Is why I don’t trust a damn one of those idjits on the left…

The Democratic congressman’s comments were prompted by a Twitter user’s response to an article about Swalwell’s call to force gun owners to relinquish assault weapons. 

He’s trying to play it off as ‘sarcasm’, but he actually is willing to nuke US citizens who won’t give up their guns…

Full article, HERE.

This is the kind of crap that IS going to lead to people getting shot. The dems and liberals are now pretty much out in the open with their anti-gun agenda, and it’s not pretty. IMHO, they can and will do anything within their power to criminalize lawful gun owners, and do away with 2A.

And HERE is his twitter exchange with Dana Loesch, where he can’t/won’t answer her question about confiscation and calibers…

It’s going to be a long two years. Sigh…

And check out Lagniappe’s Lair, HERE. He’s reporting from the border… And it’s the straight story, NOT PC media BS…


This… — 10 Comments

  1. So Idjit tweeted “Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law.” meaning “I’m sure you’ll follow law because if you don’t the government will send men dressed in black uniforms, with true assault rifles, to your home and use government force to take legal private property from you and if you don’t comply will use lethal force. But claiming to need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous”

    So tell me again why I don’t need to fear the government you IDJIT?

  2. Later he was blathering about having a “conversation” about compromises. The only compromise acceptable to a (P)regressive is rolling over and playing dead. Bonus points if you applaud them – they still want to be loved.

    • Goes right back to LawDog’s gun compromise argument goes. Dammit, I want my whole cake, if I could afford it. Otherwise I’ll just keep buying and playing with cupcakes.

  3. They’re getting brazen.

    Anytime you feel froggy, jackass.

    • Heath – you nailed the crux of the issue. The hoplophobes and absolute control of force types have been using the ‘we will use whatever force necessary to compel compliance’ argument for a long time. Anything from sending in SEALs to armored units to compel that compliance that they deem necessary to achieve their view of ‘utopia’. It was only a matter of time that they made the leap to nukes. NONE of them has been able to articulate exactly why us poor old ordinary people are such a threat to them.

  4. There is no talking to people who put feelings over facts. Until we as a nation return to the concept of reasoned discourse, critical thinking and open (but polite) debate.

    Until that time, I’ll just keep fiddling with my own persuaders.

  5. Hey Old NFO;

    When an antigunner mentions “Compromise”it means that you lose something and they don’t get as much as they wanted…the first time…..

  6. Well, let’s think about nuking gun-owners. The COST of a nuke is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion to use them that way. Also, nuke the farmers and ranchers and where ya gonna get food to take to the big cities? Or truckers TO take it to the big cities, if there if there IS any food to go and there ARE any truckers who would agree to take it? Now, I don’t know nuthin’ about tactical nukes, being a missileer myself, but I suspect that if there are any, the Army has them, and maybe Marines, but they are not likely to go door-to-door to confiscate rifles and pistols and shotguns, using the tac nukes as persuaders. Missiles can be retargeted, but I’m sure the SAC folks at Omaha won’t be having any of that.

    Swally didn’t think these things thru, which is TOTALLY as expected. Can you say “Idjit”, boys and girls? Yes, I KNEW you could.