“The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” St. George Tucker
America's ongoing, national debate on the subject of gun control and the true nature of the Second Amendment is emblematic of the wider debate over the continued relevance of the Constitution itself. It pits the Left against the Right, with only 'moderate' Republicans (more accurately characterized as Democrats in disguise) occupying the ideological middle ground. As with all matters constitutional, the Left – while intermittently paying lip service to America's founding document – work tirelessly in their attempts to relegate it to obsolescence.
At times, their intellectual foot soldiers are given licence to inform the media of their true position; realistically, how can “progressives” possibly evince fealty to a document conceived in the latter half of the eighteenth century which is predicated on the belief that men are born with certain God-given, inalienable rights? Progressives don't believe in God and they don't believe in the rights of the individual (unless the individual is them, naturally). They believe that the state grants us rights and what can be given can also be taken away. Therefore, they cannot believe in the Constitution; they just pretend that they do.
A further progressive deceit is to pretend that it is gun control that they are after. That, after a few sensible adjustments to the legal framework, this control will finally be arrived at and the job will be complete. They won't stop there, though. The end goal is the forfeiture of all civilian weapons or, more accurately, all law abiding citizens' weapons. The criminal element will clearly not surrender their weapons; firstly, because they aren't supposed to have them to start with and, secondly, because doing so would leave them vulnerable to other criminals and to the police. Therefore, any attempt to ban weapons will put the general population in a position of greater jeopardy. Nonetheless, this has been a goal of the Democratic Party since 1968.(1)
And so, as with those other rights that the state is intent on degrading – freedom of speech and freedom of assembly prominent among them – the progressive regime is coming at the Second Amendment with cudgels in both hands. They are also lying through their teeth, misrepresenting both the substance of the issue along with solutions and attempting to force through reforms that accomplish other ends instead. Ultimately, the regime doesn't actually care about public safety. It's not seeking to relieve its citizens of their firearms in a bid to prevent innocent people being killed. If that was a true objective, politicians and bureaucrats wouldn't be undermining law enforcement at every turn, but would instead be encouraging an overdue resurgence in policies such as stop and search.
None of this is to maintain that all in the American garden is rosy. Mass shootings now occur with a frequency that cannot be comfortably lived with. Nonetheless, as with all things, it helps to know the facts before searching for the solutions. Not the 'facts' that the elites believe to be true, such as the near certainty of a civil war due to a Far Right uprising.(2) Rather, a more sober look at why the Second Amendment exists, what the truth of the situation is, what could be done about it and the real reason they want to take the guns away.
History
The reasoning for the Second Amendment is straightforward. Americans enjoy(ed) certain rights:
“Those fundamental rights are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Implicit in the right to life and liberty is the right of self-defense, both against others and a tyrannical government. The idea of an armed citizenry as a bulwark against tyranny and governmental oppression lies at the heart of the Second Amendment.”(3)
Not particularly controversial; certainly not at the time, as the Republic had come into being via the exercise of force against what was regarded as a tyrannical government in London and, in truth, the amendment was merely a more precise articulation of a philosophy that once held sway across many democracies. Ordinary citizens had weapons and still had them 200 years later. And the Second Amendment itself is simple:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”(4)
Nonetheless, federal America has been trying to restrict the scope of the Amendment for well over a century, with much success. Many states have passed laws that are almost certainly unconstitutional. Every word of the Amendment has been fought over. Opponents have infringed mightily, restricting the ability to carry a firearm outside the home (particularly), which is the direct opposite of what it means to 'bear arms'. They've even tried to assert that 'a well regulated militia' refers to the federalized National Guard, which is clearly nonsense. How could the National Guard defend against governmental tyranny when it is itself controlled by the government?(5)
However, for many years, the evidence that might somehow validate an attempt to ban firearms just wasn't there. Indeed, prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, an adult could purchase a firearm from a department store catalog and have it delivered to their home.(6) In the handful of years prior to that, the average of mass shootings a year was precisely one. In the decade before that, there were none at all. Additionally, in the specific case of school shootings, only three occurred between 1903 and 1966.(7) This despite the fact that America has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. This is because there is no discernible relationship between the amount of firearms possessed by private citizens and the number of homicides.
Figure 1
Burgeoning problems
The escalation in American homicides had become noticeable by 1970. The historical range, extending as far back as 1950, is between 5 and 7.1 homicides per 100,000 people. Incidentally, that is still the range today, despite appearances to the contrary. But 1970 saw a rate of 8.8, by 1980 it was 10.4 and the rate had only declined marginally by 1990 (8.3). It wasn't until 2000 that 5.9 was reached and, ever since (with the exception of 2001 and 9/11) the rate has floated between 5 and 6.2.(8) In addition to the common or garden domestic murder, there are two categories of homicide that really stand out; the rise of mass shootings and the devastation being wreaked in black communities by other black men.
Only two mass shootings at schools were recorded between 1990 and 1998 and there were likewise only three between 1999 and 2010. Since then, however, there have been eight. And, at the time of this research, there had been 143 mass shootings so far this year. Interestingly, in total contradiction to the official narrative, only 4 of them were committed by white men.(9) The escalation has been exponential, in even the past few years. In 2018 there were 336 and yet last year there were 693.(10) This from a base in the mid-sixties of one per year. Clearly, the US is sick with a hideous malady, but it's not the one that the Establishment is keen to shove down our throats.
Figure 2
13/52 has become a meme, denoting as it does the fact that 13% of the population (African Americans) are responsible for 52% of the homicides.(11)
“Consider that young black men make up less than 6% of the population. Yet, according to an aggregation of news sources, this demographic committed 68% of mass shootings in 2019, 73% of the mass shootings in 2020, and so far [April 2021], 70% of mass shootings in 2021. For those same years, white men committed 14%, 14%, and 14%. Latinos held steady at 14%, 14%, and 16%. Asians committed 4% in 2019, and none in 2020 and 2021.”(12)
And here are some more statistics that are not dwelt on by the legacy media or the regime that they echo. Less than 2% of all prisoners had a gun that they had obtained from a retail outlet.(13) The remainder were illegally sourced. Not that many of these prisoners were inside due to a murder conviction. The prosecution rate has been dropping at the same rate as mass shootings have been rising.
Figure 3
Furthermore, the state with the most restrictive gun laws of all – California – is also the worst state for mass shootings. In 2021, there were six such incidents out of a total of 61 across 30 separate states.(14) 25% of all gun crime took place in a total of four cities; Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit and Washington DC. All these cities have strict gun laws.(15) Additionally, well over 95% of all mass shootings take place in 'gun free' zones. There have only been seven mass shootings since 1950 which buck this trend, for the obvious reason that shooters prefer a target rich environment that doesn't shoot back.(16) And lastly, on the numbers front, FBI data recording the weapons of choice in all the homicides in 2019 (when that information is known) show that out of 10,258 such murders, a rifle was used in just 364. Handguns were far more popular, being used in at least 6,365 slayings.(17)
What does all that information tell us? A number of conclusions can be drawn. The mass shooters (excluding gang related incidents) were all background checked when they acquired their legal firearms. Strict gun control laws don't stop mass shootings, nor homicides in general; they make them more likely. One racial group is hugely over-represented, both in terms of victims and offenders. Conviction rates for homicide have been in free-fall for decades; whatever deterrent possible capture and incarceration was has greatly diminished. Rifles aren't the problem weapon – handguns are. What the data doesn't tell us is why. Why the epidemic of violence started or why it continues. What we do know is that one definite factor is routinely overlooked and we can guess at the reason why.
Psychotropic drugs
In tandem with the rise in mass shootings and other homicides is the sudden explosion in the prescription of anti-depressants (SSRIs). The first such to hit the market was Prozac, in 1998. Within nine years, it had racked up an impressive 39,000 recorded adverse events.(18)
“This included hundreds of suicides, atrocious violent crimes, hostility and aggression, psychosis, confusion, distorted thinking, convulsions, amnesia and sexual dysfunction...”(19)
This should not have been a surprise. These drugs are also known to inflict what is known as 'emotional blunting', a chemical callousness and detachment that can result in acts of violence that would not have been contemplated previously. For instance, at least 37 mass shooters were known to either be using anti-depressants at the time of their offences, or shortly beforehand (20)(21) and there is ample academic evidence to prove a connection:
“Both clinical trial and pharmacovigilance data point to possible links between these drugs and violent behaviours. The legal cases outlined returned a variety of verdicts that may in part have stemmed from different judicial processes. Many jurisdictions appear not to have considered the possibility that a prescription drug may induce violence.”(22)
“This work shows that SSRI treatment appears to be associated with an increased risk for violent criminality in adults as well as adolescents, though the risk appears restricted to a small group of individuals...”(23)
How small that group of individuals may be is a moot point. Certainly, if the pool of people taking SSRIs is big enough, the problem individuals will be more plentiful. And the numbers are horrific. Between 1988 and 2008, anti-depressant use in the US rose by 400%.(24) By 2012, 11% of the population over the age of 12 were on them.(25) Not only that, but a review of the 484 drugs in the FDA database revealed that a mere 31 drugs were implicated in 78.8% of all incidences of violence against others, and that 11 of the 31 were anti-depressants.(26)(27) And yet, there is no let-up in the prescription of these drugs, despite the known risks and the fact that they are only effective in around 20% of cases – or perhaps not even that.(28) Instead, the problem is approached from the favored perspective – the gun itself and who gets to wield it.
Legislation, obfuscation and dirty tricks
Given the available evidence, one might think that any time and effort devoted to the problem of shooting violence in America might usefully target the black community and the problems with psychotropic drugs. And if the regime was genuinely devoted to the best possible outcomes, that is what would be happening now. But this is not the state's intent. That can be said with confidence when we delineate what they are doing instead. That is a familiar mix of inappropriate, unconstitutional lawfare, de facto firearms bans achieved by other means and a dirty tricks campaign conducted by state entities and others.
The Democrats haven't had a particularly good time of it lately. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has abruptly decided to do its job and actually rule on the constitutionality (or otherwise) on decisions that have been brought before it. As such, liberals' heads have been exploding on a regular basis. There was a ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency, holding that only state legislatures could impose restrictions on business in their state, not them.(29) This was long overdue; the tendency is for federal entities to usurp the democratic process and issue regulations that ought to voted on as legislation, instead. It then takes a legal challenge to void such regulation and that might take years as the case wound its way through the appellate courts. The system is, therefore, subject to abuse by someone ruthless enough to exploit.
Then there was the rumpus over Roe v Wade, whereby the court decided that the Constitution did not provide a 'right' for a woman to obtain an abortion.(30) What was lost in all the wailing and gnashing of teeth was the fact that the court merely remanded the decision back to the states. Nonetheless, as abortion is viewed as a sacred right to the progressives, who insist that the right to decide what people do to their own bodies is non-negotiable – unless it's a Covid 'vaccine, of course, and then the people need to shut up and do as they're told – the Leftists concerned themselves with predicting Armageddon.
And finally, the SCOTUS decision on a Second Amendment case (New York Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen), which held that the New York law banning citizens from carrying firearms outside the home was unconstitutional, which it clearly was as it insisted on the permit-holder showing good cause (31) – this is a clear case of infringement as it
“...violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public... Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.” Justice Clarence Thomas (32)
They also tossed four other gun control laws banning 'assault rifles' and magazines that were deemed 'high capacity'.(33) In all of these rulings, the court finally had the courage to undo bad law. The Leftist response to the Second Amendment decision was typically vacuous. Officials in New York were reportedly worried that more people would start carrying guns and that this would only exacerbate the current 'gun violence' problem. They failed to acknowledge that this was a problem of unlicensed guns (as it is everywhere) and that this law had nothing to say on that subject. Their speech was punctuated with the usual hyperbole; “not just reckless ...reprehensible ...frightful”. Biden himself reckoned it “contradicts common sense and the Constitution”, which seems a tad arrogant for a man with no legal training who can't read an auto-cue properly.
Two conservative judges undid some of the good by explicitly reminding states that they were still able to designate some areas 'gun free' zones. So, the New York Governor, with the usual Democratic arrogance, immediately drafted legislation (which then passed into law), making most of the state into a 'gun free' zone, as well as introducing other requirements that are even more restrictive and subjective than the ones that SCOTUS had repealed. Such as this abomination, which restricts permits to people
"having the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others."(34)
She simply ignored what the court had said and the Democratic majority in the state Senate did likewise. There is now precedent for a sitting Governor knowingly signing unconstitutional legislation into law in defiance of the Supreme Court. That's the standard now. These people are so sure that they are right that they cannot accept anybody, including the highest court in the land, telling them that they are wrong.
Not to be outmatched, Democrat lawmakers in the US Congress itself are also pushing the constitutional envelope. At present, there are two pieces of legislation working their way through committees. Firstly, an attempt to ban 'assault weapons' as arbitrarily defined by a Democrat from Rhode Island (35) and, secondly, an attempt to federalize the system of firearms licences – currently administered under state law – by introducing a requirement that the Department of Justice issue them instead.(36)
This is the same DoJ which is currently imprisoning Trump supporters for walking through the Capitol on January 6th 2020, but which also railroaded any investigation into Hunter Biden despite a laptop full of evidence of corruption. What can possibly go wrong? Fortunately, it's unlikely that either of these bills will pass, because the Republicans have already helped to pass one law that will be sufficient to cause lasting damage and may not want to have to explain to their base why they passed another.
The primary aim of the Left, in the interim at least, is to pass 'red flag' laws. The gun control act that has just been passed contained extra funding for states which introduce them. 'Red flag' laws are very much the thin end of the wedge, as these
“allow a family member, roommate, beau, law enforcement officer or any type of medical professional to file a petition [with a court] asking that a person’s home be temporarily cleared of firearms. It doesn't require a mental health check or an arrest.”(37)
Just like that. No need for a warrant. A court date in a month or so and around $10,000 in legal fees if you want a lawyer present. And all this would be because of a 'potential' threat, not one that has been realized. Perhaps more of a pre-crime or a perceived thought crime that might metastasize. In a world where the government is not corrupt and partisan, this might seem to be a good idea – a necessary safeguard. And, indeed, nineteen states already have these laws, despite the fact that there are provisions in place in all states which allow for a fairer process, with representation.(38)
It's worth remembering, however, that this is a government that uses 'anti-government', 'extremist' and 'domestic terrorist' interchangeably. The likelihood that they would administer what are known as ERPOs (Extreme Risk Protection Orders) impartially is vanishingly small. The odds are that the regime would continue to do what they do as a matter of habit – abuse the privilege to suit their own ends.
There are other tactics being deployed, all in the service of one overriding priority – to circumscribe law abiding Americans' access to firearms. The ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives) are attempting to rule by executive fiat, introducing new edicts to prevent people making guns at home from kits.(39) Further, the government previously sanctioned Russia by banning the importation of Russian made ammunition, normally the most plentiful and the cheapest, ensuring that the pinch is felt by Americans too. Prices for ordinary handgun rounds are up over 100%. The IRS added to the squeeze by buying up an additional 5 million rounds of ammunition between March and June.(40)
“If you make cigarettes more expensive, people will smoke less. If you make gasoline more expensive, people will drive less. And if you make ammunition more expensive, people will shoot less. It doesn’t matter how many guns you have if you can’t get bullets.”(41)
Then there are the dirty tricks. Ammunition companies report a tsunami of packages lost in the mail – the United States Postal Service seems to have suddenly deteriorated to the point where one company reported that only 6,500 out of 18,000 rounds sent actually made it to clients. Just to ensure that people got the message, the UPS then cancelled firearms related companies' corporate accounts.(42) Additionally, Biden recently made remarks to the effect that the liability shield that protects gun manufacturers should be repealed, which would lead to an avalanche of lawsuits by the relatives of victims of gun crime and a bankrupt firearms industry – which is the entire point of the proposal.(43) Not only that, it would necessitate a complete redrawing of the concept of liability:
