California Democrat Recommends Banning “Assault Rifles”, Forced Confiscation

Remember, Democrats tell us that they don’t want to take away anyone’s guns, they just want to make it harder for criminals. Right up till you get Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California’s San Francisco Bay area, who’s co-chair of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee and serves on the House Judiciary Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence let’s the cat out of the bag

Eric Swalwell Unloads Gun Platform Liberals Really Want

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell of California wants to ban assault weapons, instate a federal gun buy back program for those who own semiautomatic weapons and criminally prosecute those who refuse to hand them over.

The representative wrote an op-ed in USA Today Thursday rolling out what he feels is the gun control policy America should adopt, one that would take weapons away from law-abiding citizens and threatens them with jail time if they refuse.

“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come,” Swalwell wrote. “Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic 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.”

It’s similar to the Australian solution, which Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talking about a bit. It didn’t help Hillary. And Swalwell mentions Australia later in the article. But, hey, what about the 2nd Amendment?

There’s something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands. 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.”

In context, he’s blowing off his oath of office and making a case of “screw the Constitution, we have to Do Something!”

If this ever was passed in Congress, you know the next thing Democrats would do would be to do the same thing for other firearms. They’ll say that other rifles are dangerous, because they essentially do the same thing as the scary looking weapons. Then higher power handguns.

But, anyway, good luck, Swalwell, when almost no one turns in their rifles, and there’s video of federal forces coming after tiny women who have the rifles for self-protection. You can bet a lot of law enforcement will refuse to participate in confiscation.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “California Democrat Recommends Banning “Assault Rifles”, Forced Confiscation”

  1. But, we already tried banning “assault weapons” on a federal level and it made no difference in violent crimes. California already bans assault weapons. It made no difference. California already bans magazines with more than ten rounds. Makes no difference. California already requires a 10 day waiting period. Makes no difference. California already requires background checks on private sales. Guess what? MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Thanks to the magic of federalism, all of these bad ideas have already been tried and failed to produce any useful result other than harassing law abiding citizens. So, tell me again with a straight face that THIS time we really need these laws.

    I’m pretty sure, if that law gets passed again, they won’t make the same mistake of giving it an expiration date.

  2. Dana says:

    The Distinguished Gentleman from California wrote, in USAToday:

    Ban assault weapons and buy them back. It might cost $15 billion, but we can afford it. Consider it an investment in our most important right, the right to live.

    USAToday tweeted that out, which was how I spotted it, at which point I responded:

    Odd comment, @RepSwalwell telling us that “our most important right (is) the right to live,” when he supports abortion “100%.”
    http://www.ontheissues.org/CA/Eric_Swalwell_Abortion.htm

    The embed code for the tweet, which (probably) won’t post here:

    Odd comment, @RepSwalwell telling us that "our most important right (is) the right to live," when he supports abortion "100%." https://t.co/SDrHB7d3yN https://t.co/U6EHhrti0b— Dana Pico (@Dana_TFSJ) May 3, 2018

    https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  3. formwiz says:

    Let me know when they get around to hammers and screwdrivers.

  4. Jeffery says:

    The gun grabbers don’t realize that when everyone has a gun we’ll all be safe.

  5. Hoss says:

    Is Swalwell going to go around door to door and demand people turn those guns in, or is he going to make someone else do the heavy-lifting for his gun grab. That’s what I thought.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Swalwell along with Adam Schiff and Brad Sherman are, besides being total fags, big fans of the Russian hacking/Trump collusion hoax.

  6. Jeffery says:

    California Democrat Recommends Banning “Assault Rifles”, Forced Confiscation

    Congressman Swalwell did not refer to “Assault Rifles”, but rather, “assault weapons”.

    This is the excerpt on his plan:

    we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic 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. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

    There is absolutely no reason to think such a ban would be declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Even Justice Scalia agreed:

    When the Supreme Court held in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that this right “is not unlimited” and is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

    Right-wing extremists disagree with Justice Scalia’s conclusions.

Pirate's Cove