MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rep. Eric Swalwell Thinks Gun Confiscation Will Work Out Fine Because Government Has Nukes

While Swalwell insists it was 'sarcasm' it's bad form to reply to a citizen aggrieved at openly threatening constitutional rights connected with self and civil defense with implied threat of mass murder.

What does it take to get a U.S. House member to (sarcastically! sarcastically, he insists) very publicly threaten to nuke American citizens who want to defend their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment?

Nothing more than pushing back on Twitter against that congressman, Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)'s proposal from earlier this year to fully ban and buy back every one of what he wants to designate as "assault weapons" with the added bonus of "criminally prosecut[ing] any who choose to defy it."

Apparently feeling a bit threatened by this proposal to go after him and millions of other Americans for possessing an individually owned tool of self-defense and recreation, this was tweeted by a Joe Biggs today:

Rep. Swalwell, willing to make sure the war against any possible American citizen resistance over gun confiscation doesn't fall into the endless quagmire of so many other guerrilla wars of the past century, reminds the citizen that while the government as represented by him wants your guns, it has something far stronger it would be perfectly happy to use if you complain:

Just a little chilling, isn't it, that mafia-like "reminder that we can and will kill you" followed by "thus I'm sure we can talk it out." Swalwell followed up with a bunch of "well, he started it!" posts and insists he was being sarcastic. But that mindset, including its delusional belief that the American military would rather mass murder its own citizens than allow them to continue to enjoy Second Amendment rights as applied to an arbitrary and, as a matter of public policy, rather unimportant set of weapons, reveals why it's so difficult for America's gun owners and those who support their rights to stay calm when politicians talk about their own vision of "common sense gun control."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    WTF, I'm glad I'm away from home this weekend on NJLP business, because according to this leaked video the first nuclear bomb is headed to California, but the second one is going to Hackensack, NJ.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Oh, and before I forget, Happy Birthday, mom.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    She says thanks for remembering!

  • SQRLSY One||

    She says can I cook you some more to eat? You look like you've been STARVING, my poor boy!!!

  • TuIpa||

    She actually says "Jesus, I didn 't raise my son to hang out with losers Chipper Morning Triestoohard and SQdoesn't take his meds"

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Oh, my mom left the Catholic Church when she realized that she didn't want to pray to a man.

  • ThomasD||

    God has reproductive organs?

    Why?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I mean what type of person lets another human being take responsibility for her soul? Hiring a psychologist to take responsibility for your mind is one thing. The mind is something you can see and measure empirically. In fact, there's a guy sitting next to me at the computer lab, and I can see his mind hovering over him. It's red with green stripes wrapped around it. Anyway ... until the entire planet realizes the one true reality that is the consensus among social scientists, we'll have to keep authorizing psychologists to lock the doors to their facilities to prevent the customers from leaving.

    :P

  • ThomasD||

    Awesome. You win the comment section today.

  • mpercy||

    But my mother lives in Hackensack!

    [Checks watch, frowns, shakes head...]

  • Bearded Spock||

    One of Gene Hackman's best performances ever.

    "Miss TESSMACHER!!!!"

  • 68W58||

    Can we start calling Swallwell "fallout boy"?

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    We should call him Ripley.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Keep Stalwell from orbiting nuclear weapons.

  • LarryA||

    Dear Rep. Eric Swalwell;

    Next time you have a Congressional security briefing, ask the folks in the green uniforms what kind of targets nuclear weapons are worth expending on. They'll tell you, "Big cities and military bases."

    1. If you're planning on using the military to take my guns away, you probably don't want to obliterate it.
    2. So, remind me where the gun control party lives?

    Sincerely: Rural American

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1000

  • croaker||

    We can start calling him "woodchipper fodder."

  • 68W58||

    Can we start calling Swallwell "fallout boy"?

  • 68W58||

    Sqwirlz.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Hey!!!!

  • Thomas O.||

    He does have a loaded gun complex, cock it and pull it.

  • Warren||

    When did you become a humorless cunt zealot Brian?

  • Sevo||

    Ha, ha. Very funny. Like food poisoning is 'funny'.

  • Jimothy||

    It sure tasted funny!

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well sure it probably was sarcastic. But it was still creepy and wrong for him to say that.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Literally nukes is the joke. There's nothing to imply his statement that violent force is a proper move here.

  • DaveSs||

    It is his specific intention that violent force be used.

    In his own words
    and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.

    An act that would be preceded by an armed force being sent to violently enter the residence of the accused, hold everybody, including children at gun point, and of course we can't forget to shoot the dogs for JBT safety, even those dogs locked in a kennel.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Sorry, I drunk posted that one.

    What I was trying to say was, that literally using nukes was the only joking part. There is nothing to imply that he disagrees with using violence against people who disagree with him. His further statements back this up

  • End Child Unemployment||

    Dude's a representative for Bay Area. This kind of shit probably plays well there and helps him get re-elected.

    Have any of these people read a history book? Or even looked at the news in the last 20 years? Rifles can't fight against a tank or nukes, tell that to the Afghanis or Iraqis or Vietnamese.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Right, I forgot that most of the Japanese computer programmers working in the Bay Area can't vote. They simply pay taxes without enjoying citizenship thanks to our work visas.

  • rhondacivic||

    Interesting. What is the mechanism? I was always under the impression that it was a damned if you do, probably damned if you don't situation for soldiers.

  • rhondacivic||

    Sorry, that was for Fist... not sure wtf happened.

  • Kivlor||

    Here's a thought... swe have enough trouble in places like Iraq and Afghanistan with guerrilla warfare. Sure, they don't take out Abrams MBTs very often, and we own the skies, but dealing with guerrilla warfare is pretty freaking difficult if you're not going to exterminate the local populace. And these are low IQ countries. Imagine trying to occupy the US, where they average IQ is ~100, or an entire standard deviation above the people we're fighting, and a people who have access to a lot more money and a lot more gadgets.

    And if you want to go the "exterminate the populace" route, what percentage of soldiers are going to obey? What percent might just respond by killing the guy giving them the order?

  • Paulpemb||

    Especially when you consider that the 'insurgents' you will be asking your soldiers to kill are, in many cases, their own friends and family.

  • Vernon Depner||

    All you have to do to exterminate our population is shut off the electricity. 90% would be dead in a few months.

  • Cloudbuster||

    Urban dwellers -- most leftists -- first. I can survive indefinitely without electricity at my ranch.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You could survive until you ran out of ammunition.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Youre assuming people dont have tens of thousands of rounds and cannot reload ammo.

  • Vernon Depner||

    You're assuming that starving urban desperadoes won't be able to come up with ammo.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    You're assuming that starving urban desperadoes won't be able to come up with ammo.

    They'd go after each other first. You really think the urban PeeOhCees, whom white liberals actually believe will serve as their shock troops in Operation Get Behind the Darkies, are going to be motivated enough to drive out the countryside instead of carving out territory in their own cities?

  • Vernon Depner||

    They'd go after each other first, but when the food ran out, they'd head into the country. Even city dwellers are vaguely aware that that's where the food comes from. Hunger can be powerfully motivating—the French Revolution has already been mentioned here.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    They'd go after each other first, but when the food ran out, they'd head into the country

    To do what, exactly? You really think the average ghetto-dweller is going to truck into the hinterlands to steal wheat crops? And then what? Munch on the berries? Come on, man.

  • Vernon Depner||

    No, they're going to be looking places where food is stored, or for people like Cloudbuster who have stashes of food. Yes, when people find themselves in a place with no food, they go on the road to find some. Flight from famine is the reason many of the world's refugees have left their homes.

  • Vernon Depner||

  • newshutz||

    Ammo won't do the starving urbanites much good, cause they turned in their guns.

  • Kivlor||

    Realistically, you probably won't survive long enough to run out of ammo, when a mob shows up to raid you. If you're lucky, they break and run when one or two go down. If you're not lucky, they don't, and honestly, one guy with a gun isn't likely to take on 20 men armed with knives and clubs.

    Even if they do break, they may return and just burn your house down. This "I'm an island and I'll survive it on my own" concept is mostly fiction.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    People in rural communities would do what they've been doing for centuries--band together to provide mutual support. Society would literally become medieval as individual homesteads contracted to smaller farms within no more than a mile or two of each other, with a central stockade to act in defense when a raid did take place.

    Anyone who did try to go it alone would get killed in short order. The main problem with SwallowWell's scenario is that you'd probably see mass defections or a military coup. As we've seen in the Middle East over the last eight years, if the army isn't on your side, you're screwed.

  • perlchpr||

    And this is why I have a 150 round drum for my FAL.

  • 68W58||

    I figure the stacks of dead bodies would dissuade most of them.

  • Flinch||

    Most people don't read books anymore: they believe whatever they find on wikipedia and look no further. What they forget [or never knew] is that site was put together by a bunch of clowns who once named their sysadmin "Will Beback". When they are a starting point, the next step is to go elsewhere and prove it - take nothing posted there as fact.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That's a standard refrain for those who preach the obsolescence of the 2nd Amendment's usefulness against a tyrannical government. It's odd, however, to see it used so openly by someone on the other side of constitutional protections, someone closer to the decision to turn weapons of war against the taxpayers who bought them.

    People forget that the United States Military is made up of Americans like you and me. They're not law enforcement who've been marinating in a culture that US citizens are the enemy. And they have a mechanism to deal with unlawful orders.

  • 68W58||

    I can just imagine the Air Force Captain or boomer Commander who gets the order to set his missile's target coordinates for, say, Pikesville Kentucky. That is going to be one furous officer.

  • Non Usable Body||

    Just giving the order would immediately guarantee one of two outcomes:
    1. A military coup.
    2. A massive mutiny.

    And, under the circumstances of that order, that would be one of the few times that option 1 would actually be justified.

  • ThomasD||

    Pikeville.

    Pikesville is in MD.

    Get your hick filled backwaters straight. Otherwise they might get offended.

  • 68W58||

    Split the difference and nuke somewhere in West Virginia then.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The reason Statist swine like this Swalwell desperately want gun control is that they are painfully aware that while they can send tanks of nukes to enforce their will on the populace, if the populace is armed, the likes of Swalwell are still very vulnerable indeed. It wouldn't even take anything that exotic; just a decent calibre rifle with a good scope.

    And Statists like Swalwell are FULL of plans for the Common Man that one or more Common Men might well want to shoot them over.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Gun nuts are among my favorite inconsequential, all-talk, no-count, disaffected right-wing losers.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Going to feed the troll...
    You do know that quite a few gun owners are vets who have been there, done that and for the fucking t-shirt? Most the military come from red States or red counties in blue states.

  • LiborCon||

    And all veterans swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As it stands now, the biggest threat to our Constitution is domestic.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I don't consider right-wing malcontents to be much of a threat. They get their asses kicked in America's culture wars and have demonstrated themselves to be powerless to prevent progress. They talk a lot from time to time, but their talk is cheap and inconsequential.

  • Agammamon||

    They got the slaves freed.

    And they got the Civil Rights Act enabled.

    They ended - and did not start - the Vietnam War. In fact, you could say it was through a Democrat's direct action there that we ended up with Nixon.

    They've never used nuclear weapons.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Today's right-wing malcontents haven't done much more than avoid decent educations, constitute the wrong end of bright flight, get addicted to street pills, provide vestigial bigotry to America, and watch America improve against their wishes and efforts.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Today's NPC hicklibs haven't done much more than spit out their pre-programmed macros.

  • The original jack burton||

    It's always difficult to tell the Real AK from the many Fake AKs who mock him with on-the-point-posts. It must be tough for him to live as a perfect example of Poe's Law.

  • MJBinAL||

    It is hard to tell them apart. It really is pretty easy to speak like a fool, so AK is really easy to mimic.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Today's right-wing malcontents haven't done much more than avoid decent educations,"'

    I always thought a decent education would teach one how to avoid generalization errors.

  • LiborCon||

    "I don't consider right-wing malcontents to be much of a threat."

    You don't? Well that changes everything.

  • NewIntellectual||

    A.L. Kirkland: I see that you're still pissed that Trump was elected, by those powerless people. And that ~100 million of those powerless people own guns and aren't going to give them up. But you're confident that the irrationalists you embrace, who want to control over 300 million people from cradle to grave, are so efficacious and will "get things done", as they have in California for example (how are those wildfires created by moronic leftist forest management policies working out for them?) Or in Venezuela. Yeah, they're about as "elite" as Forrest Gump: helpless idiots whose lives depend on those they sneer at.

  • ThomasD||

    If he 'jokes' about indescriminant murder you know that he thinks re education camps are just dandy.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Please. Congressman Swalwell is simply proposing that we turn the central 2/3rds of the country into a radioactive wasteland so that he can get his policies approved.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    No need for such drastic measures. A few more generations of bright flight -- all of the smart, ambitious, productive young people fleeing at high school graduation, never to return -- will make roughly two-thirds of the United States (land, not population or productivity or skill) a desolate wasteland populated by depleted human residue.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Maybe the rest can become paid trolls, reciting the talking points of their handlers. Like you.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I expect them to be right-wing malcontents, embittered because their bigoted and backward preferences continue to be rejected by America.

  • The original jack burton||

    Poor Artie... little to no difference between him and the local KKK member, other than the object of their hate and perhaps their wardrobe.

  • Flinch||

    Ugh. A horrible prognostication indeed: I hate New Jersey - it needs to stay right where it is.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Ugh, I'm seeing so many Republicans seize on these innocent comments. OK, maybe he could have made his point a little more eloquently. The fact remains — gun fetishism is a serious problem in this country. Almost every other developed nation has smarter gun laws, and the future of the progressive / libertarian alliance depends on libertarians embracing the progressive position on guns.

    #LibertariansForGunSense
    #BanAssaultWeapons
    #(ButDontNukeOurselves)

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    OBL, what do you think about Assange being charged? Remember, his published leaks probably prevented Hillary from claiming her destiny.

  • Sevo||

    Even more reason to like the guy!

  • BigT||

    Trump should pardon him and give him a medal. What he did was far more important than the Pentagon papers bs.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    Assange and Wikileaks are clearly among the biggest threats to American security. As you know, I am a staunch opponent of Putin's Russia, and I read on Vox that the Wikileaks / Russia relationship predates the 2016 election. Therefore Wikileaks should be viewed as an agent of a hostile foreign power.

    Russia's attack on our democracy must be understood in the context of similar attacks like Pearl Harbor and 9 / 11. When Democrats win back the Presidency I want them to get tough on Russia and Wikileaks.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Dude, you are on fire today! Keep up the good work.

  • Trollificus||

    As a fellow human being, I agree!

    #notbeingarussianbotatall #unpeachfourchans

  • Flinch||

    For me, I don't think about Assange when Hillary is the topic - he's almost irrelevant. What I think of is a woman who didn't make 1/5th of the necessary campaign stops. I also think about her catatonic incident where she was dragged off into a van unable to put one foot in front of the other and asked "do I want THAT in charge of the football?"

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    They tell us they want gun control because so many people are killed a year with guns and then they propose a scheme that will leave hundreds to thousands of times that number dead in mere months.

    Hmmm, something tells me they don't really care about the deaths.

  • mpercy||

    They don't. Not one little bit. They only care about being in control, and absolute control requires an unarmed and cowed populace.

  • Peacedog||

    This is what I find most odd about the left, is that while they have been agitating for society wide violence since at least the 1930's, they don't serve in the military and they don't own firearms. If it is Manhattan versus Texas, I'm pretty sure I know who will win.

    I lived in NYC for a time and I routinely heard the over educated chattering classes talk openly about forcing the rest of America to abide by their views using the courts, law enforcement, etc. Yet none of them seemed to understand that the other side would resist this violently. And unable to understand their extreme vulnerability in this regard. Very odd.

  • Bronze Khopesh||

    When you live in a bubble everything looks shiny.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The average NYC resident still talks like my grandparents used to talk, but can't punch like a grandparent. Hence, their efforts to intimidate people by sticking out their tongues. On the other hand, don't start fights in the homeless shelters there, because folks in those shelters are fighting over the limited supply of beds. They'll fight for real in a homeless shelter.

    Ummm ... I guess this is a good reason to not follow NYC's lead on welfare policy.

  • mpercy||

    So...there's, like, homeless shelter fight clubs?

  • ThomasD||

    Near every homeless shelter is a location where people get things sorted out.

  • Jimothy||

    Unfortunately, with a boil-the-frog approach, people likely won't resist. If you told 1900 America you were going to take a third of their income, they'd revolt. Little by little, that's where we are, and I'm sure you can think of plenty of other examples.

    Progressives are winning. Not winning in the sense that their policies have the intended effect, but winning in that their policies are law.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Yep. There are a few eccentrics out there who will take up arms when they feel the government has gone too far, but so few they will never be a significant obstacle to government oppression. And don't count on the military to save us—they will follow their orders. Remember Kent State.

  • ThomasD||

    Kent State is a cliche. The violence and deaths were orchestrated by the hard left, the sent cannon fodder to die and got exactly what they sought.

    A better example for your point is Lavoy Finicum or Vicki Weaver.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Finicum and Weaver do not illustrate my point because they were not killed by soldiers.

  • ThomasD||

    Not sure that non Federalized State guardsmen are somehow indicative of what you assert.

    Especially compared to the Federal agents that killed Weaver and Finicum.

  • Cavadus||

    You should look up the Battle of Athens (Georgia).

  • 68W58||

    It was Tennessee (if you are referring to the incident where GIs crab from WWII stopped a corrupt local sheriff from manipulating an election).

  • 68W58||

    ...GI back from WWII...

  • Michael Cox||

    It's not a third. It's over half.

  • vek||

    Even with the boil a frog approach, I do think there are certain lines that people in the USA won't allow to be crossed. I think mass gun confiscations is one of them.

    ALSO, I think one of the biggest blow it case moves the left has made has been to crank up the heat... They were doing sooooo well just moving slowly along... Then the last few years they thought they were invincible, and just cranked the heat on high... Unfortunately for them, people noticed all of a sudden, and got PISSED. A lot more people seem to realize the dire straights the country is in now vs 10 years ago IMO. So it may be hard for the left to put people back to sleep, especially since they're decided to turn the heat up EVEN MORE versus slow down.

    We'll see.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    OFF-TOPIC: More Republican dirty tricks!

    BREAKING: As expected, #UT04 GOP Rep. Mia Love (R) has pulled into the lead over Ben McAdams (D) by 419 votes. Hard to see how she relinquishes it now.

    Republicans are such sore losers. Love lost, even Drumpf admitted it, and now she might steal the election anyway? This is unacceptable. If the Democratic majority in Congress falls below the level it should be according to the #HousePopularVote, I'll be very upset.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Love never loses, OBL. Don't be such a downer.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    You could say.....

    Love conquers all.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Maybe she'll be first in line among elected officials who renounce the Republican Party as the futility of attempting to overcome the drag of Trump in modern America becomes more evident.

    Just not enough bigots and uneducated, backward losers to keep the conservative electoral coalition afloat.

  • Eddy||

    Tommy Tutone's Greatest Hits compilation is more extensive than Artie's.

  • Arizona_Guy||

    Dear Rev, you can't carry OBL's jockstrap. Stop trying.

  • MJBinAL||

    Ahem, I don't think OBL is wearing a jockstrap. Sooo, what IS the Rev carrying?

  • Rock Lobster||

    Most likely, rabies. And like a raccoon in daytime, it's best to avoid him.

  • mpercy||

    And in Florida, when the recounts favored the Republicans over the Democrats, at least two counties have apparently decided to intentionally miss the deadline so their original counts stand. But "Count Every Vote!"...

  • Flinch||

    A mere punch & judy show - don't allow separate offices and letterheads distract us from the fact that [post Newt]... we have a uniparty operating in DC.

  • n00bdragon||

    "I'm saving your life!" he nuked.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    But it's not like we should take it seriously or anything. After all, it's just a tweet.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    But I'm told by lots of reliable sources that all the nutjobs and loose cannons are to my right...….

  • BigT||

    Yes, this is precisely how you always greet Trumps tweets.

    Oh, wait...

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well we can't take him literally after all. We have to look at the holistic meaning of his tweet. He's clearly playing a game of 99th dimensional chess.

  • TuIpa||

    Why are you making a hypocritical fool of yourself?

  • TuIpa||

    I mean, seriously, you literally lose your shit about Trump tweets, then play sarcastic 12 year old about this. It's like your entire goal is to make people think you have brain damage.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Time to pull rank, Tulpa. You're trying to cite an innate biological difference between you and your intellectual sparing partner to prove that you are the more reliable source of information.

    What college degree did you get? What courses have you taken related to neurology, psychology, or psychiatry? For that matter, what's your endocrinology background? Do you have enough background in population genetics to disprove "The Bell Curve"? Furthermore, what's in my pocket?

  • ThomasD||

    Trick question.

    You aren't wearing any pants.

  • perlchpr||

    I have kilts with pockets.

  • soldiermedic76||

    I_____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
    It is the oath I swore when I was 17, and the one all federal Troops say (national guard says a different one). It first emphasises defense and allegiance to the Constitution. Most soldiers I knew took those words seriously (and the part about foreign or domestic). Also, just FYI, regulations and the UCMJ gives protection for soldiers refusing illegal orders (the beat be able to defend themselves and be damn sure the order is illegal). Nuking us citizens to take away a constitutional right probably falls under the illegal order category.

  • Horatio Cornblower||

    And the officer's oath, noting only obedience to the Constitution and not to superior officers or the POTUS:

    "I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services).

    16 years in and counting, I see the spirit of the commissioned and enlisted oaths healthy and intact.

  • Flinch||

    You expect the left to be open and honest about an attack on the constitution? Fatal flaw. They would concoct some kind of ruse much like something we've heard before, such as 'weapons of mass destruction'. A lie would fly [in the media] on that count because after vaporizing the "evidence" who's going to spot the lie?
    Beyond that, you probably note that past the oath of enlistment... the constitution never gets mentioned again - ever. A soldier can pick that back up after they get processed out at the conclusion of their service.

  • SIV||

    "Congressman, could I show you something in a tie? Hemp is very popular for someone in your profession."

  • 68W58||

    With a thirteen Windsor knot?

  • croaker||

    A woodchipper turns a useless democrat into useful fertilizer much quicker.

  • SIV||

    Buzzards gotta eat too.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Why do you hate woodchipper's so much?

  • DenverJ||

    And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes.

    Well he's not wrong.

  • Jimothy||

    I'm probably taking you too seriously, but he is wrong. Not wrong that the government has nukes, but wrong that that would make it a short war.

    If you've got gun owners in California refusing to give up their arms, what are you going to do, nuke the whole state? Actually, maybe that's not such a bad idea.

    Okay, now don't take me too seriously.

  • sarcasmic||

    They're organized. We're not. Organized violence will always triumph over the individual. That's what government is all about.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Yes, that's how it went down in Vietnam.

  • IceTrey||

    The NVA were very organized.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The NVA did not cause the most deaths of US troops.

    Most casualties came from non shooting causes- crashes, explosions, etc.

    vietnam war facts

  • Toranth||

    Throughout history, most deaths in war do not come from combat.

    Unless you claim your fight against Corporal Morbus and his squad is 'combat', of course.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I wonder if we could get him to step down with enough targeted protests in the Bay Area. This barricading idea could have potential, because the most tyrannical politicians tend to represent constituents that rely on a few major bridges to keep their local economies going. Mass transit workers severely damaged the NYC economy back in the 1970's with strikes.

    What about a weekly letter to his office promising economic disruption if he does not resign followed up with a truck breaking down on the Golden Gate Bridge every Friday morning during the rush hour commute? It is really easy to arrange to have a flat tire or a loose gasket on one's own truck. It only takes about 100 patriotic truckers to significantly damage the economy of a district for an entire term when a politician crosses the line like that.

  • ThomasD||

    The pointy end of that organized spear has a very big and very soft tail.

    There also are not remotely enough of the to protect the Swalwells of the government.

    Assymetric warfare means not playing to your enemy's strengths.

  • The original jack burton||

    The know-nothings actually think we are going to waste our time trying to shoot the cops/soldiers coming to our doors.

  • Ablutomania||

    Wolverines!

  • TangoDelta||

    Wait, not just yet! I've only got a little more than 6 months left on my contract and I'll be outta Sud Cali for good. Plus all my Cali guns are just like many democrat voters, undocumented.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Nah. We know you're kidding. Besides, 3 or 4 bunker busters deployed at key spots along the San Andreas fault would do the trick just fine.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    In fairness to Rep. Swalwell, after every mass shooting there are cries that we have to DO SOMETHING!!!! Nuking a huge chunk of the country certainly counts as SOMETHING. And killing off 2/3 of the population would absolutely reduce crime on an absolute basis, although the per capita impact would depend on specifically where you sent the nukes.

  • Frank Thorn||

  • Flinch||

    South Vietnamese were desperate sensing holes in their proverbial bucket: they were indeed sold out, beginning in our own government where daily orders were leaked to the Swedish embassy for forwarding to the VC. Every facet of that war stunk to high heaven.

  • Widhalm19||

    The goal of all collectivists is absolute power over people's lives. This is why Radicals, Progressives, Socialists and Communists must be crushed in whatever way necessary. They are the enemy of Liberty and always have been liars, thieves and murderers. Death To All Tyrants!

  • Rich||

    we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, [but the] ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

    "We must close the shooting club loophole!"

  • Flinch||

    Would you settle for banning sheriffs from gaining office who are [or have been] registered democrats?

  • Ecoli||

    Swalwell is scum. I have seen him on Carlson a couple of times. Makes my skin crawl.

  • Alcibiades||

    He really does, there's something extremely oily and unpleasant beneath that Stepford smile the little weasel attention whore plasters across his face.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    You watch Carlson?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Some of us are adults, and watch things other than the teletubbies Little Jeffy.

  • Fancylad||

    You watch Maddow?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    No actually I don't.

  • Jerryskids||

    What's interesting to me is his belief that it's the government that has the nukes. What happened to "We the People" being in charge of government? Don't We the People have the nukes?

  • ATXChappy||

    Some animals are more equal than others comes to mind.

  • ATXChappy||

    Some animals are more equal than others comes to mind.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Government is simply the name for the mass destruction that we choose to do together.

  • ATXChappy||

    I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was being sarcastic about the nuke strike. But, regardless of his weapon of choice, Isn't his basic argument that the 2nd amendment really doesn't exists anymore because the government already has enough power to annihilate anyone who would defy them?

  • Jimothy||

    You're probably right. You think you can fight the government? Ha, we will f you up quicker that you can recite the 2nd amendment! Charming, isn't he?

    So if his point is that you can't fight the US government with your puny guns, at worst this means the right to bear arms is necessary but not sufficient.

  • Rockabilly||

    Swalwell is a fucking asshole commie ass hat fucktard.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Kill a commie for mommy!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The right-wing malcontents are getting crankier. Perhaps they sense that Mr. Mueller is about to end his silent period and start indicting Trump's friends and family. Or maybe they fear how badly the Trump administration is going to handle a flaming shitstorm of subpoenas and investigations.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Arthur L. Hicklib has his fantasy hat on this morning.

  • Paulpemb||

    Good thing we now have 6 years of precedent of the media and the Left cheering every time the Executive branch tells the House to shove their subpoenas up their ass.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Typical FBI Uniform Crime Report of the past few years, the table on Homicides broken down by Weapons shows
    ~ 700 with Personal Weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)
    ~ 400 with Rifles of all types (including AKs, ARs as a subset of rifles).
    This very day you are more likely to be murdered by an assailant with a Personal Weapon than by an assailant with an assault rifle.
    There is a Constitutional Amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms for all traditionally lawful purposes including the military issue rifles especially protected by US v Miller 1939 as most suitable for militia preparedness training.
    There is no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to Personal Weapons.
    The danger of assailants armed with Personal Weapons compared to thoses armed with Assault Rifles is more imminent and greater; therefore, the public safety can be insured without pesky constitutional quibbling by banning Personal Weapons now.

    Or maybe we oughta concentrate on the assailants, rather than the people who own similar weapons, personal or assault, knives, clubs, rocks, whatever.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Pointed sticks. Or even fresh fruit.

  • Rock Lobster||

    And never forget, you backward, half-educated, bitter clinging rubes... the government has tigers. Tigers!

  • The original jack burton||

    Gen. George Washington showed us how to deal with government tigers...

    https://tinyurl.com/ybrs9anf

    Link goes to twitchy.com

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

  • Flinch||

    I was wondering if there was anybody that published who would ever source from Shikha. Now we know. Of note: the conclusion is 180 degrees out of phase. Milton clearly indicated you could have an open society or a welfare society but NOT both at the same time.

  • perlchpr||

    That's glorious. :D

  • BigT||

    Shouldn't Swalwell suffer some punishment for this outrage? 50 million is a lot of death threats.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Kicked off Twitter 50 million times?

  • TangoDelta||

    Never happen, he's @Jack's bj buddy.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    How's Gab doing?

  • NoVaNick||

    Can you imagine the howls from this guy and his fellow progtards if Trump or any GOP politician said such a thing about illegal immigrants?

  • TangoDelta||

    I'm thinking we should accept the progtard term of undocumented immigrants and I'm sure they'll see that we're trying to reach across the aisle and stop referring to homemade firearms as "ghost guns" and will use the proper term undocumented firearms.

    What? Why is everyone laughing?

  • Curly4||

    Instead of Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)'s bill to confiscation of weapons that he calls assault weapons why not just enforce the laws that are on the books now. For instance it is a crime just to use a weapon in the commission of a crime but all to often that crime is almost forgotten. Example: to use a gun in a robbery is a crime as well as the crime of robbery yet all to often one of the crimes is plea-bargained down to almost nothing and then the sentence is served at the same time instead serving one then the other. This should be normal to have to serve one sentence before serving the second sentence when the crime is the second or subsequent crime.
    But I will bet that the person that refuses to sell their "assault" weapon to the government will receive more punishment than a person who uses an unregistered weapon in the commission of a crime although the owner of the "assault" weapon has not ever been accused of a weapons crime.

  • TuIpa||

    Holy shit this thread is infested with garbage posters, chemjeff, CMB and that fucking wacko SQwenttotallyinsane it's like the three of them decided they wanted to prove they're morons all at once.

    Is it any wonder I kick them around so often? Fuck, CMB admitted he was afraid to debate me because he's never come away looking like anything other than a head injury patient.

    And of course that fucking loser prog chemleft is gonma piss and moan...

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    In America's culture war, Tulpa plays the role of Omega Chip at the end of Animal House, assuring us that 'all is well' for the defeated, impotent right-wingers.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    And Kirkland plays the role of Greg Marmalard, wielding any shred of power he has against those he hates, while his girlfriend (if I may be so bold to assume) is sleeping with his rival.

  • The original jack burton||

    No, Artie is the guy on the stairs who gets his guitar smashed...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V_hCqO6UQs

  • The original jack burton||

    No, Artie is the guy on the stairs who gets his guitar smashed...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V_hCqO6UQs

  • MJBinAL||

    AK's rival has a thing for sheep too!

    I think it will be ok, I think AK is dating a goat now.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Defeated right wingers? Funny, the electoral map says something far different.

    But progtards gotta progtard, right Arty?

  • Longtobefree||

    Please stop using facts on a web post platform, it interferes with the intended use of impotent ranting.
    Thank You.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Republicans control every left-behind-and-never-coming-back hamlet in America, every no-count rural wasteland. Democrats control the successful, productive, educated, modern states and cities.

    They have lost the fight to control American progress, however, for decades, and are position to keep losing. Their betters call the shots, then right-wingers whine about it and talk about how 'one of these days' they're going to do something about it.

  • Flinch||

    You do know that without farmland... you're left with lead paint chips on the menu. You need them, they need you.

  • Fancylad||

    Nobody needs Kirkland.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    We need agricultural companies, which increasingly require fewer and less-skilled employees, and low commodity prices.

  • soldiermedic76||

    You don't know shit about agriculture. Again companies don't run farms or ranches dipshit (with a few exceptions). The AG companies sell supplies to farmers and or buy the product farmers produce. The idea of corporate farms is completely misunderstood. Most "corporate farms" are family owned and operated. They incorporate for tax, regulatory, insurance and inheritance reasons. They are corporations in name only. Once again you demonstrate you complete lack of knowledge.

  • RabbitHead||

    They'll get to taking care of the Kulaks soon enough...

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Republicans control every left-behind-and-never-coming-back hamlet in America, every no-count rural wasteland.""

    Yet liberals are leaving big cities for these wastelands.

    ""Democrats control the successful, productive, educated, modern states and cities."'

    Which is why they are leaving the cities for the wastelands.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Little Jeffy is usually afraid to respond to me anymore. Is he a in his early twenties? He sounds like a really deluded college freshman.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Crap, Bill Goldman died. R.I.P.

  • Eddy||

    Shit.

    I had to read his obituary to find out how great he was.

    Well, RIP.

  • Eddy||

    (At first I confused him with William ("Lord of the Flies") Golding, but that dude's been dead since the 90s.)

  • Olga||

    He is not threatening to nuke Americans. He is taking the "we need guns to protect us from a corrupt government" to its logical conclusion. Look at what happened in Boston after the bombing at the marathon. Local police (not even the military) closed the entire city of Boston for 2 days to find the guys.

    Now if local police can do it, even if you have 100 guns, if there is ever a situation like Syria, where protesters decide to protest the government and the government refuses to reform, you get civil war. You get a lot of dead people. The government has tanks chemical and nuclear weapons. If the US government wants to quell an uprising it can, long before breaking out nuclear weapons. The argument that gun ownership is keeping the government honest is horseshit. You would have to get the military itself on your side if things got that bad.

    I am not against gun rights. I have family that live in the rural Midwest. If they call 911, they might get a response in 30 minutes to an hour. So they need a gun to protect their property and hunt.

    Both sides are stupid. There are good reasons to have gun control to prevent crazy people from getting guns and shooting up a movie theater or gangs from shooting up a neighborhood in the city. However, if you want to protect your home, engage in sport or hunt, you need a gun. We can make gun laws that provide for both.

  • Eddy||

    Guns may also be useful against mobs loosely affiliated with a major political party, whose members surround your house while your wife is there alone.

  • Doug Huffman||

    We have made gun laws that provide for both. They don't work.

    Good behavior cannot be legislated.

    Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and The Truth. God Bless US Bitter Clingers.

  • Widhalm19||

    LOL The military and the police forces will defend the rule of law moron. The 2nd Amendment is our Constitutional right. Citizens with firearms would assist the military in finding and killing people who want to destroy liberty .... people like you Leftist.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Being rendered impotent and inconsequential as society improves against their wishes has embittered the Widhalm19's of our nation. Swallow a handful of street pills, Widhalm, and dream of going back to the '50s. It will make you feel better, maybe enough to get you to stop whining so loud that others can hear you.

  • Fancylad||

    He is taking the "we need guns to protect us from a corrupt government" to its logical conclusion.

    Listen, I'm going to try and explain it.

    A totalitarian government wants control of humans, not irradiated glass. You can't control an entire country and it's people with nukes, tanks, jets, battleships, drones or anything that idiots like Swalwell think trumps citizen ownership of firearms.
    Nukes, tanks, drones and battleships can not stand on street corners and enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet can't kick down your door at 3 AM and search for contraband.

    None of these things, especially nukes, can maintain the needed police state to completely subjugate and enslave a nation. A government doesn't want to kill everyone and blow up it's own infrastructure. These are the things it needs to be a tyranny in the first place. If they used nukes on everything outside of DC, they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of crap.

  • Fancylad||

    Police are always needed to maintain a police state. Boots on the ground. And no matter how many police you have on the ground, they will always be vastly outnumbered by civilians, which is why in a police state it is vital that your police have automatic weapons, while the people have nothing but their own limp dicks.

    BUT, when every pedestrian has a Glock, and every homeowner has an AR-15, all that goes right out the window, because the Stasi are now outnumbered and face the real possibility of defeat.

    If you want living examples, look at every insurgency the US military has tried to destroy. They're all still kicking with nothing more than AK-47's, pickup trucks and improvised explosives, because the big, scary military machines are all but useless in dealing with them.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    I got a few digs in on him earlier tonight on Twitter over his shit. Swalwell is a loathsome cunt, which is pretty much par for the course for Proggie gun-grabber dirtbags. What's hilarious is watching all the know-nothings defending his words, as if any nation-state could survive using thermonuclear arms (let alone less indiscriminate arms like Hellfire armed drones) to stop a homegrown insurgency.

  • Ordinary Person||

    Swalwell's point wasn't that the govt would use nukes to defeat you treasonous fucks. He was simply pointing out the futility of resorting to violence against our military.

  • PeteRR||

    So he's assuming deploying the police to collect weapons will fail miserably and sending infantry into the streets is the necessary next step?

  • Fancylad||

    Nukes, tanks, drones and battleships can not stand on street corners and enforce "no assembly" edicts. A fighter jet can't kick down your door at 3 AM and search for contraband. You need police for your police state, not soldiers.

    Swalwell's point was idiotic, because authoritarian regimes don't want to kill everyone and blow up their own infrastructure. These are the things it needs to be a tyranny in the first place. If they used nukes on everything outside of DC, they would be the absolute rulers of a big, worthless, radioactive pile of shit.

    Every insurgency the US military has tried to destroy is still kicking with nothing more than automatic rifles, 4x4s and cell-phone bombs, because the military is useless in dealing with them.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    Treasonous. That's rich. Which asshole sockpuppet are you? Tony, maybe? Hihn? I can never keep up with all the douchebag Proggie fucksticks infest the comments. Go crawl back under whatever rock you inhabited and let the adults talk.

  • perlchpr||

    I don't think Tony socks. I think Tony is proud to post all of his idiocy under his own name.

    I am ever more convinced that Kirkland is a bot with some guidance from time to time.

    Hihn is a poorly written bot designed for sodomizing goats and shitposting.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    "STOP RESISTING" the shitlib shrieks.

  • soldiermedic76||

    You are assuming the military is going to agree to fire on their fathers and brothers and sisters and cousins. This is a rather huge assumption.

  • Mickey Rat||

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is already the common law you are required to obey, Swalwell.

  • Michael Cox||

    I think he has forgotten his oath:

    I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

  • Widhalm19||

    The important message here is a Leftist bureaucrat is reminding Americans they can and will be killed if they do not obey their authoritarian masters. Dickless Swallwell is an enemy of liberty and individual freedom. Death To All Tyrants!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Either go the "full LaVoy," Widhalm, or stop whimpering.

  • Widhalm19||

    Typed like the beta-male Leftist coward you are .....

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Only after you and yours go the "full Kent State," hicklib.

  • Liberty Lover||

    So if I fail to turn over my guns, the government will nuke my whole neighborhood?

  • Ordinary Person||

    No, if you start a war with our govt you'll be destroyed because we have a more capable fighting force then you rebel fucks.

  • Naaman Brown||

    So us refusing to surrender guns = starting a war with your government?

    Tennessee is one of the states that has a right to keep and bear arms quarantee in its Constitution, Article I Declaration of Rights (Section 26).

    Decades ago Tennessee went on the record that the State will not enforce a federal gun prohibition seen as violating the right of its citizens to keep and bear arms for traditional lawful purposes.

    This is similar to states that have rejected the federal prohibition on marijuana and refuse to enforce it.

    Federale Swalwell sees nukes as an option in enforcing gun bans. If that's acceptable, what would be the argument pro/con using nukes against states to enforce the federal pot ban?

  • Rock Lobster||

    "So us refusing to surrender guns = starting a war with your government?"

    Yes. in the same way that: Anyone who doesn't agree with the progressive agenda in toto = Nazi.

    Extraordinary logic from an "Ordinary Person" who refers to the government as "we."

  • Liberty Lover||

    Ordinary Person read that in the Constitution. "We the people" right there in the first line. See he is a Constitutionalist, though a bit of a demented one.

    Seems I am a "rebel fuck" though. That must mean being a US veteran, voting in every election and paying all my taxes in full and on time, along with owning a gun, as that pretty much describes me. Not sure which one makes me a "rebel fuck" though. Maybe having served in the Armed Forces? NO, NO, I own a gun!

  • Widhalm19||

    If war ever comes to this land, those of us who stand by the 2nd Amendment will be on the side of the military and police forces idiot .... and you'll be pissing your pants while hiding in a hole.

  • Bearded Spock||

    In a regular stand-up fight, absolutely. The US military can easily kick the ass of any uniformed fighting force that tries to hang with them using conventional tactics and weapons.

    However, as we have seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's far more difficult to pacify a population when a significant percentage of that population isn't willing to be pacified, and instead is willing shoot at random troops and set out booby traps.

    Given that the estimated number of civilian owners of "assault weapons" outnumber the combined US military and police forces by at least 5 to 1, it won't be the easy lark that Swalwell thinks it is.

  • The original jack burton||

    "The US military can kick the ass of any uniformed fighting force..."

    The advantage of every war the US military has fought (with two exceptions, the Revolutionary and Civil War) has been overseas where our government leadership was never in danger. And in those two wars the prevailing ethos was that you didn't target that particular target. Those days are gone.

    Which of those politicians who believe that the "armed/police forces" can handle the rabble that Artie believes is out there are willing to live in virtual house arrest to prevent their being targeted? Their families? When your neighbor is indistinguishable from the "enemy" who's to say your neighbor isn't willing to target you as a traitorous politician?

  • BillEverman||

    The same bullheaded stupidity that thinks an American insurgency would be rapidly crushed by the awesomeness of the US military leads idiots to recommend unending military intervention in other peoples' fights abroad. Why do people who presumably saw how miserably we failed to rapidly address insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan keep chanting "next time will be different," and why in hell would it be easier to put down an insurgency in the US, where the government has a vested interest in not destroying infrastructure, a concern that the very top of the command chain is in the war zone and vulnerable, and everybody has friends and family that might be on the other side?

  • The original jack burton||

    Isn't it amazing that folk such as OP really, really, believe in their heart that the American military will completely roll over and obey a tyrannical government. In reality he is just projecting the desires of his own.

  • The original jack burton||

    Isn't it amazing that folk such as OP really, really, believe in their heart that the American military will completely roll over and obey a tyrannical government. In reality he is just projecting the desires of his own.

  • soldiermedic76||

    How many of us gun owners do you think are veterans? Have had the same training as the military? Have actually been there, done that and have gotten the fucking t-shirt?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""No, if you start a war with our govt you'll be destroyed because we have a more capable fighting force then you rebel fucks.""

    Lol, I'm sure that's been our thought every time we started an operation that would later become to be known as a quagmire, leaving us scratching our heads 15 years later wondering what went wrong.

  • Longtobefree||

    Any bets on when his account will be deleted for making terroristic threats?

  • Ordinary Person||

    You mean the guy and his ilk who say they would start a war with our duly elected govt to resist another and more complete assault weapons ban?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Better make sure you're armed and ready to enlist for the struggle, shitlib.

  • perlchpr||

    You have categorically misunderstood who will be "starting the war" in that situation.

  • AlmightyJB||

    We have to kill you all in order to save you. /compassionate liberals.

  • Brian||

    Remember: no one wants to take your guns away.

  • Jerry B.||

    If Rep. Swalwell's tweet showed up in a Washington Post article, it'd probably get hundreds of likes and approving comments.

    That's the folks we have to deal with.

  • AlgerHiss||

    Were confiscation ever put in place, American copping (local police and sheriff, state "troopers", FBI, ATF, DEA, Border Patrol) would partake without batting an eye. They'd do whatever their "shift commander" or "duty sergeant" told them to do.

    Don't think for a second these people would be your friend in this situation. That mammoth US flag they usually display on their arm or chest is nothing more than street theatrics.

  • AFSlade||

    Not true. I thought the same thing, until it actually happened. Because you know who owns a TON of those guns that need confiscatin'? Cops. Malloy in CT ordered it and the CT police refused to do it because their union said, "nuh uh." Openly, in fact. They took out an article in the local rag, but more importantly, they simply didn't do it. They refused and Malloy backed down.

    I wonder if that makes Artie and the other cowards cry?

  • Rock Lobster||

    Yes. Yes it does.

  • Rock Lobster||

    As a practical matter, I doubt that. Too few door kickers, and too many doors. Not to mention that the vast majority of those who serve at the pointy end of the government stick really have no desire to get shot fulfilling someone else's authoritarian fantasy.

  • Vernon Depner||

    But if they see someone's authoritarian fantasy being reified, they're going to be damn sure they're on the winning side that has the guns when the gates swing shut. That means the side with the nukes, not the side with Daddy's shotgun.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Some would, some would not. But your speculation is contrary to what little evidence exists. Thus far, the most instructive example of how the great gun confiscation debate peters out is that of Connecticut, as pointed out above. The idea that the "gates swing shut" is part of the authoritarian fantasy. Anticlimactic and unfulfilling, I know, but there you are.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Cuomo won't enforce his own assault weapons registration. It's estimated to have less than a 5% compliance rate.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Cuomo is an evil and small minded little troll, but he is a crafty and risk averse politician. He understands that actually enforcing his ban has nothing but downside for him personally. The ban exists, and that is enough to enhance his power.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Do you think nuclear weapons are a realistic option? Even a small tactical nuke is completely unrealistic.

  • perlchpr||

    100,000,000 gun owners, 85,000 SWAT certified door kickers.

  • vek||

    Of the military guys I've talked to about this subject, I have never met one who SAID they would go through with with gun confiscations. Not one. This has been with a few guys over the years. I was actually talking to an active duty guy about similar things just the other night, and while we didn't talk about taking guns, we did talk about secession... He said he wouldn't be down with following the orders of some leftist asshat politicians, and neither would most of the guys he serves with.

    Now I'm sure SOME of them would puss out... But a good chunk wouldn't. If the military doesn't full on defect from the bad civilian government and it's bullshit orders, it will at least split almost instantly, and most of them would lean towards following some form of right wing tilted leadership.

  • No Longer Amused||

    Swalwell is the new Biden? Marxists are always mad when one of them forgets to keep the agenda under wraps.

  • Olderthandirt-stillkickin||

    This is the kind of elected official who should represent his cell block, not his community. To have such a mind set and "mean it" is stupid; to express such a mind set as a joke would sink to the "idiotic" level. The British were also arrogant in the face of a few rag tag colonists armed with their "household" guns and farm implements. Soldiers can ALWAYS be manipulated into doing the unthinkable (consider our history of nation-wrecking, and Kent State), but don't stand a chance in the LONG run against an armed and determined population.

  • Vernon Depner||

    an armed and determined population.

    The US has the former; not the latter. A potential armed insurrection in this country would be easily put down. The US armed forces or federal agents would only need to shoot down a handful of armed "patriots" and the rest would wet their pants and surrender. You've cited a good example—Kent State was the death knell of the 60s-70s violent uprising. There was a brief outbreak of violent reaction to the shootings, but then the "revolution" was over.

  • ejhickey||

    those were lefties . You are dealing with a different population .

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Bundy showdown to federal agents completely disproves your position.

    Armed Americans stood up to armed federal agents and the feds backed off.

    They indicted bundy and his sons who got a hung jury. All federal charges were dismissed with prejudice.

    If every patriot kills one federal of military member in self defense, there are simply not enough useful idiots to take the replacement government job and get killed.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The Bundy showdown to federal agents completely disproves your position.

    Armed Americans stood up to armed federal agents and the feds backed off.

    No, it doesn't disprove my point, because the agents backed off. If the agents had called in reinforcements and shot the Bundys, then we would have seen a test of my assertion.

  • Nardz||

    The Weavers, the Davidians, the Bundys - just a bunch of fringe loons, an idea the media made sure relentlessly.
    Sure, the US population didn't rise up in response to the murder of those "loons".
    But "fringe loons" is a classification that's (necessarily) being ever expanded, especially in relation to disarmament.
    What happens when people start to see themselves as included into that group of loons on the fringe?
    Well, OKC comes to mind.
    The more people you include as lions, the greater force the fringe becomes.

  • AFSlade||

    I love how all of the left-wing retard who have never owned or been near a gun are here to tell us how there is no hope in resisting the forces of the govt. It's almost like none of you morons have ever been a part of a military force or an occupation or read a single sliver of history. Hey, halfwits, the reason you can't subdue Afghanistan is because as long as the people have guns in their homes, you're not safe when you sleep. It's why the troops have to be behind walls. It's why the British couldn't take us, either.

    Chemretard, ArthurCuntlib, and the rest of you, please tell me all about your vast experience with being an occupying force. EVEN IF you could get enough of the military to go along with the order, where are they going to sleep at night? How long before people's families start getting capped? The DC sniper crippled and terrified all of NoVA and that was one disaffected schlub and a teenager. Imagine what, say, a few hundred well-trained Marine snipers could do if they decided they weren't so keen on Swalwell's confiscation order.

    I love how stupid and cocky people like you are. You're always talking shit with someone else's prowess and lives. You're beneath my contempt.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Where exactly did I advocate for gun control again? I didn't.

    Oh wait, did you mistake my sarcastic 'defense' of his tweet as being pro-gun control? No I was actually mocking the retards around here who hold Trump to no standards at all and insist that anyone who thinks he ought to be held to some standard at all is just suffering from TDS. Trump issues some tweet saying stupid shit, we are all just supposed to blow it off and not take it seriously. But some backbencher congresscritter issues some tweet saying stupid shit, and it's a real pants-wetting affair around here.

    I don't think Trump is serious with most of his tweets. I don't think Swalwell here is serious with this tweet. But it would be nice to see a little consistency from the Trumpbots around here.

  • Nardz||

    The hive mind is unwell.

  • Naaman Brown||

    According to the sacred Mann hockey stick chart, the 1816 "Year with no Summer" was the start of the Great Man-made Global Warming of the Industrial Age: no Medieval Warming Period (when there were vineyards in England, and the ocean was deeper and the Lafoten Maelstrom was awesome) and no Little Ice Age. Nope. Just a pristine balance of climate until the evil hand of man set its carbon footprint upon nature with Man-made Global Warming. Better watch it. Gun control is not the only issue our betters might decide to unleash nukes over.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It's democracy; Revolutions rarely happen in functioning democracies, and basically never succeed, because elections are really war games; We periodically hold war games to determine who'd likely win a civil war, and then peacefully hand the likely winner control of the government without having to have an actual war. Elections are wars, only without the shooting.

    This assumes, of course, that elections aren't rigged, and that nobody is going to take a bare majority achieved for a moment as the occasion to do something horribly provoking... That latter condition is really breaking down these days.

  • Nardz||

    ^excellent post, Brett

  • vek||

    True. But the thing is when you have even saaay a 60/40 split over major issues, and that 40% is really determined, and is the side with the skillsets needed to win a revolution... It's not that tough. Which is why if it comes to it I have zero doubt the right wing would win in such a situation in the USA. The left seems to be doing everything in their power to almost force the right to whoop their asses. We'll see how it all goes down.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    As I keep saying, go ahead. Ban guns. Let the police and military lead by example. You go first.

  • damikesc||

    I notice that the nightly news isn't leading off "nuke-gate" stories...

  • JonFrum||

    I've been saying recently that we're heading for a low-level civil war, and people don't take me seriously. But I know two things. If you keep raising the temperature, eventually, this shit will boil over. And I also know who owns the guns. I see assissinations and bombings coming, and it's no joke.


    Personally, I own no guns - I'm afraid I'd kill myself with one. So I'll be indoors, eating popcorn and watching TV.

  • Fancylad||

    Until your door is kicked in and your house is searched for weapons anyway ("We see by your IP records that you frequented libertarian websites, sir").

  • Arizona_Guy||

    What progs don't think about is that a "war on guns" will have the same "disparate impact" as the war on drugs and "stop and frisk".

    Cops aren't going to kick down doors in Scottsdale, they'll start in West Phoenix.

  • dchang0||

    Agreed.

    To some degree this played out on a micro level when the Maryland police just recently killed (murdered) a gun owner under their new gun confiscation scheme.

    Supposedly it was a family member who used the "red flag law" on this guy, and now the guy is dead. So I wonder whether that family member's eyes are opened to the reality that the gov't is a very lethal weapon that can easily create serious unintended consequences.

  • dchang0||

    IF this buyback ever happens, I invite all of you out there to do what several clever people have already done:

    Let's all make fake guns out of steel pipe and wood blocks and sell them to the gov't in the buyback. There's necessarily a no-questions-asked policy in buybacks, and we can easily clean out the gov't account (filled with taxpayer money taken from us) used to fund the buyback.

    Buybacks will stop immediately.

  • Naaman Brown||

    National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council,
    "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" (2004) Gun Buy-Backs
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph.....81&page=95

    Gun buy-back programs involve a government or private group paying individuals to turn in guns they possess. The programs do not require the participants to identify themselves, in order to encourage participation by offenders or those with weapons used in crimes. The guns are then destroyed. The theoretical premise for gun buy-back programs is that the program will lead to fewer guns on the streets because fewer guns are available for either theft or trade, and that consequently violence will decline. It is the committee's view that the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs.

    The theory on which gun buy-back programs is based is flawed in three respects.

    First, the guns that are typically surrendered in gun buy-backs are those that are least likely to be used in criminal activities. Typically, the guns turned in tend to be of two types: (1) old, malfunctioning guns whose resale value is less than the reward offered in buy-back programs or (2) guns owned by individuals who derive little value from the possession of the guns (e.g., those who have inherited guns). The Police Executive Research Forum (1996) found this in their analysis of the differences between weapons handed in and those used in crimes.

  • Naaman Brown||

    \contd\
    The Police Executive Research Forum (1996) found this in their analysis of the differences between weapons handed in and those used in crimes. In contrast, those who are either using guns to carry out crimes or as protection in the course of engaging in other illegal activities, such as drug selling, have actively acquired their guns and are unlikely to want to participate in such programs.

    Second, because replacement guns are relatively easily obtained, the actual decline in the number of guns on the street may be smaller than the number of guns that are turned in.

    Third, the likelihood that any particular gun will be used in a crime in a given year is low. In 1999, approximately 6,500 homicides were committed with handguns. There are approximately 70 million handguns in the United States. Thus, if a different handgun were used in each homicide, the likelihood that a particular handgun would be used to kill an individual in a particular year is 1 in 10,000. The typical gun buy-back program yields less than 1,000 guns. Even ignoring the first two points made above (the guns turned in are unlikely to be used by criminals and may be replaced by purchases of new guns), one would expect a reduction of less than one-tenth of one homicide per year in response to such a gun buy-back program. The program might be cost-effective if those were the correct parameters, but the small scale makes it highly unlikely that its effects would be detected.

  • Naaman Brown||

    \contd\
    In light of the weakness in the theory underlying gun buy-backs, it is not surprising that research evaluations of U.S. efforts have consistently failed to document any link between such programs and reductions in gun violence (Callahan et al., 1994; Police Executive Research Forum, 1996; Rosenfeld, 1996).

    Outside the United States there have been a small number of buy-backs of much larger quantities of weapons, in response to high-profile mass murders with firearms. Following a killing of 35 persons in Tasmania in 1996 by a lone gunman, the Australian government prohibited certain categories of long guns and provided funds to buy back all such weapons in private hands (Reuter and Mouzos, 2003). A total of 640,000 weapons were handed in to the government (at an average price of approximately $350), constituting about 20 percent of the estimated stock of weapons. The weapons subject to the buy-back, however, accounted for a modest share of all homicides or violent crimes more generally prior to the buy-back. Unsurprisingly, Reuter and Mouzos (2003) were unable to find evidence of a substantial decline in rates for these crimes. They noted that in the six years following the buy-back, there were no mass murders with firearms and fewer mass murders than in the previous period; these are both weak tests given the small numbers of such incidents annually.

  • Naaman Brown||

    \ADDED:\
    New Zealand did not yield to pressure from John Howard to join his Australian "buy back" scheme. (They had dismantled their national rifle and shotgun registry as a waste of resources in 1983 and thus could not call a mandatory turn in of registered rifles and shotguns as Australia did). The Kiwis did not have any mass shootings as a result.

    Canada also dismantled their rifle and shotgun registry a few years ago as a waste of resources that could be put to better use actually going after criminals rather than demonizing gun owners.

  • Naaman Brown||

    \contd\
    I have an old shotgun I bought for parts for $8. Eight dollars. Ended up I did not need the parts from it. Noble Model 40 pump action 12ga. I did restore it to safe function. As a single shot. With the magazine in reserve to hand feed the action. Good platform to burn up black powder blanks, bird bombs, dragon's breath,red meteor flares, pyrotechnics, out-of-date junk ammo. Nice as a snakegun with Minishells. Got eight dollars in it. Surplus to my needs. Got better guns in good repair for serious use. I could turn a huge profit "selling" it in a buy-back. I would not do it. (1) Buy backs are bull shit. (2) Local authorities have been too smart to stage useless buybacks anyway. (3) I will not participate in a fraud even if it means turning an $8 piece of junk into a $150 gift card.

    Penn & Teller got it right years ago: Gun Control Is Bullshit. Swalwell et al want to nuke me for not buying into bullshit? Ha.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    The conceited left is conceited. And dangerously incompetent. Not much difference between this guy and the political class that's been running Venezuela.

  • ejhickey||

    So he is in favor of Mass Murder? guess we found the real Fascist and Neo Nazi.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Finally, a left liberal democrat admits the truth: they despise the American people and fantasize about killing us.

    Thanks for unintentionally confirming why it's so necessary for us to keep our firearms, jackass.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Liberal Democrats are the American people. The influential, productive people who have crafted the course of American progress and built our successful communities throughout our lifetimes.

  • Widhalm19||

    LOL Most Leftists are highly-urbanized, totally dependent parasites with few if any essential knowledge, skills or wisdom who exist only off the work and products of people they despise. Man ... you are one dumb fella.

  • pimpingyousoftly||

    From Eric Swalwell's website: I support a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, with Israel recognized as a Jewish state with SECURE BORDERS alongside a state for the Palestinian people which is DEMILITARIZED...

    I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 837, the Build Bridges Not Walls Act, which would prohibit the implementation of President Trump's executive order to build a wall all along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 3440, the Dream Act of 2017, a bipartisan bill which would provide Dreamers — young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and have lived in the U.S. at least four years — protection from deportation and an opportunity to obtain legal status if they meet certain requirements. Since President Trump announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program's termination, I have voted more than 20 times to bring the DREAM Act to the House Floor for consideration.

    I'm an original cosponsor of H.R. 4944, the Reuniting Families Act, which would cut the backlog causing the separation of 4.4 million family members from U.S. citizens and green card holders. (I cosponsored this as H.R. 4798 in the 114th Congress and as H.R. 717 in the 113th Congress.)

    I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 4271, which would prohibit the use of any funds or fees to implement President Trump's executive order blocking travel from majority Muslim countries.

  • pimpingyousoftly||

    From Eric Swalwell's website: I support a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, with Israel recognized as a Jewish state with SECURE BORDERS alongside a state for the Palestinian people which is DEMILITARIZED...

    I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 837, the Build Bridges Not Walls Act, which would prohibit the implementation of President Trump's executive order to build a wall all along the U.S.-Mexico border.

    I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 3440, the Dream Act of 2017, a bipartisan bill which would provide Dreamers — young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children and have lived in the U.S. at least four years — protection from deportation and an opportunity to obtain legal status if they meet certain requirements. Since President Trump announced the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program's termination, I have voted more than 20 times to bring the DREAM Act to the House Floor for consideration.

    I'm an original cosponsor of H.R. 4944, the Reuniting Families Act, which would cut the backlog causing the separation of 4.4 million family members from U.S. citizens and green card holders. (I cosponsored this as H.R. 4798 in the 114th Congress and as H.R. 717 in the 113th Congress.)

    I'm a cosponsor of H.R. 4271, which would prohibit the use of any funds or fees to implement President Trump's executive order blocking travel from majority Muslim countries.

  • qoheleth||

    To be honest, I think Swalwell was trying to make a point that I've raised myself. You begin with Joe Briggs rightly saying that, if you were to engage in any large-scale gun confiscation, you'd have a war on your hands as people would refuse to give them up. Swalwell simply points out that, when it comes to firepower, the government has all the nice toys (nukes being at the top of that pile). If it actually came to an all-out confrontation between government-supplied military-trained troops and private citizens, it might take longer than Swalwell thinks, but I have no confidence that the citizens would triumph. It's a fair consideration, but he could have made the point in a lot more coherent way.

  • perlchpr||

    You really think the military is going to shoot their own families?

    At least National Guard units could be deployed out of state entirely, so you'd avoid that, but full time US military units are a completely mixed bag, from all parts of the country.

    The officers likely wouldn't give the orders in the first place, and the enlisted men would likely frag their officers if they did.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I want to believe that. But the largest state sponsored mass murderers killed millions of their own, and other countries largely lets them get away with it.

    Pol Pot killed millions, died under house arrest. Well done sir.

    When we look at the times government killed millions of their own, it was done not with a freedom loving, civil rights respecting leader. It was always done by fascist asshole. Perhaps Swalwell is hinting to the type of leader he prefers.

  • vek||

    The thing is those armies were recruited under different circumstances than ours... They were recruited as True Believers in their various causes.

    In the USA the average military guy is a right wing, gun toting, constitution loving sort of guy.

    We would have to completely purge our military and somehow ONLY recruit the exact type of people who DO NOT want to serve in the military in order to end up with a majority of people in service being into this kind of shit. Which the Dems try to do with top brass when they're in office, like Obama canning tons of generals and admirals... But once you're below the top few guys in each branch, the "typical" conservative guys dominate the officers and enlisted ranks again. So even under a lefty admin, once you're below maybe 2 or 3 star generals, you're going to have mostly guys who will not be down.

  • KevinP||

    I agree completely! This is why the Soviet Union won in Afghanistan, and the US won decisively in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Oh, wait.

    The US currently has 350 million guns distributed among 100 million owners, and nearly all of these are unregistered. This is more than sufficient to start a rebellion. If even 3% of the owners decide to rebel, they outnumber the US military, many of whom will be sympathetic or refuse to attack their own citizens.

    Rifles are no match for a tank or F16, but they are a match for the fuel tankers, crews and other infrastructure necessary to operate tanks and F16s. There will be no Tiananmen Square dramatic standoffs. No rebels will stand in an open field to be run over by a tank or strafed by an F16. They will attack at another weak point and make the tanks and F16s inoperable.

    Civil wars are very nasty things, and as a patriotic American, I never want to see my country go through this. But as the Founders intended, this is is what keeps the government honest. It is ironic that the same crowd that calls Trump a Nazi dictator also wants to disarm the public so that the dictator can have his way.

  • Rock Lobster||

    It is ironic that the same crowd that calls Trump a Nazi dictator also wants to disarm the public so that the dictator can have his way.

    For the same crowd that can seriously intone the words, "woman with a penis," it isn't much of a stretch.

  • Steve-O||

    Headline should read: "Rep. Eric Salwell inadvertently makes case for privately-owned nukes."

  • MJBinAL||

    Eric Swalwell does NOT think. That is the primary problem.

  • Think It Through||

    Seems to me to be just a rather rational analysis of "if you think you have weapons as allowed under the 2nd Amendment sufficient to fight the government, think again.....we have nukes."

  • dpbisme||

    Obviously another idiot Democrat that does not understand anything about Weapons.

    A nuclear device is far from being pinpoint accurate and destroys everything.

    So will he drop a NUKE on South Chicago and kill everyone because of the huge murder rate there?

    I mean it would solve the problem of people shoot each other there but a rational person might think that it is a bit extreme to kill everyone in a city and make the place radioactive.

    Basically NUKES can be used against Republicans, Libertarians, and even Democrats if they dare own a firearm he does not like.

  • dpbisme||

    Obviously another idiot Democrat that does not understand anything about Weapons.

    A nuclear device is far from being pinpoint accurate and destroys everything.

    So will he drop a NUKE on South Chicago and kill everyone because of the huge murder rate there?

    I mean it would solve the problem of people shoot each other there but a rational person might think that it is a bit extreme to kill everyone in a city and make the place radioactive.

    Basically NUKES can be used against Republicans, Libertarians, and even Democrats if they dare own a firearm he does not like.

  • CDRSchafer||

    The right to bear arms is not a privilege kindly bestowed by the US government. It's a natural right of man that the US Constitution recognizes.

    If the US government refuses to recognize it, the right still exists.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online