Home 2018 Elections Video: In Nick Freitas’ Warped World, It’s NEVER EVER the Guns

Video: In Nick Freitas’ Warped World, It’s NEVER EVER the Guns


When it comes to gun violence in this country how many things other than the most obvious – uh, guns, like the AR 15 – does 2018 Virginia Republican U.S. Senate candidate Nick Freitas (R-Gun Lobby) blame? In the following video, Freitas blames “government breakdown” (huh?) and, of course, “mental health” (you know, the thing Freitas keeps voting to cut and/or deny funding for; also note that people all over the world have mental health problems, yet only in this country do we have guns galore – gee, what could possibly set us apart from all those other countries?). What else could the problem be if it’s not the obvious root cause, guns? According to Freitas, other than “mental health”and “government breakdown” (again, huh?), other possibilities include (pick one or more of the following): “gun-free zones,” “broken homes” and the government policies that supposedly contribute to “broken homes,” “various cultural changes that happened in the 60s [including] the abortion industry,” “the welfare state,” “dismantling families as [they] became more and more dependent on the government,” etc.  Of course, Freitas has been endorsed by gun groups like the National Association for Gun Rights PAC and has received “A” ratings from the NRA and Virginia Citizens Defense League, so it’s not exactly surprising that he’d hold such wacked-out views. More broadly, what’s amazing (and not in a good way!) with Freitas is that he talks a great deal, but the words coming out of his mouth – on basically every subject, including on guns – make absolutely no sense. Let’s just make sure this teabagger gets nowhere near the U.S. Senate.

  • Quizzical

    Freitas at least asked a good question: what do we learn from this?

    Well, we learn once again that sometimes a person, who is quite sane when he first acquires a gun, tragically goes insane at a later date and kills multiple people with the gun.

    We learn once again that it is not enough to know that someone is mentally ill; we need to know whether the mentally ill person lives in a household where he can get access to guns.

    If you connect the dots, it is obvious that we need a real federal database, not a deliberately crippled database.

    To know whether a mentally ill person has guns or lives in a household with guns, an effective database would need to include three things: who owns a gun, who is buying ammo, and who is mentally unfit to have access to a gun.

    Isn’t that obvious?