I appologize if this is in the wrong forum. Mods, please move if you like.
For the sake of discretion, I am going to omit names and other identifying specifics.
Right after lunch today, I got into an interesting conversation.
The wife of a candidate for one of our state offices came into my office in an effort to solicite my vote. The position is a non-legislative position, but I still engage anyone who seeks public office regarding their positions on a few issues key to me.
In my opinion, it gives a glimpse of the character of the person, and gives me advance warning for future positions this person may seek.
So...
I said that I assume that she knows her husband's beliefs and credentials and asked if I was correct. Of course, she said yes.
I explained to her that my vote is given based upon principles and character and I could not give her a promise of support without knowing her husband's views.
I didn't know if she would engage it, but she said that she would be happy to answer my questions. Great!
I asked her simply "What is your husband's views and position on the 2nd Amendment?"
She did great explaining that her husband was an NRA member and has an "A" rating from the NRA. She further explained that he was a life-long hunter.
Then she stepped in it...
".... But we don't think that people in Jackson should be running around with AK-47's."
I responded "Really...I should tell you that you just lost my vote-- and most likely encouraged me to campaign against you. I happen to be a lawful citizen who owns serveral AK-47 style rifles."
I further explained that I don't see how location should have ANY bearing on one's constitutional RIGHT to bear arms and defend themselves. I went on to say "Are you trying to tell me that your husband would not support the right of a lawful citizen to purchase and use a weapon because of its military orientation? I should inform you that the 2nd Amendment is not and has never been about hunting or any sporting purpose. I would expect someone who fills the position your husband seeks to FULLY understand and support that view.
I think that my response shocked her. She started stammering and backtracking.
I went a little easier on her-- realizing that she probably never envisioned in her wildest dreams entering into a conversation such as this.
I went on...
"Ma'am... I don't want you to feel like I just sand-bagged you. You're husband probably earned that NRA rating. But I feel like I need to explain to you why the question I asked matters so much..."
I said "You tell me that crime is running out of control in Jackson... Many people immediately say statements such as you... Tell me... have any of those crimes been committed with any form of military-oriented rifle? I suspect none. The logic breaks down when you are against a tool that your own statistics show is NOT the one used."
"Furthermore... Banning the tools has never prevented the crimes." Would you say that New York has as bad of a crime issue as Jackson? Well, in NY the gun laws are dramatically stricter than those in Jackson. Preventing guns do not prevent crime. All you do is make victims."
"Evil can never be banned. That is your problem. When you seek to take away the tools behind the evil, the evil still exists. Your restrictions only affect those that are not evil."
I ended with this....
"Consider this. I, as a man, HAVE the tools to leave this building and go rape a woman. With those same tools, I also have the capability of being a good father. By the logic of your original statement, I-- and all men-- should be castrated because SOME evil men CHOOSE to rape women. I do not choose to do so, and I choose not to do evil with my AK-47's. I hope you can understand why I'll not support someone who would use such flawed logic where it could potentially be acted upon in any legislative or excutive manner."
She said she will be requesting that her husband calls me this week to discuss his positions.
While I cannot be certain, I do think that her eyes have been opened a bit regarding gun control issues.
I hope so anyway.
I just thought I'd share.
-- John
For the sake of discretion, I am going to omit names and other identifying specifics.
Right after lunch today, I got into an interesting conversation.
The wife of a candidate for one of our state offices came into my office in an effort to solicite my vote. The position is a non-legislative position, but I still engage anyone who seeks public office regarding their positions on a few issues key to me.
In my opinion, it gives a glimpse of the character of the person, and gives me advance warning for future positions this person may seek.
So...
I said that I assume that she knows her husband's beliefs and credentials and asked if I was correct. Of course, she said yes.
I explained to her that my vote is given based upon principles and character and I could not give her a promise of support without knowing her husband's views.
I didn't know if she would engage it, but she said that she would be happy to answer my questions. Great!
I asked her simply "What is your husband's views and position on the 2nd Amendment?"
She did great explaining that her husband was an NRA member and has an "A" rating from the NRA. She further explained that he was a life-long hunter.
Then she stepped in it...
".... But we don't think that people in Jackson should be running around with AK-47's."
I responded "Really...I should tell you that you just lost my vote-- and most likely encouraged me to campaign against you. I happen to be a lawful citizen who owns serveral AK-47 style rifles."
I further explained that I don't see how location should have ANY bearing on one's constitutional RIGHT to bear arms and defend themselves. I went on to say "Are you trying to tell me that your husband would not support the right of a lawful citizen to purchase and use a weapon because of its military orientation? I should inform you that the 2nd Amendment is not and has never been about hunting or any sporting purpose. I would expect someone who fills the position your husband seeks to FULLY understand and support that view.
I think that my response shocked her. She started stammering and backtracking.
I went a little easier on her-- realizing that she probably never envisioned in her wildest dreams entering into a conversation such as this.
I went on...
"Ma'am... I don't want you to feel like I just sand-bagged you. You're husband probably earned that NRA rating. But I feel like I need to explain to you why the question I asked matters so much..."
I said "You tell me that crime is running out of control in Jackson... Many people immediately say statements such as you... Tell me... have any of those crimes been committed with any form of military-oriented rifle? I suspect none. The logic breaks down when you are against a tool that your own statistics show is NOT the one used."
"Furthermore... Banning the tools has never prevented the crimes." Would you say that New York has as bad of a crime issue as Jackson? Well, in NY the gun laws are dramatically stricter than those in Jackson. Preventing guns do not prevent crime. All you do is make victims."
"Evil can never be banned. That is your problem. When you seek to take away the tools behind the evil, the evil still exists. Your restrictions only affect those that are not evil."
I ended with this....
"Consider this. I, as a man, HAVE the tools to leave this building and go rape a woman. With those same tools, I also have the capability of being a good father. By the logic of your original statement, I-- and all men-- should be castrated because SOME evil men CHOOSE to rape women. I do not choose to do so, and I choose not to do evil with my AK-47's. I hope you can understand why I'll not support someone who would use such flawed logic where it could potentially be acted upon in any legislative or excutive manner."
She said she will be requesting that her husband calls me this week to discuss his positions.
While I cannot be certain, I do think that her eyes have been opened a bit regarding gun control issues.
I hope so anyway.
I just thought I'd share.
-- John
Last edited:
