Rep Eric Swalwell (D-Cal) suggests nuking American Citizens who refuse to turn in "assault weapons."
- Thread starter SPM
- Start date
- Replies 77
- Views 3,589
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
And that is the primary reason why some will choose to do what is needed...really no different than it was at the beginning. I'm certain a lot of those folks knew damned well they weren't going to walk away from what they were about to do and would not be there, in the end, to witness the fruits of their labor.
I'm knocking on the door to 50. Law of averages is that I have already lived the majority of my time here and I'm content with that. My kids? They're almost 20 and many of you have kids/grandkids who are younger. Their lives (those <20) are really just starting.
So is there enough? Well, I believe there is. It is my contention that a dedicated few can accomplish much and history supports that assessment. Although we're almost 244 years removed from the 19th of April, I believe, down to my bones, there are those willing to walk out onto Lexington Green in the pre-dawn hours and see it through to the end, or their end; whichever may come first.
Why? What would cause an individual, who really only wants to live out the remainder of their life in peace, to take on such a task that will bring tumult, chaos, pain, suffering, agony and possibly even death to the peace they wish for?
It's not what they're walking to, but what they're walking from.
Family and tribe is one of the strongest motivators in life.
Last edited:
So many good posts on this thread but this one cracked me up
What would happen is we would defend his hyperbole as the exaggerated statement it was. But the shoe on the other foot we won't tolerate.
Oldguy
Chose the Red Pill
Charter Member
Charter Life Member
Life Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Tad of a difference JR. The shoe on the other foot would be happy to take them from us and invaders on our border are just that...Invaders. Not US citizens!
Swing and miss. I wasn't discussing what we would do.
Thanks for proving my point, we are always ready to rationalize for our side.
Not really, I was pointing out our hypocrisy on these matters. You'll find that almost all my complaints are about hypocrisy.
Oldguy
Chose the Red Pill
Charter Member
Charter Life Member
Life Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I've always considered "rationalizing" as attempting to prove a point when the facts are weak and not necessarily true. In this case, it's a fact that Swalwell would go against the Constitution to remove the right if he could get it done. It's also a fact that thousands of people coming to our borders are invaders until they go through the legal process for entry. So nope, I did not prove your point. But if it makes you feel better, go for it.
This explains a lot.
The problem is that appeal to hypocrisy essentially always invokes an ad hominem fallacy when (mis)used as an argument rather than a moral assertion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with validity of premises or coherence of arguments and their conclusions, which is to say hypocrites can make perfectly rational arguments. That being said, this vice can still lead one to fall very deep into hell.
Last edited:
If you have one set of standards for yourself and another for everyone else you aren't making a rational argument.
There should be only one law in the world, based on the golden rule. If it is not OK for them it is not OK for us.
IrishCannon
Fight hard.
What hypocrisy is it you're speaking of? I don't see a connection with any of it.
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk
Let me explain the logic to you. Since there might be a few people on CFF that would give Prez Trump a pass on anything, it is OK for the entire press, media, Hollywood and Democrat Party to be given a pass for anything they do or say. We are not aloud to criticize or question because there may be 1 member here that would laugh if Trump said te same thing.
georgel
Behind Every Blade of Grass
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Why? This is why...
I will teach my children war, but I cry at the thought they will have to fight it. This poster, this thought, also brings a tear to my eye, because it means I might not be coming back from this battle, but I go willingly.
Why? This is why...
I will teach my children war, but I cry at the thought they will have to fight it. This poster, this thought, also brings a tear to my eye, because it means I might not be coming back from this battle, but I go willingly.
No sir. You “must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.” (John Adams)
Now, this isn’t to say that the cup may not eventually be passed to the lips of our children or grandchildren, and that they ought not to know a thing or two about principles worth fighting for, worth killing for, worth dying for. That is an education all Free People must pass down to each successive generation if Liberty is to be valued and maintained. The must know more than how to fight, they must know why.
Now, if you read the grievances section of the Declaration, you will see the long train of abuses that our forefathers refused to suffer under are really small things when we look at those of today. We are long past due for the People to remind those who would rule we still have the will to resist. If that understanding had been maintained, there would be no talk of registration, buy backs, confrontations, or nukes.
That, Gentlemen, is our challenge today. To make America defiant again.
Someone should get him a video of himself walking to and from home, the grocery store, etc, with a cross hair on his skull superimposed, with a simple "hey, about those nukes....."
Oldguy
Chose the Red Pill
Charter Member
Charter Life Member
Life Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I like you. You write very well and your thoughts flow straight to the keyboard smooth as fine whiskey over the tongue. If things turn to shit prior to my death, I hope to meet you on a hill squeezing triggers together. But if I find out you did not write everything after Adams quote, you and I will have a problem on that hill. Inspirational, thank you.
Thank you, and the post-Adams stuff is all me. I have always been a pretty thoughdecent and prolific writer since high school.
Though I will admit that the words are not inspired by new ideas, but rather they are the result of a lot of reading of both history as well as the writings of that esteemed generation of men that forged these United States, which has heavily influenced both how I think about things as well as how I write.
May we both die well, sir - on a hill or in a valley or wherever Fate should decide.
IrishCannon
Fight hard.
Who said it first? - It sounds like John Adams just expounded on what Thomas Paine was implying. I've read both quotes and they seem to be interdependent of one another.
SPM, have you read The Law by Frederic Bastiat ?
“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.”
This comes into my head every time I think about these scenarios.
“Life, faculties, production-in other words, individuality, liberty, property-this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.”
Last edited:
The Law sits by my bed. Can you believe a French guy wrote that? How they've fallend in a few hundred years.
Last edited:
I have.....one of the best books out there on the difference between just and unjust law. There is a version of The Law put out by the Tuttle Twins series that makes it very kid friendly.
My children have a nearly complete set (though not the newest one or two), and they send a paperback copy of The Law for adults.
They think they can order an attack on their own people, and expect that it would just happen? That the pilot, ordinance techs, and the hundreds of other men who would be required to make that happen would just attack their own communities and families? Or expose their families living "outside the fence" to the retribution that would surely come their way?
ChickenHawk
I'm a chicken hawk
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Yes, that's it.
It's a good, easily digestible version of Bastiat that kids can understand. All the Tuttle Twins books are awesome - from the ideas of Liberty and Justice, the role of law, even basic economics. I highly, highly recommend the entire series.
Last edited:
And yet , thankfully there's often the One Guy, who stands in front of tanks with his plastic shopping bag in his hand, and stops an army.
Many good folks are willing to die for their beliefs. I don't believe any politicians are willing to die for their beliefs.
12151791
GUNS AND COFFEE
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing To Shed To Disarm Patriotic Americans? by Kurt Schlichter
My question for Congressjerk Eric Swalwell is pretty simple: “How many Americans would you murder to achieve your goal of disarming us?”
It’s a fair question.
Swalwell is the MSNBC stalwart who recently wrote an op-ed advocating that the government confiscate the guns that make people like him wet themselves and imprison those of us who decline to surrender them. Millions of Americans own these basic tools of freedom, which the ignorant call “assault weapons,” and these loyal citizens keep and bear them to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. But Rep. Swalwell would make these citizens felons, though these patriots are only a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants.
Of course, he wants to make these patriots felons because they are a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants. After all, that’s what leftist Democrats like him are.
Now, we know that some Americans would resist this kind of tyranny. People all over the world are resisting the elite’s commands. The Brits Brexited. The French are rioting because they don’t want to sacrifice their livelihoods on behalf of the global elites’ weird weather religion. And a decree that the Second Amendment is not a thing anymore would certainly provoke some serious pushback here.
That’s why it’s fair to ask Rep. Bloodlust how much blood he’s prepared to shed to achieve his goal of disarming Normal Americans.
Rep. Swalwell, some people are going to fight rather than cave in, so what’s the number of bodies you would be willing to pile up to win? Let’s put aside the right or wrong of resistance; it’ll be a thing. It’ll happen. You’re from near San Francisco, so you don’t know any real Americans, but even though I am from that hellhole too, I’ve met a few Americans in my travels. They are an ornery people who don’t give in to the kind of bullying you advocate. So, you’re going to have to kill some people to do what you want, and I just want to know how many you’re prepared to off to achieve your goal.
After all, it’s not as if you Democrats don’t already have a history of killing people for having guns you disapprove of.
Remember Waco? The raid on David Koresh’s compound was because his weird band of misfits allegedly had scary, outlawed guns. That’s why Democrat Janet Reno initially decided to send in the troops. The government got four of our ATF agents killed, then slaughtered the resisters, including women and kids.
Was it worth it? Maybe these creepy cultists were violating the law, but was making sure they didn’t have guns that were scary worth shooting or burning alive about 80 people, including four cops?
Was it?
So, in light of his party’s track record, I want to know how many people Rep. Swalwell – who fancies himself a potent Democrat presidential contender – is prepared to see die so he can ensure Americans are disarmed in order to please the liberal Californians he represents. How many?
One?
One hundred?
One thousand?
One hundred thousand?
More?
How many corpses would Eric Swalwell and his blue state buddies accept because they don’t think some law-abiding citizen in Oklahoma should be allowed to choose what kind of weapon he has, because they think they should choose for him, and that that choice should be “None?”
On Twitter, which is a wonderful thing because it makes people truly reveal themselves, one gentleman pointed out the not-so-far-fetched notion that mass gun confiscation (let’s leave the problematic logistics for the gun-hating fascists aside) would spark a civil war. But Rep. Swalwell was not worried; he observed that a bunch of citizens with rifles could not stand up to a military armed with nuclear weapons.
Well, that’s a troubling notion.
Now, Congressman Strangelove properly took a lot of grief for suggesting nuking fellow Americans, but even if you accept his backtracking about how this was a joke – nothing’s funnier than suggesting the mass murder of fellow Americans! – he only put nukes off limits. What killing systems are still on the table? Infantry? Artillery? Bombers? Because his answer assumed that he would support prosecuting a war against those who failed to obey and submit to arrest.
So, Congressman, what means of destructions are still on the table to use against fellow Americans who refuse to allow you to strip them of their Second Amendment rights because you Bay Area liberals want to show those hicks in Jesusland who’s boss? Is shooting them okay? Shelling them? Bombing them, just not with nukes?
Having seen the fruits of oppression overseas, I find this troubling. Actually, that’s putting it lightly. I find it horrifying. I’ve written about it in my novels about how our country could be ripped apart by leftist oppression. My just-released book Wildfire paints a most unpretty picture, but my predictions keep coming true. Try as I might, nothing I write speculating about what they would do if given the chance seems to hold a candle to what people like Congressman Stalin tell us they are actually willing to do to crush us under their Gucci loafers.
Understand that the leftists with Swalwell’s mentality are not driven by notions of justice or reason, but by cold hatred for Normal Americans. We’ve been disobedient. We’ve been defiant. We’ve refused to surrender our means of defending our own sovereignty to our elite overlords, and that is intolerable.
After all, a man without a rifle is not a citizen. He’s a serf, subject to the whims and will of his overlords who you damn well know are never giving up the guns their minions keep and bear.
Look at England. They gave up their guns. Now, the police watch their Twitter feeds and arrest them if they say unapproved things. That’s not a bug to our liberal elite; that’s a feature. That’s the goal.
Wait, this is crazy talk! If we disarm and only a government controlled by the liberal elite has guns, our overlords will be totally cool. They’ll respect our right to say and do what we want. They’ll allow us to practice our religion as we please. You know, just like liberals respect the rights of normal people where they are in control, like on college campuses, or on social media, or in the municipalities that hassle Christian cake shops.
Get woke. They hate you, and your freedom to tell them to pound sand sticks in their collective collectivist craw. Ignore the leftist media and the Fredocon collaborators who demand you not believe your lying eyes or ears when they tell you what they intend to do to you if given the chance.
So, the question remains. Our liberal elite betters think we should be stripped of those scary bangsticks the Constitution protects, and we disagree. So, Rep. Swalwell, how many Americans are you willing to kill to fulfill your vision of a disarmed, defenseless, servile population of docile subjects?
One?
One hundred?
One thousand?
One hundred thousand?
More?
My question for Congressjerk Eric Swalwell is pretty simple: “How many Americans would you murder to achieve your goal of disarming us?”
It’s a fair question.
Swalwell is the MSNBC stalwart who recently wrote an op-ed advocating that the government confiscate the guns that make people like him wet themselves and imprison those of us who decline to surrender them. Millions of Americans own these basic tools of freedom, which the ignorant call “assault weapons,” and these loyal citizens keep and bear them to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. But Rep. Swalwell would make these citizens felons, though these patriots are only a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants.
Of course, he wants to make these patriots felons because they are a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants. After all, that’s what leftist Democrats like him are.
Now, we know that some Americans would resist this kind of tyranny. People all over the world are resisting the elite’s commands. The Brits Brexited. The French are rioting because they don’t want to sacrifice their livelihoods on behalf of the global elites’ weird weather religion. And a decree that the Second Amendment is not a thing anymore would certainly provoke some serious pushback here.
That’s why it’s fair to ask Rep. Bloodlust how much blood he’s prepared to shed to achieve his goal of disarming Normal Americans.
Rep. Swalwell, some people are going to fight rather than cave in, so what’s the number of bodies you would be willing to pile up to win? Let’s put aside the right or wrong of resistance; it’ll be a thing. It’ll happen. You’re from near San Francisco, so you don’t know any real Americans, but even though I am from that hellhole too, I’ve met a few Americans in my travels. They are an ornery people who don’t give in to the kind of bullying you advocate. So, you’re going to have to kill some people to do what you want, and I just want to know how many you’re prepared to off to achieve your goal.
After all, it’s not as if you Democrats don’t already have a history of killing people for having guns you disapprove of.
Remember Waco? The raid on David Koresh’s compound was because his weird band of misfits allegedly had scary, outlawed guns. That’s why Democrat Janet Reno initially decided to send in the troops. The government got four of our ATF agents killed, then slaughtered the resisters, including women and kids.
Was it worth it? Maybe these creepy cultists were violating the law, but was making sure they didn’t have guns that were scary worth shooting or burning alive about 80 people, including four cops?
Was it?
So, in light of his party’s track record, I want to know how many people Rep. Swalwell – who fancies himself a potent Democrat presidential contender – is prepared to see die so he can ensure Americans are disarmed in order to please the liberal Californians he represents. How many?
One?
One hundred?
One thousand?
One hundred thousand?
More?
How many corpses would Eric Swalwell and his blue state buddies accept because they don’t think some law-abiding citizen in Oklahoma should be allowed to choose what kind of weapon he has, because they think they should choose for him, and that that choice should be “None?”
On Twitter, which is a wonderful thing because it makes people truly reveal themselves, one gentleman pointed out the not-so-far-fetched notion that mass gun confiscation (let’s leave the problematic logistics for the gun-hating fascists aside) would spark a civil war. But Rep. Swalwell was not worried; he observed that a bunch of citizens with rifles could not stand up to a military armed with nuclear weapons.
Well, that’s a troubling notion.
Now, Congressman Strangelove properly took a lot of grief for suggesting nuking fellow Americans, but even if you accept his backtracking about how this was a joke – nothing’s funnier than suggesting the mass murder of fellow Americans! – he only put nukes off limits. What killing systems are still on the table? Infantry? Artillery? Bombers? Because his answer assumed that he would support prosecuting a war against those who failed to obey and submit to arrest.
So, Congressman, what means of destructions are still on the table to use against fellow Americans who refuse to allow you to strip them of their Second Amendment rights because you Bay Area liberals want to show those hicks in Jesusland who’s boss? Is shooting them okay? Shelling them? Bombing them, just not with nukes?
Having seen the fruits of oppression overseas, I find this troubling. Actually, that’s putting it lightly. I find it horrifying. I’ve written about it in my novels about how our country could be ripped apart by leftist oppression. My just-released book Wildfire paints a most unpretty picture, but my predictions keep coming true. Try as I might, nothing I write speculating about what they would do if given the chance seems to hold a candle to what people like Congressman Stalin tell us they are actually willing to do to crush us under their Gucci loafers.
Understand that the leftists with Swalwell’s mentality are not driven by notions of justice or reason, but by cold hatred for Normal Americans. We’ve been disobedient. We’ve been defiant. We’ve refused to surrender our means of defending our own sovereignty to our elite overlords, and that is intolerable.
After all, a man without a rifle is not a citizen. He’s a serf, subject to the whims and will of his overlords who you damn well know are never giving up the guns their minions keep and bear.
Look at England. They gave up their guns. Now, the police watch their Twitter feeds and arrest them if they say unapproved things. That’s not a bug to our liberal elite; that’s a feature. That’s the goal.
Wait, this is crazy talk! If we disarm and only a government controlled by the liberal elite has guns, our overlords will be totally cool. They’ll respect our right to say and do what we want. They’ll allow us to practice our religion as we please. You know, just like liberals respect the rights of normal people where they are in control, like on college campuses, or on social media, or in the municipalities that hassle Christian cake shops.
Get woke. They hate you, and your freedom to tell them to pound sand sticks in their collective collectivist craw. Ignore the leftist media and the Fredocon collaborators who demand you not believe your lying eyes or ears when they tell you what they intend to do to you if given the chance.
So, the question remains. Our liberal elite betters think we should be stripped of those scary bangsticks the Constitution protects, and we disagree. So, Rep. Swalwell, how many Americans are you willing to kill to fulfill your vision of a disarmed, defenseless, servile population of docile subjects?
One?
One hundred?
One thousand?
One hundred thousand?
More?
I keep this on my phone.
Read the last line.
Be prepared when you piss off a bunch of red necks because you have just opened the Gates of Hell for they will send your ass there.
Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk
Read the last line.
Be prepared when you piss off a bunch of red necks because you have just opened the Gates of Hell for they will send your ass there.
Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk
12151791
GUNS AND COFFEE
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
"Congressman Strangelove properly took a lot of grief for suggesting nuking fellow Americans, but even if you accept his backtracking about how this was a joke – nothing’s funnier than suggesting the mass murder of fellow Americans! – he only put nukes off limits. What killing systems are still on the table? Infantry? Artillery? Bombers? Because his answer assumed that he would support prosecuting a war against those who failed to obey and submit to arrest."