While Swalwell insists it was 'sarcasm' it's bad form to reply to a citizen aggrieved at openly threatening constitutional rights connected with self and civil defense with implied threat of mass murder.
What does it take to get a U.S. House member to (sarcastically! sarcastically, he insists) very publicly threaten to nuke American citizens who want to defend their constitutional rights under the Second Amendment?
Nothing more than pushing back on Twitter against that congressman, Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.)'s proposal from earlier this year to fully ban and buy back every one of what he wants to designate as "assault weapons" with the added bonus of "criminally prosecut[ing] any who choose to defy it."
Apparently feeling a bit threatened by this proposal to go after him and millions of other Americans for possessing an individually owned tool of self-defense and recreation, this was tweeted by a Joe Biggs today:
Rep. Swalwell, willing to make sure the war against any possible American citizen resistance over gun confiscation doesn't fall into the endless quagmire of so many other guerrilla wars of the past century, reminds the citizen that while the government as represented by him wants your guns, it has something far stronger it would be perfectly happy to use if you complain:
Just a little chilling, isn't it, that mafia-like "reminder that we can and will kill you" followed by "thus I'm sure we can talk it out." Swalwell followed up with a bunch of "well, he started it!" posts and insists he was being sarcastic. But that mindset, including its delusional belief that the American military would rather mass murder its own citizens than allow them to continue to enjoy Second Amendment rights as applied to an arbitrary and, as a matter of public policy, rather unimportant set of weapons, reveals why it's so difficult for America's gun owners and those who support their rights to stay calm when politicians talk about their own vision of "common sense gun control."
