Democrat Lawmaker Threatens Gun Owners With Confiscation, Nuclear War If They Don’t Comply

U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat, admitted on social media that he’d support confiscation of legal firearms and even suggested the government would easily win a war with gun owners because they have nuclear warheads.

Swalwell, who is considering a presidential run in 2020, responded to a Twitter user who suggested the lawmaker’s extreme anti-gun stance would result in a war.

“So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war,” Joe Biggs, whose profile describes himself as a combat veteran. “Because that’s what you would get.”

“You’re outta your f****** mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power,” he added.

Biggs was responding to a May news article in which the California Democrat discussed a $15 billion government program to confiscate millions of guns from Americans.

He confirmed said desire to confiscate guns in a separate tweet:

She’s not lying. We should ban assault weapons by buying them back or restricting them to ranges/clubs. #EnoughIsEnough https://t.co/XbRpOvXlF3

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

In a stunning move, Swalwell responded to Biggs comment with a threat, saying the government would squash gun owners in “a short war” because “the government has nukes.”

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.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

 

There you have it – a Democrat freely admitting they would confiscate your legally owned firearms if they could, and they’d even appear willing to use nuclear weapons should law-abiding Americans decide to fight back.

What a remarkably ill-thought-out statement from a man who wants to be President.

The backlash to Swalwell’s comments was fierce. He was, as the kids like to say, ratioed.

So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow

— Joe Biggs (@Rambobiggs) November 16, 2018

“You don’t need AR-15s because the government isn’t tyrannical, and, anyway, if you try to stop us taking them we will nuke you” is my favorite of all the gun control talking points.

— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) November 16, 2018

It must not be against @Twitter TOS to casually insinuate that it’s better to give up our guns than die in a thermo-nuclear blast at the hands of the U.S. gov’t.

☢️☢️☢️

¯_(ツ)_/¯ https://t.co/3Zo1m93ikO

— Conservative Review (@CR) November 16, 2018

 

Oddly enough, Swalwell’s reaction wasn’t to say ‘hey, I made a dumb comment,’ he followed up his threat of nuclear war by whining that it didn’t result in substantive debate about gun laws in America.

America’s gun debate in one thread.

1) I propose a buy-back of assault weapons

2) Gun owner says he’ll go to war with USA if that happens

3) I sarcastically point out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century)

4) I’m called a tyrant

5) 0 progress

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

 

Hey, Chief – I can’t be sure, but I’m pretty confident the best way to spur debate with gun owners is not, I repeat NOT, to threaten them by saying ‘we’d smoke you with nuclear weapons if you don’t comply.’

Swalwell later claimed he was simply being sarcastic with his cavalier threat of nuclear war, even turning the claim of threatening people back on Biggs.

“It’s sarcasm,” he said, “to counter a serious threat from the gun owner that he would declare war against America.”

The only thing that’s been nuked here is your 2020 presidential bid.

Viết một bình luận