Quote of the day—Rep. Eric Swalwell

I’d had it backwards this whole time. I’ve told town hall participants and reporters in the media that we can protect the Second Amendment and also protect people’s lives. What these kids have taught us is their right to learn, their right to go home, their right to live is supreme over any other right. We should put that first.

Rep. Eric Swalwell
D-California
Questions and answers with the lawmaker who wants your assault weapons
[In other words, the Second Amendment is null and void because he says so. And unless we get a good SCOTUS ruling in the next five to 10 years his vision could be the way it plays out.

His end game is something we need to think about. No door-to-door confiscations. If you get caught with a gun you go to jail. Sure, you can hide it and get away with it for a long time. But you someone will sell you out, a relationship will turn sour, or you’ll get in an accident as you drive to the deep woods to shoot it. We loose that game because the culture will slowly die.

So what do we do? Show up at the first guy’s trial with 100’s of people open carrying AR-15? Burn down the court house?

I’m not sure that is the best way to win friends and influence people in the way we want them influenced.

My best approach is “sanctuary states”. States which refuse to cooperate with the feds on these sort of issues. But that can escalate with blocking of Federal grants and other money. And that is just the start.—Joe]

28 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Rep. Eric Swalwell

  1. Yes, the government can withhold grants and funds but this money comes from us. I suspect tax protesters will precede shooting at revenuers.

  2. “… their right to live is supreme over any other right.”

    Animals that are in zoos are alive, often in quite comfortable circumstances. I wouldn’t recommend it for humans. When you become dependent on others for your security, you are at their mercy. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us how fragile that mercy can be. Hint, in Venezuela zoo animals are being killed for food.

    • I really like your analogy. To carry it a bit further you can be in a wildlife park or you can be in the wild.

      I like this so much I think it should become the standard definition between socialists and capitalists.

      I will certainly be using this in the future.

  3. We are in a cultural war. It’s not just the second amendment, it is our way of life. It will be won or lost in the court of public opinion and in related business decisions. The legal system will only be selectively enforced and will not protect us.

    I would argue that at a minimum we need to support ($) public individuals and organizations that are successfully promoting our way of life. Armed resistance and show of physical force will only damage our cause. We need to be PR focused.

  4. People have these big ideas that folks will be going door to door and “stacking up” outside gun owners homes. It will go off exactly as described. They will pick people off one at a time and hand out long prison sentences to put the fear of the bureaucracy in the rest of us. There should be a tactic developed to counter that ahead of time. People in New York and Connecticut where there is already a good deal of non compliance should already have a tactic developed. We are behind the curve on this.

    Overall states with strong constitutions, many freedom loving Americans and strong politicians are the best bulwark against tyranny. Florida, Vermont and now Oklahoma have all shown us that the politicians are the weak link even in otherwise faithful states. The devil with Federal funds. They shouldn’t be doling them out anyway.

    • Currently, people in New York, etc. can move, or move their guns, out of state. Their tactical options are more varied than if there were a Federal law.

      We are still behind the curve.

      I’m still thinking the very best option is for friendly Feds to start enforcing 18 USC 241 and 242. But that presumes there is a such a thing as a “friendly Fed”.

      • Do this enough and then when the blue states resist offer them the option of more enforcement or secession but only if each county gets to decide on who stays in America.

      • Constitution of New Hampshire, Part 1 (Bill of Rights):

        [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. — June 2, 1784

  5. RE: money from the feds: About 30-35 years ago there was a measure introduced in the Colorado legislature calling for all the fed gas tax monies collected in CO to be retained rather than sent to D.C. The issue was CO sending dollars and getting back pennies, which it was claimed, was inadequate.

    It got killed in committee so the test was never held, but there’s a lot of dollars going state-to-fed: gas taxes, imcome taxes, excise taxes, duties (from those states with ports), ICC fees paid by trucking companies, etc.

    I’ve never seen a figure with totals by state, but all that federal income tax largesse comes from the 50 states (with the exception of what the federal District of Columbia sends in), so it’s a significant amount, although varying quite a bit by state, I’m sure. Were all 50 to act in unison, something that certainly won’t happen, and to conduct some sort of revenue sharing, it’s probably, from a financial sense at least, workable.

    As for the “pick us off one by one” that, perhaps, might not be as successful as envisioned by some. Yes, some individuals will draw the short straw, and be forced to accept it, but faced with loss of freedom and livelihood the response from any number of those selected for participation might differ from what officialdom anticipates. I doubt it would take too much of that to accomplish significant change, and there’s always the option of escalation, much of which would probably be quite ad hoc.

  6. “So what do we do? Show up at the first guy’s trial with 100’s of people open carrying AR-15? Burn down the court house?

    I’m not sure that is the best way to win friends and influence people in the way we want them influenced.”

    So our Founding Fathers were wrong to shoot back at the British?

    • The Founding Fathers shot when confronted by soldiers attempting to confiscate their arms. This is a little different than threatening a legal proceeding in progress or destruction of public property. It’s the difference between defending against physical aggression and initiating a physical confrontation.

        • Yup, as ordered by the King.

          But that resembled the “door to door” confiscation which a large number of present day gun owners would take up arms over. A public trial? Not so much.

          • For an interesting take on some tactics, see the recent series “Occupied” on Netflix.

          • I don’t really see any difference.
            Judges have a sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution. Very few actually do this, but nevertheless that is their duty.
            If judges commit wholesale perjury of their oath, why should their court rooms be privileged from correction by patriots? There is no moral difference that I can see between a perjured judge and a perjured soldier.

          • From a legal and logical standpoint you are correct. From the general population view the use of violence (actual or threatened) is almost for certain going to be considered an escalation and violation of “the rule of law” regardless of whether the courts, legislatures, and/or executive branch have violated their oaths. Law enforcement and soldiers committing violence to execute an illegal order are, psychologically to the mass of people, more deserving of receiving violence in return.

            This is part of the reason I keep pushing the “Prosecute them: 18 USC 241/242.” These people are criminals. We need to get people thinking of these people as criminals in the process of committing yet another felony. It helps change the mindset from “the government is the law” to “government officials are subservient to the law” and can legally and morally resisted using force.

      • Were the Bundys wrong to resist takeover/arrest by the feds then?

        The Ranch episode, not the dipshits who couldn’t plan for the wildlife refuge.

        If we are supposed to resist tyranny I would think resisting unlawful arrest and unlawful confiscation would be it…

        • I’m saying don’t do it at the courthouse. The psychological of the situation is different. At people homes and on their property is different.

          Think of the public response to Ruby Ridge and Waco was versus what the response might be to surrounding a courthouse in the city.

          • At some point, you actually have to haul the tyrants’ asses in front of a court, as you wanted.

            And at that point we will have taken a courthouse for the trial.

            Then what?

          • In my vision “we” will not have “taken a court house”. The existing lawful government will recognize the crimes of the accused and use the U.S. Federal Court houses for their intended purposes. The proceedings will use Federal prosecutors and Judges served by U.S. Marshals.

          • As I recall, the mainstream reaction to RR and Waco was “the feds were doing the right thing and those wackos got what they deserved.”

          • There was some of that. But there was outrage as well. There were congressional hearings, a FBI sniper was indicted (the state of Idaho attempted to prosecute him), and the FBI changed their rules of engagement.

  7. “You know what gives me the courage to do something about this and doesn’t make me afraid… [is that cops will be the ones enforcing my law, not me]”

  8. What kills me is that liberals literally rioted in the streets over Trump’s travel ban. Now I’m no fan of the travel ban because it punishes lots of innocent people for the actions of mad men- precisely what his proposal does. But which is worse? Trump’s ban is a temporary restriction on travel for specific foreign countries. Swalwell’s ban is permanent. It applies to constitutionally protected, legally acquired items vital for self-defense. It affects tens of millions of American citizens- not foreigners. And rather than restricting travel, it threatens them with severe life-ruining felony restrictions- prison, stripping all rights during the term, and RKBA and voting forever. And they call Trump the tyrant???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *