America is currently in the midst of a horrible string of mass shootings that seems to be endless. In Ames, Iowa, two innocent people were slain outside of a church before the shooter killed himself on Thursday. On Wednesday, four people were killed at a Tulsa, Oklahoma, medical building, ten people in Buffalo, New York in a grocery store were slaughtered on May 14 and 21 people, including 19 children, were gunned down in Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas.
As we pointed out this week, a 2017 study found that the "contagion" effect of copycat mass shooters is a real thing and usually occurs roughly 7 to 13 days after the original shooting. We appear to be in a horrifying loop of this contagion effect. According to the study:
In instances of mass shootings, the media appear largely responsible for providing the model to imitate. Although there are a variety of strategies that could function in tandem to alter the likelihood of a mass shooting, changing the way the media report mass shootings is one important step in preventing and reducing imitation of these acts. Furthermore, it is likely that media-prompted imitation extends beyond mass shootings. A media effect has been shown with suicide, is implied in mass shootings, and may play a role in other extreme events such as home-grown terrorism and racially motivated crimes.
While media coverage certainly plays a role, there are many factors that are contributing to the rash of violence in America right now. Locking people down, ending the careers of adults and isolating children has had profoundly negative effects on society.
After two years of constant fear, isolation, and destitution, many Americans are gripped by a feeling of hopelessness and despair. We've reported multiple studies on this phenomenon and we may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Instead of reckoning with this new reality and studying the problem to come to a solution, many people are begging for the same tired tactics that failed to prevent the violence in the first place. Their response to the tragedy is to centralize more power, control, and weapons in the hands of the corrupt group of people who have proven time and again they cannot keep you safe.
As we've pointed out before, giving up your rights and freedoms for perceived security is not a good strategy. Yet here we are. The cognitive dissonance it takes to simultaneously hate cops while demanding that cops be the only ones who have guns is astonishing. Unfortunately, however, it is the norm.
As many readers of the Free Thought Project understand, gun control does nothing to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns and carrying out horrible acts of violence. What gun control actually does is take the right of self-defense away from law-abiding citizens while only allowing criminals and the government to be armed.
Because gun control must be enforced — with government guns — the term "anti-gun" is essentially a misnomer. The anti-gun crowd is more about the centralized control of guns, making them "pro-gun" but only when those guns are in the hands of a small group of corrupt authoritarians and their order followers.
This is why you see people like Kamala Harris and Joe Biden calling for gun bans while simultaneously surrounded by dozens of guns. They aren't "anti-gun" at all. As the dozens of guns around them illustrate, they are very pro-gun but only when they are in the hands of their corrupt friends and their order followers.
Anyone who has read basic history knows that when a small group of corrupt authoritarians and their order followers are the only ones to have guns — really bad things happen. Nevertheless, we continue to see a constant barrage of attacks on our right to self-defense and it is getting closer to home, now more than ever.
This week, Canadian Prime Minister and would-be tyrant, Justin Trudeau announced that Canada will be seeking a national freeze on the ownership of handguns.
"What this means is that it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns anywhere in Canada," he said.
Just two years ago, Canadians could own AR-15s but on May 1, 2020, Trudeau banned over 1,500 models of rifles and guns. Now, two years later and they are coming for the handguns. Now, only the Canadian government and their order followers will soon have guns.
Given the sheer tyrannical nature of the Trudeau regime over the last two years — barring the unvaccinated from travelling, arresting anti-lockdowners, freezing the bank accounts of peaceful protesters, and forced quarantines — the idea of Trudeau and his cronies being the only ones with guns is terrifying.
What's also terrifying is the sheer quickness with which it happened.
Though statists often think that government is this infallible tool that can be wielded like a magic wand to bend society in their utopian direction, the fact is that government is made up of humans — many of whom are evil and corrupt. While the left would largely support centralization of guns in the hands of the Biden regime, what happens when another Trump comes along? Or something worse, like an invasion?
They would have surrendered their ability to defend themselves and arming those who wish to do them harm. As history has proven, this strategy, or rather lack thereof, always ends in mass human suffering.
Recommended for You
Sadly, the establishment left seems hypnotized in regard to this reality and the woke ideology has infiltrated the conversation as well — making it that much more diluted and illogical. Just last year, the ACLU declared that the Second Amendment is racist. Seriously.
Without a single fact to back up their claims, an article on the ACLU's website claimed "Anti-Blackness determined the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, and has informed the unequal and racist application of gun laws."
As those who have read history understand, this is not true at all. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Gun control — not gun rights — was pushed with the impetus of anti-Blackness behind it.
Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say anything about the color of one's skin determining their ability to own a weapon. However, slave-owning and racist lawmakers throughout history have attempted to disarm black citizens which is the exact opposite of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In fact, racist gun control goes back further than the constitution. Perhaps the first known attempt at disarming citizens in the new world occurred in 1751 when the French Black code was enacted requiring colonists to "stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane."
This attempt to disarm blacks was repeated under United States' rule 50 years later when the U.S. purchased the Louisiana territory. According to a paper published in the Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy:
When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude "free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms," including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews.
The Ku Klux Klan often times attempted to enact similar "Black Codes" that barred the newly freed slaves from exercising their basic civil rights. One such example of these new laws was an act passed in the state of Mississippi that stated:
no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine
This law clearly flies in the face of the Second Amendment, yet the ACLU takes their stance anyway.
After the passage of these laws, numerous studies concluded that the newly freed slaves had essentially been rendered defenseless against groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Disarming them, essentially made them slave once again — after their Second Amendment rights were removed.
Ida B. Wells, the leading journalist opposing lynching, agreed. In the nationally-circulated pamphlet Southern Horrors, Wells documented cases in Kentucky and Florida, “where the men armed themselves” and fended off lynch mobs. “The lesson this teaches,” Wells wrote, “is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”
As many in the Black community see the writing on the wall that is the racist history of gun control, they are running out in record numbers and purchasing firearms.
Black people owning guns have gone up 58.2 percent, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) — and gun groups like the “Not F**king Around Coalition (NFAC)” consist of armed social justice advocates who demand justice for George Floyd and Breonna Taylor.
Buying guns after cops murder unarmed innocent people has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protecting oneself from the overt aggression spilling out into the streets through the small group of authoritarians and their order followers.
The fact is that there are already hundreds of millions of guns on the streets, 3D printed guns are unstoppable and untraceable, and there are billions of rounds of ammo in circulation, much of which can be easily reloaded.
Attempting to ban guns would not only be a futile feat, it would likely lead to attacks on police and government buildings. Instead of calling for more centralization of power and weaponry in the hands of authoritarians and their minions, we need to examine America's violent history and attack the cause of what makes people want to murder innocent children.
Instead of removing the means of self defense for millions of Americans, we need to be honest about what "gun control" really is and its implications for facilitating mass violence. Problems are never solved by people surrendering rights and giving tyrants more power. It's time we understand this as a country.