If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
Mike Weisser's Huffington Post bio describes him this way:
Gun business for 35 years as a retailer, wholesaler, importer and firearms trainer. NRA Life member. Ph.D. in economic history.
He also signs his Huffington Post articles "Mike the Gun Guy," or sometimes, "'The Gun Guy' at Evolve" (more about Evolve in a bit). "Now wait a second," readers must be asking themselves, "a gun dealer (and self-described "Gun Guy," no less), and NRA Life member who writes for the Huffington Post? Well, the conclusion to not draw here is that the Huffington Post is trying to add some balance to its radically subversive pro-"gun control" editorial stance.
No, "Mike the Gun Guy," his gun business in Ware, Massachusetts notwithstanding, would be a comfortable fit among the leadership of any of the most virulently anti-gun groups in the country, as can be seen in any quick perusal of his writings at Huff Po, which disseminate forcible citizen disarmament talking points that would make Michael Bloomberg, Josh Horwitz, Sarah Brady and the rest proud.
His most recent article, for example, asks in the title, "Have Guns Made It Harder for Americans to Walk Away From a Fight?" In it, he discusses Michael Dunn, who is heading to decades of prison after shooting and killing a teenager in an argument about loud music; and the still-pending case of former Captain of "Only Ones" Curtis Reeves, who allegedly shot and killed a man in a movie theater, after an argument about cell phone etiquette.
From these two anecdotes, Weisser has found justification to question the right of the people--any of the people--to bear arms, and his wording is especially interesting:
I'm beginning to wonder whether we have any idea about what's at stake when we give civilians the right to walk around with a gun.
So "we give civilians the right to walk around with a gun." It's bad enough that many, even among gun rights advocates, wrongly argue that the Second Amendment "gives" any such right, ignoring the fact that Supreme Court jurisprudence has for well over a century acknowledged that the right "is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Not only is Weisser not acknowledging that, he apparently doesn't perceive a need to even consider the Second Amendment when deciding if "we" should "give civilians the right to walk around with a gun."
And what's this about "civilians," anyway? Since it appears unlikely that he is arguing for the disarmament of "Only Ones," the only remaining alternative would seem to be that he is so comfortable with the growing militarization of law enforcement that he accepts without blinking the idea of the police as an occupying army--an army with a monopoly on "the right to walk around with a gun."
Oh--and about Weisser's enthusiasm for "Evolve." The group describes itself as a "third choice in the gun debate," and appears to hope to fill a longstanding (but never before recognized) need for common ground to unite those openly opposed to private gun ownership, and those who prefer to claim to support it, but only when it is burdened with oppressive regulation.
When Weisser asks if "guns [make] it harder to walk away from a fight," and if it's a mistake to "give civilians the right to walk around with a gun," he leads the public away from such questions as how to reconcile government issued permission slips for exercising the right to bear arms, with shall not be infringed; or, for that matter, why anyone who values gun rights should patronize and thus support a so-called "gun guy" (and deadbeat?) who has dedicated himself to undermining those rights.
That's a guy who would prefer to not have to worry about answers.