Dem Rep admits Dems want your guns, Twitter user disagrees, then it gets weird

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A Twitter user thought that was too far
https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/1063524877733371905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7C...

And then Eric Swalwell answered with this
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063527635114852352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

<shock face>

He says he was just being sarcastic.
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063557843196891137

and I'm sure those that agree with him politically will buy that.  The rest of us though?

Speaking of those that agree with him on this, how do you think confiscation is going to go down?  Half a million dead?  2 million dead?  Do you think the Army, USMC and cops from all levels are going to go fight their parents, siblings, children and other assorted friends and family members to enforce a law they don't agree with?

[Person Man]

Gun ownership is fine. I just don't want some of them threatening to conquer me all the time.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

One thing's for sure: Californians won't be able to dictate what gun laws Nebraskans and Wyomingites live under.

[dead0man]

Gun ownership is fine. I just don't want some of them threatening to conquer me all the time.

does this happen unprovoked?

[RINO Tom]

Gun ownership is fine. I just don't want some of them threatening to conquer me all the time.

This site regularly finds articles about right wing nut jobs and makes judgements of a majority of conservatives, no?  This seems similar.

[Intell]

Gun confiscation happened in Australia with no huge war or whatever but in saying that I support the right of the populace to arm and overthrow the government if time need be. The 2nd amendment should be cherished.

[Pericles]

What Swalwell is proposing, how much of the guns people own would actually be covered under this? Since he says "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons". I'm not sure on the peculiarities of the issue as to what types of guns this covers and whether most gun owners own the guns mentioned or different guns, but I'm not sure if Swalwell wants 'your' guns. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong though, but it seems people ought to have a more nuanced view of this issue and not presume Democrats will take their guns when in most cases, if they're not dangerous criminals or unstable, they won't even lose their guns.

Anyway, while there are a few gun nuts I highly doubt confiscation would escalate into a full-on war. The Australian example was pretty successful, though American culture is more gun obsessed. There could be negative ramifications, but the idea that there would be these massive deaths tolls seems like a huge stretch and hyperbolic.

[henster]

lol Swalwell by no means speaks for the entire caucus he's not even poised to chair any committees.

[dead0man]

What Swalwell is proposing, how much of the guns people own would actually be covered under this? Since he says "military-style semiautomatic assault weapons". I'm not sure on the peculiarities of the issue as to what types of guns this covers and whether most gun owners own the guns mentioned or different guns, but I'm not sure if Swalwell wants 'your' guns.

indeed this is important, but immediately brings up the problem of what makes a gun with a wooden stock less dangerous than the exact same gun with a "military" style stock?  Or what do bayonet lugs have to do with anything, has a criminal ever bayoneted someone?  And of course the always important to point out fact that more Americans are killed with fists than with rifles (military looking ones and otherwise).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

perhaps.  Perhaps when all the "military style rifles" are gone and gun death rates haven't changed all that much (because why would they? since they make a tiny fraction of gun crime) you'll want to ban even more guns (that also won't change gun crime any).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

maybe you're right, do you want to find out?  Once you start walking down that road, it's going to be real hard to turn around if you don't like how it's going.

[JA]

Guns aren't the problem, and comparing America to other "first world" countries with stricter gun control laws is comparing apples to oranges. You must compare America to other countries with similar socioeconomic conditions, such as extremely high wealth inequality; then, we'd be similar to Brazil and Russia, both of which have high rates of gun violence.

If you want to reduce gun violence (and crime in general), then you'd focus on improving the socioeconomic conditions of Americans, not banning this or that weapon (which will be acquired and used for violence anyway).

[DrScholl]

If you give a psychotic answer about starting a one man war that is the sort of silly answer you get. Eric Swalwell wasn't serious, but the gun fanatic was. Joe Biggs is seriously scary.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The government should not be giving away ransom money through a gun buyback program.

Just confiscate them without compensation, like we do in any other circumstance where someone in in control of illegally obtained property.

And make sure that law enforcement is NOT exempt from this.

[Deblano]

People miss the big picture.

If the United States fell into a civil war over something like gun laws (a pretty unlikely scenario in the near future btw), we would probably be witnessing a SIGNIFICANT great depression and maybe even the brink of WWIII. At least a million would die, millions more would be displaced, cities would turn into rubble (like in Syria), standards of living would fall to the ground, and WMDs would either go missing or be used by rogue factions. Same thing applies if China or Russia were the ones to fall into civil war.

You do NOT want to ever see a nuclear-armed nation collapse into civil war. It would be by far the most serious crisis faced by the human race.

[Crumpets]

lol Swalwell by no means speaks for the entire caucus he's not even poised to chair any committees.

He also endorsed O'Malley for President - shows how in touch he is with your run-of-the-mill Democrat.

[Devout Centrist]

Dead0man makes a bad thread, forum disagrees, then it gets weird

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Dead0man makes a bad thread, forum disagrees, then it gets weird

[Calthrina950]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A Twitter user thought that was too far
https://twitter.com/Rambobiggs/status/1063524877733371905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7C...

And then Eric Swalwell answered with this
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063527635114852352?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7...

<shock face>

He says he was just being sarcastic.
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063557843196891137

and I'm sure those that agree with him politically will buy that.  The rest of us though?

Speaking of those that agree with him on this, how do you think confiscation is going to go down?  Half a million dead?  2 million dead?  Do you think the Army, USMC and cops from all levels are going to go fight their parents, siblings, children and other assorted friends and family members to enforce a law they don't agree with?

Swalwell is one of the most radical Democrats in Congress. People of his ilk are just as bad as those extreme Republicans who are staunch Trump supporters. While I support moves to ban bumpstocks, improve our mental health system, and increase school security, I don't support any moves that would adversely affect a law-abiding citizen's right to own and utilize firearms. Swalwell seems to be suggesting such a course of action.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Swalwell is a conservative Democrat who ran an anti atheist ad against the only openly atheist member of congress ever.

[The Mikado]

Swalwell's being a jackass, but he's not advocating gun seizure, he's pointing out that rebellion against the US government will lead any rebels to be crushed by the most powerful military on the planet. Two different points.

I don't think anyone in the Dem caucus seriously thinks mass confiscation of firearms is practical or an actionable plan. Just that the answer isn't "do whatever the NRA wants and have literally no restrictions on possession of deadly weapons at all" and that restrictions can be put into place.

Americans have access to all sorts of deadly weapons at the moment, but nowhere near the firepower of the US military, so all those "protect us from the government" lines not only A. imply shooting our soldiers, but B. are utterly idiotic, which is what Swalwell was getting at.

[Orser67]

If you give a psychotic answer about starting a one man war that is the sort of silly answer you get. Eric Swalwell wasn't serious, but the gun fanatic was. Joe Biggs is seriously scary.

Yeah I was far more disturbed by the radical gun owner than I was by Swalwell. I might be more forgiving if Swalwell had been talking about confiscating all guns, but he was only talking about confiscating a subset of weapons.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Guns aren't the problem, and comparing America to other "first world" countries with stricter gun control laws is comparing apples to oranges. You must compare America to other countries with similar socioeconomic conditions, such as extremely high wealth inequality; then, we'd be similar to Brazil and Russia, both of which have high rates of gun violence.

If you want to reduce gun violence (and crime in general), then you'd focus on improving the socioeconomic conditions of Americans, not banning this or that weapon (which will be acquired and used for violence anyway).

[RI]

Atlas: Matt Shea, a state rep., talking Christian war principles should be used against all Republicans!

Also Atlas: Eric Swalwell, a US House rep., talking nuking gunowners should NOT be used against all Democrats!

[Person Man]

Gun ownership is fine. I just don't want some of them threatening to conquer me all the time.

does this happen unprovoked?

Gun ownership is fine. I just don't want some of them threatening to conquer me all the time.

does this happen unprovoked?

Carter didn't take anyone's guns away. Clinton didn't take anyone's guns away. Obama didn't take anyone's guns away. If people still want to be dicks, then they need to be treated like dicks. If you disagree with what this one Congresscritter says or how he wants to treat people who are dicks by being a dick himself, I am totally on board with congratulating you with participating in a way that we all should but yeah. I also have the right to be concerned about those who tread on me when I am not the person they want and the person they want hasn't even wronged them the way they said they have been wronged.