Anti-gun Dangerous Quacks End Game 2A IFC Weekly Wrap Up March 20, 2026

[F224]

The anti-gun dangerous quacks end-game is total disarmament of everyone. We know who these anti-gun dangerous quacks are and they are telling us what they want.
When people tell you what they want to do to you, it’s best to believe them. That includes when they tell you that they have a bomb, want to kill you, or want you disarmed.


DR. JOHN LOTT EXPLAINS IN DETAIL THE GUN CONTROL ENDGAME. AND IT’S NO GUNS FOR ANYONE.

Gun Control’s Endgame: No Guns for Anyone.​

(From Dr. Lott’s recent Real Clear Politics opinion piece on March 12, 2026.)

“Gun control advocates do not just oppose civilian gun ownership; they also argue that guns in the hands of police make people less safe.

In January, a Border Patrol agent in Portland shot and wounded two Venezuelan nationals who belonged to the violent Tren de Aragua gang after they allegedly tried to run agents over with their vehicle. In response, Kris Brown, president of Brady United,tweeted the following:

“We don’t know the details behind the shootings of 2 people by a Border Patrol agent in Portland. But I know one thing for certain: whether in the hands of federal officers or everyday Americans, guns do not make us safer. Yet Trump is reshaping our country based on this lie.”

What were the Border Patrol agents supposed to do when an illegal alien with a criminal record tries to run over an agent? How are unarmed agents supposed to apprehend and detain violent gang members?

Currently on its website, Brady United explains:

“Why Police violence is gun violence … As we work to tackle the gun violence epidemic in America, we cannot ignore police violence or its devastating effects.”

The same claim is made repeatedly by other gun control groups.

“Police violence is gun violence and that’s why our movement must be responsive as well,” declares Shannon Watts, president for Moms Demand Action.

“Police violence is gun violence,” proclaims Gabby Giffords, with the Giffords Law Center.

These last two statements are from 2021 and 2020, so their opposition to police having guns isn’t a new focus.

Gun control groups sometimes openly acknowledge their goal of banning all guns. In a 2023 interview with Time magazine, for example, Gabby Giffords – who heads the Giffords Law Center – answered a question about her goal by saying:

“No more guns.”

When the interviewer asked whether she meant no more gun violence, Giffords clarified:

“No, no, no. Lord, no. Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

Time magazine itself treated the remark as significant enough to place Giffords’ line –“No more guns, Gone” – in the headline.

If firearms are bad per se, it should be easy to find places where either all guns or all handguns have been banned and murder/homicide rates have gone down. One would think out of randomness there should be at least one place where murder rates have gone down or at least stayed the same, but every single time, even for island nations, murder rates have gone up immediately after the ban.

A simple logic is at play here: Who is most likely to obey the law? While such statutes may take a few guns from criminals, they primarily disarm the most law-abiding citizens, making it easier for criminals to commit crimes.

Similar problems exist for police. Taking away the guns that both civilians and police have doesn’t mean that criminals will readily forfeit their weapons. Criminals have strong incentives to keep and obtain weapons. Drug gangs can’t go to the police and ask for help to get their drugs back when another gang steals their drugs. The gangs have set up their own little paramilitaries to protect their valuable stash.

Gun control advocates point to the low murder rate in the United Kingdom, with its largely unarmed police forces, as evidence that disarming police can make people safer. But they ignore that the U.K. had an even lower homicide rate relative to the U.S. before they enacted strict gun controls, and that after a 1997 handgun ban, Britain experienced increases in homicide rates.

Gun control advocates often frame their proposals as modest steps to reduce violence, but their own statements often reveal a far broader goal. The evidence from places that have banned guns also shows a troubling pattern: Disarming the law-abiding does not disarm criminals. If we want to reduce crime and protect the public, policies must focus on stopping criminals – not on leaving both citizens and police defenseless.”

John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He served as the senior advisor for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice during 2020-21.”

We cannot sit by and watch as the dangerous quacks on the left try to strip all of us of our ability to defend ourselves, our communities, and ultimately our nation.


Please check the IFC Action Alert page daily. It’s the best source of information on what’s happening at the Iowa Legislature.

IFC TRUSTED PARTNER OF THE WEEK: FIREARMS LEGAL PROTECTION

​

Firearms Legal Protection (firearmslegal.com) – provides prepaid Self Defense Benefits with Uncapped Attorney Fees Exceeding the Benefits of Concealed Carry Insurance.


Listen to IFC Chair John McLaughlin in this Warrior Wednesday segment as he discusses Firearms Legal Protection (FLP) with Attorney Bill Grammer, HERE. IFC Members who sign up for FLP coverage via the IFC website, receive a discounted rate.


Please stay Ready at All Times, and help us defend all of Iowa’s rights by renewing or joining IFC today.


Shoot Straight, Speak The Truth, and Never Surrender Our Liberties.


Dave Funk
Member, Board of Directors

 

[Moraa]

Well that escalated quickly, it feels less like policy debate, more like a movie trailer voiceover...

 

[John4st]

When the extent of most peoples education and experience comes from movies, TV and now their phone, what else would you expect. George Orwell is starting to scare me a little.