Watch: Army Veteran ‘Sick Of Guns In Texas’ Destroys His Own Gun In Protest

Has self immolation ever been an effective form of modern protest?  Or is it just the act of a person with delusions of grandeur?  This anti-gun veteran doesn’t set himself on fire, but the intended message is the same – “Look at my sacrifice for the greater good; now all of you follow me or you don’t care about humanity as much as I do…”

https://twitter.com/Rogers4Texas/status/1675336097591873536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1675336097591873536%7Ctwgr%5E6890e99b687c3108f8cd3ef8b6e0f9d339d6df96%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fwatch-army-veteran-sick-guns-texas-destroys-his-own-gun-protest

As some commenters on social media noted in response: Why doesn’t he just castrate himself in order to stop rape?

Jason Rogers is not the first veteran to come out against civilian gun rights (though there are not a lot of them), and the clear assumption among them is that because they were once in the military this makes them keenly positioned to comment on the 2nd Amendment.  However, their veteran status is irrelevant.  The 2nd Amendment was not drafted for the sake of a standing military, but for the citizenry as a whole as a shield against tyranny.  In fact, the Founding Fathers were distinctly suspicious of any government that sought to establish a standing army because they believed such a force might be used to oppress the populace.

Luckily, most veterans do not share the sentiments of the activist above.  In the gun world, these people are often referred to as “Elmer Fudds” or “Fudds” – People who come from conservative regions or who travel in traditionally conservative circles but are, for whatever reason, aggressive gun control advocates.  In the case of veterans and police officers the philosophy often stems from an elitist mindset; the notion that firearms are for the warrior class alone, and only the government can dictate who is allowed to be a part of that class.

Other Fudds suggest that the 2nd Amendment is for basic self defense and for hunting but not for defense against a corrupt government, and they argue that “military-style weapons” should not be in the hands of civilians.  At bottom, gun enthusiasts and 2A patriots do not care what these people say.  They’ve heard all the spin and propaganda before, and with the world becoming more chaotic by the day there is little chance that anti-gunners are going to convince anyone who already owns firearms to give them up.