“Criminal misuse of a product is not the same thing as negligence or the distribution of a defective product. Baseball bats are hard, knives are sharp, and guns are deadly. They are all designed to be so. There is no defect in any of these cases.”(44)
And so it goes on. The state and its entities are trying to institute a de facto gun ban by extra-judicial means. They'd like to pass legislation that would accomplish that end, but they know they can't. They won't get the votes in Congress and it will also harm their electoral prospects. While 55% of Republicans own guns, so do 32% of Democrats.(45) And those numbers are going up. Civilian gun sales have topped a million a month for three straight years.(46) Domestic manufacturing is strong and imports are at an all time high, a predictable consequence of the political battle over gun control.(47) If people believe that getting a gun will become problematic, they get it sooner rather than later. So, back door gun control is the order of the day. The threat of legal jeopardy is just one way of achieving the same ends:
“...the goal of such lawsuits is to do what cannot be accomplished through legislative means: ending Americans’ ability to defend themselves, emboldening corrupt politicians, and increasing our sense of vulnerability and servitude.”(48)
What it's really about
The outbreaks of we-must-do-somethingism are an inevitable consequence of a combination of the facts of the situation and the direction of travel of the semi-permanent narrative. Yes, there are an unconscionable number of homicides in America today and mass shootings make up a not insubstantial subset. However, over half the murders aren't being committed by white supremacists in MAGA hats toting AR15s, as the propaganda would have us believe – they are the product of black communities that are tragically violent, where life is cheap. Additionally, the weapon of choice is a handgun (not an 'assault rifle'), illegally obtained, and the perpetrator, in over 90% of these cases, is also black.
But the regime is vehemently opposed to any measure which might target black people 'disproportionately'. Given the fact that this 13% of the population commits over half the homicides in the US – year in, year out – one could be forgiven for thinking that, overall, perhaps the disreputable elements of this racial group might justifiably expect to be stopped four times as often as others. That doesn't seem illogical or racist, just common sensical. Naturally, nobody wants to talk about this. But, if the homicide issue is to be discussed, all the facts need to be presented.
The mass shooting phenomenon is emphasized by the regime because it overwhelmingly features shooters with legally acquired firearms and because doing so helps distract attention from the real problems. It therefore fits seamlessly into a narrative that seeks to punish the law abiding super-majority for the sins of the crazed, but minuscule, minority. Moreover, the measures that are being enacted in states hostile to the SCOTUS decisions will make mass shootings more likely, not less, by designating yet more spaces 'gun free'. That 39 out of every 40 mass shootings occur in these places is an established fact, so the act of further prohibiting the carrying of firearms will make citizens more vulnerable by removing their ability to defend themselves. This is the antithesis of what the state is supposed to be doing, which is keeping its people safe.
Furthermore, it is perfectly clear that the relationship between psychotropic drugs and violence must be contributing greatly to the mass shooter epidemic (in particular). The correlation is too persuasive to ignore, but the state is continuing to do so, anyway. Rampant corruption and collusion between Big Pharma and captured regulatory agencies – most recently revealed by the Covid saga – is one of the likely reasons for this inertia.
This is where the true problems lie. The solutions, as proposed by the state? Bans on legal firearms, more regulation, reduced right to carry; anything that won't address problems, but compound them. Additionally, the 'red flag' provisions are so transparently vulnerable to partisan abuse that their true purpose is plain – to disallow firearms possession to political opponents without due process. After all, there are existing laws (in all 50 states) that cater to the revocation of firearms licenses, but these involve factors such as a need for evidence and a right to legal, state funded legal representation. 'Red flag' laws are merely an attempt to abolish legal safeguards and will contribute nothing to public safety.
If a proper examination of shooting homicides had been conducted and hypotheses had been formulated as a result of that process, it would be one thing. But when some facts are acknowledged, others are suppressed and the solutions proposed will do nothing to address the problem but will, instead, create conditions that will likely exacerbate it, we should be asking why. To find that the answer to that question is 'because it serves a particular agenda' is not a surprise, as political life in the western hemisphere is dominated by entities that either value ideology over the welfare of citizens, or pretend to do so while using that ideology to impose authoritarian regimes.
It's plain to see where it's all heading. Canada is already leading the way, with a mandatory buy-back of what they term 'assault weapons'.(49) Presumably, handguns will be next, as the well established phenomenon of progressive incrementalism plays out once again. The elites in the US want to end up at that same destination; they don't really hide it. In the meantime, they'll want to take the guns away from those that they consider most threatening to them; anybody politically to the right of themselves, or 'domestic extremists', as they prefer. 'Red flag' laws are one way, supposing someone can get a permit in the first place. There are ways to make that exclusionary too, as the California Attorney General helpfully laid out:
“As a starting point for purposes of investigating an applicant's moral character, many issuing authorities require personal references and/or reference letters. Investigators may personally interview applicants and use the opportunity to gain further insight into the applicant's character. And they may search publicly-available information, including social media accounts, in assessing the applicant's character.”(50)
It may be tempting to think that disarming the population is a laudable ambition, but it really isn't. It is perfectly obvious that those being targeted by the administration are not those responsible for the vast majority of homicides. It's also clear that those that are over-representative of the criminal class are getting a free pass for ideological reasons and that the mass shooting epidemic probably has its roots in Big Pharma's well chronicled greed.
Law abiding citizens may well feel the need to be armed, now more than ever, as the state is clearly not prioritizing their safety. Rubbing salt into the wound, the regime is trying to deny them the right to take responsibility for their own self defense, too. Once again, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's not a goose. Disarming the virtuous while leaving the capacity of the criminal class to cause havoc undiminished will clearly result in a society that is wholly reliant on government for its welfare. It will weaken the people, increase their vulnerability and complete the emasculation of the American male.
It will also leave civilians helpless to resist another predator; the regime itself. I believe that this is the state's deepest motivation. It's an important piece in the authoritarian jigsaw that is currently being put together. The Second Amendment may not be a factor where you live. But America is the key in the West. She will have to go first and that can't happen until the opposition has its guns confiscated. So that's what they're going to attempt.
Citations
(1) https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/11/uvalde-dont-blame-the-second-amendment/
(2) https://www.quora.com/Are-there-actually-any-mainstream-Democrats-who-want-to-ban-all-guns?share=1
(3) https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/01/12/the-hysterical-fantasy-of-an-impending-civil-war/
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
(5) https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/11/uvalde-dont-blame-the-second-amendment/
(7) https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1529487203612631043.html
(8) https://www.statista.com/statistics/187592/death-rate-from-homicide-in-the-us-since-1950/
(9) https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting
(11) Ditto
(12) https://www.crisismagazine.com/2021/most-mass-shooters-are-not-white
(13) https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
(15) https://www.scopeny2a.org/new-york-unconstitutional-gun-law-resources
(17) https://www.criminalattorneycolumbus.com/which-weapons-are-most-commonly-used-for-homicides/
(18)
(19) https://thoughtcatalog.com/jeremy-london/2019/09/37-mass-shooters-who-were-on-antidepressants/
(20) https://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-psychotropic-drugs/
(21) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564177/ NIH 2006
(26) https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015337
(27)
(28) Ditto
(29) https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/scotus-restricts-upholds-epas-ability-to-regulate-power-plants/
(30) https://nypost.com/2022/06/24/what-is-roe-v-wade-explaining-the-seminal-scotus-abortion-case/
(32) https://nypost.com/2022/06/23/supreme-court-overturns-ny-law-on-carrying-concealed-weapons/
(34) https://www.newsweek.com/new-gun-law-new-york-lawmakers-disregard-constitution-opinion-1724029
(38) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/red-flag-laws-and-unintended-consequences
(39) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/feds-halt-sales-homemade-guns-august-rule-implemented
(40) https://www.newyorkstatefirearmsassociation.org/why-did-the-irs-buy-5000000-rounds-of-ammo/
(41) https://amgreatness.com/2022/02/01/the-backdoor-gun-ban/
(42) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ammo-companies-say-packages-shipped-ups-mysterious-go-missing
(43) https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/19/lawsuits-against-gunmakers-are-a-backdoor-gun-ban/
(44) Ditto
(45) https://news.gallup.com/poll/21496/gun-ownership-higher-among-republicans-than-democrats.aspx
(47) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/americas-appetite-guns-triples-dot-com-bubble
(48) https://amgreatness.com/2022/06/19/lawsuits-against-gunmakers-are-a-backdoor-gun-ban/
Figure 1
Figure 2 https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-in-the-us-2021-052422.pdf/view