Rep. Eric Swalwell finally kicked off the 2020 presidential run we all knew was coming, and he’s been stumbling around ever since. He’s promised that his campaign will center on “gun safety,” and he’s already proposed that the government under his leadership will “ban and buy back every single assault weapon in this nation,” with the definition of “assault weapon” yet to be hammered out.
He also demonstrated some ignorance of American history by saying “Nope” to the assertion that “We fought a revolution over crap like this,” conveniently blocking out the shot heard ’round the world and the Battles of Lexington and Concord.
And of course, this is the U.S. Representative who said that the government would quickly put down any sort of armed insurrection with nuclear weapons if necessary to confiscate citizen’s guns:
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
Nothing eases our minds more about the government turning tyrannical that a man who wants to be president playing out a scenario where the government violates citizens’ Second Amendment rights with the threat of a nuclear strike.
Oh, but the guy who said “it would be a short war” against armed citizens is apparently concerned about bloodshed.
You’re the “only candidate” proposing this because it’s a ?? crazy, stupid idea.
Even if you could come up with a workable definition of “assault weapon” AND get past the constitutional hurdles (which I doubt), this would be prohibitively expensive and result in bloodshed. https://t.co/UFLAPU8YNy
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) April 10, 2019
Recommended
Why would it result in bloodshed? And whose blood would be shed?
— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) April 10, 2019
Do I have to explain why Americans chose to buy guns to protect themselves & their families? Do I really have to explain why they don’t want to give them up? I don’t want anyone’s blood being shed but there’s no way this is feasible. https://t.co/WkUkDnAcjk
— Sarah Rumpf (@rumpfshaker) April 10, 2019
Whose blood would be shed?
— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) April 10, 2019
Hey, Duke Nukem … if you’re going to be president you’re going to have to face grown-up questions.
American citizens' blood.
How many people are you willing to have die to disarm law-abiding Americans?
We already know you'd be willing to kill some, because you tweeted about it.
So what number of Americans you would accept dying in order to disarm law-abiding citizens? https://t.co/236Lxc5LxK
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) April 11, 2019
Yeah nukem @ericswalwell, how much American blood are you willing to spill to confiscate our guns?
— Col. Rob Maness ret. (@RobManess) April 11, 2019
Exactly @ericswalwell how much blood, how many lives is it worth for you to try and remove rights and guns from people?
Let us know Eric, because it will be a lot and won't be pretty— tim ❌(independent American Indian) (@exdemtim) April 11, 2019
Better question is how many minions is he willing to sacrifice in a war of attrition against a large indigenous force, which he will surely lose.
— Aslan's Friend (@N9ZF) April 11, 2019
Haven’t you heard? He’ll simply nuke us.
— ASA.VET.98C2LRU (@keck553) April 11, 2019
Guess nuclear weapons don't leave much blood behind.
— Samuel Vimes (@battleshiplover) April 10, 2019
Wouldn't it be nice to see @ericswalwell answer a simple question?..maybe he's in the middle of a run?..?..he better hope he never has to debate Trump, he will look like he's been nuked..
— ??Iowa Girl?? (@TamiD1212) April 11, 2019
I interpret this statement to mean you don’t care if normally law abiding citizens die in order for unconstitutional gun control. Is this correct?
— Brandon Courtney (@Courtne8Brandon) April 11, 2019
That’s how I took it.
— EL me (@elfkin114) April 11, 2019
I see you’d have no problem spilling mine from the way you’re tweeting.
— Rugerkoz (@rugerkoz) April 11, 2019
How do you propose getting the weapons from Americans that say no?
— Rob2336?? (@RobG2336) April 11, 2019
American citizens blood, Representative. You know the same people you threatened with tactical nuclear weapons.
— C (@ColdRidge1775) April 10, 2019
Well it certainly wouldn't be yours since you would be far too cowardly to attempt to disarm law biding Americans yourself. Why is it always cowards like you that always make other people sacrifice themselves to achieve your agendas?
— TheRealKYConservative (@KYLibOrTea) April 11, 2019
Not yours. You're far to cowardly to stack up and start kicking in doors yourself.
— Joel Cloyd ⭐⭐⭐ (@j_cloyd) April 11, 2019
Citizens who do not want to give up their 2A rights and police officers that would be raiding their homes to confiscate firearms dumbass.
— Froggy (@FroggyRuminates) April 10, 2019
The home invader or rapist. Their blood.
— Half of you are morons (@danadavy79) April 11, 2019
Historically speaking the last time gun confiscations happened in America, blood was shed by those wearing red coats.
Funny how a nation founded on freedom and personal liberties wouldn't be too happy to give those up.
— Apparently a russian bot (@K_lublublub) April 10, 2019
Baiting gun owners on Twitter is not a good faith act with which to start your so-called campaign.
— Bonnie? (@BonnieB5535) April 11, 2019
You want to go house to house and arrest or kill anyone who doesn’t surrender their constitutional rights. Citizens will die. Law enforcement will die. But you don’t care because you don’t put yourself at risk.
— Tim (@TimMorrisUSA) April 11, 2019
Are you truly this ignorant?
— Gareth Bryne ⚔️ (@kmjoseph705) April 11, 2019
Would someone like to explain to "Nuke 'Em" Eric Swalwell that the purpose of the Second Amendment is primarily to ensure that authoritarians like him can't deprive us of our constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment itself?
— The Rabbit or Duck Debate (@arabbitorduck) April 11, 2019
The phrase you need to repeat until it is burned into your brain is “shall not be infringed.” No blood shed needed. Keep you hands off my guns. Period. Read District of Columbia vs Heller. SCOTUS has spoken.
— GeologyGirl (@IndepedentLady) April 11, 2019
You threatened to nuke dissent.
You are as disinterested in the Federalist Papers as you are in our right to defend ourselves and our families.
— Populism: A reaction to elitist "leader" failures (@Melvin_Udall_) April 11, 2019
— Sgt H (@LinklerMatt) April 11, 2019
If you want to run for President, fine. This isn't the path though Eric. This is authoritarianism and fascism. You know this will not be popular with most Americans
— Brian Bohn (@BrianBohn4) April 11, 2019
You're either a moron or obtuse. If you think the government will be able to confiscate "assault weapons" (whatever the heck that is) and it not result in people fighting back against such a constitutional infringement, you are naive. We fought revolutions over this stuff.
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) April 10, 2019
You are such a clown.
— Mrs. Mack (@BooBooNyc) April 11, 2019
Related:
Calm down, everybody! Eric Swalwell doesn't want to take your guns; he just wants 'to take the most dangerous weapons' https://t.co/WpHwMnIIKR
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 10, 2019
Join the conversation as a VIP Member