(Natural News) Rational, thinking Americans figured out a long time ago that the founding fathers had it correct when they included a guaranteed, protected right to “keep and bear arms” — against a tyrannical government and a means of personal self-defense.
But over the past several decades, an increasingly left-wing Democratic Party has been working tirelessly to undermine the Second Amendment’s arms guarantee. More recently, they have resorted to exploiting horrific incidents like the recent school massacre in Uvalde, Texas, as the impetus to demand more gun control and outright bans of entire classes of firearms.
The problem with this thinking was summed up in a recent Twitter thread posted by Nate Fischer, an investor and founder of New Founding, “a media-focused venture devoted to supporting a pro-American economy, rebuilding a media universe that shares our values, and helping people live a more human life free from things like impersonal, globalized corporations, the hectoring assaults of woke tyrants, or the malicious manipulations of Big Tech.”
It is naive to evaluate gun control proposals based on their stated goal of reducing gun violence. If this were the priority, stop-and-frisk would be the top proposal. The lens of friend/enemy politics gives a clearer picture,” his thread began.
Fischer went on to point out something else that is apparent to those Americans being targeted: There is a distinct political motivation behind the gun control push.
“Gun control primarily imposes restrictions on law-abiding middle- and working-class gun owners and would-be gun owners. This is a heavily Republican group,” he wrote.
“Criminals,” meanwhile, “continue to have easy access to guns, and this is not likely to change in a country with a vast trove of existing guns. (Stop-and-frisk would make this riskier/less convenient),” he said. “This group is a tool—and sometimes more direct client—of the left.”
“Thus Democrats oppose policies that would most reduce access to guns for their political allies, and advocate policies that would restrict such access for their political enemies,” Fischer went on before adding some historical context.
“The most likely political use of guns by citizens will be to protect against anarcho-tyranny. We saw a mild version of this in the tacitly regime-sanctioned mobs in summer of 2020; a more extreme version could look like China’s Cultural Revolution or the French Revolution,” wrote the investor.
“In such scenarios, guns—especially AR-15s and the like—provide citizens on our side significant protection against hostile mobs. They need not defend against tanks or SWAT teams; they simply need to motivate a mob to move on or disperse,” he wrote.
“Many on the left know these mobs help advance their agenda, and recognize citizen gun ownership threatens this. They are pushing for gun control measures that will both disarm such citizens, and add tools to prosecute those who do use guns against these mobs. In contrast, many in these mobs are armed with the sort of weapons not threatened by gun control laws: rocks, Molotov cocktails, black market guns (often the sort stop-and-frisk would have removed). Gun control measures thus shift the balance in their favor,” Fischer said before wrapping up his thread.
“In sum: any time you see an apparent inconsistency (or the “hypocrisy” normie conservatives like to trumpet) in Democratic gun rhetoric, reevaluate through this friend/enemy lens. Behavior should make more sense,” he concluded.
Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of The Federalist, also took actor Matthew McConaughey to task in a Wednesday column after the Uvalde native made his pitch at the White House for Democrats and Republicans to come together for new “reasonable” gun controls like universal red flag laws and raising the age limit to buy certain guns.
Who would administer, for example, the background checks and red flag laws that “common sense” gun restricters propose? Would it be the same government that fabricated evidence in a FISA Court proceeding to secure a wiretap to spy on Carter Page for the crime of supporting a politician the FBI opposed?
Would it be the same FBI that hatched a plot to kidnap the Michigan governor, with that truth only coming out during the prosecution of four of the Americans entrapped in the scheme?
Would it be the same government that besieged and burned down a building full of women and children in 1993 in Waco, Texas? Would it be the same government that told the world that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that was why we needed to start a lengthy war there?
Gun control is a tool of the left to exert citizen control. Both sides should oppose it.