After 70 minutes straight of listening to this speech on gun violence and the 2nd amendment, I have concluded that I have better intestinal fortitude than that of a mountain goat. I sat and digested this speech resisting wave after wave of nausea. After all this, I need to remark on few points (though I have written about 3 pages of notes while listening). Bear with me as I rant and get a bit disjointed too.
Helmke Speech Prologue: It’s like a trip through a fun-house maze with mirrors…and a rabid raccoon running after you. It’s disorienting and scary all at the same time.
The speech itself:
Aside from the preponderance of the dreg that spews from his mouth, Paul Helmke brings forth one gleaming ray of clarity: he clearly admits a lack of knowledge about guns and their utility. He says about his youthful exposures, "It wasn't my kind of thing." He then clues the audience into the origins of some of his notions on gun violence. It is reportedly derived from a very inspirational source. No, not the Bible. It is inspiration coming from wild-west TV shows. That's fine not to like or want to own a gun. I don’t like ballroom dancing, but, I’m not about to declare myself an ‘anti-ballroom dancist’ and try to bend and disillusion the masses by overemphasizing my (lack of) experience or knowledge to persuade others to think the same way I do. Ironically I will mention the fact Dirty Dancing is on TV as I type this. Okay, I haven’t turned the channel yet, so I MUST be watching it. Don’t judge me.
He also admits to having been exposed to a traumatic event as a child. A friend who was shot (nonfatal) in the back, which, in conjunction with only having an uncle who occasionally hunted, provided the crumbling foundation from which he now views the subject.
‘There must be a way to get my point across’…I can imagine this thought in his mind. There is! He wastes no time by implementing the inevitable knee jerk/emotional strategy so commonly used by he and his ilk.
I certainly agree that a 3 year old alone pulling the trigger of a loaded gun, a trained officer accidentally shooting a cadet during a class, a 9 year old being sprayed with drive-by fire at her parent’s birthday (mothers) party, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois, or a child being shot while at a piano lesson are tragic, senseless acts of negligence and violence to which no check or limitation can be set. I think we all can agree to that. So why say it? Likely to bring outrage, to expose weakness, and instill fear and helplessness….to make the audience quiver and ask, How Mr. Helmke? How do we protect ourselves from this?! The sheep are restless; this gunny is reaching for a aspirin to alleviate a forth coming headache.
“This is not a Republican, Democrat, Liberal, or Conservative issue…it’s an issue of common sense”, says Helmke (as usual, he will later bandstand on many points which clearly state the contrary). It’s obvious to note with his stated ‘facts’ like,
1. People who own guns are 3 to 22 percent more likely to be shot by that same gun.
2. California and New York have the only strict gun laws in the US which begin to address the problem... (apparently that likens us who live in the other 48 states as the denizens of anarchy)
3. There have only been 3 real Federal Laws in place to address gun violence (using Brady terminology…because it’s the gun not the person….I’m popping another pepto). Those would be: the machinegun ban, the establishment of a Prohibitive Purchasers Lists (what Helmke would call those who are “mentally dangerous”), and the NICS. I have a real problem with his term “mentally dangerous”…I think I know what he was trying to say, but I can’t help how it speaks volumes on his perceptions of the average citizen.
4. It’s harder to buy Sudafed than buy a gun. (Wow…just wow),
we have passed the fun-house mirror maze and entered the spinning room….
This iswhere I start to think about what it means to be ‘mentally dangerous’. We have learned about many people throughout history whose thoughts were considered ‘dangerous’ and against societal norms of governance. I think the terms we were taught to identify some of them posthumously were, “Patriot”, “Rebel”… and in some early cases, President. So what is a ‘mentally dangerous’ person? How would you identify them from patriot, rebel, or president? Perhaps the actions and intentions of the individual would be a better place to focus than on what Helmke believes to be the true issue: that you just can’t expect anyone to handle a firearm responsibly, so get rid of them.
“I’m not anti-gun, I’m not pro-gun.”, Helmke says. Gasp…what? Let me turn down ‘Nobody puts Baby in the Corner’ err.… the television, what? Later he goes on to say that the “main lens” he views our current, presidential candidates through is their position on guns.
Another jewel he claims is that even his friends worry about him ‘taking their guns’. Well, trust me on this Mr. Helmke, you don’t have any real friends with guns.
I gotta get out of this fun house.
Thanks,
Rok
