“Gun lady” Dana Loesch recently appeared on “The Rubin Report” and made some compelling arguments that exposed the hypocrisy of the anti-gun community.
“A lot of people think they are anti-gun, but they’re really not. They are anti-you-having a gun,” Dana told BlazeTV host Dave Rubin.
“I always tell people, if you’re anti-gun, you shouldn’t believe in calling the police to come with their guns … you shouldn’t hire private security if you’re anti-gun … If we’re to have discussion about legitimate class warfare, I would think the idea that only people wealthy enough to hire private security to protect them, that’s incredibly classist,” she continued.
I think there’s definitely something to be said for that mentality. But I think it goes a little deeper. And Loesch alluded to it. Fundamentally, gun control advocates support infringing 2A rights because they are either (a) afraid of guns or (b) too inept to train to competently handle firearms or (c) some combination of (a) and (b).
So what happens is that because these fearful incompetents can’t defend themselves they have to outsource their personal protection to someone else. If they got money, like Michael Bloomberg, they hire private security. If they don’t, they rely on the government.
They want us to do the same because as close-minded fearful incompetents they believe that like them we are also fearful incompetents who cannot possibly learn how to safely and responsibly keep and bear arms for traditionally lawful purposes like self-defense inside and outside the home.
SEE ALSO: Canadian Government Admitted in 2018 That Gun Bans Don’t Reduce Crime
In their minds, gun ownership is a privilege reserved for a certain class, mainly “authority” figures like cops, armed guards, soldiers, and government agents (It’s part of the reason why they mistakenly interpret the 2A as a collective right as opposed to an individual one).
The common citizen cannot be trusted to own guns because deep down they don’t trust themselves to own guns. As Loesch observes, their cowardice is projected onto us.
What results from this mentality are laws that purportedly seek to reduce crime but effectively disarm law-abiding citizens. Perfect example is the ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Policy wonks at government institutions in both the U.S. and Canada have admitted that prohibitions on certain classes of firearms do not reduce crime!
Yet, Canada just recently enacted a sweeping ban on many popular semiautomatic rifles and, if given the chance, presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden would do the same. From JoeBiden.com, “As president, Biden will”:
- Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons.
- Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act.
- Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.
- Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.
The anti-gun mindset falls apart under the slightest bit of scrutiny. When the SHTF people want armed responders present, ASAP. They don’t want to find themselves in a “gun-free zone.”
It’s why millions of Americans bought firearms for the first time during the COVID-19 pandemic and thousands more took up arms when the George Floyd rioting began. They recognized that their best chance to survive, come what may, was to be armed and ready.
The reality is that if there isn’t a good guy with a gun at the scene when trouble starts that is the first call people make. Rightfully so. Armed responders save lives, be it a local cop or licensed concealed carrier.
To Loesch’s central point, only a hypocrite would be entirely dependent on the one while completely vilifying the other.
Wrong. You left out the best (2) guides there are –
(1.) history – documented, not the adulterated re-write
(2.) my gut – it has never failed me
Ms. Loesch speaks with conviction and celerity.
Sans teleprompter; [she said] [excerpted]]
“We we live in a reality where Freedom scares some Freedom scares people some people cannot handle freedom because they don’t I think trust themselves and they don’t trust other people and there are going to be people that are going to abuse their freedom and even after they have been caught and they have faced Justice and they have been punished they’re still going to re-offend and they’re still going to choose to do bad things with their free will…”
I’d warrant folks that “Freedom scares…” and whether separate or same groups “cannot handle freedom…”, defines a position in “don’t (I think) trust themselves and they don’t trust other people” perfectly!
Freedom scares them because they did little or nothing to EARN it.
They cannot handle freedom because they’ve not learned to EXERCISE it.
Therefore, with out such confidence, cannot TRUST themselves, hence at a loss to TRUST others.
Dana is right “THEY are against YOU having a gun… But I think she missed an important sub-group of anti-gunners. A growing percentage simple want you to be unable to resist all that they the know is “BEST” for YOU, according to THEM.
Both Parties are filled with individuals who believe that there are two sets of rules for guns, healthcare, stock-trading, taxation, and sexual deviants. Rich powerful people don’t pay taxes, suffer the law, or protect themselves the way the rest of society must.
Even during this violent period of unrest in America they are pushing for gun control. The police can’t protect themselves from a violent mob but we are being told they will protect us from armed criminals. Even if they took every legal way to get a firearm, the black market will fill that void. During this time of all these dangerous conditions, it has proven lack of action against these bad people only emboldens them. The democratic agenda has shown its ugly face during the pandemic. They will take away all our rights for our own safety. The same thing they say about taking away our guns.
The persons enumerated on this list are prohibited by federal law to have access to weapons, any person who:
1. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
2. Is a fugitive from justice;
3. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
4. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
5. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
6. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
7. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
8. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
9. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
10. Has a record of being a felon.
Why would you not be in favor of this?
Correct. Ant gunners want you to cower in fear just like they do when the savage come to loot them.
I don’t disagree with the overall message but there are almost as many typos as times Dana repeats herself on her radio program.
Irregardless of your opinion , you cannot deny she is a
very intelligent , as well as a very attractive woman .
I find her opinions quite on point and informative .
Sorry you don’t feel the same way .
Dana has exceptional credential when she speaks on the “anti” gun crowd. They are absolutely in favor of YOU not having guns, while they have all that they want. My challenge is for Nasty Nancy Pelosi to walk down the streets in Atlanta, GA. without her security detachment. She would have peed in her pants to have to do so. Yet, she has no objection to us “normal” citizens having to do the same. Note that she and her anti-gun cronies live in gated communities with ARMED security roving about. She doesn’t care about ordinary people because she and her cretinous crowd think that the “ordinary” people are not worth protecting. Besides, if the normal people all had guns, just think what would happen to all her illegal alien supporters!
If people would just look back at History they would then think that Citizens having guns for self protection is a good thing. During the war with Japan during WW11 when the leader of Japans armed Forces was asked if he would ever attack the American Homeland he said absolutely not. He was then asked why and his answer was ” because behind every blade of grass would be an American Citizen with a gun”. Now think about Germany. Hitler took the guns away from every Citizen of Germany, then went on to murder millions of the Citizens of Germany that he deemed didn’t deserve to live. Now what would eventually happen in America if the Citizens right to bear arms, any type of weapon that the Citizen desired is banned? The same thing that happened in Germany with Hitler in charge. We already know that most of our Government is crooked as hell. So how long would it take for someone in our Government to come up with the idea that the Government should exterminate anyone who did not agree with the Government? If you do not believe that this could happen then watch the news or read on the internet and you will see that it is happening all over the world right now. “DO NOT LET OUR GOVERNMENT DISARM IT’S CITIZENS. You’ll be sorry if you do.
“The idea that supporters of gun control are doing something akin to what Hitler’s Germany did to strip citizens of guns in the run-up to the Second World War is historically inaccurate and offensive, especially to Holocaust survivors and their families.” He only took guns away from Jews. Get your facts straight!
Wasn’t that enough?
Thanks for speaking up.
ND and others have repeated that so many times even everybody thinks it’s a fact. And boy is it a FEEL GOOD FAKE FACT.
That example of Third Reich confiscation does not reinforce your statement very well. Contrary to intent, it focused on and made targeting of a SPECIFIC GROUP all that much easier.
That is not merely opinion or observation, it occurred.
Most would consider that ‘factual’.
Dana put it a nutshell for us
Just another example of why I’ve been saying for 20+ years now, “gun control” has little to do with public safety or controlling firearms commerce … it’s really about PEOPLE CONTROL.
More Americans were killed with guns between 1979 and 1997 than were killed in battle in ALL wars since 1775. “More Americans have died just since 1968 from gun incidents — suicides, accidents, and homicides — than died in every war in U.S. history. The deadliest war the U.S. has ever had is the war we waged against ourselves.” Total from all wars is 1,171,177; total from guns since 1968 is 1,384,171.
REGULATION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS INFRINGEMENT. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” U.S. Supreme Court: District of Columbia V. Heller, 2008. Antonin Scalia.
And yes, I am a gun owner.
I would have to do some homework to verify your claims. But, in the meantime, what really is the point of your post? You seem to promote the same deceitful mantra as the Left, claiming firearms are somehow the only “bogeyman” that is responsible for the will of a perpetrator to either commit murder, suicide, or misuse the weapon effecting a lethal accident.
So, Mr. “Gun Owner,” you seem to be actually Anti-Gun by regurgitating the same talking points from the Left used to cover their disarmament agenda. Tell me it ain’t so.
What would have happened if Germany had won WW II ? Guess you didn’t think about that.
You’re a hypocrite, is what you are. And something tells me, that you yourself have not fought in any of these battles you mention; keep mention of the dead out of your mouth. You’re not worthy to speak of them. You’re nothing but another head of cattle.
Sound the Charge.
Owning a gun does NOT make you an authority on anything – not Constitutional law, not the 2nd Amendment, not firearms, not anything. It means you own a gun, which in and of itself means very little really. It most certainly doesn’t mean you support the rights of gun owners and your comments indicate the exact opposite. The 2nd most important thing to the founders of this nation was the RIGHT of the people to bear arms. Furthermore that RIGHT was not to be infringed upon. Actually says ALOT don’t you think ? I believe you referred to it as “regulation”. The 2nd Amendment was INFRINGED upon in the 1930’s, 1960’s and 1990’s. It was tolerated each time for various reasons – the “greater good” premise, built-in exceptions, etc. If this idiot Biden attempts an all-out BAN, we’ll see how well such INFRINGEMENTS go over. Not very, this I can guarantee.
When Americans wake up and understand that the enemy of our freedoms have adopted the same communist ideology of Joseph Stalin maybe they will fight like their lives depend on it. Because their lives do. Its not a joke or a passing fad.
The Democratic Party must disarm all citizens in order to carry out a full communist conversion of the US. Armed citizens cannot be enslaved. Remember its the Democrats that were the slavers and the men of the KKK. Now they want to enslave all Americans, not just the Black Americans
This is why we must be prepared to fight the communists, the Antifa, and the BLM. And fight hard and long. Losing to the communists is not an option. The police may stand down. The National Guard may not exist.
So its going to be up to the Militia, the Constitutional Militia to defend the Flag and the country from a communist takeover.
How did the country change so rapidly ? Americas first Communist president. Barack Obama.
Everybody knows that Russia’s “Internet Research Agency” uses garbage like this comment to encourage civil unrest and domestic violence in America.
If you Russian troll farms were a little more subtle, y’all wouldn’t be so obvious.
Obama is a pinko fucking commie!
No, Obama, Mr. “Fundamentally change America” himself is not a commie. He’s an anti-American, pro-Islam globalist.
Wrong on the Communist part. Obama was essentially raised & mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, an arch-Communist. Don’t think that concretely molded young Barry Soetoro’s mind? Think again.
Hey (P)Ricky, quit watching cnn, if you had any brain cells you would realize that the left wing media, BLM, and antifa are causing civil unrest and domestic violence in America.
His comment was spot-on. Take your Left-wing, subversive ass out of Our country(doubt if you’re even in the USA), “y’all.”
You’re the real troll!
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The problem is that you cannot distinguish between opinion and fact. An opinion is something that someone believes to be true. A fact is something that is true. You saying it is true does not make it so. This is known as The Wishful Thinking Fallacy.
This fallacy is committed when someone concludes that something must be true in virtue of what he or she wants to be true (or doesn’t want to be false) instead of what the evidence suggests. You treat facts as opinions; however, facts are facts, and opinions are opinions and never the twain shall meet…”a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” (Paul Simon.)
When facts and logic fail to control choices, only emotion and resentment are left as a guide.