Happy early Thanksgiving, America.

I know he’s running for president in a verrrrrrrrrrrry crowded field and has to strain to get noticed. But between this and shrugging off death threats aimed at Susan Collins, it seems like there … must be a better way.

Here’s the tweet that started it all, flagging an op-ed Swalwell wrote back in May endorsing a mandatory gun buyback program (i.e. confiscation) with criminal prosecution for those who refuse.

That prompted the following exchange. We’re 10 days removed from the elections and already I’m feeling puh-retty good about this new Democratic majority:

“Find common ground with us or risk incineration by your own government” is a top-ten all-time tweet by a federal elected official. Swalwell got an earful from critics for it this afternoon too, understandably, and naturally apologized and promised to do better from now on. No, wait, I mistyped that — I mean he followed up with another bitchy tweet, secure in the knowledge that he won’t catch one one-thousandth of the flak from the media for his threat that he would have if he were a Republican.

Hell, the media probably has a nuclear strike plan already drawn up. The first state to go: Texas — but only the rural areas. The cities are spared destruction because they voted for (sigh) Beto.

Can gun-rights fans at least have input on the strike list?

Miller later summarized Swalwell’s position this way: “Claiming you need guns to protect yourself from the government is ridiculous. Also, if you don’t turn in your guns we’re going to nuke the f*** out of you.”

Swalwell went on to say that “No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century.” That’s a common sentiment among gun-grabbers, that whatever utility the Second Amendment once had as a bulwark against government aggression is long gone given the overwhelming firepower the modern U.S. military is capable of bringing to bear. How they reconcile that argument with their experience of the Iraq War, though, I’ll never understand. One of the reasons Iraq turned into “quagmire” was that an insurgency equipped mainly with light weapons and skilled at guerrilla tactics turned out to be effective for a long time against the world’s greatest military force. Even if Swalwell didn’t have that example right in front of him, he might have reflected on the fact that the U.S. also deployed a vastly greatly arsenal in Vietnam than the enemy did and that didn’t work out so well either.

Can’t be too hard on him, though. It’s not like the left has given much thought to mistakes made in Iraq or Vietnam.

I’m willing to give him a pass on the idea of a nuclear solution to America’s gun problem on grounds that it’s Twitter and we all mouth off there. Clearly he does support confiscation, though, and is willing to use force to ensure compliance against resisters, of which there would be many. How much force? Does he think the FBI and ATF have enough manpower between them to go door to door and confiscate guns from the roughly 25 percent of Americans who own them? Even if only one-tenth of one percent resisted, we’re still talking about armed confrontations with many thousands of people. How far is Swalwell really willing to go? Assuming, I mean, that his confiscation plan is more than just a shiny object he’s waving around to try to get the attention of Democratic primary voters in 2020.