California Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell Pushes For Gun Confiscation: “Prosecute Those Who Won’t Turn Over Weapons”
Democrat Representative and former prosecutor Eric Swalwell is right out in the open with his disregard for the rights of gun owners, the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Swalwell is not only proposing reinstating the Clinton-Feinstein “assault weapons” ban, which did nothing to stop violent crimes committed with guns, but wants to use taxpayer money to buy those same weapons from citizens willing to sell them and prosecute those who wish to keep their weapons.
In a USA Today op-ed, Swalwell gave clear reasons why he should not only be removed from office but why he should also be considered a traitor to his state and our country with his open attacks on the God-given right to keep and bear arms.
While he deceptively labels military-style semiautomatic rifles as “assault weapons,” he does get one thing right. They are weapons of war, which is what the Second Amendment was written to protect. These are weapons that are to be used in defense of freedom, to secure a free state.
- Activate Your Own Stem Cells & Reverse The Aging Process - Choose "Select & Save" OR Join, Brand Partner & Select Silver To Get Wholesale Prices
- Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
- How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation
- Protect Your Income & Retirement Assets With Gold & Silver
- Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Get Free Shipping With Promo Code TIM
- Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
- Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
- Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
Here’s what Swalwell wrote:
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.
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. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.
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.”
The Parkland teens have taught us there is no right more important than every student’s right to come home after class. The right to live is supreme over any other.
Sadly, he completely bypasses the clear wording of the Second Amendment and writes, “Our courts haven’t found a constitutional right to have assault weapons, anyway. 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.”
Well, first of all, the founders used the term “arms” which covers far more than mere handguns or rifles. Second, our courts have twisted things so badly that they actually think it was unconstitutional to define marriage as between a man and woman and that we can murder the most innocent in the womb in our land. Here, this hypocrite is talking about the “right to live” is supreme over any other, but I’ll bet he is all in favor of ripping apart little humans before they are born.
To quote Scalia and not quote the Second Amendment is a travesty, in my opinion. The Second Amendment is clear, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Our forefathers had muskets, pistols, cannons and warships. Don’t tell me about the right being limited. What is limited is those who represent the people. They are limited by the words of the Constitution.
Apparently, Rep. Swalwell doesn’t get that we already have laws against murder. That’s where your right to keep and bear arms ends. If you use those arms in an unlawful manner, then you don’t get to have any rights. In fact, if we were a just society, we would put the person who commits premeditated murder to death and be done with it, but we don’t. We “play” justice, but we give injustice.
What Salwel won’t tell you is that if we rid ourselves of these asinine and unlawful laws the create gun free zones and strict gun control, we might see violent crime reduced even more than it is. Swalwell will never deal with the issue that in his own state and in cities like Chicago and New York that have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, there is more violence committed with gun by criminals than there are where gun ownership is resected and encourage, like in Kennesaw, Georgia.
Furthermore, Swalwell wants to use taxpayer money to buy these weapons he wants to ban and go after those who resist turning in their weapons. The exceptions are sporting clubs and law enforcement, but in the latter’s case, it appears that they have been responsible for hundreds of deaths with guns, including those he wants to ban. I would like to ask Mr. Salwell what business a police officer has with a what he terms “an assault weapon.” If it’s a weapon of war, is Salwel in favor of law enforcement acting as though they are military troops? Are they at war with the American people? If not, then why the double standard?
Well, fortunately, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson called him out recently on his lawlessness in attempting to turn law-abiding gun owners into felons with a stroke of the pen.
Fox News reports:
Tucker Carlson characterized the proposal as effectively being a gun “ban” because authorities would “make [citizens] felons” if gun owners don’t take action and surrender weapons.
Swalwell disagreed, offering that the gun owners could keep their weapons in a “safe” spot like a fish & game club.
“So, we should confiscate this entire class of firearms,” Carlson said. “Do you think we would have a Civil War?”
Swalwell said something must be done to save lives in the wake of recent mass shootings.
“You just made them into felons,” Carlson said. “You wrote that.”
Carlson added that the U.S. Capitol Police, who he said are effectively Swalwell’s bodyguards, would still be able to hold weapons if they wanted.
Swalwell took exception with Carlson’s characterization of Capitol Police as “bodyguards,” saying he was “denigrating” officers.
Here’s the thing. If Swalwell were to have his way, guess who would have all the guns? Government and criminals, and in many instances, they are one in the same. Things would be far worse.
While Swalwell claims that “Australia got it right” with their gun ban, what he never will reference is how violent crime increased in the land down under.
Nope. America, it’s time we stood up to Communists like Rep. Swalwell and said, “Enough is enough.” Our representatives are not authorized to restrict or regulate arms in any way, no matter what those arms look like or what you call them.
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost