The sparks flew on Fox News Channel Monday night as host Tucker Carlson went toe-to-toe with California Congressman Eric Swalwell (D) on everything from the Russia investigation to gun control. And when it came to the later, Carlson grilled the Congressman on his gun confiscation plan and called him out on the hypocrisy of allowing himself and the rest Congress to be protected with certain guns while the average American citizen would be forced to give theirs up.
Carlson began the fiery segment by quoting a piece Swalwell wrote for the gun-inept USA Today, where he laid out his plan for gun bans. “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,” Carlson read.
Swalwell actually tried to suggest what he was calling for didn’t involve the government taking your weapons. He even talked about your weapons like they would be contraband like narcotics:
I'm not calling for a confiscation. What I’m saying is we should invest in a buyback, that we should restrict any weapons that aren't brought back to gun clubs, hunting clubs, shooting ranges. Keep them there where it's safe and not on our streets. And if you are caught, just like if you were caught with drugs or anything else, they have probable cause to go into your home and you had one of these weapons, yeah, you’d be prosecuted.
After going back and forth for a while, and Swalwell saying he expected people to just roll over for his demands if they would become law, Carlson wondered if his guest would apply the same rule to Congress. “Absolutely. But not cops though! I don’t think cops should be outgunned,” Swalwell quickly corrected himself, but he had already shown his true intentions.
“So, your bodyguards should have any kind of guns they want,” Carlson declared. And after spending some time asserting the Capitol Hill police weren’t there to protect members of Congress, Swalwell demanded to know “Why do you need an AR-15 to protect your house?”
“Why shouldn’t my wife have the same firearm at home that your bodyguards use to protect you,” Carlson shot back at one point. Swalwell couldn’t wrap his mind around the question:
SWALWELL: That is a ridiculous argument, Tucker.
CARLSON: But, why?
SWALWELL: It’s absolutely ridiculous!
CARLSON: Why is it ridiculous? Cause you’re more important than me?
SWALWELL: No—I—You are trying to confuse the issue here.
CARLSON: I’m asking a sincere question. Why should you get to protect yourself with certain guns—
“I'm merely saying that you have better protection than I do. And you are saying that my family doesn't deserve to have a certain species of weapon,” Carlson clarified. “You get to decide what we can protect ourselves with but you are not going to in any way take the ability to protect you away from the Capitol Hill police” Swalwell never had a real legitimate answer to Carlson’s expert questions.
Tucker made a spectacular point about Congressman’s Swalwell’s intentions with his legislation. While the Democrat claimed he had faith Americans would be law-abiding with his law, he didn’t have faith Americans could own their own weapons and use them responsibly.
The relevant portions of the transcript are below, click "expand" to read:
Fox News Channel
Tucker Carlson Tonight
May 21, 2018
8:33:02 PM EasternTUCKER CARLSON: We are continuing our extended conversation with Congressman Eric Swalwell, Democrat of California. So, you've talked a lot about Russia but you also become known for your position on guns and you are one of the very few Democrats, I think, who has been honest about that. You say that the U.S. government ought to ban a certain species of rifle, you wrote a piece about this. This is not a secret of 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?
ERIC SWALWELL: Well, Tucker, did you read the op-ed?
CARLSON: I did. I just quoted it extensively.
SWALWELL: I'm not calling for a confiscation. What I’m saying is we should invest in a buyback, that we should restrict any weapons that aren't brought back to gun clubs, hunting clubs, shooting ranges. Keep them there where it's safe and not on our streets. And if you are caught, just like if you were caught with drugs or anything else, they have probable cause to go into your home and you had one of these weapons, yeah, you’d be prosecuted. I'm not. I’ve never suggesting sending troops out collecting, confiscating.
CARLSON: Okay, I’m going to quote an old friend of mine named Eric Swalwell, he’s a congressman from California in the Intel Committee.
SWALWELL: Good guy.
CARLSON: Can you put it back on the screen please? I'm going to quote once again. “And we should buy back those weapons,” and I'm quoting, “criminally prosecute any who refuse who 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 are caught with them, yeah. Now, we’re not sending troops [Carlson laughing] We’re not sending troops door to door.
CARLSON: But what you think would happen? I mean, do you think—because, of course, the overwhelming majority of those people are law-abiding, have committed no crime, have no plans to commit a crime. You would instantly turn them into felons. Do you think you would have a civil war, are you worried about that?
SWALWELL: What do you think will happen if we do nothing? Do you think more kids will be killed? Do you think more concerts will be shot up? More churches will lose parishioners?
CARLSON: I’m not arguing on behalf of doing nothing. I'm critiquing your very specific suggestion, and you are a lawmaker so this is meaningful, what you said.
SWALWELL: And I trust the American people are law-abiding, that their weapons could be bought back or keep them at a gun club. You don't have to give it up, keep them at a gun club.
CARLSON: But what if you want to keep them in your home and you've done nothing wrong, you haven't heard anybody. And you just made them into felons.
SWALWELL: There’s no troop roundup 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, if I'm a gun owner and I have one of the weapons 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 are giving the American people one of credit that they’d be law-abiding and that they’d be
CARLSON: That they would obey you.
SWALWELL: Well not “obey.”
CARLSON: Or be criminally prosecuted.
SWALWELL: I'm suggesting we have a conversation in Congress and pass a band like this. They will be obeying the law.
CARLSON: The law as written by you.
SWALWELL: It would have to be passed by a majority of Congress.
CARLSON: Would you apply these standards to yourself and your fellow members of Congress?
SWALWELL: Absolutely. But not cops though! I don’t think cops should be out gunned.
CARLSON: So, your bodyguards should have any kind of guns they want.
SWALWELL: I don’t have any bodyguards.
CARLSON: Yes, you do. I was there today. You have many bodyguards.
SWALWELL: I don’t have bodyguards.
CARLSON: I was just there today.
SWALWELL: I don’t personally have bodyguards.
CARLSON: But you’re surrounded by them. You’re surrounded by bodyguards that I pay for.
SWALWELL: They’re police officers. They’re sworn, they’re trained.
CARLSON: They are there to protect you. They’re your bodyguards.
(…)
SWALWELL: Why do you need an AR-15 to protect your house?
CARLSON: You have them in your building where you work.
(…)
CARLSON: Why shouldn’t my wife have the same firearm at home that your bodyguards use to protect you? Is that fair or is it unfair? Why is it unfair?
SWALWELL: That is a ridiculous argument, Tucker.
CARLSON: But, why?
SWALWELL: It’s absolutely ridiculous!
CARLSON: Why is it ridiculous? Cause you’re more important than me?
SWALWELL: No—I—You are trying to confuse the issue here.
CARLSON: I’m asking a sincere question. Why should you get to protect yourself with certain guns—
SWALWELL: Our cops shouldn’t be outgunned, period.
CARLSON: Not our cops, your cops.
SWALWELL: Our military shouldn’t be outgunned, period.
(…)
CARLSON: I'm merely saying that you have better protection than I do. And you are saying that my family doesn't deserve to have a certain species of weapon. You get to decide what we can protect ourselves with but you are not going to in any way take the ability to protect you away from the Capitol Hill police.
(…)
