The nation saw yet another horrible mass shooting, this time in Maine. A gunman opened fire at three different locations, killing 18 people and wounding far more. As is always the case, the anti-gunner lobby seized on the tragedy to push for restricting gun ownership among law-abiding Americans.
The debate over gun control is still going on days after the tragedy, and folks on the far left are loudly calling for more restrictions on firearms. Democratic politicians are echoing these calls, insisting that making it more difficult for everyday Americans to keep and bear arms will magically protect innocent victims of gun violence.
I saw an exchange on X, formerly known as Twitter, that perfectly illustrates why gun owners like myself will continue fighting against efforts to disarm the public. Anti-gunner activist extraordinaire David Hogg wrote a post on X in which he seemed to expose the true game his ilk are playing:
If you don’t support banning semi automatic rifles you should leave the Democratic Party and join the Guns Over People party.
Those familiar with guns know that banning semi-automatic rifles would essentially prohibit Americans from owning many, if not most, of the most common weapons on the market. It is possible Hogg meant to say “fully” automatic, but he has yet to correct his asinine comment. So, in essence, he is saying the quiet part out loud – the true motivation the anti-gunners have been denying for years.
My friend Darvio Morrow responded to Hogg’s tweet, explaining that these types of statements explain why gun owners do not trust anti-gunners.
U want to know why you can’t get any new gun laws done? Cause of people like this idiot. Gun owners DONT TRUST YOU. They don’t believe those that say it’s only about so-called “weapons of war”. They won’t give u an inch cause they don’t trust you. And this fool proves them right
Morrow is right. Hogg’s comment is one of a long laundry list of reasons why those who favor gun rights trust the anti-gunner lobby about as much as they would trust Gov. Gavin Newsom in a game of basketball with their children.
For starters, those on the anti-gunner side of the equation consistently display a remarkable lack of knowledge about the item they seek to ban. One example is their frequent use of the term “weapons of war,” a phrase that means absolutely nothing.
The vast majority of Americans do not possess the same type of weapons our military uses. Even if they did, the Second Amendment does not say everyday citizens should be prohibited from owning the same type of weaponry used by the Armed Forces. Indeed, one of the main reasons why the amendment was included in the first place was to empower the citizenry to fight back against a tyrannical government.
By and large, the biggest proponents of gun control are those who know little about the topic. You can check out this exchange between Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Jerry Nadler (D-NY) about banning assault weapons to see how little anti-gunners understand the subject.
Next, along with not knowing what they are talking about, anti-gunners struggle to identify legislative solutions that would solve incidents of gun violence by imposing more restrictions on firearms. Indeed, one of my favorite questions to ask when these people exploit mass shooting victims to push for more gun control is: What new or existing law would have stopped this shooting? The responses typically include a chorus of crickets or a recitation of meaningless emotional claptrap.
The reality is that there are no gun restrictions that would stop mass shootings or other types of gun violence that takes place in cities. In fact, the more restrictions there are, the harder it is for everyday folks to defend themselves.
Another issue is the fact that those who promote gun restrictions are typically the same types of people who favor far-leftist prosecutors who go easy on criminals who commit violent and property crimes. What sense does it make to give these people the kid glove treatment while also making it harder for people to protect themselves and their loved ones against them? Employing lenient sentencing and bail requirements while seeking to disarm the public is about as effective as drinking vodka to cure alcoholism.
There is also the way anti-gunners tend to portray gun owners in the media and elsewhere. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen progressives pretend that those who own guns are white, ignorant, racist rednecks who think guns are more important than people. They completely ignore the fact that many gun owners are women and racial minorities. Why? Because it would make it harder for them to pretend that gun ownership is racist – which brings me to my last point.
One of the reasons I don’t trust anti-gunners is because I know gun control is racist and sexist. Even today, gun restrictions are used to prevent low-income black and brown people from keeping and bearing arms by implementing onerous licensing requirements that only well-to-do people can afford to comply with.
On the sexism angle, those who don’t want women to own firearms are about as misogynistic as it gets. If a female is being accosted by a male assailant, chances are, martial arts, pepper spray, and even knives aren’t going to be enough to enable her to save her life. Women, even more than men, should be carrying guns to protect themselves from predators seeking easy targets. Yet, the anti-gunners would rather women hope that police will show up quickly enough to save them from being victimized.
The bottom line is that anti-gunners have shown that they cannot be trusted. Their objective has little to do with keeping people safe. In the end, these people would like to see a world in which only government officials can carry firearms ostensibly to protect us. But we have already seen what happens when the state is the only entity allowed to possess guns, haven’t we? This is why we have to keep making our voices heard, educating the public about why gun ownership is necessary.