No products in the cart.

News

Go Ahead, Representative Swalwell: Make my Day

By William Sullivan     November 19, 2018

For the American Left, gun control has always been nothing more than a statist impulse in search of a reason to justify it.

And there have always been reasons they’ve offered as to why the government should prohibit Americans from owning this type of gun or that one.  Today, the talk tends to be about the AR-15, and the reason that is most commonly parroted tends to be along these lines, this one offered in a tweet by Max Boot:

There is no reason why any civilian should own an assault weapon.  And gun prohibition and buyback much more effective than a ban on further sale.

Boot tweeted this in support of the “courageous and principled stand” taken by Democrat House Representative Eric Swalwell of California, who is championing the idea of an Australia-style “buyback” of “assault weapons” such as the AR-15.

Gun control advocates are tactically referring to this proposed effort as a “buyback” for the same reason restauranteurs call the Patagonian toothfish a Chilean sea bass on their menus.  A government “buyback” of guns may sound much more palatable for the American public than a “forcible government confiscation” of firearms, but it doesn’t change the nature of the thing.

The actual choice for Americans, under Swalwell’s proposal, would be to “sell” their guns to the government, surrender them with no recompense, or have the government forcibly confiscate them, with offenders facing prosecution or violence at the hands of government agents.  This is, of course, not a choice at all, but it presents the veneer of choice, meant to hide the constitutional rights that would be stolen from American citizens.

But what’s most amazing about all of this is the ease with which the confiscation of heretofore-legal firearms from millions of Americans is being proposed in open forums today.  It is, after all, impossibly illogical to conclude that such an action by the federal government would not be in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

The closest thing we can find to evidence suggesting that such a mass confiscation of “assault weapons” would be constitutional is offered by Swalwell in his op ed in USA Today.  He observes that the late Antonin Scalia wrote, in the Heller decision of 2008, that the right to gun ownership is “not unlimited.”  So, his logic goes, because the right is “not unlimited,” it must mean that it’s at least arguable that confiscation of “military-style” weapons by the federal government might be allowable, even though confiscation is the most egregious form of “infringement” upon firearm ownership, which the Second Amendment strictly prohibits.  After all, “[o]ur courts haven’t found a constitutional right to have assault weapons, anyway,” he writes.

Except… that’s not exactly true.  Insofar as Swalwell uses “military-style” weapons and “assault weapons” interchangeably to specifically reference the AR-15, one could easily argue that the courts have found a constitutionally protected right for Americans to own them.  In fact, it was the Supreme Court’s rationale in upholding America’s very first sweeping federal gun regulation in 1939.

H/T Matt Bracken on facebook

Read more here:

Attribution: American Thinker

10

nancy.larned

Oath Keepers Merchandise

7 comments

  1. The California Democrat, who is openly considering a run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2020, made the outlandish remark on social media after a gun-rights advocate pointed out that the lawmaker once called for gun owners to surrender their assault weapons.

    Swalwell received a “Tweet” from a man named “Joe Biggs” a Pro-Second Amendment advocate saying (in part) Swalwell was looking to “start a war” – Swalwell responded by saying: “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. ”

    Swalwell — a member of both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee — tried to defuse the situation (after immediate backlash from thousands of people), saying the need for a firearm to protect against the government is “ludicrous” and suggested that if an assault weapon ban would happen, **people would just follow the law.**

    [Only after continued backlash from Pro-Second Amendment Supporters – did Swalwell make continued attempts to diffuse and allegedly “clarify” his outrageous remarks.]
    He later clarified that he was merely being facetious in his suggestion about the use of nuclear weapons. “I sarcastically point[ed] out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century).”
    **Source: FoxNews

    1. He says assault rifles. But just go along with his rhetoric.
      The American citizens may not win if it ever came to that. But as proven in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. The forces wishing to destroy the constitution won’t win either.

  2. If the day comes he will be one of the first to be charged, arrested, prosecuted, and if fond guilty executed. He is undoubtedly a product of common core education. He knows not what he advocates. The last time it was tried it did not work out so well for the gun grabbers at Concord on Lexington Green. This man has no skin in the game and he has no principles. He does not realize the shit storm he could start.

  3. To those who ignore or laugh at Congressman Eric Swalwell’s recent tweet, please read. Swalwell is not insane when he proposes the use of nuclear weapons to kill law-abiding gun owners who refuse to comply and turn in their weapons during a gun confiscation. Don’t think in terms of a powerful multi-megaton nuclear weapon; think in terms of a tactical neutron bomb, developed to kill people and not destroy buildings or infrastructure.

    The method of killing non-compliant gun owners to which Swalwell alluded is definitely a possibility if the government uses tactical neutron bombs. This weapon was developed decades ago for the purpose of targeting city populations. The weapon kills people (and all living things) but does not destroy buildings. Here’s a brief definition of a neutron bomb:

    “The tactical neutron bomb is a nuclear weapon that maximizes damage to people but minimizes damage to buildings and equipment. … The neutron bomb is a specialized thermonuclear weapon that produces a minimal blast but releases large amounts of lethal radiation which can penetrate armor or several feet of earth.”

    A neutron bomb would be a useful weapon to employ in large rural areas of the country where resistance to the ordered gun confiscation would be great. Instead of sending in troops to cover large areas of territory, where they would be unfamiliar with the terrain and could be easily picked off by patriotic Americans from the cover of their farmhouses or barns or anywhere along the roads the troops would travel, the dropping of a single tactical neutron bomb would kill all people and animals within a several mile radius.

    And don’t assume that these Communists in our government care about the loss of our fertile farmland or our rangeland. The decimation of our farmland and livestock would play right into their plan of making us completely dependent upon food imports.

    If there is a small city in which residents are mostly Conservatives “clinging to their Bibles and guns,” a tactical neutron bomb would wipe out the entire population in an instant. The use of such a weapon would not require the loyalty of tens of thousands of military men to march into towns and kick in doors and shoot mothers and grandfathers to confiscate guns. A small group of loyal Communists, plus auxiliary personnel who are unaware of the true nature of the missions, would be all that’s necessary to implement this plan.

    Also recall that the Obama administration seriously considered the use of a drone strike on Bundy Ranch in Clark County Nevada to end the resistance to the armed BLM agents. So is the use of tactical neutron bombs really out of the realm of possibilities to quickly and effectively neutralize all resistance to their overtaking of our country?

    To their way of thinking, if it means killing off large segments of the population, so be it. As we see, there is no shortage of people in Central America and in the Middle East to bring into this country to replace us deplorable Americans who believe in our Constitution.

    So please do not readily dismiss Congressman Swalwell’s tweet as insane or as an exaggeration. The fact that Swalwell stated this shows that the Communists who have infiltrated our country would definitely resort to use of such weapons in our military’s arsenal to implement their plan of gun confiscation. It also shows that they are confident of having enough traitors within our government and our military to follow unconstitutional orders.

  4. I honestly can’t imagine a majority of Military Soldiers going for the taking of guns from citizens of this Country. After all, if the oath to defend against enemies of the United States of America, foreign and Domestic means anything to them, they will side with the Citizens and not the Politicians that create laws or rules that’s in direct conflict with the Constitution. I think the US govt employees might try to execute such a law or rule, but will fail in short order.

  5. I noted 15 minutes after receiving the Heller decision that it would come back to bite us on the butt. The so-called pro-2nd community, that has little knowledge of the reason the Founders added the 2nd, are in large part contributing to the demise of the DUTY/Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
    The Constitution recognizes Militia as the only authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”.
    The 2nd Amendment recognizes Militia as an unalienable right.
    Militia is the entire body of the People in accordance with the law as it was practiced, codified, and then incorporated into the Constitution.
    Militia is the People, and therefore “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is part and parcel of the lawful definition and authority. One does not exist without the other.
    Militia must be as it is defined in the historical record, and the State statutes. Therefore, every able-bodied man 17-45 is REQUIRED to Keep and BEAR Arms. All others contribute in a fashion, whether it be in support or as reserve militia.
    Its not that difficult to understand, and yet the pretend pro-2nd community avoid, and disavow any recognition of Miltia for what it is, and why it is “necessary”.

Leave a Reply