How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing To Shed To Disarm Patriotic Americans? by Kurt Schlichter

Should Americans who refuse to give up their guns be lined up and shot, thus proving why they wanted to hang on to their guns? From Kurt Schlichter at

How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing To Shed To Disarm Patriotic Americans?

My question for Congressjerk Eric Swalwell is pretty simple: “How many Americans would you murder to achieve your goal of disarming us?”

It’s a fair question.

Swalwell is the MSNBC stalwart who recently wrote an op-ed advocating that the government confiscate the guns that make people like him wet themselves and imprison those of us who decline to surrender them. Millions of Americans own these basic tools of freedom, which the ignorant call “assault weapons,” and these loyal citizens keep and bear them to protect themselves, their families, their communities and their Constitution. But Rep. Swalwell would make these citizens felons, though these patriots are only a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants.

Of course, he wants to make these patriots felons becausethey are a threat to criminals and aspiring tyrants. After all, that’s what leftist Democrats like him are.

Now, we know that some Americans would resist this kind of tyranny. People all over the world are resisting the elite’s commands. The Brits Brexited. The French are rioting because they don’t want to sacrifice their livelihoods on behalf of the global elites’ weird weather religion. And a decree that the Second Amendment is not a thing anymore would certainly provoke some serious pushback here.

That’s why it’s fair to ask Rep. Bloodlust how much blood he’s prepared to shed to achieve his goal of disarming Normal Americans

Rep. Swalwell, some people are going to fight rather than cave in, so what’s the number of bodies you would be willing to pile up to win? Let’s put aside the right or wrong of resistance; it’ll be a thing. It’ll happen. You’re from near San Francisco, so you don’t know any real Americans, but even though I am from that hellhole too, I’ve met a few Americans in my travels. They are an ornery people who don’t give in to the kind of bullying you advocate. So, you’re going to have to kill some people to do what you want, and I just want to know how many you’re prepared to off to achieve your goal.

After all, it’s not as if you Democrats don’t already have a history of killing people for having guns you disapprove of.

Remember Waco? The raid on David Koresh’s compound was because his weird band of misfits allegedly had scary, outlawed guns. That’s why Democrat Janet Reno initially decided to send in the troops. The government got four of our ATF agents killed, then slaughtered the resisters, including women and kids.

Was it worth it? Maybe these creepy cultists were violating the law, but was making sure they didn’t have guns that were scary worth shooting or burning alive about 80 people, including four cops?

Was it?

So, in light of his party’s track record, I want to know how many people Rep. Swalwell – who fancies himself a potent Democrat presidential contender – is prepared to see die so he can ensure Americans are disarmed in order to please the liberal Californians he represents. How many?


One hundred?

One thousand?

One hundred thousand?


How many corpses would Eric Swalwell and his blue state buddies accept because they don’t think some law-abiding citizen in Oklahoma should be allowed to choose what kind of weapon he has, because they think they should choose for him, and that that choice should be “None?”

On Twitter, which is a wonderful thing because it makes people truly reveal themselves, one gentleman pointed out the not-so-far-fetched notion that mass gun confiscation (let’s leave the problematic logistics for the gun-hating fascists aside) would spark a civil war. But Rep. Swalwell was not worried; he observed that a bunch of citizens with rifles could not stand up to a military armed with nuclear weapons.

Well, that’s a troubling notion.

Now, Congressman Strangelove properly took a lot of grief for suggesting nuking fellow Americans, but even if you accept his backtracking about how this was a joke – nothing’s funnier than suggesting the mass murder of fellow Americans! – he only put nukes off limits. What killing systems are still on the table? Infantry? Artillery? Bombers? Because his answer assumed that he would support prosecuting a war against those who failed to obey and submit to arrest.

So, Congressman, what means of destructions are still on the table to use against fellow Americans who refuse to allow you to strip them of their Second Amendment rights because you Bay Area liberals want to show those hicks in Jesusland who’s boss? Is shooting them okay? Shelling them? Bombing them, just not with nukes?

Having seen the fruits of oppression overseas, I find this troubling. Actually, that’s putting it lightly. I find it horrifying. I’ve written about it in my novels about how our country could be ripped apart by leftist oppression. My just-released book Wildfire paints a most unpretty picture, but my predictions keep coming true. Try as I might, nothing I write speculating about what they would do if given the chance seems to hold a candle to what people like Congressman Stalin tell us they are actually willing to do to crush us under their Gucci loafers.

Understand that the leftists with Swalwell’s mentality are not driven by notions of justice or reason, but by cold hatred for Normal Americans. We’ve been disobedient. We’ve been defiant. We’ve refused to surrender our means of defending our own sovereignty to our elite overlords, and that is intolerable.

After all, a man without a rifle is not a citizen. He’s a serf, subject to the whims and will of his overlords who you damn well know are never giving up the guns their minions keep and bear.

Look at England. They gave up their guns. Now, the police watch their Twitter feeds and arrest them if they say unapproved things. That’s not a bug to our liberal elite; that’s a feature. That’s the goal.

Wait, this is crazy talk! If we disarm and only a government controlled by the liberal elite has guns, our overlords will be totally cool. They’ll respect our right to say and do what we want. They’ll allow us to practice our religion as we please. You know, just like liberals respect the rights of normal people where they are in control, like on college campuses, or on social media, or in the municipalities that hassle Christian cake shops.

Get woke. They hate you, and your freedom to tell them to pound sand sticks in their collective collectivist craw. Ignore the leftist media and the Fredocon collaborators who demand you not believe your lying eyes or ears when they tell you what they intend to do to you if given the chance.

So, the question remains. Our liberal elite betters think we should be stripped of those scary bangsticks the Constitution protects, and we disagree. So, Rep. Swalwell, how many Americans are you willing to kill to fulfill your vision of a disarmed, defenseless, servile population of docile subjects?


One hundred?

One thousand?

One hundred thousand?


My third novel about America after it splits into two countries, one red and one blue, just dropped. Check out Wildfire and see what could happen if we fail to defend our freedom in the face of people who want to make us Venezuela del Norte.

2 responses to “How Much Blood Would Leftists Be Willing To Shed To Disarm Patriotic Americans? by Kurt Schlichter

  1. The first time I saw Swalwell interviewed, I was immediately repelled by his smug, smarmy, attitude and demeanor. He reminded me of the first time I saw and heard the unforgettable “persona” of John Kerry’s running mate in 2004, the inestimable, John Edwards. I knew he was despicable, just not to what degree.

    Two thoughts on the 2nd Amendment, and its undeniable necessity.

    It remains under continuous assault. Its plain meaning and intent the victim of “mental gymnastics,” now bordering on the seriously laughable. Mental gymnastics performed by the usual suspects supported by their tiresomely-familiar mouthpieces.

    My State, Colorado, has turned significantly “blue.” I am now hearing, even before the new legislature begins its session, initial “rumblings” of renewed focus on “guns.”

    To those who believe that only those who are politically enfranchised to possess them, should be “allowed” to own a firearm, I have a few questions:

    Assume that the Bill of Rights – i.e., the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution, were only 9. The 2nd Amendment did not exist. Further, assume that the 1st Amendment – the “free speech” Amendment, instead of its present wording, was worded as follows:

    “A well-educated citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to read and write shall not be infringed.”

    1. Would you conclude the right to read and write is a collective right, not an individual right?
    2. Would you accept restrictions on your ability to “allowing” your fellow citizens to be in possession of such things represents a potential threat to you?
    3. Would you insist that only government employees possess the means to read and write?

    The second observation is this:

    When one reviews our history, you cannot help but becoming aware of the following:

    The “revolution” was driven by Jefferson’s unprecedented Declaration. However, actual military conflict began when the British attempted to seize the weapons and powder stored in the Amory in Concord.

    The military conflict that would become the Civil War did not begin until the Confederacy, led initially by South Carolina, attempted to seize the armaments contained in Ft. Sumpter.

    On a “lesser” scale, when John Brown attempted to seize the weapons located at Harpers Ferry, only then was he actually captured and hung.

    The point is this. When the forces of what has become the “status quo,” attempt to assure their preservation and “security” by attempting to seize the means whereby those opposed to the status quo might “ultimately” resist, only then does actual physical conflict potentially erupt. Almost ALL those potentially involved understand this. They may not utter such ominous thoughts – “ominous” to their “sensibilities,” but ALL understand that once this “line” is considered, what is potentially set into motion becomes immediately ominous.


  2. The recent actions by North Carolina and a few other states, I think, deserve more publicity because they stand a greater chance of success against gun owners. Step one, pass a vague law allowing any housemate, neighbor, co-worker, or acquaintance of a gun owner to get a court order taking away his right to have guns, simply by saying “I’m afraid of him.” No actual cause needed. Step two, when such an order is issued, keep it a secret until a squad of cops shows up at his home in the middle of the night, with a list of his guns and permission to shoot to kill if he doesn’t hand them over instantly. Step three, start obtaining lists of known or suspected gun owners, find Democrats who live near them, and get those people to start using this law against them.

    There’s no obvious way to defend against this: first, because to the uninitiated (including many cops who may really be on our side!) it looks like individual betrayals, and individual outrages by police, rather than a coordinated campaign by either complainers or police, even if it is; and second, because the law doesn’t allow victims to find out who complained about them.

    I wouldn’t post this horrible idea if I didn’t believe the enemy is already using it. I post it in the hope someone out there has an idea that can defeat it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.