Swalwell: The Second Amendment Allows for Gun Control

swalwell nuke gun owners confiscation

Courtesy grrrgraphics.com Image used with permission.

This is the guy who wants to take “the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of those dangerous people.” Yet the guns he’s hankering to grab cause about 3% of the firearms-related deaths. He says he has the moms and the kids squarely behind him. What he really wants is minimally compensated confiscation and he’s willing to jail or kill anyone who defies him.

“The greatest threat to the Second Amendment is doing nothing,” the California congressman said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “And the Second Amendment is not an absolute right. Just like free speech — you can’t shout fire in a theater or lie about the products you are selling. You can’t own a bazooka, you can’t own a tank, you can’t own rocket-propelled grenades.“

“So we should put some limits in place,” Swalwell said. “And I think the American people are with me. I’m no longer intimidated by the NRA. The moms and the kids, they’re behind us on this issue. And I think it just takes leadership in Washington.”

Swalwell last year proposed a ban on “possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.” The government would offer to buy those guns to get them out of circulation.

– Ian Kullgren in Swalwell says Second Amendment allows for gun control

 

swalwell for president

(AP Photo/Elise Amendola) and Bigstock

 

comments

  1. avatar Chier says:

    People lie about the products they are selling all the time. Just look at the democrat party and puketards like Swalwell.

    1. avatar raptor jesus says:

      B U R N !

      1. avatar Bruno says:

        Really!!?? Swallow well is going to jail or KILL anyone who defies him!! Come to my house Moth.. fu…er. We’ll see who kills whom

        1. avatar Audrey Jane Budzynski says:

          He can’t be serious— he thinks he is intimating– he hasn’t met members of the NRA.

        2. avatar John the Deplorable says:

          Swallow well Is a complete idiot if I lived in califuctya I would be protesting to get this deranged asshole out of office that piece of trash needs to be removed. You know California say their a republic but that is just a lie. Holly weird needs to be shut down also. Anyone who does not abide by the law of our country should be drug out into public square and hung until dead. But nowadays nobody has balls to stand for liberty. We are not to be governed by men. Jesus is the one and only true KING of KINGS I Bow down to no man. So swallow well you little penis wrinkle come and take it if you are so brave.

        3. avatar TOM says:

          I agree with Bruno 100% just come to my
          house and try and take my guns, you had better
          get right with your maker because I am sure
          you will be meeting him!!!!

      2. avatar Flyingcoyote says:

        That motherfucker swallow swell needs to be pummeled with a shitty baby diaper full of broken glass.

      3. avatar James W Zimmerman says:

        but but but, HE HAS ALL THE MOMS AND KIDS BEHIND HIM. and he is wrong about a few things. All the RIGHTS in the Bill of Rights are absolutes. How did this retard get to Congress. He must really Swollow wellAnd just for his edification, you can shout fire in a theater. You just must be ready to be criminally liable for any injuries you cause. Companies and Politicians Lie all the time. Police are allowed to lie to you and Big Pharm lie about the products they are selling. Hey dickhead You CAN own a bazooka, you CAN own a tank, you CAN own rocket-propelled grenades.“

    2. avatar LazrBeam says:

      Puketards like Swallowswell.

      1. avatar LMB says:

        Dang! I was going to use “Swallowswell”!!
        He should reread the 2nd. Amendment where it says, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”!!! Also he should apply the use of the commas as the founders intended. Please look up the Grammarly applied use of commas. It might help these twinks understand the proper use of commas!!!

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Swalwell is a garden-variety retail politician. I don’t think he’s done much at all outside of politics in his whole miserable life. The guy is disgusting.

      1. avatar Mark Smith says:

        I think this IDIOT is really AOC’s Brother, both dumber than a Post

        1. avatar DesertDave says:

          Oh, come on now, don’t disparage posts! I’ve known many a post that was way smarter than your average DemonRat, not to mention SwallowWell and Occaisional-Cortex .

    4. avatar James A. "Jim" Farmer says:

      Sure. Just another deceitful crooked lying sonofabitch, political elitist, socialist traitor and oath breaker!

      1. avatar Audrey Jane Budzynski says:

        Amen

        1. avatar BillionaireBoysClub says:

          Even the rock he crawled out from under is ashamed of him. Typical politician willing to use the Constitution as toilet paper to increase their power. He is quite the little demagogue.

    5. avatar C says:

      Hey Swalwell show me where it says anything like that in the second amendment. You should take a course from the Heritage Foundation then you might know something. You don’t have a single clue at this point. Just another under educated, moronic democrat.

    6. avatar Jim says:

      What part of “Shall NOT be infringed” does he not understand?

    7. avatar Bill says:

      How do these stupid people get elected. What part of the 2nd amendment does this guy not understand? If this “congressman could read he would not make these idiotic statements. It would be nice if he would deal with real problems, ie the southern border, criminal acts in DC ie, treason. It is time to vote these morons out of office.

    8. avatar Most Dems are EVIL Liars says:

      Who says you can’t own a tank?

  2. avatar Baldwin says:

    His azz is jealous of the sh!t that comes out of his mouth. SMH.

    1. avatar Gliderguy says:

      I came here just to file away Baldwin’s remark for future use: “His azz is jealous of the sh!t that comes out of his mouth.” I can think of several times a month this would come in handy.

  3. avatar Napresto says:

    “The government would offer to buy them…”

    Don’t you mean “take them by force?” Speaking of lying about things you are selling…

    1. avatar Rich says:

      Soon SwalloWell and his fellow Lemming will be coming after your bathtubs as they kill more people than guns. 😊

      https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/15/tucker-carlson/carlson-guns-dont-kill-people-bathtubs-do/

  4. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    I hope this democrat terrorist wins the primary, the presidency and control of Congress.
    I’m not getting any younger. There’s only ONE remedy.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Amazing! I was just thinking the exact same thing. My capabilities are going downhill so fast I may have to sit out the grand finale if we don’t get on with it. Bring it, Swalwell!

      1. avatar Flyingcoyote says:

        I may be getting older, but I shoot combat courses daily, along with my long range rifle course. Put these up on my private property. However, I’ll hear their screaming long before I see them. Traps Are Great!

    2. avatar Bob999 says:

      Do not worry. You can certainly help even in your older years. We will need the older generation to help staff the prisons that will hold these people, staff juries that will adjudicate the many trials for treason, sedition and official misconduct held against these people, and you can help teach a new generation what it means to live free. There will be plenty to do.

      1. avatar Mark Smith says:

        Prisons for these Traitors, NO way, Death is the only cure for this

    3. avatar Build the wall and increase ICE funding says:

      I was thinking the same thing, a couple of months ago, here I am getting older and fatter. Damned if I was gonna do anybody much good the way I was going. Got off my ass and signed up for exercise classes my doctor has been after me about. I have started dropping the weight, but still the slowest guy on the treadmill, but I am not quite as wiped out at the end of class a couple of months ago. Gotta drop another thirty pounds though I already have more energy than I did.

      Get yourself in shape, if the Democrats start another Civil War like they did last time, then there will be things even us old guys are need for.

      1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

        Old and banged up, but have you seen the other side?😁

        1. avatar W says:

          The other side is stoned, stupid, ignorant and take a lot of time outs when they get stressed, which doesn’t take very much at all. Any use of force will send them running away and them completely soiling their panties.

        2. avatar most tems are EVIL Liars says:

          Especially the hag pislosi!

      2. avatar Doc Samson says:

        Nice! Keep up the good work! Wish more POTG would take that type of initiative…

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Amen!

      Although, I think AOC in 2020 would have a quicker effect. Since they are ignoring the Constitution anyway, they might as well ignore the age requirement as well. I really think that Swalwell would wuss out but AOC is dumb enough to go full tilt right out of the gate.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I think AOC in 2020 would have a quicker effect. Since they are ignoring the Constitution anyway, they might as well ignore the age requirement as well.”

        No need to “ignore the age requirement. If a person can claim to have the biology they feel good about, why can’t an under-aged person decide they feel old enough to meet the age requirement to run for president?

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Very true. How undemocratic of me. I shall flog myself on insta until dead. 🙂

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Very true. How undemocratic of me. I shall flog myself on insta until dead. 🙂”

          Confessing your crime is sufficient, comrade.

        3. avatar glock19fan says:

          Well, the requirement to be USA born from two USA citizen parents has already been violated; look what a mess he and his sycophants made.

  5. avatar barnbwt says:

    Ben “Legit V2 Rocket” Garrison
    Wow, no all-seeing eye or other conspiracy crap, nor two-thousand labels on stuff; Garrison is upping his game.

    So you can’t shout “fire,” but you can threaten fellow Americans with nuclear armageddon? It’s pretty clear that at least some portion of the audience took the guy seriously (as in, we seriously think he threatened fellow Americans, not that he has the pull to do so) so frankly, he should have Homeland Security crawling up his ass. No different than when some imam cries ‘death to America.’

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Homeland security was designed to go against Americans and to be used by people like Swalwell. Hence his brashness. Homeland security was a Nazi Germany program.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Yes, The department of homeland Security was created by George W. Bush and the Republican majority in Congress in order to take our Freedom.

        That’s why I always vote Democratic (Or socialist if that’s an option).

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          So I guess that means youd rather die in subservience, than fighting the dragon. Or you’re just trollin.

        2. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Aren’t you the same guy who tried to tell us that it wasn’t a crime for Hillary Clinton to compromise classified information because she didn’t know it was classified and that there was no intent therefore no crime? I haven’t forgotten. And I’m not letting anyone else forget. You showed you mindset that day. Go screw yourself.

        3. avatar Audrey Jane Budzynski says:

          Neither of these two people, Swalwell nor AOC have enough guts to keep coming. What the heck would he know about the 2nd Amendment. He is in way over his head. Apparently he is another Clinton Follower.
          AOC thinks that we are all dumb. I can’t help but think she is brain dead from opening her mouth too wide.

        4. avatar Flyingcoyote says:

          First off; FUCK YOU! May the paper you wipe the nasty crust off your ass be very thin.

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “So you can’t shout “fire,” but you can threaten fellow Americans with nuclear armageddon?”

      He’s shouting fire on a crowded planet. lol

  6. avatar Coffee Addict says:

    more than anything I hate that “yUo cAnT yElL fIrE iN a CrOWdEd tHeAtRe!!” trope.

    you CAN yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
    especially if there is a fire.

    You can even yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theater for shits and giggles…just don’t expect to enjoy First Amendment protection for doing so. You CAN also expect to deal with the consequences of yelling fire if there doesn’t happen to be one. like a misdemeanor charge and most likely civil suit if anyone is injured, ir worse if someone is killed.

    Why is that concept so hard for people to grasp?

    But you aren’t restrained from yelling ‘Fire’. there’s just consequences for doing so if there’s no actual fire.

    1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

      +1

      Imagine that…consequences for your actions…most activists, politicians and journalists would be residents of the gray bar hotel.

    2. avatar Binder says:

      You also can’t just shoot someone for no reason either. So exactly what is the point?

      1. avatar Coffee Addict says:

        sure you can people do it all the time in Chicago.

        .. and apparently in Chicago, there’s also no repercussions.

        but I sense you’re trying to be cute.

        it’s the “you can’t” part that keeps coming up as if that’s all that’s necessary to prevent people from doing it.

        the repercussions are (should be) what prevents people from doing it. And even then, there are some for who no punishment is enough deterrent. Those people need to be stopped with extreme prejudice, by armed citizens, not told “yUo cAnT”
        while we’re forced to wait for incompetent only one’s to determine if intervention is prudent for them to get home safe.

    3. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “But you aren’t restrained from yelling ‘Fire’. there’s just consequences for doing so if there’s no actual fire.”

      The *difference* is, the ushers aren’t duct-taping people’s mouths shut on their way into the theater to keep them from yelling “Fire!” if there was a fire breaking out while you were inside…

    4. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

      I, for one, promise to never yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater, whether there’s smike n flames or not.

      1. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

        also, “smoke”

        1. avatar Hush says:

          Swalwell is the one trying to blow smoke up our ass!

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “Swalwell is the one trying to blow smoke up our ass!”

          That ain’t smoke he’s trying to shove up there.

    5. avatar LibertyToad says:

      Exactly. The *possibility* that you have a month and can *potentially* yell “fire”, does not mean that your right to free speech can be restricted.

      The comparison is completely fallacious and the sort of reasoning an 8th grader makes.

    6. avatar TFred says:

      “more than anything I hate that “yUo cAnT yElL fIrE iN a CrOWdEd tHeAtRe!!” trope.

      you CAN yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
      especially if there is a fire. ”

      EXACTLY!! It gives me lots of warm fuzzies that I’m not the only one who gets this!

      As noted later, gun control would equate to prohibiting ALL SPEECH, just because someone MIGHT inappropriately yell fire in that crowded theater!

    7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Yr exactly right. And there’s more…

      The evil of this trope is the misdirect. It head-fakes “pro” people into tedious arguments, and sneaks in assumptions that change the turf.

      The imaginary movie theater of this trope is crowded, there’s no fire, and people get hurt in the stampede. Yelling “fire” doesn’t help anything, either. In a theater with a fire, well…

      With “makes a mess n doesn’t help” from “yelling fire” in place in people’s heads, “prior restraint” seems pretty abstract, n “muh rights” seems selfish. The argument is over before it starts.

      Worse, “pro” people get agitated reacting to the presupposition: get all wee-wee’d up talking about a waiting period and you look unhinged.” Yes, people respond to the presuppositions n assumptions unspoken at them, in part because they know every listener heard the calumnies, implied not said. (“There are those…” Which “those?” Not you, of course. “Those” bitter clingers. Bitterly clinging because race – precisely implied without using the word. “Yelling fire” works the same way, with a different payload: nothing to bother with here.)

      You go at the presupposition; it’s nonsense, so make them own it, and for extra popcorn, use your own presupposition to do it.

      “You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater…”

      “Indeed, it’s exactly like that: sometimes, you have to yell “fire” or people die. Like when there’s a fire.”

    8. avatar Mac says:

      You are right, but here it is extended….
      You can yell fire in a movie theater or crowded anywhere. It is the reaction that may bring legal troubles.
      If I yell “rat” in the same scenario, and cause a similar disturbance it is the same.
      If I yell fire, and no one reactions is a negative fashion or if no one is hurt, there is no legal problem.

      This is the same fallacy as the “separation of church and state” that doesn’t exist.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        America wasn’t founded by all Christian men nor was it intended to be a Christian country.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Nor is it a Christian country!

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Nor is it a Christian country!”

          Well….there is this:

          “[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish
          the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of
          a free constitution is pure virtue.”

          (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams,
          Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston:
          Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)
          Maybe, but there is this:

          [“W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending
          with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution
          was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
          government of any other.”

          (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams,
          Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston:
          Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

    9. I feel ya’. Every time I hear someone (mis)quoting that “fire in a crowded theater” thing I know someone’s a-lyin’. Much like when newspapers use the word “glitch” when they talk about a computer failure.

      Glitch is not a technical term. The journalist is not a computer scientist, and ignorant of the facts (hold that thought).

      The original wording used in Holmes’s opinion (“falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”) highlights that speech that is dangerous and false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true. Further, he says “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

      Swalwell has not shown in even the slightest that he knows what he is talking about. He’s roughly equivalent to the ignorant journalist mentioned above.

      It’s also fascinating that the quote he is using does really discuss Congress’ “rights” to prevent substantive evil. That is a good term to use when someone is wanting to strip the rights from a law-abiding citizen.

      1. avatar LibertyToad says:

        I’ve been a software engineer for decades. Nobody calls it a “glitch”. It annoys me too. It is an archaic term.

      2. avatar User1 says:

        He speaks to the masses in the way they want to be spoken to. He says what they want to hear. Most women and children agree with him, about half the men do as well. You are not his target audience until he gets the power to send law enforcement or an aircraft to your house.

        1. avatar Bear says:

          “Most women and children agree with him”

          Agreed, that is the Dem’s target audience, they play off of that groups FEELZS..

          And if they win, the destruction of this Republic by women and children.

          That is who Swallows’well is speaking to.

      3. avatar John in Ohio says:

        https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

        “But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they’d realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court’s history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.”

    10. avatar Bob999 says:

      The yelling fire in a theater thing is a stupid incomplete concept they throw at young impressionable college students without providing context or the full story. When politicians use it, it tells me they are simpletons simply using it as a way to justify an infringement on liberty.

      As far as yelling fire, don’t do it even in a fire…until you reach the exit. You do not want to cause a panic until you and your family are safely ahead of the crowd. Just saying. 😉

    11. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “just don’t expect to enjoy First Amendment protection for doing so.”

      The court does consider it 1A when there are no criminal consequences from the utterance. A speaker used to open his speeches about it by yelling, “Fire!” He wanted to highlight that the act of yelling “Fire” in a crowded room was, indeed, protected speech.

    12. avatar Mark says:

      WRONG.

      1A DOES in fact cover even falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Please examine Brandenburg v. Ohio.

      Please stop with the mindless repetition of that false trope regarding an overturned precedent already. It is of no help in defending the BoR.

    13. avatar Wolfscrag says:

      Mr. Miner49er, You mean like,” the President colluded with the Russians?
      ….or perhaps, besides committing a monstrous fraud, trying to subvert the U S. Constitution. Did you say “Socialist”. You might like to be deported to Venezuela.

  7. avatar surlycmd says:

    There are tanks, bazooka and artillery pieces in private hands. The word “fire” is not regulated. A person is only punished if they falsely yell fire in a crowded room. So Stalwell is just another political idiot hack with no knowledge of what he speaks.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “A person is only punished if they falsely yell fire in a crowded room.”

      Not even then if nothing criminal directly results from it.

      FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!

      1. avatar SouthAl says:

        Dammit, sprained my wrist getting off the blog because of that.

      2. avatar surlycmd says:

        I remember something from a while back about a guy guy charged with disturbing the peace for yelling fire in a theater. No injuries. Just a guy being an ass.

  8. avatar Shire-man says:

    They’re still pulling that “to save it you must kill it” mind game? How did that ever work?
    >all those things he says you can’t own……..you can.
    >you absolutely can shout fire in crowded theater the crime is in the subsequent reaction
    >companies lie about their products all the time
    >Swallowswell apparently lied about his oath

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      “you absolutely can shout fire in crowded theater the crime is in the subsequent reaction”

      Exactly.

      Just like we can be armed (constitutionally) but the crime can be in the subsequent action(s).

  9. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

    Swallowswell has the moms and the kids? Are those the same moms and kids who are doing so well under the new administration?

    1. avatar daveinwyo says:

      No. The moms and kids are illegals from disarmed turd world countries. I’ve noticed that most all illegals come from failed states that Spain “settled”. Cut off the black hole money flow. Let them fix their own countries and get out of mine. BAN democraps not guns.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        Are you aware that Trump wants to bring in millions of legal immigrants instead of allowing them to come in illegally? He wants them to take American jobs and change the demographics.

        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/12/trump-suggests-increasing-legal-immigration-at-expense-of-u-s-workers/

        The Republicans want immigrants for corporate reasons. The Democrats want illegal immigrants for votes. Who suffers in either scenario?

        1. avatar Bob999 says:

          Um, got it. You are an “all or nothing” kind of guy, aren’t you? Unless someone agrees with every last thing you believe, you are against them, right? You would sacrifice everything you believe in because you cannot get everything. Am I missing anything?

        2. avatar User1 says:

          Flooding a country with foreigners for a small group’s personal benefit, at the expense of the native population, is not something I want. It does not matter if it’s done legally or illegally.

          The same can be said for gun control. I don’t want illegal gun control or legal gun control. I don’t want the 2nd Amendment repealed legally or ignored through unconstitutional “laws.”

          You can call that principles. Only a few people have them these days.

  10. avatar Marcus says:

    God I hope hes the Nominee it will be so fun to attack him for a full year before he crashes and burns!

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Assuming this guy maintains focus on being anti 2A, he wont get far with his small audience. There are bigger issues in the US than gun control. He’s not as much a threat to 2A as the other Dems.

      1. avatar User1 says:

        Women are the greatest threat to the 2nd Amendment. A younger darker complexion female could really push through a lot of gun control, especially if she is pro baby killing [abortion].

        1. avatar Rick Hess says:

          Might even get further if it’s a trans woman that meets all your other criteria. 😁

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      He needs a carefully selected running mate, to widen his … uh … appeal, or something. I’m thinking Swallowswell and Buttfook, they’d be astonishing!

  11. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Swalwell: The Second Amendment Allows for Gun Control”

    Ohhh…??? And where does it say that…???
    OR is this a “read between the lines” thing…???

    Just for confirmation, I just went and read the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America again, and I couldn’t find the passage that allows for “gun control”, UNLESS it’s the passage that states “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. ” Then yes, it does allow for “gun control”, stating that EVERY citizen has the right to own and bear arms…

    1. avatar Aaron Walker says:

      Seeing that he attacked the 1st Amendment as well…This guys a total nitwit wannabe totalitarian potentate…

    2. avatar User1 says:

      He is likely referring to Scalia’s opinion. Anti gunner love to use his writings to state it’s okay to infringe on the 2nd Amendment because some judges said so, therefore, it’s now law in this perverse justice system.

      This is how America works now. A judge can write “law” and the government can enforce this “law” without any penal codes written. They just make shit up as they go.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Yeah, let’s remember that we got “Affirmative Action” from a DISSENTING opinion! That never ceases to amaze me.

  12. avatar Craig in IA says:

    “He says he has the moms and the kids squarely behind him.” So it’s simple- The men need to stand up and take charge. And there are an awful lot of “moms and kids” who will side with the men. Dream on, Eric- the entire US is not S Cal. He’ll find that out when he shows up in Iowa and draws a crowd of 5 for his CNN-sponsored Presser.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      The most populated areas are anti 1st and 2nd Amendment these days. That matters a lot because those people do not stay in the mess they create. They treat America like a rental car.

  13. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    Fortunately Major Kong here has no shot at ever becoming president.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      Major Kong –love it.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        For those who have never seen Dr. Strangelove;

        BTW, that’s a dapper young Dearth Vader playing Lieutenant Zogg.

        1. avatar JR Pollock says:

          JEJ was only half of the character. Here’s the other half of Darth Vader. Interestingly enough, they’re both Stanley Kubrick movies.

  14. avatar Kevin says:

    American History Lesson

    April 19, 1775

    Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts

    British Redcoats attempted to confiscate muskets and gun powder from the American colonists.

    “Attempted” – the colonists fought back the Redcoats attempt to confiscate their guns and powder and
    followed them on their return march to their “safe space” in Boston. During the return trip, additional colonists joined the fray and the British were shot at most of the way to Boston.

    “The Shot Heard Round the World” was impeded in the history of this Great Nation.

    1. avatar Kevin says:

      *imbeded

      Bring back the edit feature!

      1. avatar Jim from LI says:

        Embedded.

        FIFY

  15. avatar Brad Carpenter says:

    Once again, it is stated in this article, that the guns that Rep Swalwell would like to band causes 3% of the gun related deaths. Guns do not cause anything to happen one way or another.

    Years ago a Roman Senator named Seneca state “the sword is not the killer;but a tool in the hand of the killer”. Replace sword with gun and you should come to the conclusion that the gun as well as the sword is a tool that can be used for good or evil; it does not cause good or evil.

    Therefore, it would be more correct to say that 3% of the gun related deaths can be attributed to the use of someone using these weapons that he whats to ban. Finally, no society ever controls crime by asking those who obey the law to accommodate the behavior of those who break the law.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      I seem to recall that the actual number of shootings attributed to semiautomatic rifles is less than 1%; the 3% refers to shootings with all long arms, including shotguns.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Oh, and my swords haven’t killed anyone. Not too sure about the 1859 saber, but it seems doubtful, as it doesn’t have any battle scars.

      2. avatar JR Pollock says:

        Shotguns have their own category, which is almost always higher than rifles, but still less than hands and feet.

  16. avatar Jr says:

    I think its really dishonest and makes us look ignorant to pretend he actually wants to nuke American citizens. He was obviously using hyperbole to make the point that the government holds all the real power.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      The hyperbole is that he’d use nukes on Americans. It’s not hyperbole to say he has a willingness to kill Americans who wouldn’t comply with unconstitutional infringements. He should be made an example of….put on trial for the attempted usurpation/desecration of the Constitution, as a Capital crime with death penalty implications. We would really only have to execute a half dozen or so of these bonafide domestic enemies to solve the tyrannical attempts of these terrorists in the future.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      And what was his point in implying the federal government has overwhelming violent power?

      Oh yeah, to threaten opposed gun owners with violence at the hands of a state.

      If a mugger pulls a gun on you & says he’ll “blow you to kingdom come” do you not take it as a literal threat because he is exaggerating the capability of his firearm?

      Swalwell should have been brought up on charges for terrorist threats for that, the way he’d prosecute any blowhard gun owner similarly boasting on the internet.

      1. avatar Jim from LI says:

        The US government has an amazing amount of military power. It doesn’t seem to have done a lot of good after 10 years in Vietnam or 17 years in Afghanistan. To control a population takes boots on the ground, going house to house. Go ask the Army if they want to play occupation games in their home states against their neighbors.

        1. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

          I pointed that out to one of the local anti-gunners who was trolling a LGS…her response was “That’s what the UN is for.” I reminded her of the atrocities committed by UN troops in various countries and her response was “well, they won’t bother ME”.

          She, like most Progressives, is totally convinced of the Righteousness of her position and no amount of fact, logic, law or historical evidence will sway her from her delusions.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “To control a population takes boots on the ground, going house to house. ”

          It is remarkable what a handful of highly publicized (live, breaking news) shootings of resistant gun owners can do to alter the public mindset. Look around, such videos are not likely to raise a rebel army. And before you start…Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bundy 1&2, person shot and killed regarding a “red flag” confiscation order. How much more is needed, and why that number of episodes of government turning on its citizens?

          Believe what you will, but believe it in the face of reality.

        3. avatar User1 says:

          The U.S. Army did it before… Although for very different reasons.

    3. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      “…using hyperbole to make the point that the government holds all the real power.”

      Indeed, that is the point … argue back and this “representative” will point to the overwhelming power: comply, or else. His P O V we’re not represented, or even governed, but ruled.

      Good to know.

  17. avatar 24and7 says:

    All the American people have to do is refuse to comply to any Draconian gun control.. the police cannot and will not confiscate firearms.. that would be complete suicide and they know it ..nor will the United States military.. they cannot operate within our borders.. look at the debacle and our own Mexican-American border if you don’t believe me..

  18. avatar Daweit says:

    Crying fire is not illegal said the Supreme Court. Swallow didn’t, even get that right. CA citizens are clueless.

  19. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Where, dear friends, is Swalwell wrong about the current legal/judicial stance on the Second Amendment? Given the exceptions declared by the SC, Swalwell is only deducing that reasonable restrictions are permitted, ant it is reasonable to declare that certain firearms meet the standard of “reasonable restrictions are permissible” for the “compelling government interest” in promoting the general welfare through safety measures. Shouldn’t be news at all.

  20. avatar TommyG says:

    Swalwell is delusional. He thinks he has the whole country behind him because he comes from a “put the letter D on a bottle of water and it will get elected” district.

  21. avatar A Deplorable says:

    Swalwell wants to get more recognition on the Democrat national arena for his political future. He also wants to make $$ (which seems to be a side benefit of running for President when you run knowing you have no actual chance at getting the nomination).

    His remark about “nuking” Americans over the Second Amendment proves he is entirely unfit for any public or elected office. No matter how you try to spin it, he suggested mass murder is a viable option in America…and THAT’S the bottom line.

  22. avatar former water walker says:

    Swallowell sux. Ironic ain’t it this cretin is running for president and will be afforded PROTECTION by dudes with gunz?!?

    1. avatar B says:

      Swallow well….nice!

  23. avatar Pg2 says:

    Same guy tweeted “Vaccines work. Full stop” in a criticism to Kentucky Governor for intentionally exposing his kids to chicken pox. The medical statists on this forum are going to get the mandatory vaccines they’ve been diddling themselves over, but it’s coming with the end of the 2nd Amendment as we knew it. Been the blueprint all along.

  24. avatar ANG Pilot says:

    Swalwell is confused. The Bill of Rights limits what the government can do, it’s not a list of various things the government will permit its citizens to do.

    He failed Civics.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      That applies to majority of posters here also.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The Bill of Rights limits what the government can do,..”

      If only.

      The SC is government, and there is no limit on what it can do.

  25. avatar Salty Bear says:

    Political power grows out the warhead of a nuclear missile.

  26. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “…cause about 3% of the firearms-related deaths.”

    Are used in about 3% of firearms-related deaths.

    Firearms do not cause deaths.
    Owning firearms does not cause deaths.
    Using firearms, overwhelmingly prevents violence, like deaths.

    Up to 2.5 million DGUs / year says the CDC, most without a shot fired. The BG sees a bigger problem than they assumed, n just goes away. The *possibility* of harm, n yes, death because a gun is there helps the BG reconsider. (The scarier looking the gun, the better, for this.)

    For the ones too committed or far gone to reconsider, a gun in their victims’ hands gives their victims what’s called a fighting chance. (The more effective the gun, the better, for this.)

    Nuclear Option, there, wants to go after exactly the kind of arms most effective for self-defense, least suited to crime n abuse, n involved in a tiny fraction of “gun related” deaths. Even less all deaths. Less, still, all violence even counting the couple million DGUs a year (mostly not with evil black rifles, anyhow.)

    A modern semi-auto carbine in med-power or cartridge is the best available arm for general self-defense. Operability features like grips nstocks make it even better. So said the feds when assessing what their folks should carry to *protect themselves with* in case they are attacked in doing their jobs.

    Neutron Bomb, there, seems to want the people disarmed and destroyed. Leaving the buildings, one presumes.

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Why does anyone need more than ten rounds!? Why does anyone need an auto loading firearm [semi auto]? Why does anyone need a rifle?

      Shot 11 times yet lives to see another day.

  27. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Yo, dummy, do your research. Go back to Wednesday, September 9, 1789, when the Senate during Bill of Rights debate voted NOT to insert the words ” for the common defense” after the words “to bear” arms. And some of the discussion prior to the Articles of Confederation when many of the state constitutions provided for the right of citizens to bear arms without qualification like Pennsylvania section 17, ” The right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned”. You can’t bear arms in defense of yourself unless you can keep them but thought that was so obvious it didn’t need to be codified. I’m putting you in the class of the not very bright.

  28. avatar Michael says:

    I hope nobody shows him the list of “destructive devices”. He might really get upset. We still do a little prospecting out here. We can buy dynamite and all the good stuff that goes with it. Before he goes much further, he should ask jaillary Clinton how calling out the NRA worked for her…-30-

  29. avatar NORDNEG says:

    What’s the point of posting anything here,? It’s already been said… oh heck, I can’t stop myself.., Swalwell’s a jerk…!

  30. avatar Darkman says:

    By this time next year. When President Trump has finally started to seriously campaign for the 2020 election. No one will be talking about Swalwell. We will still be building That Swell Wall. @MAGA 2020 @Keep America Great 2020. Mic Drop…

    1. avatar User1 says:

      Trump keeps pontificating about a wall with no true intention of doing what he says. It’s all for show and reelection. The Republicans and the Democrats have been doing this for years.

      1. avatar Darkman says:

        Obvious commenter who speaks before looking for facts. Sections of the new wall going up everyday. As well as upgrades to older sections of wall and fencing. Either a Never Trump’r or a closet Liberal. Never let facts get in the way of Ideology or hatred. Crying towel provided on request.

        1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

          Took the mouth right outa my words!🤣

        2. avatar User1 says:

          That has been going on before Trump. The Democrats gave him money for that specific thing, not for the wall that was promised. He even shut down the federal government to try to get the money to build an actual wall. Instead of keeping the government closed he caved and gave the Democrats what they wanted. He then switched to saying “barrier” instead of wall because he can’t get a wall like envisioned. Now he is playing games with the voters’ intellect by saying he will “deport” illegal immigrants to “sanctuary” states.

          At the same time Trump claims to want a wall to keep out illegal immigrants he wants more legal immigrants to take American jobs. You can’t deport a lawful resident because of their politics like you can deport and ban an illegal resident. The end result is the same.

          While you are worrying about brown people walking into America, Trump’s administrations wants millions of immigrants to flood America every year. Not much different from what Europe is doing.

    2. avatar B says:

      Building that Swell Wall….nice!

  31. avatar Huntmaster says:

    This would be the perfect time to bring back the caption contest with the first picture being Swalwell and the mushroom cloud.

    1. avatar B says:

      “Swallow Well Spews…”

  32. avatar jarett says:

    Listen guys when you’re passing feel good, do nothing legislation to attempt to pad your re-election margins in a very left state like commiefornia, statistics like %3 of deaths being caused by the arms he wants to ban(infringement) don’t figure into this equation. Statistics don’t matter when your decisions aren’t based on anything factual.

  33. avatar Billy Bob says:

    I bet the only thing real or true about the guy is that he swallows well and with great gusto.

    1. avatar B says:

      Yup, like a sword swallowing beeeotch!

  34. avatar GS650G says:

    Stallwel should move to NZ, he’d fit right in

  35. avatar Bill says:

    You can legally own a tank, you can legally own a bazooka and you can legally own rocket propelled grenades.

    You can yell fire in a crowded theater and it is perfectly legal to do so and your moral obligation to do so when there is a fire.

  36. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    To be clear, he only wants to seize “military looking” guns from non Democrats.

    Antifa, BLM, muslim jihadis and LA RAZA can keep their boomsticks. Because they are oppressed minorities.

  37. avatar Mad Max says:

    And we were never intimidated by the NRA either; it’s us gun owners that should intimidate Swalwell.

    There’s way more of us POTG than there are NRA members and we do tend to vote. Any political clout that the NRA has comes from individual gun owners.

    NRA members are a small subset of POTG.

  38. When politicians use public polls to support their anti-constitutional position, it reminds me why we have a Constitution.

    It also reminds me of why we have a Bill of Rights. And I am quoting here:

    Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty. ( https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ )

    Notice that BOTH positions are concerned about individual rights and liberties. Both of them.

    And yet here is this clown saying that this right is not an absolute right. I’m not even sure whose rights he is trying to protect. Maybe no one’s?

