• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rep. Eric Swalwell seems to have an answer for gun control

Lutherf

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
47,533
Reaction score
53,213
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063527635114852352


Rep. Eric Swalwell
‏Verified account @RepSwalwell
Replying to @Rambobiggs

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.
12:22 PM - 16 Nov 2018
Click to expand...

Nukes, huh? Well, Eric, I suppose that is an option. I'm not so sure you'll get a lot of backing for that idea but having a sitting Congressman so much as suggest such an option is, in a word, disturbing.
 
I’m thinking this will come back to bite in spades.........Twitter & politicians; what could go wrong?
 
Swalwell and Cardillo are both moron zealots.

John Cardillo
John Cardillo
@johncardillo
Make no mistake, Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state.

These people are dangerously obsessed with power.


Rep. Eric Swalwell
Rep. Eric Swalwell
@RepSwalwell
Replying to
@WalshFreedom
Joe, it’s sarcasm. He said he’s going to war with America if gun legislation was passed. I told him his government has nukes. God forbid we use sarcasm

Really stupid, tone deaf sarcasm.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063527635114852352




Nukes, huh? Well, Eric, I suppose that is an option. I'm not so sure you'll get a lot of backing for that idea but having a sitting Congressman so much as suggest such an option is, in a word, disturbing.
Click to expand...
Maybe that is a new gun law Kalistan is kicking around. I'm sure this will be remembered next voting cycle. He should be kicked to the curb now.
 
Lutherf said:
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063527635114852352



Nukes, huh? Well, Eric, I suppose that is an option. I'm not so sure you'll get a lot of backing for that idea but having a sitting Congressman so much as suggest such an option is, in a word, disturbing.
Click to expand...

He's obviously mentally ill and someone who makes comments like that should not hold public office.

he also proves why the founders were so wise and why the second amendment is so important
 
Lutherf said:
https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063527635114852352




Nukes, huh? Well, Eric, I suppose that is an option. I'm not so sure you'll get a lot of backing for that idea but having a sitting Congressman so much as suggest such an option is, in a word, disturbing.
Click to expand...

Nothing like a partial quote to interpret a statement out of context.

Joe Biggs
✔
@Rambobiggs
· 9h
So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your ****ing mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Rep. Eric Swalwell
✔
@RepSwalwell
And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

He's simply making a point that it's ridiculous for Gun-Owners to think they can battle some type of gone-rogue Government.
 
Eric Swalwell is DEAD ON with his assessment. These guns have no purpose in a civilized society. A SELL-BACK is a great idea.

The NRA has hijacked America, as is evident in these threads. The Conservative hero, Ronald Reagan wouldn't even make it through the Republican Primary today.

Reagan_Gun_Control.jpg
 
Rep. Eric Swalwell
‏Verified account @RepSwalwell
Replying to @Rambobiggs

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit..... 12:22 PM - 16 Nov 2018
Click to expand...

A bit disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like someone who considers armed citizens to be an enemy, to be subjugated regardless of cost?

From a different era, but I have never been able to get this phrase out of my head:

"'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."

Written by Peter Arnett in the New York Times, 1968
 
Media_Truth said:
Nothing like a partial quote to interpret a statement out of context.

Joe Biggs
✔
@Rambobiggs
· 9h
So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your ****ing mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Rep. Eric Swalwell
✔
@RepSwalwell
And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

He's simply making a point that it's ridiculous for Gun-Owners to think they can battle some type of gone-rogue Government.
Click to expand...

He's doing more than that. He's implying supremacy of the government over the citizens and he is also implying that the government can and should use force against the people if the people resist that supremacy. It's about as anti-American as a government official can get.
 
Lutherf said:
He's doing more than that. He's implying supremacy of the government over the citizens and he is also implying that the government can and should use force against the people if the people resist that supremacy. It's about as anti-American as a government official can get.
Click to expand...

No he's not.
 
dogboy49 said:
A bit disturbing. Am I the only one who thinks this sounds like someone who considers armed citizens to be an enemy, to be subjugated regardless of cost?

From a different era, but I have never been able to get this phrase out of my head:

"'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it,' a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."

Written by Peter Arnett in the New York Times, 1968
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that guns that kill masses of people in a short period time are the enemy of a civilized society. Australia is a better country, after outlawing them.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, I think that guns that kill masses of people in a short period time are the enemy of a civilized society. Australia is a better country, after outlawing them.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think that automobiles are the enemy of a civilized society.

I also think that Australia has always been a nice country, and hasn't changed much since changing their gun laws.
 
Lutherf said:
He's doing more than that. He's implying supremacy of the government over the citizens and he is also implying that the government can and should use force against the people if the people resist that supremacy. It's about as anti-American as a government official can get.
Click to expand...

Actually, Swallwell's just stating the obvious although he should have realized how easy it is to take comments out of context. Perhaps, he should have just referred to armed drones, tanks and air power instead of nukes. When the 2nd Amendment was written, a well regulated militia defending their homes could hold off a much larger army. With today's weapons, they would be wiped out before they could even fire a shot.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, I think that guns that kill masses of people in a short period time are the enemy of a civilized society. Australia is a better country, after outlawing them.
Click to expand...

We've had mass shootings with semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols, semi-automatic shotguns, bolt action rifles, lever action rifle, pump action shotguns, double barrel shotguns, rimfire rifles, rimfire pistols, and revolvers. The UK had a mass shooting with a bolt action rimfire rifle.

France had a mass killing with a truck. Australia has had mass murders with a knife and with a hammer. New Zealand still allows ownership of semiautomatic rifles and has never had a mass shooting with one.

You have a lot of outlawing to do.
 
Marvan Buren said:
Actually, Swallwell's just stating the obvious although he should have realized how easy it is to take comments out of context. Perhaps, he should have just referred to armed drones, tanks and air power instead of nukes. When the 2nd Amendment was written, a well regulated militia defending their homes could hold off a much larger army. With today's weapons, they would be wiped out before they could even fire a shot.
Click to expand...

You haven't studied much Mao, have you?
 
Media_Truth said:
Nothing like a partial quote to interpret a statement out of context.

Joe Biggs
✔
@Rambobiggs
· 9h
So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your ****ing mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Rep. Eric Swalwell
✔
@RepSwalwell
And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

He's simply making a point that it's ridiculous for Gun-Owners to think they can battle some type of gone-rogue Government.
Click to expand...

What would happen to this gone-rogue government if Anonymous or similar published on the internet the names and addresses of every soldier and government employee, and the names, photos and schools of all of their children? Who would be leaving those homes to go fight other Americans?
 
Rucker61 said:
We've had mass shootings with semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic pistols, semi-automatic shotguns, bolt action rifles, lever action rifle, pump action shotguns, double barrel shotguns, rimfire rifles, rimfire pistols, and revolvers. The UK had a mass shooting with a bolt action rimfire rifle.

France had a mass killing with a truck. Australia has had mass murders with a knife and with a hammer. New Zealand still allows ownership of semiautomatic rifles and has never had a mass shooting with one.

You have a lot of outlawing to do.
Click to expand...

France and England don't have the issues that the US does...

gun-death-rates-chart.jpg
 
dogboy49 said:
Personally, I think that automobiles are the enemy of a civilized society.

I also think that Australia has always been a nice country, and hasn't changed much since changing their gun laws.
Click to expand...

duh...
 
Rucker61 said:
What would happen to this gone-rogue government if Anonymous or similar published on the internet the names and addresses of every soldier and government employee, and the names, photos and schools of all of their children? Who would be leaving those homes to go fight other Americans?
Click to expand...

You will have to better explain your "Rogue Government" scenario. I'm not one of these Armageddon nutcases, and I don't espouse to armed citizenry having any effect whatsoever on a Rogue Government. Maybe that answers your question. Who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom