So, if you’ve been on Twitter these past 24 hours, you’ve probably noticed that California Rep. Eric Swalwell has been making an idiot of himself. Of course, he had a little help from his enemies — namely, NRA spokeswoman and conservative commentator Dana Loesch.

Swalwell, a Democrat, first came to the attention of gun owners nationwide with a May Op-Ed in USA Today that seemed to advocate taking a very, ahem, active role in confiscating “assault weapons” from Americans.

“Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed,” Swalwell wrote. “This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.

“Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.”

The Op-Ed became a topic on Twitter again this week, and Swalwell handled it in a sane way by suggesting the government could use nuclear weapons against people who want to keep their guns and then seeming indignant that his “joke” didn’t make progress in the gun control debate.

TRENDING: Kentucky AG Exposes 4 Lies the Left Sold About Breonna Taylor's Death

Swalwell, by the way, is the same guy who claimed President Donald Trump was sending a secret message to the Russians by telling a joke about Hillary Clinton’s emails. Just throwing that out there.

His back-and-forth with Loesch wasn’t as ridiculous but a lot more revealing. It began thusly:

High ranking Democrat Eric Swalwell calls for confiscation of semi-automatic rifles using $15billion of taxpayer dollars to do it and proposes criminally prosecuting those who don’t participate: https://t.co/tBzZXztkIU #2A — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018

She’s not lying. We should ban assault weapons by buying them back or restricting them to ranges/clubs. #EnoughIsEnough https://t.co/XbRpOvXlF3 — Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

“She’s not lying. We should ban assault weapons by buying them back or restricting them to ranges/clubs,” Swalwell responded.

Loesch then had questions about how far this would go.

Would you limit the ban and confiscation to semi-auto rifles or would you extend the ban to semi-auto handguns also, seeing as they’re illegally used many times over more in crimes such as homicide? https://t.co/Snc8xhXhVp — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018

RELATED: Establishment Media Scramble To Make Up Excuse for Biden Hiding from Public for 9th Day This Month

The ball is in your court, Mr. Swalwell.

Fair question. Rifles. They’re more powerful and cause more carnage when used with a pistol-grip. See @ScottPelley @60Minutes piece. To reduce semi-auto pistol deaths I’d have universal background checks and mandatory reporting on mental health. — Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

Then there was this associated question:

No different. I interpreted her question to mean semi-auto rifles covered under what’s considered an assault weapon. cc: @DLoesch — Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) November 16, 2018

So then came this, which is where the congressman became suspiciously quiet:

Can you explain to me the difference between assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles? Is .223 ok but 30.06 not? Why? https://t.co/Ew8mYiQewv — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018

When Swalwell didn’t answer, Loesch went on a tweetstorm.

I guess @RepSwalwell is unable to answer this question. https://t.co/9sWPLWdHsf — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 16, 2018

This simply reinforces my suspicion that Swalwell uses “assault weapon” interchangeably with “semi-auto rifle.” He wants to legislate based on a rifle’s appearance and not the actual mechanics or caliber of the rifle. (1 of a few) — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

First, the majority of gun homicide is due to illegally possessed handguns. This is supported by FBI UCRs (2016 for example https://t.co/R93AZfNrQB ) . — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

Second, the argument is inconsistent. Example: you want to ban a .223/5.56 but not a .308 or 30.06? Have you actually compared these rifles? See photo for reference. You’re arguing for an unknowledgeable ban of things based strictly on cosmetic appearances. pic.twitter.com/RNbt0K4YG5 — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

The argument also completely excludes a multitude of contributing variables from consideration, like the recidivism rate, the percentage of homicide driven by prohibited possessors, a cultural rot eroding respect for life, etc etc. (cont) — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

Instead, people who claim to care so much for life and solutions, as you will see in the comments, would rather yell “WHORE!” and “TERRORIST!” at law-abiding gun owners than engage in any real good faith discussion on the issue, which is why we get nowhere. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

Lastly, threatening (either seriously or even facetiously, progressives tell me nuance and euphemisms are dead and everything is literal in meaning) voters with nukes because you, not they, don’t understand the argument is both bad lawmaking and advocacy. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

Of course, all of the points Loesch made are accurate, but the most salient one is this: The loudest voices in our gun control debate are often the ones who understand the issue the least but have the most power to influence it. Apparently, just one “60 Minutes” piece isn’t enough to educate Swalwell on the issue he’s most well-known for, but he’s willing to nuke people who don’t follow his dictums. Sarcastically, obviously.

I’m sure Swalwell will eventually find the words to back up his argument … after being carefully buttressed by Democrat “experts.” Until then, however, it’s painfully obvious he knows nothing about the very object he’s so desperate to legislate on.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.