If you ever wonder why an “expert” like Spitzer always takes the side of the government in gun rights litigation, you can start with the fact that they clearly don’t understand the basics of firearms or ballistics. Take Robert Spitzer, the self-proclaimed gun control sage who’s testified in countless cases pushing for restrictions, yet peddles claims that crumble under the slightest scrutiny—like asserting that assault weapons are uniquely deadly without a shred of comparative data on crime stats or wound ballistics. This isn’t expertise; it’s activism dressed in academic robes, recycling the same debunked myths that AR-15s turn mass shootings into bloodbaths while ignoring FBI reports showing handguns dominate homicides year after year.

The source text nails it: Spitzer’s evidence-free hackery exemplifies how anti-2A experts thrive in echo chambers, cherry-picking anecdotes over empirics. Remember his role in New York’s SAFE Act defenses or federal challenges? He dismisses defensive gun uses—estimated at 500,000 to 3 million annually by CDC and DOJ-adjacent studies—as negligible, while inflating rare rifle incidents. This isn’t oversight; it’s deliberate obfuscation to prop up narratives that justify infringements like bump stock bans or mag limits, despite Supreme Court smackdowns in Heller, McDonald, andBruen affirming individual rights rooted in history, not his hypotheticals.

For the 2A community, this is red meat: it spotlights the intellectual rot in gun control’s expert class, urging us to amplify real data from sources like the Crime Prevention Research Center or Just Facts. As litigation ramps up post-Bruen—think challenges to AWBs in Illinois or California—these hacks will testify again, but armed with viral breakdowns of their contradictions, we can dismantle them in real-time. Demand transparency, cross-examine their research, and vote with your wallets—support pro-2A orgs exposing this grift. The tide’s turning because facts don’t care about their feelings.