By: Teresa Mull
Eric Swalwell, a California representative-turned-2020 presidential hopeful, is making gun control the focus of his campaign and has declared he wants to implement a so-called “assault weapons” ban and enforce a mandatory buyback program, similar to New Zealand’s.
But what happens if American gun owners turn out not to be lemmings, and the “buyback program” doesn’t transpire as Swalwell envisions?
Swalwell appeared on the April 14, 2019, airing of CNN’s State of the Union, and Jake Tapper began the segment by reading a May 2018 quote from Swalwell, which said:
“We should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic 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.”
Tapper then asked Swalwell if criminal prosecution means Americans who held on to their guns would go to jail. Swalwell responded, “They would.” He then added, “But I also offer them the alternative, which would be to keep them at a hunting club or a shooting range.”
Last night, Tucker Carlson challenged Quentin James, founder of “The Collective PAC,” to defend Swalwell’s position.
“And obviously again, you do have it a little wrong,” James said. “Congressman Eric Swalwell did say he wants to ban military-style assault rifles. He also said that folks who want to keep them would be able to do so at a gun club or a hunter’s range in a locker, so it’s not taking them by force. It would be a buyback program. Again, this is his proposal, not mine.”
To which Tucker responded:
“I know it’s not your proposal. But he just said, he said twice, he actually wrote a USA Today op-ed today saying it, and then he just said it on CNN, ‘People who don’t give up their guns will go to jail.’ He just said that. So it’s not a buyback program, that’s a gun confiscation by force.”
Swalwell wrote an op-ed promoting his Orwellian policies last year titled, “Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters.”
This is the same Swalwell, let’s remember, who joked about using nuclear weapons on gun owners, as GPM reported in November 2018:
Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, said on Twitter the United States government has nuclear weapons it could use to persuade American unwilling to give up their “assault weapons.”
The Washington Examiner reports:
“So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war,” Joe Biggs tweeted in response to Swalwell proposing a ban on “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution.
“Because that’s what you would get,” he continued. “You’re outta your f#cking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.”
Swalwell responded: “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.”
Swalwell then tried to cover his tracks by claiming his nukes comment was “sarcasm.”
According to the Examiner, “Swalwell is considered a possible contender against President Trump in 2020 and has made several visits to early primary voting states in the last year.”
Swalwell’s Tweets are reprinted below:
Don’t be so dramatic. No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate. Which is what you want. https://t.co/oX0rY7Nbs1— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018
America’s gun debate in one thread.— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018
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
Teresa Mull is editor of Gunpowder Magazine. Contact her at firstname.lastname@example.org.