we make a stand NOW or there wont be anyone left to make it to the chopper

  59. avatar Kap says:

    What less could you expect from the Twisted sister Sodom and Gomorrah state, he’s probably peddling arms on the side! State is already Burning.

    1. avatar HP says:

      Wouldn’t be the first California politician to try to ban guns only to be running guns at the same time. Good old Leland Yee comes to mind. We’ve probably got a bunch here in New York as well, all hailing from the Rotten Apple.

  60. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Actually we need more Demoncraps like Swalwell and Cortez to keep contributing to their stupid progressive shet shows. They are very useful idiots.

  61. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Why do I have to keep doing this?

    Here is the truth, from theConstitution:

    Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 15, “The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
    note: As to control of militias, this article is clear that Congress can call forth the militia without States granting permission in each and every case Congress determines the militia is needed. Also, on a current note, the militia can be called forth to seal the border because immigration control is a Law of the Union. The analogy today would be the standing army, or National Guard could be used because preventing illegal immigration is not a state function, but a federal one.

    Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 16, “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
    note: this clause delegates the central government power to control the militia. Not only can Congress control the militia when and while “called up”, the constitution specifically accords to the States only the power to appoint militia officers, and conduct training IAW regulations established by Congress. “Organizing” the militia also anchors power in Congress to define unit responsibilities. And this is not to mention the Congressional power to discipline the militia, as in establishing policy and procedure.

    In no case can one conclude “the militia” control themselves. In the beginning, the States, not individual militias, could direct when and where the militia could and would store munitions (see the history of “The Ride of Paul Revere”, and the reason for it). One might argue that determining the laws/rules of control the militia prior to the Union was solely in the hands of militias, but after the ratification of the Constitution, that changed, and Congress became the power, with States relegated to administrative matters (determining military drills and exercises – training – is an administrative function delegated by the Constitution to the States.

    In short, there is no theory of the Constitution that the individual RTKBA is a matter of “every man/group for themselves”. But to make it simple, laws defining where and when the militia may keep and bear arms do not violate the constitution; it is only the prohibition of government to demand surrender of all firearms. Prior to 1868, the Second Amendment prohibited only the central government from confiscating firearms owned by private citizens. After 1868, the States were also prohibited from denying the individual RTKBA. However, the constitution actually only applies to the States when convenient for the central government.

    Bottom line is, the Second Amendment is declared non-absolute within the constitution itself. While the Second Amendment prohibits government from confiscating firearms of individual, it did not repeal the militia clauses of the constitution. Those controls remained delegated to Congress (not the Executive). The Congress controls the militia, the States have specified responsibilities regarding the militia, but nowhere is the authority granted for militia to be autonomous in its activities.

  62. avatar HoundDogDave says:

    I will grant you that “The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It says Congress shall have Power, NOT Congress shall have THE Power.
    I will, however, not accept that given the documented reasoning of the Founding Fathers prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence through to and beyond The Constitutional Convention, that an armed citizenry is needed to keep their own government in check, that they, the Founding Fathers, would then turn over all control of the Militia to said government. That just flies in the face of reason and 240+ years of historical understanding by the people in and of the Republic. Why would they have expressly limited the numbers of a national standing army so that the citizenry would be able to stand against it if need be, only to then turn the Militia into Congress’s personal standing army? I do believe that must have missed something somewhere or failed to identify some other limits on the governmental controls or everything said about the PEOPLE’S power to fight back against tyranny has been lies. I and many other Patriots would find your assertions too hard to believe. I am no legal scholar, so I can not provide documents to refute your assertion but I do think that if what you say is true and that the argument that We The People do not have the power to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government would have been settled in 1789 and we would not be having this conversation right now.

    1. avatar HoundDogDave says:

      Let me clarify what I meant to say. “Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia …” Not Congress shall have the Power To call forth the Militia. The operative statement being ” Power To provide for “

  63. avatar Glitch says:

    Maybe he’s just a Jim Jeffries fan? He has a whole skit about how people are bringing guns to a drone fight.

  64. avatar BruceT says:

    After the cold war the military was gutted. Infantry divisions and air wings slashed. Even after 17 years of fighting the war on terror we never rebuilt to that level.
    There are not the combat arms (trigger pullers, not support troops) to fight a civil war that people think there are. A lot of combat arms are out of the country.
    If 5% of gun owners called BS (many who are vets of guerilla warfare) that is a large amount of fighters. If you add in US troops that would not fight or would defect, that number goes up.
    If you look at the blue vs red election map, that is a reasonable estimation of LEOs that would like the military, not fight or would defect.

    I pray this would never have to happen.

    I cant guess how quick or how long this would take.

    But I would say that it would most likely be very bloody.

  65. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    When an elected white democrat tells me he will kill me to get my guns I believe him. When that will happen? I don’t know. But I glad he is honest. Most gun grabbers are liars. They won’t be honest with you.

    One hundred years ago white democrats said this publicly all the time.

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      If that elected Democrat gun grabber was black, would it change anything?

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        No the race of the politician would not matter. However if it was a black politician that tells me, she, Stacy Abrams in Georgia, has no historical reference.

        Stacey Abrams not only came out for gun confiscation. But she also publicly supported giving illegal aliens money and college tuition other government preferences. This caused blacks in that state to not vote for her enough numbers that she lost.

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