"The Government Has Nukes" warns Eric Swalwell[D - CA] to Gun Owners
154 replies, posted
I have no idea how people are interpreting my point that guns are not a primary platform of the democrats as meaning that I support the democrats stance on guns.
Okay sure but that's not my argument.
Feels like the Dems can't win here. They push gun control they are ignorant and evil statists. They don't push gun control people assume malevolence.
I have no idea why you made this post because I never argued any of these things. I generally agree with the sentiment but it's so far away from what I was actually talking about.
I mean nukes are the worst example he could use but he has a point in saying armed resistance to a tyrannical government as outlined in the second amendment is utter nonsense.
Washington could have never imagined metal birds controlled by imaginary wires that delivered hellfire to your opponents face. Any argument that the second amendment fills it's original intended purpose is patently absurd.
Please see this post
Isn't the fact they're likely going to enact control anyway *relevant* to your argument that they won't because they haven't explicitly said they will?
They can easily win- publically say they won't pursue further gun control on their platforms. But you and I both know that they won't do that and exactly why.
The difference is we don't have comprehensive maps outlining every part in Iran. Enemy Territory =/= Home Field.
The US Government know who you are, where you live, what you do for a living, and anything else they care to find out. This isn't the unmapped jungles of Vietnam or the vast sparsley populated cave-dotted deserts of Afghanistan. This is their back yard.
Show me where I made the argument that they wouldn't enact gun control. I never said it was part of their platform. I said it wasn't the primary part of their platform.
re: "you and I both know" ;You seem like someone who is easily confused so I'll be point blank with you: I've been criticizing the Democrats stance on guns for years. I'm very pro-gun. I hate that it's 2018 and we are still harping on about assault weapon bans when we know this shit doesn't work. Stop making shit up and accusing me of holding opinions I don't.
They can't win because they come up with AWB 2.0 and other bat shit ideas, candidates talk about it with emotional charge, and then when it comes time, sweep it under the rug and not talk about it.
That doesn't get rid of the bad taste they left from their shitty ideas. That's why they are dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. The only recourse is for them to push gun control ideas but actually make it appeal to current owners.
Background checks ask for (and actually receive) more information, unfortunately archaic systems and parts of HIPPA interfere here. Fixing it is hard, too hard for a politician to care about.
You could even probably raise the age to buy to 21 across the board, and remove some shit like suppressors from NFA and get support gains.
Hell, mandatory safe storage with subsidies would probably even fly if you marketed it right.
But no, we are where we are because emotional appeal and lack of effort.
When Democrats immediately put in shit like this after mid-terms: H.R. 7115, New Attempt to Ban Building AR-15s, you can say that it isn't a top priority for them. Shit like this response, and this bill, along with crap like that proposition in Washington, are the reasons why I will absolutely not back down a single inch. I will never compromise, never give up fighting against even the slightest infringement, as long as the Democratic Party keeps pushing these insane measures and gives responses like these.
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063543731431727104
Propose mandatory confiscation of semi-automatic weapons, with compensation.
Gun owner says he'll refuse confiscation, defend himself from government.
Point out that the government will easily kill him, resistance is futile.
Get called a tyrant.
Complain that nobody is working with you.
Your entire point has been 'it isn't part of their platform' with the implication that because it isn't, they won't. You have to admit people couldn't quit understand what you meant given your flippant, one sentence, initial post and then talking about how the dems can't win.
Plus where have *I* said it's their primary platform? I've simply said they'll likely enact gun control despite it not being their platform. It's good to hear we both agree they're likely to enact further controls though.
Your attitude aside, how am I to know you've been criticizing their stance for years? How am I easily confused? How have I made anything up? I said we both know why they won't publicly say they don't plan to enact gun control, i.e. because it loses them votes.
You seem the one who is easily confused- I'm not arguing with you at all lmao.
Because the current government is not nearly as evil as it could be. We could flatten Afghanistan if we chose to. Even without nukes, we could napalm it, gas it, just send in troops and murder everyone we see. We've unleashed hell but only in very specific, very targeted places - we care way more about civilian casualties than any government evil enough to spark a rebellion would.
Because giving up on civilian casualties and just killing the whole country would pretty much instantly shatter our foreign relations. We would no longer have allies - just vassals, and countries preparing for our inevitable invasion. And that, in turn, would crash our economy. Bad times all around. Not worth it.
Gun owners are, at this point, basically cultists.
It's harsh but it's true. The gun manufacturers and gun sellers have realized that their most successful sales pitch is "buy guns to keep the gubbermint from taking your guns" - and now that's their only sales pitch. I half-suspect some gun company's lobbyists are behind the more badly-written gun control bills, since they make for better ad copy than legislation.
Even the majority of gunowners, the sane ones who aren't hiding in a bunker waiting for Obama to rise from his grave to go door-to-door stealing guns, still have their perspective warped by the nutters' domination of the mindspace. So yeah, they might think it's the main goal of Democrats, but only because every other page of Guns & Ammo magazine is an advert telling them that.
