First They Came for the Transgenders… Zion Patriot, September 8, 2025September 9, 2025 Disclaimer: I do not endorse or agree with the transgender movement. However, it is important to defend the gun rights of everyone. Once we start labeling and targeting groups for the actions of individuals, we begin down a dangerous path that threatens all of our freedoms. The recent discussions about banning firearm ownership for transgender Americans — sparked by the Minnesota church shooting — have opened a floodgate of arguments on both sides. While emotions run high, we need to step back and consider the larger principles at stake. The Rhetoric Argument It’s true: if you spend time in certain Reddit forums, you’ll see disturbing rhetoric. Posts celebrating violence, mocking the victims in Minnesota, and expressing hatred toward Christians should disturb anyone, regardless of where they stand on transgender issues. But here’s the catch: that kind of rhetoric should be addressed by law enforcement at the individual level — not by banning entire groups from exercising constitutional rights. If someone posts threats or celebrates violence, investigate that person. Conflating fringe rhetoric with an entire demographic sets a dangerous precedent. A Normal Face in the Crowd Perhaps the most chilling detail is that just five days before the shooting, the Minnesota perpetrator purchased a revolver at a local gun shop. Three different salespeople and several customers interacted with him. No one noticed anything out of the ordinary. This is a sobering reminder: you cannot always judge a book by its cover. Evil or instability often hides behind a normal face and polite conversation. That doesn’t mean the gun store did anything wrong — it means human beings are not perfect lie detectors. Legal Purchases and Failed Safeguards It is also important to note that the Minnesota shooter purchased his firearms legally. He passed the required background checks and even held a firearms permit, which Minnesota law requires. His guns — including an AR-style rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol — were acquired well before the incident. This means that even if Minnesota had mandatory waiting periods (which it does not), they would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy. Minnesota already has some of the nation’s stronger gun laws, including permit-to-purchase requirements, universal background checks, and so-called “red flag” provisions. Yet, just like in many previous mass shootings, the supposed safeguards did nothing to prevent the crime. That didn’t stop Senator Amy Klobuchar from immediately calling for federal universal background checks — even though Minnesota already has them, and the shooter passed several of them. Minnesota’s “Sanctuary” Policies Another argument being made is that Minnesota’s status as a so-called “trans sanctuary state” created a loophole. Critics suggest this meant the shooter couldn’t be deemed “mentally unfit” despite deep personal struggles. Not long ago, gender dysphoria was classified and treated as a mental illness. Today, it has morphed into a broader gender ideology — one that is culturally and politically charged. This shift helps explain why some people see banning gun ownership for transgender individuals as a logical extension of existing mental health restrictions. But even if you agree with the motive, we must disagree with the action. Rights should not be stripped from entire groups based on ideology or identity. Once we accept that, it opens the door to broader and more dangerous infringements. The Slippery Slope of Group Bans If we allow the government to ban gun ownership by transgender individuals because of the actions of a few, what stops the next administration from banning gun ownership for white men — the demographic behind most school shootings? Or Black men, citing gang violence? Once rights are stripped from groups, it is only a matter of time before they are stripped from your group. Pastor Martin Niemöller’s warning after World War II still rings true today: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” The principle is clear: hold individuals accountable for their actions, not entire populations for the sins of a few. The Bible itself affirms this principle. “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20). Rights — and responsibilities — belong to the individual. Punishing entire groups for the actions of a few is not only unconstitutional, it runs contrary to biblical justice. Dangerous Freedom vs. Safe Slavery At the end of the day, this debate is not only about guns, or transgenderism, or even Minnesota. It’s about whether we value freedom enough to accept the risks that come with it. A rock in bad hands killed Abel. A rock in good hands killed Goliath. It is not the rock. I will take dangerous freedom over safe slavery any day. Gun Control Politics