  39. avatar Eric O says:

    Whew! Considering the premable to the Bill of Rights informs us in no uncertain terms, that no matter what power the federal government *believes* it has, it is a “misconstruction or abuse of power” to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Not a single US citizen outside of prison or jail is obligated to follow any federal gun control law. Throw in the 14A, and that extends to the states, as well. Go fuc yourself Eric “Jim Crow” Swalwell – government’s permission is not required to exercise a right.

  40. avatar st381183 says:

    He’s wrong. You can shoot fire and lie about products your selling, you just have to bear the respnosibities of your action and the First Amendment is no longer a valid defense. Silly liberal.

  41. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    If the theatre is empty
    I can yell fire all I want. If no ones around to hear me. I can shoot my gun too if I want. Cause I have done it in the past. Shoot my gun in an empty building that is.

  42. avatar raymond meyer says:

    A tank in the U.S. can have operational guns, if the owner has a federal Destructive Device permit, and state laws don’t prohibit it. … Tanks generally aren’t street-legal, so owners usually drive them off-road or on other private property. So yes you can own a Tank

  43. avatar GH says:

    “You can’t own a bazooka, you can’t own a tank, you can’t own rocket-propelled grenades.“
    But that’s wrong, you absolute idiot.

  44. avatar retmsgt says:

    “You can’t own a bazooka, you can’t own a tank, you can’t own rocket-propelled grenades.”

    Actually, you can. Now, some items may require a whole bunch more paperwork than others.

    Want to buy a Soviet MiG-29? If you’ve got the cash, it’s available.

    1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      Constitutionally one can.

    2. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

      A fellow in town used to keep his Mig 17 at the local airport and parked it on the corner were all could see it. Unfortunately he sold it a couple of years back to a aircraft museum,now the corner that caught everyones attention has a twin Beechcraft parked there,just isn’t the same without the Mig.

  45. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Only a Marxist moron would swallow Swallowswell Effing delusions as the 2 nd. amendment was put in the Bill Of Rights to preclude government from any law infringing as Shall Not Be Ineffingfringed,next petty tyrant.

  46. avatar Aaron says:

    “The urge to save humanity is always and every a false face for the urge to rule it” – Mencken

    Applies equally to “climate doomsday cultists” such as AOC and to anti-2a pols such as Swalwell.

  47. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “So we should put some limits in place,” Swalwell said. “

    Yes we should,as Leftist/Marxist’s such as Swallowswell do not believe in America as a Republic,nor the Constitution,Ban/Banish all Leftards to Gitmo,for Effing ever.

  48. avatar Alan says:

    Who or what is it that winds this guy up? Re “the government will buy back this or that”. Interesting because the government neither manufactured, owned or sold these arms, and by the way, EXACTLY what is the “semiautomatic assault weapon” this clown is blithering about. Oh by the way, you can own a tank. Matter of fact, at one time the government was selling them as surplus to needs. By the way, given that all armament had been removed, what the government was selling was essentially a covered tractor. As I recall, the Navy, after WW2, found itself in possession of PT Boats beyond it’s needs. Some of those were also sold, the machine guns and torpedo tubes having been removed.

  49. avatar SteveS says:

    Interpreting the 2nd amendment is a popular pastime for many folks, especially gun control advocates. However, you cannot adequately do so unless you spend time researching the minds of the founding fathers and what they intended by it. They were ALL about personal freedoms and protection from an oppressive, controlling government.
    Gun violence is a symptom of other issues in society and not the root cause. We have other more pressing problems to address.

    1. avatar Dennis Sumner says:

      Such as large, out of control government!?

  50. avatar Chris Morton says:

    He probably thinks that the 13th Amendment REQUIRES slavery too…

  51. avatar Alan says:

    He also claims that he has “mothers and children behind him”, how far behind one wonders. Additionally, while he suggests that the foregoing are in agreement with him, are they really? Additionally, “children” don’t vote, another fact that escapes his attention?

  52. avatar Karl says:

    I’m so f****** sick of that old saw of “you can’t yell fire in a theater” as an example of how rights are not absolute. It’s not even in the same ballpark. What they’re proposing is to either duct tape people’s mouths shut before entering a theater (gun free zone) or cutting their vocal cords out of them (bans) in order to prevent it. Everybody has the right to yell fire in a theater, just as they have the right to deal with the consequences of their actions if they choose to do so.

    I’d like to quarter some federal troops in their houses and then just say ” it’s a reasonable because technology in your house wasn’t available in the late 1700s… so an extra load of laundry is not a burden.”

  53. avatar James says:

    The Supreme Court agrees, always has.

  54. avatar 2WarAbnVet says:

    “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised … to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” – George Mason at Virginia’s Ratifying Convention, 1788 (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

  55. avatar ameriptoud01 says:

    Democrats, Liberals, Socialists and Muslim terrorists supporters are the ruination of our great country for every TRUE AMERICAN CITIZEN 💩💩💩🚽💩🚽
    💩🚽🚽🚽🚽💩💩💩
    💩💩💩💩🚽🚽💩🚽
    💩🚽🚽🚽🚽🚽🚽🚽
    💩🚽🚽🚽🚽🚽🚽🚽

  56. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    I can yell “fire” all day long in the middle of my back 40 all day long with no consequences.

    So why cant I have an RPG to fire in my field if I choose?

    In fact if you want to test the concept, I’ll stay on the edge with my .gov approved RPG and you can go to the middle of the field and yell “FIRE!” I am happy to oblige.

  57. avatar Dexter Winslett Bham. P.D. Retired says:

    Oh please, bring it so we can destroy you.

  58. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    SCOTUS might agree there can be some gun control BUT the Second doesn’t ALLOW for it and research of what led to it and the debate in the Senate on the Bill of Rights does not suggest any such notion. September 9, 1789, the Senate voted in the negative, meaning no, to insert the words ” for the common defense” after the words “to bear arms”. Some of the state constitutions written as early as 1776 contain no such suggestions either. I live in PA, section 21 of our constitution reads, ” The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned”. Note, you can’t bear arms to defend yourself unless you “keep” them. These authors believed that to be self-evident not needing codification.

  59. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. THE IDIOT SWALLWELLL
    CANNOT READ!!!
    THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS EXACTLY CLEAR,
    DIRECT, AND SUCCINCT!!!!
    NO OTHER POSSIBILITIES!!!!
    Of course you break the law—you loose your
    Right!!! But that is up to law enforcement and the court not some goofy congressmen!!!

  60. avatar glock19fan says:

    So Smallwell claims that the 2A allows gun control eh? Odd way to spell or say, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” (emphasis mine) So what language is he speaking? Oh yes; the Disinformation tongue.

  61. avatar glock19fan says:

    I notice that Smallwell is bent on making simple possession a felony. Well, I have a big problem with this. Any law that prohibits simple possession invites the use of “planted” evidence. ATF and DEA have done it for years and so has the FBI. the raiding party kicks the doo in and holds the occupants at gunpoint while another brings the evidence in, “plants” it and makes the arrest. I would not put it past Smallwell either.

  62. avatar Geno Bouwens says:

    Swallowell is a Communist and we must resist resist resist all like him at every turn like, Nancy Piglosi, Chuck you Shummer, Adam Pencil Neck Shiff, Maxine Waco Waters, Lizard Breath Warren, and all the others like them. The swamp is drained and all the gators are snapping back out in the sun for all to see their hypocrisy.

  63. avatar Nigel Pitney III says:

    “Yet the guns he’s hankering to grab cause about 3% of the firearms-related deaths.”
    The guns themselves caused the deaths? WTF?

  64. avatar Don says:

    Either hang him or cut the head off this Socialist muslim titty sucker and all others that calls for the termination of the US Constitution and the rights of the people to protect themselves the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, against all enemies, foreign and domestic; including the muslim socialist party aka demo-crap

  65. avatar Buzz says:

    Sewerwell is simply following the footsteps of his “IDOLS” ( Hitler , Stalin, Tung )
    First Disarm the People so they cannot defend themselves, the rest is easy.

  66. avatar Gary says:

    This dim witted dense dumb inbred ignorant ASSWIPE doesn’t even know the definition of a assault weapon
    1 It must be capable of full auto fire only
    2 it must have semi auto fire and full auto
    3 it must be able to do semi auto and either 3 or 5 round burst

    So the civilian version at semi auto fire is NO A ASSUALT WEAPON

    Just because an item or in this case a person looks like another its not the same. and in this idiots case he is a dense dumb ignorant ASSWIPE

    another example is to look at twins and tell me they are the same. Nope different personalities and attitudes

  67. avatar TOM says:

    Sewrsmell say’s that guns kill, well I have had a loaded gun right next to my pillow
    (9mm with hollow points) for around 30 years and it hasn’t killed anyone yet, so
    I took it to the gunsmith and told him that there must be something wrong with it
    and I need to find what it is wrong with it and for him to fix it, he said it would take
    a couple of day’s for him to check it out, I went back and he said there is nothing
    wrong with your gun it is in great shape and the sights are dead on. I told him what
    Sewersmell said and he said tell that stupid S.O.B. that someone has to pull the
    trigger on any gun before it can kill you, he said guns don’t kill, people that pull the
    triggers are the ones that cause it to kill!!!!!

  68. avatar Robert Steele says:

    THE PEOPLE OVER AMERICA, BETTER LEARN TO SEE WHAT HISTORY HAVE PROVEN CONCERING LETTING POLITITIONS
    DICTATE THEIR DECEPTIONS OF,
    IF WE, SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROTECT OURSELVES, FAMILYS AND NEIGHBORS.
    GOD,,, ALONG WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, CONFIRMS, WE HAVE THOSE RIGHTS.
    EITHER, MOST CITIZENS ARE NOT AWARE OF HITLER, STALIN, MUSILENI, AND MAO
    OF HOW SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM
    LOOKS AT PEOPLE AND CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRYS OR THEY ARE IGNORANT TO KNOW THEIR LEADERS LOOK AT HUMANBEINGS AS C U L L S, OR GOYEM.
    ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MORE THAN THROW AWAYS. ALL OF YOU BETTER WAKE UP, IN THAT WAY YES, HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF, ITS HAS BEEN DONE OVER THE WORLD, FOR APPROXIMATELY 6,000 YEARS
    IT STARTED WITH ADAM AND EVES SON CAIN…… YOU ALL, BETTER OPEN YOUR EYES. JESUS, IS COMING SOONER THAN
    MOST REALIZE, AFTER THAT, THERE WILL BE MORE HORROR THAN THE HUMAN MIND CAN EVER IMAGINE.
    The best , insight to realiz how it will be is,
    STUDY THE BOOK OF REVELATION IN THE
    KING JAMES BIBLE, YOUVE BEEN WARNED.

  69. avatar clst1 says:

    You can lie about your product, you can yell fire in a theater and you can call a politician an asshole, but you may suffer consequences.

    The same is true with the 2nd, there is not (should not be) a restriction on the number or type of weapons, but you may suffer consequences for their misuse.

  70. avatar Gwyllm says:

    This numbnuts is a joke in his own district. He’s got a snowflake’s chance in Alabama of even winning the Dem-Dum nomination, let alone beat President Trump.

  71. avatar glenux says:

    Second Amendment Allows for execution of Tyrants like Swalwell
    when they want to enact government legislation abridging the god-given right to keep and bear arms.

  72. avatar Doug Knaus says:

    Here is an image of the Congressman posing in front of tank
    https://youtu.be/LLTCgH2nUl4

  73. avatar Doug Knaus says:

    Y’all know Swalwell comes from a police family, right?
    Eric Sr. was police chief of Algona, Iowa. His brother Jacob is an Alameda County deputy sheriff.
    They do not respect the First, Fourth, Fifth or Sixth Amendment any more than they respect the Second.

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