Ammo For Sale

« « Would be dictators | Home | Police can’t shoot unlicensed dogs » »

But nobody wants to take your guns

Eric Swalwell, U.S. Representative from California:

We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.

Say when, Sprout.

12 Responses to “But nobody wants to take your guns”

  1. Bigus Macus Says:

    Hell most of the military-style semiautomatic firearms I have are older than his parents and grandparents! Another clueless Californian (fill in the blank).

  2. Lyle Says:

    Nope; you don’t get to “buy back” that which was never yours– Using that sort of language is clear proof of an inability to think.

    We should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy the second amendment by conspiring to restrict the manufacture, trade, transport or possession of weapons or ammunition.

  3. Lyle Says:

    See 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. Eric Swalwell is an unindicted federal criminal.

  4. mikee Says:

    Are there any gun designs more complicated than a Brown Bess that aren’t directly, or slightly indirectly, “military-style” and therefore in his opinion, to be banned?

    I ask rhetorically, but really, can anyone name a gun NOT related to a military style firearm?

  5. rickn8or Says:

    mikeee, I think you’ve stumbled onto the gungrabber’s Dirty Little Secret Plan.

  6. MikeQ Says:

    @mikee The USFA Zip 22

  7. Ron W Says:

    They call conservatives NAZI’s, but this guy is a NAZI!

  8. Geoff Says:

    I’ll save you the time of looking the up.
    From Cornell Law School.

    18 USC 241:

    If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

    If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

    They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    18 USC 242:
    Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

  9. Ron W Says:

    @Geoff, these criminals, according to your citation, want to pass illegal laws against us to be enforced by violence and terror. Of course, they EXEMPT THEMSELVES, from these laws so that they keep “a monopoly on violence” for themselves. That’s the criminal, tyrannical agenda!

    ” Congress can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society.”
    — James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 57.

  10. Sigivald Says:

    “See 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. Eric Swalwell is an unindicted federal criminal”

    OH, FOR FSCK’S SAKE.

    Not this again.

    Look. Wanting to enact a law that people think is unconstitutional [or that is so, period] is not under color of law. That’s not what the term of art means, and the statute is not meant for that and will never work for that.

    Equally, there’s no chance that 241 will ever successfully apply to advocating or passing a law, since that is not “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” in any relevant context.

    (Yes, confiscating your guns is an “injury”, sure. And it “oppresses” you, and the FBI will “threaten or intimidate” you in enforcing it.

    None of those are legally relevant to the statute and its construction or meaning.

    It’s like yelling “shall not be infringed!!!” as a sole argument. It’s amateur hour nonsense, and it wastes time and energy that might be devoted to productive 2A advocacy.

    Laws aren’t magic and they’re not written in plain english, and please, just stop acting like that can work, because it can’t and won’t.)

  11. Lyle Says:

    Sigivald;

    “If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same…”

    Seems pretty clear to me, though one could question whether “conspiring to injure, opress, threaten, or intimidate” means that injury, oppression, or intimidation actually have to be proven, or whether the obvious intent is enough. those laws were passed during the Civil Rights struggles of the mid 20th Century, and so I’m guessing that a KKK rally, in which lynchings were contemplated and planned, would qualify as such a conspiracy.

    In other words; does a conspiracy against rights have to succeed before it is considered a conspiracy? So we’re recording the planning of a lynching at the KKK rally, no crime. We find the KKK members out on their search for their victim, with their rope and a photo of the intended victim, no crime. We must wait until they’ve physically assaluted their victim before this becomes a conspiracy?

    So we must wait until the last privately owned weapon is confiscated before this becomes a crime? Because until that happens there is still a private party in possession of a weapon and so the second amendment has not been “infringed” by your definition.

    Lots of gun owners have been intimidated, and most purposefully so, for if none of us were intimidated we’d not submit to licensing requirements or other technical restrictions. QED.

    Lots of people have had to give up their guns. We’ve all been deprived of “free exercise” long ago, and in many case of enjoyment also. Some have even been killed because of alleged gun law violations, but none of that qualifies as conspiracy? I think you should read more carefully, and look at “precedent” a bit less. You can regurgitate what some lawyers say all day, but it doesn’t define the law. Only the law itself can define the law, and unlike some people I can both read and understand English.

    The mere public statement, of a spokesperson of some racist group like the KKK, of “We’re coming for you!” it seems to me is intimidation, and more so besides. It is an open and public threat, especially considering the fact that the same group has lynched people before, and talks about it, even boasting, all the time. The difference is that you’ve accepted such behavior when it comes to the second amendment, and yet in principle there is no difference whatever. 241 and 242 do not make any distinction with regard to which particular rights people are being purposefully inconvenienced, threatened, fined, intimidated, bullied and even killed over.

    So you can’t burn a cross in the front lawn of the home of black family, but it’s perfectly OK for a politician, sworn to uphold the constitution, to say in public; “We’re coming for your guns!”

    The sole purpose of such a statement is to intimidate, and to deprive people of their enjoyment of an enumerated right, for why else say it?

    The bottom line is the very language of the law. Also, people will disagree, based not at all upon their understanding of the words and of the clear, underlying concept, but upon their allegiance– The authoritarian will take the side of intimidation, pressure and threats, and the libertarian will take the side of liberty. So our problem is that the libertarians are vastly outnumbered, in which case the law doesn’t matter.

    If that’s your argument, OK. I concur. The law, saying what we can clearly see that it says, does not matter because enough people say it that doesn’t matter (but we all know damned well that if this were a conversation about some active and vigorous KKK that popped up last week, the interpretation of the very same laws would be more in line with the actual language of those laws, and people would be getting arrested right and left, with even a few executions).

  12. Jeffersonian Says:

    Lyle. Word. Spot on.