There is no compromise with the NRA, inviting them to the table to talk is ludicrous

[DainBramaged]

Last edited Sun Jan 13, 2013, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Their solution is more guns everywhere. Hell let nurses in hospitals pack heat. Ya never know when a patient will get unruly, BLAM, there goes that troublemaker. ( for those without a sarcasm gene)


It's not because we are mentally ill, or that we need armed guards at great expense everywhere, it's simply a matter of numbers. The more guns and the easier they are to get, the greater number of deaths related to gunshots of all kinds.


Don't come here and tell me knives, poison, cars, bullshit. NOTHING kills faster and cleaner than a gun. Don't tell me 'ooh your Union buddies who make guns" one life is worth their jobs. It's time to put some sense into regulating them. They are more lethal than cars cigarettes and alcohol but they are less regulated. Time to stomp on the NRA and the manufacturers hard.

[randome]

1. You ALWAYS talk to your enemy when planning change.

Some members of the NRA will be more supportive of the administration on this basis alone.

To mock or disdain your enemies is to harden them against you. It cost us nothing to invite them to the table. Now, to some, they look intransigent and foolish.

And, philosophically speaking, Obama is President of ALL Americans. Even those belonging to the NRA.

[AgingAmerican]

2. The NRA has one goal

Sell guns. They are a lobbying organization, no more, no less.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. You seem to have a pretty low opinion of nurses. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

4. Inviting the NRA to the table was shrewed - politically speaking.

How else can you expose the irrationality of the gun industry's propagandists for all to see, and to show there's no compromising with these lobbyists/propagandists other than to sell even more guns so more mass murdering of children can happen, than a high profile meeting with a high-profile VP?

[Arkansas Granny]

6. Yes. They need to be shown for what they really are,

and they only way to do that is to engage them in a debate where their views can be measured against a reasonable argument.

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Yep. And the only way to do this is to keep them in the spotlight - much to their chagrin. eom

[jillan]

7. Exactly! Plus the gun lovers cannot say that the WH didn't even speak to the NRA.

It was a brilliant move.

[BlueCaliDem]

11. 100% agree. A brilliant and masterful move that put the NRA against the ropes. eom

[AngryOldDem]

16. The more they are given a national stage, the more crazy their arguments seem.

Which can only be to the good in gaining public support for gun control.

The more people hear just how fanatical and rigid they are on guns -- even, as Wayne LaPierre did on Meet The Press, being unable to even compromise on the **size** of a gun magazine -- the more their true nature and agenda is exposed.

So let LaPierre and David Keene and fellow travelers like Alex Jones have a seat at the table. Their craziness speaks volumes.

And if LaPierre and Keene are no longer representative of the majority of NRA members, then the membership should act accordingly.

[HereSince1628]

5. Standard practice...you invite the stakeholders to express their interests

It's not 3d Chess or unusual brilliance.

The NRA has no vote in this...those who follow or belong to that special interest group may have a vote.

[99Forever]

8. Really?

So do those that want all guns removed from private ownership get a seat at the table too?

[hack89]

12. Are there any influential groups advocating such a position?

nothing will be done if every fringe position is represented.

[HereSince1628]

13. Can't say, I'm not sure the position of bans on ALL firearms is held by any recognized stakeholder.

Who gets recognized and who gets ignored is always part of the dynamic of this type of process.

The outcome of this sort of thing usually doesn't end up at an extreme. Extremists don't usually get much play unless they represent significant economic or political power. The NRA is widely recognized as having enjoyed both until recently. Wayne LaPierres comments significantly hurt the NRAs image and its political power.

[99Forever]

15. So only the "extremists" that..

... favor mo' gunz get automatic "recognition" and those that end up dead and mutilated by them don't?

I just LOVE the Delicate Flowers version of a "reasonable discourse."

[HereSince1628]

17. A ban all guns proponent might see it that way rather than seeing their position

as being in the minority and thereby not recognized as representing enough shareholders, or enough economic or political importance to represent a significant voice to the discussion.

Those of us NOT at the table, have to make our positions known through other means...such as petitions and letters to legislators.

There have been some extreme proposals suggested for changes to make it harder for the mentally ill to have access to guns. Yet, from all my reading, I haven't yet seen any advocate for rights of the mentally ill at the table, either. I can only hope that the extreme proposals aren't propsed by people allowed in the discussions

[99Forever]

18. The NRA has 4 million members...

... in a nation of 300 million. Does that constitute a "majority" by your math?

(Remind me not to have you handle my finances.)

[HereSince1628]

19. Who said any thing about the NRA as a majority?

My comment was aimed at people supporting the extreme position of banning civilian ownership of guns are in the minority as far as organized groups who can represent stakeholders.

[99Forever]

20. You sir, have a double standard.

Are these not your words?

"A ban all guns proponent might see it that way rather than seeing their position as being in the minority and thereby not recognized..."

Good for the goose..

[HereSince1628]

21. And you can't read with understanding.

1. MY saying your position on universal gun ban is in a minority doesn't imply ANYTHING about the NRA

2. There can be MULTIPLE positions, none of which have more than minority support.


fin

[spanone]

9. that's ALL the more reason to invite them...let them expose themselves as incapable of compromise

they are their own worse enemies

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. It's an extremely shrewd political move

See, we invited them, we wanted to listen to them, and they still don't want any compromise. This is real exposure of the extremism.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Would it be extremist if the Brady campaign didn't want to compromise on expanding gun ownership?

I don't think so. If you come to me with compromises on cutting Social Security my best offer would be my foot in your ass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. When these guys want zero regulation

That is extremism.

The Brady campaign did not include banning f all ownership in the US. That would be the equivalent.

Otoh they included 100% background checks, which is not radical at all.

[Initech]

23. That would be like inviting Philip Morris to a health symposium.