The Question Which Must Not Be Answered.

It’s a very simple question, short, to the point, and critical to sane discussion of “gun control.” Yet, with very few exceptions, victim-disarming people controllers will not answer. And they’ll try to disavow the honest lunatics who do.


That’s it. That’s the question. When the question isn’t just ignored, they deflect. “You’re just saying criminals don’t obey laws again. That isn’t worth addressing.” Or, “I told you; we’ll pass a law.”

“Pass a law” is the what. I want to know the how.

Stephany Rose Spaulding, “the underdog Democrat challenging incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn for Colorado’s 5th District,” wants more gun people control.

That responsibility could come in a federal mandate that anyone seeking to buy a firearm would have to pass a background check, Spaulding said.

Spaulding, backed Moms Demand Victims’ Shannon Watts, purports to believe that universal background checks preemptively-prove-your-innocence (PPYI) prior restraint would cut the “number of suicides, domestic and police shootings across the country” in half.

I asked her, “How?” Specifically, when no more than 6% of criminals using firearms obtained them through lawful channels, how would you implement such a requirement to ensure compliance? How do you get those criminals to comply with NICS checks? (It seems to me that making them undergo NICS checks would necessitate eliminating the black market in firearms completely. Again, “How?”)


Spaulding wants a national “red flag” law, too.

How? How will her law work? Would this be the typical “red flag” legislation that allows confiscation before due process, and leaves this alleged dangerous person on the street, and now angered by the taking?


Spaulding also said she wants to expand the definition of domestic violence, a significant indicator of those who might commit gun violence. In tandem with that legislation, she wants to ensure that those convicted of domestic violence could not own firearms.

Expanded to include what? Those convicted of domestic violence are already prohibited persons, so what additional means would she implement to prevent tham possessing firearms? How?


“We have eroded the responsibility of what it means to be owners of firearms,” she said. “And for me that is not ‘Can I take away?’ or ‘Should I take away your guns?’ but asking people to be responsible.”

How? How is “responsibility” strengthened by taking the responsibility from the people and putting it in the hands of government?


Parroting talking points is easy. Policy is…

actually not that tough. That’s how to end “gun” violence. Admittedly, implementing it will require hard choices that most politicians are incapable of making.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)


4 thoughts on “The Question Which Must Not Be Answered.”

  1. There are two “How?” questions that need to be asked for each of these proposals.

    The first is, “How will that work to effect your stated end goal in the real world?”

    The second is, “How many heretofore law-abiding lives are you willing to sacrifice — via either cops enforcing the law, or criminals ignoring it — in the attempt?”

    The answer to both — if you get to ask the question at all — tends to be some variation of, “Don’t know, don’t care.” Which tells you all you need to know.

    1. There’s also the question if ‘who’. Who will confiscate? Most military and veterans would refuse. Many LEOs would as well. They took an oath and will stand by it.

      There is also the matter of whether or not confiscation would result in defensive homeowners shooting to defend their property. There are 140 million gun owners in the US and only about 2 million LEOs of any kind. If one confiscator is shot at every second attempt, how long will it be until there will be nobody accepting those assignments!

      1. about two weeks, maximum.

        Already with the bad guys calling for war on cops (despicably so, at this point) there is a hesitance for folks to sign up for that duty.
        Imagine if, every day, dozens of reports came back of gun owners standing firm on “come and take it, lead first”, and coppers coming home in body bags by the droves.

        WHY have not the police in New York and Massachussetts gone door to door in search of all those tens of thousands of “black and ugly” rifles that the citizens of those states have “forgotten” to register? Three guesses, and the first two don’t count. Same reason Japan’s Hirohito was advised to NOT launch a land invasion on our shores back in the 1940’s. “Behind every blade of grass…..”

        There remain far too many who have read of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto who had “forgotten” to surrender ALL of their firearms when so requested by the Nazi soldiers. Since we have THEIR experience to draw upon, let us hope far more of us will also have a sudden lapse of memory as to what guns we own, and where they are stored just now when those dirty coppers come round to collect them “all”.

  2. The idea of confiscation is beyond a dangerous game.

    To be disarmed takes away any real ability to resist what evil comes next from such a rogue government.

    So for smart people it is a “red-line” or an open declaration of war on citizens and must be responded to with firing back.

    Regarding the “who” my own CA CHP thugs stole firearms in New Orleans. Despicable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *