Nate Fischer Profile picture
Jun 5, 2022 9 tweets 2 min read Read on X
It is naive to evaluate gun control proposals based on their stated goal of reducing gun violence. If this were the priority, stop-and-frisk would be the top proposal.

The lens of friend/enemy politics gives a clearer picture. 🧵 1/9
Gun control primarily imposes restrictions on law-abiding middle- and working-class gun owners and would-be gun owners.

This is a heavily Republican group. 2/9
Criminals continue to have easy access to guns, and this is not likely to change in a country with a vast trove of existing guns. (Stop-and-frisk would make this riskier/less convenient).

This group is a tool—and sometimes more direct client—of the left. 3/9
Thus Democrats oppose policies that would most reduce access to guns for their political allies, and advocate policies that would restrict such access for their political enemies. 4/9
The most likely political use of guns by citizens will be to protect against anarcho-tyranny. We saw a mild version of this in the tacitly regime-sanctioned mobs in summer of 2020; a more extreme version could look like China’s Cultural Revolution or the French Revolution. 5/9
In such scenarios, guns—especially AR-15s and the like—provide citizens on our side significant protection against hostile mobs. They need not defend against tanks or SWAT teams; they simply need to motivate a mob to move on or disperse. 6/9
Many on the left know these mobs help advance their agenda, and recognize citizen gun ownership threatens this. They are pushing for gun control measures that will both disarm such citizens, and add tools to prosecute those who do use guns against these mobs. 7/9
In contrast, many in these mobs are armed with the sort of weapons not threatened by gun control laws: rocks, Molotov cocktails, black market guns (often the sort stop-and-frisk would have removed).

Gun control measures thus shift the balance in their favor. 8/9
In sum: any time you see an apparent inconsistency (or the “hypocrisy” normie conservatives like to trumpet) in Democratic gun rhetoric, reevaluate through this friend/enemy lens. Behavior should make more sense. 9/9

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Nate Fischer

Nate Fischer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NateAFischer

Jan 27
Possible consequence of these New York Trump lawsuits:

NY has long been a trusted hub for commercial law, with its laws and courts often chosen by contracting parties around the world.

Very public cases like this cast doubt on the integrity of those courts, and may lead parties to seek a more trustworthy legal forum.

This in turn could help undermine New York’s status as a global financial hub.
This Trump case is just one example of the themes of my annual letter.

It shows how political conflict could contribute to the collapse of institutional trust—with knock-on effects that undermine the globalized system and resonate around the world.
Would you trust your business to this narcissistic ideologue?…
Read 4 tweets
Jan 12
My 2023 investor letter—outlining macro themes that define our strategy at @NewFounding:

As we enter 2024, I see three interrelated themes that explain contemporary societal fear, malaise, and conflict, and that frame the opportunity for a true positive alternative vision.

Each of these themes touches a key contemporary problem, and each reflects a pervasive underlying ideology. Together, they contribute to a broader breakdown in societal trust and order. Likewise, I see three corresponding solutions that must define a positive future. Many people emphasize one or two of these problems and/or solutions. I believe all three problems are deeply linked, and that successful responses will often include solutions to all three.

‍Global disruption:
‍Driven by an ideology of globalism, leaders in all segments of society have pursued connection with and dependence on distant counterparties. The decades surrounding the collapse of the Soviet Union saw an unprecedented growth of global trade and information flow and political openness. But as competition with China escalates, wars emerge in Europe and the Near East, and militias threaten trade routes with weapons that impose asymmetric costs, there is a rising awareness of the risks of such a system—fragility inherent in any sort of external or distant dependency. Moreover, the system of globalism creates a tragedy of the commons; tighter aligned groups, who are less focused on universal ideals, often politically outmaneuver those who are committed to the universalism necessary to sustain a global market.

The solution is household, community, regional, and national self-determination—a fractal approach that recognizes outside connections will remain, but systematically favors local (whether local to a geography or aligned community) interactions when feasible. Successful startups will facilitate such interactions, leveraging existing local networks or enabling new connections, rather than defaulting to the distant and anonymous.

‍Bureaucratic stagnation:
‍Managerialism—the push to professionalize / rationalize / commoditize every process and organization—has redefined the structure of our society over the past century. This process enables scale, a direct complement to globalization. But it also comes at a cost: bureaucratic impediments to decision-making, accountability, and innovation; rationalized processes that feel cold and sterile; commoditization that forces conformity and destroys variety. And it has led to widespread bloat, with outsized growth of administrative jobs in domains from finance to education, and departments like HR in every sector.

he solution is multifaceted—a combination of new frontiers and organizational models more dependent on ownership and skin in the game instead of bureaucratic checks, enabling an elevation of the human spirit even in a complex world. Startups inherently tend in this direction, and startups whose products empower decision-makers in complex environments (in contrast, for example, to those that abrogate human decision-making through hard-coded processes) will see particular appeal. AI will offer particular contrasts between tools that automate oversight mechanisms to allow the expansion of bureaucratic governance, and those that automate creative functions to give leverage to individuals.

‍Cultural and political alienation:
‍Cultural conflicts have encompassed every institution and area of American life in the past decade. Practices and traditions that were widely accepted have been attacked and deconstructed by ideological narratives—such as DEI and CRT—grounded in radical liberation and egalitarianism. While many see these as irrelevant "politics" that are bolted on to otherwise-neutral businesses, they in fact complement globalism and managerialism (one reason why any solution simply branding itself as “anti-woke” will struggle to meaningfully differentiate itself). They help strip people of familial and cultural attachments to make them more predictable/malleable participants in global bureaucracies, and offer a comfortable moral framework to people in such careers. While this has driven widespread corporate embrace of these ideologies, it has alienated millions of Americans.

The solution is a renewed embrace of the American tradition and Christian ideals. This means a recognition that these are good things, worthy of protection and celebration, and for many businesses and institutions, it means a proactive focus on marketing to and serving individuals and communities who still embrace these values—both because of the short-term opportunity to pick up customers alienated by competitors, and because truly serving these people will mean focusing on real problems and valuable, durable solutions.

‍New Founding's vision:
‍Americans are hungry for a positive vision they can rally around. Many in both politics and venture recognize key problems described above and promote solutions targeted at them. But too often, they approach these in isolation or focus on surface-level phenomena rather than the root issue—leaving doubt as to the viability or sufficiency of proposed solutions.

At New Founding, we see deep relationships among these problems, and believe that solutions that likewise touch multiple themes can be poised for successes that more isolated responses struggle to achieve. For example, a startup that not only markets to alienated conservative customers, but designs its product to be more empowering than bureaucratic alternatives, may parlay success with politically motivated early adopters into broader appeal across its sector. Likewise, the best response to an unreliable dependency on a global tech giant may not be an individualistic, trust-minimized technology (these often struggle to offer a competitive user experience), but rather an approach that builds on the deep trust that still exists in many aligned communities such as churches—creating a solution that is not just a necessary compromise given declining institutional trust, but a higher-trust and more personal alternative. In a world where the risks of scale and distance grow, impersonal bureaucracies stagnate, and culture battles rage, the greatest store of value will be high-trust communities.

We believe new ventures that address the core problems described above will benefit from growing macro tailwinds, and have not just niche appeal, but the potential to transform their sectors. Moreover, as disillusionment with current institutions grows, those who offer real solutions to our underlying problems will tap a hunger that crosses domains from politics to business, and inspire people with the opportunity to build a positive vision for America’s future.

Our ventures:
We are pursuing this vision through several efforts: our venture fund, a new real estate-focused unit, and a new venture we are developing in-house.

More details on these below.
First, through the New Founding Venture Fund, we made two early-stage investments:

1) Presidio Healthcare (@PresidioCare)
2) Armanet (firearms-focused ad tech platform)
Read 6 tweets
Oct 19, 2023
I am thrilled to announce New Founding’s investment into Presidio Healthcare, leading their pre-seed round from our Venture Fund. Presidio is a health insurance startup offering innovative non-ACA policies designed for pro-life customers.

Presidio squarely fits New Founding's thesis: it is developing a competitive product in a sector in need of broad innovation, and is focusing on conservatives and Christians who are particularly dissatisfied by the status quo.

Presidio’s founders, Daniel Cruz and Bob Hogan, combine strong actuarial and regulatory expertise with experience at a successful health insurance startup. Their products will reflect their Catholic ethical commitments, and serve the desires of a broad group of healthcare consumers.

The healthcare sector itself is well positioned for new entrants. In the face of this opportunity, Presidio's founders have an innovative vision for a better and more cost-effective approach to health insurance. With many of the most exciting developments in healthcare happening in the self-pay space, Presidio's model will allow them to embrace these—offering their members better and cheaper care options.

We will see broader shifts in the healthcare space—with millions of Americans alienated by establishment medical trends from gender ideology to vaccine policy—and I believe that Presidio can play a key role in driving change. As Presidio grows, they intend to leverage their membership community to crowdsource a new network of providers who reject these ideologies and offer care that is aligned with our values—making them a natural integration layer for a new ecosystem. 🧵Image
Presidio's initial plans will be aimed at individuals and families who buy their own insurance, and they intend to launch in Texas in 2024. You can join the waitlist for their policies here:

Our investment into Presidio will come from the Q4 fund of our rolling fund, which remains open through November 30. If you would like to learn more about this fund, see the thread below and links in it, or reach out to me to discuss.

Read 6 tweets
Sep 16, 2023
I judge politicians on their effectiveness against the left.

In an existential war, you do not remove an effective officer—much less cede his position to the enemy—because an affair or gambling problem comes to light.

We are in a war for our civilization.
Paxton and Boebert have been effective in important battles.

I’m open to arguments that flaws may undermine future effectiveness.

We should be judging everyone we choose to represent us, no matter how principled or virtuous, on that basis.
But if God could use Samson as his instrument to deliver Israel, I’m skeptical of calls to toss one of our fighters out because he doesn’t meet some standard of conduct that is anything but a uniform rule across the political aisle.
Read 10 tweets
Jun 7, 2023
When people get upset about theft, it’s not about “protecting corporate profits.”

People are outraged at the offense to justice and order in their society.

And they sense how quickly unchallenged crime can spiral.
This is similar to debates when someone intervenes against harassment of a third party on a subway.

It may not always be prudent, but the impulse is admirable.
Read 4 tweets
Apr 28, 2023
It’s always smart to debate the prudence of tactics and messages we use.

But it would be wrong attribute the rise of the term “Christian nationalism” solely to hostile media. 🧵

The first National Conservatism conference was in 2019, elevating use of “national”/“nationalist” as terms of political identity—in clear opposition to globalism.

There has also been much discussion of the limitations of “conservatism” as a primary political identity...

...particularly the need for a more definite positive vision for what we should aspire to. “Christian” naturally offers this.

Thus it’s natural many would embrace a term that combines these to describe their political vision.

Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!