One thing about anti-Second Amendment types is that they never stop pushing. They say they don't want to take our guns away--well, most of them say that, even if they don't mean it--but they also never tell us exactly where the line is, other than not wanting a total gun ban. The moment they get what they're currently asking for, which is always termed as some kind of "common sense" gun control that is just a simple ask from them, they start wanting more and more.
Yet my buddy Dan Wos has looked at the long history of gun control in this country, and he's got some thoughts about it.
Why are anti-gun politicians so determined to create a national gun registry and expand red flag laws? It’s not about safety. It’s about control. There is a plan, and it’s been unfolding for nearly a century.
The roots of this effort trace back to 1934, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt capitalized on the violence of the Prohibition era to push through the National Firearms Act (NFA). Until then, gun laws were largely left to the states. But Roosevelt’s so-called New Deal for Crime introduced one of the first federal gun control laws, complete with taxation and registration. He justified it by pointing the blame at gangsters and targeting machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and even grenades. The price tag was steep at the time: $200 per registered item.
It wasn’t about crime control then, and it isn’t about safety now. The NFA was the first domino in a long line of federal and state efforts to build lists of lawful gun owners, in the hopes of ultimately disarming them. Modern-day gun control advocates have simply expanded on that same playbook. Today, they hide behind buzzwords like “universal background checks” and “extreme risk protection orders,” but the goal hasn’t changed: registration, followed by confiscation.
Every few years, Democrats and their allies in the media trot out the same tired propaganda talking points: “gun-violence,” “assault weapon,” “weapons of war,” and any other made up terms they can think of to justify tighter gun restrictions while claiming that they are trying to reduce violence. But notice the hypocrisy: they don’t really want to stop violence; they want to use it. They keep violent criminals on the streets, refuse to prosecute offenders, and then point to the resulting chaos as proof that “we need more gun laws.” Chicago is their case study. Chicago is a city with strict gun control and rampant violence. What might look like a policy failure to you, is not a failure to them. it’s the plan working as intended. Violence serves Democrats. It keeps law-abiding citizens afraid, gun-related death numbers high, and the justification for new gun laws endless.
Honestly, it's a harsh take, and while the optimist in me would really like to say Dan is wrong and being way too cynical about things, I can't.
The truth is that if they were sincere about their actions, then the fact that they keep pushing for things that have been shown not to work at all would mean they're all insane by the much-accepted definition of "doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result." They often claim that if they just make it harder to get a gun at all, that will trickle down to criminals, and we'd be much better off.
When that doesn't work, though, they just ramp things up more and more.
They probably all know that criminals get guns illegally, and making it harder to buy a gun in a lawful manner won't stop or even inhibit the bad guys; it's that there will be fewer good guys to stop them, and that will lead to more violent crime with firearms they can use as leverage to call for even more restrictions on responsible citizens just trying to go about their day's peacefully and lawfully.
And then we have the fact that the more laws there are, the harder it becomes to comply with them.
In her book Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand wrote:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
You cannot rule innocent people nearly as easily as you can people afraid of being arrested for nothing. That's why Tate Adamiak's case is so terrifying for most of us. He clearly did nothing wrong, but they punished him anyway.
But when they make it impossible to even try to follow the law, which enough laws will do, then Adamiak's case is the outlier. You're guilty of something, and if you show them the man, they'll show you the crime.
That's where we're going. That's likely always been the plan.
And it's up to us to stop them cold.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
Help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member