In the video below, two animated (as in high-spirited, not actual cartoons) twenty-somethings discuss the need for gun control. Host Hannah Cranston throws softball questions at Sarah Ullman, Twitter self-identified as a “filmmaker and founder of One Vote At A Time, a SuperPAC of female filmmakers fighting for progressive causes.” Ms. Ullman is nothing if not honest . . .
“The movement for gun safety legislation has started to move away from the word control in its own language and how it talks about itself,” she admits, right from the git-go. “We use the phrase ‘gun safety’ now because we want to emphasize that the goal is not to take away someone’s Second Amendment rights.”
Even though that is the goal, of course. To, as Ms. Ullman asserts, “ensure safety for all citizens” “And no one can be anti-safety,” Ms. Cranston adds, helpfully enough.
Ms. Cranston is floored — floored I tell you — to learn that someone who’s suspected but not charged with domestic violence can buy a gun. I guess that innocent-until-proven guilty thing is an inconvenient presumption.
But not as presumptuous as Ms. Ullman’s story of a DV victim who died because the courts didn’t order the abuser’s guns confiscated. As if he couldn’t have found another gun or killed her some other way. As if the victim wouldn’t have been better off defending her life with a gun. One more thing . . .
The video’s title — Will Gun Control Laws Take Away Your Second Amendment Rights? — is an excellent question.
I don’t think it’s best posed to a progressive filmmaker. Instead, Ms. Ullman should ask residents of Hawaii, who haven’t seen their government issue a single concealed carry permit since 2000. Or New Jersey, where millions of law-abiding citizens can’t get a concealed carry permit for love nor money. Think tank about that, will ya?