Proving the Point: Rep. Swalwell Proposes Gun Confiscation (and More)

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., pauses to speak with reporters as former FBI lawyer Lisa Page is questioned behind closed doors by members of the House Judiciary Committee and House Oversight Committee on whether political bias affected the investigations of Hillary Clinton's emails and the Trump campaign's alleged ties to Russia, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, July 16, 2018. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Somebody’s feeling a little sassypants this week, after last week’s big GOP election losses in California. That somebody, who’s also one of Nancy Pelosi’s top surrogates, is Rep. Eric Swalwell, also from the (mostly gun-free but feces filled) Bay Area.


Swalwell wrote an op-ed appearing in Friday’s USA Today in which he proposed banning the possession of “assault weapons” and creating a $15 billion fund to buy back such weapons from people who “want to comply” with the law (using a laughable figure of $200 per gun), and criminally prosecuting those who don’t comply. Of course, there would be an exception for law enforcement officers and shooting clubs (and presumably the guns would have to be kept on site).

His proposal, which he attempted to justify with a slew of inaccurate facts and assumptions, is frightening on its own, but what he had to say Friday afternoon about enforcing it on Twitter is even worse. It started when Dana Loesch and a few other pundits tweeted out the link to his op-ed and Swalwell doubled down.

Then one gun owner pointed out one small flaw in Swalwell’s plan. No gun owner is going to willingly give up their Second Amendment rights.

Swalwell hit back, hard, giving the perfect illustration of WHY we need the Second Amendment.


The government has “legit” nukes, Swalwell points out, which would make it a short war.

Let that sink in. A member of the US House of Representatives is on Twitter telling someone that the government will nuke them if they don’t give up their constitutionally-protected rights?

Swalwell doesn’t see it that way. He believes an “assault weapon” ban doesn’t infringe one’s Second Amendment rights, and, hey, he was joking anyway.

In reading Swalwell’s reply, it’s important to really look at his wording. He says that Joe Biggs “said he’s going to war with America if gun legislation was passed.” It looks like Swalwell is attempting to paint dissent as… something very different.

When Biggs calls him out on saying he’d use nukes on our own citizens, Swalwell turns it around and tells Biggs his comment “inflames the gun debate.”


And now HE is the victim.

His points are actually all correct. He is a tyrant, or at least a wannabe, and would absolutely use whatever force necessary to enforce his civil rights grab if he were able. Zero progress is being made, but it’s not because of someone like Joe Biggs. It’s because of intellectually dishonest politicians like Swalwell who have zero interest in seriously talking about a solution to gun violence.

Every once in a while, those politicians let their masks slip and show us exactly what their end goals are. Eric Swalwell showed himself very clearly Friday.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos