The Left may never understand why conservatives wish to protect their right to bear arms and it is clear at this point that they are not even trying.
Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell took to social media to debate gun ownership and argued that Americans should never resist a government confiscation because the government has nukes. That is, if gun owners went to war with the U.S. government, it would win, Swalwell argues.
Swalwell, who some people speculate will run for the presidency in 2020, contended that if a conservative’s prerogative in owning a gun is to physically defend their constitutional rights then they should not have the right.
Via the Washington Examiner:
In a Twitter debate about the buy-back of assault weapons Friday, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., boasted about the U.S. government having nuclear weapons at its disposal if gun owners went to war against their own country.
It began when a Twitter user claimed Swalwell would spark a war by trying to force gun owners to get rid of assault weapons. Swalwell responded by noting that the government has nuclear weapons.
Here’s how the exchange went down.
In an NBC News report, Swalwell advocated for “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” to be banned and people who own such weaponry should be forced to turn them in under penalty of the law.
“Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters,” Swalwell was quoted as saying in the report, taken from his own op-ed earlier in the week with USA Today. He argued that other weapon bans did not adequately cover these weapons and instead “would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.”
Swalwell said, via NBC News:
He and other Democrats had been too deferential to Second Amendment activists and should follow the lead of teenage survivors of the Parkland shooting who have been more strident.
“There’s something new and different about the surviving Parkland high schoolers’ demands,” he wrote. “They dismiss the moral equivalence we’ve made for far too long regarding the Second Amendment. I’ve been guilty of it myself, telling constituents and reporters that ‘we can protect the Second Amendment and protect lives.’”
Instead, he writes, “the right to live is supreme over any other.”
Radio host John Cardillo tweeted the article and said, “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.”
“So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war,” Joe Biggs tweeted in response to report.
“Because that’s what you would get,” he continued. “You’re outta your f*****g mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.”
Swalwell responded: “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.”
Biggs then asked, “So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns?”
“Wow,” he added.
Swalwell told him not to “be so dramatic” before trying to clarify his argument:
“No one is nuking anyone or threatening that,” the California congressman continued. “I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate. Which is what you want.”
A Washington Examiner op-ed describes Swalwell’s argument as “what might legitimately be the greatest self-own in the history of gun control arguments” and “the dumbest tweet of the day”:
In what might legitimately be the greatest self-own in the history of gun control arguments, the dumbest tweet of the day was sent by Democratic presidential hopeful that no one actually knows, Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.
After conservatives criticized Swalwell for calling for the forcible confiscation of assault weapons, Swalwell responded by upping the ante.
Yes, Swalwell seriously proposed nuking his own constituents to take away their right to defend themselves from the government. As a basic reminder, the explicit purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the people to defend themselves from the government going rogue and becoming a tyranny. Self-defense and hunting are good but fundamentally auxiliary arguments against gun control.
Swalwell later brushed off the whole exchange and said his nuke comment was sarcasm:
Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.