Do Democrats REALLY Think Americans Will Turn Their Guns In Peacefully If They Pass a Law

[iceberg]

"Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons, instate a federal gun buy-back program for those who own them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over.

The representative wrote an op-ed in USA Today Thursday rolling out what he feels is the gun control policy America should adopt:"



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

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”"

Raise your hand out there if you think this would end peacefully, with law-abiding citizens simply handing over their (until that moment) legally-owned guns to a bunch of Liberals trampling on the Constitution in their continued effort to dis-arm the American people (Because you KNOW the Liberals would not stop there...)?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Not going to happen / end well....



Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want

View attachment 191577

wow. for awhile i thought it may have been "michael" bolton.

 

[grainbely]

The supreme court disagrees with you. Right to bare arms is a basic right not unlimited. None of the rights are unlimited.

The 2nd Amendment is a bar on Congress. Nothing more or less. The The SCOTUS has failed to stick down all federal gun laws as unconstitutional because they have been commies or too chicken shit.

Se will repeal them all or die in the resulting. Attle.

I am prepared to die to preserve the right. Are you prepared to die trying to illegally infringe on our rights?

It may be a bar on Congress but is definitely not a total bar on federal legislation. There's nothing that would support that. Not sorry.

 

[grainbely]

...
The supreme court disagrees with you. Right to bare arms is a basic right not unlimited. None of the rights are unlimited.

They can be impeached and removed from the bench, as well as decisions vacated ...
When it is determined by Congress they are not ruling with proper regard for the Constitution ...

There are no "untouchables" in a system of checks and balances.

.​

And how close is Congress to doing those things? The motive would be wrong at this point if they are just unhappy with the outcome.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It may be a bar on Congress

but is definitely not a total bar on federal legislation.

It may be a bar on federal legislation, but it is not a total bar? "Shall not be infringed" sounds like a total bar to me.

The power is reserved to the States. So, California can make whatever commie gun laws it wants. Leave the other states out of it and let them decide.

 

[Pop23]

The supreme court disagrees with you. Right to bare arms is a basic right not unlimited. None of the rights are unlimited.

The 2nd Amendment is a bar on Congress. Nothing more or less. The The SCOTUS has failed to stick down all federal gun laws as unconstitutional because they have been commies or too chicken shit.

Se will repeal them all or die in the resulting. Attle.

I am prepared to die to preserve the right. Are you prepared to die trying to illegally infringe on our rights?

It may be a bar on Congress but is definitely not a total bar on federal legislation. There's nothing that would support that. Not sorry.

But since their is no logical reasoning to go forward with legislation, except for speculation, the question is moot.

 

[candycorn]

I ask you again, was Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph terrorists?

And, I will ask YOU again, to go fuck yourself with Mao's rotted chicken dick.

Those two are not terrorists. They are mass murderers. Both they, and terrorism, are irrelevant the justified violence against shit-eating commies trying to buttfuck our rights. Violence in preservation of rights is JUSTICE.

Thanks for the insight into how your “mind” works…and most of the time doesn’t.

Again, your rage is hilarious there Armstrong.

Do you actually think terrorism is determined by body count?

Do you actually think…ever?

Terrorism is determined by the unexpected nature of it. You’re on the front line in a war, a bomb goes off…expected.
You’re in a nursery in OKC and a bomb goes off on a sunny April morning….not quite the same thing.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

"Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons, instate a federal gun buy-back program for those who own them and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over.

The representative wrote an op-ed in USA Today Thursday rolling out what he feels is the gun control policy America should adopt:"



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

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”"

Raise your hand out there if you think this would end peacefully, with law-abiding citizens simply handing over their (until that moment) legally-owned guns to a bunch of Liberals trampling on the Constitution in their continued effort to dis-arm the American people (Because you KNOW the Liberals would not stop there...)?

Yeah, that's what I thought. Not going to happen / end well....



Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want

It will be a litmus test for freedom consciousness. If the general cultural apathy in this regard is any indication, we're more likely to hear a chorus of whining than a chorus of gunfire. But if real revolutionary resistance will happen anywhere, it will happen on this issue. It may be wishful thinking, but I believe gun owners have the shit loaded, and the barrel pointed directly at the fan. They're just waiting for word to come down that the time has come.

I'm currently on the New York City plantation, where the slaves have largely been disarmed. Our hopes rest with those on other plantations standing up and defending the rights we've already given up with nary a whimper.

 

[Pop23]

I ask you again, was Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph terrorists?

And, I will ask YOU again, to go fuck yourself with Mao's rotted chicken dick.

Those two are not terrorists. They are mass murderers. Both they, and terrorism, are irrelevant the justified violence against shit-eating commies trying to buttfuck our rights. Violence in preservation of rights is JUSTICE.

Thanks for the insight into how your “mind” works…and most of the time doesn’t.

Again, your rage is hilarious there Armstrong.

Do you actually think terrorism is determined by body count?

Do you actually think…ever?

Terrorism is determined by the unexpected nature of it. You’re on the front line in a war, a bomb goes off…expected.
You’re in a nursery in OKC and a bomb goes off on a sunny April morning….not quite the same thing.

So using logic. You're putting the baby to bed and 2 gang members burst into your home and kill you and the baby. Are the gang members terrorists?

In my opinion all gang members are terrorists, but that's not the point really.

 

[BlackSand]

And how close is Congress to doing those things? The motive would be wrong at this point if they are just unhappy with the outcome.

With the current crop of nit-wits infesting the place ...

The chances of Congress doing anything that appropriately addresses the Constitution ...
The 18 actual enumerated powers granted the federal government therein ...
Or anything that doesn't best suit their re-election attempts ...

Is slim to none ...

.​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

With the current crop of nit-wits infesting the place ...

The chances of Congress doing anything that appropriately addresses the Constitution ...
The 18 actual enumerated powers granted the federal government therein ...
Or anything that doesn't best suit their re-election attempts ...

Is slim to none ...

Makes you start to consider the Anarchy position a little less insane, doesn't it?

 

[BlackSand]

Makes you start to consider the Anarchy position a little less insane, doesn't it?

I am far from starting to consider Anarchy ... I have been practicing self-rule for over 10 years now.

When you stop asking for permission ...
Start doing what you know is right ...
Make an honest and beneficial attempt at improving the world around you ...
And actually succeed in doing so versus pie in the sky government controlled/administered good intentions ...


You really don't have a problem finding people that want to contribute, profit, and join in the success ...

.​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am far from starting to consider Anarchy ... I have been practicing self-rule for over 10 years now.

I can take that 2 different ways. You are not "considering" Anarchy because you are an Anarchist, or you are not considering Anarchy in general.

I said that it make you consider Anarchy less insane.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why not sell kits to make those scary looking semi-automatic weapons look not so scary? Do they shoot any better than my .270 semi-automatic hunting rifle?

 

[bodecea]

So you intend to shoot police officers ?

Thank you for reminding people how f*ed up you are....

I believe a question was asked of you...a simple yes or no would suffice.

 

[bodecea]

I remember a thread a few months back where there was a video of federal agents getting on a public bus, demanding people show proof of citizenship...this was not a bus on the border or anywhere near the border. Our resident tough guys fell all over themselves insisting that was was done wasn't all that bad and that people should cooperate in showing ID on demand. These people gonna fight for their gun rights? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[BlackSand]

...
I said that it make you consider Anarchy less insane.

Well, yeah ... Anarchy isn't insane ... The idea the sheep are compatible with it may be though ...

The only thing the federal government can ever do is establish limits to opportunity ... That's what mass governing does.
I have no desire to let someone else attempt to put an obstacle in my way that prohibits me from doing what I know I need to do.

Excellence does not exist in mediocrity nor governance of the whole.
A participation trophy is not the goal of someone who demonstrates success as a product of ambition and self governance ...

.​

 

[Some Guy]

Merriam Webster defines terrorism as: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. Ignore google's dictionary: it's hilariously politically motivated.

Two critical things. One: systemic. Two: coercion (i.e. the "ends"). He definitely qualifies for the coercion part, but not so much the "systemic" part unless you can A. connect him to a larger group and B. deduce that the larger group is using terror as a means to push their message/agenda.

The fun part: Merriam Webster has this in there as well: The violence McVeigh committed in Oklahoma City was investigated as being connected to Middle East terrorism without much evidence.

 

[candycorn]

I remember a thread a few months back where there was a video of federal agents getting on a public bus, demanding people show proof of citizenship...this was not a bus on the border or anywhere near the border. Our resident tough guys fell all over themselves insisting that was was done wasn't all that bad and that people should cooperate in showing ID on demand. These people gonna fight for their gun rights? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Chairborne warriors are the funniest of the flock.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Makes you start to consider the Anarchy position a little less insane, doesn't it?

I am far from starting to consider Anarchy ... I have been practicing self-rule for over 10 years now.

When you stop asking for permission ...
Start doing what you know is right ...
Make an honest and beneficial attempt at improving the world around you ...
And actually succeed in doing so versus pie in the sky government controlled/administered good intentions ...


You really don't have a problem finding people that want to contribute, profit, and join in the success ...

.​

What do you "know is right"? Do you acknowledge the equality of rights of all individuals, or do some people have rights that others don't have?

I don't see how you're not moved to the anarchist position by logical necessity. If a government only acted defensively on behalf of the people, acting in perfect accord with the rights of individuals, they would be indistinguishable from any individual - so what makes them "government", and you not?

Doesn't "government" imply the right to govern? The right to make laws which others must obey under threat of punishment? Isn't this operating in excess of what the individual has the right to do?

 

[BlackSand]

What do you "know is right"? Do you acknowledge the equality of rights of all individuals, or do some people have rights that others don't have?

I don't see how you're not moved to the anarchist position by logical necessity. If a government only acted defensively on behalf of the people, acting in perfect accord with the rights of individuals, they would be indistinguishable from any individual - so what makes them "government", and you not?

Doesn't "government" imply the right to govern? The right to make laws which others must obey under threat of punishment? Isn't this operating in excess of what the individual has the right to do?

It's possible you don't relate to what I am suggesting because you still think in a "universal" sense as far as what I view as an individual choice.

It doesn't matter what I think about someone else's rights ... Where I am headed doesn't require them to do anything they don't want to do.
I am not a proponent of Anarchy or self governance as a means by which to establish what anyone else is required to do.
That's for goof-balls that like theorizing versus application of concepts borne in principles, that also require adaptation and personal responsibility.

I don't need a government, a law, punishment nor coerced obedience to accomplish my goals.
As far as operating in excess of what I have the right to do ... I ain't asking for permission.
If someone feels the need to try and stop me ... Put an obstacle up in front of me and see if I don't figure out a way around it ...
Or means by which to mitigate it's affect on achieving what I want to do.

To some that may sound intimidating ... But it doesn't mean I haven't failed before.
It only means I don't accept failure as a dead end ... And will keep looking for a way to do what is productive and necessary.

"Can't" ... Never did anything ...
I am practicing self-governance ... And I am not going to sit around waiting for anyone to agree.

.​