CNN Town Hall tonight 9pm EDT, 8pm CDT with NRA participation

I didn't watch this, but the recaps in the news were frequent.

The one I heard replayed most often was a man who lost his daughter last week. His voice was calm, but he spoke about how angry he was that he wouldn't see his daughter again. There can be no reasonable doubt that his anger was authentic.

He used the term "weapons of war" in his comment. This bothered me. That's a relatively recent cliche in the gun control argument. It's possible that part of this fellow's grieving involved reading, and he picked the term up in his reading.

It's decent to giving grieving people a wide zone of personal consideration. It is not legitimate to use that zone as armor to press transparently shoddy public policy.
 
It's decent to giving grieving people a wide zone of personal consideration. It is not legitimate to use that zone as armor to press transparently shoddy public policy.
Click to expand...

That's why anyone with pro-gun views were doomed to be eaten alive there. How do you look a father who lost his child a week ago in the face and argue with him? You can't. To be fair, the moderator did at times calm the crowd and reminded them that this was supposed to be a discussion. He was biased, obviously, but he did try to at least allow Rubio and Dana Loesch a chance to speak.

IDK, because they they'll be called cowards and such, but that wasn't an audience, it was a lynch mob.
Click to expand...

Yep, and this is exactly what CNN wanted.

Also, that Sheriff... OMG. He's the reason the 2nd Amendment exists folks.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. I am law enforcement, and I cringed at times when his attitude was "we're cops, we know better and we know how to protect you, you don't need guns to do it." Most good cops I know are very pro-2A and wishes every good and decent person would carry a firearm. Because most good cops have worked the street long enough to know that at least 80% of the time, we show up after the crime has already been committed.


All in all I believe Rubio and Dana Loesch did pretty well, given their handicap in that environment. Rubio kind of had to go, I mean the other Florida Senator and the district's Representative showed up so how was he to get out of it without being tarred and feathered? Dana volunteered for it, and I thought she had some excellent responses. She shut the History Teacher's "well regulated" question down very well, with sources (as requested).

It's a sad time in America. I wish this would stop. If banning AR15s would solve the problem I would give mine up tomorrow *other than the fact that they also serve as a deterrent against oppressive government*. The fact remains, firearms serve an important civil purpose in America and banning AR15s or even all semi-autos will not end mass shooters.
 
other than the fact that they also serve as a deterrent against oppressive government
Click to expand...

Never could buy this argument. The military doesn't shy away from opposing professional forces or guerrillas
 
5Whiskey said:
It's decent to giving grieving people a wide zone of personal consideration. It is not legitimate to use that zone as armor to press transparently shoddy public policy.
Click to expand...
That's why anyone with pro-gun views were doomed to be eaten alive there. How do you look a father who lost his child a week ago in the face and argue with him? You can't.
Click to expand...

At the very same time, why is a father who lost his child a week ago arguing public policy and constitutional rights with someone? I have a daughter that age, and I think public advocacy a week after her death would be incomprehensible.

Some in these recent threads asserted that high school children need no external influence to stage a protest in the wake of an event like this. I disagree. It seems more likely that children and grieving families are subject to manipulation from predatory advocates. The cynicism that would use people this way is repellent.
 
I don't want to make this political. I was not a Rubio supporter in the last election,yet I was pleasantly impressed by him last night. He was articulate and calm in the face of the verbal beatings he was taking Yes, he was there for the roasting, but he stood his ground on some important things and he brought other things to light; like getting the Democratic congressman to admit he would like to ban all semiautomatics. And, as others have said, the sheriff of the area is one of my worst nightmares in terms of his wanting more power and money to make us all safe.
 
Never could buy this argument. The military doesn't shy away from opposing professional forces or guerrillas
Click to expand...

Natekirk, read "The Federalist # 46" penned by James Madison. James Madison was absolutely instrumental in almost all aspects of the constitution, from the original to the bill of rights amendments. He lays out exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment specifically in his essay. And it is not for hunting, or for defense against criminals. It is to overthrow an autocratic oppressive Federal Government, should it ever turn that way... and to stoke enough fear of said uprising so that the Federal Government never attempts it in the first place.

At the very same time, why is a father who lost his child a week ago arguing public policy and constitutional rights with someone? I have a daughter that age, and I think public advocacy a week after her death would be incomprehensible.

Some in these recent threads asserted that high school children need no external influence to stage a protest in the wake of an event like this. I disagree. It seems more likely that children and grieving families are subject to manipulation from predatory advocates. The cynicism that would use people this way is repellent.
Click to expand...

Very well said, all of it. I can understand being outraged. None-the-less, yes advocating policy at this point is out of pure passion. Unfortunately, policy fueled by passion is usually poor policy, and it is the very reason why we are a Republic and not a Democracy. The bold is important. I agree that this #neveragain is not a grass roots created only by these kids. They are more than happy to jump on board and be spokespersons, but the infrastructure to move this fast was already in place by a professional organization. They took buses to the FL capital to have an event there. With grieving and attending funerals, they likely didn't have bake sales to raise the money for those buses. That money came from somewhere. Somewhere waiting for the perfect opportunity to "never let a good crisis go to waste." Like it or not, that is the reality.
 
There are some parents who lost their child (or children) in the Sandy Hook shooting who are very actively PRO-gun. Why don't the media ever report what they have to say?
 
Last night was neither the time nor the place, but I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't time to stop bothering about trying to be polite and respectful of the feelings of people who argue to steal some of our rights and property because they suffered a personal loss??

I understand grief. It creates anger, and that anger has to go somewhere. But the people directing that anger at guns are aiming at the wrong target.

Of course, they don't see it that way, but they are, nonetheless.

They would be crucified in the media, of course, but I'd like to see someone speak the blunt truth. The media probably won't run it, but then again, they might, simply for its shock value.

And I don't mean to attack anyone's personal, private grief, but if you trot it out for public consumption, then, its "game on".

What am I talking about? I'm not talking about using just the (valid) defense that "its our right", I'm talking about actually arguing back, and getting some things out there in the "discussion" that everybody knows, but no one is admitting to, or bringing up. Because they aren't polite, they aren't respectful of feelings and they most definitely aren't Politically Correct.

Things like "welcome to the real world." And other pithy observations. Not to the grieving families, but to those who would use that grief as a platform for their political agenda.

And especially against those who imply or out right claim the NRA supports murder etc.

When I hear another of the "we've got to ban xxx..." it just bothers me. It seem to be the only solution to every problem that comes along these days, somebody, somewhere, abuses something, deaths result, and people scream "we've got to do something! Ban it!!" and too often, lawmakers, do.

A few years back, some high school students went to a college party. They were drinking (illegal) and apparently chugging a new "energy drink" completely against all the instructions and warnings on the bottle. Several got very sick. At least one died. Huge public outcry. What was the legislature's response?

They banned the energy drink.

How about, when someone says we need to ban these (AR /weapons of war/assault weapons/ pick your soundbite...) we say why?

And they say "to stop the killings!!"

how about we say, "ok, give me your car keys."

They won't like that. They probably won't understand it. But its the same principle. Somewhere, someone killed with a car. Give me your car keys, so we can stop car killings.

If they refuse, ask why not???

"I'm not giving up my car, I didn't kill anyone!"

Right. And my gun (and several hundred million others) didn't either.

let them chew on that...
 
The issue we're running into is that both sides know they're right and what happens when two sides know they're right, when only one side can be, is that might will make right.

There were a sizeable number of people in that crowd who want SWAT teams and the Army used to confiscate guns from every private citizen in the country. They either don't know people will die in such an event or they don't care, it's a few less deplorables out there.

Those people are the tyranny the 2nd Amendment was created to stop. They may be upset, emotionally anguished, suffering from PTSD, etc. but they do not have the right to take innocent people's property, nor does the gov't, because people are upset and on the verge of mental breakdowns over the actions of the few, or the one.

They do have to be opposed and the message needs to be sent that if gun control laws are severe enough, we will use mass civil disobedience and non-compliance to protest those laws. If they want to throw 10 or 20 million innocent Americans in jail, then they will be revealed as the tyrants they are.
 
They do have to be opposed and the message needs to be sent that if gun control laws are severe enough, we will use mass civil disobedience and non-compliance to protest those laws. If they want to throw 10 or 20 million innocent Americans in jail, then they will be revealed as the tyrants they are.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would play out that way. I think a lot of people would be reluctant to leave their cushy union job for a stint in prison over something that they most likely bought because they thought it was cool. Civil disobedience only works when you have a large organized group of principled people who have nothing to lose (Young people, students, the elderly, etc.)

Also, the other side doesn't see it as a civil rights issue, so opinion would never be swayed to gain support.
 
They do have to be opposed and the message needs to be sent that if gun control laws are severe enough, we will use mass civil disobedience and non-compliance to protest those laws. If they want to throw 10 or 20 million innocent Americans in jail, then they will be revealed as the tyrants they are.
Click to expand...

I agree in sentiment. I just hope we mean it when we say it. Without being political, gun owners typically belong to a group of people who work to support families, spend time with said family, may have a college degree but didn't go to college for 10 years, and are often members of civic groups (Churches, shriners, ETC.). I'm sure this describes some gun banners as well... but I would dare say not a whole lot, or at least not the ones who protest over it.

The point is, we belong to a demographic who are probably the least likely to participate in protest and civil disobedience. That's why a lot of us are members of the NRA or other organizations. We donate money, when we can, to handle our interests. Can we and will we follow through on that? I know I would organize in protest to a proposed semi-auto ban that looked as though it actually may pass... but probably not before then. My time is valuable, and I suspect most others here feel the same way. We're too busy living to protest at the drop of the hat. Time is not valuable to bored college kids... they have nothing but time to kill.
 
Last edited:
Last night was neither the time nor the place, but I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't time to stop bothering about trying to be polite and respectful of the feelings of people who argue to steal some of our rights and property because they suffered a personal loss??
Click to expand...

I agree. The suspension of tact and understanding always helps to further one's arguments and improve one's credibility.
 
5whiskey said:
I agree in sentiment. I just hope we mean it when we say it. Without being political, gun owners typically belong to a group of people who work to support families, spend time with said family, may have a college degree but didn't go to college for 10 years, and are often members of civic groups (Churches, shriners, ETC.). I'm sure this describes some gun banners as well... but I would dare say not a whole lot, or at least not the ones who protest over it.

The point is, we belong to a demographic who are probably the least likely to participate in protest and civil disobedience. That's why a lot of us are members of the NRA or other organizations. We donate money, when we can, to handle our interests. Can we and will we follow through on that? I know I would organize in protest to a proposed semi-auto ban that looked as though it actually may pass... but probably not before then. My time is valuable, and I suspect most others here feel the same way. We're too busy living to protest at the drop of the hat. Time is not valuable to bored college kids... they have nothing but time to kill.
Click to expand...
The thing is, if millions of Americans were removed from the labor force, no longer paying taxes, and went from being tax payers to tax expenditures due to the costs of incarceration, it would cripple local, state, and national economies.

They literally do not have the prison space to detain millions of Americans at the same time, at least not in addition to actual criminals and violent offenders that are already in the prison system.
 
I think what 5whiskey is saying is less people would resist than one might think. The amount of prison space probably wouldn't even be a factor
 
Bottom line most NRA members and probably most legal gun owners are some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country. While we may work very hard to oppose new regulation I suspect if anything passes almost all of us will obey the law because it is what we do.

Of course, most of the people committing these violent acts will simply ignore any new laws as they do the present ones which is the obvious reason why new gun control will not solve these issues. Also, remember the folks behind the curtain know this and are simply using these criminal acts as a way to demonize their opponents and push their political agenda. I thought LaPierre did a decent job of laying this out in his speech this morning.
 
It doesn't take all 5 however many million members of the NRA.

I remember S-2 briefings concerning how small a percentage of the population was actively engaged against us in Afghanistan. And we're still embroiled in that quagmire.

A handful of raids produce enough casualties high enough, something will change.

Leaderless resistance and what not.
 
The suspension of tact and understanding always helps to further one's arguments and improve one's credibility.
Click to expand...

I understand subtlety, but these days, many do not.

Some folks, though otherwise intelligent can't seen to get a clue, unless you hit them between the eyes with a "clue-bat". (or a brick, :rolleyes:)

Politeness, tact, and understanding get us points with people who actually think about the issues, I'm not worried about them, its the people who only feel that is the problem, they are greater in number, and they are being manipulated.

The world is a dangerous place. We tell them that, but they don't feel it. Most of them have been raised safe, warm, and well fed their entire lives. They've been told and taught they will always be safe, and they get very upset when the world shows them in the most personal ways that they have been lied to their whole lives.

Note how many of these people are yelling at the politicians, but not the local police. Aren't the police the ones who failed to protect them?? The police, at least have a shot (sorry for the pun) at stopping a bad guy. Politicians can only make laws, and if the bad guy is going to break the law against murder, lesser laws have even less effect on stopping them.

Ban "assault weapons" and no one will have them, or be able to get them, so the killings will stop, right?

Sorry, that's not going to happen. You might be able to ban them, but the killing won't stop because you do. We had an assault weapon ban for a decade 1994-2004, and the killings didn't stop (nor did it make any detectable difference in the crime rate, up or down). Ironically, the AWB made the AR style (and all similar arms) MORE popular than ever.

There's a few million of these guns in circulation now, and even if you could make them all illegal, the same people who sell illegal drugs will (and do) sell illegal guns, too.

That Florida police chief (or sheriff, whatever he is) said he's going to have his officers with AR15s on that school campus, now.

Apparently a badge and a uniform makes one immune to the evil siren song of the assault weapon, crooning in the ears of civilians urging them to kill....
(deliberate sarcasm)

Except there is the Pulse nightclub shooting, done by a licensed security guard, who was investigated, background checked and psych evaluated, and passed all with flying colors...

No assault weapon, no guns of any kind were used to kill a few THOUSAND people on Sept. 11th.

Maybe I different from most people. Maybe I'm not a "good person", but if my 14yr old daughter had been murdered at school a week ago, I wouldn't be calling for a ban on the gun used. I be screaming from the rooftops that the PERSON who did it should be flayed alive, slowly, and if the govt wouldn't let me do it, they should at least let me watch!!

I had children in school during the 80s and 90s, and there were school shooting then, too. One of them in my state was stopped when the students (including at least one who had been shot) tackled the shooter, and wrestled him to the ground.

My kids and I discussed at length what to do if they were in a school shooting, and we decided that "cower in place" was the least desirable option.

I praise the bravery and sacrifice of the teachers and staff who have been killed trying to shield students with their bodies, but cannot help but wonder if the outcome might have been different if they had attacked the shooter, instead?

Note how the mass shootings never seem to happen anywhere there is an expected armed response available? Gun free zones, are, as a few politicians are now seeming to realize, nothing but a "safe work environment" for killers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top