Author Topic: WATCH: Jake Tapper grills Eric Swalwell on his anti-gun agenda; he admits Second Amendment not 'abs  (Read 402 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
 WATCH: Jake Tapper grills Eric Swalwell on his anti-gun agenda; he admits Second Amendment not 'absolute right'

'But it's not just the violence that they've caused, it's the fear...'
Image via Twitter @CNNSotu screenshot
Chris Enloe

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), who is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, revealed his campaign's main agenda on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, which focuses on gun control.

But just how far does Swalwell want to go? CNN host Jake Tapper asked tough questions to clarify Swalwell's vision.
What did Swalwell say?

Last year, Swalwell said that semi-automatic "military-style assault weapons," like the AR-15, should be outlawed. He advocated gun buybacks and criminally prosecuting those who do not comply with stiff gun control measures. Tapper pressed on that point.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/eric-swalwell-second-amendment-agenda-cnn
« Last Edit: April 15, 2019, 03:06:07 pm by rangerrebew »

rangerrebew

  • Guest

 he admits Second Amendment not 'absolute right'
 

He's either suggesting there are no absolute rights or The Bill of Rights are not absolute.  Either way it leads America to destruction.

The suggestion people can keep pistols and long rifles is nothing more than the Dutch boy stinking his finger in a leaking dam.  It has to be done differently, as  in no weapons, down the line.

He wants to curb gang violence but is for open borders so Mexican and Central American gangs can roam freely?

He wants more police enforcement?  Where?  In Sanctuary Cities?  Major cities that already don't support  police?

This guy is lying through his teeth and Tapper to weak to challenge him on his bull sh*t philosophy.

Offline goatprairie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,950
After the second amendment is abolished,  Swallowswill would like to look at the problematic first amendment.
I'm sure he feels free speech is something that is not guaranteed/absolute either.   Then he'll look at the other amendments and reach a decision.
You know the whole constitution just might have to be junked in favor of what the majority, the liberal majority, feels are the right things to do.