Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, November 18, 2018

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. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California's San Francisco Bay area, wrote an opinion piece in USA Today advocating the U.S. enact a solution to America's gun violence problem similar to the one enacted in Australia.

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

..but that's not the end of the story, because Rep. Swalwell has a Twitter account.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell on Friday said the U.S. government would use its nuclear weapons in a hypothetical war against Second Amendment supporters refusing to give up their firearms.

The California Democrat, who is openly considering a run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2020, made the outlandish remark on social media after a gun-rights advocate pointed out that the lawmaker once called for gun owners to surrender their assault weapons.

"So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that's what you would get. You're outta your f------ mind if you think I'll give up my rights and give the [government] all the power," Joe Biggs tweeted at Swalwell.

This prompted Swalwell to defend himself, saying it would be a "short war" because "the government has nukes," implying the government would use its nuclear arsenal against its own citizens.

www.foxnews.com

#1 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-11-18 06:04 AM | Reply

Just what we need the democrats very own trump.

#2 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-11-18 07:08 AM | Reply

Dem says give up your guns or get nuked

If you think this, you're really stupid.

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-11-18 10:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why do they bother floating things that are never going to happen? Just makes them look clueless.

#4 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-11-18 11:24 AM | Reply

Don't nuke me bro!

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2018-11-18 11:30 AM | Reply

Why can't both sides acknowledge that the US is unique amongst advanced countries when it comes to gun crime.
It isn't unique in terms of guns. I don't think it is unique in terms of crazies.
The problem is gun control that doesn't keep guns away from potential crazies.
We know that most mass shooters are men that had issues before going off.

Why not require that guns be registered to a woman. If a guy can't get his wife/girlfriend to register a gun, maybe he shouldn't have one.

#6 | Posted by bored at 2018-11-18 11:33 AM | Reply

Then maybe men will spend money on sports cars to compensate for their manly shortcomings.

#7 | Posted by bored at 2018-11-18 11:36 AM | Reply

Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California's San Francisco Bay area

Swalwell is an up and coming star -- he's going places.

#8 | Posted by PinchALoaf at 2018-11-18 11:40 AM | Reply

The laws enacted in Australia and England led to an increase in crime, especially against the elderly. Criminals it seems do not obey laws. All I can say is those scary black rifles are functionally identical to many semi-automatic rifles already in the hands of millions of your fellow citizens. Come and try to confiscate firearms. What you will find is that most cops don't support this. The military won't do it and federal law enforcement does not have the power or personnel to accomplish anything of substance.

#9 | Posted by docnjo at 2018-11-18 11:41 AM | Reply

You don't have to ban guns, just require that ownership of any gun requires $2M liability insurance. Proof of insurance on demand required as per cars. Let the market work it out.

#10 | Posted by Snowfake at 2018-11-18 12:04 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Why do they bother floating things that are never going to happen? Just makes them look clueless.

#4 | POSTED BY REDIAL

It's the Dem's MO.

They finally gain control of a house of Congress and they are hellbent on handing it right back to the GOP the next cycle by trying to push fringe items instead of building a rapport with their constituents by going after issues more pressing.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 12:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You don't have to ban guns, just require that ownership of any gun requires $2M liability insurance.

De facto bans won't pass muster with Heller IIRC.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 12:35 PM | Reply

My gut is the Democrats want to get Republicans on the record against any and all attempts at gun control.

To exploit the dozen or so school shootings that are going happen between now and November 2020.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-18 12:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Take away Constitutional rights? Sign us up!"

--DR Left

#14 | Posted by Spork at 2018-11-18 01:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thank the founders for the Constitution. We have the 2nd Amendment which makes this guy, who swore an oath to that Constitution, a fraud. Who are the wussies now? Worried about how a gun looks. If it looks mean, it's bad. If it looks like a hunting rifle, it's good. Military Style. The boogie man cometh.

#15 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-11-18 01:29 PM | Reply

"The boogie man cometh."

Is that like, specifically an Adam Lanza reference, or are you referring to the generic "Next School Shooter?"

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-18 01:32 PM | Reply

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Depending on what stats you go by, if enacted, this law would create about 1.5 million new criminals. AR owning criminals.

#17 | Posted by sunuvavitch at 2018-11-18 01:42 PM | Reply

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Got one of these for school shootings?

"If school are banned, only banned schools will get shot."

I feel like it still needs a little work. Help me out here.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-18 01:50 PM | Reply

Help me out here.
#18 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

If Snoofy wants answers, only Snoofy answers will suit him.

See, I'm not good at it. You will just have to wander down the corridors of your mind alone.

#19 | Posted by sunuvavitch at 2018-11-18 02:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"When teachers are armed, school shooters will shoot teachers first."

