Well I guess this related to the labs, at least will give a new use for a NWs
"Social media erupted after California Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell suggested that the government could use the threat of nuclear weapons to force gun confiscation upon Americans."
https://www.dailywire.com/news/38451/democrat-calls-gun-confiscation-suggests-nuking-ryan-saavedra
Democrat Calls For Gun Confiscation, Suggests Nuking Americans Who Fight Back
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) caused a firestorm on Friday when he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens who oppose his far-left gun control agenda, which includes forcing Americans to give up their semi-automatic weapons.
Swalwell made the comment in response to a May news article on his radical plan that was widely recirculated on Twitter on Friday in which he called for a $15 billion government program to confiscate millions of guns from Americans.
Now, now I know what you all thinking, which labs nukes would be better for for gun confiscation LANL or LLNL? This could also be the key to decide which lab to keep and which one is redundant. Well I am glad to know that we are more than just a deterrent.
Maybe the next call for RRW should have a provision that needs to be effective at being able to deliver gun confiscation.
33 comments:
Swalwell is going to use an old saying in his next reelection campaign:
Nuke'em til they glow, then shoot'em in the dark.
I have listened to him speak many times on the news.
He definitely will do or say anything to move up in the California political system.
When one does that it seems like they are not thinking for themselves, but controlled.
As both a gun owner and someone who knows a few things about nuclear weapons, this Swalwell guy warms my charred soul
"I have listened to him speak many times on the news.
He definitely will do or say anything to move up in the California political system."
I understand politicians saying what they need to say to move up, but do you think this is the kind of thing that will help him out?
Just playing Devil's advocate here but suppose I was all for gun confiscation and Bill down the road would not peacfully give up his Saturday night special, I am not sure that dropping even our lowest yield nuke on his place would be the best outcome, nor "yield" the desired results of everyone else turning over whatever guns they have.
Than again what the hell do I know now, I am sure he will win reelection.
Yeah, let him try. Please.
Taking guns away will be done in small steps. Now the questions is will it make for a better America? I would say yes, just look at England, Australia and so on which are much more safe. The guns are going and California is going to be one of the first.
Here are some plans. (1) You should not get clearance if you own a gun. (2) You should not be allowed on Social Media if you have a gun. (3) You should not be allowed to have a credit card if you own a gun. Other than sure you can own a gun, see how long this will work for you.
If you think the US government can be trusted by a populace that is unarmed, you are very foolish.
Here are some real facts. Before Australia clamped down on gun ownership, there were 17 guns per 100 Australians. After? 14 guns/100. Why so many? Most Australians were legally allowed to keep their guns. How about now? There are actually MORE guns in Australia in total than before the clamp down.
England? Safe? London actually had a higher murder rate than New York City through the first 3 months of 2018. 40,147 stabbings in London through March 2018. More stabbings per capita in London than shootings in New York City.
Forget facts. Anti-gun belief is a religion immune to facts.
"England? Safe? London actually had a higher murder rate than New York City through the first 3 months of 2018. 40,147 stabbings in London through March 2018. More stabbings per capita in London than shootings in New York City."
Just to play Devil's advocate on this but comparing London to New York is very weak. NYC is far far safer than it has been in the past 100 years possibly due to the extreme clamp down on crime and gun laws ect. London very safe by even US standards.
Why not compare London to Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Albuquerque, St Luis, Oakland, Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, Memphis, Flint, Kansas City, Little Rock, Lansing, Houston, Chattanooga, San Bernadio, Milwaukee, Saginaw, Stockton, Pontiac, Kalamazoo, Washington DC, Compton, Miami, Philadelphia, Shrevport, Cincinnati, Los Angelas, San Francisco, San Juan, and so on .
NYC is not even in the top 100 most violent cities in the US.
Some US cities are over the top even by the world standards, for example Baltimore has something like 60 murders per 100k, Detroit like 45, St Luis 60, New Orleans 40, and San Juan PR is at wile NYC is 3.2 or something.
St Luis is now ranked 13th as the most violent city in the world. Baltimore is 21, and Detroit 42. Of the 50 most violent cities in the world 5 are in the US and zero...zero are in Europe. By the way 10 are in Mexico, 16 Brazil, 5 Venezuela, 3 Columbia, 3 South Africa, 4 Central America.
So London is pretty damm safe and yes England is much safer the US, in fact all of Europe, most of Asia, and Australia, New Zealand
are safer.
"Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Albuquerque, St Luis, Oakland, Atlanta, Memphis, New Orleans, Memphis, Flint, Kansas City, Little Rock, Lansing, Houston, Chattanooga, San Bernadio, Milwaukee, Saginaw, Stockton, Pontiac, Kalamazoo, Washington DC, Compton, Miami, Philadelphia, Shrevport, Cincinnati, Los Angelas, San Francisco, San Juan"
Hmmm, many of these cities do have strong gun control. I am not sure what is the root cause to violence in certain cities versus others. Why is Boise Idaho in gun country safer than Chicago with strict gun laws. NYC has strong gun laws yet is safe. One thing people complain out is that NYC is close to a police state, which may be true but at least it is safe.
NYC is far far safer than it has been in the past 100 years possibly due to the extreme clamp down on crime and gun laws ect.
November 23, 2018 at 9:14 PM
Yeah, "possibly due to.." No proof or even any reasonable evidence, regarding gun laws, which were as strict long before Guliani's crackdown and "broken window policing," which was the real game changer in NYC. "Stop and frisk" kept the juvies and crack heads and gang bangers off the streets (most of them and most of the time). De Blasio is trying to turn around all the gains - he'll probably succeed.
Firearm homicides per 100K people vs. guns per 100 inhabitants
Honduras - 67 _ 11
Venezuela - 39 _ 11
Swaziland - 37 _ 6
Jamaica - 30 _ 8
Guatemala - 30 _ 13
El Salvador - 26 _ 6
Brazil - 22 _ 9
Colombia - 18 _ 7
Panama - 14 _ 21
Phillipines - 9 _ 4.7
... 5 more countries
US - 4.6 _ 89
Do you see any correlation between firearm homicides and the number of guns? Neither did I. So it isn't the number of guns owned that the big factor in homicides - it must be something else. Drugs? Gangs? Poverty? Mental illness? Culture? Any other possibilities? Remember, the number of guns isn't it.
November 24, 2018 at 5:49 PM
All good points. Stop and frisk may not be constitutional by the way. In any case I guess it will remain a complete mystery as why
certain cities in the US have high crime and others of comparable size do not. Must be a complex issue since as you point out strict gun laws verses non strict gun laws does not tell the whole story. I am still shocked by St Luis, or more precisely East St Luis being the 13th most violent city in the world, not something the US should be proud of.
So getting this back to the labs, your real point is that even if we use nuclear weapons to for gun confiscation it may not get the desired result of reduced crime. Good to know.
Do you see any correlation between firearm homicides and the number of guns? Neither did I. So it isn't the number of guns owned that the big factor in homicides - it must be something else. Drugs? Gangs? Poverty? Mental illness? Culture? Any other possibilities? Remember, the number of guns isn't it.
November 24, 2018 at 9:13 PM
It is poverty, the rest like gangs, mental illness ext follow from poverty. Another thing is that every county you mentioned was a former colony and in many cases the resources where striped, taken, or still controlled by non-citizens leading to huge inequality. The number of guns means very little in these cases. If you have a very wealthy nation with little inequality are you simply have no motivation to commit crime, you will use less drugs you will have access to propter mental health care, so even if everyone has guns they will simply not use them. On the converse suppose you have a desperately poor area but with no guns than crime will still happen with knives ect. So the bottom line is correct wealth inequalities and reduce poverty and the rest will follow.
As for the United States getting rid of certain types guns may not reduce violence but you have to be honest it probably would not make things worse. My guess is that you would have a reduction of gun deaths but not by a huge amount at first however 10-20 years on you may see some real results like up to 30% reduction. If you eliminate poverty in the US but keep current gun laws it would closer to 50-75% reduction, if you do both 80-90% after about 25 years. Of course we would have to move closer to something like a European model which I think we will eventually get to but that will take some time.
For me, I want a gun to protect myself and my family.
If California didn't go down the road of lessening criminal penalties
and other things like welcoming the bad Illegals (and good)
then I would be ok with better (stronger)gun laws.
But since California is lax on these other items I feel I need a gun for protection.
They are shooting them selves in the foot (pun).
Very interesting and very, very true is how Coastal Elites
build walls around their homes and many have armed guards.
Yet they say I am not allowed to do that? WHY, why is that? Interesting?
For me that is the bottom line, lets see them give up their armed guards.
But I am ok with some common sense gun laws.
"If California didn't go down the road of lessening criminal penalties
and other things like welcoming the bad Illegals (and good)"
There is no such thing as "Illegal people". Everyone should be welcome who want a better life. You have plenty already, this was never your land in the first place and it is time to give back to the world. These people all pay taxes, work, contribute, just like you.
"If California didn't go down the road of lessening criminal penalties "
The criminal penalties where not be applied in a fair way as certain groups are over represented in terms of penalties. Is that fair? If the penalties actually represented the true demographic numbers that ok, but they did not so either get rid of them or apply them fairly.
"Very interesting and very, very true is how Coastal Elites "
Odd you call them coastal elites yet you are a US elite when it comes to immigration. Very interesting
"Yet they say I am not allowed to do that? WHY, why is that? Interesting?"
Because you do not need it.
"But I am ok with some common sense gun laws."
Than listen to Don Lemon.
"For me, I want a gun to protect myself and my family."
Fine, but what happens when it is stolen and used to commit a crime? If you never had it in the first place it would have never gotten on streets.
Your email is very hurtful and causes harm.
9:45,
It's not poverty. If it was poverty, many African countries like The Central African Republic, Congo, Burundi, and Liberia would lead the list. They don't. It's not wealth inequality either. If it was, the countries with the greatest wealth inequality like South Africa, Botswana, and Haiti would lead the list. They don't.
Alcohol and some drug abuse is actually proportional to income - the wealthiest are the most likely to abuse alcohol and some drugs. An article in the Journal of Preventative medicine shows that people who live in high income areas have the highest alcohol and marijuana use. We all knew this, ask anyone familiar with Hollywood. The drug that does seem to be more prevalent among the poor is opioids, although opioid abuse is rising faster in the middle and upper classes.
So it's not the number of guns and it's not wealth or wealth inequality. It could still be drugs.
It is Preventive Medicine, not Preventative Medicine, as the ethymology is prevention not preventation which dies not exist.
It's etymology, not "ethymology". What "dies" (sic) not exist?
I'd like to, but Julian won't let me comment on the level of writing here.
3:33 PM,
Indeed there are illegal immigrants. We are a country of laws and there are laws on the books that define how a person can legally immigrate. If a person immigrates but doesn't follow the rules, they're an illegal immigrant. If you don't like the existing laws, you can work with your Representatives and Senators to change the laws. Good luck with that. In a recent poll, 68 percent of voters think illegal immigration is either a serious or very serious problem. How many people want open borders? Given a choice between open and secure borders, 79 percent of voters want secure borders. You might be vocal, but you are in the overwhelming minority.
Everyone who wants to come here should not be welcome. The US simply cannot be the dumping ground for countries that do not control population growth. In many places in the US, our infrastructure is already under duress from too much population. Roads, water supplies, and hospitals are approaching their breaking point even in wealthy areas like the Bay Area. We need to control population growth while we rebuild our infrastructure to catch up.
It's APPALLINGLY ignorant to claim that all Americans have enough already. You need to get out and see the 10s of thousands of homeless in LA, the Bay Area, and Seattle. We need to find solutions to this human tragedy. Unfettered immigration will make this problem worse, not better. Obviously.
To be fair, the penalties for law breaking can't be dished out proportional to demographic fractions. Old people don't commit as many crimes as young people. Women don't commit as many crimes as men. Look up the Wiki entry on Race and Crime, Blacks commit homicides at 6 to 8 times the rate as whites. The victims of black homicides are also much more likely to be black than white. To be fair, the number and severity of penalties should be proportional to the number and severity of crimes, NOT demographic fractions.
By the way, you always use the word "where" when you really mean "were".
By the way, you always use the word "where" when you really mean "were".
November 26, 2018 at 10:50 AM
Yeah, he is a perennial poster here who always has an axe to grind and little wherewithal to do it. Good post on your part, BTW.
"It's not poverty. If it was poverty, many African countries like The Central African Republic, Congo, Burundi, and Liberia would lead the list. They don't. It's not wealth inequality either. If it was, the countries with the greatest wealth inequality like South Africa, Botswana, and Haiti would lead the list. They don't."
This is good point but I don't think you are correct about the statistics on some of these places. Take "The Central African Republic of the Congo" is the 8th most violent country on earth. Of the 7 ahead of it includes countries that are at war like Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen.. ect. Just to be fair perhaps you meant the Central African Republic, which is ranked like 9th, Burundi is 30th, South Africa is 39th. Haiti has such poor records that no even knows, but many think it could even be on the order of something like Afghanistan, they do not even have a functioning police force and crime is simply not kept track of. Liberia is ranked at 101 but has been much worse before. Bostwana does not count since no one lives in it ;). Actually Bostwana is Christian nation if that counts for anything but the population is very low.
"So it's not the number of guns and it's not wealth or wealth inequality. It could still be drugs."
Or it could be something else, who the heck knows. I think wealth is still be most likely driver but it could be correlated with other things.
November 26, 2018 at 10:50 AM
My God, your post is just so wrong in so many ways, it literally is hate. It is scary to think that there are people like you and still believe the things you do. I will not go into what is wrong with what you said it is simply too much...too much. I will leave it to much more informed people to explain it to you. Here is a beautiful and well researched article that addresses some of your points, particularly when we just witnssed one of the most brutal days in American history when we attacked women and children.
"Let The Caravan In
"https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-caravan-border-violence_us_5bfb66b6e4b0771fb6ba616c
The “caravan” has reached the U.S.-Mexico border. What those in the group found at America’s door is violence. Sunday afternoon in the border city of Tijuana, men, women and children ― some barely toddlers ― were hit with tear gas fired by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents in an attempt to drive away a large group of migrants protesting for their right to seek asylum. The busiest port of entry into the United States was closed as some of the migrants attempted to storm their way in ― a last resort for those who have been barred from entering by every legal channel.
But there is an alternative: Just let the caravan in.
Nice post at 10:50am.
I cannot seem to figure out why some people mistake Legal and Illegal immigration?
Are they not educated? I see it pretty simply that one is Legal and one is not.
How can you mistake this, not hard to figure out. REALLY!
But there is an alternative: Just let the caravan in.
November 26, 2018 at 6:42 PM
As if, the US should have no controlled borders?? No borders = no country. Is that what you want?
6:42 PM apparently doesn't know that tear gas was used at the border 26 times during the Obama Administration. 26 times in the year 2012 alone. Another 27 times in 2013. More in years after. Pepper spray was used at the border 151 times during the Obama Administration. 151 times in the year 2013 alone. You know what's worse? a rock throwing teen was shot and killed near El Paso in 2010, an event the Obama administration called regrettable but justified.
If you have been led to believe the recent event was unique, you're getting your news from dishonest, manipulative sources.
Look up "Using tear gas on illegal migrants isn't a 'war crime.' It's nothing new and saves lives" in the USA today.
Not even a good try, 6:31 PM. The topic was gun control. The statistics I posted were gun homicides. Gun homicides are related to the topic. You tried to change the narrative to violence. Violence statistics includes things like rape, things not related to the topic. You were obviously trying to mislead. The funny thing is, as you were rambling on using statistics that don't apply, at points you even argued against yourself.
The conclusion stands, gun homicides are not well correlated with either wealth or wealth inequality.
November 26, 2018 at 7:36 PM
The standard (and stupid) liberal reply would be "no one is illegal."
The conclusion stands, gun homicides are not well correlated with either wealth or wealth inequality.
November 28, 2018 at 8:30 AM
Fine, we should all just give up on what could be the possibly cause of violence crime and/or gun violence. So making sure no is poor is a bad idea to you, making sure that people have a harder time getting hold of guns is a bad idea as well. Both ideas are bad because you simply cannot fine a firm pattern. Ok but be honest would either one these options make things worse, if not why not try them.
Ok but be honest would either one these options make things worse, if not why not try them.
November 28, 2018 at 6:49 PM
Because they would reduce freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? Because the Edisonian approach to civil rights guarantees government oppression?
Because they would reduce freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? Because the Edisonian approach to civil rights guarantees government oppression?
November 29, 2018 at 5:50 PM
Ok, how about this. NYC seems to be fairly safe especially for the size, how about other big cities do what NYC is doing? To be honest I am not exactly sure what they doing and maybe it just spending more money and having a very large police force, but if that is trick than maybe that is what Chicago needs to do.
For more rule places I guess we could just leave the laws the way they are. I doubt reduced guns in Montana would change much of anything.
November 29, 2018 at 9:19 PM
The answer in NYC was "stop and frisk" and "broken windows" policing. Lots of bad guys off the street before they used a gun. That lowered crime rates significantly, which started under Guiliani, but DeBlasio has ended it and crime rates have been steady or rising for several years. Liberals hate crime but refuse to recognize its causes and refuse to do anything about it.
Post a Comment