Eric Swalwell is essentially running for president on a gun control platform, but don’t worry: he doesn’t want to take your guns. Honest!

After Caleb Hull took a swipe at Swalwell:

Swalwell, ever the drama queen, misrepresented Hull’s tweet as a threat so he could remind us all what a tough guy he is:

If I was afraid of you and your gun pic I wouldn’t be running for President. But I’m not afraid. Neither are the students. Or the moms. Or survivor dads like @fred_guttenberg. We are making America safer. #NoFear #GoBigBeBoldDoGood #EndGunViolence https://t.co/V8Z7JZzmsu — Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) April 10, 2019

The Daily Caller’s Jessica Fletcher had some thoughts about that:

Want to create a #NoFear environment for women? We need our #2A rights— the equalizer of the sexes. https://t.co/9VbNVKzJnm — Jessica Fletcher (@heckyessica) April 10, 2019

But Swalwell wanted to reassure her that he’s totally got her back and the backs of other gun owners and gun rights advocates:

Keep your #2A rights. Keep your shotguns, keep your pistols, keep your rifles. I just want to take the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the most dangerous people. https://t.co/Rd0vmg5yrd — Eric Swalwell (@ericswalwell) April 10, 2019

See? He just wants ‘to take the most dangerous weapons.” We’ve got nothing to worry about!

You’re a lying piece of filth. — Mark “BBQ addict” C ?? (@UntraceableMC) April 10, 2019

Don’t be so hard on him. After all, it’s not a lie if you believe it. And we’re sure he believes that he knows better than we do what’s best for us.

Problem is who gets to decide “ most dangerous weapons” and “ most dangerous people”. I’m sure you got that all figured out to. — mark toney (@markton77182893) April 10, 2019

Show us who the "most dangerous people" are that are not banned by existing laws. — Craig Fischer (@PocketPro15) April 10, 2019

Taking the weapons out of the hands of "the most dangerous people" means, of course, law-abiding supporters of the 2A. — StealthWhitaker (@BurnedNib) April 10, 2019

“Most dangerous people” = law abiding citizens to Dems and the left. They have not come up with a plan to get guns from criminals. Most of which aren’t allowed to own guns anyway. — Jeff Mangum (@magnum_t_i) April 10, 2019

Right, who believes a central planner when he "just want to take dangerous weapons" who gets to define dangerous. After the A-R, this guy will say look how much handgun violence there is and go for them next — Glenn Amurgis (@gamurgis) April 10, 2019

The only way you can do that is by first arming your dangerous people with their dangerous weapons. You can only do a “mandatory buyback” if you yourself use the threat of violence (armed government agents) as the final means of forced compliance. Arms for me and not for thee. — Noorhadi Shahrani (@nshahrani23) April 10, 2019

You apparently don’t understand that by restricting, arbitrarily, the type of firearms we can own you are, in fact, directly violating the Second Amendment, right? You cannot decide to legislate an aspect of the Constitution then claim we still have that right… — Rational Rebel (@ARationalRebel) April 10, 2019

Swalwell would probably do a lot more good if he left lawful gun owners alone and focused on his own “dangerous” tendencies: