One of the great things about the anti-gun left is that they eventually show you exactly who they are and what they want. The talking points are always flowery at first, waxing about “national conversations,” “gun reform” and everyone’s favorite, “common-sense gun safety” measures.
But wizened, calloused Second Amendment advocates who’ve been through the gun control wars for years know that’s only so much civilian disarmament wrapped up in a pretty, focus-group-tested candy coating meant to sound reasonable and taste good to Mr. and Mrs. Middle America who don’t pay attention to such things.
So whether it’s a former Supreme Court Justice, an ostensibly conservative columnist or a charter member of the Parkland Funky Bunch, make no mistake…they really do want to take your guns. All of them. That’s always been the endgame toward which the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex has been so diligently working for all these years.
The latest case in point: California’s Rep. Eric Swalwell. As we pointed out yesterday, the man who represents California’s 15th congressional district is one of the more enthusiastic gun-grabbers in Congress. As NBC News reported back in May:
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.”
But as Swalwell revealed in a telling tweet, simple prosecution of those unwilling to turn over their guns doesn’t really go far enough for the Congressman. Social media erupted after the California Democrat suggested that the government could use the threat of nuclear weapons to force gun confiscation upon Americans. It started after military veteran Joe Biggs (a former infowars reporter) said that a civil war would erupt if politicians tried confiscating firearms from citizens.
— Joe Biggs (@Rambobiggs) November 16, 2018
In response to Biggs, Swalwell threatened, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.”
— Joe Biggs (@Rambobiggs) November 16, 2018
Users on Twitter were quick to respond to the Democrat’s over-the-top gun control rhetoric. One user pointed out that the U.S. lost the decades-long Vietnam War despite having nuclear weapons.
“The government has nukes itll be a short war”.
– Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945,
– Vietnam War Nov 1, 1955 – Apr 30, 1975
Years after the united stated had nukes and more advances weaponry and still lost to vietnamese farmers ? pic.twitter.com/2J6hjodkNx
Swalwell’s comments also disqualified him from any 2020 presidential prospects, according to a retired Air Force colonel.
“Any elected official that would imply using the United States nuclear weapons against its own citizens to deprive them of their rights is insane. Not to mention he knows zero about warfare.”
Well, @RepSwalwell just disqualified himself from that @POTUS office he wants. Any elected official that would imply using the United States nuclear weapons against its own citizens to deprive them of their rights is insane. not to mention he knows zero about warfare #2A
— Col. Rob Maness ret. (@RobManess) November 16, 2018
Remind me which side the military would be on in this imaginary war? https://t.co/NM46ZzPPyi
— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) November 16, 2018
Lib Rep: Why do you want guns?
Lib Rep: We don’t like guns
American: We have 2nd Amendment
Lib Rep: Give us your guns
Lib Rep: This means war
American: Ok – We have guns
Lib Rep: We will use nuclear weapons on you
American: WHAT THE F https://t.co/I372k9ChAZ
— Benny (@bennyjohnson) November 16, 2018
Alex Jones breaks down the outrageous comments made by California Democrat Eric Swalwell, where he threatened gun owners with nuclear weapons should they refuse to surrender their firearms to the government, and explains how these remarks encapsulate the globalists’ arrogant and bloodthirsty mindset against every day Americans.
That’s right, the honorable gentleman from California figures that if he and his fellow members of the Congressional Gun-Grabbing Caucus ever manage to get a civilian disarmament bill passed into law, resisters wouldn’t stand a chance. After all, the US government can use a little thermo-nuclear persuasion to convince America’s gun owners that trying to hold onto their firearms would be a bad idea.
Swalwell’s position can be summed up this way: Americans don’t need guns because the government isn’t tyrannical. And if you disagree with us, we’ll blow you all to Hell.
And Democrats say the President uses inflammatory rhetoric and needs to elevate the level of the national discourse. Can you imagine if a Republican Conresscritter had proposed dropping tactical nukes on, say, abortion clinics, the crowd of illegal immigrants headed for our border, or mobs of rioting Antifa thugs in Portland?