How “Offended” and “Emotionally Shaken” Lawmakers Responded to This Viral Gun Speech by Nick Freitas

The Organic Prepper

You may not have ever heard of Nick Freitas before, but I have a feeling we’ll all be hearing a lot about him soon. At first glance, this may seem very political, very Republican vs. Democrat.

But it’s not. It’s about logic versus emotion.

It’s about an eloquent defense of the Second Amendment and the reason that the gun control debate is stalled. And the response to this speech underlined everything that was said.  

It’s about people who got so upset about historic facts that they had to leave the room instead of engaging in a discussion.

Last week, he gave a rousing speech on the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates in defense of the Second Amendment. Some of his key points:

  • We need to find out if gun-free zones are effective
  • We need to understand the reasons behind the Second Amendment
  • We need to make self-defense possible
  • We should consider arming teachers
  • We need to discuss this issue with mutual respect
  • We have to admit that the government failed in the Florida school shooting

One point he brought up that really spoke to me personally was the fact that not all gun-related acts of self-defense involve pulling the trigger and shooting the perpetrator. I know that in my own case during an attempted home invasion, just the presence of my gun and the perception of the would-be criminals that I wouldn’t hesitate to use it, deterred what could have been a heinous crime against me and my daughter.

Freitas said in the speech that we have an inherent right to defend ourselves and that he will not accept a false narrative. He pointed out that he and his fellow Republicans don’t believe Democrats when they say that all they want to do is ban bump stocks.

Freitas is a retired Green Beret who served 2 tours in Iraq.  (source) He was elected to the state delegation in 2016 and is a self-described Libertarian-Republican.

Listen to the entire speech in the video below.

The response by lawmakers

Despite Freitas’s factual and logical arguments, a number of Democrat delegates actually walked out of the room during his recitation of horrific past policies that were instituted by their own party and his plea for mutual respect so that a real conversation could happen.

Delegate Lamont Bagley was really upset, calling the speech “hateful and divisive.”

“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.” (source)

Delegate Delores McQuinn, who walked out while Freitas was speaking, told reporters:

“Let us not bring in things that would be hurtful and painful to people who have to live in a skin that some of you will never know and have to endure a reality that being black in America is sometimes difficult.” (source)

Freitas seemed unconcerned at the outrage, responding:

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

His speech was so popular that he was interviewed by CNN, who played a clip of a Democrat, Delegate Joseph Lindsay, who said he was “offended as he had never been offended since being a part of this body” by Freitas’s passionate speech. He claimed that his colleagues were “emotionally shaken and bothered.”

Freitas wasn’t having any of it.

There aren’t many politicians that I’d say I would support, but Freitas just might be the exception. He’s currently running for the US Senate against Tim Kaine, who is the former governor of Virginia and was Hillary Clinton’s running mate in her failed bid for the presidency.

In his announcement for the bid, he promised to combat a worldview that “treats free people as if we were subjects instead of citizens.” He also said, “Quite frankly, establishment elements from both sides of the aisle have been responsible in thinking themselves made from finer clay than the rest of humanity.” (source)

Yep, I’m pretty sure we’ll be hearing more about Nick Freitas.

The Organic Prepper

10 thoughts on “How “Offended” and “Emotionally Shaken” Lawmakers Responded to This Viral Gun Speech by Nick Freitas

  1. I like the things I’m hearing from this guy so far. Could he be genuine? Time will tell. I’m not gonna jump on a band wagon because he supports the right to keep and bear arms. There’s more that needs to be heard and discussed for sure, but I am liking what I hear so far. He is after all a part of the government we know pledges to support israel. I’d like to know his stance on that issue because he seems sensible and any sensible person has to come to the indisputable fact that israel is an enemy to our founding principles and well being with all of the evidence showing israel as such. So until i hear more about that, not gonna hold my breath.

  2. He’s an “r” that ONLY wants to ban bumpstocks…still an infringement so he’s still one of them.

    IT’S NOT OPEN FOR DEBATE. PERIOD!

    All of the infringements began with juuuust one teensy weensy little one. Just this one and only time. Just the tip, I promise?

    F that and F you. NO more at ALL and I want BACK what was stolen from US, you traitorous MF’S!!!!!

      1. He’s not for it but his argument centers around pigs and zio soldiers being of a higher capability to carry in a classroom. He also never brings up the data about these shootings being bs, so he’s still towing the same old line. I am just cynical of these charlatans is all, Jamal. I don’t believe a word from anyone who makes it that far. Take no offense please, none of my rage was directed toward you 🙂

  3. It may be refreshing to hear this argument made in Washington, but consider that it’s public outcry that forced it into the arena, and he’s just being a politically-correct spokesman for the second article, while avoiding the truth himself. (much as the NRA does)

    He’s asking for honest and open debate based on facts, but he too wants to avoid most of the facts surrounding school shootings. Does he mention the link to pharmaceuticals? Does he mention the multiple shooters that are always reported?

    What he’s doing is responding to what’s reported in the newspapers, and he’s only doing it because a large percentage of the population is concerned about their second article rights. He’s appealing to a voter base, and once elected, he’ll decide that “sensible gun controls” are the only intelligent solution.

    He’s another schit-shoveler telling the public what they want to hear, and this video has become popularized because Americans are quickly losing faith in their government. Here comes another hero to save your constitutional rights. (not gonna happen)

    This is propaganda designed to convince you that you can relax, because there is a way to vote your way out of the mess that’s been made.

    No one is going to come to your rescue. Saving this country is YOUR job, because no politician has any interest in serving anyone but himself.

    I hope this lying sack of dung is hanged with the rest of ’em.

  4. Lest us not forget that these pricks that stand up and think that they can even discuss in any way removing our rights as stated to them in the Bill of rights is treason on its face. Off-limits and Kapu, get it asswipes.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*