Congressman Eric Swalwell’s Top 5 Dumbest Gun Tweets
When we last visited our friend (https://www.omahaoutdoors.com/blog/congressman-eric-swalwell-proposes-semi-auto-rifle-confiscation/) Congressman Eric Swalwell of California’s 15th District, he was advocating that the government force gun owners to give up their currently legal firearms. In the last week, he rocketed back into the skylight with a new and even more radical position: that gun owners who resisted confiscation would lose because they’d be fighting a government which has nuclear weapons. He later walked that back, but after this latest fiasco, we thought it would be a good idea to see what else he’s tweeted that was stupid, ill-advised, or dishonest. Here are the top 5.
#5 “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Would Allow Guns Everywhere”
In December of 2017, Swalwell took to Twitter to criticize HR38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Although this bill would do much more good than simply allow people to carry guns across state lines, such as expand and strengthen the NICS background check system, Swalwell posted this gem of a tweet: https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/938133611743674369.
Not only does this leave out a portion of HR38 that he should be supporting based on his other statements about background checks, it grossly misstates what HR38 does.
Nowhere in the text of the CCR Act does it say, nor would it be implied, that people could carry guns “ANYWHERE in the US, regardless of state laws.” State restrictions such as preventing people from carrying in hospitals, schools, government buildings, and so on would remain enforceable, and are specifically mentioned in HR38 as remaining in place. State laws regarding magazine capacity and bullet type (we’re looking at you, New Jersey) would also be enforceable.
This bill would instead prevent states from discriminating against people based on their state of residence. California and Maryland, for example, do not recognize any other state’s permit – even each other’s highly restricted and coveted permits. This is a nonsensical system in an era when travel is an essential part of the modern economy. While I understand some people are uncomfortable with the idea of permitless carry, a reasonable counter-proposal could set a national standard for a concealed carry permit – even an extremely strict California-level standard. Instead, Swalwell takes the unreasonable path and chooses to lie about what the bill does.
#4 “There Are Zero Laws Keeping Guns From the Mentally Ill”
Way back in 2014, Congressman Swalwell responded to the Santa Barbara murders – where a loser kid shot some bright young women because of things he read on the internet – by saying that the shooting was “enabled by having 0 laws keeping guns from the mentally ill.” https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/472412475326201857
This is, of course, far from the truth. We have plenty of laws aimed at keeping the mentally ill from acquiring and possessing firearms, and we had appropriate laws back in 2014, too. The problem was (and is) a lack of will to enforce them (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/05/30/police-had-not-seen-elliot-rodgers-videos-when-they-determined-he-was-not-a-threat-officials-say/?utm_term=.80be1361632c). And, despite claims to the contrary (https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Stoneman-Douglas-Public-Safety-Commission-Meeting-488009091.html), Florida’s Baker Act could have started the ball rolling on procedures (https://www.cchrflorida.org/question-and-answers-about-the-florida-involuntary-commitment-law-the-baker-act/) which would have prevented the Stoneman Douglas school shooter from acquiring firearms. Similarly, failure in mental health records reporting (https://abcnews.go.com/US/seung-hui-chos-mental-health-records-released/story?id=8278195) allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to kill dozens of people.
There is already a federal provision for stopping gun sales to those who have been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution. The problem is that NICS doesn’t have the information it needs to identify a prohibited possessor. Ironically, HR38, which Swalwell railed against, would have significantly improved reporting of mental health issues to NICS, preventing people who shouldn’t have guns from acquiring them.
#3 “Senate Republicans are Blocking Background Checks for Gun Sales”
Going even farther back, to 2013, we see that Swalwell’s penchant for false tweets is not a new development. This one is pretty simple: https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/324536686937767937
Swalwell implied that were it not for the Senate GOP, we’d have background checks on gun sales. In fact, we do have background checks on the majority of gun sales. What the Senate Republicans were “blocking” – an inartful description of their true efforts – was an effort to expand background checks beyond sales to include gifts and loans, even temporary loans at a shooting range. If you asked people whether two people who already own guns should have to do background checks on each other before one handed the other another gun for fifteen seconds, I doubt you would find 92% approval.
#2 “It Would Be a Short War. The Government Has Nukes”
Yes, you’re reading that right, we’ve put the recent “nuke” comment at #2, meaning there’s an even dumber tweet to be read. We won’t go into too much detail here as it’s already been discussed ad nauseam, but the bottom line is that one guy said people like Swalwell wanted to consolidate power by disarming the populace, another guy said that would cause a war, and Swalwell the Genius popped up to say that the war would be short because the government has nukes. https://twitter.com/RepSwalwell/status/1063527635114852352
While he didn’t come out and say he was advocating for the use of nuclear weapons on US soil, this was a pretty dumb comment. He clearly has higher political aspirations, and while being rabidly anti-gun plays well in his Bay Area district, having to defend a “joke” about nuking American citizens when he’s running for President in 2036 is not going to put him on sturdy ground in Ohio.
#1 “Police Don’t Need More Than Ten Rounds”
Back in 2012, Eric Swalwell said something really dumb: that cops don’t need more than 10 rounds. Okay, that’s not exactly what he said, verbatim. What did he say? This:
My dad is a hunter & a retired cop. I've been around guns my whole life. He never needed more than 10 rounds & neither should anyone else.
— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) December 18, 2012
His dad, a cop, never needed more than 10 rounds, and neither should anyone else. While he has yet to introduce a bill banning all magazines over 10 rounds for use by anyone, including law enforcement, I assume this is what he meant by the comment. After all, if his cop dad didn’t need more than 10 rounds, and no one else should either, why not follow through? He’s fully in support of banning and confiscating semi-auto rifles, so it’s not much of a stretch to see him telling everyone – including police departments – to turn in their magazines which contain more than ten rounds.
Needless to say, we’re waiting eagerly for Swalwell’s next foot-in-mouth statement. We’ll keep you posted on his next crazy idea as soon as it happens.
The post Congressman Eric Swalwell’s Top 5 Dumbest Gun Tweets appeared first on Omaha Outdoors.