Dem calls for nukes to be used on Americans who will not give up guns
- Thread starter Chaparral
- Start date
- Status
Given our right to have guns in the first place, nobody is going to just give them up, (empty) nuclear threat notwithstanding.
This lunatic probably just lost his presidential bid with that comment alone. Even the Dems aren't going to elect someone like that unless I'm sadly mistaken.
As far as people who think civilians armed with small weapons can't take on the military force of the U.S., they need to remember the example of Afghanistan who has succeeded in pushing back the Soviet and the U.S. military might for how long? 40 years, give or take? There are many other examples.
Oh, and when people keep saying that "nobody is going to take away your firearms," this is only one of many new examples of politicians proposing exactly that.
--Wag--
This lunatic probably just lost his presidential bid with that comment alone. Even the Dems aren't going to elect someone like that unless I'm sadly mistaken.
As far as people who think civilians armed with small weapons can't take on the military force of the U.S., they need to remember the example of Afghanistan who has succeeded in pushing back the Soviet and the U.S. military might for how long? 40 years, give or take? There are many other examples.
Oh, and when people keep saying that "nobody is going to take away your firearms," this is only one of many new examples of politicians proposing exactly that.
--Wag--
1) He's playing to the uber-left crowd.
2) He apparently doesn't understand how nukes work (They work on urban areas, which are usually democratic strongholds)
3) Isn't it really time for all the hateful and ad hominem BS to stop. This country has enough real problems to deal with.
2) He apparently doesn't understand how nukes work (They work on urban areas, which are usually democratic strongholds)
3) Isn't it really time for all the hateful and ad hominem BS to stop. This country has enough real problems to deal with.
Thomas Clarke
New member
Representative Smallwell is a politician first and foremost. He started as a Tea Party guy until he figured out he would do better with Progressive Socialist Democrats. The sad thing here is that the post was sarcasm, not news. I think we all agree that parsing the comments and taking them out of context and not using all of the quote is the hallmark of the Fake News world. Smallwell is no friend of those of us who support the Second Amendment. At the same time though, recognize the ridiculous for what it is. He is baiting the rabid haters out there and we are raising to take the bait.
A certain political party no longer sees openly pushing gun control as a bad thing and have no qualms about being very open about their plans. They believe that this is a long term winning strategy and I fear they could be right. Our only hope is to focus less on the macho gun owner crap and more on the idea of personal freedom. This means being more consistent in our positions on personal freedom as it relates to legal choices that individuals may make.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I agree with Barry Lee. I think we also need to continually and continuously (no, they are not synonymous) stress that the 2nd Amendment is only one of ten amendments in, and only one of a number of specific rights enumerated in, the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution of the United States. The rights in the BOR are complementary -- together, they are what keep us a [nominally] free country. Start chipping away at the Bill of Rights and we cease to be a free country.
The fence-sitters need to understand that. We have to learn how to better convey that message.
The fence-sitters need to understand that. We have to learn how to better convey that message.
What the radicalized left doesn't quite understand, other than the inability to comprehend how that scenario can't work in the first place, is that a coup d'etat would first need to take place during a conservative Presidency. Even if the POTUS role was reversed in ideology, in any case, the vast majority of our military hierarchy are conservatives. It ain't gonna' happen.
The blathering left make for humorous, although pitiful reads though.
The blathering left make for humorous, although pitiful reads though.
Just another example of politicians and elected officials who have absolutely no regard for the things that they say and how the public will interpret their words. There are plenty of cases in the past of political bigwigs who talk smack, use personal attacks against critics with sexual and vulgar terms, racist and mysogynistic ranting, and issuing threats or thinly veiled threats like in the article which the OP has posted. The latter of which is often used when addressing the big, scary gun nuts who refuse to give up their bibles and ARs.
The civilian-disarmament crowd is the perfect example of an old dog that cannot be taught new tricks anymore. They have been talking the SAME nonsense, using the SAME media fear and misinformation campaigns and issued the SAME threats against the gun community since the early Clinton days. It is getting so old that it is darn near impossible to read yet another publication or listen to another speech given by someone in the gun control crowd without making a grunt and an expression of sour distaste, like seeing food that has gone moldy. Does anybody remember a couple of year ago when an ANTIFA-aligned student organization at some leftist university created something called "Bash the Fash"?. They taught "martial arts techniques" and "self defense" (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) to wannabe militants who joined their organization, and then urged these wannabes to roam the campus and the streets and physically assault anyone that they suspect are "Republicans", "Nazis", "gun owners", "Trump voters", or "abortion opposers". There was a thread either here or on AR15.com that was posted as a warning for everybody to be on the lookout for these idiots and I think I replied: "If they want to play Bash the Fash with me, then I think I will play Catch-The-Gold-Dot with them in return".
Apparently, the Antifa talking heads who directed this whole thing from behind locked doors and behind the safety of their computer screens had been constantly monitoring Internet chatter regarding their proposed little stunt and decided that it was not really smart or worth it. So they pulled back and vanished quietly. I don't recall hearing about anyone who actually got physically assaulted or menaced by these clowns.
The civilian-disarmament crowd is the perfect example of an old dog that cannot be taught new tricks anymore. They have been talking the SAME nonsense, using the SAME media fear and misinformation campaigns and issued the SAME threats against the gun community since the early Clinton days. It is getting so old that it is darn near impossible to read yet another publication or listen to another speech given by someone in the gun control crowd without making a grunt and an expression of sour distaste, like seeing food that has gone moldy. Does anybody remember a couple of year ago when an ANTIFA-aligned student organization at some leftist university created something called "Bash the Fash"?. They taught "martial arts techniques" and "self defense" (BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) to wannabe militants who joined their organization, and then urged these wannabes to roam the campus and the streets and physically assault anyone that they suspect are "Republicans", "Nazis", "gun owners", "Trump voters", or "abortion opposers". There was a thread either here or on AR15.com that was posted as a warning for everybody to be on the lookout for these idiots and I think I replied: "If they want to play Bash the Fash with me, then I think I will play Catch-The-Gold-Dot with them in return".
Apparently, the Antifa talking heads who directed this whole thing from behind locked doors and behind the safety of their computer screens had been constantly monitoring Internet chatter regarding their proposed little stunt and decided that it was not really smart or worth it. So they pulled back and vanished quietly. I don't recall hearing about anyone who actually got physically assaulted or menaced by these clowns.
"It would be a short war, because the government has nukes"
We (the govt) has had nukes since 1945. used twice in Japan in 1945 (new toy test), not used in combat since, anywhere in the world.
Korea was not a "short war", Viet Nam was much, much longer, and the "war on terror" has been going on for decades now...no nukes used.
Hear it all the time, against tanks, bombers, jets and nukes, you can't hope to win with your itty bitty assault weapon...
Point#1) all those tanks, bombers, and even nukes require PEOPLE to operate them, and while they may be better protected today, people aren't any more bullet proof today than they were in the 1770s...
Point#2) If my "assault weapon" is so puny and useless, why are you trying to take it away?
Point#3) If you can't get the US to use nukes on our enemies, how do you think it will go if you try to order their use on our CITIZENS???
many other points, but we'll stop here, for now.
Yes, there are virtual robots in uniform who will blindly obey any order. There are people who will object, and then, obey the order. And there are a few who will refuse a blatently illegal order.
Any officer (or politician, for that matter) stupid enough to order the use of Nuclear weapons on US citizens, is, literally taking their life in their hands. Might not stop it, ONCE, but I'm fairly confident no one would order or carry it out a second time. Not if they wanted to live...
The Dem politician is shooting off his mouth, and we can only hope it results in him shooting himself in the foot. He's thinking of running for President. I hope he does. He'll get a lot of votes advocating the use of nukes on US VOTERS!! well, somebody will get a lot of votes...
We (the govt) has had nukes since 1945. used twice in Japan in 1945 (new toy test), not used in combat since, anywhere in the world.
Korea was not a "short war", Viet Nam was much, much longer, and the "war on terror" has been going on for decades now...no nukes used.
Hear it all the time, against tanks, bombers, jets and nukes, you can't hope to win with your itty bitty assault weapon...
Point#1) all those tanks, bombers, and even nukes require PEOPLE to operate them, and while they may be better protected today, people aren't any more bullet proof today than they were in the 1770s...
Point#2) If my "assault weapon" is so puny and useless, why are you trying to take it away?
Point#3) If you can't get the US to use nukes on our enemies, how do you think it will go if you try to order their use on our CITIZENS???
many other points, but we'll stop here, for now.
Yes, there are virtual robots in uniform who will blindly obey any order. There are people who will object, and then, obey the order. And there are a few who will refuse a blatently illegal order.
Any officer (or politician, for that matter) stupid enough to order the use of Nuclear weapons on US citizens, is, literally taking their life in their hands. Might not stop it, ONCE, but I'm fairly confident no one would order or carry it out a second time. Not if they wanted to live...
The Dem politician is shooting off his mouth, and we can only hope it results in him shooting himself in the foot. He's thinking of running for President. I hope he does. He'll get a lot of votes advocating the use of nukes on US VOTERS!! well, somebody will get a lot of votes...
Well said. ‘They are gonna take our guns’...how exactly that gonna happen? With about a $trillion toward the national debt these next couple of years, don’t think the US can afford it...not even mentioning that there is no national data base of who owns what.
Reading the responses in here I can assume, maybe I'm wrong, that there are a few in here that might tend to want to protect or might lean to his way of thinking. This guy is a scorpion, who represents a huge nest of scorpions. Nuke Americans to gain gun control? There is nothing taken out of context in what he has said. The others just have enough self control not to say such asinine things openly. I heard a short story one time. There was a scorpion who wanted to get across a lake. A swan was there and the scorpion ask to go to the other side of the lake. The scorpion knew he had to ride on the back of the swan to get there. The swan was reluctant because he did not want to be stung. But the scorpion convinced him he would not sting him. The scorpion climbed aboard and the swan took him across the lake. When they reached the other side the scorpion stung him. The swan was screaming in pain, "Why did you sting me?" The scorpion replied," I am a scorpion, stinging is what I do." Folks, do not allow anyone in here to tell you a scorpion is not a scorpion. This scorpion(s) is here to take your guns, and that is only the start. I have even heard these thinkers say such crap as," Well they are a moderate, or they don't believe in all the things this side believe in, etc." Horse dung! Why would any person take on the label of a group of people who would believe in ANY of that crap? Do not be stung helping any of these scorpions! So when you are standing there with no ammo and no guns and no..... whatever else, don't ask the scorpions why you were stung, it's what they do!
Last edited:
There you go raimius. I edited all political labels. Thanks for the heads up.
Last edited:
I know I started this thread after I posted the column on the Representative from California stating those who would not give up their guns could not withstand a nuke in so many words. I was notified that we can't use the D******t word or the R********n word in here, so let me tip toe through he tulips when discussing gun control. Months before the recent election here in Texas two candidates by the name of Beto and Cruz both visited our city. I went to both speeches. While there I saw my daughter who is very active politically. After Beto's speech she made herself through the crowd and walked directly up to him. She ask," What do you plan to do with gun rights?" His answer," Why would you ask me that question?" (DUHHHHHHHDOOPTYDOO). My daughter responded," Sir this is the state of Texas, I am a CHL carrier, you never once mentioned anything about that or other important issues that divide people in this state." He said," I did not mention that because I have no plan to take your guns." I later ask my daughter," If he has no ill intentions on gun control why is he backed so fervently by the group who is for gun control? Those who endorse you are just as important as those who don't endorse you.
Last edited:
This has been discussed multiple times on the Grad Forums.
I won't say "rest assured..." because that's eventually a suicide ploy.
But such force will likely arise from the increasingly militarized civil sector
rather than the military per se from where I & others of like ilk sprang.
The bitter taste of the Bonus March still lingers . . . .
We don’t do left vs right because everyone is afraid of the left because it is composed of some powerful people, businesses and others.
They are openly calling legal gun owners klansmen and no one is wasting any breath to counter them. The public is buying it and radical extremists are getting elected or coming very close to winning.
Expect more of the same, it’s working for the other side. Expect way more.
They are openly calling legal gun owners klansmen and no one is wasting any breath to counter them. The public is buying it and radical extremists are getting elected or coming very close to winning.
Expect more of the same, it’s working for the other side. Expect way more.
Someone needs to inform Swalwell that Nukes are not discriminatory, they tend to kill everything within a certain radius quickly, or further out slowly, and that will be those who have guns and those who do not have guns, those who believe in the 2nd amendment and those who don't.
Just another ignorant politician engaging his mouth before his brain has been engaged. His nickname is "Surfer Boy."
Just another ignorant politician engaging his mouth before his brain has been engaged. His nickname is "Surfer Boy."
$ is why..If you look at total contributions from all these thieves, on both sides, I think you'd be surprised at how often those contributing may be on opposite sides of an issue.
None of you really took this guy's statement literally, did you? To me he obviously meant that the government was strong enough to disarm a civilian public if it chose to. I am not sure he is wrong in that statement. Even the Far Left would not be stupid enough to push a law through that would suddenly make the private ownership of all guns illegal, with an immediate program of total confiscation. If we lose our guns it will be through a gradual process that few will actually, physically oppose, and those that do will be arrested or eliminated.
I can foresee at some future date a law that starts with a re-affirmation of the 2nd Amendment, then declares that so-called "assault weapons" will no longer be legal, and the government will reimburse owners of such at what they will call a fair value. Penalties for non compliance will be made severe enough that few will resist, especially because they will be able to retain all of their other guns.
Some time later the law will be expanded to include, possibly, all semi automatic long guns, and possibly some specific semi auto handguns, again with severe penalties for not turning the banned weapons in.
Eventually all semi auto handguns will be declared illegal, but great attention will be made to the continued legality of all bolt action long guns, all pump and other shotguns (other than the semi auto ones) and all revolvers.
Crime, of course, will not decrease but will increase as the population becomes more and more vulnerable to armed thugs, terrorists and others. So then the same folks that started all of this will push for a ban on ALL firearms held by civilians. By then the population will have become so used to the gradual elimination of privately owned firearms that there will be minimal resistance.
And during all of this, the armchair warriors who are proud to say "From my cold dead hands....." will end up meekly complying and thinking that they really had no other choice. And thus will the 2nd Amendment become only a relic of the past.
And if you personally think that you would not comply with a law demanding you turn in some or all of your guns, be prepared for a local SWAT team, with a warrant, showing up at 3 AM and ransacking your home for your "arsenal" of guns and ammo. A prudent gun owner will be making sure, right now, not to have all of his or her guns in one place, like a large gun safe, but will be prepared for such a search and seizure operation with at least some guns hidden well enough, or far enough from one's home or business, that they will be secure from government agents in their jackboots.
I can foresee at some future date a law that starts with a re-affirmation of the 2nd Amendment, then declares that so-called "assault weapons" will no longer be legal, and the government will reimburse owners of such at what they will call a fair value. Penalties for non compliance will be made severe enough that few will resist, especially because they will be able to retain all of their other guns.
Some time later the law will be expanded to include, possibly, all semi automatic long guns, and possibly some specific semi auto handguns, again with severe penalties for not turning the banned weapons in.
Eventually all semi auto handguns will be declared illegal, but great attention will be made to the continued legality of all bolt action long guns, all pump and other shotguns (other than the semi auto ones) and all revolvers.
Crime, of course, will not decrease but will increase as the population becomes more and more vulnerable to armed thugs, terrorists and others. So then the same folks that started all of this will push for a ban on ALL firearms held by civilians. By then the population will have become so used to the gradual elimination of privately owned firearms that there will be minimal resistance.
And during all of this, the armchair warriors who are proud to say "From my cold dead hands....." will end up meekly complying and thinking that they really had no other choice. And thus will the 2nd Amendment become only a relic of the past.
And if you personally think that you would not comply with a law demanding you turn in some or all of your guns, be prepared for a local SWAT team, with a warrant, showing up at 3 AM and ransacking your home for your "arsenal" of guns and ammo. A prudent gun owner will be making sure, right now, not to have all of his or her guns in one place, like a large gun safe, but will be prepared for such a search and seizure operation with at least some guns hidden well enough, or far enough from one's home or business, that they will be secure from government agents in their jackboots.
Doubtful that very many will "meekly comply." Some, yes, but not very many. Look at how much compliance NY and MD gun laws brought "compliance." Very little.
Fact is there really isn't enough tax money to go after gun owners and enforce compliance. It's just another reason such laws are blatantly ridiculous.
--Wag--
Fact is there really isn't enough tax money to go after gun owners and enforce compliance. It's just another reason such laws are blatantly ridiculous.
--Wag--
- Status