• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

California Democrat Eric Swallwell and Nukes

Stanyon

WWMRD?
Eric Swalwell ( a California democrat) has been backing anti-gun legislation and supports government gun buyback programs, voluntary gun turn-ins and prosecuting those who don't effectively criminalizing otherwise law abiding citizens. To make it even more clear, during a recent Twitter exchange he warned gun owners that if they wanted a war it would be a very short one because the government had nukes.
What do you make of this?

I think the NRA just got a new best friend:grinning:
 

Stanyon

WWMRD?
What's your point?
People who tweet divisive nonsense shouldn't be in office?
Tom

This guy is a democrat that is actively supporting legislation to eventually criminalize large portions of law abiding citizens if they don't give up a constitutionally protected right. As far as the nuke comment, though completely ridiculous, how would one even think of that? This from the "party of principle".
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
We already had a thread on this earlier. I'll post here what I posted there:
From his twitter:
"Don’t be so dramatic. No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m 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."
"America’s gun debate in one thread. 1) I propose a buy-back of assault weapons 2) Gun owner says he’ll go to war with USA if that happens 3) I sarcastically point out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century) 4) I’m called a tyrant 5) 0 progress"
Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) | Twitter

He's not wrong, the idea of a civilian militia successfully overthrowing a tyrannical government in a modern Western country is ludicrous. Back when muskets were standard for everyone, that was a realistic proposition. Today with things like nukes and napalm, it's not. It would be short. Civilian power over government won't be found in guns, but you won't be able to convince paranoid gun owners that. Seen here: Using an often described counter-argument for for gun ownership and it's immediately spun as an active threat against them. *Eyeroll*
 
Eric Swalwell ( a California democrat) has been backing anti-gun legislation and supports government gun buyback programs, voluntary gun turn-ins and prosecuting those who don't effectively criminalizing otherwise law abiding citizens. To make it even more clear, during a recent Twitter exchange he warned gun owners that if they wanted a war it would be a very short one because the government had nukes.
What do you make of this?

What do I make of some guy no one has ever heard of saying something a bit silly in a Twitter argument?

Can't say it sets the pulse racing...
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
We already had a thread on this earlier. I'll post here what I posted there:
There's always something to be said for that type of smugness. ;0)

While it's true in terms of clashing armies, I agree that a private militia wouldn't stand a chance without a proper logistics and command structure. Yet there are a lot of other ways for a government to lose horribly along with its own people. Not because of weaponry, but because of the human mind.

Mainly, if the government ever did take such a drastic action, I can't help to think such an event would likely give rise to many versions of Timothy McVeigh coupled with a complete implosion of our political system dependent upon what the majority of the population will be thinking and feeling at the time. Either way , it would be an understatement to say it would be bad.

Given the existing divisions of the country, it will be kind of hard to tell which way the wind will blow on it as well.

Obviously of course , this is just hyperbole over a perceived tragic event that would be best left in people's imaginations. In reality it comes across as a case of politically motivated ****wagging to appease the testerone rush.

At any rate, it would definitely make one hell of a story for a Tim Clancy novel had he had been still alive.

Given this is an era of leftist political correctness and sjw fanaticism, it should strike anybody as odd that's this is a pretty unusual thing for a Democrat to say , but not very surprising that he would say it in the way he did.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
You folks on the right don't believe in climate change, don't believe in evolution, don't believe in Russian meddling, don't even believe Trump lies --- but you believe some guy named Eric Swalwell really, truly wants to nuke you.


Things just keep getting stranger and stranger on the right.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I rated your post funny because you cannot actually believe what you just wrote.

I can and do.

And although the stereotype of the right is funny is is also very sad that trump worship overrules facts.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
It appears that people are using "bombastic" to mean something akin to Inflammatory or outrageous.
But that's not what the word means.
the definition of bombastic
djective
  1. (of speech, writing, etc.) high-sounding; high-flown; inflated; pretentious.
So it's particularly odd when applied to Trump, whose speech is crude, & at best pedestrian.

As for the loonie in the OP, such bozos inhabit all parties.
(My apologies to Bozo The Clown.)
 

Mister Emu

Emu Extraordinaire
Staff member
Premium Member
It appears that people are using "bombastic" to mean something akin to Inflammatory or outrageous.
But that's not what the word means.
Maybe they meant "bombtastic", which nuking your own civilian population just might be.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We already had a thread on this earlier. I'll post here what I posted there:
He's not wrong, the idea of a civilian militia successfully overthrowing a tyrannical government in a modern Western country is ludicrous. Back when muskets were standard for everyone, that was a realistic proposition. Today with things like nukes and napalm, it's not. It would be short.
To assume that if our government went so rogue, it would inevitably use nukes & napalm
against us is eye-roll-worthy. Note how we attack other countries over the last half
century...we don't do that even to foreign enemies. Moreover, targeted revolutionaries
in Americastan would be mingled with friendlies, making WMDs worse than useless
because the collateral damage would turn more of the populace against government.
Note also that Afghans beat the Soviets, with all their nukes, nerve gas, tanks, etc.

Thus while armed revolution here is both unlikely & impractical, we must take care to
avoid unreasonable assumptions.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
To assume that if our government went so rogue, it would inevitably use nukes & napalm
against us is eye-roll-worthy.
To assume it wouldn't when backed into a corner would be moreso. But like preppers who love zombie movies to indulge in gun hero fantasies, they're really missing the point.
Note how we attack other countries over the last half
century...
Not fighting for the same reason or on the same terms.
Americastan would be mingled with friendlies, making WMDs worse than useless
because the collateral damage would turn more of the populace against government.
Unless it didn't, successfully labeling the problem civilians as dangerous terrorists, which in the case of people taking up arms against the government for banning certain types of weapons would actually be true.
Note also that Afghans beat the Soviets, with all their nukes, nerve gas, tanks, etc.
Not fighting for the same reason or on the same terms. A more apt comparison would be a civilian mob with little to no training and vastly outclassed technologically trying to wrest government control in that seat of power.
 
Top