She’s not lying. We should ban assault weapons by buying them back or restricting them to ranges/clubs. #EnoughIsEnough https://t.co/XbRpOvXlF3
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018
So, NEVER tell me again that the Democrat / Socialists / Progressives are saying “Nobody is saying they want to take your guns away”! From back in May and then again in November, this from anti-Second Amendment US Congressman Eric Swallwell (D-CA, San Francisco) started what most of us really know – civilian disarmament IS on the Democrat agenda:
Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters: Ex-prosecutor in Congress
…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. Our courts haven’t found a constitutional right to have assault weapons, anyway. When the Supreme Court held in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that this right “is not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
…America won’t get off that cheaply. Gun ownership runs so deep that we don’t even know how many military-style semiautomatic rifles are in U.S. civilian hands. Based on manufacturing figures and other indirect data, there could be 15 million assault weapons out there. If we offer $200 to buy back each weapon — as many local governments have — then it would cost about $3 billion; at $1,000 each, the cost would be about $15 billion.
…America has a deadly problem, a problem other developed nations have avoided or addressed. Some say we’re already too far gone to take corrective action, but we cannot have a defeatist attitude about this. Fixing our problem requires boldness and will be costly, but the cost of letting it fester will be far higher — for our wallets, and for our souls.
It also will be judged unconstitutional as the Second Amendment says NOTHING about muskets, the made up term “assault weapons” monniker; just “arms” which meant civilians could have the equivalent of military grade weapons (you know, that “shall not be infringed” deal) in doing what our Founders just did – fight back against a tyrannical Government (which I remind folks, the “Shot heard ’round the World” happened because the British Redcoats were on a mission of civilian disarmament). It isn’t just him, btw, as it is clear that man on the the Democrat / Socialists side of the aisle are wanting to take away ALL semi-automatic long or handguns (e.g., Tracey Abrams, the sore loser Progressive (but aren’t they all?) who tried to be Governor of Georgia actually filed legislation to do exactly that).
Well between that Op-Ed and other tweets has set off another round of 2nd Amendment folks stating the expected things after Swalwell literally went nuclear on those that wouldn’t go along with his mandatory buyback / gun confiscation:
Yeah – so we have a DEMOCRAT, in CONGRESS, that is willing to use nuclear weapons against his fellow citizens (whom, I’m betting, he sees them as EVIL and thus not deserving of the right to be considered citizens) simply because they “cling” to the actual words of the Second Amendment. Once again, I point out what the NH Constitution, Article 2A, says on the subject:
All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Note the construction: no mention of a militia (as I have Notable Quote’d before, we ALL are the militia outside of any government organization) AND the priority of the RTKBA: self-defense, their family, their private property – and the State. One should know that if the State was in such a state that it needed to be defended, it will be a well organized MILITARY incursion which would require the same level of “arms” as any invaders would need. Remember, back in that time, we civilians did own rifles similar to or BETTER than the British, repeating arms (e.g., semi-automatic and automatic) were available, and there were those wealthy enough to own artillery pieces and sea-going vessels that mounted a number of cannon. Arms of any type were not just for government maintained armies. But I digress.
So, he’s just dandy that if there were a buildup of those who refused an unlawful order for gun confiscation, he’d be the one to push the button to send either tactical or large scale nukes – taking out not only those standing up for their pre-existing Right but anyone else otherwise not involved that happened to be in the general area? One again, the marxist meme of “in order to make omelettes, ya crack a few eggs”; just is the march to Utopia!
I judge this to be true:
Make no mistake, Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state.
These people are dangerously obsessed with power. https://t.co/f1AS6Me0ko
— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) November 16, 2018
Twitchy (and here too) has a few more observations: Afghanistan, the Feds already can’t even round up 30 million illegals and they’re gonna try to round up 150 million Americans who own up to 400 million arms. Kurt Schlichter over at Townhall has written what a Progressive/ Socialist vs Normals hot civil war might look like. They don’t end well for the former group. After all, Afghanistan is just a distant idea / place for them and have no idea that it could happen here. After all, who is arguing against putting the Socialist Utopia into place here in Amerika – we’d all joyfully go along with it (wink, wink) after we just go down on bended knee and carefully open up our gun safes…….
To his tweet – there is no “common ground” on this just as there are no “commonsense” Democrat ideas on the subject. In all cases, those commonsense ideas start and continue the process of turning a Right to a privilege that must be a “Mommy Govt, may I” deal. Once one has to ask for permission, it is no longer a Right. Most Second Amendment defenders already are past the point of “compromise” – certainly anything that has been agreed to thus far is NEVER enough (e.g., making up any new words or phrases to confiscate the most popular semi-auto rifles in the nation right now is not a sign of a willingness to “compromise”); what are THEY willing to give up from their side? National reciprocity? Removing items from the NFA list like suppressors? Allowing full autos to be sold again into the private marketplace?
No, No, No, and No. There is no compromise, from their side, until all modern and popular firearms are banned and confiscated. Then they don’t have to.
The funniest (sad?) think is that this totalitarian was thinking he could be President.
