Q&A

Hat tip to Joe Huffman.


Joe refers to a Paul Helmke, speaking for the Brady Campaign, quote:

"Can we get together and do what's right? Can we agree that too many people are shot to death in our country? Can we agree that some common sense laws make sense and won't affect those who are law abiding and want to own their guns and carry their guns? Can we agree that there are actually a few places where we don't actually need guns? Can we agree that gun violence is a public safety and public health problem? Can we agree that stopping the injuries and deaths caused by guns is a social justice issue?"

Allow me, in the spirit of compromise, to respond to Mr Helmke…

Can we get together and do what's right? Sure!

Can we agree that too many people are shot to death in our country? It’s a damn shame our culture is like that, but we are Americans. You sometimes get some bad with all the good.

Can we agree that some common sense laws make sense and won't affect those who are law abiding and want to own their guns and carry their guns? Happy to think on this. I’ll even grant you that there are a few laws of this kind. I assume by your question that you think there are gun laws that make no sense and all they do is burden the law abiding? Tell you what, while I think on common sense gun laws, YOU think of some gun laws on the books that need to be repealed. That would go a long way to showing you’re serious about this line of questioning and seeking of common ground, if you came out for some repeals. Here is my concession to you. "People that need a custodian 24/7 (violent criminals, the dangerously insane, that sort) should not be permitted firearms." I'm gonna take some flak from my side, I'm sure, for that position.

For some reason, until recently, human rights advocates on our side have compomised with anti-gun folk. Either in the spirit of goodwill and cooperation or because they felt that advocation of rights was somehow worthy of guilt. Compromise involved hearing an anti's proposal, then fighting to cut that proposal in half. Only half a restriction. And our side thought that was a victory. It's like negotiating for only half a plate of poison for dinner, instead of a full plate. I can assure you, no one wants any poison with their meal anymore. I'm sure you can agree with that.

Can we agree that there are actually a few places where we don't actually need guns? Need has nothing to do with it, but I sorta see where you are going with this. Hmmm. This is a toughy. Where I am, I usually have my wallet, and if I have my wallet I should be carrying my pistol. Scuba diving? I might not have a holstered hog leg then. In surgery? So it looks like we agree.

Can we agree that gun violence is a public safety and public health problem? Public health? No. MAYBE public safety. Let's not bring the CDC or WHO into this mess. Does this mean you are coming out and trying to help keep violent felons behind bars longer? After you help us, Britain could use some support too. Those people banned guns and still felons/ex-cons are killing innocent people left and right.

Can we agree that stopping the injuries and deaths caused by guns is a social justice issue? No. Stop right there. ‘Social Justice’ is used by way too many collectivists as a code word for getting their particular brand of evil 'utopia' instigated. That route is as frought with landmines as Eugenicists that just want to ‘discourage the breeding of the unfit.’ It’s a foot in the door. No. Drop the word ‘social’ and we can continue this conversation. Until then, good day, sir.

I said Good Day!