Posted on 11/19/2018 6:03:52 AM PST by Kaslin
California Rep. Eric Swalwell is not just a fresh-faced rising star in the Democratic party, he’s also one of the few high-profile liberal politicians who have showed a willingness to mix it up with the best conservative thinkers and arguments out there, as his multiple forays into the ideological lion’s den of Tucker Carlson Tonight attest. Sure, Swalwell almost always emerges from those battles bloody and bruised, figuratively speaking, but to his credit he takes his knocks and keeps on fighting, always willing to take on the ‘enemy’ on his own turf. For that, he has earned my grudging respect. Eric Swalwell may be a leftist and by definition insanely wrong on the majority of issues but at least he, unlike most, has the courage of his convictions and seems to genuinely believe his arguments will hold up against scrutiny.
Which is why the California congressman’s weekend Twitter exchange with NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch on the subject of assault weapons was particularly telling because of its abrupt, Swalwell-induced end.
The exchange began on Friday when Swalwell, who had already made news that day by suggesting that the U.S. government could use nuclear weapons against citizens who might use arms to resist its gun confiscation efforts, replied to a Loesch tweet about his proposed assault weapons “confiscation” plan with an affirmative “she’s not lying.”
Loesch then responded to Swalwell’s tweet by asking if he would “limit the ban and confiscation to semi-automatic rifles” or include handguns as well, “seeing as they’re illegally used many times over more in crimes such as homicide?”
“Fair question,” responded Swalwell. “Rifles. They’re more powerful and cause more carnage when used with a pistol-grip. See @ScottPelley @60Minutes piece. To reduce semi-auto pistol deaths I’d have universal background checks and mandatory reporting on mental health.”
NBC reporter Benjy Sarlin interjected with a clarification question: “Do you plan to expand your proposal to all semi-auto rifles now? When we talked earlier you kept it to rifles covered by the Assault Weapons Ban, but was unsure from your exchange with Dana Loesch.”
“No different,” wrote the California congressman. “I interpreted her question to mean semi-auto rifles covered under what’s considered an assault weapon.”
Then Loesch dropped the hammer:
“Can you explain to me the difference between assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles? Is .223 ok but 30.06 not? Why?” asked Loesch.
Unlike the first one, this apparently wasn’t a “fair question,” or at least it wasn’t one Swalwell was willing or presumably able to answer.
“I guess @RepSwalwell is unable to answer this question,” Loesch pressed after Swalwell failed to respond. Then the NRA spokeswoman used several tweets to reveal her reasons why:
“This simply reinforces my suspicion that Swalwell uses ‘assault weapon’ interchangeably with ‘semi-auto rifle.’ He wants to legislate based on a rifle’s appearance and not the actual mechanics or caliber of the rifle. He and others know enough to stop short of saying ‘semi-auto rifles’ so they use the vague and non-technical ‘assault weapon’ descriptor as though they only mean some rifles and not all of them. Two problems with this. First, the majority of gun homicide is due to illegally possessed handguns. This is supported by FBI UCRs (2016 for example). Second, the argument is inconsistent. Example: you want to ban a .223/5.56 but not a .308 or 30.06? Have you actually compared these rifles? (See photo for reference.) You’re arguing for an unknowledgeable ban of things based strictly on cosmetic appearances. The argument also completely excludes a multitude of contributing variables from consideration, like the recidivism rate, the percentage of homicide driven by prohibited possessors, a cultural rot eroding respect for life, etc etc. Instead, people who claim to care so much for life and solutions, as you will see in the comments, would rather yell ‘WHORE!’ and ‘TERRORIST!’ at law-abiding gun owners than engage in any real good faith discussion on the issue, which is why we get nowhere.”
To Loesch, answering the question is “impossible without having to admit the goal is to ban all semi-auto firearms.”
And so the normally engaging and responsive California congressman remained silent.
The lesson here, of course, is that gun controllers who know how to debate, as Swalwell does, will often attempt to seem friendly and ‘reasonable’ in their arguments. They’ll pick on the low-hanging fruit - those ‘scary assault weapons,’ for example - but will avoid letting the American public know their true intentions at all costs. That deer-hunting rifle hanging on your mantle may not be technically considered an ‘assault weapon’ right now, but if they’re able to ban semi-automatic “assault weapons” (their term) like the unfairly maligned AR-15, rest assured they’ll come for your deer rifle next.
And when they have those, they won’t stop, because they never, ever do.
It’s funny. I know multiple people who own AR15s Not one of the rifles has ever snuck out of the house and gone on a killing spree while the owner wasn’t looking. Weird..
Actually the goal is to ban all private ownership of firearms. A step at a time.
First, if i hear the phrase “rising star in the Democratic party” one more time I’m gonna throw up. Second, like most lib gun haters, when it comes to weapons I suspect he doesn’t know the barrel from the butt.
“I know multiple people who own AR15s Not one of the rifles has ever snuck out of the house and gone on a killing spree while the owner wasn’t looking”
Maybe it’s time for that to stop.
Gun grabbers wont’ stop. And the guns are there to prevent the existence of the gun grabbers, right ?
So it’s really a matter of time.
Further, I'll bet he has his own personal armed bodyguard.
I'd even wager he probably owns a gun himself.
[Actually the goal is to ban all private ownership of firearms. A step at a time.]
Yep, next up will be those scary looking “tactical” bolt-actions.
Even if they could somehow eliminate all semi-auto weapons, there are still millions of scoped deer rifles out there that can drop a person at a quarter-mile.
How big of a security perimeter do they think they can maintain, indefinitely?
If gun owners voted in a block against libs, we wouldn’t be talking about this, but they don’t.
Actually, the goal is most of us dead, the rest in chains.
How would he know? They could be leading a secret life...I have suspicions regarding my coffee machine and dishwasher is acting odd.... :^)
The entire first mistake is in accepting the gungrabber’s premise that ANY guns should be banned, except for 50 cal machine guns, which already are. The COTUS says, the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. When we start frittering THAT position away, we’re dooming ourselves to eventual failure. To my mind, Swalwell is a duplicitous snake.
Why are we continuing to debate these people about a type of firearm? The federal government does not have the right to regulate firearms at all. The police and federal agents have machine guns. Why dont the people have machine guns? The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the people from the tyranny of government. How are the people protected when government agents have weopons that are banned from the people?
Which rifle is more powerful, Eric?
Apart from cosmetic and minor erogonomic differences, they are all functionally equivalent.
This guy has Schitt for brains.
The only solution is to ban people like the congressman
Semi-auto is any firearm that does not have to be reloaded after one shot is fired.
It should be a part of MANDATORY instruction in upper grades and high schools, that the various types of sidearms, from single-shot pistols up to Thompson sub-machine guns, be at least identifiable, and the characteristics of each of the various types made known to all. Automatic rifles should be differentiated from semi-automatic rifles, and magazines of various types fully explained and the differences fully explored. Bolt action, lever action and pump action firearms should all be identified, and the comparisons of each as to usefulness, rates of fire, and ease (or difficulty) of operation.
The varying effectiveness and velocity rates of ammunition should be part of the agenda. The whole point is to completely demystify any aura of doom or invincibility that surrounds firearms of all types, and reduce them to the mechanical devices they are.
Deadly weapons they may be, but NOT capable of independent volition or free will of any kind. Any gun has to be loaded, cocked, aimed and fired, and no device yet constructed is able to do this without the assistance of a very live human being, and the degree of malice of that human being varies from person to person. No blanket statement about guns of ANY kind can be made without reference to the person who is in possession of it.
People who have training in the care, feeding, grooming and safe handling of sidearms should, by extension, retain an unabridged and unimpaired right to possess such weapons.
This is no different than giving driving training at high school level, but of much longer duration, over several years, some at a time.
Results will be graded and a passing score is mandatory.
Ummmm.... no rifle is more powerful than any other. They are all empty tubes. The power and propulsion comes from the round (from the gunpowder within), not the firearm.
To my mind, Swalwell is a duplicitous snake.
Exactly.
The nicer, the smoother, the more agreeable the con artist is....the more dangerous he is.
Democrats’ final solution for gun owners...NUKE ‘EM!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.