GOING NUCLEAR: Dana Loesch explains why Rep. Eric 'Nuke'em' Swalwell won't answer her question

Rep. Eric “Nuke’em” Swalwell halfway explained his gun confiscation proposal to NRA spox Dana Loesch, tweeting that he doesn’t want to ban semi-auto handguns, just semi-auto rifles “under what’s considered an assault weapon”:

Would you limit the ban and confiscation to semi-auto rifles or would you extend the ban to semi-auto handguns also, seeing as they’re illegally used many times over more in crimes such as homicide? https://t.co/Snc8xhXhVp

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018

Fair question. 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.

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

No different. I interpreted her question to mean semi-auto rifles covered under what’s considered an assault weapon. cc: @DLoesch

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

Sigh. Swalwell, who earlier tonight threatened to nuke Americans who defied his future gun confiscation plan, did not answer Dana’s next question asking him to explain the “difference between assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles”:

Can you explain to me the difference between assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles? Is .223 ok but 30.06 not? Why? https://t.co/Ew8mYiQewv

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018

I guess @RepSwalwell is unable to answer this question. https://t.co/9sWPLWdHsf

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018

THREAD on why he won’t/can’t answer the above question:

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. (1 of a few)

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

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. pic.twitter.com/RNbt0K4YG5

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

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. (cont)

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

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.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

Lastly, threatening (either seriously or even facetiously, progressives tell me nuance and euphemisms are dead and everything is literal in meaning) voters with nukes because you, not they, don’t understand the argument is both bad lawmaking and advocacy.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

There’s another “lastly,” but it’s a good one:

Lastly for real this time, the presence of a pistol grip doesn’t affect the velocity of a round. I’m not even sure why anyone would intimate such.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

All of this is why Swalwell wouldn’t answer my question. It’s impossible without having to admit the goal is to ban all semi-auto firearms. /finis.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

Over to you, Nuke’em.

***

After threatening to nuke Americans who refuse to give up their guns, Rep. Eric Swalwell laments lack of progress on gun debate https://t.co/JL1ohdAAaN

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) November 16, 2018

‘Effing NUTS’! Dem Rep. Eric Swalwell reminds those who won’t surrender #2A rights that the gov’t has nukes (no, seriously) https://t.co/DVuuFueSOi

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) November 16, 2018