Dear Eric Swalwell (D)

[mirkwood]

[JohnsonJones]

I was not aware of what you were talking about until I looked up what Eric Swalwell was trying to promote. 

Several off the cuff thoughts from me on his statements...

1.  IS he INSANE!!!!???  He's talking about using NUKES on the American people.  Is he out of his mind?   Is he absolutely CRAZY!!!????  (Initial thoughts on reading his statement where someone mentioned not giving up their guns and then him responding that the US has nukes).

2.  He is talking about using the military to disarm the populace.  I think he doesn't understand the military all too well.  They will follow orders on some things but if he thinks that they are unthinking automated robots that will do whatever he orders...think again.  A MAJORITY of the military is conservative and a MAJORITY of them FAVOR the interpretation of the 2nd amendment which allows individuals to own whatever gun they want.  You probably have a higher per capita gun enthusiasm among the military than you do among the general populace.  He would be trying to confiscate the PERSONAL weapons of many of the military as well in this move...and I don't think that's going to go over as well with the military as he thinks it will.

3.  He's talking about going to war with the American populace for those who refuse to give up certain weapons.  This would require giving the US military a pre-emptive strike order to attack AMERICAN CITIZENS prior to provocation from them.  Once again...IS HE INSANE!!!???  For all his talk about reducing gun violence and peace he SURE SEEMS LIKE HE WANTS BLOODSHED, VIOLENCE AND WAR within the US itself.

4.  He seems particularly violent for someone who says they are speaking out against violence.

5.  Does he really think 15 billion is enough to buy back all those guns at a market price, or is he just pulling a number out of thin air?

6.  Is he CRAZY!!!???

7.  I'm probably considered pretty liberal on this forum and even to me his ideas sound absolutely ridiculous

8.  Once again...Nukes...really?  What is He THINKING!!!????  Is this guy actually a Democrat or something else?

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Another example of why people should not vote for Progressives.

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

8.  Once again...Nukes...really?  What is He THINKING!!!????  Is this guy actually a Democrat or something else?

That's pretty much the state of the Democratic Party right now... you get pulled to extremes - either you're a capitalist gun-grabber or an ICE-abolishing socialist or a sharia-law promoting feminist... all these conflicting positions that doesn't make much sense.

[NeuroTypical]

Let's just make sure we're all on the same page about what happened.  It's a story about three twitter loudmouths off doing their thing.  

So John and Joe are doing what your average 2nd amendment enthusiast twitter people like to do - be yellin' about how da gubment is out to come take their guns, and how that'll never happen because we gonna fight back.  And then the clueless guy from California shows up and does what they like to do - chimes in to talk about how the military has nukes and is stronger and better than a bunch of toothless hillbilly hicks and they'd win quickly.   I've seen this discussion a million times.  I've participated in various forms of it hundreds of times over the decades. 

The difference here, is the clueless guy from California is actually the Democratic U.S. Representative from California's 15th congressional district.  Usually the clueless liberal is just some random clueless liberal, but in this case, he's actually part of the government, which makes his clueless claim, well, a threat that the government will nuke it's own citizens if they resist liberal efforts to seize guns.  

Dood went on to clarify he was only joking/using sarcasm.  But he's doubled/tripled/quadrupled-down on his statement that, the USA won't lose to it's citizens:

 

Swalwell is pretty dang scary.  One would think he's just sort of the laughing stock of the house, but one would think wrong.  He's actually in the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence committee, and is the ranking freaking member of the Subcommittee on the CIA.   So yeah, he shouldn't be.  Not with that level of cluelessness about the purpose and composition of the US government. 

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[let’s roll]

Never feed trolls, even if they’re members of Congress.

[Guest MormonGator]

@NeuroTypical and @mirkwood-you guys know more about guns than most of us. If, God forbid, the government did turn against us, do you think the average gun owner could stop them? 

I'm strongly in favor of gun rights, but I highly doubt that George and his 12 gauge would do much against an M1 Abrams battle tank. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@NeuroTypical and @mirkwood-you guys know more about guns than most of us. If, God forbid, the government did turn against us, do you think the average gun owner could stop them? 

I'm strongly in favor of gun rights, but I highly doubt that George and his 12 gauge would do much against an M1 Abrams battle tank. 

Stop? Not really.  What they can do is make it REALLY difficult. And with such difficulty, the government may eventually back off.

Why defensive wars are easier: An attacker must vanquish the enemy.  To defend, we need only survive.  That is why the Taliban are as successful as they are.

Historically guerrilla warfare has always found a LOT of success against government forces (whether autocracies or republics doesn't matter).  The only way to completely eradicate guerrillas is through ethnic cleansing.  But there are two problems with that.

• Whenever governments have done that in recent history, they are condemned, ostracized, and sanctioned by every other nation on earth -- even if they were only defending their people from the guerrillas.
• In the case of the US, it would be an ideological cleansing which is virtually impossible because there is no visible sign of a person ideology. Everyone mixes and matches.  But there are certainly clear signs that someone is a Latter-day Saint.  And such a government would be hell-bent on gathering up all of us whether we professed pro or anti gun stances.  But all the 100 other demographics that could include any gun-owner?  You just can't do it.

The nuclear threat is ridiculous because a government simply couldn't nuke every major city (because such guerrillas would be there) -- they'd run out of people to govern and support them in their tyrannical goals.

[mirkwood]

20 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@NeuroTypical and @mirkwood-you guys know more about guns than most of us. If, God forbid, the government did turn against us, do you think the average gun owner could stop them? 

I'm strongly in favor of gun rights, but I highly doubt that George and his 12 gauge would do much against an M1 Abrams battle tank. 

Who is the government going to use?  The two largest 2nd Amendment supporters (military and law enforcement).  Both groups have a duty to refuse unlawful orders.

  Add in the hunters and then what?

Edited November 20, 2018 by mirkwood

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, mirkwood said:

Who is the government going to use?  The two largest 2nd Amendment supporters (military and law enforcement).  Add in the hunters and then what?

Do you think the military and law enforcement would follow orders given by their superiors or ignore them? Asking out of ignorance-not being in the military or law enforcement I don't know the answer. 

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Stop? Not really.  What they can do is make it REALLY difficult. And with such difficulty, the government may eventually back off.

Perhaps. Hopefully it never comes to this. 

Like I mentioned before, I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment-I several handguns and several long guns.  So I'm asking not because I'm against guns. 

[Guest]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Do you think the military and law enforcement would follow orders given by their superiors or ignore them? Asking out of ignorance-not being in the military or law enforcement I don't know the answer. 

Perhaps. Hopefully it never comes to this. 

Like I mentioned before, I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment-I several handguns and several long guns.  So I'm asking not because I'm against guns. 

Yes, I know where you stand.  But that is the common argument.  In fact, it is the very argument that Swalwell made.  The false logic comes from the very question you posed.

12 gage vs M1 Abrams.

Obviously, such a head-to-head matchup would be suicide for the guy with the tank.  Just kidding.  The guy with the shotgun had better be very good at running really fast.  But the reality is that in real-life situations where guys with hand-held weapons go up against large nations with powerful armies, they are much more effective than the uninformed may intuitively believe.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

  But the reality is that in real-life situations where guys with hand-held weapons go up against large nations with powerful armies, they are much more effective than the uninformed may intuitively believe.

Like I said, I hope it never comes to it. 

And if I had to put my money on it, I'd bet Seal Team Six takes down guys who hunt every third weekend of the month. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Like I said, I hope it never comes to it. 

Me neither.

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

And if I had to put my money on it, I'd bet Seal Team Six takes down guys who hunt every third weekend of the month. 

I certainly wouldn't bet against it at least by ratios.  But there's only one Seal Team Six with, what a dozen or so men?  How many hunters are there?

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I certainly wouldn't bet against it at least by ratios.  But there's only one Seal Team Six with, what a dozen or so men?  How many hunters are there?

It was tongue in cheek, but I stand by everything I said 100%. The government would find a way to put down any armed revolution within months. The only way one could survive is if thousands and thousands of members of the armed forces/law enforcement officers defected and took their weaponry with them. 

Wars are almost always won by the side with the most resources. 

Edited November 20, 2018 by MormonGator

[Tyme]

I think gun owners stand a good chance against a tyrannical government. The government isn’t going to want to slaughter their citizens. This guys a joke and back tracked very quickly.

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

@NeuroTypical and @mirkwood-you guys know more about guns than most of us. If, God forbid, the government did turn against us, do you think the average gun owner could stop them? 

Not sure it's about guns.  It's about how the civilization functions.  History is full of examples where a nation's military and police fell on it's own citizens.  From Crystalnacht to Tiananmen square to Stalin's purges to a thousand other examples.  A good solution is to keep the distance short between an average citizen and the military/police.  Mirkwood, for example - regular guy.  You think his bosses can order a guy like Mirk to start committing atrocities against his own neighbors?  

It's easier to organize military units in one cultural area, and go have them commit atrocities in another.  But again, our military is full of notions of American patriotism.  Our soldiers aren't trained to hate gays, or people from South Dakota, or whatever.  When you take a guy from Kentucky and put him in a unit in California, he's still around his fellow American citizens.  You think he'd be any more willing to go round up people into camps (or whatever) than Mirk?  Not much.

I don't think I'll worry until Rep Swalwell's idiot comments start to be repeated in earnest, by people in charge, and the notions are reflected by the military/police.  I don't see that happening right now.  

Edited November 20, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It was tongue in cheek, but I stand by everything I said 100%. The government would find a way to put down any armed revolution within months. The only way one could survive is if thousands and thousands of members of the armed forces/law enforcement officers defected and took their weaponry with them. 

Of course.  That's what I'm talking about.  If you were envisioning a small band of 100 or so individuals against an army of 1 million plus air force, etc.  Then of course the government is going to win.  Without question.  I don't care what tactics you use or how well supplied you are, a small insurgency will always lose with those kinds of odds.

I'm talking about a population of 350 million people with 50 -100 million insurgents fighting with guerrilla warfare.  That will put down the military of 1.5 million if they are very good with their tactics.

40 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Wars are almost always won by the side with the most resources. 

I'm not so sure.  There are only two wars in the past 500 years or so where the conclusion was clear and decisive.  The American Revolution and World War II.  All other wars never truly ended on a particular date.  Even though defeat was clear and decisive, the hostilities continued.

Let me point out several very interesting points in history.

• The American Revolution
• The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
• American intervention in Vietnam.

Each of these involved the smaller, less supplied side winning the war.  A large part of it was due to the bigger side underestimating the smaller side.  And the smaller side used guerrilla tactics.

And our current military action against the Taliban is basically a stalemate even though we have VAST resources and VASTLY superior technology, munitions, and training.  Why?  Because

• They need only survive
• They're using guerrilla tactics.

We may outnumber them.  But they haven't been wiped out yet.  Why?  Because warfare is not only about who can kill the other guy more easily.  It is a socio-political action.  And there are many more aspects to waging it than the simple head-to-head match up that Swalwell and you allude to.

If you keep pointing out the head-to-head matchup being on the side of the guy with the bigger gun, I'll agree with you 100% of the time.  But reality is not so simple.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

 You think his bosses can order a guy like Mirk to start committing atrocities against his own neighbors?  

@mirkwood? Oh no doubt. The only thing keeping him from being a serial killer is....um.....

actually, I do wonder what he does on his off days. 

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Do you think the military and law enforcement would follow orders given by their superiors or ignore them? Asking out of ignorance-not being in the military or law enforcement I don't know the answer. 

Perhaps. Hopefully it never comes to this. 

Like I mentioned before, I'm a huge supporter of the second amendment-I several handguns and several long guns.  So I'm asking not because I'm against guns. 

I believe most would refuse to follow unlawful orders.

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I know where you stand.  But that is the common argument.  In fact, it is the very argument that Swalwell made.  The false logic comes from the very question you posed.

12 gage vs M1 Abrams.

Obviously, such a head-to-head matchup would be suicide for the guy with the tank.  Just kidding.  The guy with the shotgun had better be very good at running really fast.  But the reality is that in real-life situations where guys with hand-held weapons go up against large nations with powerful armies, they are much more effective than the uninformed may intuitively believe.

What makes you think it would be a 12 gauge vs. a tank?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

What makes you think it would be a 12 gauge vs. a tank?

Not me.  Gator provided that as the scenario to address.  So, I said two things.

• IF that were the scenario, of course there is an obvious outcome.
• Real life would never be that way.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not me.  Gator provided that as the scenario to address.  So, I said two things.

It was a joke used to prove a point.

Government resources: Many. 

Milita resources: Not many. 
 

[mirkwood]

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@mirkwood? Oh no doubt. The only thing keeping him from being a serial killer is....um.....

actually, I do wonder what he does on his off days. 

Florida is sure nice today...glad I brought some shorts.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, mirkwood said:

Florida is sure nice today...glad I brought some shorts.

@zil, be prepared to release the tigers from the compound zoo. 

[zil]

33 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

What makes you think it would be a 12 gauge vs. a tank?

Shhh.  He'll get jealous when he finds out how easy it is to get anti-tank missiles.