(I'm starting to suspect the best long-term gun-control act we could implement would be to nationalize all the gun manufacturers. Their profit-seeking is the root cause of all our gun violence problems.)
haha, fuck off
You cannot possibly be arguing that because the state could technically glass its own land from sea to shining sea and kill everything, it will automatically win. If we "care about civilian casulties" (which, Jesus Christ, look at the collateral damage reports from the Generalized Middle Eastern Clusterfuck 2kForever for five seconds to be disabused of that notion) in Afghanistan, why would we suddenly care infinite percent less about civilian casulties of Americans?
Calling something a top priority is a bit more subjective than calling it the primary platform so this is an arguable point but I'd like to point out that thousands of bills get introduced to Congress without ever making it close to becoming a bill. This one has a 4% prognosis on GovTrack, probably due to the fact that there are only 16 co-sponsors.
While I really don't think this needs to be said, let me be clear that this doesn't mean I actually support this resolution. I just want to be clear on that given some of the confusion in this thread.
My "flippant one sentence initial post" was literally just stating a fact.
...Where does your view of gun owners come from, exactly? I can tell it's incredibly inaccurate because you think anyone reads Guns And Ammo in 2018 at all, much less has their opinions shaped by it.
I just don't want something I own to be taken by the government just because other people did horrible stuff with that thing.
Fat chance. Nobody who loves guns trusts the D anymore.
You're acting like other actors won't use an insurgency to cover their asses while they gain control of the reigns. No matter how much we can bloody their nose, they will STILL have more resources, and will likely find allies who aren't nearly as merciful as we've been in Afghanistan (if you can call it merciful, but I suppose compared to carpet-bombing WWII-style it's merciful).
The actual situation in the US has pretty definitively proven that the idea of the 2nd amendment doing a single fucking thing to deter tyranny is laughable.
The government does not feel one single iota of fear for a bunch of dumb, uneducated fucking rednecks with guns who they can easily trick into supporting tyranny anyway.
Tyrants in a democracy aren't afraid of an armed populace, they're afraid of an educated one. Guns don't do anything when they know that they can just fearmonger and gaslight the inbred retards that by and large own guns into giving up all of their rights willingly, or in fact, begging them to take them away while they convince themselves that "it could never happen here" because they can cradle their gun to sleep at night.
I'll start to believe that anti-authoritarianism is a core tenant of pro-2A thinking, right as soon as I see gun owners at the forefront of the fight against voter suppression.
It seems the only kind of tyranny that gets mention in the gun community is the one that justifies living out a gunslinger/guerilla fantasy. The one with government killsquads and all that. Not the tyranny of information control, systematic oppression, not the never-ending Republican attacks on democracy and their disenfrachisement of voters.
Full disclosure as to where I stand, I think the guy in the OP is an idiot. And Democrats show insurmountable ammounts of stupidity in their fight against guns. I'd rather they drop the issue entirely, it clearly drives people who would vote for them away, and even if it didn't, their takes on it are rarely things that actually reduce gun violence. I don't expect, or advise, gun owners to vote Dem and *hope* they ease up on the issue, that's naive.
With that said, Republicans are well beyond showing anti-democratic "tendencies". They are anti-democratic. Brian Kemp is in office after overseeing his own fucking election. Republicans will let that slide, they'll continue to partake in eroding the process faster than you can say "but both sides". They are the closest thing you have in your country to authoritarianism. And they are who the vast majority of gun owners will vote for. The more both of these things go on, the less true this anti-tyranny sentiment seems
This is wrong
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/232726/0041f886-053a-44e4-acd3-166cb5163bae/image.png
a fifth of people who are democrat or lean democrat own guns
Everything you're both saying is true, but -- you can be the gun owner that cares about voter suppression.
Yeah going through the dudes tweets makes it seem like he is pretty okay with votes not being counted and reporters being thrown out of the White House for asking the wrong question.
I like having arguments about the "but the government has drones/planes/tanks" thing but really none of that seems relevant when you consider that the most tangible threat of tyranny right now would have most hardcore 2A types standing with the tanks and planes and drones, not against them.
Correction: Nobody who loves guns who aren't already voting D will ever trust the D.
What data or evidence do you have to back up this claim
Yeah, but 'literally just stating a fact', especially on a forum, can easily lead to confusion. Surely it's just common sense to add a second sentence clarifying what you mean? Especially when sharing a fact that could be construed in different ways and concerning a loaded topic like gun control?
It's also a bit pedantic to share a fact like you did, 'it isn't their key platform', despite us all knowing that further gun control is a democrat goal, publicly stated or not. It's even arguably irrelevant and, as we can see, pretty much derailed the entire thread.
That's the attitude I get with a large majority of gun owners I've spoken to. I've yet to meet a single-issue gun-owning voter who wasn't die-hard Red.
I'm not a gun owner yet but I'm very pro-gun and want to have guns one day soon but my perspective is that the stakes of having Republicans in power are too high to risk not putting Democrats in power, even if that means compromising on something I honestly strongly believe in. In a perfect world I'd have my ideal pro-gun, pro-choice, pro-legalization, anti-voter supression, pro-environment candidate but I have to take what I can get and the arithmetic is quite simple.
I feel like a Democrat could ask a mugger to put his gun away and it'd be in the news the next day that Dems are coming for your guns again and everyone would be circle jerking about how down for the insurrection they are within the hour. Again. Like it happens every time.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.