Most Compelling Testimony

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign reports some people thought the testimony of a survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting was “the most compelling he had ever heard”. The victim detailed the 10 minutes of horror as he and many others were shot multiple times.

I found this rather odd for two reasons:

  1. The testimony was advocating the background checks for private sales of firearms. Which the VT survivor admitted would not have made a difference in his case because the perpetrator purchased his firearms from a licensed FFL and passed the background check. Hence all the physical and emotional trauma of his ordeal was totally irrelevant to the proposed law being discussed.
  2. Apparently these people hadn’t heard Suzanne Hupp’s testimony. Because what she proposed, the right to keep and bear arms in defense of innocent life, would have saved her parents life and is far more compelling.

Sebastian has a different response to this testimony.


2 thoughts on “Most Compelling Testimony

  1. My first thought after reading your first paragraph was “They must have never heard of Suzanne Gratia-Hupp”

    After reading your take on it, my though was, “not only would it have saved Ms. Hupp’s parents, an armed citizen could have saved untold numbers at Virginia Tech as well…then I clicked through to Sebastian’s post.

    Great minds, and all that.

    Of course, the thought crossed my mind that Suzanne Gratia-Hupp’s story has nothing to do with the “gun show loophole” but deals with concealed carry.

    …but, then again, Colin Goddard’s story has nothing to do with “the gun show loophole” either, so I guess if one unrelated testimony is relevant, then the other should be equally so.

  2. It’s axiomatic of the Left– every rights violation is to be used as a springboard for the next. To use their own words, uttered in a rare moment of honesty; “never let a crisis go to waste”. In this case, the “crisis” was a massive rights violation in the form of a shooting of innocents, and it is to be used as justification for further infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

Comments are closed.