Image 01 Image 03

Rep Eric Swalwell to resistant gun owners: “it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes.”

Rep Eric Swalwell to resistant gun owners: “it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes.”

How quickly Democrats went from “we only want sensible restrictions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the insane” to “we will nuke your ass if you don’t hand over your weapons”

California Congressman Eric Swalwell (D) has found himself at the center of a viral story about gun control after suggesting on Twitter that the government could use nuclear weapons on its own people if they don’t submit to gun confiscation.

Everyone knows Democrats are all-in for gun control, but nukes? Really?

It all began when John Cardillo of Newsmax tweeted out this article about Swalwell and gun control:

Which was followed by this exchange:

Then came this:

That set off a firestorm of reactions.

Stephen Miller of FOX News:

Professor Jacobson:

David Freddoso of the Washington Examiner:

Stephen Gutowski of the Free Beacon, who happens to be one of the most knowledgeable reporters working today on the subject of guns:

Ben Domenech of the Federalist:

Rob Province, whom I have sometimes called the Iowahawk of guns:

Even the NRA:

Naturally, Swalwell thinks he is the victim in all this:

In case you aren’t aware, Eric Swalwell has been talking about confiscating guns, with the more palatable language of “buybacks” for months. In May of this year, he wrote the following in an op-ed for USA Today:

Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress

Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.

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

Shortly after the publication of that column, he appeared on the Tucker Carlson show and things went exactly as you would probably expect. Watch:

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Dim rep seems ignorant of the history of guerilla warfare. He also seems pretty cocksure that American police and military would take up arms against their countrymen in order to violate the Constitution… I’m much less sure they would.

    Humphrey's Executor in reply to Paul. | November 18, 2018 at 10:26 am

    The Dems don’t understand the full scope of “checks and balances” in the Constitutional design. It isn’t just the three branches at the Federal level that check one another. There are checks between the people and the Feds, and the 2A is one of them.

      There are only four boxes to worry about. Soap, ballot, jury, and cartridge. Hopefully the first three will solve something before we need to resort to the fourth, but take away the fourth, and the first three will go poof in short order. The total irony is that Klinton and Obama put 10+ million AR’s out into the general populace. Before AWB94, when the black rifle club could be counted on one hand, they had a shot at it. Good old Billy-Boy was the one who turned up the heat in the frying pan too fast between AWB94 and WACO. And yet they still think he was their greatest President.

    pfg in reply to Paul. | November 18, 2018 at 10:45 am

    I’m not as optimistic as you that government employees would side with the people over their government supervisors. For many the paycheck is/will be more important than any Article VI oath to the Constitution.

    Do you remember the 29 Palms Survey (1994)? While it wasn’t officially sponsored by the Pentagon (so the Pentagon claims) it does reveal that far too many officials in government believe that we are subjects to be ruled, not citizens to be respected. Among the questions asked pertained to the shooting civilians.

      fscarn in reply to pfg. | November 18, 2018 at 10:59 am

      I do remember that survey. For those unfamiliar this link will offer some disturbing analysis. That we have people in the military willing to pose such questions is beyond troubling.

      clayusmcret in reply to pfg. | November 18, 2018 at 11:27 am

      For every sheriff, deputy or police officer who publicly opposes enforcing anti-Second Amendment laws(such as the Washington State sheriff who said this week that he won’t enforce their newest laws), there are hundreds more who have quietly determined they swore to the Constitution, not the will of politicians. If it ever goes this route, it will be an interesting fight indeed.

      The Packetman in reply to pfg. | November 18, 2018 at 11:39 am

      I’ll note that the results to that final question had 61% in opposition to and only 25% in ‘favor’ of firing on US citizens.

      I’ll also note that the Marines surveyed were ‘in favor’ of these missions as long as they were under the control of US officers, but opposed if the control was moved to the UN.

      As a former Marine, I think the 25% might find fratricide to be a real danger, assuming the officer corps didn’t mutiny outright.

        David Lentz in reply to The Packetman. | November 18, 2018 at 12:34 pm

        In Tsarist Russian, the Tsar’s officers ordered their soldiers to fire on their own families. Rather than turn their guns on their family, the soldiers turned their guns on the officers. Here, a soldier upmost duty is to protect the Constitution.

      stablesort in reply to pfg. | November 18, 2018 at 1:25 pm

      That survey demonstrates the importance of the draft in our military. The more ‘professional’ the military, the more likely that military is to side with the government against the people.

        7 members of my family served, 4 career military. None were drafted, all were professional, all choose the constitution over the government.

    Observer in reply to Paul. | November 18, 2018 at 12:08 pm

    Maybe he thinks the U.S. has small nuclear devices that can target and obliterate the individual homes of non-compliant gun owners, without any damage or nuclear fallout disturbing the Dims who live next door?

    4fun in reply to Paul. | November 18, 2018 at 8:03 pm

    New York’s Safe Act and the Sullivan Act haven’t made any cops resist. I don’t think even one has resigned in protest over them.

The left believe that we should surrender freedom to “protect the kids”, yet those same kids are OK to be murdered through abortion in numbers far greater than any mass shooters could do.

They want total control over every aspect of your life. They don’t come out and say it directly, but it is there if you pay just a slight bit of attention to what they want.

Occasional Cortex will be upset over this, she wants the crown for being the most moronic person in Congress, and he is vying for that title.

    Close The Fed in reply to oldgoat36. | November 18, 2018 at 12:59 pm

    Swalwell isn’t “moronic.” He’s sick. He’s dangerous to others and himself.

    Besides killing American babies in the womb, the left also wants open borders, you know, for cheap labor and who will vote to keep them in power.

    The Left is anti USA and, I dare say, has fully adopted communist principles.

    Where am I wrong?!

Scratch the veneer paint from a Democrat, find a totalitarian beneath.

Once in power (using whatever means available) one of the first acts of every totalitarian has been to disarm the people.

From my limited perspective, it seems to me that prior to, say 2016, the Left was able to play their games, keeping their latent intents mostly to themselves. Except for those who did the hard research and sounded the clarion calls, many of us were unaware of the menace at the door. Then, Donald Trump came on the scene. And, it sees as though the worms can’t help themselves from coming out of the woodwork

This is an interesting lesson in how modern leftist politics works. Notice that sometimes he sounds almost reasonable (buy backs, common ground, etc) and other times he sounds insane (we have nukes).

His choice of which attitude he uses is determined entirely by which one he thinks will win the argument. There is absolutely no hint of thought, or self insight.

Really, this exchange should be taught in textbooks on how to be a Liberal.

    JohnC in reply to irv. | November 18, 2018 at 11:32 am

    How does the government “buy back” my gun? I didn’t buy it from them. They have never owned it. How can they buy it “back” as if it used to be theirs and now they’d like it back, please?

    Nevermind. I know “buy back” is code for, “Here’s $100 for your $700 Sig Sauer. Now shut the fuck up.”

      alaskabob in reply to JohnC. | November 18, 2018 at 12:08 pm

      If the Dems can have the government forcibly buy back your black rifle, can they not but-back your right to vote … not all your voting…just say..The national elections. They say that you still can own some approved gun so you still have “rights”. So, since you can still vote still have a “right”.

      Forced but back of your black rifle and your right to vote in national elections….a Den dream come true.

      Humphrey's Executor in reply to JohnC. | November 18, 2018 at 12:33 pm

      Its sort of like when they call a tax cut a “give away to the rich” or a “give away to the big corporations.” You see, according to them, the money isn’t ours at all. It all belongs to the government and we only get to keep what the government suffers to let us have.

Moron. You want to test your theory out?

    RedEchos in reply to UJ. | November 18, 2018 at 1:35 pm

    The idiot doesn’t seem to realize that there is no ‘reset’ button, no ‘load saved game’ feature in life. Real people would die and jackals like him would be targeted for extermination

So as we’ve gradually educated them, any semi-auto is now an “assault weapon,” which make an easy transition to all semi-autos are “weapons of war.” Please list for me all of the standing armies in the world that are provided with AR-15s as their standard firearms. Still waiting. Cold, dead, hands

    alaskabob in reply to Obie1. | November 18, 2018 at 11:48 am

    Down vote erroneous from too close to reply…apologies

    Go back to WWI and both Britain and France buying thousands of Winchester 1907 and 1910 model semi-automatic magazine feed sporting rifles to use in the war. Likewise Remington Model 8s. Every firearms or its type have been used in war.

    Rhodesdia, embargoed by short-sighted West, had to go semi-auto on their rifles to conserve ammo. Zipra and Zanla communist factions had AK’s. Their semi’s and tactics were successful….politics killed them.

    Taking away the semi-auto rifle is the game changer to Leftist dreams of control. They want and need to make Americans come to heel.

      Arminius in reply to alaskabob. | November 18, 2018 at 12:08 pm

      This could probably explain why after ten years I remain unmarried. I have this Remington ad hanging in my living room.

      Alaskabob, maybe you’re better at the internet than I am. People keep telling me that the AR-15 is a weapon of war. To which I respond, “On what planet?” The M16A1 and the M4 are weapons of war. Name one single country that shops at Bass Pro and issues the AR.

        alaskabob in reply to Arminius. | November 18, 2018 at 12:30 pm

        The Dems use optics and ignorance to win. The AR(malite)-10 begat the AR-15 prototype that became the M-16. We all know that what Colt sold to the general public starting in mid-60’s was NOT the M-16. Likewise, no country bought the civilian AR-15 as they bought M-16s. Function is everything. As Jefferson said…a nation can not be both free and ignorant. Truthful then and truthful now.

        alaskabob in reply to Arminius. | November 18, 2018 at 12:33 pm

        Your Model 8 Remington in the poster!

        Arminius in reply to Arminius. | November 18, 2018 at 12:59 pm

        I know it’s a tourist hash, but could he stop by Chilcoot Charlie’s and pick up a t-shirt for me? The one that says, “We cheat the other guy, and pass the savings on to you.”

        Xlarge. Maybe XXlarge just to be sure.

        I am otherwise in complete agreement.

    Mac45 in reply to Obie1. | November 18, 2018 at 12:00 pm

    Ignore the “weapon of war” debate. It is simply ridiculous. ALL personal weapons are, historically, weapons of war. All types have been used, through the ages, to wage war. Clubs, knives, swords, bows and arrows, shotguns [the original firearms used in battle were essentially shotguns], pistols, rifles, revolvers, bolt action, lever action, semi-automatic, even single-shot. All weapons of war. To even acknowledge that a particular type of rifle can be considered as a weapon of war is surrendering a key position in the debate.

On one hand, on the other hand. The worst violations of human and civil rights are committed by governments. Is he arguing for the right of private citizens to keep and bear nuclear arms? That seems a little myopic with a clear and progressive risk.

So this Socialist-Democrat ideologue believes removing a particularly popular type of rifle will make the children and streets of American much safer. And he’s more than willing to criminalize, prosecute and/or utterly destroy those who would oppose his edict.

Here in the real world the Bureau’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data show a rather different situation. For 2014, the easiest UCR Data Table 8 (Expanded Homicide) to access, the comparison of reported homicides by weapon type (where reported) is interesting:

Homicide by Rifle – 2014: 248
Homicide by Shotgun – 2014: 262
Homicide by “Other”* – 2014: 93

Homicide by “personal Weapons”** – 2014: 660

The reason Australian style firearm confiscation (AKA mandatory “buyback”, Australian Buyback Program, etc.) worked is Australia had firearms registration. I believe the people were told the registration would never be used to confiscate their firearms. Confiscation can never work without registration. Such registration is absolutely essential to the confiscation and is accomplished in a short period (e.g. NY City requiring so-called “Assault Weapons” be registered by date certain, later used to enforce a total ban on possession) or over a long period of time (e.g. requiring “universal background checks” on personally owned firearms so a record accessible to the government is made and the buyer or seller is entitled to pay for the privilege of establishing that record). Without registration it is impossible to confiscate firearms wholesale, which is why Swalwell stipulates “when found” as there is no current way to form a complete list of who owns what in the way of firearms in the US. Best guess tne number of firearms of all types in the US is somewhere around the population of the US.

* Other firearms, not including handguns, where type of firearm was reported at all.

** Hands, fists, feet

    alaskabob in reply to Edward. | November 18, 2018 at 11:54 am

    Looking back at Australian mass murders….if you eliminate the government’s murder of aborigines and that one Port Arthur shooting..The rest are mostly arson. Eliminating a single class of firearm did not alter the mass murders. The whole story of successful control is bogus.

So, the left can control politics and redistribution of taxes on earned income. It is then in the general interest for their competitors to retain control of the military and security forces to mitigate the risk of excessive regulation and running amuck.

Ya know I look around the world and back threw history in places like Afganistian Vietnam Iraq …

A loaded shot gun is the first reply to tyranny.

This is probably the wrong web site. But the prof being a prof in NY state, does any of this appear sane?

I can’t even follow this.

“America’s gun debate in one thread.

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”

After the “said no one ever” part.

You either want gun abolition or a nuclear-armed Iran.

Me: “I don’t want gun abolition.”

Them: “Oh, OK, I see how you are. Homophobe!”

I am a racist. I think Jews in Sderot should be able to sleep until morning without worrying their throats will be slit.

Notice, no one sleeping in Gaza city has the same worry.

What’s wrong with you, you slacking Joooo bastards? Pick up the g-d damned pace.

    alaskabob in reply to Arminius. | November 18, 2018 at 12:16 pm

    Talking of sleeping safely, watch the final rebuttal by the late Jerry Falwell in his debate at Oxford with the nuke-free New Zealand official. He uses the “empire” word to hook the audience that he is mouthing Reagan’s “evil empire” while he means that the US is safe from worry about the British Empire.

    RedEchos in reply to Arminius. | November 18, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    People in Gaza have the same worry; oddly enough they aren’t worried about Jews doing it…

First of all, most liberal/Progressive politicians don’t really care about gun ownership, if the use of weapons does not directly affect them. Democrat politicians have done NOTHING to control the proliferation of illegally procured firearms by criminals in Chicago, despite an annual homicide rate of approximately 500 people. Why? Because those politicians are not threatened by those firearms.

So, when politicians actively push gun control on law abiding citizens, it means that those politicians have a very good reason to fear that those weapons will be used against them, sometime in the future.

As for using the military against a general uprising of the citizenry of the US, that would not be a good idea. It would destroy the nation and the politicians who want to control it, would be left with nothing to control. It is a no win situation for them. Also, it entails the very real problem that the rank and file military would turn on the government or, at the very least, fragment into opposing forces as individuals and units mutinied.

    Arminius in reply to Mac45. | November 18, 2018 at 12:42 pm

    Are you impressed I can do the name-tossing crap. Dillingham, Afognac, Uganik, yadda yadda? I could throw out more, but I’d only disgrace myself as my Alaska contacts are A) BLM surveyors B) Naval Sailors C) the kind of Inuit you only find on the bus station when the show melts in spring.

    Naturally, my Alaska contacts are continually diminishing.

    Arminius in reply to Mac45. | November 18, 2018 at 12:49 pm

    This is probably the worst kept secret ever. If it ever was a secret. Kodiak is where the SEALs have their cold weather training site.

    “Cold Warfare: Future SEALs Get a Firsthand Lesson in Northern Exposure

    KODIAK ISLAND, Alaska (NNS) — …”

    Just so you know I’m not giving away any secrets.

    tom_swift in reply to Mac45. | November 18, 2018 at 2:13 pm

    So, when politicians actively push gun control on law abiding citizens, it means that those politicians have a very good reason to fear that those weapons will be used against them, sometime in the future.

    That’s when Congress gave us the Gun Control Act of 1968. The Black Panthers were making noise about showing up in Washington with rifles, nice cheap/sturdy/powerful/accurate military World War surplus rifles bought by mail. So Congress made it very difficult for Negros (the approved term in those days) to buy guns. No more mail order, no guns from Sears, no guns at your local hardware store, buy only in person from licensed dealers who could see that the customer wasn’t black (“know your customer” was the guideline—they never actually said “no Negroes” but they meant it). Of course to start disarming Negroes they had to do it to everybody, but that’s the price for progress, or for imaginary Congressional safety, at least. The whole thing was a disgrace. And still is.

Swallwell May be right about it being a short war: especially if the first shot fired hits him smack in his forehead.

    Subotai Bahadur in reply to olafauer. | November 18, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    You have to realize that the Left is openly calling for the mass murder not only of gun owners, but also of their families without discrimination. Once this starts, there will be neither peace nor moderation until one side ceases to exist.

    “They will do what they will do. Americans will do what they will do. And only the Great Blue Sky Tengri Nor knows what the outcome will be.”

    Nah, aim lower for the first shot. Give him something to think about for a few minutes.

I hope it’s clear to everyone that I don’t hate anyone. I just make fun of those who do. Like my boss, a Jewish carpenter, thought I’d have a bunch of time on my hands to indulge in such nonsense.

Also, as a Naval officer I can tell you that hate clouds the mind. Now other people are involved, and I won’t risk it. Hate isn’t just a bad thing I learned in Sunday school. Curious, though. Who thought I was serious?

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | November 18, 2018 at 12:14 pm

    Hate is a bad thing you should learn about in Sunday School. But the tactical/strategic disadvantages should wait until at least middle school.

From stats….if the top 7 counties with top gun crime disappeared…The gun crime rate in U.S. Would fall in middle of the vaunted EU countries. All 7 counties are Dem/Prog controlled. The Dems want to make all the USA just like those 7 politically. There is your nightmare.

4th armored div | November 18, 2018 at 12:05 pm

the empire strikes back !

Other than sticking it to them for stupid statements, I would not worry about idiots like this. They know they can’t hide forever and it would take less than 50 dead congress person and 3 justices before the entire gun confiscation movement crawls back in its hole. I believe there will be another American Civil war in my or my children’s life time. But I don’t believe it will be like the the first one. It will be very selective and happen more along the lines of the book Unintended Consequences by John Ross.

It is because of twits like Swalwell that the founding fathers chose to include the right to own and bear arms to the citizenry. Please note that there are no restrictions to that right in the constitution. The founding fathers, in their wisdom, believed that the citizens of this once great nation should have ready access to the same arms as the government. Semi automatic, fully automatic, and yes, other types of weaponry as well. Why, you may ask? To protect ourselves from the political elite who feel that they are above the average citizen and keep them from waging war against us.

This leftist horses ass said “You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous”. Apparently he is unfamiliar with the history of Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Cambodia, Communist China etc. 100 million unarmed citizens murdered by the likes of Eric Swallwell. What a completely dishonest FOOL.

    Close The Fed in reply to MAJack. | November 18, 2018 at 1:21 pm

    Hell, MAJack, he’s unfamiliar with himself! “We’ll nuke you!”

    Swalwell, not if we shoot you before you get to the button!

“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.” – Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

The main thing is the main thing. Anything else is sedition.

The Left will always, eventually, resort to violence, threats of violence, or glorification of violence to advance their agenda. Always.

This Swalwell orc should be expelled from Congress, but since we tolerate this ‘constitution is a suicide pact’ malignancy, nothing will be done.

The war might be short, but it would be long enough for patriots to hunt down and kill every legislator who voted for it.

PS: Any FBI or Secret Service agent whose ears just pricked up, see Watts v US

    RedEchos in reply to Milhouse. | November 18, 2018 at 2:07 pm

    Thank you for the link

    Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | November 18, 2018 at 3:28 pm

    I don’t want to say too much. What you have to worry about IF you think you are capable of the kind of coup that the democrats seem to be possibly contemplating is, how do you pull it off?

    Seriously, you expect me to cooperate? I think my handle, Arminius, would clue you all in I’m not likely.

      “Arminius was a chieftain of the Germanic Cherusci tribe who famously led an allied coalition of Germanic tribes to a decisive victory against three Roman legions in the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD.”

      A simp like Swalwell ain’t the Roman Legion.

        “Quintili Vare, legiones redde!”

        At the height of empire Italy’s population was 25% slave. Campania, the region my family hails from, was 40% slave.

        “Quntilius Varus, give me back my legions!” I’d like to think my ancestors had something to do with handing Rome its @##. And in all likelihood they did. I have an oil painting of the house my Great Grandfather was born in in Bubelbach in the Scwhartzwald. But also in all likelihood being three quarters Italian I had ancestors on the losing side in this battle.

        Now, great, feel free to call me 100% fascist.

If the government really cared about the health and welfare of its citizens, it would not have left 60,000 of my friends to die in Viet Nam so I could, 50 years later, buy underwear made in Viet Nam.

Governments kill way more people than law abiding gun owners do.

DefCon Swalwell is the very reason the Bill of Rights was inserted.

I find it amazing Swalwell continues to appear on Carlson’s show. This “elected” representative for CA a) spews his talking points b) never (ever) answers Carlson’s questions and c) never realizes what a complete raving Marxist he comes across as.

Guess that’s a skill?


Swalwells’s logic is typical of the socialists. The idea that people need to defend themselves against their government is ludicrous. We’ll just have a ‘conversation’ sp all can be heard, then we’ll decide to confiscate guns and then kill only the law-breakers that refuse to surrender to their betters.

The 20th century was the deadliest in all of human history due to socialist governments killing their own citizens by tens if not hundreds of millions of people. You know, guys like Swalwell with their nukes. Swalwell was only kidding though. Ha Ha.

Every time a lib says “assault weapon” they should be sternly rebuked with “defense weapon” or better yet simply “weapon” or “gun”. To call them “assault weapons” is to mischaracterize the intended use of their legally approved and law-abiding owners.

The existing background check system is designed to identify and deny people with unlawful intent, thereby declaring those approved for weapons purchase as safe and law-abiding. In practice, the sale of all new weapons are for legal defense, recreation or hunting where in the hands of law-abiding citizen owners, they are definitely NOT “assault weapons”.

I don’t know why it’s so difficult for the right to take that narrative away from lefty gun-grabbers who habitually impugn law-abiding gun owners with their “assault weapons” label. No gun has ever assaulted anyone absent someone with harmful intent from pulling the trigger.

The military would never obey an order to use nukes on citizens.

Apologies, I think everyone here means what they say, but I suspect only 1/3rd of us would resist such a forced buyback program. Maybe even less.

Obviously evil men in black hats twirling long mustaches as they kick in neighborhood doors is not how it’s going down.

“They are going to come at you sideways” – Bishop, Firefly (Serenity)

Support here for BLM was around 50%. No one ran off from their life to help them. Many of us used our clever minds to weave clever justifications for why it was this but not that.

Yiu will be isolated. Your complaints will be deleted and no one will stand for you – just like no one here will stand up to say what Fuzzy did to me was wrong. “We don’t want to get involved, too much drama, it’s not censorship because (insert clever justification)”.

Most of you will be told to sell back your firearms or lose your jobs, your homes, your families, your very freedom. And most of you will come up with clever justifications why it’s not such a bad idea afterall, and you’re really not caving.

But most of you will cave.

I’m sorry, I wish I was wrong, but I’m not. Too many people here clutch their pearls over much less than resisting a mandatory buyback program. You’ll fall in line when push comes to shove.

    Fen in reply to Fen. | November 18, 2018 at 3:17 pm

    Here’s an interesting article on the aftermath of the Australian forced buyback. Short version – the population quickly replaced their semi-autos with single shot rifles.

    That’s probably how the dilemma will be presented to us here, either:

    1) lose your job, your home, your family, your freedom

    2) or simply replace your 9mm with a revolver

    I think most of us would choose option #2. Americans claim to support the 2nd to check some future tyranny, but for most of us the practical reality is for home and self-defense against criminals.

    So I think we would cave.

    Note that while the Aussies don’t share our 2nd Ammendment history, they are an individualistic and hardy people. Yet they still caved. I’m trying to research instances of Aussies resisting and what happened to them, but Google is broken. It either didnt happen or they were airbrushed out of history. If anyone kind find those stories, I’d appreciate a link.

      Australians are somewhat homogeneous, and – foolishly – have more trust in their government.

      If rats like this lunatic tried to disarm the nation, too many people would disobey. What jail will hold 100 million Americans? What force would arrest them?

        “too many people would disobey.”

        I’ll grant that, but they won’t disobey unless someone else goes first.

        Who wants to go first?

          DaveGinOly in reply to Fen. | November 18, 2018 at 6:23 pm

          I think a situation like BLM is different. That would have taken action and inaction is easily rationalized. (Also, how much of the story we were being told was true, and how much false? Suppose you went there and found out they were, indeed, a bunch of criminals and low-lifes?)

          This is different because the resistance necessary is passive – you need not do anything. It makes it so much easier, because humans have an inborn inertia to getting off their asses and doing something, and confiscation would require that “doing something” – digging out the gun, leaving the house, driving to the police station, and, horror or horrors, probably filling out government forms. Nobody is going to want to do that. (Also, in this situation, there is no doubt in the minds of many that inaction is in a good cause. Resistance to tyranny doesn’t get any easier.)

          Barry in reply to Fen. | November 18, 2018 at 7:46 pm

          There will be many who will “go first”.

    Fen in reply to Fen. | November 18, 2018 at 3:22 pm

    My bad, forgot the link:

    Sorry about that. I’m having to copy my postings and text them to my phone to insure against Fuzzy deleting them. It gets distracting. You’ll see when it’s your turn.

    Obie1 in reply to Fen. | November 19, 2018 at 7:19 am

    Do a little research into how many AR owners in CT registered their firearms when mandated to do so under penalty of law. Then check out the same stats in NY. There are a lot more resistors than you might think.

It’s just crazy talk talk. Crazy, all kinds of cray cray, to imagine a tyrannical gub’mint would ever want to seize your guns.

Sez Eric “Nuke ’em all” Swalwell.

As if their brownshirt Antifa thugs weren’t enough to persuade me.

If I am to take the nuke part as comic overstatement, he meant tanks in the streets. Because that version is so much better.

    Correct. He meant to jazz up the old Leffist talking point that our rifles would be no match for government forces.

    But he stepped on that rake and hard. Perhaps there is a silver lining to the dour state of our education system – they are churning out Marxists who mangle their own propaganda.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Fen. | November 18, 2018 at 6:53 pm

      It contradiction between has been noted statement “your guns will be ineffective against government forces” and “AR-15s are weapons of war” has been noted. More recently, a leftist pundit excused the contradiction in an opinion piece in which he admitted this was a contradiction, but that it didn’t matter because the gun owners wouldn’t fight.

      If this is so, why are so many Dems so keen on taking them? What are they afraid of if gun owners won’t fight?

      Years ago I saw a posting to a story about gun control that went something like this:
      A government that’s trying to take your guns is planning to do something that you’d shoot them for.

    Arminius in reply to JBourque. | November 18, 2018 at 3:35 pm

    Let’s take a vote. I’m sick of feeling like I should be guilty of some thing. I’m a proud sheep dog and can eat wolves for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

regulus arcturus | November 18, 2018 at 3:50 pm

Swalwell wouldn’t be around long enough to press the button.

“…But most of you will cave.” Seriously? Do you know us, fen? Most of us want to go home to our wives. Who have families.

    That’s my point. Most of you will grudgingly exchange your semi’s for single shot revolvers so you can go home to your families.

    It’s nothing to be ashamed of, its just human nature. No one ever blamed the frog in the pot for slowly getting boiled (I know, it’s a false metaphor).

    And I think I know most of you well enough to say that you would cave.

    Fuzzy deleted 40 of my civil polite posts yesterday and not a peep out of any of you.

    I’ve been here at LI for 7 years now, and with a few exceptions, most of you won’t fight for the little things. So how can you be expected to risk everything resisting a mandatory semi-auto buyback?

    The Professor will make a 500 word stand, his blog will be blacklisted and shut down, and most of us will say “darn that’s too bad” and then turn in our 9mm for a revolver.

    Sorry. I’m just pointing out what I have seen and experienced here.

      OMG, Fen, get over yourself. Why are you stalking me like this? Are you trying to stir up trouble because that is the very definition of posts that we (ALL of us) “censor.” You can whine and whinge on, but have you ever stopped to think that no one is defending you because your position is indefensible? I explained what I said, and you can either accept it or not. Not accepting my explanation, as is clearly the case, would still require that a normal person simply drop it, but you just keep on and on for well over a month now. I have no idea what you hope to gain, but what you will undoubtedly gain is the disdain and contempt of many people here (you already have mine, of course). Grow up, take a look around and see that you are not the center of anyone’s universe, and realize that no one gives a good damn about your bizarre Fuzzy fixation.

        You’re wrong: he is the center of the universe.

        In any event, he’s right about a good many people folding in the face of tyranny. But then, it only takes two percent of a population completely dedicated to a revolution for it to succeed.

        There will be that two percent of Americans who won’t be absolutely ruled by the likes of Swalwell, Airhead Cortez, Pelosi, Cuomo, Odumbo, etc.

          Oh, I think he’s right about this, too. His gripe goes back well over a month, and he keeps harping on it . . . even though no one knows what he’s talking about (as evidenced by your and beagleEar’s posts mistaking this Fuzzy fixation as related to the OP; most people would be talking about the OP, but not Fen. He’s stuck on stupid for some reason and can’t get over a nothingburger from well over a month ago. Sad really.).

        (Assume a polite civil response countering your points that you will then delete while sliming me as a “delusional nutjob”)

        Just saving myself the time and bother.

      “Most of you will grudgingly exchange your semi’s for single shot revolvers so you can go home to your families….”

      You’re thinking very small.

      Arminius in reply to Fen. | November 18, 2018 at 6:21 pm

      Single shot revolvers? That’s a new one.

      “Noun: a pistol with revolving chambers enabling several shots to be fired without reloading.”

      I would say I am without words, but that’s something north of a dozen of them. Back in my Navy days I qualified with a “single shot” revolver, a J-frame Smith, to be exact. One single shot at a time.

Unless I’m willing to slave myself to the gub’mint and never see the light of day…

Isn’t this why mothers-in-law were invented?

smalltownoklahoman | November 18, 2018 at 5:31 pm

There’s another problem with nuking the citizenry that Swalwell may not have considered: what the reaction of the rest of the world would be to someone who would commit wholesale slaughter on his own countrymen. I think Swalwell would quickly find that there would not be many places he could flee to after committing such an act, should he need to, that aren’t already under the control of petty tyrants and dictators. Hell even a number of those petty tyrants might not want to shelter him because the act of nuking one’s own countrymen would mark one as a war criminal of the worst order. The would be virtually no country that would view letting someone like that walk free or remain in power as being acceptable.

I have no idea what this little spot is about, but Fen is making a clearly articulated and defensible point.

    About Swalwell, yes. But Fen is festering in hurt feewings from over a month ago and imagines that the most important thing in the universe is me. Oddly, this creeps me out.

    Thanks Beagle, I appreciate that. Hat tip.

    @ Fuzzy, its relevant to my larger point – the people who claim they would stand up for 2nd Ammendment principles had nothing to say yesterday about free speech principles when you deleted my polite and civil post FORTY times. 40.

    And you claim I’m the one obsessed with you, lol.

    Dont bother responding. I just scan through and roll my eyes, until you meet my demand for a sincere apology.

    Which now includes a pic of you with FOUR pancakes on your head. Do you want to go for five? Haha.

      Fen, you poor delusional stalker. Here’s the thing: I honestly don’t believe I owe you a damn thing, much less an apology, and I am certainly not sorry for what I wrote. I said it with a light heart and in the spirit of the moment, without an ounce of mockery or malice. That you took it as malicious is your problem, not mine. That you can’t accept my explanation is your problem, not mine. Am I sorry that you are a weirdo stalker freak? Well, yeah, I am always sorry to see a fellow human being so troubled and clearly unhinged, but I have done what I can to smooth things over. I’m good with that.

      You are so ungracious, so lacking in character that you can’t accept what I’ve said and move on. This fixation is bizarre and strange. I’m sorry you don’t get that, but I stand what by what I said because I meant no harm at all. I said I got why you may have misunderstood (and you did; I know what I meant and the spirit in which I wrote), but what more can I say than that? I didn’t mean what you think I did, and I will never ever apologize to you for some imagined slight. Accept that and move on or continue to make a complete ass of yourself. Your choice.

      Barry in reply to Fen. | November 18, 2018 at 7:55 pm

      “… the people who claim they would stand up for 2nd Ammendment principles had nothing to say yesterday about free speech principles when you deleted my polite and civil post FORTY times. 40.”

      You simply cannot be stupid enough to believe you have some 2nd amendment right to post a comment on this or any other blog that you don’t own.

As mentioned earlier, a “buy back” is not a buy back because the government never owned the guns. Also, the term has previously been used in this country almost exclusively to refer to programs to collect unwanted, legally-owned and/or (already) illegally-owned guns, and not as a prelude to the confiscation of firearms made illegal to own after being legally acquired. What Swalwell is proposing is not a “buy back” even in the traditional sense – this is confiscation with compensation, followed by confiscation without compensation.

my f-i-l/m-i-l are aussies/kiwis–trust me, the govt there didn’t come close to confiscating ALL the weapons

this dem twit is just giving the leftist company line–the idea that ” buybacks ” will ever actually occur is pretty far-fetched

disagree that the military will turn on the citizenry–seem to remember no obligation to obey unlawful orders–there are flakes in every profession and there are those in the service that shouldn’t have access to auto weapons, let alone advanced platforms–still,the idea that the officer corps and line service folks(regardless of branch) would turn on the american public en masse is equally far-fetched

The thing that stands out the most blatantly to me here, is that Rep Swalwell, when presented with the possibility of civil war due to government actions…

Assumes that it must be the people at fault, and that they must be punished. He doesn’t for one instant consider that maybe the government could be in the wrong.

    Listen, the left has its browshirts (antifa) and is using them with impunity. They are paying for illegals to overrun our border. They have engineered the election of the biggest useful idiot since obama (airhead cortez) and have engineered voter fraud on a scale that rivals the Iranian ‘elections.’

    Psycho Swalwell let his intentions slip. He needn’t ever repeat them, because we should never forget them if we are serious about saving our way of life.

Does he realize the government would have to nuke the ENTIRE U.S.?

And where does he plan to find the 200 billion dollars that will be needed to compensate owners when their property is confiscated?

This “lawmaker” apparently is not sufficiently educated to have heard of the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152). It forbids the use of military forces to enforce domestic policies within the United States. That aside, this wussy boy doesn’t have the guts to personally confiscate anyone’s firearm. Here’s my message for this big shot who never served his country and obviously doesn’t respect it. He believes he personally has powers specifically forbidden by the Constitution to the whole federal government. As America’s supreme law, the Constitution limits federal government authority over citizens.

The 2nd Amendment specifically forbids what this creepy Californian proposes. It contains only 27 small words so even he should understand it: “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.” The term “militia” refers to peaceable, lawfully armed people. They aren’t reservists, national or state guardsmen, inactive military or any other organized group. They’re civilians. The founders would have had no reason to affirm this natural civil right to military people because they already worked for the government that owned their arms and directed their use. To think otherwise is absurd.

In this context, the term “infringed” clearly means even the slightest meddling by the federal government is strictly forbidden. Additionally, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms,” as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The term “incorporated” means even the states are forbidden from meddling in any way with a civilian’s right to keep and bear arms.

Therefore, the only option to implement what this big mouthed small fry would do is to declare war on America’s firearms owners, all 120 million of them. So, as they say in New York and Connecticut, molon labe. We’ve caught onto this ninny’s little flimflam. He wants no interference with his party’s goal of using taxpayer money to fund entitlements. The democrat party needs entitlements to exchange for votes. They fear any discussion of resistance to their will.

Citizens just becoming aware should open their minds to the fact that the U.S. is very lucky to have a hundred million legally armed citizens with 400 million firearms in private hands. They should recognize that these are the most peaceable, lawful people in our nation. Leftists need to look at our open borders, colossal drug trade, scarce law enforcement, timid prosecution, limited incarcerations, gang strength, mental defectives living at home and terrorists roaming the streets. Can anyone even imagine the unbridled carnage if this twerp’s goal of total confiscation were to be achieved?

Every time you vote, think about this. Those who carry out mass murders fear armed citizens and it’s precisely why governments always disarm the governed before they purge the disobedient. Taken together, all the mass shooting deaths from nuts, felons, terrorists and illegal aliens, throughout history for the entire planet, is infinitesimal compared to the total number of civilian citizens murdered by governments. It’s the reason for our 2nd Amendment and throughout human history, it has been a very bad idea to allow any government to disarm its people.

Yeah, well Nukes don’t fly by themselves.
I heard there were people on the ground that were Citizens.
And they held the power to keep the Nukes at bay.

Contemptible smarmy leftist a-hole. He’ll get his eventually. And America will stay armed.

I’m still not over the single shot revolver thingy.

The multiple chambered…

…Revolver. Single shot?

I would totes stake my life on a “single shot” revolver.

“The Smith & Wesson Model 686 is a six- or seven-shot double-action revolver manufactured by Smith & Wesson and chambered for the .357 Magnum cartridge…”

Actually if I can’t get it done with one round I don’t deserve to live.

I would totes stake my life on a “single shot” revolver.

“The Smith & Wesson Model 686 is a six- or seven-shot double-action revolver manufactured by Smith & Wesson and chambered for the .357 Magnum cartridge…”

Actually if I can’t get it done with one round I don’t deserve to live.

Now we see a clear demonstration that not only are our elected representatives incompetent, they also exhibit the maturity of the angry drunk down at the end of the bar.