Democratic presidential hopeful Eric Swalwell is being schooled in the U.S. Constitution after stating on Twitter that since people need a license to drive, the government should require a license to use a gun.
If you need a license to operate a vehicle, shouldn’t you need a license to operate a weapon?https://t.co/V9KERFpFHu
— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) June 16, 2019
Swalwell, who earlier invoked the government’s nuclear weapons to threaten those who would resist gun-confiscation programs, said, “If you need a license to operate a vehicle, shouldn’t you need a license to operate a weapon?”
Twitter user Hector Vargas argued that he already has a license.
He portrayed an image of the U.S. Constitution.
Twitter user Reagan Battalion joined in with, “We have a license, it’s called the Constitution of the United States of America.”
We have a license, it’s called the constitution of the United States of America.
You should read it sometime. https://t.co/ngBRloNXvq
— The Reagan Battalion (@ReaganBattalion) June 17, 2019
“You should read it sometime,” the Battalion said.
Swalwell repeatedly has argued for gun control.
“Hopelessness and fear abound in too many American neighborhoods,” he wrote Monday on Twitter. “We will restore hope and end gun violence with my gun reform platform.”
In another tweet Monday he said: “No more thoughts and prayers. No more inaction. We will seize the moment and take ACTION to end gun violence.”
No more thoughts and prayers. No more inaction. We will seize the moment and take ACTION to end gun violence.
Tomorrow we’ll be announcing exactly how. Stay tuned… pic.twitter.com/fRt0HRitAp
— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) June 17, 2019
Twitter news aggregator Twitchy said Swalwell’s point was “absurd.”
“Democrat Rep. and presidential candidate Eric Swalwell (D-California) thinks the constitutionally protected right to own a gun is totally the same as obtaining a driver’s license,” it said. “Tell us what amendment gives American citiziens the right to drive, again?”
Talk-radio host Jason Rantz of KTTH in Seattle wrote on Twitter, “This is a great argument if you’re not smart enough to realize you don’t have a constitutional right to drive.”
And Jim Hanson agreed, “I missed the part in the Constitution that says: A well-regulated motorway being necessary to the transportation of a free state, the right of the people to own & drive cars shall not be infringed.”
I missed the part in the Constitution that says:
A well-regulated motorway being necessary to the transportation of a free state, the right of the people to own & drive cars shall not be infringed https://t.co/C1qOIEpOiS
— Jim Hanson (@Uncle_Jimbo) June 16, 2019
“Too bad all the great ideas Democrats some up with are terrible,” noted Twitchy.
Last November, Swalwell threatened gun owners with nukes then doubled down on his threat.
He was responding to a Twitter user who criticized his gun-confiscation program. The congressman wanted to buy back weapons and then criminally prosecute anyone who would not cooperate, noting the government “has nukes” and the war would be “short.”
“You’d think Swalwell would be smart enough to let his ridiculous tweet slide out of the news cycle, but no … he cited fact-checking site Snopes.com as proof that he didn’t make a ‘serious threat to nuke gun owners,'” Twitchy said.
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 19, 2018
Swalwell wrote on Twitter: “Well this should end the faux-outrage from gun groups. @snopes DEBUNKS @DailyCaller and others who claimed I made serious threat to nuke gun-owners.”
First, there’s the issue that Snopes is notoriously liberal and trusted by almost no conservative in America.
Second, it’s not really what Snopes found.
The “fact-checking” site said of the statement: “In November 2018, Democratic U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell suggested launching nuclear weapons against gun-owners who refused to hand over or sell semi-automatic rifles to the U.S. government” that it was a “mixture” of true and false.
“In a tweet on 16 November, Swalwell responded to a gun rights enthusiast who said the Democrat’s proposal to confiscate or buy semi-automatic rifles would result in ‘war’ due to resistance from gun owners, stating ‘it would be a short war’ because ‘the government has nukes.'”
Then Snopes just repeated Swalwell’s claim that it was “no more than a joke.”
The controversy began with an opinion column Swalwell wrote for USA Today in which he demanded a ban on “military-style semi-automatic assault weapons.” He said the government should buy such guns and prosecute those who don’t hand them over.
Snopes said Swalwell’s tweet “was undoubtedly authentic.” It added, however, “he quickly clarified that he had intended his reference to nuclear weapons to be a joke.”
Conservative Review’s Nate Madden wrote: “It’s easy to point out how insane it is that a sitting member of Congress is talking about confiscating the property of American citizens and using nukes against those who don’t comply, because it’s pretty insane. Whether or not you believe his claims of being facetious is up you.
“But it’s also nice to see an anti-gun politician take the mask off for a moment to remind us what the debate about the Second Amendment is really about and why 2A exists in the first place. The talk about gun control is around these mythical ‘commonsense’ laws that we can put in place that will supposedly make Americans safer through further firearms regulation. ‘We don’t want to take your guns away,’ the argument goes, ‘we just want some common sense.'”
Swalwell also has complained that the Constitution makes no mention of women.
He wrote on Twitter: “Do you know how many times the word ‘Woman’ is mentioned in the Constitution? Zero. That is unacceptable. Women must be equally represented and equally protected.”
Do you know how many times the word “Woman” is mentioned in the Constitution?
That is unacceptable. Women must be equally represented and equally protected. #ERANow
— Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) May 1, 2019
Another Twitter user, Jon Gabriel, provided perspective.
“Do you know how many times the word ‘Man’ is mentioned in the Constitution?