We know we just did a post on Brianna Wu and guns yesterday, but when Wil Wheaton himself endorses your run for Congress, it behooves us to pay attention.

As Twitchy reported yesterday, Wu tweeted of her experience firing a fully automatic M16 assault rifle under professional instruction and came to the conclusion that there is no reason anyone would need an M16 to defend their home. Of course, civilians can’t legally get their hands on a fully automatic anything, but that’s just “launching into gun trivia and semantics.”

Wu seems to have a lot to say about guns, though her tweets move around quickly and it’s tough to determine if she’s talking about defending one’s home, hunting, or fighting a tyrannical government. In any case, she’s certain that gun fanatics don’t need an AR-15.

When gun fanatics say they need AR-15s to “defend against government tyranny,” they’re really saying if the democratic process doesn’t go their way they will resort to terrorism and violence. You have a constitutional process for getting your way. Vote. I implore you to use it. — Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) February 28, 2019

Um, half the country didn’t get their way in 2016 and there’s been a lot of violence (in Berkeley and Portland alone), albeit mostly from clowns in kerchiefs and black hoodies carrying hockey sticks or whatever weapon they can lay their hands on.

I don't seem to recall widespread terrorism and violence from "gun fanatics" when President Obama was elected (twice). Can the same be said from the Left? https://t.co/PXgRnyWrn5 — Matthew Kolken (@mkolken) February 28, 2019

Is it just us or is it kind of funny that the same person who promotes the Constitutional process also wants to take semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of civilians? Besides, the government has legit nukes to put down any gun fanatics who try to defend against a tyrannical government.

That isn't even close to what they are saying. — Adam Biehler (@CenTexAg) February 28, 2019

They’re not saying that at all. It’s fun to make things up. — Invisible Voice (@silva0072) February 28, 2019

That’s not what “gun fanatics” are saying at all. The whole point of the amendment was to protect the people from the government should the government turn dictatorial. But go ahead and keep painting gun rights advocates as “fanatics”, that always seems to work ?‍♂️ — All Zonked Out (@ZonkedAll) February 28, 2019

No, that's a strawman and you know it, Brianna. How about you actually address what people are saying instead of making things up. You want to remove rights from the people you want to represent. You're tyrannical. Period. — Flowman (@Flowman) February 28, 2019

Wrong. Why not get a history book and take a look at the late 1700s in this country and you'll understand what defending against tyranny is all about. I do vote and I work the polls and encourage others to get out and vote. Guess what. That's how I got my president this time. — LoudMcleod (@cntrybeachbum) February 28, 2019

"Defend against" and "resort to terrorism and violence" are not the same thing. And they do not have to vote for their way, it is already in the US Constitution. — Kyle Bielfeldt ?? (@KBielfeldt) February 28, 2019

Actually, it is not fanatical. It is part of the fundamental reasoning behind 2nd Amendment. If you wish to be in Congress, you might want to read The Constitution or at least skim through it. Right now, you simply sound like a fear mongering twit. — Chuck Burge (@ChuckRBurge) February 28, 2019

And remember, you started the name calling by referring to us as “fanatics”. This is not the proper rhetoric for a possible future member of Congress. — Chuck Burge (@ChuckRBurge) February 28, 2019

What exactly is a gun fanatic? I own guns. Am I a fanatic? I own several that have been passed down to me from at least three generations in my family. Am I a fanatic? I will not give these up…never. That make me a fanatic? @NRA #NRA #2A #MAGA — James B (@VolfanJB) February 28, 2019

What would be your understanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? — John Murphy (@JohnMurfssbn) February 28, 2019

In modern context, “a well regulated militia,” means the National Guard. I was in Mississippi for Hurricane Katrina. National guard was very helpful in responding. I’m thankful for their service, and would happily fund the training and equipment they need. — Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) February 28, 2019

This is beyond comedy. — jacob woods (@jacob_william2) February 28, 2019

You’re still talking about this after admitting yesterday you don’t understand guns or the laws around them. And that you don’t even want to learn. — Rightbrain Kurt (@rightbrainkurt) February 28, 2019

She does want to learn — that’s why she fired that M16. And for someone who considers a high-caliber weapon a rock dropped from the moon, she has a lot to say about calibers as well and considers an AR-15 unsuited for hunting.

Are you aware that nearly 1/4 of hunters use the AR-15 modern sporting rifle platform to hunt game? Moreover, with the light recoil the .223/5.56 caliber is perfect young or small-frame hunters. It is ANYTHING but difficult to control. https://t.co/iCNK6zOm5f @DLoesch — Matthew Kolken (@mkolken) February 28, 2019

Dude … buy a shotgun. If you’re ever fighting off crazed hordes of people during an earthquake, there’s no way you’ll be able to aim an AR-15 with the ground shaking. (Thanks for the advice, Joe!) But back to the AR-15 …

Yes. It’s overkill and speaks to an unwillingness to learn skills. — Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) February 28, 2019

If you consider .223/.556 to be “overkill” please explain then why you’re OK using .30-06 or .308 and to what “skills” in particular you're referring. https://t.co/fymqIBEHTh — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 28, 2019

Dana, I don’t know where you grew up. But I grew up in Mississippi. And I sure know a lot of hunters that take pride in their ability to hunt with a bow or a bolt action rifle. — Brianna Wu (@BriannaWu) March 1, 2019

The Ozarks, from a family of hunters and I also hunt. Please answer my question. — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 1, 2019

You 1st stated it takes "A MINIMUM of 30-40 hrs of professional instruction to learn to operate safely." You now say it is overkill and used due to an unwillingness to learn skills. So is it so easy to use that you need no skills, or so complex you need professional instruction? — Matthew Kolken (@mkolken) February 28, 2019

That earned Matthew a block.

She blocked me after I asked her if she wanted to ban all rifles chambered for .223. — Nathan (@NATHANINSOCAL) February 28, 2019

She says she was raised in the south…then she ought to know what I mean when I say bless her heart. — Joe. Just Joe. (@jfonav) February 28, 2019

heck, here in VA, .223 is considered too small for ethical deer hunting. — Elliotte Want (@ecwant) February 28, 2019

This woman fired a .223 and now thinks she's an expert. In PA where I live you must use a caliber above .22 to hunt deer so the .223 is hardly overkill unless you're hunting squirrels. — bill jackman (@billjac2) February 28, 2019

It’s about energy. 30-06 with 178 gr match is over 2600 ft-lbs at 100 yds. Match round for 5.56 nato is around 75 gr and 1200 ft-lbs at 100 yds. Over twice the energy in 30-06. Much more deadly. There’s a reason hunters don’t use 5.56 for sizable game. Many states it’s not legal. — TheRealKBE (@TheRealKBE) March 1, 2019

She is well aware. — Chris Loesch (@ChrisLoesch) March 1, 2019

Glad she didn't shoot my lever action .30-30. Probably would have put her eye out with the scope. — Dan (@dan_djseitz00) February 28, 2019

Overkill is not a metric. Also why would you want to not use overkill when your life is on the line — Charlie Watson (@CharlesRWatson) February 28, 2019

????? oh this is going to be good — Katie Thulin (@katiet121) February 28, 2019

She's got a ratio going the likes of which I've never seen……. — NotAnAverageWhiteBand (@TheBigBaum) February 28, 2019

Please let’s take ballistic advise from this genius pic.twitter.com/sq6zSyKLgR — Jamie (@JmeDubya) March 1, 2019

Related: