One issue I have with gun control jihadists is that there’s no consistency in their arguments. They say they respect the Second Amendment, then do everything they can to infringe upon a right that “shall not be infringed.” They say they don’t want to take your guns, while claiming the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to you, as an individual, anyway.
It goes on and on.
At the Orange County Register, the editorial board has had enough, and they’re lashing out at some anti-gun voices.
On Aug. 7 Rep. Dave Min, D-Irvine, pushed for stricter gun laws on stage with former Rep. Gabby Giffords of Arizona at a town-hall event in Laguna Woods before 450 people. She co-founded the Giffords gun-control advocacy group after surviving a mass shooting in 2011 at a constituent meeting in Tucson.
“We can continue, or we can act,” Giffords said. “We can vote, and we can be on the right side of history.”
But consider this Giffords X post on Aug. 8, the very next day: “Big cities saw a 19% drop in homicides in 2024, according to the FBI. They also found murders overall across the country dropped by nearly 15%.”
If crime is declining, shouldn’t we refrain from unneeded new laws? Evidently, not even declining crime can stop Democrats from wanting to curtail Second Amendment rights.
Giffords’ X posts properly lament mass shootings that strike across this large, diverse country of 340 million people. But we also need to take into account how honest, law-abiding citizens with guns stop crimes. On July 26 in Michigan, a man who stabbed 11 people at a Walmart finally was stopped by a former U.S. Marine and Iraq War veteran with a gun.
First, let me say that anyone who tries to pressure you by claiming to speak for the “right side of history” is lying. History doesn’t have sides. It has interpretations later on that are filtered through the lens of modern thought, but what’s acceptable today won’t be tomorrow, and we have no freaking clue what that will look like. You can’t speak about the “right side of history” because there will never be a universally decided right side of almost any issue.
Especially when you’re trying to curtail someone’s rights.
Now, with that out of the way, let’s talk about the editorial board’s arguments here. Crime is declining. Homicide rates are dropping a great deal, and that’s a very good thing, as we didn’t enact a bunch of new gun control laws. Crime is being reduced via other means, or just because whatever factors led to the increase no longer exist. Either/or for our purposes here.
Yet they keep talking about how vital gun control is, as if nothing has happened.
That’s because, despite their protestations, it’s never about violent crime. It’s never about anything other than their own fears of an armed populace.
Mass murders are awful, to be sure, but guns are used to save more lives than they’re used to take. That’s just a simple fact that the anti-gunners routinely ignore. Situations like what happened in Michigan don’t make their favored set of statistics because the bad guy wasn’t shot and killed, which is by design. Not every crime stopped by a good guy with a gun results in someone dying, but they don’t want anyone to see that. They ignore it.
Because it’s inconvenient.
Things like the Greenwood Park Mall shooting get left out of the discussion, and other defensive gun uses in active shooter situations are ignored as well, because it’s not about mass shootings. It’s about restricting guns and not letting facts get in the way of it.
I’m glad to see the OC Register call these people out. It’s nice to see a pro-gun editorial since most are anything but.
Of course, Giffords has the help of the mainstream media, which continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
