Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP

It’s a reasonable question, to ask a political candidate how their proposals would impact the real world. When the candidate is touting their gun control proposals, especially after another mass shooting, it’s not surprising that someone would ask how his or her plan would have prevented the tragedy. After all, aren’t we told over and over again that we need more gun control to prevent these tragedies?

That’s precisely what CNN’s Jake Tapper did when interviewing presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ).

Since then, he’s caught a lot of flak over his question. Apparently, it’s somehow unfair to ask that question of a presidential candidate who, like many others, used the opportunity presented by the shooting to draw attention to his anti-gun proposals. I guess it’s also unfair for a CNN host to ask such a tough question of a Democrat. Didn’t Tapper get the memo? CNN doesn’t do that sort of thing these days.

Now, I’ve already answered Tapper’s question, but Tapper had every reason to ask it in the first place. Further, he should ask it of every other candidate prattling on about gun control. And he knows he should have asked that question.

However, Tapper responded to the criticism by saying that he asked a question on how the candidate’s plans would work.

“I asked which proposed gun laws might actually have had an impact on preventing a gun violence tragedy,” Tapper said.

I asked which proposed gun laws might actually have had an impact on preventing a gun violence tragedy. https://t.co/TJ3SVGYYkD

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 9, 2019

Tapper then had to go on defending it on Twitter.

There are plenty of proposed laws that could have an impact on reducing gun violence. Here’s @amyklobuchar answering the same q. https://t.co/MwI3sL61BR

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 9, 2019

I said Virginia Beach or Parkland and she said re Virginia Beach she wants to ban the sale of high capacity magazines which could have had an impact. Then she took it to a broader place. This is a perfectly reasonable q about looking for solutions that would have an actual impact

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 9, 2019

Then he gets specifically to the meat of the issue with regard to Booker.

Booker changed his speech in CA to talk about the Virginia Beach shootings and the need for more gun laws. Asking what laws would have prevented/mitigated the specific tragedy he wanted to discuss was a natural question and a sincere one too. Have a great Sunday.

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) June 9, 2019

That’s right. Booker changed his speech in California to specifically use Virginia Beach to push his gun control agenda. I’m sorry, but if that’s not fair game to discuss how those proposals would have stopped the shooting, what is?

What people like Johnson and Tapper’s other critics wanted was a softball question to Booker that would allow him to present his policy thoughts without any real challenge. Booker, however, was unable to respond. He knows damn good and well it wouldn’t have stopped the shooting, but he still went out there in California and presented it like it somehow would have.

In other words, he lied.

Shocking, I know, but that’s precisely what he did, and Tapper did his job as a journalist and put him on the spot. Now, he’s catching hell because he’s undermining an anti-gun Democrat’s arguments. Tapper took CNN’s claims of being unbiased seriously, it seems, and acted accordingly.

It was a fair question, a question that needs to be presented to every candidate, and they need to answer it.

Look, we all know the only accurate answer is going to be, “It wouldn’t.” The killer used a couple of handguns, and while much has been made of him supposedly using a suppressor, there’s no evidence that it contributed to the death toll. Pretty much every proposal being touted by anti-gun Democrats are general gun control wish-list items rather than something that addresses what happened that day.

Yet, anti-gunners won’t miss an opportunity to advance that. They’re ghouls who use the bodies of the slain as a soapbox from which to scream their nonsense to the world. They don’t care if those measures will have an impact at all.

They’re not mad that Tapper asked a supposedly unfair question. They’re mad that he won’t give them cover to pull this crap.