USA Today - Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters

PowPow · May 3, 2018

It's the same old anti-gun "common sense", drivel after drivel. That's 2 minutes of my life that I should have used better.

WeaponsCollector · May 4, 2018

When can we start locking up these domestic enemies of the constitution? Millions of Americans including basically all military and police have sworn an oath to support and defend our constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic, so if that oath means anything at all, when are we going to start enforcing it?

fidelity · May 4, 2018

GOG-MD said:
Yup. According to the CDC, 33,171 people in the US died in 2015 in alcohol-induced deaths excluding "unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use, as well as deaths due to
fetal alcohol syndrome." Add those in and the number would be far higher.

The same year, 36,161 people died in motor vehicle traffic incidents.

Again, the same year, 36,252 people died in ALL firearms-related incidents. Note that this includes suicides. Remove suicides and the number drops substantially: 17,793 homicides using firearms.

So if you combine all alcohol-related deaths, MORE people are killed by alcohol every year than firearms. Nearly the same number are killed by motor vehicles. Yet the only one politicians and un-educated sheeple are trying to ban or heavily restrict is firearms. You can't reason with people like this, because they don't care about the facts, even though it's all publicly available data. I looked this stuff up in about two minutes using Google.

And of course the type of firearm they're most going after is modern sporting rifles, despite the fact that rifles of ALL kinds are used in a tiny fraction of firearm-related homicides. You'd think where one's constitutional freedoms are involved, these people might want to look at the actual facts.

Sources referenced above:

CDC Alcohol Use Stats

National Vital Statistics Reports, page 12 - alcohol induced mortality

CDC Fast Stats - All Injuries and Assault or Homicide

Even more striking, consider the number that are killed annually by the "assault weapons" that he wants to ban and confiscate. It's probably under 500 and definitely under 1000. Most firearm homicides involve handguns. Similarly, year in, year out, the caliber associated with the greatest number of firearm deaths in the US is the lowly 22LR.

Separately, as Jim12 has been pointing out, this guy is House Democratic leadership. Author bio from the OpEd linked in the original post ...

Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California’s San Francisco Bay area, is co-chair of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee, and serves on the House Judiciary Committee*and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Jim12 · May 4, 2018

Don H said:
Will Mr. Swalwell (the author and CA congressman) be the one knocking on doors to collect our firearms?

Tucker suggested that last night. Swalwelk occasionally appears on his show to peddle the "Trump/RUSSIA!" myth.

ChannelCat · May 4, 2018

Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California’s San Francisco Bay area...

This is what they refer to in police terminology as "a clue"..

Pushrod · May 4, 2018

Doctor_M said:
I wonder if the author of this wonder piece of excrement understands what he is asking for when he advocates "arrest the resisters". What form do you think that resistance would take? I doubt it will just be folks burying their guns... it will be people DIGGING UP their guns.

It will happen one isolated incident at a time, a companion or neighbor will turn in the resister and swat will raid the house and take that person dead or alive. They won't come for them all at once, too dangerous for the government thugs to even contemplate that. They have time on their side, and they will take us one at a time (if it ever comes to that).

jbrown50 · May 4, 2018

Jim12 said:
"Buy them back"?

So, they once belonged to the government, the government sold them, and the government has a "right" to "buy them back"?

I have a bridge I'd like the government to "buy back."

It's a softer term than "forced sale." Or "eminent domain," which would be more fitting. Only in "eminent domain" proceedings, the forced seller can challenge the offer price and litigate it. What's the fair market value of an AR-15 that would be forcibly sold and can't be replaced? Priceless. What's the price of freedom? Priceless. The government couldn't EVER afford it.

Eric Swalwell, a CA Congressman, once lived in MD and went to the University of MD Law School, iirc.
He's also Adam Schiff's "Mini-me" on the House Intel Committee's Dem. RUSSIA! witch hunt.

The word is confiscate, but they can't use that word because it will be an admission that the government doesn't own guns.

Their view of the world is that the government owns everything including money and especially guns.

DC-W · May 4, 2018

honukane · May 4, 2018

This article is just plain stupid

echo6mike · May 4, 2018

Nothing to add here, just adding another voice of disgust :puke2:

at this

Congresscritter

armed_economist · May 4, 2018

how does this guy compare to donald "take the guns first ask questions later" trump?

krucam · May 4, 2018

armed_economist said:
how does this guy compare to donald "take the guns first ask questions later" trump?

What has Trump done re Red Flag actions?

DC-W · May 4, 2018

armed_economist said:
how does this guy compare to donald "take the guns first ask questions later" trump?

5.56blaster · May 4, 2018

I think the first amendment should be removed from the Constitution when its used wrong. Think that will fly. Oh nevermind that's different (commie leftists like to pick and choose). Just outlaw democrats!!

Allen65 · May 4, 2018

5.56blaster said:
I think the first amendment should be removed from the Constitution when its used wrong.

Might as well. The 4th went bye-bye with civil seizures, and had extra dirt piled on with HB1302 and similar laws. The 5th now has many asterisks on it, and the 14th isn't looking so healthy, either. Just about the only amendment not being assaulted daily is the 3rd. But let's not give MGA any ideas.

JMintzer · May 4, 2018

fidelity said:
Even more striking, consider the number that are killed annually by the "assault weapons" that he wants to ban and confiscate. It's probably under 500 and definitely under 1000. Most firearm homicides involve handguns. Similarly, year in, year out, the caliber associated with the greatest number of firearm deaths in the US is the lowly 22LR.

According to Feinstein, the number is about 35...

RepublicOfFranklin · May 4, 2018

Every time I see an idiotic sentence followed by “D-CA” I immediately wonder when is the “Big One” coming to break that state off to drift in the Pacific.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wabbit · May 4, 2018

davsco said:
pretty much all above. why don't we try putting and keeping actual violent criminals in friggin' jail instead of banning tools that the vast majority of folks use in a completely law-abiding manner. where's the ban on alcohol, heck where is the limit on buying alcohol at the ABC store to one beer per hour. there is none of that. anyone of age can buy as much booze as they want and we just trust that they won't drive drunk or kill their family in a drunken rage. why is this same trust and freedom not extended to firearms?

That won't work because it directly counters one of the core beliefs of liberals, that criminals aren't bad people, they are made to commit crimes by society. It's not the criminal's fault, never is. This ideology goes back to the Great Society liberalism in the 1960's and it has thoroughly infested the Democrat party. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

lonewolf220 · May 4, 2018

davsco said:
pretty much all above. why don't we try putting and keeping actual violent criminals in friggin' jail instead of banning tools that the vast majority of folks use in a completely law-abiding manner. where's the ban on alcohol , heck where is the limit on buying alcohol at the ABC store to one beer per hour. there is none of that. anyone of age can buy as much booze as they want and we just trust that they won't drive drunk or kill their family in a drunken rage. why is this same trust and freedom not extended to firearms?

We tried that once. Didn't work out so well. Created a bunch of organized crime, disregard for the law by the citizens, and corrupt politicians. We've seen the same thing from the war on drugs.

What I don't get is why the gun grabbers think that a ban on guns will have a different result when prohibition and the war on drugs were such failures.

Jim12 · May 4, 2018

ChannelCat said:
This is what they refer to in police terminology as "a clue"..

Here's another: He went to UMD undergrad and law school.

USA Today - Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Where's the beef?

EXTREME GUN OWNER

piled higher and deeper

Let Freedom Ring

Ultimate Member

Master Blaster

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Hoarding Douche Waffle

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

Let Freedom Ring

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics