Swalwell Suggests Government Would Use ‘Nukes’ on Americans Resisting Gun Confiscation

[tulc]

Swalwell is a kook.

...and the Free Beacon helped fund the Steele dossier. Been here:
The Washington Free Beacon - Wikipedia

From October 2015 to May 2016, the Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on "multiple candidates" during the 2016 presidential election, including Donald Trump. The Free Beacon stopped funding this research when Donald Trump had clinched the Republican nomination.[9] Fusion GPS would later hire former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and produce a dossier alleging links between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Paul Singer, a billionaire and hedge fund manager, who is a major donor to the Free Beacon, said he was unaware of this dossier until it was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017.[10] On October 27, 2017, the Free Beacon publicly disclosed that it had hired Fusion GPS, and stated that it "had no knowledge of or connection to the Steele dossier, did not pay for the dossier, and never had contact with, knowledge of, or provided payment for any work performed by Christopher Steele."[11]

The Free Beacon came under criticism for its reporting on Fusion GPS. Three days before it was revealed that it was the Free Beacon that had funded the work by Fusion GPS, the Free Beacon wrote that the firm's work “was funded by an unknown GOP client while the primary was still going on."[12] The Free Beacon has also published pieces that have sought to portray the work by Fusion GPS as unreliable "without noting that it considered Fusion GPS reliable enough to pay for its services."[12] In an editor's note, Continetti said "the reason for this omission is that the authors of these articles, and the particular editors who reviewed them, were unaware of this relationship," and that the outlet was reviewing its editorial process to avoid similar issues in the future.[13]

tulc(will just leave this here)

 

[Strathos]

No he didn't. You gotta be kidding that you take free beacon seriously.

Someone said an attempt to remove guns would turn into a war, Salwell pointed out it would be a short war, and in the same tweet suggested negotiation and compromise a better idea.

That may have been what he meant, but it was very poorly worded, as his tweet implied that it would actually be a potential course of action to use nuclear weapons on American soil against our own citizens. Even in the case of a new Civil War, neither side would ever be foolish enough to do that.

 

[Tanj]

That may have been what he meant, but it was very poorly worded

Agreed.

as his tweet implied that it would actually be a potential course of action to use nuclear weapons on American soil against our own citizens. Even in the case of a new Civil War, neither side would ever be foolish enough to do that.

The inability of the average American to understand even basic forms of irony, is the source of all your woes.

 

[Strathos]

Agreed.



The inability of the average American to understand even basic forms of irony, is the source of all your woes.

I think it's fair to hold politicians to a higher standard than most other people when it comes to making such statements. A few moments of thought before posting that and he would have easily recognized the problem with what he was saying.

 

[Kentonio]

I think it's fair to hold politicians to a higher standard than most other people when it comes to making such statements. A few moments of thought before posting that and he would have easily recognized the problem with what he was saying.

Oh come on now, he was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the 'armed resistance against the government' gun arguments. By mentioning nukes he was clearly being hyperbolic to prove a point.

 

[Fantine]

Of course Swalwell's comment was in jest. The point he was making is that those who want assault weapons "in case the government oversteps its bounds" will be no match for the government which has much more effective ways to confiscate their weapons.

 

[Tom 1]

Swalwell Suggests Government Would Use 'Nukes' on Americans Resisting Gun Confiscation

On Friday, during an exchange over his proposal to confiscate certain firearms, Representative Eric Swalwell (D., Calif.) suggested the government would use nuclear weapons against Americans who resisted confiscation efforts.

Maybe he should cut back on the caffeine.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Of course Swalwell's comment was in jest. The point he was making is that those who want assault weapons "in case the government oversteps its bounds" will be no match for the government which has much more effective ways to confiscate their weapons.

Ah, but you see... That doesn't make for a catchy attention grabbing thread topic quite like "Democrat suggests nuking gun owners!" does.

 

[USincognito]

I understand that he was referring to H.R.5087, which would ban semiautomatic pistols (which SCOTUS says people have a constitutional right to own) as well as semiautomatic hunting rifles.

Did you look over the bill? There's some provisions in there that might seem that way, but when you look at the proposed amendment of 921(a), paragraph 36 (D) and (E) we see:

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

“(i) A threaded barrel.

“(ii) A second pistol grip.

“(iii) A barrel shroud.

“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

“(E) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.​

So let's leave aside for a moment that neither Heller nor McDonald established owning semiautomatic pistols as a right (that never happened) and just look at the listed characteristics.

Most semiautos don't come with a threaded barrel.
Nor a second pistol grip.
Nor a barrel shroud.
Nor a detachable mag in a position other than the pistol grip.
Nor are they semiauto versions of automatic pistols.
And most don't have a fixed magazine.

Just looking at those characteristics and the listed banned pistols, and more importantly the long list of exempted weapons, it really strains credulity to say that the bill would confiscate "half of all existing guns". That simply doesn't withstand scrutiny now... nor did it back in March when Politifact rated the claim Pants On Fire.
Would this bill in Congress ban all semi-automatic weapons?

 

[Radagast]

So let's leave aside for a moment that neither Heller nor McDonald established owning semiautomatic pistols as a right (that never happened)

That's how I read the Heller decision. It's also how Brett Kavanaugh reads it.

And 65% of rifles sold in the US each year are AR-15s. I stand by my estimate that the majority of firearms in the US are semiautomatic. As far as I can tell, most of those would be banned by HR 5087.

 

[USincognito]

That's how I read the Heller decision.

Heller only affirms the right to own a firearm for personal protection. It doesn't specify what sort of firearm.
>> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. <<

>> 2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: <<

It's also how Brett Kavanaugh reads it.

That's nice. The junior most associate justice is welcome to his opinion.

And 65% of rifles sold in the US each year are AR-15s.

Source?

I stand by my estimate that the majority of firearms in the US are semiautomatic. As far as I can tell, most of those would be banned by HR 5087.

Again, you need to read the actual provisions of the bill. It does not outlaw semiautomatic weapons and in fact makes provisions to allow quite a few of them. That includes semiautomatic handguns.