Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

C-SPAN (Edited)

Gun Rights

‘I Can Do Whatever I Want with My Guns’: Florida’s Greg Steube Shows off Firearms in House Gun Control Debate

“I’m at my house. I can do whatever I want with my guns.”

Spread the love

Representative Greg Steube of Florida showed off his firearms collection during a debate on gun control in Congress.

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee debated the “Protecting Our Kids Act,” a combination of various gun control measures created in the wake of the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The legislation would raise the purchasing age of semi-automatic rifles to 21, ban “high-capacity” magazines, and other such proposals pushed by Democrats.

During the debate, Representative Steube took a rather unique approach to visualising what the gun control legislation would do, by showing off some of his personal firearm collection while on the Zoom call with other legislators.

The various guns included a Sig Sauer P226, a Sig Sauer 320, and an XL Sig Sauer P365, all which would end up banned under the legislation, given that it is impossible for smaller magazines to fit in them. Steube said he carries a firearm “every single day” in order to protect not only himself, but also his family and his home.

Democrat Representative Sheila Jackson Lee became concerned at Steube’s display, interrupting his speech. “I hope that gun is not loaded,” Lee said. In reply, Steube said that since he was at his own house, he can “do whatever [he wants] with [his] guns.”

Democrat Representative Eric Swalwell attacked Steube following his contributions to the discussion. “This is who Republicans are,” Swalwell tweeted.

“Kids are being buried and they’re bragging about how many guns they own during our gun safety hearing. They are not serious. They are a danger to our kids,” he added.

In response, Steube suggested that if Swalwell hated the 2nd Amendment so much, then he should “move to China.” He followed up the jab by joking that Swallwell already knows “some people there,” a likely reference to the California Representative’s connection with Fang Fang, an alleged Chinese spy.

Valiant News reported this week that Joe Biden claimed 9mm bullets can “blow the lung out of the body” when shot at someone, resulting in commentators arguing that he has “no idea what he is talking about” when it comes to firearms.

One day later, Democrat gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke declared that nobody should own an AR-15 or AK-47, endorsing their confiscation.

Spread the love
Jack Hadfield
Written By

Jack Hadfield is the Associate Editor at Valiant News. An investigative reporter from the UK, and the director and presenter of "Destination Dover: Migrants in the Channel, his work has appeared in such sites as Breitbart and The Political Insider. You can follow him on Gab @JH, on Telegram @JackHadders, or see his other social media by visiting jackhadfield.co.uk.

2 Comments

2 Comments

  1. Avatar

    David

    June 2, 2022 at 7:03 pm

    I LOVE MY GUNS AND HAVE FOR 50 YEARS!THEY HAVE NEVER LEFT THEIR SAFE TO HARM ANYONE! THE ANTI GUNNERS ARE THE PROBLEM WITH ALL THEIR BULLSHIT LEGISLATION THAT NEVER WORKED AND NEVER WILL. REMOVE THE CAPACITY FOR THEIR IGNORANCE AND PROBLEM SOLVED! COMMON SENSE!!!!!

  2. Avatar

    JOHN MAYOR

    June 2, 2022 at 9:49 pm

    2ND-A: A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. (James Madison)
    .
    The true purpose of the abovenoted Amendment was to ensure that Congress couldn’t interfere with the States’ ability to raise a CIVILIAN MILITIA by limiting access to firearms. The States needed MILITIAS because there was no standing army, and some States were in danger of insurrection (the Whiskey Rebellion, for example!); some in danger of attack by Native Americans; and some in danger of slave revolts. The southern States were particularly nervous about slave revolts, and some of them obliged every adult white male to participate in the MILITIA.
    .
    Today, the U.S. has a standing army. The STATE MILITIAS are called the National Guard, AND THEY SUPPLY THEIR OWN FIREARMS… and so and thus, availability of civilian firearms is moot. Slave revolts and Native American attacks are a dead issue. Insurrections are usually small enough to be handled by ordinary police forces.
    .
    Conclusion: A new contemporary Constitutional interpretation of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should render that the “Right” of every American to bear arms HAS NEVER EXISTED, and that the Right that does exist pertains to those CITIZEN MILITIANS actively formally or voluntarily effecting the DEFENSE OF A FREE STATE, and not for the purpose of shooting a neighbour in the face for retrieving an errant baseball hit onto private propery.
    .
    Prepare for an ARMS SEA CHANGE! And one, that/ which WILL REMOVE YOUR ARMS unless YOU are ACTIVELY FORMALLY OR VOLUNTARILY EFFECTING THE DEFENSE OF A FREE STATE; AND, IF NOT, THE CITIZEN MILITIANS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD, STATE POLICE AND LOCAL POLICE WILL EFFECT THE REMOVAL OF YOUR “UNCONSTITUTIONALLY ACQUIRED AND PURPOSED” WEAPONS!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending on Valiant News:

Politics

“We’re already working to address recent issues with Gemini’s image generation feature."

Politics

“We need to have the biggest legal ballot harvesting operation this country has ever seen.”

Politics

“It’s amazing to say I haven’t won a state yet," says candidate who hasn't won a state yet.