Democratic Rep Eric Swalwell tried to interact with NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch via Twitter Friday on the issue of assault weapons but stopped responding after Loesch asked one pointed question.

The exchange began when Swalwell replied to a Loesch tweet about his proposed assault weapons “confiscation” with “she’s not lying.”

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

Swalwell made news Friday by suggesting that the U.S. government could use nuclear weapons on its citizens if they resisted its gun confiscation efforts. (RELATED: Wisconsin Company Gives All Its Employees Handguns For Christmas)

Loesch responded to Swalwell’s tweet by asking if he would “limit the ban and confiscation to semi-automatic rifles” or include handguns as well.

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

To which Swalwell responded in the affirmative. He also sought to clarify his position by responding to a reporter’s question and cc’ing Loesch:

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

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

At which point Loesch asked the burning question that still, at the time of publication, remained unanswered by Swalwell.

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

“Can you explain to me the difference between assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles?” Loesch asked. “Is .223 ok but 30.06 not? Why?”

When Swalwell failed to respond, Loesch tried again.

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

When the question remained unanswered, the NRA spokeswoman launched into a few likely reasons why her question remained unanswered:

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

He and others know enough to stop short of saying “semi-auto rifles” so they use the vague and non-technical “assault weapon” descriptor as though they only mean some rifles and not all of them. Two problems with this. (2 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

In conclusion, Loesch called out Swalwell’s reference to nukes — which he claimed was sarcasm — and pointed out the other flaws in his argument.

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

Lastly for real this time, the presence of a pistol grip doesn’t affect the velocity of a round. I’m not even sure why anyone would intimate such. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

All of this is why Swalwell wouldn’t answer my question. It’s impossible without having to admit the goal is to ban all semi-auto firearms. /finis. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) November 17, 2018

Follow Scott on Twitter