1. Thank God retarded Trey Gowdy isn’t in congress anymore.
2. “mass shootings,” as defined by the FBI as “an incident where one or more individuals actively kill or attempt to kill people in a populated area” are *almost never* committed by young white males.
School… pic.twitter.com/eFsa7wSBwN
— Mrgunsngear (@Mrgunsngear) August 27, 2025
Fox News host and former South Carolina congressman Trey Gowdy set off a firestorm this week after appearing to float the idea of stricter gun laws during a segment on Fox’s Outnumbered. Left-leaning outlets immediately blasted headlines like “Fox News Host Calls for Gun Control in Stunning Moment Live on Air,” while conservatives — including many Trump supporters — accused Gowdy of betraying the Second Amendment.
But what actually happened? And did Gowdy truly call for new gun control, or was his point something else entirely?
What Gowdy Said on Fox
Reacting to the Minneapolis Catholic school shooting that killed two children and injured 17 others, Gowdy argued that America’s justice system is “reactive” and only responds after tragedy strikes.
“What people are crying for now is how can we prevent this? How can we stop it? And the only way to stop it is to identify the shooter ahead of time or keep the weapons out of their hands,” Gowdy said on air.
He added: “We’re going to have to have a conversation of freedom versus protecting children. I mean, how many school shootings does it take before we’re going to have a conversation about keeping firearms out?”
That was enough for mainstream media to run with the story that Gowdy had “called for gun control.” But it’s worth noting that at no point did Gowdy propose a specific new law, endorse a ban on AR-15s, or call for magazine limits. He framed his comments as questions, not policy prescriptions.
The Pushback
Influential former GOP Congressman and FOX News host Trey Gowdy just went on national TV to shill for gun control in the wake of today’s Minneapolis terrorist attack.
Unacceptable. The last time GOP leaders locked arms with Joe Biden and the Democrats to pass “red flag” style… pic.twitter.com/EvQjvprlJu
— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights) August 27, 2025
Gowdy’s remarks triggered immediate outrage from conservative circles. The National Association for Gun Rights called his comments “unacceptable.” Commentators like Mike Cernovich posted clips accusing him of hating gun owners and pushing “anti-white hatred.”
Other panelists on Outnumbered pushed back in real time. Lisa Boothe pointed out that laws already exist against murder. Rachel Campos-Duffy raised cultural issues and blamed antidepressants, echoing a line from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Gowdy, however, kept pressing his larger point: the system only reacts after blood is spilled.
What He Clarified on Clay & Buck
The next day, Gowdy joined The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show and was asked point-blank whether he regretted his words. His answer: no.
He back-pedaled that his point was about prevention, not confiscation.
“We have gun control. There are controls on who can have guns, where you can have them, and what kind of guns you can have,” Gowdy said. “By the time a murder takes place, we’ve already lost. Somebody’s been killed. How can we prevent the murder?”
He argued that society either has to focus on identifying the shooter or tracking firearms — and that in this case, the shooter legally purchased three guns. He questioned whether any reasonable person, looking back, would have still sold firearms to someone so obviously unstable.
At the same time, Gowdy stressed he rejects the FBI’s broad “mass shooting” definition, saying he only counts events like Sandy Hook, Uvalde, Nashville, and Minneapolis where innocents are deliberately targeted. He also emphasized parental responsibility, noting cases where parents knew their children were dangerous but failed to act.
Perhaps most importantly, Gowdy circled back to enforcement. “You have to enforce the laws that you currently have, which we are not doing,” he said, citing low federal prosecution rates for firearms offenses under the Obama administration.
What He Did Not Say
Despite the headlines, Gowdy did not:
- Call for banning AR-15s or semi-automatic rifles.
- Propose magazine restrictions.
- Endorse Biden-style “assault weapon” bans.
- Suggest rolling back the Second Amendment.
Instead, his message appeared to be about enforcement, mental health checks, parental responsibility, and the philosophical tradeoff between freedom and prevention. When pressed, he admitted there may be no “perfect law” to stop rare tragedies like school shootings — a position different from gun-control activists pushing sweeping bans.
Why It Matters
The controversy around Gowdy highlights how quickly political media can distort nuance. His remarks were framed by the left as a conservative “flip-flop” toward gun control, and by some on the right as a betrayal. But taken in full, Gowdy’s words appear less about stripping rights and more about frustration: a former prosecutor wrestling with the fact that once a shooting happens, it’s already too late.
So what do you think — did Trey Gowdy simply raise hard questions about prevention, or did he cross a line and sell out on the Second Amendment?
We are in dangerous times! We are NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?
Red Flag Laws Failed in Minnesota — And Lawful Gun Owners Pay the Price
No, he clearly said “We’re going to have to have a conversation of freedom versus”. He invited trading freedom for security, willingly granting a platform to bad faith actors he knows (or should know) operate in bad faith. Period. Rights are non-negotiable. Throw his enabling RINO ass to the curb. He broke ranks and made it clear that he thinks consent (of the governed) is optional and the government can do what it wants if it deems it needed. Zero tolerance for politicians with rapist mentality. Even aside from fundamental ideology problems, he should be well aware any “conversation” has… Read more »
I am always in favor of having the “Freedom versus Safety” discussion.
My position is an unequivocal NEVER!
Giving up Rights for Security always results in losing both.
Having this discussion with those who don’t comprehend that, is the best way to keep everyone from learning the Hard Way.
Yes “teach your children well”, but also other people’s children, and those adults who think like children.
Self Government only works when you have an educated population.
Without one we are doomed to fight a loosing battle.
#1 When a person that is a male, and think they are a female, something is wrong in their head, in other words they’re nuts! Not allowed to purchase guns.
What I understand is the shooter’s parents indulged his mental sickness. I for one one believe that if the parents nipped his mental delusion at the beginning, there is a big chance this doesn’t happen.
Why is Ammoland defending this clown?
I didn’t watch the video and only went by the article. He never mentioned armed guards and teachers as well.
Looks like Trey has been in the grip of the Libtards for so long that he has bought in on the special places and people theory. He has lost shall not be infringed and drank the cool aid.
Ya know, I had high hopes for this guy when he first came onto the national stage. Since then, he has been a dismal disappointment time after time. Maybe all that hair gel is going to his brain.
I never thought much of Trey Gowdy. He came in as House oversight committee chairman after the ineffectual Darryl Issa left, breathing smoke and fire, promising great things . . . and with all that bluster he accomplished exactly nothing of note. (Here in Texas Gowdy has been described as “All Hat, No Cattle.”) So this latest nonsense he’s spouting isn’t too surprising.
In this country the rule is supposed to be “commit crime, face sanctions”, not some arbitrary guessing game where the sanctions come first. If the attacker had driven a truck through the wall would he be suggesting a “conversation” about vehicles? The solution, as much as there can ever be one, involves trained personnel in plain clothes, ready to place themselves between the threat and the target.
“We’re going to have to have a conversation of freedom versus protecting children. I mean, how many school shootings does it take before we’re going to have a conversation about keeping firearms out?” “You have to enforce the laws that you currently have, which we are not doing.” Yeah, he wants and supports gun control. Spin it however you want but he’s not fooling me. He made it clear that he believes you have to pick between freedom (i.e. the 2A) or protecting kids. He (like everyone on the left, Butters, and Fudds) fails to see that existing arms laws,… Read more »
“I know you think you understand what you thought you heard me say, but I’m not at all sure you actually understood what I really meant when I said what it was you thought you heard.” Trey is both a lawyer and a politician. As such, he is not conversant with actual truth or logic. In his world truth is as rare as fluent Etruscan speakers.