Next to abortion, gun control has become a top issue for the anti-gun progressive crowd. After the Supreme Court issued its ruling on New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, progressives are all in a tizzy at the idea that law-abiding Americans will now have an easier time obtaining licenses to carry in states like California, whose leadership never saw a gun restriction they did not love.
Even now, Democratic politicians are brainstorming ways to counteract the court’s ruling by imposing measures making it more difficult to carry a firearm outside the home. New York City Mayor Eric Adams, along with Gov. Kathy Hochul, vowed to concoct other rules to restrict the carrying of guns in public. California’s justice department just got busted doxxing gun owners. Attorney General Rob Bonta has also stated he would look at other ways to prevent gun owners from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The debate over the right to bear arms has been raging for decades. The anti-gunner lobby has fought long and hard for the idea that only government officials should be allowed to carry guns. Of course, they make these arguments under the guise of decreasing gun violence. But if this were true, they would be more focused on implementing policy that curbs the proliferation of illegally-obtained firearms, which account for the vast majority of gun crimes in America. Indeed, the Department of Justice in 2019 conducted a study revealing that only about 10% of gun crimes are committed by individuals who obtained their weapons within the confines of the law.
After the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, Republican and Democratic senators worked together to pass a bipartisan piece of anti-gun legislation. But there was something conspicuously absent from the measure: Meaningful policy to stop the purchase and sale of illegal firearms. That’s right. Most of the provisions in the law would only make it harder for law-abiding Americans to obtain firearms. This clearly is not about decreasing gun violence.
So what, pray tell, is the anti-gunner lobby up to?
There are likely several reasons. But I believe the primary purpose behind much of the push to limit gun ownership has to do with progressive efforts to keep people dependent on the state. This is especially true as the rate of people purchasing firearms has skyrocketed over the past few years – especially among black Americans.
After the George Floyd riots, surging crime rates, and even the two mass shootings, it became woefully apparent that the government is rarely in a position to prevent gun homicides. Indeed, police typically arrive after the crime is already committed. As the saying goes: “When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.”
This realization is, in large part, what has prompted more Americans to arm themselves. The reality is that people are waking up to the fact that the government is not responsible for our well-being – we are. When a person realizes this, they understand why it is necessary to own a firearm. This further reinforces the notion that we cannot rely on the state to protect us. Moreover, we do not need the state to protect our families. This type of thinking flies in the face of progressive orthodoxy, which requires the government to be our ultimate protector.
When people become less reliant on the government, they are much more difficult to control – and intimidate. The statists among us can’t have that, now can they? Nevertheless, they know the tide is turning and while a slight majority of Americans still support gun control laws, more and more are waking up to the reality that they are the first line of defense if someone threatens them. At this rate, the anti-gunner lobby won’t be able to sustain its crusade against legal gun ownership much longer.
