California Dem says US would win 'short war' against gun-rights advocates

[Charlie T Waite]

California Dem says US would win 'short war' against gun-rights advocates: 'The government has nukes'

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-dem-says-government-would-use-nuclear-weapons-against-gun-owners-resisting-firearms-control

[Subdeacon Joe]

He'll try to pass it off as a joke.  But that he can even consider it is frightening.

 

U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell on Friday said the U.S. government would use its nuclear weapons in a hypothetical war against Second Amendment supporters refusing to give up their firearms.

The California Democrat, who is openly considering a run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2020, made the outlandish remark on social media after a gun-rights advocate pointed out that the lawmaker once called for gun owners to surrender their assault weapons.

“So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that's what you would get. You're outta your f------ mind if you think I'll give up my rights and give the [government] all the power," Joe Biggs tweeted at Swalwell.

This prompted Swalwell to defend himself, saying it would be a “short war” because “the government has nukes,” implying the government would use its nuclear arsenal against its own citizens.

Rep. Eric Swalwell

 

✔@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.

 

1,569

12:22 PM - Nov 16, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

21.4K people are talking about this

 

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

The comment drew an immediate backlash, with thousands of people criticizing the lawmaker for the ill-thought-out remark.

“Here is an actual member of the U.S. Congress talking about using nuclear weapons against Americans,” David Freddoso wrote.

“Personally, I have a bigger problem with an elected official blithely talking about nuking his fellow Americans than my neighbor owning an AR-15,” Cam Edwards tweeted.

Swalwell -- a member of both the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee -- tried to defuse the situation, saying the need for a firearm to protect against the government is “ludicrous” and suggested that if an assault weapon ban would happen, people would just follow the law.

He later clarified that he was merely being facetious in his suggestion about the use of nuclear weapons. “I sarcastically point[ed] out USA isn't losing to his assault weapon (it's not the 18th Century),” he wrote.

Rep. Eric Swalwell

 

✔@RepSwalwell

 

 

America’s gun debate in one thread.

1) I propose a buy-back of assault weapons

2) Gun owner says he’ll go to war with USA if that happens

3) I sarcastically point out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century)

4) I’m called a tyrant

5) 0 progress

 

 

 

Meanwhile, Swalwell appeared Friday on HBO’s "Real Time with Bill Maher" show, talking about his potential plan to run for president, saying he’s “considering” it. The lawmaker, who will turn 40 in November 2020, would be the youngest candidate ever elected president.

He also came out unapologetically for his fellow California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, backing her for the House speaker position, and promising to use the Democratic House majority to investigate President Trump and pressure the president to release his tax returns.

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

... a Note from the Past

 

Quote

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have
been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make
an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to
say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as
for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire
city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror
at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase,
but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up
in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes,
hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very
quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and,
notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have
ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more
we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply
deserved everything that happened afterward."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

one of the things that you can't do with military power is to over-run a population that is in opposition. the key is the word "population".   Scattered "dissidents" will be quickly identified by surveillance,.... and ...neutralized.    

 

seems like I read someplace something to the effect that we are supposed to defend our nation against all enemies -- foreign and domestic.   our trouble today is at least in part a matter of identity.   who are we?   what do we stand for?  if we cannot answer these questions firmly we have no chance of identifying an enemy that seeks to assimilate itself into our society.

[Dantankerous]

3 hours ago, Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996 said:

... a Note from the Past

 

 

one of the things that you can't do with military power is to over-run a population that is in opposition. the key is the word "population".   Scattered "dissidents" will be quickly identified by surveillance,.... and ...neutralized.    

 

seems like I read someplace something to the effect that we are supposed to defend our nation against all enemies -- foreign and domestic.   our trouble today is at least in part a matter of identity.   who are we?   what do we stand for?  if we cannot answer these questions firmly we have no chance of identifying an enemy that seeks to assimilate itself into our society.

 

Problem is, this enemy does not see itself as the enemy.

 

Libs are like a cat. Always ready to pounce but never have a second step to their thought process about what might happen next. Real consequences to their emotional reactions be damned. The ends justifies the mean in getting to their imaginary socialist utopia. Plenty of examples to illustrate this. 

 

 

 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

What our silly little congressman fails to recognize is that our military is more likely to side with the people than the government when forced to choose between a corrupt hierarchy and the people that they swore to defend!!!

[Tyrel Cody]

4 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

What our silly little congressman fails to recognize is that our military is more likely to side with the people than the government when forced to choose between a corrupt hierarchy and the people that they swore to defend!!!

 

 

Maybe, I’ve worked recently with some of the younger ones and they point blank told me if their superiors ordered it they’d follow orders. 

[Grampaw Willie, SASS No.26996]

the issue is Hearts & Minds -- not hills and trenches

 

if you can get people to give you what you want -- why fight them for it ?

 

we are supposed to stick to the Defense of the Second Amendment on this board.   I worry about getting too far off topic at times; still, it the larger picture defending the Second Amendment will really involve defending our American Traditions.   This means our sovereignty -- and with that our freedoms -- which exist only as a benefit of limited government.

[Yul Lose]

9 hours ago, Tyrel Cody said:

 

 

Maybe, I’ve worked recently with some of the younger ones and they point blank told me if their superiors ordered it they’d follow orders. 

 Exactly right. Have you noticed how many ex-military members are winning elections as democrats? I personally know a few marines who are very far left and anti-gun and tell me they wouldn’t hesitate to take up arms against U.S. citizens if ordered to do so. Anyone thinking that every military member supports our second amendment rights is sadly mistaken.