One of the more despicable Congress-critters is Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), a man with utter contempt for Truth.  He was on Tucker Carlson Tonight last evening pushing for confiscation of AR-type rifles and spinning like a dervish with rocket boosters.  But let's forget that while Swalwell wrote an op-ed calling for gun confiscation, it's not really confiscation, according to Swalwell.  Let's forget that what he labels "assault weapons" are just semi-automatic rifles that happen to have a military-style appearance (much like putting a Porsche body on a Yugo chassis).  Let's forget that he claimed that his AR-species confiscation plan would "keep kids safe," ignoring that the most recent shooting, in Santa Fe, was perpetrated with a .38 pistol and a shotgun.  Most significant is that, amid his pseudo-Machiavellian babbling, he contradicted himself and refuted his own argument.

Pointing out the congressman's more-equal-than-others status, host Tucker Carlson repeatedly asked Swalwell if he would restrict his own bodyguards, the Capitol Hill Police (CHP), to the same weapons to which he'd limit Joe Six-Pack.  Practice what you preach, right?

Aside from using the spurious diversionary argument of saying Carlson was "denigrating" the police by likening them to bodyguards (hmm, in doing so, wasn't the congressman denigrating bodyguards?), Swalwell also repeatedly said he wouldn't agree to limit the CHP because he, the man passionately proclaimed, doesn't want our cops "outgunned."

Did you get that?

Question: If outlawing AR-type rifles actually could get them out of bad guys' hands, then how could the police be outgunned without them?

Perhaps Swalwell knows in his heart (and head?) that his proposal wouldn't suffice to deny these weapons to criminals.  It's as if he's tacitly admitting that he's just a lying, power-hungry sack of excrementitious ambition and hot air.  Below is the Tucker Carlson Tonight segment with the congressman.

Of course, another explanation is that such contradictions inevitably occur when, instead of seeking Truth while formulating opinion, you play games and just disgorge whatever sophistic argument you think will work at the moment.  As the above segment evidences, Swalwell is the epitome of this demagogic practice.

Gun-grabbers have completely departed from reality.  I'm old enough to remember when the left's gun control obsession involved banning handguns.  I disagree with doing so, but at least that proposal has some relationship to crime: handguns were used in 19 times as many murders in 2016 as all rifles combined. 

Amazingly, even the Swalwellian New York Times admitted this in its 2014 piece "The Assault Weapon Myth."  The paper pointed out that in 2012, only 322 people were killed with rifles of any kind and that even prior to the 1990s Assault Weapons™ ban, such firearms were used in only 2 percent of the nation's gun crimes (this hasn't changed).  Moreover, credible studies show that the ban did not serve to reduce gun violence, the Times also informed.

The point?  Do you think leftists would stop at banning a class of weapons (AR-style ones) used in almost no crimes and not move on to a class (handguns) used in most gun crime?  As admitted by Esquire editor Dave Holmes in a recent article titled "Okay, Now I Actually Do Want to Take Your Guns" and by former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens when he proposed in March repealing the Second Amendment, the left ultimately wants all firearms banned.  Leftists just plan to accomplish this via incrementalism, stealing away our freedoms inch by inch.

They generally don't admit this because they're Swalwellian – which is another way of saying they're liars.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.