Non sequitur of the day: "Second Amendment!"

You probably already know about the controversy over the incident in which a Sandy Hook father was allegedly heckled by gun control opponents when he spoke in public. Having seen the video, a Slate writer says that no heckling occurred.

But the video also shows that those who interjected were responding to a question posed by Heslin.

"Is there anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question, why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips?" Heslin said before pausing and looking around the room. He then continued: "And not one person can answer that question or give me an answer." It was at that point that the cries of "Second Amendment" can be heard.

The great unaddressed point here is that the gun control opponents who shouted that phrase offered up something (arguably) worse than heckling: A non-sequitur.

The man had asked a perfectly fair question, and crying "Second Amendment!" does not answer it.

Suppose I stood in front of an audience and asked: "Why on earth would anyone feel the need to write a book which describes how to create weapons of mass destruction using easily-available materials?" I don't know what would constitute a good reply to that poser, but only a nut would respond by shouting "First Amendment!" If construed in a certain way, the First Amendment may give one the right to publish such a book. But the question was not about rights. The question was: "Why would you need to do a thing like that?"

Read it again. Heslin asked "...why anybody in this room needs to have...?"

When you ask such a question and the response is nonsense, then your opponents have, in essence, conceded defeat.