Posted on 12/03/2018 9:06:54 AM PST by Mafe
Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) wrote an opinion column for USA Today in which he called for significant increases in gun control, following the murder of Gary Jackson, a 28-year old security guard from Oakland, California, whose killer was armed with an AK-47-style semi-automatic assault rifle. Swalwell was the prosecutor in the case, and his exposure to Jacksons autopsy reports emboldened him to seek significant gun control legislation at the federal level. Invoking the justification-induced power of the pronoun we, Swalwell writes, We should ban possession of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. Congressman Swalwell pointed to gun control measures in Australia as his inspiration for a buyback program to help get these firearms off the street, though there are many who disagree with such methods.
When Semi-Automatic Guns Became "Assault Weapons"
There is predictably plenty of Second Amendment discussion to be had with this sort of statement by an elected official. The first debate is the gratuitous use by Swalwell and many other pro-gun control enthusiasts of the word assault, such as assault rifle, or assault weapons. This has been a contentious issue, to put it mildly, but according to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson writing for the Stanford Law and Policy Review, the term assault weapon didnt even exist prior to 1989. They argue that assault rifles were firmly understood to refer to fully-automatic weapons, meaning that multiple rounds would be fired with one pull of the trigger. The current usage of the term assault weapon was born from anti-gun publicists who wanted to expand gun-control legislation to include semi-automatic firearms that share any characteristics with their fully automatic counterparts. As Elaine Hays writes for the website Mic, these shared characteristics which appeared in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban were frequently only stylistic or cosmetic in nature, and had no effect on the lethality of the weapons.
Increasing the Cops' Monopoly on Power
Representative Swalwell makes one dubious exception to the proposed assault weapons ban: law enforcement. It is hard to keep a straight face when arguing that weapons of war dont belong on American streets considering that American streets are filled with law enforcement officers who would retain possession of such weapons in a post-Swalwell America. In fact, if the intent is to reduce deaths by firearms, then law enforcement should be the first to hand in their assault weapons. According to Michael Harriot at The Root, police killed more Americans in 2017 (1,129) than military combat, terrorism, airplane crashes, mass shootings, and Chicago gang violence combined. Furthermore, of those 1,129 slain, most were suspects in nonviolent offenses, stopped for traffic violations, or were found innocent of any crime whatsoever. The recent case of Jemel Roberson in suburban Chicago is more reason to remove law enforcement from Swalwells exempt list.
We'll Nuke You
Swalwells column disappeared from the news cycle shortly after it was published in May, but reappeared last week when conservative talk show host John Cardillo took to Twitter to criticize the congressmans stance on gun control, claiming, These people are dangerously obsessed with power. Among the respondents was gun rights advocate Joe Biggs who colorfully asserted that Swalwells proposed legislation would lead to civil war. But it was Swalwell himself who would set the Twitter-sphere ablaze with a direct response to Biggs, reading, And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes; too many of them. But theyre legit. Im sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities. Congressman Swalwell would claim the nuclear exchange was hyperbole on both sides, but would stick to his guns when it came to threatening forced confiscation with an elaborative tweet, Im telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate, which is what you want.
The congressman is right that this is not the 18th century, but if hes suggesting that a 21st century war wouldnt bode well for a civilian population that is less armed than a national military, then there is room for debate. Swalwell believes that war resulting from a violent federal gun confiscation would be short. Given that the quip about using nuclear weapons on domestic targets was dramatic overstatement, he clearly believes that the U.S. military would quickly quell any insurrection using conventional warfare. But that would be quite the feat nationwide, as Americans are well-armed compared to the rest of the worlds civilian populations. If Afghanistan serves as any example, he couldnt be more wrong, unless 17 years is a short war by Representative Swalwells definition. And if Congressman Swalwell thinks a domestic war would be a much simpler task, then he must believe Americans are much more easily oppressed.
Correct- that is why China once said that you could NEVER invade The USA because there would be “a gun under every blade of grass.”
Third, and for the benefit of the others reading this, Admiral Yamamoto did ***NOT*** say this. NO ONE said this, at least not until the false Yamamoto quote came to be. https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
So, why do I bring up point #3? For the same reason cited in the last sentence of the Factcheck cite, above: “But we do object to fabricating quotes and passing them off as historical fact.” We are supposed to be the ones with the facts, the truth; if we go off and cite imaginary quotes, we simply discredit every other argument we make, no matter how factual or true they may be. Let’s leave making stuff up to the Swalwells of this world - the ignorant Leftist gungrabbers (but I repeat myself) for whom facts are optional.
Please note that NONE of what I am posting here should be taken as a put-down of anyone (except Swalwell, he deserves it every time he opens his mouth or puts out a written message). I am simply trying to improve our chances of prevailing, based on FACTS, not hyperbole that sounds great but is actually harmful to us. Frankly, I ***WISH*** that Yamamoto had said or written this quote - it’d be extremely helpful to us...but facts are facts, let’s deal only with them, please.
Please see #21; Yamamoto did NOT say or write this quote.
Oh I am so sure...
I heard him say that myslef
I’d like to modify this strategy a bit:
The first wave, let them pass without finding you. Hide. Yes. Hide.
Then come up, basically from the rear and do your thing.
Maybe we could have a night where we smash all the windows of their businesses and homes. We could call it KrystalNacht.
hahahahahahahaha
Well....Mao Tse-tung did say that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”.
Yamamoto warned Tojo and the other hotheads that America would be the greatest foe Japan had ever faced, based on his having studied here.
With his knowledge of the U.S. economy he predicted “I can run riot with them for a year. After that I can promise nothing.”
If Yamamoto didn’t talk of rifles & blades of grass, his thoughts were pretty close.
Did Yamamoto also say that Japan could not be assured of victory until the IJA invaded Washington and dictated surrender terms in the White House?
This happened weeks ago. Took a while for the Author to catch up I guess.
I think Yamamoto said that as well; like an American behind every blade of grass with a gun.
“If Yamamoto didnt talk of rifles & blades of grass, his thoughts were pretty close.”
I’ve seen no evidence that he actually said or wrote the quote in question - so let’s just NOT use his non-quote, shall we? Again, we discredit every single pro-gun argument that we can possibly make by KNOWINGLY putting forth a false fact like this.
Or, maybe, just the windows of one’s local Dem Party HQ: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1604
“I think Yamamoto said that as well; like an American behind every blade of grass with a gun.”
The simple fact is that NO ONE has ever been able to prove that Yamamoto said this; see the link in #21.
The fact that we, as pro-gun citizens, would like it if he had said it (it would bolster our case for civilian gun ownership on a practical level), has nothing to do with the simple reality that he DID NOT say or write this. Continuing to repeat this only discredits our side - so please stop.
And how many of the military does this petty little Fascist believe would actually turn their guns on the population rather than on him?
Did Yamamoto say, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
I did not know that. Thanks.
Unsure if anyone in my neighborhood has an electromagnetic pulse weapon or not.
Can I Haz One ? I promise to only use it for good.
Good idea.
'Supposedly' T Jefferson had said
"THE BEAUTY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS THAT IT WILL NOT BE NEEDED UNTIL THEY TRY AND TAKE IT".
And, if he didn't he surely should have AND would have if he had thought it.
“If Yamamoto didnt talk of rifles & blades of grass...”
So stipulated.
I’m saying it now. Please attribute when quoting. ;)
we could, or at least I could, talk on this topic for hours.
But now we don’t need to have so much of this strategy. After Obama’s “re-election” I had implemented a plan that beat my Y2K preps by a mile.
I was geocaching, going grey man and dropping a lot of my “questionable” practices under such tyranny.
Now I believe that we need to buy guns and make our purchases known. The sheer number of guns being sold is enough to stave off some of the more serious attempts to criminalize them. They are scared. The numbers are scaring them. Keep those numbers up, boys!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.