"The Government Has Nukes" warns Eric Swalwell[D - CA] to Gun Owners
154 replies, posted
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063527635114852352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1063527635114852352&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fnews%2Fleading-democrat-warns-gun-owners-the-government-has-nukes
Eric Swalwell Warns Man Resistance is Futile Because Nukes
Holy shit. We have finally made it too this point, huh? Christ.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/58168/e5caf0b3-7e97-4529-8415-e7d9289d85e6/chaosisfun.gif
Are you fucking serious?
Intelligence Committee: You don't need to have it to be in it.
We should've just nuked Waco!
Really?
And compromise? What have gun owners been putting up with for the last century, not compromise?
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/527/f9b62f85-1bbc-4cff-b91c-9a932bbe9a88/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png
This illustration is a bit of a meme at this point, and I disagree the final point that "nothing about gun control has been reasonable," there has been some reasonable concessions in order to update things to fit with our modern ethics and agreement we've had in our individual communities. But overall why do people who are REALLY anti-gun come to the table saying we need more comprise when that's been the case over and over again- with plenty of existing laws in place that are implemented poorly or not at all, so the solution is just to take more guns away from those who were responsible enough to jump through all the comprise hoops that already exist to own something that's constitutionally guaranteed to us.
the rest of the world watches as americans threaten to nuke their own fellow americans over gun rights
fan-fucking-tastic
really looking good here today.
How have people not learned from literally every single historical example since the mid-20th century? Lightly-armed insurgents with essentially any level of popular support can't be defeated by firepower.
Before we go any further, context is important.
This is the full conversation:
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/527/f11abcad-63ce-4081-9528-fdeec07ef596/1542403593089.jpg
Personally this doesn't change how I feel about the comment, but it's not fair to just pick out the middle tweet.
Also hey if D dropped gun control as their primary platform they would get at least 60% of the country voting them in. They are ironically shooting themselves in the foot.
Sure, by all means; keep adding fuel to the dumpster fire.
The person he replied to implied that people would start a war over legislation Swalwell supports. He could have handled it more graciously but this is pretty far from a serious threat.
Fucking this. On most social issues, I agree a lot more with Democrats than republicans. I've always voted for the candidate that would best support my interests, regardless of party. And imo most of the republican party has gone full retard in their vehement support of trump and their shift to that type of political discourse.
But god damn it when it comes to this type of issue they always lose me.
Fallout 7.7Billion.
It's like they're paid to always fuck up with guns.
And this right here is why I don't trust the left with 2A issues. There are members of it this extreme and they are far too vocal/high profile/powerful to be ignored.
What in the name of Christ, this is something I would expect to hear from Trump, not a democrat in California. Oh my God.
He's making a good argument, he's just making it badly. Possibly because Twitter's format is just awful for any sort of debate, possibly because he's just bad at arguing. Quite likely both, he's coming across as kind of a dipshit.
The most often-cited reason pro-gun people claim for the Second Amendment's existence is to allow the people to fight a rebellion against the government, should it turn tyrannical. This may have been true in the 1700s and 1800s, but it was already on shaky ground once we got into the WW1 era of industrialized warfare - a militia with repurposed hunting rifles isn't going to do much against tanks, aircraft, machine guns and massed artillery. It's definitely not true post-Trinity. We can assume any government tyrannical enough to spark a revolution against it is evil enough to use WMDs against its own people, at least as an intimidation tactic, or more likely as a desperation measure if the revolution is winning.
The modern massive disparity between military and civilian arms basically makes any revolution contingent on the en masse defection of the military. Which, in turn, weakens the utility of civilian arms ownership as a deterrent to tyranny. That's not the sole reason for its existence but it is easily the one most frequently claimed by gun supporters, so addressing it is necessary for any debate.
Welp, that's my congressman. I really don't like this guy. He's just here to get himself famous is another spineless stooge. I want Pete Stark back.
That's part of the draw of owning guns- that if your government chose to use it's technological advantage against you and the other citizens then you and twenty of your mates can rise up and take them down. In red team planning it's well acknowledged that the second a nation uses such weapons on it's citizens, it's the same second the nation has admitted defeat.
The removal of weapons is the first step to a police state. It's easy to enforce controversial laws on the population when people have nothing but their dicks in their hands, but if everyone potentially has a glock in their hands instead it's impossible to impose authoritarian rule. Sure the government can use drones and tanks, but if the entire population is armed and against you then you're no longer a government, you're a power-hungry coterie of elites with a technological edge.
Gun control isn't even our primary platform, though? Right now it's looking like:
1) Raise minimum wage to an actual livable wage, make rich/megacorporations actually pay their share of taxes
2) Climate change
3) Election reform
4) Healthcare reform
5) Gun control
with "impeach Trump" probably jumping to the top of the list whenever the Mueller investigation ends/is ended.
Gun control is not the primary platform of the Democrats.
While I'm in favour of gun control I think there's way too much arbitrary, unreasonable shit that's thrown out there that completely shits on the idea of gun control itself. I really don't know why silencers are banned besides some people basing the idea off of them from a fucking James Bond movie where it goes "pft"and saying "WOW WE CANT ALLOW THAT." Hillary Clinton made a tweet saying "IMAGINE IF THE DUDE WHO SHOT UP VEGAS HAD A SILENCER" and I was like what was the fucking point of this post? It made me pretty angry, and I can kind of see why people hate democrats on that principle (Even though I think gun rights is a silly single issue to laser focus on.)
Make sure guns are taken away from households that have dangerous and unreasonable individuals that pose a threat to themselves or others with due process and have them be returned when the threat is gone. This should happen even if it's your kid who doesn't own the firearm, you should bear some responsibility for them.
I also think we should have certificates, much like you need a certificate to hunt, proving you've taken and passed a simple class on gun safety before being able to purchase one, just have this class available at a nominal fee provided by the government. Hell you can even get it in high school or something, I don't care. It shouldn't be hard to get if you're actually the "responsible gun owner." Just stop irresponsible idiots from owning guns which get stolen easily or they do something fucking stupid with it. Classes that are state provided like this already exist in some capacity.
Make sure gun shows and private sales can be traced and certified to follow these rules as best as possible, gun shows should be easy enough to have an observer there. If I were to go a step further I'd say handguns should also require a concealed carry arms license to own at all, even if it's just on a local level.
And then just undo all the stupid garbage legislation that's mounted over the years of being tacked on to non-existent issues, like certain attachment bans and assault weapon bills and the like.
I don't think any of this is too overbearing, restrictive, or arbitrary. I don't think it'll be 100% effective, but it can hopefully have an effect on all forms of firearm death, either homocide, accident, or suicide. Just make the responsible gun owner meme actually true to the capacity gun right advocates say it is.
Gun control is the most visible platform of them to gun owners though.
but it is assumed that they will advocate for it when they get in, even if it isn't their primary platform. In fact, arguably it's why it isn't mentioned, so they can enforce further gun control once in power again.
And what's one thing that conservative voters harp heavily on? Whats one thing that I, living in a Red State hear often on the TV about voting someone into office.
What's one thing that Dems have not only made themselves look stupid over, but also have terrible inaccurate hit-pieces and "experts"
Yeah, that's right, guns.
There's seriously new stories where people are trying to be told that an AR-15 is some automatic death dealing machine that with a telescopic, adjustable assault stock, and the child murderer 5000 pistol grip.
Have you not paid attention to any insurgency the US has been bogged down with in the last 50 years?
Literal farmers with AKs put up resistance against bombing campaigns that in a few months rivialed more munitions dropped than the entirety of the allied bombing campaign of WW2.
We're STILL fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan with combatants that have even less resources than the NVA/Vietcong did, but it's somehow lasted almost twice as long.
Sure, but that's not nearly the same as saying that it's the primary platform of Democrats. You can actually see their 2016 platform in full on their website. There is one entry for gun control; it's the last subsection in the 8th section of their platform.
I don't think anyone here has ever looked up a single platform of any candidate, this is wishful thinking.
Yeah, but as I said, it's not mentioned so they have the leeway to enforce further gun control at their leisure.
Don't deny it but don't draw attention to it. Suddenly gun owners who nominally agree with the rest of your platform will vote for you, then you enact legislation against guns, to the chagrin of those people.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.