The Gun Rights Speech So Powerful Many Democrats Walked Out

The Daily Signal summarized the main points of his speech:

Here are seven highlights of his points:

1.  Find Out If Gun-Free Zones Work

“Wouldn’t it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones [has] actually achieved what their intended intent is?” Freitas asked.

2. Understand the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment right to bear arms does not come from a “base philosophical conviction,” Freitas said, but instead “is rooted in the idea that while we may be a post-Enlightenment society, the vast majority of horrible atrocities that we’ve seen have happened in those post-Enlightenment societies.”

Torture, mass murder, genocide, and other atrocities happen “as a result of government systematically disarming citizens and claiming … to be the sole responsible party for their security,” he said. “And then turning on those same citizens and punishing them.”

3. Make Self-Defense Possible

Guns are a powerful deterrent, Freitas said, and self-defense isn’t limited only to circumstances where a perpetrator ends up killed or wounded.

Americans hold the Second Amendment in “high esteem,” he said, “because we honestly believe that you have an inherent right to defend yourself.”

“Your ability to defend yourself should not be [limited] to your size. Firearms provide someone that is weaker and not as fast the ability to defend themselves from a stronger attacker.”

4. Consider Arming Teachers

Freitas said he agrees with lawmakers who are pushing for teachers to be armed.

“Not every teacher,” he said. “But a teacher that is comfortable with it, is former law enforcement, is former military, that is now in the classroom.”

5. Stop Calling Him a Nazi and Segregationist

Political opponents have called him a Nazi and a segregationist, Freitas said in his speech.

“It was not our party that supported slavery, that fought women’s suffrage, that rounded up tens of thousands of Asian-Americans and put them in concentration camps, that supported Jim Crow, that supported segregation or supported mass resistance,” Freitas said. “That wasn’t our party. That was the Democrat Party.”

In an appearance Tuesday on “Fox & Friends,” Freitas also recounted one instance when he was told he was on the side of terrorists.

“What sort of offense do you think someone like me, with two combat tours, who has lost friends to terrorists, [took] about something like that?” he said.

6. Continue the Dialogue With Mutual Respect

Mutual respect, Freitas said, is key to developing solutions that work and coming to agreements.

“It starts with a certain degree of not assuming that the only reason why we believe in the Second Amendment is because the NRA paid us off, he said, adding:

If that’s the sort of logic you want to use, why don’t you go take a look at how much money the NRA spends and how much money Planned Parenthood spends? When I get here and talk about abortion, I don’t assume that you’re all bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood. I don’t assume you’re horrible people because I disagree with you on a policy position.

7.  Admit Government Failed in Parkland Shooting

In his last point, Freitas reflected on the Feb. 14 massacre at a high school in Parkland, Florida.

“We are going to have a problem with so-called solutions which infringe on people’s liberty under the promise that government will provide for their security,” he said.

“Because ultimately in this last school shooting we had a perfect example of government being engaged over 30 times and still failing to provide security for those students.”  

And from Medium:

Republican candidate for Senate in Virginia, Nick Freitas, brought the house down with his defense of gun rights.

The 7.5 minute speech, delivered by Republican Candidate for Senate and former Green Beret Nick Freitas last Friday on the Virginia House floor, stunned Democrats and prompted many to storm out of the session. Still, Freitas – one of several Republicans running for the seat of Sen. Tim Kaine (R-Va.) – was unapologetic – and so are his supporters. Views of his speech have climbed in a matter of days to nearly 13.5 million views on Facebook alone.

Why have his remarks sent out such a shockwave to embolden his supporters and shake his detractors? What’s different about his approach to the debate? Some critical points:

• Freitas represents the conservative voice of the future.

A U.S. Army veteran who has served in the 82nd Airborne Division, 25th Light Infantry Division, and U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Berets), Freitas represents a rising generation of young combat veterans and special operations personnel who are now finding their voice in the political sphere. Having seen heavier combat action that many of our nation’s servicemembers have seen in decades, this young generation has been afforded the opportunity to develop an evolved perspective on world affairs that is informed beyond the purely theoretical approaches afforded to most politicians in a collegiate or professional environment.

Real world experience leads to real world solutions, and that’s why the bold case for the Second Amendment that Freitas makes resonates so deeply. “We honestly believe that you have an inherent right to defend yourself,” Freitas stated on behalf of his party, “and your ability to defend yourself should not be exclusive to your size. Firearms provide someone that is weaker and not as fast the ability to actually defend themselves from a stronger attacker.” As a combat veteran, Freitas understands the grim reality that in certain encounters, when you’re met with lethal force, you need to meet or exceed that level of force in order to prevail. In the case of school shootings, this principle has distinct implications: a child is faced with an inherent size disadvantage when facing an adult attacker, let alone an adult attacker with a firearm. There needs to be a way for someone to meet or exceed that level of force in order for that child’s life to be preserved. This perspective is widely shared and agreed upon by the military, law enforcement, pro- Second Amendment, and veterans’ communities, but it’s rarely one that is seen in the political sphere. Young leaders like Freitas aim to change that.

• Freitas understands the issues of violence and self-defense from a historical perspective, undermining the philosophical idealism of the Left.

Much of the Left’s case against the Second Amendment is founded upon the idealistic view of human nature that we can use rationalism to override our fundamentally tribal and violent human heritage. Having served in cultures where tribalism and violence abound, Freitas is quick to point out that the human desire to override this aspect of our nature is well-intentioned, but can’t be trusted. He points out, “While we may be a post-enlightenment society, the vast majority of horrible atrocities that we’ve seen have happened in those post-enlightenment societies. They’ve happened as a result of governments systematically disarming citizens and claiming themselves to be the sole responsible party for their security, and then turning on those same citizens and punishing them.” Disarming citizens in the name of peace is and will always be a pipe dream that ignores fundamental realities of the human condition; fundamental realities that are easily overlooked when you have a Ph.D. in political science, perhaps, but not when you’ve witnessed the realities of tribalism and war firsthand.

• Freitas is unafraid to call out the Left for its hegemonic claim on the Moral High Ground.

For years, much of the Left’s persona has hinged upon its insistence that it is the sole supporter of the poor, unfortunate, overlooked, and downtrodden. Freitas unapologetically called them out for the fundamental hypocrisy of making such a claim: “It was not our party that supported slavery,” he pointed out, “that fought women’s suffrage, that rounded up tens of thousands of Asian-Americans and put them in concentration camps, that supported Jim Crow, that supported segregation, or supported mass resistance. That wasn’t our party. That was the Democrat party.” Making it clear that his objective in sharing these historical reminders was not contentious, he continued, “I’m thrilled that Democrats no longer believe that. And I don’t believe that a single member of this body who is a Democrat ever believed those things. But I would really appreciate it if, every time you want to make a powerful point, you don’t project the sins, the atrocities, and the injustices that the Democratic party perpetrated on others, onto us.”

His point? It’s time for the Democratic party to abandon their self-proclaimed exclusive right to the moral high ground, and recognize that they should be slow to cast the first stone before comparing pro- Second Amendment Republicans to Nazis and segregationists (two examples Freitas cited). By pushing the debate in this direction, Freitas opened up the discussion to consider that supporters of the Second Amendment are far from bloodthirsty warmongers; they are realists who understand the realities of violence and the need to have our right to self-defense protected.

Democrats were not happy with the speech, as reported by Roanoke.com:

Del. Nick Freitas, R-Culpeper, was riding a wave of national publicity Monday after a fiery pro-gun speech last week that several African-American Democrats condemned as racially insensitive for its references to poverty and slavery.

Freitas — one of several Republicans running to take on U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., this fall — appeared on the Fox News program “Fox and Friends” Monday morning to recap his speech, an attempt to turn the tables on House Democrats who had been blasting the GOP majority for inaction in response to the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A video of the speech Freitas posted on Facebook Friday had drawn 11 million views as of Monday afternoon after being shared by pro-gun rocker Ted Nugent and U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., a Freitas backer.

During Monday’s floor session, Del. Lamont Bagby, D-Henrico, the chairman of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, called Freitas’ comments “hateful and divisive,” adding that he wanted to put all legislators on notice that “our heritage will not be used as a political football.”

Because Freitas suggested that “abortion, welfare, family structure and a litany of other stereotypes” are also factors in the gun-violence problem, Bagby said, many Democrats saw Freitas’ comments as racial “dog-whistling.”

“We realize that we live in a ugly political moment. So while we were offended, we were not surprised,” Bagby said. “It should embarrass every member of this body that we have allowed such rhetoric to enter these chambers. Bringing up a very painful past to make a political point is disgusting and poisonous.”

99.9% Pure Investor Grade Silver Trump Collector Coins!

On what was expected to be a slow Friday, Freitas blasted Democrats for suggesting Republicans’ pro-gun views align them with Nazis, terrorists and segregationists. He accused Democrats of being the party of slavery, Jim Crow and Massive Resistance, saying those “sins” shouldn’t be projected onto Republicans.

Arguing guns shouldn’t be the sole focus of the national conversation on school shootings and gun violence, Freitas said liberal policies that weaken families and lead to “broken homes” should also be examined.

During his Fox News appearance, Freitas said he couldn’t sit back and listen to attacks from Democrats, noting that he “lost friends to terrorists” during combat tours in Iraq with the U.S. Army Special Forces.

He added that he didn’t mean any offense toward Del. Joseph Lindsey, D-Norfolk, an African-American lawmaker who stood up on Friday to condemn Freitas’ speech.

“More and more, offense is used as a weapon with which to turn away debate,” Freitas said. “And I’m not going to accept that.”

Without much name recognition in state politics, the speech may have raised Freitas’ political profile as he prepares to compete with conservative firebrands Corey Stewart and E.W. Jackson in the GOP Senate primary. But it also seems to have exacerbated a partisan rift as lawmakers prepare to wrap up their work and go home.