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

[DaleA]

I doubt anybody here has NOT heard that CNN is having a Town Hall meeting on Gun Control tonight…

Watch CNN's town hall "Stand Up: The Students of Stoneman Douglas Demand Action" live on Wednesday, February 21 at 9 p.m. ET on CNN TV and CNN.com.

The NRA has agreed to participate with Dana Loesch as the NRA representative.

Sigh.

The CNN blurb about this last night said something about how they were going to do something about gun violence ‘once and for all’. ‘Once and for all.’ Really.

Guess I better watch it then.

Unless, of course, it turns out to be just more talk about the issue. Can’t CNN pass laws and regulations?

I think I'd sure recommend it for anyone here suffering from low blood pressure.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, that’s one lion’s den I wouldn’t care to walk into; but good on Ms. Loesch.

[UncleEd]

The NRA's biggest mistake in the last decade
was never getting out in front of the issue with
proposed legislation on limitations of ARs,
hi-cap magazines, bump stocks and other
issues.

The NRA has grown fat with monies from the
AR industry and its ancillary businesses that
supply all the Tinker Toy stuff that can be
added onto or modify the ARs.

The NRA's major problem has been its success
in the last decade or longer. I wouldn't call
it NRA complacency but every time a mass shooting
has occurred, the NRA was able to stall on
any action.

Avoiding the "slippery slope" is to try and level that
slope through negotiations with the antis. That "slippery
slope" will always exist.

At a certain point, the political cost for elected
officials to support NRA positions, even if they
believe in them 100 per cent, grows too great and
then it wouldn't be a "slippery slope." It can
be a total plunge in the rights of all gun owners.

I remember one outdoor range owner in Illinois
who said as the sales of ARs started to grow:
"These guns will only cause us nothing but trouble."

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by DaleA

I doubt anybody here has NOT heard that CNN is having a Town Hall meeting on Gun Control tonight…

I hadn't, but now I'll be sure to miss it.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by UncleEd

The NRA's biggest mistake in the last decade
was never getting out in front of the issue with
proposed legislation on limitations of ARs,
hi-cap magazines, bump stocks and other
issues.

Sure, that's the one problem with the NRA - it hasn't backed prohibitions on semi-auto, magazine fed rifles that take normal magazines. If only the NRA had countered the AWB with "But that doesn't outlaw NEARLY enough!!!", things would be much better.

Originally Posted by UncleEd

The NRA has grown fat with monies from the
AR industry and its ancillary businesses that
supply all the Tinker Toy stuff that can be
added onto or modify the ARs.

Ah, yes, Big AR raking in billions by selling $700 rifles and $100 flashlights. The only remaining mystery is how Big AR made money selling something no one should want.

Originally Posted by UncleEd

The NRA's major problem has been its success
in the last decade or longer. I wouldn't call
it NRA complacency but every time a mass shooting
has occurred, the NRA was able to stall on
any action.

The only thing standing in the way of its success is its success? I would like to have that problem.

Originally Posted by UncleEd

At a certain point, the political cost for elected
officials to support NRA positions, even if they
believe in them 100 per cent, grows too great and
then it wouldn't be a "slippery slope." It can
be a total plunge in the rights of all gun owners.

From what I can see, the primary cost an NRA candidate bears is the burden of having to show up for work when wins his election.

I remember one outdoor range owner in Illinois
who said as the sales of ARs started to grow:
"These guns will only cause us nothing but trouble."

Did he have trouble charging people to shoot ARs at his range?

[SPEMack618]

No good will come of this.

All I can hope is that whomever has CNN has debating Dana is male and we can get some soundbites of him "mansplaining" obvious wrong points.

[NateKirk]

I read an article on Loesch once and she's a bit incendiary if I remember. They should have gotten someone more moderate, if they are going to make the mistake of doing this at all.

I agree, no good will come of this.

[berettaprofessor]

Watching the “preamble” to the Town Hall. And wondering if all the people in the auditorium had to go through metal detectors or security checks to get there?

[TruthTellers]

Oh no, Rubio is there. Guy looks so thirsty he needs a hose nearby.

[5whiskey]

If you're not watching this, and have an interest in preserving 2A rights, you probably should. This was a brilliant strategy by anti-gunners. Make pro-gun politicians look in the eyes of the father of someone recently killed and explain gun rights and why they're important as a crowd of 20k boo him. He's getting eaten alive, and this is absolutely heavily funded and coordinated by gun banners. These kids may back it, and like it. Heck I don't blame them. They are survivors of a great trauma. But... Someone high up the anti-gun strategy food chain is pulling strings here.

And Rubio is pretty brave to do this. Like him or hate him, he's brave taking the stance he is in that environment.

[5whiskey]

And Rubio is now saying mag capacity is on the table for bans.

[Eazyeach]

I could only watch for something like 20 minutes. I thought a “town hall” was supposed to be a fair discussion between groups of people with different views. It ended up being “ gang up on the guy (Rubio) with a different view than yours”. Mini-14 with 10 round mags is our future, sadly.

I really feel bad for those kids and what they went through and they have a right to be pissed. And they have a right to demand gun control. But they don’t understand that their 1a rights wouldn’t exist without their 2a rights.

[MagnumWill]

Yeah, there really is no “discussion” involved, it’s just them using emotional blackmail in the latest package, and the worst thing we can do is entertain it - because we all know here that any of their solutions are completely futile and the sole purpose is an attempt to incrimninate, discredit and manipulate. There’s no actual compassion involved.

In order to make them not futile, they would have to abandon the illusion that the world is a happy, fair and just place and it’s OTHER PEOPLE THAT DON’T SHARE OUR VIEWS getting in the way of that dream...

I wonder if they realize the terrible danger of thinking that way...

[rjinga]

I tuned in only after Dana Loesch took the platform. I think she was asked four, maybe five questions (not counting the rude people shouting from the audience).

[doofus47]

UncleEd:

The NRA's biggest mistake in the last decade
was never getting out in front of the issue with
proposed legislation on limitations of ARs,
hi-cap magazines, bump stocks and other
issues.

Darn NRA should get a better crystal ball!!
I remember the majority of the last decade as being one of just hoping the administration wouldn't drop some new law every month to ban everything. How do you get ahead of that curve with a group that just approved bump stocks? "Um, sir: I know you want to ban ammo sales, private sales and all rifles with real or imagined "shoulder thingees," but can we revisit your decision to approve bump stocks?"

I think that the NRA might have done better at messaging some of its points, but I remember the past 10 years as the NRA playing defense.

Full disclosure: I'm not an NRA member.

[TruthTellers]

This was a massacre and honestly, in front of that crowd in Flordia, there was no reason for any pro-gun person to be there.

There comes a point where your words can do nothing but dig your hole deeper. Does that mean no one should have gone? IDK, because they they'll be called cowards and such, but that wasn't an audience, it was a lynch mob.

Anti's can protest all they want, but lawmakers cannot make laws that infringe on the 2nd Amendment. We already have common sense gun reforms and they were passed in the 1930's. Now in the 2020's, we're probably going to have all semi-automatics classified like SBR's and SBS's.

The future, so bright in January 2017, has darkened dramatically and I think it's only a matter of time.

My suggestion is to move to states that will defend your rights because states cannot enforce federal law.

BTW, I watched the whole thing, even the South Park "Safe Space" song at the end and I was also live tweeting and my twitter account got locked for the first time ever tonight. Scary to think my opinion isn't allowed because it opposes others.

So, you can already see that if guns go away, the future is going to be a place where differing opinions lead you to the gulag.

[TruthTellers]

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

[LogicMan]

Why are all of you being so negative about gun rights? Just because Rubio folded a bit and said magazine capacity is up for discussion doesn't mean any such legislation has a chance of passing. And these town hallers do not represent the majority of America let alone the state of Florida. Florida's House just killed a proposed assault weapons ban something like 70-something to 30-something. The anti-gun movie Miss Sloane, which debuted in 2016, had one of the worst openings for a movie in history and was a huge bomb. I watched it and the movie itself, as a film, actually wasn't bad, just there was a lot of anti-gun propaganda and self-righteousness.

So while things are not per se rosy, they are not bleak either right now IMO.

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by UncleEd

The NRA's biggest mistake in the last decade
was never getting out in front of the issue with
proposed legislation on limitations of ARs,
hi-cap magazines, bump stocks and other
issues.

Why should the NRA have ever proposed banning ARs? They are one of the best and most versatile weapons a person can purchase, hence their incredible popularity. They would be the epitome of the type of weapon that the Second Amendment was written to protect. As for "high-capacity magazines," the idea that anything over ten rounds is "high-capacity" was made up by the gun control movement. The reality is that they want to ban what are standard capacity magazines and limit people to what are arbitrarily-determined reduced capacity magazines.

Limiting people to reduced capacity magazines inhibits their ability to defend themselves. If they end up against some drugged-up criminal on a cocaine-fueled rage, it could require quite a number of shots to stop said criminal, they could be facing multiple criminals, and due to adrenaline, they could miss. The idea that a person has to be limited to just ten rounds is a blatant violation of their right to keep and bear arms. There's also that whole aspect about fighting tyranny should one ever form.

The NRA has grown fat with monies from the
AR industry and its ancillary businesses that
supply all the Tinker Toy stuff that can be
added onto or modify the ARs.

No it hasn't. The NRA is a grassroots civil rights organization. The gun manufacturing industry is tiny. It's only about $12 - $15 billion dollars a year. That's a fraction of Target's revenue alone, let alone Wal-Mart and the entire retail industry, or the financial and banking lobby, for example Bank of America makes like $100 billion a year, Wal-Mart and Amazon in the hundreds of billions, then there's the oil and gas industry, the pharmaceutical companies, the defense industry, etc...those are lobbies. The idea that the NRA is able to have the influence that it has due to some shrimpy little $12-$15 billion gun manufacturing industry is laughable. What gives the NRA its influence is the massive amount of the American people that support it.

The NRA's major problem has been its success
in the last decade or longer. I wouldn't call
it NRA complacency but every time a mass shooting
has occurred, the NRA was able to stall on
any action.

...YEAH, because every time in the past it caved, all it led to was further gun control proposals.

Avoiding the "slippery slope" is to try and level that
slope through negotiations with the antis. That "slippery
slope" will always exist.

That will never work. The anti's will simply sense weakness and push for more. Understand this, the anti's right now are like a group of pirates sailing a boat against the winds. When you have to sail against the wind, what do you do? If you try to sail directly into it, you'll just get blown backwards, so you instead have to come at it from an angle, and basically zigzag your boat and work your way upwards. That is what the anti's do. However, should the anti's sense the wind as beginning to blow in their direction, do you think they will then become satisfied? NO WAY. They will just accelerate the boat in the direction they want to go.

At a certain point, the political cost for elected
officials to support NRA positions, even if they
believe in them 100 per cent, grows too great and
then it wouldn't be a "slippery slope." It can
be a total plunge in the rights of all gun owners.

I remember one outdoor range owner in Illinois
who said as the sales of ARs started to grow:
"These guns will only cause us nothing but trouble."

With the anti's, he's right, BUT that is why vigilance and public education is key.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

A student survivor (JROTC) who had been invited by CNN to participate was told he couldn’t ask his question and instead given a scripted question to ask:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...ed_guards.html

And note the CNN audience cheered banning all semi-autos. You guys who think you are going to make some kind of compromise with the backers of that propaganda are kidding yourselves. It’s ride or die.

[zukiphile]

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.

[5whiskey]

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.

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.

Yep, and this is exactly what CNN wanted.

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

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.

[NateKirk]

other than the fact that they also serve as a deterrent against oppressive government

Never could buy this argument. The military doesn't shy away from opposing professional forces or guerrillas

[Bartholomew Roberts]

NateKirk, if that is your reasoning, you misunderstand the argument. Take a look at this paper: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/la.../vol75/iss3/4/

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 5Whiskey

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.

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.