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

[berettaprofessor]

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.

[5whiskey]

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

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.

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

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?

[zukiphile]

AB, see Bart Roberts' post #20 on the prior page.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I’d also add that Jake Tapper is a former Handgun Control Inc. employee and has no business being within a mile of any “news” story on the NRA (https://www.thehighroad.org/index.ph...tories.201280/). Though that was clearly not news; but propaganda.

[44 AMP]

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...

[TruthTellers]

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.

[NateKirk]

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.

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.

[5whiskey]

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.

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.

[NateKirk]

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 agree. The suspension of tact and understanding always helps to further one's arguments and improve one's credibility.

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

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.

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.

[NateKirk]

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

[BarryLee]

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.

[SPEMack618]

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.

[44 AMP]

The suspension of tact and understanding always helps to further one's arguments and improve one's credibility.

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, )

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.

[DaleA]

I learned a couple of things from Dana Loesch last night.

1. There actually is a law already on the books in Florida that could have been used to prevent the shooter from buying a weapon. It could have been used to detain the guy. I think the term used was the Baker Act.

2. The NRA produced a school safety plan after Sandy Hook to help schools increase security. (I’m kind of proud the NRA did this!)

And like him or not I caught Rush Limbaugh talking about the Town Hall Meeting and thought his analysis was pretty good. He referred to it as a left-leaning lynch mob but really, IMhO, did a good job of describing in detail everything that went on there.

[In The Ten Ring]

I'm new to this forum and it seems there is a fair number of members hostile to gun ownership. It's surprising but not unprecedented. I used to know a guy that would brag about his AR's and NFA weapons but call for a ban on all semi autos. It's called "hypocrisy" and it's pretty common.

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.

So supporting the 2nd Amendment was a mistake?

"You can't look a dead kid's father in the face and..." That's crap. Strong character, concerned with facts and core beliefs, not staying in office, can look Death itself in the face and not flinch. Rubio isn't that man. Most politicians aren't. I guess he thinks liberals will donate to him now.

Anyone in a gun free zone is a target. I believe the local school system, FL, and the US federal govt should be sued for not providing security that could have prevented this. Anyone that believes a teacher has the maturity to carry a gun outside of campus but magically loses that maturity on campus is prejudiced.

I just sent Marco Rubio a sternly-worded email and a very sternly-worded voice message. I can't vote him out but I can send money to any challenger he has.

I recall in 2016, on another gun forum, the hope people had. Hughes Amendment would be repealed, silencers would become easier to get, national reciprocity for self defense, some even thought NFA would be repealed.........I was more cautious in my optimism.

I'm not giving up my guns. I will fight with all my power any attack on my rights. I just joined Gun Owners of America. I am on the verge of demanding my NRA Lifetime Membership money back, I could buy two lifetime GOA memberships with it.

[JERRYS.]

CNN involved in anything will be a disaster for logic and reason.

[In The Ten Ring]

CNN involved in anything will be a disaster for logic and reason.

Here, here, and there, there.

When I called GOA to join I asked if they had a counter-protest planned. "The media would just ignore it." He's right. The Left owns that sector of USA. Even Fox News constantly gets gun facts and gun laws incorrect.

GOA phone guy agreed with me "better to save our energy and money for when the voting comes."

[zukiphile]

I'm new to this forum and it seems there is a fair number of members hostile to gun ownership. It's surprising but not unprecedented.

I don't find it surprising. I believe it reflects the distribution of shooters generally. This board has a lot of people who are quite knowledgeable about arms themselves. If you ask a question about the traits of the magazine spring in a 1943 Rand 1911, there's a fellow here to answer. If you want to know about the need to retain the anodyzing on your AR upper when using a stainless barrel, there's someone who will tell you more about it than someone like me can remember. This is a shooters board.

My experience in gun clubs is that most people find what they really enjoy, 3 gun, pistol bullseye, trap etc. and develop that interest to the exclusion of most others. I've noticed that people tend to think that the thing they do is what is protected, but the things the other guys do is outside the core of the right. Pistol shooters may decry the dangers of rifles. Rifle guys complain that pistols are a criminal tool. Skeet shooters think everyone else is a hood. Other hobbies have similar fault lines.

Shooting a firearm really well and knowing everything there is to know about it is not the same as believing that the right described in the 2d. Am. is important. There are people here who believe it is antiquated and dangerous.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

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

Yeah, isn't that classic? Talk about locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. The odds against any particular school being the site of a shooting are pretty heavy to begin with. The adds against a school becoming the site of a second shooting are astronomical. It's not like there hadn't been school shootings before. The fact that he now wants to flood the campus with armed deputies but didn't do so before is proof positive that he and the school board were fully on board with an "It won't happen here" mentality and that whatever security measures they had in place were nothing but security theater, inadequate measures taken only to create the illusion of security. And if he now thinks he needs five deputies where he previously had (or maybe didn't have) one, then a reasonable person might conclude that he knew one deputy wasn't adequate to cover a campus of that size, but they (whoever "they" were) made a conscious decision not to adequately staff security at the school.

In other words, the dollars were more important than the kids' lives. And that worked out just great ... right up until it intersected with reality.

[OPC]

CNN just posted that the Sheriff's Deputy on duty at the school at the time of the shooting basically decided not to engage the perp. He took up position outside the building and waited and waited and waited... and has now resigned.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/fl...ing/index.html

[TruthTellers]

I guess even when cops are seconds away, they could take up to never to respond.

Reminds me of this video I saw recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0&t=1s

[LogicMan]

Originally Posted by In The Ten Ring

"You can't look a dead kid's father in the face and..." That's crap. Strong character, concerned with facts and core beliefs, not staying in office, can look Death itself in the face and not flinch. Rubio isn't that man. Most politicians aren't. I guess he thinks liberals will donate to him now.

Yes, IMO, Rubio came across as weak and pathetic. I applaud him for having the guts to go there, but he was too weak and wobbly in the face of all that hate. The right to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT, and as such, no one should have to feel ashamed to defend the right. The problem is too many don't know how to defend it. In terms of telling a grieving father you will not support gun bans, that is very doable. You do so in a kind way, not an acerbic way, but you explain that you can no more infringe on the right to arms after a school shooting then you could infringe on the rights of Muslims after 9/11, or rights of privacy, religion, due process, etc...after something like 9/11. You explain that the AR-15 has been legally available to civilians since the mid-1960s ('64 or '65) and weapons functionally identical to it have been available long before then. The Tommy gun since the 1930s and the 1911 semiautomatic detachable magazine pistol since 1911. But yet, mass shootings were not a problem back in those days. Which shows that the cause of these mass shootings is not the firearms, it's something else. One of the worst mass shootings ever was the Virginia Tech massacre, with 32 killed and 17 injured. That shooting was committed with handguns. So the technology to do so has been around for over 100 years now.

Some say, "That we even have to have this conversation/debate is pathetic!" but you could easily flip that and say, "That gun rights are even called into question after a mass shooting is absurd. We didn't call into question rights to due process, privacy, and religion after 9/11 with 3,000 people killed." The right to keep and bear arms should be as sacrosanct as the other rights.

Having your loved ones killed does not give you a moral high ground to stand on and demand the constraining of other people's rights. I also am sick of this "weapons of war" nonsense. For one, that is precisely what the right is about. Weapons of war. Tools of combat. It is not a "right" to weapons that the government approves of for you. No more than the right to free speech is a right just to entertainment or recreational speech and not political speech.

In addition, pretty much every commonly-owned gun in the United States is a weapon of war in the sense of being used by the military or grounded in a military design.

[5whiskey]

Well boys, I did find this and I believe it has a semi-valid point. I'm aware that the federalist isn't exactly unbiased, but neither is CNN...

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/22/...will-help-nra/

I do think there is a little something to this. Fudds who usually don't care so much about restricting AR15s might feel differently if their old Colt 1911, or Ruger 10/22 that they use to plink with their kids, is up for grabs. If you paid attention to the Town Hall, it seemed that an across the board semi-auto ban was en vouge. Even fairweather 2A fans will fight this.

At the same time, the Town Hall also catered heavily to emotion, and some folks with no opinion either way will likely be swayed.