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-18 02:08 PM | Reply

Proof of insurance on demand required as per cars. Let the market work it out. -#10 | Posted by Snowfake at 2018-11-18 12:04 PM
Motor vehicles only require insurance when in use on public roads (only some motor vehicles and only some states, really). If you want to require insurance when -using- the weapon on public lands, you're welcome to push that entirely ineffective law.

#21 | Posted by Avigdore at 2018-11-18 02:28 PM | Reply

"When guns are insured, Eberly will make a lot of money."

Still needs a little work, but I think we're getting somewhere.

#22 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-18 02:38 PM | Reply

Let the market work it out.

Done done it. Liability insurance does not cover intentional, i.e. criminal, conduct.

#23 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-18 02:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Liability insurance does not cover intentional, i.e. criminal, conduct."

I have uninsured driver coverage. Does that mean if an uninsured driver hits me intentionally, they won't pay?

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-18 02:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

intentional, i.e. criminal, conduct.

#23 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2018-11-18 02:40 PM | FLAG:

Not all criminal conduct is intentional, alleged lawyer.

#25 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 02:45 PM | Reply

... uninsured driver coverage ...

Is not liability insurance.

#26 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-18 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Take away Constitutional rights? Sign us up!"
--DR Left

#14 | POSTED BY SPORK AT 2018-11-18 01:08 PM | FLAG:

Have you ever heard of the patriot act? You should look into it sometime. Your constitutional rights are stuck like chewing gum to the bottom of your politician's shoes.

#27 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 04:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dem says give up your guns or get nuked

If you think this, you're really stupid.

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf

He said that pin. You callin him a damn lier?

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-18 04:57 PM | Reply

This is the guy that threatened us with nuclear weapons if we did not comply.

Swalwell Wants To Ban And Buy Back All "Military-Style Semiautomatic Assault Weapons" From Legal Gun Owners

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-18 05:02 PM | Reply

If you think this, you're really stupid.

#3 | Posted by PinchALoaf

Not near as stoopid as you. Just repeating what he said pin.

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-11-18 05:04 PM | Reply

Thank the founders for the Constitution....
#15 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2018-11-18 01:29 PM | FLAG:

And for the resulting school shooting a month. You have the society you deserve, you damned savage. Meanwhile, the rest of the industrialized world is laughing at you.

#31 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 05:08 PM | Reply

Not near as stoopid as you. Just repeating what he said pin.

#30 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Or maybe he was just pointing out the vast technological advantage the government and military have over fat, lazy yokels with semi-auto rifles...

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 05:39 PM | Reply

You have the society you deserve, you damned savage.
#31 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

For some reason I wish I could meet you in real life. I have a feeling it would be hilarious.

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 05:40 PM | Reply

For some reason I wish I could meet you in real life. I have a feeling it would be hilarious.

POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-11-18 05:40 PM | REPLY

I've met enough privileged, lazy, moral cowards to last a lifetime, thanks. Stick with your gun club pals, Cletus.

#34 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 05:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--I've met enough privileged, lazy, moral cowards to last a lifetime, thanks. Stick with your gun club pals, Cletus.

#34 | Posted by DirkStruan

You should stick with your Maoist study club and stop boring us to death, Comrade.

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-18 05:49 PM | Reply

You should stick with your Maoist study club and stop boring us to death, Comrade.

#35 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-11-18 05:49 PM | FLAG:

Maybe if you'd studied Mao more carefully yourself, you wouldn't be such a cliche.

#36 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 05:53 PM | Reply

I've met enough privileged, lazy, moral cowards to last a lifetime, thanks. Stick with your gun club pals, Cletus.

#34 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

LOL I bet you've met more self-absorbed, pretentious morons. Hint-they're the people you go to meetings with and snap your fingers instead of clap after somebody reads some bad poetry about what a victim they are in some ------ coffee shop where you guys uniformly keep out the conformist squares.

#37 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 05:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

--Maybe if you'd studied Mao more carefully yourself, you wouldn't be such a cliche.

Studying Mao is useful for students of history that want to understand how people like you think; as a guide to social change in the US, it's rubbish. Certainly didn't lead to much success for the Weather Underground.

"You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world...

But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow..."

#38 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-18 06:03 PM | Reply

#37

Gun-club Cletus, scared to death of those troublemaking kids. No wonder you don't mind all the school shootings.

#39 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 06:04 PM | Reply

"Studying Mao is useful for students of history that want to understand how people like you think; as a guide to social change in the US, it's rubbish. Certainly didn't lead to much success for the Weather Underground."

It's great for explaining the imperialist mindset of people like you, who oppose progress at every turn. What a good little Nixonian you are.

#40 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 06:06 PM | Reply

Gun-club Cletus, scared to death of those troublemaking kids.

Not at all. Just find their sense of self-importance hilariously inflated and their conviction that they're different and better disturbingly pathetic.

I seem to have accurately described you, though. How old are you dirk? Do you have more piercings than years of your life? Does it take longer than five minutes to fix your hair in the morning to the appropriate level of hypster douchiness? Because you know, you can't wear your killer flannel and animal product free edgewick boots with your rolled up jeans unless that hair is sufficiently greased and slicked back.

No wonder you don't mind all the school shootings.

#39 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

If you have to lie to make your "point", you don't really have a point.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 06:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Not at all."

Sure you are, Cletus. Scared to death of the next generation. It is obvious in everything you post. How convient that they are the ones who die because of the absurd gun culture you promote, huh?

#42 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 06:22 PM | Reply

Sure you are, Cletus. Scared to death of the next generation.

They're not that homogeneous.

And it's more of a face palm sort of feeling and only towards the small but loud group of pro victims.

How convient that they are the ones who die because of the absurd gun culture you promote, huh?

If you have to lie to make your "point", you don't have a point.

#43 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 06:27 PM | Reply

I don't see how people get by without military style assault weapons. Protecting self, loved ones, and property can be done with plain ol' rifles and pistolas, but, I mean, what do they shoot up junk cars with though?

And what's more important, shooting up junk cars or protecting children from demented shooters with military style assault weapons? Shooting up junk cars obviously. What else are military style assault weapons better at?

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2018-11-18 06:28 PM | Reply

"They're not that homogeneous."

They are to you. Just coffee sipping, good for nothing's, right? Who cares if they die of bullet wounds... so long as you and your booze swilling pals can do deer shootin' eh?

#45 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 06:31 PM | Reply

They are to you. Just coffee sipping, good for nothing's, right? Who cares if they die of bullet wounds... so long as you and your booze swilling pals can do deer shootin' eh?

#45 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUAN

Keep it up, douchestruan. The staw of the world is going to want to ban you after tonight's massacre.

#46 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 06:32 PM | Reply

What else are military style assault weapons better at?

You're not throwing out enough scary language, corky.

I thought the most recent memo updated their name to military-style assault weapon death-o'-matic tactical upgraded car antennas.

#47 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 06:34 PM | Reply

jaja... for someone like yourself who doesn't even own military-style assault weapons because of your arsenal of Buffalo Bob Approved death-o'-matic tactical upgraded car antennas, methinks you dost protest too much.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2018-11-18 06:39 PM | Reply

"You're not throwing out enough scary language, corky."

Yeah, clearly an exaggeration.... monthly massacres notwithstanding.

#49 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 06:41 PM | Reply

methinks you dost protest too much.

#48 | POSTED BY CORKY

Nah I just enjoy poking you hyper-emotional, pinky out while drinking Perrier who has to make up definitions and layer on inflammatory language to make your point.

It's like crack for you guys.

#50 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 06:43 PM | Reply

Enjoyment is watching Brees give Wence another loss. Almost as fun as watching Dak Do Atlanta.

I didn't notice an argument from you about how military-style assault weapons had other practical uses other than shooting up junk cars that made it worth making them freely available for school shootings, but then, I didn't expect one either.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2018-11-18 06:47 PM | Reply

I didn't notice an argument from you about how military-style assault weapons had other practical uses other than shooting up junk cars that made it worth making them freely available for school shootings, but then, I didn't expect one either.

Maybe because you're old and you've forgotten the hundreds of other threads this was hashed out in.

#52 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 06:50 PM | Reply

For some reason I wish I could meet you in real life. I have a feeling it would be hilarious.

POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-11-18 05:40 PM | REPLY

I've met enough privileged, lazy, moral cowards to last a lifetime, thanks. Stick with your gun club pals, Cletus.

#34 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:
| Funny: 1

Crazy thing is, you guys actually have a lot in common, other than gun control and I forget what else. It's not productive for you to be so antagonistic to each other. Kind of like America in general right now. But you know. Carry on. Do what ya gotta do.

#53 | Posted by cbob at 2018-11-18 06:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#50

JPW laughs at people who get emotional about dead kids. He personally doesn't care at all. He leaves that to latte sipping millennials.

#54 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 06:57 PM | Reply

I just enjoy people who have to resort to hysterics to craft an argument.

Because when you press them their arguments crumble because they're tall on opinion and short on knowledge.

And in the end that is what my problem is with, not the position they've taken.

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 07:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Crazy thing is, you guys actually have a lot in common

Yeah, I don't see it.

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 07:00 PM | Reply

- the hundreds of other threads this was hashed out in.

Maybe... ok, prolly, you're a little tipsy and buh-lieve that actually happened. It did'int.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2018-11-18 07:01 PM | Reply

Maybe... ok, prolly, you're a little tipsy and buh-lieve that actually happened. It did'int.
#57 | POSTED BY CORKY

Alzheimer's is a terrible disease.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 07:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In JPW's world, everyone is hysterical but hi. Victims of racism, sexism, and gun violence are to be laughed at.

