Today, we’re diving into a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where some of our elected officials talk about firearms in ways that make you wonder if they’ve ever actually handled one.
From calling bump stocks ‘enhancements’ to being ‘astounded’ that Americans have an individual right to own guns, these statements are more than just out of touch—they’re dangerous.
But don’t worry, I’m here to break down what they’re saying, what’s actually true, and why this conversation matters to every gun owner—and every American who values their rights.
Ma’am, yes, we are ‘awash’ with guns in this country—but that’s by design. That’s not some unexpected twist in America’s story; it’s exactly what the Founders intended. If you’ve got a nation with over 300 million people, and the founders made sure we’d have a Constitution that protects our right to defend ourselves, you bet they expected—and wanted—there to be plenty of firearms around. Why? Because they knew that a free people need the means to protect themselves, not just from common criminals but from potential tyranny. That’s literally the whole point of the Second Amendment.
So sitting here, trying to make it sound like the presence of firearms is inherently a bad thing is, frankly, missing the point. Guns aren’t the villains here. Guns don’t have little gremlin-like personalities, lying in wait to cause chaos as soon as nobody’s looking. Guns aren’t ‘causing’ anything. They don’t get ‘fed after midnight’ and then suddenly go rogue.
What we’re really facing is a people problem. Bad actors will always exist, and that’s exactly why good people need to be able to protect themselves. Guns are tools; it’s the misuse of those tools by people with bad intentions that’s the issue. And the answer isn’t to demonize the tools; it’s to address the behaviors and the factors driving them. This isn’t complicated logic—it’s just common sense.”
Can someone explain to me how a government official in a country with a Second Amendment finds it ‘astounding’ that our Supreme Court ruled individuals have a right to own firearms? Are we really surprised by this? Did they think the Second Amendment was just a punchline, some long-standing prank, or maybe that it got slipped into the Constitution by a sneaky outsider?
This amazement at a ruling affirming individual rights shows just how far removed they are from the actual intent of the Constitution.
Because what’s the alternative here? If we don’t have an individual right to bear arms, that leaves only one group in the country with guns: the government. Oh, that’s right, and who’s part of the government? Yes, ma’am, you are. So, maybe that’s why the ruling seems so baffling to you.
Ma’am, the only ‘unintended consequences’ of the Bruen decision were that it finally stopped states from rigging concealed carry permit processes to make it practically impossible for ordinary people to get a license. For years, states like New York set up these so-called ‘permit processes’ that looked fair on paper but were really just hoops designed to keep regular citizens from carrying. The Bruen decision said, ‘Enough. If you’re going to have a permitting process, it has to be accessible and fair, not a bureaucratic nightmare that only the elite or those in government can navigate.’
This right here is what happens when you give people a little bit of information and suddenly they think they’re experts. Watching a video of how fast a gun can shoot doesn’t make you a subject matter expert on firearms, yet here you are, trying to pass legislation about something you clearly don’t understand.
A bump stock isn’t some magic enhancement that turns a gun into a superweapon. It’s literally just a piece of plastic that modifies the way a gun can be fired. It doesn’t make the gun more ‘lethal’ in any technical sense, and last I checked, a firearm’s purpose is to be lethal when needed to defend oneself. Trying to make guns ‘less lethal’ makes zero sense, especially when the good guys need them to be effective in protecting themselves.
And this idea that ‘the less lethal a gun is, the safer everyone will be’ is dangerously flawed. You make it harder for good people to defend themselves, not easier. In the case of the Las Vegas shooting, the shooter’s lethality wasn’t due to a bump stock—it was because he had an overwatch position over hundreds of people in a confined area. He could’ve done the same level of damage with a standard AR-15 without any modifications. In fact, a lot of people argue bump stocks actually make the weapon less accurate and harder to control. But I’m not even going to get lost in the technical weeds here. The bottom line is this: guns are lethal tools. That’s their purpose. And in the right hands, they protect lives.
Why do they keep getting away with this lie? I’ve debunked it so many times, it’s exhausting. Gun manufacturers do not have immunity from all consequences related to their products. They’re protected from frivolous lawsuits that attempt to blame them just because someone used a firearm in a crime. That’s the immunity they have—protection from politically motivated lawsuits aimed at bankrupting gun companies by holding them accountable for the actions of people they have no control over.
If a gun manufacturer produces a defective gun that injures someone because of negligence, you can absolutely sue them. This isn’t some blanket immunity that lets them dodge all responsibility. It’s simply protection against baseless lawsuits aimed at tearing down the gun industry by suing them for actions they didn’t commit. We don’t do this for any other industry. If someone crashes a car because they were drunk, we don’t turn around and hold the car manufacturer responsible. But somehow, they think it’s reasonable to hold a gun manufacturer liable because someone misused their product?
Yet, here we are again, with this same false claim being repeated over and over. They’re banking on people not knowing the actual facts to push their agenda. It’s frustrating to see this misinformation continue unchecked, but I’ll keep calling it out every time.”
“Pay close attention here—these folks are crafty with their language. What he’s really saying is that he doesn’t want to touch the issue of holding gun manufacturers liable, and there’s a reason for that. He knows there’s already a federal law—PLCAA—that prevents these kinds of lawsuits from being weaponized against the gun industry. So instead, he tries to take a backdoor approach by suggesting that firearms, because they’re ‘prone to misuse,’ should be regulated for ‘safety improvements,’ just like cars.
But here’s the problem with that logic: the only way to stop someone intent on misusing a gun is to remove it entirely. Making firearms ‘safer’ to prevent crime? That’s not about safety; it’s about control. Sure, they could argue for things like electronic locks or fingerprint activation, but here’s the deal—I don’t want my gun relying on electronics that could fail in a crisis. The whole point of a firearm is reliability, especially in a self-defense scenario. The last thing I want is for my safety to depend on whether some sensor decides to work when I need it most.
And, let’s be real, the tech for all this ‘smart gun’ talk isn’t even there yet. But they don’t care about that. They’d happily make us the guinea pigs because it gives them control. If someone wants to put an electronic safety feature on the market, go ahead—let the free market decide if it’s effective. But don’t mandate that all of us use untested tech as our only option for protection. I’ll pass. Thanks, but no thanks.”
Now, here’s the deal: we have to be relentless in growing the gun community—and by ‘gun club,’ I mean the Anti-Anti-2A Club. At the end of the day, members of Congress are still beholden to their constituents. But to get them to listen, we need enough people making noise for our side, and that means bringing more people into the Anti-Anti-2A Club.
How do we do that? We take people out shooting. We have real conversations. We share facts, information, data—and yes, videos like this one. Little by little, person by person, we grow our numbers. With that, we start to see a cultural shift where more people understand the importance of the Second Amendment and why it’s essential to protect it. And that shift puts real pressure on Congress to follow what the people want.
The Anti Anti-2A Social Club is more than a name—it’s a stand against misinformation, double standards, and the relentless attacks on our rights. It’s for those who are done being quiet and ready to push back against a narrative that seeks to misrepresent and marginalize us.
They say the first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one. But here’s the thing: we’re not trying to “solve” anything. We’re here to embrace our rights, to stand firm, and to protect what’s ours.
This isn’t just another t-shirt; it’s a symbol of defiance and a call to action for everyone who refuses to be silenced. The Anti Anti-2A Social Club T-shirts, hats, and drinkware represent a movement that knows our rights are non-negotiable and proudly defends them.
So click the link below and wear it with pride. Because being part of the Anti Anti-2A Social Club isn’t just a choice—it’s a badge of honor.
