(11-16-2018 06:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  A threat? I'd say a tweet that absolutely makes no sense.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

(11-16-2018 07:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  A threat? I'd say a tweet that absolutely makes no sense.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It makes perfect sense. He came out with an “assault weapon” confiscation plan today using $15 billion in taxpayer money, and criminal prosecution for anyone that doesn’t comply. Joe Biggs (a veteran) made a great point, and swalwell threatened to nuke him.

(11-16-2018 07:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 07:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  A threat? I'd say a tweet that absolutely makes no sense.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It makes perfect sense. He came out with an “assault weapon” confiscation plan today using $15 billion in taxpayer money, and criminal prosecution for anyone that doesn’t comply. Joe Biggs (a veteran) made a great point, and swalwell threatened to nuke him.

So a tweet to nuke people makes sense? No it is total nonsense.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

(11-16-2018 07:54 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 07:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 07:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  A threat? I'd say a tweet that absolutely makes no sense.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It makes perfect sense. He came out with an “assault weapon” confiscation plan today using $15 billion in taxpayer money, and criminal prosecution for anyone that doesn’t comply. Joe Biggs (a veteran) made a great point, and swalwell threatened to nuke him.

So a tweet to nuke people makes sense? No it is total nonsense.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

To swalwell, it makes perfect sense. He sees the American gunowner as a terrorist.

(11-16-2018 07:48 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 06:51 PM)mlb Wrote:  A threat? I'd say a tweet that absolutely makes no sense.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

It makes perfect sense. He came out with an “assault weapon” confiscation plan today using $15 billion in taxpayer money, and criminal prosecution for anyone that doesn’t comply. Joe Biggs (a veteran) made a great point, and swalwell threatened to nuke him.

(11-16-2018 06:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  https://mobile.twitter.com/repswalwell/status/1063527635114852352?s=21



Rep. Eric Swalwell

@RepSwalwell

Replying to

@Rambobiggs

And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

____________

Democrats hate you and America. How much proof do you need?

(11-16-2018 08:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Swalwell's comment was dumb. But understand this, Dems are in no mood to put up with more Cliven Bundy type behavior. Or for gun advocates who talk of rebellion.

And the Guns Everywhere advocacy groups aren't very popular right now. I found it instructive that candidates in the South were running on a gun control platform and winning on it. Beto nearly won in Texas on a strong gun control platform.

I think you might decide what you guys find really important as we move forward.

(11-16-2018 08:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Swalwell's comment was dumb. But understand this, Dems are in no mood to put up with more Cliven Bundy type behavior. Or for gun advocates who talk of rebellion.

And the Guns Everywhere advocacy groups aren't very popular right now. I found it instructive that candidates in the South were running on a gun control platform and winning on it. Beto nearly won in Texas on a strong gun control platform.

I think you might decide what you guys find really important as we move forward.

(11-16-2018 09:04 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Swalwell's comment was dumb. But understand this, Dems are in no mood to put up with more Cliven Bundy type behavior. Or for gun advocates who talk of rebellion.

And the Guns Everywhere advocacy groups aren't very popular right now. I found it instructive that candidates in the South were running on a gun control platform and winning on it. Beto nearly won in Texas on a strong gun control platform.

I think you might decide what you guys find really important as we move forward.

I think you’d agree that I am a reasonable person, and when you aren’t trolling, we agree more often than not.

I can tell you with certainty, gun confiscation is a red line for us. Hell, even Ben Shapiro (the little whimp that he is) has said precisely that.

(11-16-2018 09:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 09:04 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(11-16-2018 08:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Swalwell's comment was dumb. But understand this, Dems are in no mood to put up with more Cliven Bundy type behavior. Or for gun advocates who talk of rebellion.

And the Guns Everywhere advocacy groups aren't very popular right now. I found it instructive that candidates in the South were running on a gun control platform and winning on it. Beto nearly won in Texas on a strong gun control platform.

I think you might decide what you guys find really important as we move forward.

I think you’d agree that I am a reasonable person, and when you aren’t trolling, we agree more often than not.

I can tell you with certainty, gun confiscation is a red line for us. Hell, even Ben Shapiro (the little whimp that he is) has said precisely that.

Unfortunately, if you don't want the government coming for your guns, you guys really need to figure out how to stop the weekly mass shootings going on.

People are fed up. A gun control/confiscation advocate just won election to Congress from a district in friggin' Georgia that is only 21 percent African American. I think that should just give you pause. And her campaign centered on gun control.

At the end of the day, you can draw a red line and demand no registration/oversight of gun sales/ownership, openly advocate for more high capacity firearms, etc. And you can lose more and more seats and then watch gun control become increasingly popular.

Again, you guys should really think about what you have to keep and what you're willing to concede. Because NOW, rather than later, is the time for your side to try and solve it. You retain some power now. Later, that might not be the case.

Gun regulation is constitutional. Gun registries are constitutional. Gun confiscation in certain cases is constitutional. This is settled law. Taxation is constitutional. Higher insurance premiums for gun owners is constitutional. The 2nd Amendment isn't absolute. That is settled law. If this carnage continues, and you wait until 2021, when the Dems might have the Presidency, 53 Senators and 260 Congressmen, all of whom got elected with the opposition of the gun lobby....you might really not like that result.

I can promise you, in a world of almost weekly episodes of persons that WE believe to be the far right (fringe - but still) committing mass shootings, people refusing to comply with gun laws as they exist now, or may be changed to exist in the future, is not something the Dems are likely to have any patience for.

The Dems are arguing, and doing so CONVINCINGLY enough to win elections on it, that within the fringe right that there are people dedicated to use those firearms in terrorist acts in order to kill people they disagree with. I think a Cliven Bundy scenario would not be helpful for your cause.

I think some triangulation might be a good plan. Put in some common sense rules. Register the guns. Require strict tracking on high capacity firing magazines.

People are sick of the carnage.