#59 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 07:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

In JPW's world, everyone is hysterical but hi. Victims of racism, sexism, and gun violence are to be laughed at.

#59 | POSTED BY DIRKSTRUMP AT 2018-11-18 07:07 PM | FLAG: funny

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 07:09 PM | Reply

But not as funny as dead kids, huh JPWifebeater?

#61 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 07:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Dead baby jokes were pretty hilarious when they were a thing.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-18 07:19 PM | Reply

Dead baby jokes were pretty hilarious when they were a thing.

#62 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-11-18 07:19 PM | FLAG:

They still are a thing with your sort. And your sort are also producing the corpses. It's a neat little circle.

#63 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 07:27 PM | Reply

Dead baby jokes were pretty hilarious when they were a thing.

What's the best part of dead baby jokes?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

They never get old.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-11-18 07:33 PM | Reply

Do you know how to make a dead baby float?

2 scoops of dead baby and an A&W root beer

#65 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 07:45 PM | Reply

Also, its funny how nullifidan is a Vietnam draft dodging, war protester, yet he clings to Nixonesqu garbage.

Troll... posting Beatles songs...

#66 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 08:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Daddy issues?

#67 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 08:04 PM | Reply

--yet he clings to Nixonesqu garbage.

I know. I helped organize Impeach Nixon demonstrations in 1973 but now I'm "nixonian." You can always count on Dirk for outlandish hysterics.

#68 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-18 08:23 PM | Reply

"I know. I helped organize Impeach Nixon demonstrations in 1973 but now I'm "nixonian.""

What a pathetic sell out you are.

#69 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 08:27 PM | Reply

"utlandish hysterics"

Nulli

Flag your funnies

Problem is that you support all these illegal wars but haven't lifted a finger to go your old dust ridden ass over there to help fight them.

I've actually given you the benefit of a doubt. You're a ------- troll. Go post your Beatles songs somewhere else -------.

#70 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 08:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Daddy issues....

#71 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 08:29 PM | Reply

A story from May of 2018, sounds like a NRA ball rubbing attempt to get more donations.

#72 | Posted by Badcat at 2018-11-18 08:30 PM | Reply

I helped organize Impeach Nixon demonstrations in 1973 but now I'm a Trumpublican.

Quite an evolution you've had.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-11-18 08:31 PM | Reply

Nulli is a war protester.... he hates Vietnam. Worked to impeach Nixon.. missed the draft... yet he's all for kids going to fight in his place..in stupid illegal wars...

That makes Nulli a ------- loser that would rather hide behind his keyboard and play the troll rather than stand for what's actually right. And those facts came from none other than Nullifidan.

#74 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 08:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#70 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Wow lft, I thought you were one of the sane ones around here. Same to you buddy.

ps. I don't know where you got the crazy idea that I support illegal wars but I'm used to the lies told around here. No big deal. I have a lot thicker skin than nutjobs like Dirk or Clownshack.

#75 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-18 08:37 PM | Reply

You are a shapeshifter. You side all over the place. I'm done withe likes of you.

#76 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 08:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't play partisan politics you do.

#77 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 08:39 PM | Reply

-- I'm done withe likes of you.

Please plonk me in that case. That's what killfiles are for.

#78 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-18 08:45 PM | Reply

That's what killfiles are for.

#78 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-11-18 08:45 PM | FLAG:

You'd know, coward.

#79 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 08:46 PM | Reply

I don't know where you got the crazy idea that I support illegal wars but I'm used to the lies told around here. No big deal. I have a lot thicker skin than nutjobs like Dirk or Clownshack.
#75 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Give it up, idiot.

Everyone can read your posts and sees through your bullshht.

Fact is. A lot of us used to enjoy reading your posts and agreed with a lot of what you had to say and stood for.

Then you took a short hiatus and once you resumed posting your posts read as if written by a stranger. An impersonator.

Your posts used to have some substance. Now you only post to troll.

You hardly discuss the topic of the thread. Choosing to troll and cheerlead.

It's disappointing to see who you've become.

#80 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-11-18 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's disappointing to see who you've become." - #80 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-11-18 08:53 PM

Nullifidian, please forgive my forthrightness, but when and why have you turned into the Goatman logical fallacy machine?

It's very strange to see someone's personality change to the degree yours has. It's worse than when when my father had a stroke.

#22 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-09-02 03:50 PM

And...
Unfortunately, the problem is partly mine for putting someone on a pedestal only to watch them crumble with feet of clay. I used to be able to rely on Null for interesting perspectives with a historical viewpoint that superseded mine by about 15 years. Now I can't trust the retorts and it pisses me off. Especially now when the shadows are plenty and the cave is deep. And whenever I turn 'round to look into the light, it's a three ring circus playing 24/7.

