Would you nuke your fellow citizens on United States soil, if ordered to do so?

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 07:58:32 -0500

A sitting Congressman advocates confiscation of semiautomatic rifles and suggests that nuclear weapons could be used on those who resist this.

How do you feel about this as a SM or Veteran? Would you nuke your fellow citizens? Would you confiscate firearms? Would you surrender your own semiautomatic firearms if threatened with nuclear retaliation?

https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-rep-eric-swalwells-threat-gun-confiscation-didnt-go-over-well-1220468

Eric Swalwell told Twitter followers America has more powerful weapons than Americans have...

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell laid out options for taking back assault weapons from Americans, even giving the notion the America military has much more powerful weapons

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2018 8:03 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:03:49 -0500

Perfectly ok answer from a member of the DPC. Now, if a politician with a different letter (R) by their name the MSM would by in hyper meltdown mode.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Nov 17 at 2018 8:09 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:09:53 -0500

His idiocy and radicalism and perhaps mental instability is on full display. Advocating for gun confiscation is a radical idea and apparently he does not know that our nuclear weapons are not used against individuals or Americans. Perhaps he missed the class on the destruction a nuclear weapon would yield or perhaps he thinks the government has some sort of Buck Rogers like nuclear guns they can shoot individuals with. Either way, this guy needs a padded room and some meds.

The media will not hold him accountable for these remarks, mostly because the agree with him.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Nov 17 at 2018 8:16 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:16:03 -0500

Response by SPC Joseph Wojcik made Nov 17 at 2018 8:33 AM

SPC Joseph Wojcik — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:33:22 -0500

Of course I'm against use of nuclear weapons, especially on our own people. But going back to Sen. Swalwell's hissy fit, outburst like these (and from his lackeys in the media industrial complex) are symptomatic of a dying movement, the elite have lost the monopoly on public opinion and will only grow more extreme unless they are removed from their positions of influence (so don't vote for them, and don't consume their products).
Remember, memes are mightier than the nuclear warhead, we can destroy crybullies like Sen. Swalwell with a few well crafted words overlaid on an image macro.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 17 at 2018 8:57 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:57:03 -0500

If there was ever a case in which some one needed a Psych Eval, This it.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Nov 17 at 2018 8:57 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 08:57:17 -0500

We have the long standing policy of using WMD against attacks of WMD, while using conventional weapons against conventional weapons. It's really that simple. Unless the citizenry started using WMDs, this is a hyperbolic argument. He could have just as easily had said "tanks" instead of "nukes" to make his point. However, it wouldn't have the impact, mainly because we run into the qualitative vs quantitative argument issue.

I am not saying that the US government or sitting president will never use WMD against US citizens or in a domestic space... but let's look at this for what it is "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

He is talking about "protect(ing) our families and communities" by using nuclear weapons on them. Anyone who doesn't realize this is either a hyperbolic argument OR just an idiot on the internet (which have the same net effect) needs to take a step back.

Response by LT Brad McInnis made Nov 17 at 2018 9:34 AM

LT Brad McInnis — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:34:14 -0500

I am absolutely against Swalwell, but in this case, I think he had an idea that just didn't translate to 140 characters. I doubt he meant that he was going to nuke people who didn't give up their guns.

Response by TSgt Larry Johnson made Nov 17 at 2018 9:59 AM

TSgt Larry Johnson — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 09:59:56 -0500

I have followed this guy for a while now. He is the perfect example of the elite who hate the commoner, and someone who wants total control over the population. He had said earlier on Tucker Carlson that confiscation is the thing to do, and when asked how he thought this would work, he just said "if we pass a law, then the guns go away!" When asked what if people don't just give them up, he looked lost, and said, "but we passed the law?" He was serious, and that just proves how out of touch the politicians are from the populace. Scares me, because I do not follow laws that are unconstitutional.

Response by PO1 John Johnson made Nov 17 at 2018 11:24 AM

PO1 John Johnson — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 11:24:16 -0500

Nope, and that Congressman would get a round through his running lights.

Response by SPC Gary Welch made Nov 17 at 2018 3:06 PM

SPC Gary Welch — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 15:06:17 -0500

I wish I had known him back when I was smoking weed because he must be smoking some great stuff

Response by SGT Aaron Atwood made Nov 17 at 2018 4:54 PM

SGT Aaron Atwood — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 16:54:18 -0500

Certainly anti-gun as any elitist is, but the remark itself could've been done by a staff person tweeting on his behalf (in which case that person needs to be fired). Somehow I have a hard time believing any politician at national level would allow themselves to have a publically available personal social media account like this. They're usually too busy speaking at events, kissing babies, etc. to have the time to engage in social media.