Rough transcript:

Over the last several days mr. speaker there’s been a lot of discussion about an open and honest debate with respect to school shootings gun violence gun control etc and at open and honest debate as I understand it is one that would rely on data facts evidence analysis reason logic etc etc and I’m certainly willing to have that debate I think if we were going to look seriously at school shootings and gun control we would analyze things like why do all mass shootings seem to take place in gun-free zones wanted it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones have actually achieved what they’re intended intent is we would start to look at most of these shooters come from broken homes what sort of government policies have actually encouraged broken homes you can look at left-leaning think things like the Brooking Institute that will actually say that some of it can be attributed to various cultural changes that happened in the 60s to include the abortion industry you can look at a more conservative leaning organizations that will say that the welfare state contributes significantly to dismantling the family as families became more and more dependent upon the government than they were mothers and fathers in the home raising children we could look at various status with those areas within the United States and around the world that have strict gun control measures and what their crime rates look like whether it’s Chicago New York City Washington DC and others that have incredibly strict gun laws and yet for some reason it hasn’t seemed to stop the gun violence in those particular areas we can look at the analysis out of 538 which is considered more of a left-of-centre data analysis think-tank where you have several analysts now confirmed through the data that they were looking at not just in the United States but in Canada Great Britain and Australia that they were shocked that the data did not support what they thought gun control measures would actually achieve we can look at the number of cases within the United States where a gun has been used for self defense estimates range everywhere from a hundred thousand uses to over close to a million uses within the United States now some organizations and some reporters only want to report on the ones where a gun was used and it actually resulted in the death or main of the perpetrator but if you look at the ones where the gun was used in the mere presence of the firearm actually dissuaded a criminal from committing an act of violence an act of rape an act of murder the number shoots up at skyrockets so when people on this side talk about the importance of the Second Amendment please understand it’s not just some base philosophical conviction that we all have it 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 has happened as a result of government 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 that’s the most egregious cases but in the individual cases of self-defense that’s why the people on this side of the aisle hold the Second Amendment in such high esteem because we honestly believe that you have an inherent right to defend yourself and your ability to defend yourself should not be excluded to to your size firearms provides someone that is weaker and not as fast the ability to actually defend themselves from a stronger attacker some of the other things that we would look at and sometimes I would hope we would have bipartisan support for all of us agree that we need to make sure that our students are better protected when they go to schools one of the things that we would look at is arming certain teachers not every teacher but a teacher that is comfortable with it is former law enforcement it’s former military that is now in the classroom delegate plum said yesterday that that was ridiculous to consider why is it because the other side of this debate will only accept one quote-unquote solution to this problem and that is tearing apart or gutting the Second Amendment and I understand we’re gonna mention just a couple of the bills that were done this year right background checks getting rid of bump stocks if you’re wanting the other reason why we can’t have an honest debate over this one is because quite frankly I don’t think any of us on this side of the aisle believe you when you say that’s all you want to do it’ll be bump stocks we’ll be back around and it’ll be different kind of background checks to register the guns then after that’ll be we need to ban assault weapons what’s an assault weapon something that looks scary then after that’ll be semi-automatic rifles after that’ll be semi-automatic handguns then it’ll be revolvers shotguns because when the policies failed to produce the results you are promising to your constituents you’ll be back with more reasons than why we’ve got to infringe on Second Amendment rights the other reason why it’s really difficult to have an honest and open debate about this is because of this members of this body comparing members on this side of the aisle to not seats members on the other side of the aisle saying that when a 24 year old teacher gets up and says that the hosts whole debate is between the Second Amendment or her life that’s a false dilemma and quite frankly one of the ones that I found the most offensive along with being compared to Nazis was being compared to segregationists I just want to remind everyone someone very quickly it was not our party that supported slavery that fought women’s suffrage that rounded up tens of thousands of Asian Americans and put him in concentration camps that supported Jim Crow that supported segregation or supported mass resistance that wasn’t our party that was the Democrat Party now I’m thrilled that Democrats no longer believed that and I don’t believe that a single current 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 injustice is that the Democratic Party perpetrated on others on to us so if we want to have an open and honest debate I am all for that let’s do that but it does start with a certain degree of Buechel respect 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 well 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 because when I get up here and I 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 I assume you have deep convictions that we can have an argument in a debate about it but if you’re not willing to reciprocate that level of respect well don’t be surprised when it becomes more difficult to talk about these things because there is a lot that we can do and there is a lot that we need to do to ensure the security of our children and our citizens but yes we are going to have a problem with with so-called solutions which infringe on people’s Liberty under the promise the government will provide for their security 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 Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Source: Nick Freitas, YouTube