#24 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-09-03 01:27 AM

Words of wisdom.

#81 | Posted by Hans at 2018-11-18 08:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--A lot of us used to enjoy reading your posts

..as long as I agreed with you. But now I'm a apostate and there's nothing idealogues hate more than heretics who have left the church of political correctness. Burn the witch!

#82 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-18 09:00 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Wow lft, I thought you were one of the sane ones around here. Same to you buddy.
Nulli

Then pick a skript and stick to it. Otherwise, you're the same old crusty shapeshifter. You can't be a illegal war protester one minute and an illegal war supporter the next. I've been here 13 years and although I've switched my political leaning from democrat to independent, my political platform has remained the same. Get a ------- clue.

#83 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 09:00 PM | Reply

#83 |

I thought you were done with me. That didn't last long. But I'm done with you. Bye

#84 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-11-18 09:03 PM | Reply

"who have left the church of political correctness"

Also known as sanity and decency.

#85 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-18 09:04 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

I thought you were done with me. That didn't last long. But I'm done with you. Bye

#84 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-11-18 09:03 PM | FLAG:

Praise Hay- sues

#86 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 09:06 PM | Reply

BTW , your prototype is "mackris" is back. You have catching up to do.... have fun, war protester...

#87 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 09:08 PM | Reply

as long as I agreed with you.

Considering I'm reading your posts shouldn't that read, "as long as you agreed with me."

It has nothing to do with me agreeing with you. That's what you want to believe in order to make yourself feel better about your drastic change in perspective.

You claim you once rallied to impeach Nixon. Yet you cheer on Trump.

You don't agree with yourself.

#88 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-11-18 09:25 PM | Reply

your prototype is "mackris" is back.

They've been flaggilating each other vigorously.

#89 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-11-18 09:27 PM | Reply

You claim you once rallied to impeach Nixon. Yet you cheer on Trump.
You don't agree with yourself.

#88 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2018-11-18 09:25 PM | REPLY

That's the problem within itself

#90 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 10:16 PM | Reply

..as long as I agreed with you

#82 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN AT 2018-11-18 09:00 PM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 1 | NEWSWORTHY 1

You don't have to agree with me period

#91 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2018-11-18 10:23 PM | Reply

"Is not liability insurance."

Bull. Liability is involved, and if the driver is uninsured, my company covers the uncovered liability.

Why couldn't gun insurance work the same way?

#92 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-18 10:33 PM | Reply

Dan, you can string the words together but you can't make up definitions. An auto liability policy protects you from damage claims for which you are legally liable, hence the term liability insurance. definitions.uslegal.com

Uninsured motorist clause is an additional insurance that protects you from damages for which another is legally liable but has no or insufficient (underinsured clause) insurance. It has nothing to do with your liability. definitions.uslegal.com

I understand you can claim uninsured damage to you is an economic liability but that has nothing to do with insurance law or the coverages under your policy.

#93 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-18 11:18 PM | Reply

"An auto liability policy protects you from damage claims for which you are legally liable"

It also protects me from someone else's liability, when they don't have the coverage.

"Uninsured motorist clause is an additional insurance that protects you from damages for which another is legally liable..."

Thanks for admitting it's covering liability.

Now...can we do that for guns, or not?

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-18 11:20 PM | Reply

Thanks for admitting it's covering liability.

Did you miss the word, "additional"? It could be done for your hypothetical gun insurance but the cost basis would be astronomical.

#95 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-11-18 11:41 PM | Reply

'Military style' - what a vague description.

#96 | Posted by MSgt at 2018-11-18 11:42 PM | Reply

"Did you miss the word, "additional""

No.

Did you miss the part where the poster admitted it was to cover LIABILITY?

"It could be done for your hypothetical gun insurance but the cost basis would be astronomical."

Not if it's spread out amongst every gun owner, per gun.

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-18 11:48 PM | Reply

Now...can we do that for guns, or not?

It depends. Your homeowners probably insures against you accidentally shooting someone on your property i.e. you were negligent and legally liable. It probably will not cover you if you intentionally shoot someone. Nor will it cover you for your economic loss if another shoots you on your property, whether negligently or intentionally, because your policy does not cover the acts of a third party. Now you might convince a legislature to enact a something similar to UM for homeowners for negligence losses but the industry will fight tooth and nail against. However, for intentional criminal conduct public policy precludes insuring against intentional criminal conduct because of the potential for encouraging such conduct.

#98 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 12:03 AM | Reply

In that case, it can not only be done, but it can be done cheaply.

#99 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-19 12:05 AM | Reply

#99

You missed the last sentence did't you. It is against public policy to insure against intentional criminal conduct which encompasses the vast majority of shootings.

As for mandatory coverage for gun owners there are other problems. First it would only cover negligence. Also, the additional cost might be considered an infringement if it is so great that it precludes ownership, particularly for the poor. In other words, I can't exercise my constitutional right because government has made it too expensive.

#100 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 12:20 AM | Reply

Just for discussion purposes, here is a comparison of rates for CCW holders who would generally be considered a lower risk than the general public. www.concealedcarry.com

A few hundred dollars a year would be cost prohibitive for the poor thus an infringement.

#101 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 12:29 AM | Reply

It's okay. Nobody likes poor people, they don't need rights.

#102 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-11-19 08:14 AM | Reply

But Snoofy and other rabid liberals on this site have told me none of them want to take guns away in a ban. This is just the first encroachment. If they were to get this passed, a full on ban would follow years later.

And THIS is why we have the Electoral College, notice where this nonesense came from. California, where Hillary won the popular vote. We have to keep idiots like this at bay.

#103 | Posted by boaz at 2018-11-19 08:27 AM | Reply

"In other words, I can't exercise my constitutional right because government has made it too expensive."

Worthless argument, until the day guns and ammo are given away for free.

#104 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-19 09:10 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Worthless in the land of gun control fantasists. In the real world it is one of them equal protection thingies they wish would go away.

Btw, it's twice now that you failed to pay more attention to the written word. The operative one in that sentence is government.

#105 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 09:46 AM | Reply

more

#106 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 09:48 AM | Reply

"Worthless in the land of gun control fantasists."

How is charging me for an AR-15 not infringing on my rights the same way charging me for liability insurance would?

" it's twice now that you failed to pay more attention to the written word."

More like word games. You even used the word "liability" to argue against "liability".

#107 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-11-19 09:52 AM | Reply

If you can't see the difference between the market and the government there's nothing I can do for you.

Yes, your word games. UM insures you against the uninsured. Liability insures you against your liability. Like I said, your failure to comprehend the definitions has nothing to do with insurance law and the coverage under your policy.

#108 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 10:26 AM | Reply

How many replies on this thread until we hear news about the next mass shooting?

#109 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-11-19 10:34 AM | Reply

Et Al,
Stamp fees (suppressors, specific weapons), $1,500 for a nice AR, weapons aren't free, so how come this right now has to be cost-free when it comes to paying for the cost of misuse, manufacturing issues, etc.? We already know the 2nd Amendment isn't unlimited and restrictions apply.

#110 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-19 10:41 AM | Reply

It's okay. Nobody likes poor people, they don't need rights.

#102 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Especially the black and brown ones.

AmIright?

#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-19 11:01 AM | Reply

#110

Of course, weapons are not free and that's not a constitutional concern. Correct, the Second Amendment isn't unlimited. The question is how far government restrictions on every day weapons, not NFA (that's another category), can go. If restrictions go so far as to effectively deny the right to keep and bear they are prohibited. Mandatory insurance can be cost prohibitive for some thus raising not only Second Amendment but also equal protection concerns.

#112 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 11:39 AM | Reply

word games

Like ignoring the first seven words of the 2nd Amendment?

#113 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-19 11:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I want my constitutional right to only seeing guns in the hands of necessary, well-regulated persons restored.

#114 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-11-19 12:05 PM | Reply

I'm all for making more gun control laws when Liberals finally admit that there need to be laws against the press. The logic for both is the same. When the laws were made, the tools to exercise those rights were completely different and limiting. Today, technology has allowed guns and the press to be available to everyone in an instant and they are both doing the same damage to this country as a whole.

But since Liberals control the press, they will never agree to this. They know the only true advantage they inherently have is their voice, and limiting how they can get their voice heard severely restricts them. For example, if I say something that I have no idea offends anyone and nobody around me ever gets offended, I will never stop saying it even when there is no hate intended at all. But, with the media, Liberals can easily control what people are allowed or not allowed to say (as we already know by all the sensitivity training we go through in our lives these days), which eventually filters down to what media outlets are and aren't allowed to report, thus creating a media that reports whatever the Liberals want to be reported. Then, when a Conservative outlet comes about, the rest of the media can get their readers to believe that that outlet is deceitful and their readers actually believe it because they have been filtered and controlled by those media outlets most of their lives.

Gun control is needed just as much as media control. But fighting for one and not the other is just spreading partisan hate.

#115 | Posted by humtake at 2018-11-19 12:18 PM | Reply

#113

Does the preamble to the Constitution override the seven articles and twenty seven amendments that follow? Your illogic says yes but interpretational doctrine says no.

#116 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 12:24 PM | Reply

#115 Dumtake now advocating for state-controlled media and confiscation of firearms.

