From his twitter:
"Don’t be so dramatic. No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate. Which is what you want."
"America’s gun debate in one thread. 1) I propose a buy-back of assault weapons 2) Gun owner says he’ll go to war with USA if that happens 3) I sarcastically point out USA isn’t losing to his assault weapon (it’s not the 18th Century) 4) I’m called a tyrant 5) 0 progress"
Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) | Twitter
He's not wrong, the idea of a civilian militia successfully overthrowing a tyrannical government in a modern Western country is ludicrous. Back when muskets were standard for everyone, that was a realistic proposition. Today with things like nukes and napalm, it's not. It
would be short. Civilian power over government won't be found in guns, but you won't be able to convince paranoid gun owners that. Seen here: Using an often described counter-argument for for gun ownership and it's immediately spun as an active threat against them. *Eyeroll*