“The NRA is going to be mad at me.”
That is how David LaGrand, the mayor of Grand Rapids, chose to tee up his lecture to law-abiding gun owners.
He was wrong about one thing.
Second Amendment supporters are not “mad” because he offended an organization. They are incensed because he revealed, without filters or euphemisms, exactly how a growing class of political elites really views them: with contempt.
“You Should Be Ashamed”
At a community meeting meant to address policing issues, LaGrand pivoted into a moral scolding session:
-
“If you got a gun, you should be ashamed of yourself.”
-
“As a community, we have to start having some shaming around gun possession.”
-
“No one gardens with a gun. No one changes a tire with a gun. What they are for is killing human beings.”
-
Comparing gun ownership to smoking cigarettes.
-
Suggesting police dogs might as well be replaced by drones, and that if his dog did what he saw in a video, he would “put [his] dog down.”
This was not a policy briefing. It was a worldview laid bare.
And it is a worldview that fundamentally misunderstands both firearms and the people who own them.
What Guns Are Actually “For”
LaGrand says guns are “for killing human beings.”
That statement is revealing.
Firearms are tools. Like any tool, they can be used for good or evil. In America, they are overwhelmingly used for:
-
Self-defense
-
Deterrence
-
Hunting
-
Competitive sport shooting
-
Collecting and historical preservation
-
Protection of livestock and property
More importantly, they are a constitutional right. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect gardening equipment. It protects arms.
Why? Because the Founders understood something modern mayors often forget: a free people must retain the means to defend themselves, not only from criminals, but from tyranny.
You do not need a gun to change a tire.
You need one when someone tries to carjack you.
Shaming as Policy
When a mayor openly calls for “shaming” gun possession, he is not just venting. He is normalizing cultural hostility toward a constitutional right.
Imagine a public official saying:
-
“If you exercise free speech, you should be ashamed.”
-
“If you attend church, you should do some self-reflection.”
It would be unthinkable.
But when it comes to gun ownership, certain politicians believe moral condemnation is not only acceptable, but virtuous.
This is the quiet part of the gun control agenda becoming loud.
For years, the rhetoric was framed around “common sense” and “reasonable measures.” Increasingly, the mask slips. The message becomes clearer: civilian gun ownership itself is the problem.
Not crime.
Not criminals.
Not repeat offenders.
The mere possession of a firearm.
Who the NRA Actually Is
When LaGrand joked that “the NRA is going to be mad at me,” he framed it as if he were poking a faceless Washington machine.
But the National Rifle Association is not a marble building in D.C.
It is millions of Americans:
-
Veterans
-
Single mothers
-
Hunters
-
Small business owners
-
Competitive shooters
-
Retirees
-
First-time gun owners in high-crime neighborhoods
Many of them live in Grand Rapids.
Mocking “the NRA” is, in practice, mocking your own constituents.
The Backtrack
Predictably, once the backlash hit, LaGrand issued a clarifying statement. He emphasized that he understands the constitutional limits on his power and that his comments were not “a signal of impending policy.”
That clarification tells you everything.
The only reason these remarks do not translate into law is because:
-
The Constitution stands in the way.
-
State preemption laws stand in the way.
-
The Second Amendment stands in the way.
That is not an accident. That is design.
Our system was built precisely to restrain officials who mistake their personal frustration for moral authority.
The Real Self-Reflection
LaGrand suggested gun owners need “self-reflection.”
Here is the reflection many Americans are actually having:
-
How did a mayor of a city of nearly 200,000 come to view half the country as morally defective?
-
Why is cultural shaming now seen as leadership?
-
Why are law-abiding citizens the target of outrage instead of violent criminals?
Second Amendment enthusiasts understand something critical: rights erode first in culture, then in law.
When officials publicly stigmatize gun ownership, they are testing the waters. They are shaping narratives. They are laying groundwork.
Today it is shame.
Tomorrow it is policy.
Gratitude — and Resolve
If there is one emotion gun owners should feel, it is not embarrassment.
It is gratitude.
Gratitude for constitutional safeguards that prevent municipal officials from legislating their personal disdain.
Gratitude for state preemption laws that stop patchwork local bans.
Gratitude for a Bill of Rights that does not hinge on whether a mayor finds your choices socially acceptable.
And alongside that gratitude should be resolve.
Because when elected officials openly call for shaming a constitutional right, they are not merely speaking emotionally. They are signaling an ideological direction.
The Second Amendment community would do well to take them at their word.
Not with anger.
With vigilance.
