Let's play a game.

I came across this questionnaire, put out there by a gun-grabber, thanks in part to this blog, and this one.

My answers:


1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?
Premise of the question is faulty. Criminals should be behind bars. This would be more than sufficient to prevent them from buying guns.


2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
Again, a leading question with a faulty premise. Since it is impossible to tell who might become a criminal, we clearly cannot preclude those without a criminal record from purchasing any legal object. Those who have committed a crime should be punished. Persons in prison are not capable of purchasing firearms… or much else for that matter.



3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?
Yes. And clearly so. Background checks do not prevent criminals from getting guns, but they do make it more difficult for the law-abiding to obtain a gun.

4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
Yes. Maybe not personally, but certainly collectively.

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
Another leading question with a faulty premise. I doubt you’d be capable of physically taking anything away from me. However, I do believe you will push for more restrictions – restrictions that do not affect the ability of the criminal to get a gun, but would prevent me (a law abiding citizen) from getting one.

6.  What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
*I* do not speak for anyone else. This question is best posed to Sharron Angle directly.

7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?
Doing? Possibly, but I pray every day that those won’t happen. I dislike being assaulted, or robbed, or killed. Same for my family. However, I would not hesitate to use a “2^nd Amendment Remedy” in such cases.
Saying? No. We have a freedom of speech (1^st Amendment). Ironically, it is protected directly by the 2^nd Amendment.


8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
Calling people liars? Only if the shoe fits. Names? No. I am civilized. But again, I must point out that this question is leading, and based on a faulty premise. The fact is that these tactics are more commonly employed by persons on your side of this debate.

9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?
If I’ll say it, then I’ll say it online. I’ll say it to your face. I’ll go on record.

10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
Yes. Unequivocally.  The 2^nd states: “…shall not be infringed.”


11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
Current gun laws, beyond the 2^nd, I do not believe in. The 2^nd Amendment is the only one I believe in. The others are being enforced, without a doubt. Of course, this is a misleading question again, as it doesn’t talk about the fact that these laws are not preventing criminals form getting guns.

12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
No blanket statement is ever true (see what I did there?).

13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
Depends on what statistics you wish to accumulate.

14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?
Again, depends on what statistics you want to accumulate. More importantly, what are you trying to prove with those statistics?

15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
Of course. But again we have a misleading question with a faulty premise. How many people are killed because of careless driving? Or careless practice of medicine? (I could go on!)

16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
Depends. The Christian side of me says even 1 death is too many. The scientific part of me points out that there are so many other things that cause more death in our society. And for those that are not Christian, how about the possibility of this being a very small part of evolution – survival of the fittest?

17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?I do this with education. Someone who knows how to handle a gun is far less likely to have an accident. The more people I teach, the better. Again, this question is misleading - as the assumption is that all shootings are a bad thing. Some people (criminals in the commission of a crime) need to be shot.

18.  Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?
Again, a leading question with a faulty premise. Do I think those things happened? Yes. Do I think your leaning on what “should be done” will help? No.


19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).
Personally, the ATF could care less about *me.* Again, this is a faulty premise. As a collective, the ATF does not want guns in the hands of the general public, and works fervently to make that happen within the constraints of the laws on the books.

20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
Again, a faulty premise. If by “reasonable discussion” you are wanting me to compromise… then the answer is a definite “NO.” Gun owners have compromised too much already.
If, by “reasonable discussion” you mean that you are willing to learn and accept the facts as they are, then by all means yes.