Hyperbole — Or Is It?

So having taken back the U.S. House, the Socialists are starting to feel their oats:

WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
In a USA Today op-ed entitled “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., argued Thursday that prior proposals to ban assault weapons “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”
Swalwell proposes that the government should offer up to $1,000 for every weapon covered by a new ban, estimating that it would take $15 billion to buy back roughly 15 million weapons — and “criminally prosecute any who choose to defy [the buyback] by keeping their weapons.”

And when he got some blowback, the little turd went full Stalin:

It is a recurring fantasy of socialists that they can disarm Americans without too much difficulty.  Of course, we know that’s not true, and if the FedGov were ever to try it, the cost would be prohibitive (in so many ways).  And for the record, let’s forget all about nukes.  That’s just a wet dream on the part of socialists like Swalwell;  they want to wish the problem away with a wave of a magic wand — it’s a recurring fantasy of theirs for just about every issue — and “nukes” is just a shorthand.

Where this socialist scumbag and his ilk are dangerous is this bullshit talk of “common ground”.  Let me make this clear:  between gun owners and gun confiscators, there is no common ground.  It’s the same with the “commonsense gun control legislation” that they bat around:  there’s no such thing.  Every single piece of legislation suggested by gun controllers has one, and only one goal in mind:  the eventual disarming of the American people.  They can protest all they want, but we know the truth of the matter, which is that all gun control legislation is incremental, because they know that sweeping gun control (confiscation and disarmament) just ain’t gonna happen, dreams of the Swalwell types notwithstanding.

It is quite possible that gun confiscation might have some small success — e.g. in Swalwell’s own district (see below), where the incidence of legal gun ownership is probably quite low and the Democrat Socialist-majority voting population might even support the idea of giving up whatever guns they have.  (And I know what you’re thinking:  nuking the 15th district, and especially with the concomitant fallout, would actually solve quite a few problems, but let’s not go there.)

Also, Swalwell might have at his behest the loathsome assholes of the California State Police, who were so notably efficient in disarming households in New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina floods.  So yeah:  it’s quite feasible that confiscation could work there.

In North Texas, not so much.  In the first place, the would-be confiscators would have to overcome Texas political sentiment about guns — good luck with that — and according to our last county sheriff, the confiscating force would first have to go through his deputies to get to our guns.  And I’m sure that north Texas isn’t alone in this attitude, not just in Texas but all over the U.S.

We don’t have to worry about gun confiscation, the wet dreams of pissants like Swalwell notwithstanding.  What we have to worry about is, as I said above, all the “reasonable” gun control legislation such as, for example, legislation that would limit the type of gun you can own, or equally bad, limits on things like the amount or types of ammunition you can own, or whether you have to register with government as a “gun owner” before being able to buy it.  (Don’t laugh;  that’s the situation that faces  Californian gun owners right now.)

Did I already mention that today is National Ammo Day?

Let me offer a little additional advice:  if you don’t already own a semi-automatic rifle (and we all know what I mean by that), you might want to improve your gun collection by buying an AK-47, AR-15/20 type, SAR-58 or HK-91 (to name but some options) — and buy it today (along with a “sufficiency” of ammo for the rifle, of course).  Send me an email if you want some more details.


  1. “Let me offer a little additional advice: if you don’t already own a semi-automatic rifle (and we all know what I mean by that), you might want to improve your gun collection by buying an AK-47, AR-15/20 type, SAR-58 or HK-91 (to name but some options) — and buy it today (along with a “sufficiency” of ammo for the rifle, of course). Send me an email if you want some more details.”

    As I’ve noted before my wife and I will be moving from NJ to PA next year (either first quarter or early second). Once legal residence, driver license, etc has been established I’m thinking an AR-15 is on my short list, and I may ask advice at that time. (I know, just ONE? But there will be other gun-related expenses to deal with, such as CCW. Since my only current handguns are S&W revolvers with 6″ barrels due to having been purchased on a target license in NYFC I’ll need something a little more concealable for CCW, although I’m still thinking in terms of S&W revolver because I’ve been shooting them so long).

  2. If that’s not a perfect arguement for the 2nd amendment, nothing is.

    As more paper Americans are brought into the country and heritage Americans disappear through lack of breeding, these calls are going to get worse, more strident and more likely to pass.

    Hard times ahead.

  3. I’d suggest that someone ought to send Herr Dipshit an overview of the concept of a guerrilla war, and how you reeeeally don’t want one on someone else’s home turf, even if you have nukes and are stupid enough to use them on said home turf. But that would imply Herr Dipshit is capable of understanding… well, very much of anything, really.

  4. John Yoo and James C. Phillips have a piece at National Review that concludes:

    “With Justice Kavanaugh now providing conservatives with a more secure majority, the Court can end its sidestepping of the Second Amendment. To ensure the equal treatment of rights, the Court should apply the same tests it uses to protect free-speech rights to also protect the right to bear arms. For instance, as proposed by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and endorsed in passing by the D.C. Circuit last year, the Court could invalidate restrictions that fail to leave open ample alternative channels to exercise rights. Such a test would allow for more-extensive background checks, but not bans on weapons for self-defense or high bars on the right to carry guns in public. And such a test would need to be consistent with the original understanding of the right at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted.

    Some regulations would be constitutional, just as the Court allows reasonable, neutral limits on the time, place, and manner of speech (anarchists may not hold a legal protest in a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night — at least, not anywhere except, seemingly, in the front yard of the home of a Fox News host). Just because a law limits a constitutional right in some way does not mean the law must fall. Resolving the conflict between reasonable regulations and a constitutional right, when brought forward in cases over precise regulations and individual facts, will remain the job of the lower courts once the Roberts Court has had it say. But so far, it is the Second Amendment that has repeatedly fallen in the lower courts in the face of a silent Supreme Court. With Kavanaugh now on the Court, that silence should end.

    Far too often for far too long, the Second Amendment has been a second-class right, banished to the back of our constitutional bus. Perhaps the day will come when the people will determine that the best way to curb gun violence is to cull the Second Amendment from the Constitution. Until then, the Court’s constitutional duty is to keep enforcing the right to bear arms just as it would any other constitutional right. Constitutional rights are legal equals. They should be treated as such.”


    Better than nothing, I guess, but we’ll see.

  5. Don’t congress critters take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? That means ALL of the Constitution, not just cherrypicking the parts they like. IMO any of them who move against the Second Amendment should be impeached, then taken out and hung by the neck.

  6. While not directly related to this post but still having relevance … Has anyone spent any time reviewing HR 7115? The bill’s sponsored by a shit-bag social progressive from NJ. The turd that is HR 7115 is of monumental proportions. If passed as written, it violates at least two Amendments from The Bill of Rights. Ironic, especially considering that NJ was the first state in the union to ratify the Bill of Rights.
    My acquisition of all things related to center-fire semi auto rifles with detachable mags continues. Accumulating necessary pieces-parts, and accessories (e.g. 20- and 30-round magazines), because of IL’s own shit-bag social progressive JB Pritzker.

  7. ’15 million weapons’…
    I read that a while back and started laughing like hell. Partly because there’re a LOT more EBRs out there than that, and because you flat know that this asshat is including every semi-auto rifle he can find in a catalog, and a good many pistols on his dream list as well.

Comments are closed.