[ad_1]
Scott Morefield | Journalist
Democratic representative Eric Swalwell tried Friday on Twitter to talk with ANR spokesman Dana Loesch about the issue of assault weapons but stopped responding afterwards. that Loesch had asked a pointed question.
The exchange began when Swalwell responded to a tweet from Loesch about the "confiscation" of her proposed assault weapon with "she does not lie".
She does not lie. We should ban assault weapons by redeeming them or restricting them to ranges / clubs. #Trop it's too much https://t.co/XbRpOvXlF3
– Representative Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018
Swalwell said Friday that the US government could use nuclear weapons against its citizens if they resist firearms forfeiture efforts. (RELATED: Wisconsin Company gives all employees handguns for Christmas)
Loesch responded to Swalwell's tweet by asking if he would "limit the ban and confiscation to semi-automatic rifles" or would also include handguns.
Would you limit the prohibition and confiscation of semi-automatic rifles or would you also extend semi-automatic handguns because they are used illegally many times in crimes such as homicide? https://t.co/Snc8xhXhVp
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018
To which Swalwell replied in the affirmative. He also sought to clarify his position by answering a question from a journalist and adding Loesch:
Good question. Guns. They are more powerful and cause more carnage when used with a pistol grip. See @ScottPelley @ 60 minutes piece. To reduce the number of semi-automatic gun deaths, I would have a universal background check and mandatory mental health reports.
– Representative Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018
No different. I interpreted his question as meaning semi-automatic rifles covered by what is considered a weapon of assault. cc: @DLoesch
– Representative Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018
Loesch then asked the burning question which, at the time of publication, remained unanswered by Swalwell.
Can you explain to me the difference between assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles? Is .223 ok but not 30.06? Why? https://t.co/Ew8mYiQewv
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018
"Can you explain to me the difference between assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles?" Asked Loesch. ".223 is it correct but not 30.06? Why?"
When Swalwell did not answer, Loesch tried again.
I suppose @RepSwalwell is unable to answer this question. https://t.co/9sWPLWdHsf
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018
When the question went unanswered, the NRA spokesperson outlined some likely reasons why her question was left unanswered:
This only reinforces my suspicions that Swalwell uses "assault weapon" interchangeably with "semi-automatic rifle". He wants to legislate according to the appearance of the rifle and not the actual mechanics or caliber of the rifle. (1 of a few)
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018
He and the others know enough not to talk about "semi-automatic rifles". So they use the vague, non-technical "assault weapon" descriptor as their only concern for some guns and not all of them. Two problems with that. (2 out of a few)
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018
First, the majority of firearm homicides are attributable to illegally held handguns. This is supported by the FBI UCRs (for example, 2016 https://t.co/R93AZfNrQB).
– 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 really compared these rifles? See picture for reference. You plead for an unthinkable ban of things based strictly on aesthetic appearances. pic.twitter.com/RNbt0K4YG5
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018
The argument also completely excludes a multitude of contributory variables, such as the recidivism rate, the percentage of homicides attributable to prohibited possessors, a cultural rot eroding respect for life, and so on. (after)
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018
As you will see in the comments, people who claim they care so much about life and solutions would prefer to shout "PRACTICAL!" And "TERRORISTS!" To law-abiding gun owners rather than people who want to do so. engage in a good faith discussion on the subject. question, which is why we do not get anything.
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018
In conclusion, Loesch referred to Swalwell's reference to nuclear weapons – which he described as sarcasm – and pointed out other flaws in his argument.
Finally, threatening (seriously or even facetiously, the progressives tell me that the nuances are dead and the euphemisms are dead and that everything has a literal meaning), the voters are nuanced because you do not understand that this argument is at the same time bad legislation and advocacy.
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018
Finally for real this time, the presence of a pistol grip does not affect the speed of a bullet. I do not even know why someone an intimin.
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018
That's why Swalwell did not answer my question. It's impossible without admitting that the goal is to ban all semi-automatic firearms. / finis.
– Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018
[ad_2]
Source link
