Tucker Carlson has two guests each of which shed light on Hillary Clinton’s comments in their own way. One by her intelligent input, and a second by his own inane comments in defense of the idiocy of Hillary Clinton’s ill-advised tweet.
Carlson describes Clinton as wasting “not a second leveraging the attacks in Las Vegas. This morning she tweeted, “The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots. Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”
He goes on to say, “Clinton then added, without a trace of irony, ‘Our grief is not enough. We must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again.'”
Carlson asks Tammy Bruce for her response to Clinton’s tweet. She says, “Well, it was shocking and it was also ghoulish. She put out that tweet at about 7:15 in the morning, eastern time. The police in Las Vegas were still removing bodies as of 2pm Pacific time. We also know that not everyone had died, we still had more deaths.”
She continues, “This is a woman without any details, without any elements of information, moving immediately into a political framework and immediately going into the pet issue.” Bruce points out that Hillary Clinton said absolutely nothing about the recent Tennessee church shooting, pointing to her inconsistency if the issue really is about guns. [VIDEO BELOW]
Carlson then moves on to a Democrat, Rep Eric Swalwell of California, who does his best to extricate their political matriarch ‘s foot from her mouth and her twitter finger from her backside.
Carlson reads the tweet again, with emphasis on the part in which she states, “imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer.” He asks, “Do you think she thinks a silencer would make the rifle silent, does she think that? Because if she thinks that maybe she shouldn’t be weighing in on that.”
Swalwell replies by repeating her observation, with his own twist that people wouldn’t have been able to run from the sound of the gunshots if the shots were silent.” Carlson is merciful in his dismantling of the dishonest libtards, saying, “I guess that’s what bothers me, when policy makers weigh in on things about which they know nothing.”
He says, “So a silencer would not silence a .223 on automatic fire.” Swalwell, clearly one of those weighing in when he should be silent and trying to avoid looking the part, says “It would suppress it.” Carlson responds that “It might suppress it some, but it’s loud as hell. You have to wear earplugs, even with a suppressor on the end.”
Swalwell interjects, “And with this concert going on it would be harder.” Carlson says, “So most people might not know that, but if you’re going to weigh in on it, and we’re sort of obligated to take your opinion seriously, maybe you should know what you’re talking about, but she doesn’t.”
“And the reason I’m bringing this is up is it’s emblematic of this entire debate. Nobody pushing for gun control can name a single piece of gun control legislation that would have prevented this or any other shooting.” Carlson asks Swalwell twice to name a piece of legislation that would have prevented this.
His response, after ignoring the first question, was to answer a question that wasn’t asked, saying, “Well, I think, when you watch so many people who are helpless and running, you think that our lawmakers under the Capitol dome, were not helpless. Before the trigger is squeezed you’re actually able to do something.” In other words, he refused for a second time to answer the question.
He then goes down the old familiar gun grabber wish list, saying, “Whether it’s universal background checks, ammunition restrictions, whether it’s making sure we don’t have silencers or, of course, making sure that a weapon of war is only in the hands of a warrior.”
Carlson tells him to stop, that he’s doing exactly what he just conceded is false and unhelpful. You’re throwing so-called silencers into it when we both know that that would have had no effect at all. Carlson asks him if lawmakers and presidential candidates “have an obligation to know what you’re talking about before you try and change our laws?”
Swalwell, getting dangerously close to exposing his ignorance, doubles down, takes the false humanitarian route as a cover for knee jerk ineptitude, saying, “I know what I’m talking about and I look at the fear that people have and I think they expect from us to at least have a dialogue.” It doesn’t have to be substantive or for them to have any knowledge on the topic, just a dialogue and taking away Constitutional rights is enough.
And in a bi-partisan manner, right Congressman, because we know there’s no such thing as a globalist RINO Republican. Ever heard of a guy named John McCain? He likes to use that bi-partisan smoke screen too.
And your support of Rep John Lewis, there’s not a more racially motivated anti-American member of Congress – well, maybe Luis Gutierrez…it’s close. Swalwell’s taking orders from somebody and they’re not on America’s side.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.