Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or to believe the cited article claims Swalwell called for confiscation which it does not. While it may be a silly plan, there's quite a difference between a buyback and possible prosecution and confiscation but I guess confiscation is just a far better fear-mongering word, actually used or just thrown out for melodramatic affect.
You have to be incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest to think that snipped tweet forwarded from "Rambobiggs" said anything about nuking anyone who resists.
How unhinged are right wing gun nuts anyway? Spend more time reading real books and less guns and ammo.
Looks like the congressman tried to have a respectful conversation with a crackpot loser gun fetishist who thinks he scored a "gotcha".
You just got caught in a lie. Swalwell is pond scum and has no intention of being respectful or reasonable.
Any politician that calls for confiscation would soon be prepared for burial.
difference? we buy them back or else? What if I don't want to sell them back? We know what then.....
This is a Aussie idea and if I remember correctly they gave gun owners 600 bucks. So not only did they buyback/confiscate they ripped everyone off. I do not have lots of money but I do have guns worth over 600 bucks.
This is a Aussie idea and if I remember correctly they gave gun owners 600 bucks. So not only did they buyback/confiscate they ripped everyone off. I do not have lots of money but I do have guns worth over 600 bucks.
600 bucks barely covers the accessories for most of mine.
In all fairness the Democrap was being obviously facetious when he made the nuke comment but it still goes to show they are hellbent on creating their "perfect" leftist utopia by any means necessary, including using force.
WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms. In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.” 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.” In the past, Democrats and gun safety groups have carefully resisted proposals that could be interpreted as “gun confiscation,” a concept gun rights groups have often invoked as part of a slippery slope argument against more modest proposals like universal background checks. Swalwell addressed these arguments directly, saying he and other Democrats had been too deferential to Second Amendment activists and should follow the lead of teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting who have been more strident. “There's something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands,” he wrote. “They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I've been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that 'we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.’” Instead, he writes, “the right to live is supreme over any other.” According to Swalwell, his policy is modeled on Australia’s mandatory gun buyback laws, which were instituted under a conservative government after a gunman killed 35 people at a popular tourist site in 1996. Supporters credit the campaign with a broad reduction in gun violence and the country hasn’t suffered a similar mass shooting in the years since. “Australia got it right,” Swalwell wrote. While politicians and activists, including President Barack Obama, have cited Australia’s success in curbing gun violence as an inspiration, almost no prominent figures have proposed instituting similar laws up to this point. Some gun safety groups, such as the Giffords Law Center, have suggested tougher background checks and reporting requirements on existing assault weapons after a new manufacturing ban — but they have not called for owners to sell or destroy them. Many policy experts supportive of stricter gun laws have warned a mass gun confiscation policy would be difficult to enforce given limited federal resources and the widespread popularity of the affected rifles. "I think it's pretty clear from the program we do support that it's about keeping guns out of dangerous hands and not about confiscating guns," Kris Brown, co-president of the Brady Campaign, which advocates against gun violence, told NBC News in March
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
