During a town hall event in New Hampshire, RJK Jr. addressed his evolving stance on gun control. He made it clear that confiscating guns is not part of his agenda, acknowledging that simply implementing stricter gun control measures would not effectively prevent school shootings. RJK Jr. pointed out the decisive rulings of the Supreme Court in support of gun rights, underscoring the need to respect those judgments. Additionally, he emphasized that the issue of mass shootings is multifaceted, with the influence of drugs on perpetrators being a significant concern.

That came about when a woman at the town hall raised a question, “We have weapons of mass destruction here, semi-automatic weapons, easily available with little documentation in our own country, and they’re killing children. What will you do to confine semi-automatic weapons to use only by military and law enforcement?”

RFK Jr., displaying commendable thoughtfulness, provided a comprehensive response. Instead of responding impulsively, he took the time to articulate his personal convictions regarding gun control, explaining its limitations and expressing his firm commitment to preserving the rights of ordinary Americans to possess firearms.

He initiated his response by expressing his personal support for gun control. However, he acknowledged the recent Supreme Court ruling, likely referring to the Bruen case, which concluded that gun control measures are not constitutionally permissible. He said: “I am not going to take people’s guns away, and I believe in gun control myself. But I know anybody who tells you that we can end the violence to our children that’s going on now by removing people’s guns in at the margin that has been left to us by this very expensive Supreme Court decision is not being truthful with you. So you know, I think just legally because of the of the Supreme Court decision, because of the expansive vision of you that the Supreme Court has taken on the Second Amendment, that it makes it really impossible to actually do anything about it.”

Expanding on his response, he highlighted his extensive interactions with individuals who were raised around firearms and have a genuine passion for shooting and using guns. Drawing from this experience, he empathetically acknowledged the reasons why people value the presence of guns and perceive any attempts to restrict them as a grave threat to their communities, way of life, and overall perception of America. Additionally, he astutely observed that the persistent push to disarm such communities has contributed significantly to the deep polarization within the nation. He stated: “In terms of limiting people’s guns. I also want to say this, you know, I have spent a lot of my time on my life and rural communities in this country. And there is a gun culture in those communities that is closely tied to people’s identities. And so those people that a large group of Americans see it as almost an existential threat. When people in my political party and people like myself, we’re going to take your guns away. And it hasn’t worked. It’s polarized our country more, and it’s made people dig in more, and I’m trying to end the polarization in our country.”

Seizing the moment, RFK Jr. emphasized that in the current climate of advocating for gun confiscation, the more pressing concern lies in the unabated assault on the fundamental rights of Americans, with a particular emphasis on the erosion of the Bill of Rights. He stated: “And I, so I think, particularly in this point in history in the last three years in this country, we’ve seen an all-out assault on our Bill of Rights. We’ve seen for the first time the government participating and censoring people’s speech.”

Furthermore, he raised the issue of the FBI’s involvement in suppressing free speech on behalf of Ukrainian interests, along with the concerning actions of the CIA and FBI in pressuring Twitter to engage in censorship. He remarked: “There was the you know, the these revelations came out this week that the FBI has been collaborating with the SBU the Ukrainian agency, to censor speech of Americans critical of US policy against the Ukraine. We’ve seen the CIA and the FBI now have had during at least the last two administrations, at portals at Twitter, where they can identify people who are speaking against government policies and silenced them. And so we had these assaults on freedom of speech. We had the government come in and order without any scientific citation without any democratic process of the closure of every church in this country for a year.”

Subsequently, he proceeded to provide a series of compelling examples that underscored the relentless assault on the fundamental rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights, originating from the individuals entrenched within the corridors of power in the DC Swamp. Having outlined these concerning developments, he circled back to his primary focus on the topic of gun control.

In particular, he emphasized the irrationality of targeting the Second Amendment at present, highlighting that such an approach would exacerbate polarization and hinder the ability to address pressing matters of significance. He stated:“And a lot of the people who believe strongly about guns say, ‘Well, the reason I didn’t attack the Second Amendment is because we have our guns, whether you believe that or not.’ And I, you know, I’m not going to take a position on that one way or the other. But going after people’s guns at this point in history, it to me is just going to cause more polarization that made it so that we can’t listen to each other anymore because we get put into these kind of tribal silos where we have to somehow figure out a way to get past.”

Shifting gears, he directed his attention towards the issue of school shootings, emphasizing that educational institutions are more vulnerable to attacks compared to even commercial airliners. In a thought-provoking manner, he raised the possibility that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) could potentially be a contributing factor to the disturbing trend of individuals with mental instability perpetrating mass murders of children. He said: “Oh, you know, my policy is going to be to figure out ways to protect these children. We cannot have any more school shootings. And you know, one of the things even that means protecting schools the same way It protects the airlines, you don’t get shootings on airlines anymore. If we have to do that we have to protect our children. The other thing we need to look at is the other reasons why this may be happening in our country. And, you know, I’ve gotten ridiculed, are saying that we need to look at the issue of the SSRIs. We, but it’s one of the issues . . . There has never been a time in human history when strangers would walk into a room of children and begin shooting people.”

Reiterating his previous point regarding SSRIs, he underscored the significance of this claim by restating it:“What happened, you know, I, we had guns when I was a kid, you know, I went to school, where we had a gun club in the school, and kids would come with their rifles to school. And nobody was nobody even imagined somebody would go in that school and start shooting children. There’s other countries that have almost as many guns as we do, like Switzerland, that don’t have school shootings. So what is going on here? The last school shooting in Switzerland was 21 years ago. We have school shootings every 21 hours. One of the things we need to look at our assets, our eyes, there is one study that shows that at least 23% of school shootings have been that the shooter was at the time or but prior or before was on SSRIs. Oh. And if you look at the label, manufacturing, the insert where these drugs they say on homicidal and suicidal ideation and action, so if not insane, to say we should look at this as something changed in our country, it started this and it’s not the guns.”