She is the RADICAL and needs to be regularly called out as such. This war will be won or lost based on the perceptions of the masses.
Well, I think I'll take a disagreement on the basis of language. She's right, I
am a radical; I want to stick the fundamentals, the
root (Latin, "radix, radices", fifth declension, neuter, I believe) of what's really important. So with respect to the right, power, and duty to protect myself, my home, and my family from criminal violence, shore-nuff, I'm a radical. No compromise there.
In my opinion, however (that's the formula you have to use as a defense to a possible defamation suit - a statement of mere opinion is not a "fact" and can neither be true nor false), Ms. Haas gives herself away when the focus of her attention is guns and "gun violence". She appears, in my opinion, to have a morbid, neurotic obsession with guns. She has no interest in curbing violence, generally, and in particular, has no problem with criminal violence. What's she's nuts about is guns. She's one of the "gun-crazies", to be contrasted with folks who are hunters, into target-shooting sports, or who are simply interested in being prepared for personal defense against criminal violence.
I'm a radical, and quite reasonably so, and with a good and sound basis in law, theology, and morals. She and the other gun-crazies are mentally disturbed, violent, and dangerous threats to national security. They have consistently failed to demonstrate any sound basis for their neurotic fears whatsoever, and in attempting to craft solutions that will make the boogy-man out of the closet, have been unable or unwilling to answer some fairly simple questions:
1. How, exactly, would "better and broader" background checks improve public safety?
2. How, exactly, would a system of stricter "gun control" legislation have ameliorated the devastation caused by any of the "mass shootings" that have occurred?
3. How would schools, hospitals, movie theaters, and governmental offices be any safer by eliminating the ability of law-abiding and socially responsible citizens' ability to defend themselves and innocent others?
4. How would we pay the cost of actually keeping people safe in public places if we assume that duty by eliminating their ability to choose whether or not to defend themselves?
5. How will any system of legislation effectively eliminate criminal behavior proscribed by that legislation? Isn't it true that if legislation were actually effective, then no one would rob jewelry stores?
6. How will a system of prior restraint, already deemed unconstitutional, such that crime can actually be prevented, promote justice?
The fact is that the sole purpose of legislation is to define that which will be punished
after a violation is detected and the violator apprehended. Thus, no amount of legislation (we already have legislation on top of legislation regarding firearms) will stop, prevent, or even lessen criminal violence. This fact alone indicates conclusively, in my opinion, that the people who shrilly noise about wanting more "gun control" are either off their respective rockers or have an alternative political agenda that requires a defenseless populace for success (e.g. Nazi Party politics). Again, in my opinion, many, such as Ms. Haas, really are emotionally disturbed and have a fixation with respect to firearms as a result of their own peculiar biochemical makeup, the unfortunate events of their lives, and their inability to adjust to the trauma they've suffered in a normal, happy, and healthy way. And these people, living in victim mode, are easy prey for those who do wish to cynically manipulate them for evil purposes in support of their own agenda.