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.
Rising Star?
More like rising swamp gas.
IMHO
“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?”
OK, so the point is: How can the government possess powers that We the People did not first possess ourselves? How is it that a SPECIFIC prohibition against infringing upon certain rights can be read as anything BUT a prohibition on a whole class of laws, even if passed unanimously?
I can shoot 1 MOL (Minute-of-Limo) at 1000 yards with my scoped AR-10, and put multiple rounds on target. It’s not for “sale” to the government at any price.
I’m sure you’re right. I mentioned machine guns because that was my only exposure. In my former auction business a client had a machine gun, still in the crate, packed in cosmolene in his basement. We called the Feds, turned it over, and that was it.
Actually Swalwell doesn’t strike me as smooth and agreeable. I see him as arrogant and surly; in a class with someone like Avenatti, the Creepy Porn Lawyer. Ironic that Cong. Schiff is one of Swalwell’s BFFs. Both creeps, in MY estimation.
p
“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?”
Game, set, match. No one has a moral right to interfere with our right not to be killed. Period.
He has a fool’s face.
Have Americans lost the ability to make such a distinction?
Me...I prefer bolt action...or lever action...but that's just me.
None of my guns have snuck out of the house either...............
If the Government is allowed to take one gun, the Government will take all guns, period, before they stop.
The question[s] that beg to be answered are: 1. Will the Government attempt to seize (take) the guns the Citizens possess from them? The answer to that is, yes, they will. The only question needing to be answered is when will they begin.
2. Will they succeed? The jury is still out on the answer to this one. The Citizens hold the answer to this one. Because it cannot be definitely answered until after it is tried.
The bottom line is The American Citizen[s] hold this answer in their hands. Will we revert to being the men and women we once were[masculine men and feminine women], or will will we continue to becoming the soy cocktail drinkers, the girly men and she males[ feminine males and masculine females]?
What stopped Eric Swalwell in his tracks was telling him to start out on his right foot. The man is a certifiable imbecile!
He fits in with other Dems who think that American astronauts landed on Mars, that adding more military to Guam will cause the island to tip over, to 'impeach 45', that an assault weapon is a 22 cal rifle with a pistol grip or that a semi-automatic weapon is a machine gun, that there is no worry about Chinese missiles because there is a 15 hour time difference between us, that Americans can have everything they want - just let the govt print more money, that Repubs are the party of slavery... I could go on and on! 😠
These imbeciles rule our country!
The man who wants to disarm you either fears you will discover his malfeasance, or has plans for your future that would cause you to take up arms. Either way, it cannot be allowed.
Swalwell looks like Keir Dullea in a lunatic role.
To reduce semi-auto pistol deaths Id have universal background checks and mandatory reporting on mental health.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The sophomoric son of bitch?
No one CAn report about anyome’s mental health because of federal CAPA patient privacy legislation , formerly passed by the Democrat Left to prevent any third party discovery as to whether a person has HIV-AIDS. Privacy laws will never allow for any gun control related reporting on any persons mental health, unless the CAPA privacy laws are revoked, and the LEFT will never allow that.
The LEFT such as this Swalwell prig are blowing sphincter smoke at everyone and we let them?
Eff Salwall and the spavined horse he rode in on.
Yes, but the tactical ones look much more scarier.LOL
Nuke Em from orbit! Its the only way to be sure.
Eric Swalwell is a second term Representative who was previously the mayor of Dublin, CA. He only got to DC because redistricting and California's "top two" election system put him against the senile Fortney "Pete" Stark after Stark's district moved from Fremont/Union City north to the Tri-Valley.
He seems to have developed delusions of grandeur.
-PJ
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.