#117 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-11-19 12:27 PM | Reply

#116 Except we're talking about the actual text of an Amendment that you're seeking to ignore entirely.

#118 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-19 12:49 PM | Reply

#118

A preamble is a preamble, doesn't matter whether it's in a constitution, amendment, statute or contract. Does a preamble override specific provisions that follow?

#119 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 01:06 PM | Reply

Especially the black and brown ones.
AmIright?

#111 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2018-11-19 11:01 AM | REPLY

Too easy. For gun control to work, the first people we have to round up are the Roof Koreans.

#120 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-11-19 01:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Et_al is mopping the floor with you guys. LOL

#121 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-19 01:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

A preamble is a preamble, doesn't matter whether it's in a constitution, amendment, statute or contract. Does a preamble override specific provisions that follow?

Even assuming you could call the first seven words of the 2nd a "preamble" (i don't think you can), no, it doesn't "override" everything that follows, but it can certainly modify it.

The 2nd Amendment says that since a militia (provided that it is well regulated) is a very good thing for a free state to have, the federal government must not be allowed to -------- it by forbidding the people of the United States to possess weapons. But the entire purpose of said ownership, as evidenced by the first seven words of the sentence, is to participate in a well-regulated militia, not hunting, sport or self-defense. To argue otherwise is to entirely decouple the second part of a sentence from the first.

#122 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-19 01:42 PM | Reply

#121 I didnt realize you had turned into a JeffJ style cheerleader. Pathetic.

#123 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-19 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To argue otherwise is to entirely decouple the second part of a sentence from the first.

#122 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2018-11-19 01:42 PM | REPLY

Without decoupling anything, it is to protect you from abusive militias. The context is accurate and obvious given that 100 regiments of Loyalist militias were confiscating weapons from The People.

#124 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-11-19 01:55 PM | Reply

LOL

#121 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-11-19 01:24 PM | FLAG: |

JPWeaponfondler finds this thread almost as funny as he finds dead kids! And he finds those HIlarious.

#125 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-19 02:03 PM | Reply

#122

That assumes the preamble (we'll have to agree to disagree) states "the" purpose as opposed to "a" purpose. History teaches otherwise. Pre-amendment history also teaches that governments could, would and did abolish militias when they became inconvenient. When people have the arms, rather than the militia, that problem is eliminated.

#126 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 02:04 PM | Reply

#126 If it were only "a" purpose, where are all the others? The framers weren't stupid.

If I walked up to my neighbor and said:

"Hey, once in a while i lose my keys, which is a very bad thing to happen, so i'd like to give you a key to my house,"

Would you say that my neighbor is now permitted to enter my home at any time, day or night, regardless of whether i am present or have lost my keys? That would be a preposterous thing to say.

You might say "thats the risk you took when you gave him a key," but you certainly cannot say that's the permission i intended to give him.

#127 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-19 02:06 PM | Reply

How convenient: history suddenly matters to the gun cultists. But never suggest that the constitution should change based on historical circumstances! You might upset their delicate and wholly self contradictory worldview!

#128 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-19 02:12 PM | Reply

"A preamble is a preamble,"

Is it labeled a preamble anywhere? Or are you just defining your way to victory again, like the lazy, self-serving little shill that we all know you are?

#129 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-11-19 02:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I know a few people with AR's.
All but one claim to have gotten because they believed they'd be banned some day.
The other one got it and over a 1,000 rounds for coyote hunting, and 3 years on has yet to fire it.

I like the idea of having a semi auto .223. The regular old ruger type hunting style .223 is expensive though. You can find an AR style rifle in .223 cheaper. That being said, I wouldn't get an AR because I don't like the baggage it comes with.

#130 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-11-19 02:40 PM | Reply

Crazy thing is, you guys actually have a lot in common
-----
Yeah, I don't see it.

#56 | POSTED BY JPW

I don't see it either.

#131 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-11-19 02:45 PM | Reply

#123 just a statement on the thread as I see it.

Seems like most are bringing an emotion to a legalese fight.

#132 | Posted by jpw at 2018-11-19 03:42 PM | Reply

#127

I don't think they were stupid either. Among their concerns was tyrannical government, they had just fought a war with one. They wanted a militia to exist, it's addressed twice. They knew that governments could abolish militias and take the arms. That's solved by the people having the arms. Among the first acts of Congress was the Militia Act that ordered the people, not the militia, arms themselves with specified weapons and kit.

#133 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 03:53 PM | Reply

"A preamble is a preamble, doesn't matter whether it's in a constitution, amendment, statute or contract. Does a preamble override specific provisions that follow?"

Barring a severability clause, yes.

If that weren't the case, severability clauses wouldn't exist.

Here's a question for the thread:

Is a well-regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state?

Obviously the answer is "no."

But if your answer is "yes" please provide examples of the militia providing the necessary security, and how that security in turn necessitated private firearms ownership.

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-19 03:59 PM | Reply

They knew that governments could abolish militias and take the arms. That's solved by the people having the arms.

Yes. For a specifically enumerated purpose.

I note you didn't bother responding to most of my post.

#135 | Posted by JOE at 2018-11-19 04:24 PM | Reply

I don't think they were stupid either. Among their concerns was tyrannical government, they had just fought a war with one. They wanted a militia to exist, it's addressed twice. They knew that governments could abolish militias and take the arms. That's solved by the people having the arms. Among the first acts of Congress was the Militia Act that ordered the people, not the militia, arms themselves with specified weapons and kit.

#133 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Umm...what?

The Militia Act of 1792 did NOT do that. en.wikisource.org

It did not refer to The People.
It did not refer to any specified weapons or kit.

It essentially gave the President the power to call out the State militias in times of emergency (since there wasn't really a standing army). And it made it a crime not to follow such orders.

So what are you even talking about?

#136 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-11-19 04:39 PM | Reply

Among their concerns was tyrannical government, they had just fought a war with one.
#133 | POSTED BY ET_AL

So? They didn't install a monarchy afterwards, they gave us a republic. How the ---- is a government made up of citizens the same as a monarchy, in your mind?

#137 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-11-19 04:45 PM | Reply

"They knew that governments could abolish militias and take the arms. That's solved by the people having the arms."

Now why would government want to abolish the militias used by slave states used to quell slave uprisings and hunt fugitive slaves?

More to the point, who would be worried that a Federal government might try to use a ban on guns to weaken the institution of slavery?

Only a slave owner would have that worry.

#138 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-19 04:49 PM | Reply

So what are you even talking about?

The second Militia Act passed May 8. en.wikisource.org

How the ---- is a government made up of citizens the same as a monarchy, in your mind?

Never said, implied or even intimated it is. You just made it up. I referenced part of the concerns of the founders.

#139 | Posted by et_al at 2018-11-19 06:55 PM | Reply

Among their concerns was tyrannical government, they had just fought a war with one.

I am sorry to inform you that the 2nd Amendment didn't stop that from happening.

#140 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-11-19 07:07 PM | Reply

"Among their concerns was tyrannical government, they had just fought a war with one."

That concern took a back seat to the concern of untaxed Whiskey.

But thanks for the propaganda lesson, Et_Al!

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-11-19 07:09 PM | Reply

How many replies on this thread until we hear news about the next mass shooting?

#109 | POSTED BY HAMBURGLAR AT 2018-11-19 10:34 AM | FLAG:

Made it to the 130s before the Mercy Hospital shooting.

#142 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-11-19 09:26 PM | Reply

#142 Made it to the 130s before the Mercy Hospital shooting.

It was a 9mm handgun. Guess we have to ban those too. But wait. Chicago's gun laws are tough specifically to prevent just such a thing. The County already has an "assault weapons ban" To legally possess or purchase firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the Illinois State Police.

Imagine that. Laws didn't stop the shooting.

#143 | Posted by sames1 at 2018-11-19 09:57 PM | Reply

Indiana

#144 | Posted by hamburglar at 2018-11-19 10:14 PM | Reply

#144 - You can't give clues. Even good and obvious ones. Hell, if you spell it out with graphs, the odds still aren't good.

#145 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-19 10:17 PM | Reply

#144 - You can't give clues. Even good and obvious ones. Hell, if you spell it out with graphs, the odds still aren't good.

#146 | Posted by YAV at 2018-11-19 10:17 PM | Reply

Simple solution. March into Chicago, and seize the firearms from the ghetto at gun point. It won't even need a permanent occupation. Resisters can just be firebombed. That's essentially the plan being offered by the OP.

#147 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-11-20 08:15 AM | Reply

We stopped drugs in the south side with the war on drugs and making it federally illegally. I don't see why making their guns more illegal won't work.

#148 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-11-20 08:16 AM | Reply

I still like the Chris Rock Solution. No need to restrict guns. just tax bullets $5,000 per bullet. Crazy wants to fill a 100 round clip? He has to front $500K cash.

#149 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-20 09:37 AM | Reply

Imagine that. Laws didn't stop the shooting.

#143 | POSTED BY SAMES1 AT 2018-11-19 09:57 PM | REPLY |

Yes, they did. You can categorically state that the gun used was not purchased in Chicago. The problem is Chicago can't make laws for Gary Indiana or the cities around Chicago.

The problem is not that the gun laws don't work.

#150 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-11-20 09:42 AM | Reply

That's why Canada is a hyper-violent wasteland of ice. They can't make gun laws for America right across the border.

#151 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-11-20 09:52 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort