Democrat Eric Swalwell Calls for Confiscation of Semi-Automatic Weapons in US — Nuke Those Who Resist (illegal, heroin)

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

Mandatory GUN BUY BACKS are Confiscation, and BANS. That's exactly what Hillary was advocating. First of all the government can't buy back my guns. They never gave them to me in the first place. What he is advocating is giving arbitrary compensation for private property that I LEGALLY BOUGHT to FORCIBLY take them away. That is TYRANNY. Pure, and simple.

Indeed it is! It's also a violation of Ex Post Facto statutes. I've always believed that Democrats are tyrants this is just more proof of that.

Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a criminal statute that punishes actions retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the United States Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws:

Art 1, § 9
This prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.
Art. 1 § 10.
This prohibits the states from passing any laws which apply ex post facto.

At a minimum, ex post facto prohibits legislatures from passing laws which retroactively criminalize behavior. ---https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto


Ex post facto laws retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random punishment at the whim of those in power.

The prohibition of ex post facto laws was an imperative in colonial America. The Framers of the Constitution understood the importance of such a prohibition, considering the historical tendency of government leaders to abuse power. As Alexander Hamilton observed, "[i]t is easy for men … to be zealous advocates for the rights of the citizens when they are invaded by others, and as soon as they have it in their power, to become the invaders themselves." The desire to thwart abuses of power also inspired the Framers of the Constitution to prohibit bills of attainder, which are laws that inflict punishment on named individuals or on easily ascertainable members of a group without the benefit of a trial. Both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder deprive those subject to them of due process of law—that is, of notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of life, liberty, or property.---https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ex+Post+Facto+Laws

[PuppiesandKittens]

Originally Posted by lionking

I know at this time this congressman's proposal won't get anywhere. HOWEVER if the democrats had a liberal president in office and controlled congress NO DOUBT they would pass a similar law, though they probably wouldn't offer so much money to buy back.

Is there any democrat on here that is going to dispute that? You know it's true.

Democrats will confiscate guns from white men first, since Don Lemon says that white men are the greatest threat to the US.

[Valhallian]

Does anyone know what the punishment was for failure to comply with a mandatory gun buy-back program in countries where it was enacted? Fines? Imprisonment?

[Pilot1]

Yes in countries with MANDATORY gun "buybacks" (bans, confiscation) otherwise Law Abiding subjects will be fined, and JAILED. The penalties for non-compliance are very severe.

[LauraC]

You do that, Swalwell...in your district. You don't represent the USA. You don't even represent your State. You represent a handful of people in a district in California who voted for you. It's a pinprick on a map of the USA. I'll bet if I go to your webpage now, you don't even accept e-mail contact from people who are not in your district (because the rest of them don't either). So, quit acting like you do.

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

Mandatory GUN BUY BACKS are Confiscation, and BANS. That's exactly what Hillary was advocating. First of all the government can't buy back my guns. They never gave them to me in the first place. What he is advocating is giving arbitrary compensation for private property that I LEGALLY BOUGHT to FORCIBLY take them away. That is TYRANNY. Pure, and simple.

yes, exactly, thats why I fully agreed with that one guy recently who fired on police, who were attempting to come on his property to disarm him, I cannot believe so many people took the side of law enforcement on that case!!


It also makes me wonder about the cops who were attempting to do this...'just doing ones job' has never been an acceptable excuse for violating someones constitutional rights!

[ChrisC]

Democrat Eric Swalwell Calls for Confiscation of Semi-Automatic Weapons in US — Nuke Those Who Resist

Now there is a great way to start a civil war.

Originally Posted by dman72

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".

Like what? The communist manifesto? I've read it. No thanks. I probably read more books in one year than you've read your entire life.

Proposing to strip a populace of its constitutional right is not trying to have a respectful conversation. The fact that this moron stated the idea of having firearms to protect oneself from the government is absurd shows exactly how misinformed and stupid he really is. That is EXACTLY what the writers had in mind. They certainly didn't have duck hunting in mind. They'd just come off from a war to lift the shackles of an overreaching government and they were in no mood to replace tyranny with more tyranny. They knew what would eventually happen and they were giving the population a way of preventing it.

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

And once again you're playing semantic games. Coupling "mandatory" and "prosecution" is de facto seizure no matter how much it's prettied up.

Originally Posted by FatBob96

If the "buyback" is mandatory, the difference is semantics.

Yep. If a car thief knocks on your door before he takes your new Lexus and hands you fifty dollars, is taking the Lexus any less a case of robbery?

Originally Posted by Floorist

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

The guy needs to be fired immediately and jailed (perhaps after a public tar and feathering). He's obviously a fox let loose in the hen house, who is lamenting the fact that the hens all have lethal weapons... which makes the fox's job very tough.

[rstevens62]

Originally Posted by ChrisC

Now there is a great way to start a civil war.



Like what? The communist manifesto? I've read it. No thanks. I probably read more books in one year than you've read your entire life.

Proposing to strip a populace of its constitutional right is not trying to have a respectful conversation. The fact that this moron stated the idea of having firearms to protect oneself from the government is absurd shows exactly how misinformed and stupid he really is. That is EXACTLY what the writers had in mind. They certainly didn't have duck hunting in mind. They'd just come off from a war to lift the shackles of an overreaching government and they were in no mood to replace tyranny with more tyranny. They knew what would eventually happen and they were giving the population a way of preventing it.





Yep. If a car thief knocks on your door before he takes your new Lexus and hands you fifty dollars, is taking the Lexus any less a case of robbery?



The guy needs to be fired immediately and jailed (perhaps after a public tar and feathering). He's obviously a fox let loose in the hen house, who is lamenting the fact that the hens all have lethal weapons... which makes the fox's job very tough.

Yes, I totally agree.


Im not sure why people like this believe banning or strict restrictions will be effective at all...look at the tough law against full auto weapons, they are about as effective as underage drinking laws!


Yet they attempt the same thing with semi autos..?? What kind of logic is that?

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by burdell

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.

mandatory buyback..... its the same as eminent domain ..the 'government' is confiscating your property, but they are giving you 'some type of compensation'...... its still confiscation

[dman72]

7 pages of posts based almost exclusively on an intentional misrepresentation of what the Congressman set. You guys are really messed up in the heads with this gun obsession.