Orlando nightclub shooting

[Chance]

Mitch McConnell Says He May Be ‘Open’ to Post-Orlando Gun Control

Hopefully the headline is spun to sound worse that it actually is....
The article itself is unclear.

[Clay]

Edited my post. MarketWatch scrolled a piece about the NRA meeting with Obama, now it appears it is Trump calling for the meeting. Can't find it on MarketWatch now, but Wired and Free Republic has it as being Trump.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[Clay]

Either way I trust none of these people, including the NRA. I support the NRA because they are the best option.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[Drang]

So, Trump shoots off his piehole about wanting to meet, and the NRA gets blamed?

(BTW, your edit does not name who is meeting, or claims to be meeting, or wants to meet, with the NRA.)

Also: Has it been confirmed that SumAsshole was on a watchlist? Last I heard, he was not.

[Clay]

I'm not blaming anyone. Wind your neck in. I just don't TRUST anyone in any position of authority in this country with my freedom at this point in time. And that goes for anyone who wants authority in this country.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

[11B10]

Either way I trust none of these people, including the NRA. I support the NRA because they are the best option.

Sent from my XT830C using Tapatalk

Pretty much the only option.

[Chance]

Yes, Trump is meeting with the NRA. He announced it on Twitter. Wants to discuss people on watch lists not buying guns.

[Handy]

Someone on the gun side of the aisle needs to start saying, doing or proposing something other than "It's my gall darn right under the Constitution!"


That can include telling the truth, and not just finger pointing about things like "values" and immigration, when those aren't the cause and certainly aren't the solution.

[HCM]

Olong and others, do you think it is beneficial to start out and gauge where the other party stands on:

1. Whether people/Americans have a fundamental right to self-defense
2. Whether violence/fighting/killing is ever a the only option

I think unless the other person answers in the affirmative on both counts, you can argue until you're blue in the face and you will never find common ground. I've found that in some cases their position is on base purely on emotions/fear, no amount of logic will work, and unless there are others listening and you have the opportunity to sway their opinion, it's a waste of time.

SCW - IME you are correct. Dr William April explains why better than I can:

To admit the need for defense of self and others requires admission that there are folks whose actions would require defending against. Acknowledging that reality in the world would mean accepting that people exist who would do evil despite any laws or policies in place, thus demonstrating the failure of the liberal/left approach to life. When faced with the choice between my deeply held beliefs (basically my core self-concept) and reality, I'll jettison reality rather than change. We refer to this little intrapsychic square-dance as "denial in service of the ego."
-William Aprill

[Cincinnatus]

Because of some of the commentary in this thread, I verily want a "dislike" button.