Dem Congressman Suggests Nuking Gun Owners Who Oppose Confiscation of Firearms

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr

Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is at the center of a growing controversy after he suggested using nuclear weapons against American citizens. Swalwell is proposing Draconian gun control measures that would include confiscation of semi-automatic guns. And if Americans don’t comply, Swalwell said, the military would nuke them.

Swalwell penned an article called “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters” for USA Today.

In his article, Swalwell argues that we shouldn’t simply ban future sales of certain guns. He wants to go much further. “Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”

After the article gained traction, Swalwell jumped onto social media to engage some readers who vocally objected to the plan.

“So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. 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,” a reader named Joe Briggs tweeted.

“And it would be a short war my friend,” Swalwell replied. “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.”

Swalwell’s response didn’t go over well.

“‘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.”

The logical behind the absurd assertion of Swalwell didn’t take long to unravel. Beyond the constitutional issues with Swalwell’s proposed legislation looms the larger question of just who might authorize the use of these legit nukes.

“You assume that members of our combined forces would follow unconstitutional orders, and take up arms against citizens of the United States. Short war indeed.”

Just how Swalwell would take care of the buy-backs is also an issue he seems to be wrestling with. “Based on manufacturing figures and other indirect data, there could be 15 million assault weapons out there,” he writes. “If we offer $200 to buy back each weapon — as many local governments have — then it would cost about $3 billion; at $1,000 each, the cost would be about $15 billion.”

This still leaves some complicated questions. Just what is an “assault weapon” as Swalwell defines it? For this element of the debate, he tried to match wits with the NRA’s Dana Loesch.

Rifles are, as everyone knows, more powerful when they have pistol grips.

The comment chain on that particular gem is well worth the read. By that point in the conversation, Swalwell’s critics have stopped trying to engage in any in kind of rhetorical discourse and, instead, are openly mocking him.