Inoculate Yourself Against Manipulation
VICE Posted a List on How White People Can Behave Better...and It's Unintentionally...
Smearing Capitalism
Deadspin Writer Targets a Child, CNN's Anti-Elon Crusade, Stelter's Fox Book Tanks in...
Team Biden's Double Quarter Pounder 'Misinformation' Campaign
Worrying About Joe Biden Getting 'Credit' on PBS
New York's Crisis Is a Lesson For Cities Everywhere
Laws Requiring Permission to Obtain Guns Look Vulnerable
Senator Cassidy and Graham’s CO2 Emissions Tax Will Be Expensive and Cause More...
Everything Is Political, Even Your Life Insurance
Widening Revolt Against Globalism
It Took UN Women This Long to Call Out Hamas for October 7...
When Congress Finally Passes Aid for Israel, Will It Come With Conditions?
Even After What We Know About Hostages, There's Still Been Some Terrible Takes...
It Looks Like Rep. George Santos Could Soon Be Expelled From Congress

WATCH: Tucker Carlson Grills Dem. Rep. Who Calls For Complete Gun Confiscation

On Tuesday night, Fox News' Tucker Carlson had California Rep. Eric Swalwell (D) on his show to discuss Swalwell's proposed gun confiscation plan.

Earlier this month, Swalwell penned an OpEd in USA Today, where he details exactly how he wants the federal government to take law-abiding gun owners' firearms.


Here's what Swalwell proposes:

Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.

Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault 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. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.

Tucker quoted that part of Swalwell's OpEd and asked him, point blank, if he was calling for gun confiscation. In typical liberal fashion, Swalwell said it wasn't gun confiscation.

Carlson: So you've talked about Russia but you've also become known for your position on guns and you're one of the very few Democrats I think who's been honest about that. You say that the U.S. government ought to ban a certain species of rifles. You wrote a piece about this. It's not a secret view you have. You wrote it in USA Today. And you say this: '...we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault 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.' So we should confiscate this entire class of firearms? What do you think would happen if the federal government tried to do that?

Swalwell: Well, Tucker, did you read the OpEd? 

Carlson: I did. I just quoted from it extensively. 

Swalwell: I'm not calling for a confiscation. What I'm saying is we should invest in buyback, that we should restrict any weapons that aren't bought back to gun clubs, hunting clubs, shooting ranges. Keep them there, where it's safe. Not on our streets. And if you were caught, just like you were caught, you know, with drugs, or anything else, or they have probable cause to go in your home and you have one of these weapons, yeah. You'd be prosecuted. I've never suggested sending troops out and collecting and confiscating–

Carlson: Okay, I'm going to quote an old friend of mine called Eric Swalwell. He's a Congressman from California, on the intel committee—

Swalwell: Yeah, he's a good guy.

Carlson: Put it back on the screen for me. I'm just going to quote once again. 'And we should buy back those weapons.' And I'm quoting, 'we should criminally prosecute all — criminally prosecute any who refuse — choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.' So, you're going to prosecute people who don't give up their weapons. That's gun confiscation.

Swalwell: If they're caught with them, yeah. 

Carlson: Do you think, because the overwhelming majority of those are law-abiding, they've committed no crime, they have no plan to commit a crime, you would instantly turn them into felons. Do you think that you'd have a Civil War? Are you worried about that?

Swalwell: What do you think will happen if we do nothing? More kids will be killed? More churches will lose parishioners?

Carlson: I'm not arguing, I'm not arguing on behalf of doing nothing. I'm critiquing your very specific suggestion. And you're a lawmaker, so this is meaningful what you said. 

Swalwell: And I trust the American people are law-abiding, that their weapons can be bought back or keep them at a gun club. You don't have to give them up. Just keep them at a gun club.

And there you have it, folks. One of the loudest, most outspoken gun control advocates admits, on TV, that he does want to come for our guns. 

Carlson: What if you want to keep them in your home? You haven't done anything wrong, you haven't hurt anyone and now you made them into felons.

Swalwell: Yeah. Yeah. No, there's no troop round up here, Tucker. 

Carlson: You just made them into felons. You just said that in the piece. Look, I'm not making this up. You wrote that, so what do you think if I'm a gun owner and I have one of the weapons that you say should be banned and I don't feel like bringing it to a gun club, I feel like keeping it in my bedroom closet.

Swalwell: I don't think you're giving the American people enough credit, that they'd be law-abiding.

Carlson: That they'd obey you or they'd be criminally prosecuted.


And there you have it folks. They want to come for our guns.

The Left does their best to make it sound like we're paranoid about them coming to take our guns. This interview, this OpEd is just another example in gun owners' back pocket that prove that we're not paranoid, but vigilant.

The Flaws In The Argument

It was obvious in Congressman's Swalwell's interview with Tucker that he realized some of the flaws in his arguments.

Swalwell's plan for confiscation has no means of protecting those who legally own the firearms he wants to ban. Assuming the bill passed, law-abiding citizens would suddenly become felons. At least in the past when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed, there was a grandfather clause that protected current owners of said firearms. 

It would also be beneficial for Congressman Swalwell to visit a "gun club" or a gun range. People don't drop their firearms off in a locker and come to get them whenever they want to shoot them. It's not like renting out a tennis racket at the gym. You take your own firearms to the range or you rent one from the range owners. 

If guns were limited to just clubs, how would that even work? Would individuals be required to leave their firearms at these clubs? Who would monitor if they were stolen? Who would make sure that they're locked and safe at all times? Would it be the responsibility of the range owner or the firearm owner? 


And what about utilizing a firearm for self-protection? It's rather hard to protect yourself with a gun if your gun is locked up at a gun club. 

And, the real topper of it all: if you want to protect yourself or your family and you have one of these guns that banned then you could be criminally prosecuted.

Talk about a lack of common sense.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos