California Dem says US would win 'short war' against gun-rights advocates: 'The government has nukes

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

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.

The comment drew an immediate backlash, with thousands of people criticizing the lawmaker for the ill-thought-out remark.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/california-dem-says-us-would-win-short-war-against-gun-rights-advocates-the-government-has-nukes/ar-BBPNYz9?li=BBnb7Kz

Oh please. A lot of the gun nuts try to justify their possession of assault weapons by saying it's their insurance against a tyrannical government.

[roamer65]

1. I prefer the use of the neutron bomb.

It leaves all their stuff intact.

[ProudLib72]

63. Kill The Poor (Dead Kennedys)

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home

[Downtown Hound]

2. Whatever. Gun nuts threaten violence all the time.

They're so used to their white privilege that they seem to think that no one can let them know that there are people that can and will shoot back at them if they ever start anything. Maybe this wasn't the best choice of responses, but I'm way beyond giving a shit about butt hurt fascists when they get a taste of their own medicine.

[Crutchez_CuiBono]

36. +1 AAAAA men.

[aikoaiko]

3. Well that was a short presidential run. Next.

[Merlot]

14. Yup. He just lost my interest.

We all know that in a battle between the gun nuts and the gov't, the gov't is gonna win. But gov't officials don't say that as it makes the gun nuts claim to need to protect themselves from the gov't sound slightly justified.

Buh-bye.

[DonViejo]

4. Eric Swalwell just neutered his Presidential campaign...

and probably any chance he might be a VP candidate. I can see the ads now!

[tritsofme]

6. This guy was never a serious contender.

It changes nothing for him.

[DonViejo]

8. He thought he was and so did more than a few DU'ers...

His credibility is shot as a candidate for higher office, for quite a while.

[JonLP24]

23. I don't see how

People justify owning guns to protect them in case the government took over (people have actually used this argument with me personally especially popular under Obama) and he exposed their logic. They got drones owning a gun doesn't protect you in fact probably makes it easier for the state to kill you because they can say, "Well, he had a gun."

[DonViejo]

32. Read the first two paragraphs of the article....

Any campaign he runs in will be haunted by the words he spoke. Any candidate he endorses will be smeared with his words, guilt by association.

[JonLP24]

34. This is a Fox News story

I'm not worried about their spin.

FOX News
California Dem says US would win 'short war' against gun-rights advocates: 'The government has nukes'

Lukas Mikelionis 13 hrs agoukas Mikelionis
@LukasMikelionis
Reporter
@FoxNews
https://mobile.twitter.com/LukasMikelionis

[DonViejo]

40. I know it's Fox, the "news" outfit that feeds right-wing

maniacs, thugs, murderers, KKK'ers, Natzis, to name a few.

[uponit7771]

54. No he didn't, the days of disqualification cause of things like the "Dean Scream" are gone! Trump...

... has set a new standard; as long as they're not raping goats in public on Thursday they're good.

[treestar]

62. +1

This is silly. Swalwell will say many other things too

[brush]

5. NEXT! I thought Swalwell was supposed to be smart.

[Vinca]

7. The remark sounds like he was trying to make a joke and it fell flat.

[Wounded Bear]

59. That's how is strikes me, too...

[tazkcmo]

9. Me and a Marine buddy were talking

About just this scenario. We agreed that in an armed conflict between the US military and right wing revolutionaries it would be a very short "war". Structure, discipline and training are all things the gunsters have none of to speak nothing of fire power.

We also agreed that there would probably be a small desertion rate at 10 percent or less but still, shortly after the first real engagement there would be mass surrendering much like Desert Storm. The gunsters will be making bricks in their drawers.

[Merlot]

15. You and your buddy can have that conversation. Elected officials can't.

[NutmegYankee]

18. I have to disagree.

If the RWRs engaged in Taliban insurgent type resistance, they could drag out a war for years. I don't think they can win, but they could resist for years in optimal terrain, like the Appalachian mountains and the west. And while we have very powerful weapons, it would be difficult to justify leveling a city with them to kill say 800 fighters. And those 800 fighters would have to be hunted down Fallujah style while evacuating the civilian population.

My bigger fear would be a split in the Armed forces, giving the RWRs powerful weaponry as well.

[Blue_true]

19. I agree with a split in the armed forces.

Both sides would have powerful weapons. But after a while, the most technologically advanced side would win because it develops new weapons that address shortcomings.

Don't evaluate future wars based upon modern weapons. Modern drones are rather large, but they can find a specific person among a population. Capturing or killing that person is another matter because there will be collateral damage that is unacceptable to civilized people. But future weapons? I envision drones that are tinier than a pinhead tracking targets and eliminating them with poison, with that technology, 800 people in a city can be killed without damage to anything else. The issue is such technology raises severe moral issues, in addition to practical ones like keeping it out of the wrong hands.

[jcmaine72]

51. The upside would be that when it was all over, that vast red sea in the Heartland and South would

be reduced to the size of a rapidly evaporating dog pee puddle on a hot sidewalk in July. Flushing this country of its gun-humping deplorables once and for all would almost be worth enduring the horrors that inevitably accompany any civil war. We could finally have a decent, humane, non-racist nation without them.

[brush]

52. Training and physical fitness will play a huge part. A couple of weeks...

in the field will eliminate the beer gut half of any self-styled militia. Lack of food and shelter will further reduce their forces even more.

The government's huge weaponry, transportation, communication and tech advantages will overwhelm the rest of them in short order.

Swalwell is right about it being a short war but so not smart in even engaging in a comverstion about the Army fighting American citizens.

And talking about nuking them is even nuttier.

He's done as a possible candidate.

[tazkcmo]

58. I disagree also

If you're responsibie for the security of this country, and a US Congressman clearly is, you have thus discussion and there better be contigency plans already made. I will agree that he shouldn't discuss such plan publicly and could have at least worded his sentiment better.

[Calista241]

60. People just assume the military and police aren't vulnerable.

The Gunners can use the internet as easily as anyone else. They can find out where people live, they can find out where their family's are, and where their kids go to school. They'll look like any other American, they can travel without issue, and they can conceal their firearms well enough to get to where they want to go and do what they want to do.

So, if you send a tank platoon up against an isolated compound of survivalist gunners, yes, you're going to win. But if you're 1/4 the way through a state wide mass incarceration / confiscation program, some of those people will start fighting back.

People like Pelosi and Swawell will have security around them and their families. But random police officer that arrested your shooting buddy yesterday, confiscated his weapons, and will be coming to do the same to you tomorrow, will have no such defense.

It would take a tiny, insignificant fraction of the 100 million gun owners here in the US to decide this shit isn't going down and start chaos in our country. 2 snipers, both of whom were crazy, with no significant resources brought Washington, DC to a halt 15 years ago. That could easily be replicated in a dozen cities tomorrow if people were sufficiently motivated.

[AZ8theist]

10. Doesn't change my opinion of him one bit.

I think he's an excellent congressman and would make an excellent President.

The fucking gun nuts need to be taken down MANY notches with their ridiculous arguments.

His joke just shows the absurdity of the argument that they need guns to fight the government.
How'd that work out on Ruby Ridge or Waco??
Watch ONE report of an active shooter someplace and count how many cops show up. So some 2nd Am clown is going to kill ALL of them?? Puullleeeeezzzzzeeee...

Even my friends who are NRA members think those anti-govt arguments are pathetic.

[marlakay]

53. I just saw him on Bill Maher

Was curious and looked him up. He used a lot of tricky tactics and internet to win in 2012.

I was thinking to beat Trump you need to be tough and tricky.

I think his answer was to let the gun nuts know he isn’t afraid of them. Especially in middle America you need to look tough.

He is on Intelligence Committee and works with CIA.

I told my husband his biggest problem will be no one knows him.

[Hav]

11. Sounds unfortunate

I believe it is was meant as a counter to that poor argument that the population needs to be able to amass weapons for the case they need to overthrow the government when the government has completely different weapons, tanks and the airforce at their disposal. It was probably meant to show how silly that argument is.

[chowder66]

12. Context

Last edited Sat Nov 17, 2018, 08:46 PM - Edit history (1)

On Edit: Swalwell spoke of a ban of assault weapons

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dem-congressman-force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-n871066


John Cordillo (America Talks Live host on @Newsmax TV. #NYPD once upon a time. ) said in response to that article;

"Make no mistake, Democrats want to eradicate the Second Amendment, ban and seize all guns, and have all power rest with the state. These people are dangerously obsessed with power."


Joe Biggs (@Rambobiggs) then responded to John Cordillo's response saying;

"So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power."


Swalwell responded to Joe Biggs with;

"And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."


Imo, It may not be elegant but it is neither any kind of game changer, or black mark or whatever.

[former9thward]

17. "Swalwell spoke of banning automatic weapons "

Automatic weapons are banned in this country. Go into a gun store and tell them you want to buy an automatic weapon. After they finish laughing, hear what they say. If Rep. Swalwell doesn't know that he should educate himself.

Of course anyone who wants to use nuclear weapons against their own people I have little hope for.

[Blue_true]

21. Most people conflate automatic with semi-automatic.

I think that any weapon that can kill more than six people in one minute should not only be banned, all in existence that are not in the hands of military should be bought from their owners and melted down.

[chowder66]

25. It was my mistake, the article says ban on assault weapons and goes into further detail. nt

[chowder66]

24. That was my mistake. A ban on assault weapons. The article goes into detail. nt

[Kaleva]

13. Swalwells basic argument is correct

If the radical gun lovers decide to take up arms against the US government, the war will be short because of the government's superior firepower. As history has shown, it's always turned out badly for those citizens who, for whatever er reason, decided to get into a shooting war with the US.

[NutmegYankee]

16. As clearly shown by our quick and decisive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Clearly armed civilians in remote regions are no risk whatsoever.

[Blue_true]

22. Drone them. But give them a chance to surrender first. nt

[NutmegYankee]

30. That assumes they are out in the open.

My point is insurgency and guerilla tactics are very hard to fight, even with our technology. I wouldn't expect these people to engage our armed forces on their strengths - they would hide in the terrain and attack in small actions, conduct terrorism attacks, and use IEDs and booby traps.

[Blue_true]

35. They guess here.

There are miniature drones that can track them to anywhere, lurk until they show up and either kill them or signal a drone that will. In five years, the technology will be even more advanced. Within 15 years, I envision miniature drones that can go anywhere searching for a target, wait until the target is found and either kill that target at a convenient time, or set the target up to be captured.

[NutmegYankee]

38. I don't see that being logistically possible here in the US.

People would be disturbed with such surveillance domestically. After an event, it would be difficult to set up. My primary concern is with terrorism. These freaks know they will ultimately lose, but they might attempt to maximize the suffering by harming many innocents on their way out.

[Blue_true]

44. You make good points.

Since they are citizens what can be done against them is limited by our laws. I agree that they may try Oklahona City bombing type actions to kill their percieved enemies (which is anyone but them and those like them).

[Kaleva]

26. Can you cite an example of US citizens who took up arms in a shooting conflict with the US who...

were successful?

[NutmegYankee]

28. I'm not arguing about ultimate success, I'm stating it could be long and ugly.

Iraq and Afghanistan insurgents just need us to leave. We won't leave our own shores, but insurgent style tactics could draw out a conflict and cause excessive damage.

[Kaleva]

39. The Civil War was long and very costly but that's an extreme example.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over with long ago had the US put the effort into and accepted the cost in lives, material and money that it had to in order to win the Civil War.

Personally, I think we ought to witdraw from those two nations as it's been apparent we are not there to win it. We are there doing just barely enough to keep the two nations from being completly taken over by hostlie forces.

[NutmegYankee]

42. I agree on our overseas wars.

And I agree on ultimate victory against a limited gun nut rebellion, I just think it could be bloodier than many envision. Our powerful weapons work against armies, but don’t do as well against committed terrorism. Say 10 gun nuts take over an elementary school with guns and bombs - Air power will be useless and ground assaults might cost the lives of children.

The result is a long drawn out stand off that rests on whether the men who took it are really willing to die.

[ProfessorGAC]

57. My Only Reason For Disagreeing

The VC, Isis, Taliban, et all were in a TOTALLY different starting place
Many were living a crappy life, then were resisting an invasion.
Foreign army in this country? I buy your point
But, Americans warring with a professional military over a political difference? I doubt it!

[quaker bill]

31. I oppose violence, but honestly, very few of our armed civilians

have that sort of dedication, or a lifetime of experience being in nearly constant armed conflict. The parallel you are trying to draw does not hold water.

[NutmegYankee]

33. I know some very nutty gun nut ex-military.

I think they have the experience, though I’m not sure on the commitment.

[quaker bill]

41. no doubt, there would be a fight

however, our military's ability to bring about mass casualties in short order very is hard to overstate. They don't have to go anywhere near the nukes to pull it off. This is something Iraq and Afghanistan also makes very clear.

[NutmegYankee]

43. Oh, I know we can bring down unheard of firepower.

I’m more concerned that a committed enemy could seek to offset that with human shields or engaging from the shadows in quick hit and run tactics.

[quaker bill]

56. THat is the nature of asymetric warfare

but then they are already shooting up concerts, churches, synagogues, nightclubs, schools, office buildings, and have blown up a federal building. There is no reason to believe it would not be a bloody mess and that far more civil rights would be lost than just the 2nd amendment.


I think rather than Iraq or Afghanistan, the more likely model is the Irish Republican Army which though very few in number sustained a very long campaign. Even then I am not sure the level of commitment in the face of mass casualties is there. There was religion and a long tradition of war with the IRA too. All these guys have is a misreading of the constitution that gives them the notion that they can have any guns they want. This is not the sort of thing that motivates the deepest commitment seen elsewhere.

[In It to Win It]

20. These gun lovers always go to the extreme

Banning automatic weapons would be a group effort, so who would the gun lovers target be, the majority of America? Everyone that works in government? The military?

[Kaleva]

27. Free Republic is full of gunners who talk tough while thumping their chests.

[Initech]

46. I keep saying that they can dish it out, but they can't take it.

Gun nutters love to talk shit, but if you so much as tap them on the arm, they scream and cry like spoiled children.

[boston bean]

29. I see nothing wrong with the comment.

If some one is starting a war with the US government is the government just suppose to sit back and take it??

What was the civil war again??

[DonViejo]

37. A Democrat raised the possibility of using nuclear

weapons against Americans. You're ok with that? Really? You've moved a long way from the ideals of the Mel King campaign, no?

[boston bean]

45. Well, so you really think he wasn't using hyperbole to make a point??

[treestar]

61. I agree.

The thing about taking up arms against a tyranny is obsolete. Better to oppose it with words and activism. We don’t need that any more.

[MarvinGardens]

47. A stupid thing to say.

[California_Republic]

48. In today's polarized environment that a very stupid thing to say

[ecstatic]

49. Horrific gaffe

NOBODY wins when nukes are deployed. Smh

[jcmaine72]

50. Screw the humorless crybullies on the far right.

The whole world is laughing at them and their petty, picayune, low IQ, racist gun culture.

[uponit7771]

55. +1, dems have they're standard but "Dean Screams" are out. Our candidate can scream and tell

... the in-artful truth all day and I'd still vote for them.