Democrat Congressman from California Eric Swalwell has his sights set on the White House in 2020, but the Communist congressman has put himself in a pickle.  He's not just called for an unconstitutional, unlawful gun ban, but has also called for the prosecution of law-abiding Americans who won't turn them in.  In other words, he's the "male" equivalent, if I can even say he's masculine in any way, of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).  Now, he's actually gone on Twitter and responded to claims that he wants a "war" by pushing for gun confiscation by stating that the war would be "short" because the government has "legit" "nukes."

Back in May, Swalwell had issued his statement desiring a gun ban and a $15 million plan to impose the criminal action against the people.

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.

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.

take our poll - story continues below

What is your top alternative to Facebook? - FIXED(2)

  • What is your top alternative to Facebook?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Freedom Outpost updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

He also completely bypassed the clear words of the Second Amendment which declare the right of the people to keep and bear arms to go on to write, “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, no.  No one has a right to exercise a right such as keeping and bearing arms to commit a crime, but that does not mean the right is not unlimited.  As long as people are not going around murdering, robbing or using their arms in a manner that is unlawful, their right to keep and bear arms is absolutely unlimited.

Still, it was to an article in May, at the same time as the writing of my article, that Swalwell began to respond on Twitter because that article began to circulate.

This is how it flared up.

Then Swalwell's response was typical Commie.

See that?  These people always talk about stopping violence but they are the first to try to initiate it even when they don't have a gun in their hands.

There is no common ground with Communist, anti-Constitution, anti-Christian zealots like Eric Swalwell or his comrades.  The enemy is not going to bow or bend.  They must be broken.  This is the case in every war whether a physical, spiritual or ideological war, the enemy must be brought to their knees.  This is what Swalwell is attempting to do to his enemies, bring them to their knees and disarm them.  Joe Biggs has no intention of being Swalwell's slave, and neither do I.

And just to be clear, he is pushing to unconstitutional spend money to buy back gun in order to ban them, putting the guns in the hands of who?  Oh, that's right, the government.  Dana Loesch pointed that out and he agreed.

Now, he didn't go as far as Feinstein and deal with all semi-automatic guns.

He did leave off handguns and go for rifles, but the statistics are clear that handguns are used far more in the commission of violent crime than rifles and in the category of rifles, semi-autos like the AR-15 are used in a very small percentage of those.

Swalwell's comments show he has no idea about what he's talking about.  UBC's do not prevent crime.  They are actually anti-American in that they assume a person is guilty and must prove their innocence to purchase a firearm to exercise their rights protected under the Second Amendment.

Mandatory mental health reporting?  No thank you.  Who wants Communists like Swalwell determining who is and who is not mentally fit to possess a firearm?  Who wants people who don't like you phoning in that you are mentally unstable to the government only to have said government SWAT your house and possibly kill you in the process without you ever having committed a crime?

Every time Swalwell and the rest of the Commie gun grabbers open their pie holes about gun confiscation, they need to be reminded not only of history but the name of one man in Maryland, Gary Willis.

It Begins… Man Fatally Shot By Cops While Unlawfully Confiscating His Guns In Serving “Red Flag” Order

Article posted with permission from Guns In The News

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.