• 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

Marvan Buren said:
No. Educate me, please.
Click to expand...

Resistance to a rogue government will not take the form of large bodies of easily identifiable citizens marching on Washington or forming battalions to be easy targets for military resistance.

"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea". A significant portion of the government, both military and civilian, won't support the rogue government. Much could be accomplished to bring down any rogue government without ever having to organize as a military unit.
 
Media_Truth said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's not my rogue-government scenario. I believe you first mentioned it.
 
Rucker61 said:
Resistance to a rogue government will not take the form of large bodies of easily identifiable citizens marching on Washington or forming battalions to be easy targets for military resistance.

"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea". A significant portion of the government, both military and civilian, won't support the rogue government. Much could be accomplished to bring down any rogue government without ever having to organize as a military unit.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Appreciate the response.

However, our armed citizens still wouldn't stand a chance against drones, spy satellites, facial recognition technology and all of the other resources that a modern government can bring to bear. We are not Nationalist China (yet.) It's true that they could use their weapons to significantly harm the economy as the terrorize and kill innocent civilians but doesn't that prove the point that having rogue militias undermines security rather than protecting it?
 
Marvan Buren said:
Thank you. Appreciate the response.

However, our armed citizens still wouldn't stand a chance against drones, spy satellites, facial recognition technology and all of the other resources that a modern government can bring to bear.
Click to expand...

Any government that would use armed drones against its citizens should be opposed. Your scenario would also require that no one who runs the satellites and government software support these actions rather than sabotage or turn these tools against the government.

We are not Nationalist China (yet.) It's true that they could use their weapons to significantly harm the economy as the terrorize and kill innocent civilians but doesn't that prove the point that having rogue militias undermines security rather than protecting it?
Click to expand...

There is a vast difference between armed citizens and rogue militias. The latter aren't allowed by law - see Presser v Illinois.
 
Rucker61 said:
It's not my rogue-government scenario. I believe you first mentioned it.
Click to expand...

And yet it was your scenario in the post directly above:

Resistance to a rogue government will not take the form of large bodies of easily identifiable citizens marching on Washington or forming battalions to be easy targets for military resistance.

"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea". A significant portion of the government, both military and civilian, won't support the rogue government. Much could be accomplished to bring down any rogue government without ever having to organize as a military unit.

You guys are the future heroes of America.:roll: When Armageddon comes, you will be saviors. I saw something similar on the Walking Dead.
 
Media_Truth said:
And yet it was your scenario in the post directly above:

Resistance to a rogue government will not take the form of large bodies of easily identifiable citizens marching on Washington or forming battalions to be easy targets for military resistance.

"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea". A significant portion of the government, both military and civilian, won't support the rogue government. Much could be accomplished to bring down any rogue government without ever having to organize as a military unit.

You guys are the future heroes of America.:roll: When Armageddon comes, you will be saviors. I saw something similar on the Walking Dead.
Click to expand...

That still your rogue government scenario.
 
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...

Its amazing how democrats tell us its just NRA or gun lubber paranoia that democrats want to take our guns away. Even before this guy opened his mouth prominent democrats are praising the gun control laws of the UK and Australia and whining how the US is the only country that has these kinds of gun problems. Anyone who utters that nonsense wants to take away your guns.
 
jamesrage said:
Its amazing how democrats tell us its just NRA or gun lubber paranoia that democrats want to take our guns away. Even before this guy opened his mouth prominent democrats are praising the gun control laws of the UK and Australia and whining how the US is the only country that has these kinds of gun problems. Anyone who utters that nonsense wants to take away your guns.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The proper response would have been: no one is going to take your guns away. Not, if you try and resist our demands we will nuke you. Swalwells dumb comment shows why we need an armed citizenry.
 
jamesrage said:
Its amazing how democrats tell us its just NRA or gun lubber paranoia that democrats want to take our guns away. Even before this guy opened his mouth prominent democrats are praising the gun control laws of the UK and Australia and whining how the US is the only country that has these kinds of gun problems. Anyone who utters that nonsense wants to take away your guns.
Click to expand...

half of the anti gun movement spews crap about wanting only "reasonable gun control" and denies bannerrhoid proclivities while the other half screams for abolishing the second amendment, banning guns and killing gun owners who resist confiscation schemes. The "moderate" (the incrementalist banners) hope that the radical nonsense makes their schemes look reasonable but they never seem to answer how they distance themselves from the confiscators. Which of course is the issue. the fact remains, though, once you believe the way to stop violent lawbreakers from obtaining the weapons they already are banned from owning, is to ban or restrict honest people from owning them, you have already made the mental decision to accept a ban.

and given most of the schemes only impact honest gun owners, we gun owners are correct in believing that the real goal is harassing honest gun owners. that is further proven by the fact that 90% of the anti gun arguments are directed at the NRA and lawful gun use-not violent criminals
 
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...

Here's where it comes from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-n871066

It's on an assault weapons ban: I told you guys it was coming...

But - nice cherry picking though.
 
I would start taking bets the clown that proposed this ban's time in office would be coming to a close the minute storm troopers start using violence against people who don't turn in their arms if the crap passes at a federal level. He'd be voted out of office in a NY second. That is assuming the courts don't strike it down. I wonder if jet hopes to be ratting out neighbors he thinks have banned weapons if the law passes/

Under Heller firearms that are in common use and not unusually dangerous are protected. Like it or not Jet, that is the current law. and your wet dreams for a confiscation isn't going to happen.
 
TurtleDude said:
and I am sure every time a gun ban is announced, you have an orgasmic reaction. Guess what, this is why we gun owners are making sure good judges continue to be appointed to the federal courts.
Click to expand...

Even Giffords and the Brady Campaign were quick to disassociate themselves from this nutcase.
 
Media_Truth said:
The US should follow the Australian model of gun control.
Click to expand...

Find a recent red/blue map of the States. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

The Australian model can only work if there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. You realize that the Australian model would still leave 4.5 million assault rifles out in civilians' hands and still allow semiautomatic handguns like the one used at Virginia Tech, right?
 
Rucker61 said:
Find a recent red/blue map of the States. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

The Australian model can only work if there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. You realize that the Australian model would still leave 4.5 million assault rifles out in civilians' hands and still allow semiautomatic handguns like the one used at Virginia Tech, right?
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is the only text from Amendment 2:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The US now has a military, and we don't need a vigilante military. So it no longer applies.
 
Media_Truth said:
Sorry but this is the only text from Amendment 2:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The US now has a military, and we don't need a vigilante military. So it no longer applies.
Click to expand...

Whose right is protected? Terms in the Constitution don't just fade away. The Framers created a process to modify the Constitution, and that process is found in Article 1, Section 8.

The Constitution doesn't grant the federal government any power to regulate the arms of the militia. The Second Amendment certainly doesn't do so, as the entire intent of the Bill of Rights was to enumerate restrictions on the power of the federal government. There was no such power enumerated in the Constitution itself and certainly none in the Second Amendment.

We still have a miltia, over 60 million strong. Better get Congress to change that law.
 
Media_Truth said:
Sorry but this is the only text from Amendment 2:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The US now has a military, and we don't need a vigilante military. So it no longer applies.
Click to expand...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms applies until the US constitution is amended to state otherwise.
 
Media_Truth said:
The US should follow the Australian model of gun control.
Click to expand...

in other words, violate the second amendment-even as watered down as it is now.
 
Rucker61 said:
Whose right is protected? Terms in the Constitution don't just fade away. The Framers created a process to modify the Constitution, and that process is found in Article 1, Section 8.

The Constitution doesn't grant the federal government any power to regulate the arms of the militia. The Second Amendment certainly doesn't do so, as the entire intent of the Bill of Rights was to enumerate restrictions on the power of the federal government. There was no such power enumerated in the Constitution itself and certainly none in the Second Amendment.

We still have a miltia, over 60 million strong. Better get Congress to change that law.
Click to expand...

He is one of the lefties whose main goals is harassing legal gun owners. It has nothing to do about crime control.
 
Media_Truth said:
Sorry but this is the only text from Amendment 2:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The US now has a military, and we don't need a vigilante military. So it no longer applies.
Click to expand...

that's really silly. It proves you haven't a clue what the second amendment means or what the founders intended. and until it is repealed (good luck with that) it remains. The natural right the founders decided to recognize was the natural right of self defense. A right that is a valid and needed today as it was almost 250 years ago
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really silly. It proves you haven't a clue what the second amendment means or what the founders intended. and until it is repealed (good luck with that) it remains. The natural right the founders decided to recognize was the natural right of self defense. A right that is a valid and needed today as it was almost 250 years ago
Click to expand...

Self defense from the military, for the protection of the State. Sorry, but you can't change the text.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the precondition to the second part of the statement. Without that precondition, the second part doesn't matter. That is basic logic of the English language. It is really up to the military to determine whether or not armed citizens are required for their defense of the state. About every 10 years, the military should take a vote.
 
Media_Truth said:
Self defense from the military, for the protection of the State. Sorry, but you can't change the text.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the precondition to the second part of the statement. Without that precondition, the second part doesn't matter. That is basic logic of the English language. It is really up to the military to determine whether or not armed citizens are required for their defense of the state. About every 10 years, the military should take a vote.
Click to expand...
Except the militia still exists, regardless of whether we have a standing army or not.
 
Media_Truth said:
Self defense from the military, for the protection of the State. Sorry, but you can't change the text.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is the precondition to the second part of the statement. Without that precondition, the second part doesn't matter. That is basic logic of the English language. It is really up to the military to determine whether or not armed citizens are required for their defense of the state. About every 10 years, the military should take a vote.
Click to expand...

One, you're reading the sentence completely wrong. The need for a well regulated militia is dependent upon an unrestricted right of the people to possess firearms, but it's not the only reason the right is protected. The preface states a sufficent but not necessary condition.

Two, the military has no legal power over the governance of the people. The civilian government tells the military what to do, not the other way around.
 
What a stupid remark for Rep Swalwell to make. I understand the need for some to engage in hyperbole, but this is plain ludicrous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom