Swalwell: ‘Second Amendment Is Not an Absolute Right’
Breitbart Big Government,
by
Pam Key
Original Article
Posted By: ladydawgfan,
4/14/2019 6:02:09 PM
Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and 2020 presidential hopeful said the Second Amendment was not an absolute right. Discussing his proposal to “ban possession of military-style semi-automatic assault weapons,” Swalwell said, “You know, keep your pistols, keep your long rifles, keep your shotguns. I want the most dangerous weapons, these weapons of war, out of the hands of the most dangerous people. But when it comes to what else we can do, because I don’t even suggest this is all we can do, I also want background checks. So do 73% of NRA members.” When asked
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Newtsche 4/14/2019 6:07:11 PM (No. 33971)
Listen to Eric, he knows people with nukes.
19 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Fasteddie 4/14/2019 6:07:57 PM (No. 33984)
The term "semi-automatic assault weapon" is total nonsense, and anyone who uses it displays their ignorance for all to see.
There is not an organized military force on earth that arms its troop with "semi-automatic" weapons.
29 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Avanti1 4/14/2019 6:13:35 PM (No. 33974)
We need stringent background checks for members of Congress and presidential candidates.
I doubt that Swalwell would pass and be allowed to run for either office.
21 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
columba 4/14/2019 6:23:39 PM (No. 33983)
The Constitution provides guarantees that the government will not infringe on my right to carry a gun.
The government did not give me the right to such, as I have the right already.
I could say it is a God-given right; however, Dems these days ignore God and what he has to say.
32 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
seamusm 4/14/2019 6:23:53 PM (No. 33964)
He is correct. The Second Amedment does not speak to our inalienable rights conferred by God on every woman, man, child, and fetus. It is a political right that our forefathers having just won independence recognized as necessary if we were to protect ourselves in the future from a government which had become the enemy of the people. Such has happened inumerable times in the history of mankind and a helpless people all too quickly loses access to even inalienable rights.
22 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
sw penn 4/14/2019 6:31:22 PM (No. 33966)
Swalwell said, “You know, keep your pistols, keep your long rifles, keep your shotguns..."
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor....
Do not let them "step-by-step" you into the grave...
29 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
red1066 4/14/2019 6:35:02 PM (No. 33978)
What´s a Swalwell? Sounds like a rodent.
16 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Jed 4/14/2019 6:59:30 PM (No. 33967)
Please, you personally come over and try...maybe I will attach my bump stock, which I will always have. You did not get it, you are not getting anything else.
13 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
MickTurn 4/14/2019 7:03:32 PM (No. 33969)
Hey Read the part about ´Shall NOT be infringed´ and get back to us after you finally understand it...in about 2000 years.
12 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
WV.Hillbilly 4/14/2019 7:05:11 PM (No. 33988)
You think the war on drugs has been a failure?
Just wait and see what happens with guns.
16 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
mc squared 4/14/2019 7:05:15 PM (No. 33979)
It´s useless to argue facts with the left and its gun-grabbers. They make stuff up and lie about everything.
It isn´t about safety - unless it´s for the totalitarians who would overrun us without our protections.
14 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Noj15 4/14/2019 7:45:51 PM (No. 33963)
When Q? When?
14 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
earlybird 4/14/2019 7:50:11 PM (No. 33987)
So now Swillwell is interpreting the Constitution?
12 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
ledbythnose 4/14/2019 7:58:49 PM (No. 33970)
About a hundred million of us challenge him to try and take it away.And see how far he gets.
13 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Daisymay 4/14/2019 8:34:10 PM (No. 33981)
Pretty Boy Eric fancies himself to be the next coming of John Kennedy. What a joke! This has not a snowball´s chance in hell of getting the nomination. Meanwhile, is he giving up his congressional SEAT while campaigning. After all, the TAXPAYERS are paying him to be on the job.
21 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
bighambone 4/14/2019 9:12:44 PM (No. 33986)
So called military style semi-automatic rifles that Swalwell wants to ban function or operate mechanically just like all other all other semi-automatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns that make up the vast majority of modern firearms in routine use across the USA.
If one class of those firearms are banned because they are all black colored, but function exactly as almost all other modern firearms in common use in the USA, banning the so called military style semi-automatic rifles will just be the start of efforts to ban all modern semi-automatic firearms the USA. That’s just common sense and is not in keeping with the historical 250 year understanding of American’s Second Amendment Rights
13 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
pittgrad95 4/14/2019 9:25:45 PM (No. 33989)
I guess pretty much all California politicians are anti American...and the people that put them in office.
12 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
BarryNo 4/14/2019 9:57:36 PM (No. 33976)
Actually, yes it is. Just because Democrats want to weaken Americans, again, for their power play doesn´t change anything.
Before the Civil War, Democrats tried to ship all the government controlled arms - especially cannon and warships, into Southern Democrat Control. They thought they could win before the industrial potential of the North States could counter them.
Now they are trying to deal with privately owned fire arms after years of propaganda. Ain´t going to happen. Ifyou start using government power to take private guns, We the People will come for you, loaded for bear - or jackass, in this case.
11 people like this.
Swalwall better watch out. The idiot mayor of next-door Oakland yesterday just said that Oakland welcomes ALL illegal aliens!
Here´s a snippet of the relevant part of the interview transcript:
SIMON: I´ve gotten two very complete answers from you to essentially the question, would you welcome more migrants? I haven´t heard a yes.
SCHAAF: I said yes. Oakland welcomes all people.
SIMON: So specifically in this case, if more migrants show up, that´s fine with you?
SCHAAF: My job as a mayor is to welcome people. I don´t build walls. It´s our job to welcome everyone into our city, ensure their safety, ensure that their families can thrive. And that is my job no matter where those people came from or how they got there.
As even more illegal aliens pour into Oakland, there won´t be sufficient money to keep them fed and housed, so they can simply walk a few miles to Swalwell´s (far-wealthier) Congressional District.
12 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
VirtuDawg 4/14/2019 10:19:12 PM (No. 33982)
Yeah, drug dealers and other criminals will be lining up in droves to turn in their weapons. Can´t wait to see that sight . . . (s/o)
15 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
Italiano 4/14/2019 10:19:18 PM (No. 33980)
When SHTF, they´ll find that they aren´t quite as intent on taking them as we are on keeping them.
Easy way or hard way. Their choice.
14 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
ginadee 4/14/2019 11:19:14 PM (No. 33972)
He´s an idiot. I wonder if he could pass an eighth grade test on the Constitution?
First you have to read it. Can you read, Eric?
12 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
FormerDem 4/15/2019 12:39:12 AM (No. 33965)
if he is so smart why is he a Democrat? that party is so over.
10 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
Nimby 4/15/2019 12:41:44 AM (No. 33960)
And you swore to follow the Constitution? Shame on you. Ho watch the school house rock and learn
7 people like this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
curious1 4/15/2019 1:11:19 AM (No. 33990)
It´s past time to dump those commie initiated gun cohtrol laws like the nfa1934 and 1986 - get it back to when you could order a thompson submachinegun through the mail. The unconstitutional laws have obviously made things worse, and the criminals already have select fire weapons, so lets just roll things back, like we did prohibition. Watch leftard heads explode when we do.
8 people like this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
DVC 4/15/2019 1:32:38 AM (No. 33975)
Actually, YES IT IS.
"The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
A open minded, literal reading will show that they left NO wiggle room.
"Shall" - is a legal term of art, which permits NO leeway on what SHALL be done, not MAY or not SHOULD, but SHALL. It is an absolute command.
"Not" - the negator word.
"Infringe" - from the dictionary:
"act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on".
Actually, idiot, it is an ABSOLUTE right as it was written.
CANNOT LIMIT....
14 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
DVC 4/15/2019 1:36:19 AM (No. 33961)
Oh, yeah. Important addendum:
The United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez in 1990, said that “the people” refers to those “persons who are part of a national community,”
That is ALL OF US OUT HERE, Swallwell.
13 people like this.
Reply 28 - Posted by:
Trigger2 4/15/2019 5:42:26 AM (No. 33985)
Sorry #3, but the DNC already has strict requirements for their party: Dumb and dumber, anti-Constitutional, incompetence, money hungry, liars, fraudsters, and thugs with a criminal bent. I´m sure there are other descriptions that apply.
10 people like this.
Reply 29 - Posted by:
jacksin5 4/15/2019 10:44:35 AM (No. 33968)
And who exactly are they going to send to confiscate these weapons?
The U.S. Military is unable to do so by statute. The State Police or Sheriff´s Dept?
Law Enforcement, unlike this idiot, takes the Constitution seriously.
10 people like this.
Reply 30 - Posted by:
DVC 4/15/2019 2:08:55 PM (No. 33962)
#29, don´t be too sure about that. Some LE, especially sheriffs and more especially western and southern sheriffs, elected directly by the people and not subject to higher LE authority, take it quite seriously. But most (all?) big city police chiefs are purely politicians, hired and fired by the mayor in most cases, and are frequently selected for their anti-gun stance. And many of their officers are pro-gun, but many are also just "I do what they tell me to do" kind of policemen.
7 people like this.
Reply 31 - Posted by:
zoidberg 4/15/2019 2:41:52 PM (No. 33977)
Your most basic right is your right to life, and with that the right to defend your life by any means available. This is a natural right that would still exist even without the Second Amendment.
7 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "ladydawgfan"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Idiot doesn´t understand that the Second Amendment PROTECTS the First Amendment!!