• 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!

[W:606]Do you support Rep. Eric Salwell's gun control idea?

Do you support this gun control idea?


  • Total voters
    94

Josie

*probably reading smut*
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
57,295
Reaction score
31,720
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”
 
I voted for the idea. There are simply weapons that no citizen has any business owning in a supposedly civilized society which has proven to have a real problem with such weapons and too many innocent people pay the ultimate price for other peoples toys.
 
Nope. Not a chance in hell. I would give consideration to a complete ban on Eric Salwell, though.
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”
The main problem, of course, is that “military style assault weapon” doesn’t really mean anything. Hell, Washington State just defines all semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.”
 
No. If they’re fit for civilian police use their fit for civilian use period.
 
IMHO, that is a bridge too far.

I'm all for sensible gun regulations, but not the Orwellian proposals that Swalwell endorses.
 
He is taking a brave approach...Standing up to the NRA and the angry white men that worship guns....Way to go Eric
 
Well, that's how you start a civil war. His smug comment about using "nukes" didn't exactly take the guano out of "bat-guano."

You one those "I'm ready to fight the Gubber-Mint" types?
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

Not only no but hell no.
I am sure every anti-2nd amendment piece of **** out there is just having wet dreams about the idea of a mandatory buy back.
 
The main problem, of course, is that “military style assault weapon” doesn’t really mean anything. Hell, Washington State just defines all semi-automatic rifles as “assault weapons.”

If you look up the Brady Assault Weapons ban it is magazine fed semiautomatic firearms with a couple of cosmetic features on them and semiautomatic shotguns. This includes semiautomatic shotguns too. Some states have a stricter definition. or a 1 or more feature instead of a two or more feature. Any time some anti-2nd amendment piece of **** says they want to ban to assault weapons they are talking about semi-automatic firearms in general. They aren't talking about automatic firearms IE what most people would call machine guns.
 
Not only no but hell no.
I am sure every anti-2nd amendment piece of **** out there is just having wet dreams about the idea of a mandatory buy back.

I don't own any guns. Haven't felt the need for them so far.

However, if this even looked like being possible...that would be the time I break my moratorium on ownership of guns.

I'd buy as many as I could afford via "other avenues" along with sufficient ammo to fight a small war...and cache them someplace safe.

That way when the jackbooted thugs of the "Thought Police" catering to all those Leftist authoritarians who think that the only rights we have are those given by the government come for me...I can give em as good a fight as I can.

Just check my avatar. ;)
 
Last edited:
I voted for the idea. There are simply weapons that no citizen has any business owning in a supposedly civilized society which has proven to have a real problem with such weapons and too many innocent people pay the ultimate price for other peoples toys.

That concept does not explain why those guns were sold initially, completely legally, by FFL dealers (thus in common use for lawful purposes). If congress can initiate a recall on scary black rifles (and jail folks for non-compliance) then what is to prevent congress from doing the same for any gun capable of accepting a "high capacity" magazine? Could that be the purpose of the 2A?
 
I don't own any guns. Haven't felt the need for them so far.

However, if this even looked like being possible...that would be the time I break my moratorium on ownership of guns.

I'd buy as many as I could afford via "other avenues" along with sufficient ammo to fight a small war...and cache them someplace safe.

That way when the jackbooted thugs of the "Thought Police" catering to all those Leftist authoritarians who think that the only rights we have are those given by the government come for me...I can give em as good a fight as I can.

Just check my avatar. ;)

I do not believe his "idea" would ever survive the current SCOTUS.....but I still find it ironic that the individuals that fear firearms and do not have them are trying to remove them from the law abiding citizens that are already armed.
 
I voted for the idea. There are simply weapons that no citizen has any business owning.
Why not? What are you defining as an assault weapon and what makes it inherently more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle?

Oh, and keep in mind that except maybe with a couple of rare exceptions I can’t think of, the U.S. Military does NOT use anything that would have been designated as an assault weapon. The Army uses assault rifles (M16/M4), battle rifles (M14), machine guns, and bolt action sniper rifles. I know there is (was) an auto loading sniper rifle but I don’t remember if it is semi-auto or select fire.
 
Last edited:
I will be happy to bet you that the definition of assault weapon is so vague that lever action tube feed and bolt action tube feed are inclusive in the proposal.
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

I wonder...

Has anyone ever asked Swalwell what part of "infringed" he doesn't understand?
 
I voted for the idea. There are simply weapons that no citizen has any business owning in a supposedly civilized society which has proven to have a real problem with such weapons and too many innocent people pay the ultimate price for other peoples toys.

You mean you support banning handguns since they kill the most people?...of course 2/3s of those deaths are suicides so do you also want to keep assisted suicide illegal?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls
View attachment 67244411
 
I will be happy to bet you that the definition of assault weapon is so vague that lever action tube feed and bolt action tube feed are inclusive in the proposal.

And a .22 rifle.

2mga93o.jpg


f4iavn.jpg
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

LOL hell no thats lunacy
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

This is strictly a political maneuver by blue state CA.'s 38 year old Swalwell, who, from what I have read, is planning to run for POTUS.
He's an idiot.
 
"Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,”

I say go for it. Bring it to a head and see who's still standing when the dust settles.
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...qeH_m_noBne0VujYf-5YvpvT-NvFQyp3plczT3GNUFfUk

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”




Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

CharltonHeston.jpg
 
IMHO, that is a bridge too far.

I'm all for sensible gun regulations, but not the Orwellian proposals that Swalwell endorses.

Would you vote against a Democrat that voted yes on this bill?
 
Back
Top Bottom