And that’s kind of the rub, isn’t it?

See, this isn’t an office that exists to serve the people, necessarily. It serves one particular side of a particular debate. That’s very clear, too, based on who is involved.

The office’s director will be longtime Biden aide Stefanie Feldman, who, as America’s 1^st Freedom previously reported, led the policy efforts for the 2020 Biden/Harris ticket and routinely voiced her animus for constitutionally-protected freedoms. It will also include Robert Wilcox, a former senior director of the anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety, as deputy director. Wilcox also worked for the anti-gun group Brady.

“[W]hat is clear is that Biden is determined to use the White House’s own (apparently vast) budget to employ professional gun-control advocates at the public’s expense,” reported the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (ILA).

…

“The @WhiteHouse is the People’s House, so it’s only fitting that the Biden-Harris Administration is launching a new office focused on one of the American people’s top concerns: keeping their families safe from gun violence,” wrote John Feinblatt, president of Everytown.

…

The “Office of Gun Violence Prevention” is no more than an attempt by this administration to employ professional gun-control advocates and amplify its propaganda with taxpayer dollars, as noted by NRA-ILA.

Precisely.

I’ve had my problems with the NRA, but I don’t mind saying when they get it right, either, which is more often than not. This is a prime example.

First, let’s understand that the White House doesn’t really have its own money. It has our money. It has money gathered from the American taxpayer by the IRS and distributed by Congress.

So yeah, our money is going toward an office specifically created to strip our rights away as best it can.

What’s more, there’s absolutely no pretensions of it being anything else. Professional gun control advocates are going to be drawing a paycheck from this office, supposedly in the name of reducing gun violence but, in truth, pushing gun control.

And as we all know, those are not the same things.

Violent crime as a whole is a complex thing. We don’t fully understand why someone decides to engage in violence as a vocation. There have long been theories about their childhood or economics or whatever, but there’s no simple explanation. If there were, we’d have a simple way to address it that has nothing to do with gun control.

Yet restricting guns in any way doesn’t really do much to stop violent crime. At best, it might reduce gun violence, but my question then becomes whether or not you’d feel better if someone you loved was stabbed to death instead of shot to death.

I’m pretty sure we’d all answer that no, we wouldn’t feel any better.

Hell, as I write this, it’s the sixth anniversary of a good friend of mine dying in a car accident. Another friend of ours posted a photo of her with this friend and another mutual friend who was killed in a mass shooting. I don’t feel better that Michael was killed in a car crash rather than shot like Kim was. Who would?

Yet this office exists primarily to pretend that guns are the problem with violence and, as such, must be restricted into oblivion. To do this, it’s taking our tax dollars and giving it to people who push gun control for a living, thus meaning we’re not just debating private entities who seek the opposite of what we want but also the entire United States government.

It’s tilting the scales and making us pay for it.

The good news, however, is that it won’t help them. It won’t because the Constitution is on our side here. The Bruen decision set the stage and, frankly, gun control advocates haven’t adjusted. They’ve just tried to pretend nothing has changed.

The outcome is predictable so long as we carry on the fight.