This is in reference for the Daily Post prompt of the day, about writing a post that includes dialogue between two people – other than you.
I chose to add a excerpt from a book I’m writing. Find the blurb on this post, which is from another Daily Prompt. The dialogue is between a prosecutor and a defendant during a trial. Please note, the format is intentional. It’s a different style of writing. The prosecutor speaks the first line and the defendant replies in the next. Enjoy!
“So if you are not entirely comfortable with a member, why still accept their membership? Why just let anyone in?”
“That’s because the organization is not exclusive. No one person is better than another, including me. We are all here for all intended purposes for the same goals.”
“But how can you trust giving these people guns when you sometimes can’t even completely trust the individual?
“I didn’t give them the guns, the sheriff did when they applied for their concealed carry permits. I only provide the funding for a clean gun to be used for the CPAA if they need one.”
“Then you find comfort in that fact?”
“Yes, because by law, they passed all required physical and mental testing and were approved for the carrying of a handgun.”
“But that’s no reason to have that much faith in a person. You don’t find it insensible to assume such things?”
“If I’m wrong, than so is the sheriff who accepted the person’s application. Would you be able to ask these same questions to the sheriff? Isn’t their credibility notable?
“Well of course. But you yourself have a say in this matter. You still have the power to deny entry.”
“But who am I to deny them entry when they have done nothing wrong? They were certified to carry. It really doesn’t matter my personal opinion of a person at a first impression. I won’t deny a person who legally has not done anything unlawful and who was accepted by the state to hold a firearm just because I don’t like them. Let alone someone who has never done any ill to an organization they have yet to be a part of. Everyone deserves a chance.”
“Some don’t see it that way. Why not use judgment?”
“It’s not my place. I may be the forerunner of the CPAA but like I said before everyone is on equal ground. Everything is done by the guidelines of the law so unless that law is broken, we perceive no immediate threat. In relation to carrying concealed weapons we are nothing but an extension to that law.”
“And when something happens?”
“Things will happen. That’s the way of the world. You can’t stop people’s bad intentions no matter how many precautions you have in place. There will always be someone, that one person, who contradicts everything a place or a person tries to do right. You can’t stop that – no one can.”
“But that doesn’t sound like the most responsible way to treat the subject. Isn’t using that perspective a bit careless?”
“No, I don’t believe so. To me, that’s just being realistic. That principle goes for anything we do in life. There will always be bad people out there. No matter what you may try to do for good, someone will yearn to find a way to dissect it, break it down and infiltrate it. All we can do is the best we can to defend against them. Things like security will always be an everlasting battle.”
“To me, that’s just being cynical. I don’t think living in fear in such a manner is healthy. Particularly in your case I find it alarming. You don’t sound very convincing that you had nothing to do with the incident when you seemingly admit to expecting something to go wrong.”
“It’s called caution, not fear. You should always expect the unexpected.”