Can't believe there are zero threads on this, so I will post. What are your thoughts? I have the following: I applaud the President for doing it. I think CNN had the idea, but he willfully attended. The NRA did not, which I think was chicken%***. i first thought this would be a staged event. It was, but not in the manner I was thinking. Having Dana Kyle, Gabby Giffords and some young boy from Chicago was obviously part of the plan. However, it was not a HRC type staged event. I like this as a tool of democracy as long as it is not staged. Need a more balanced approach. Maybe even set it up like the Prime Minister facing Parliament. Let's put both parties in front of a national stage. The primary problem I have with Obama is the executive action. This never came up as a direct attack on the Constitution.
I too thought the event was well orchestrated and covered most sides of the issue. The NRA's decision not to participate painted them in a bad light. They had a rebuttal on FoxNews with Meghan Kelly immediately following the event which was cowardly. Their response? "We were only going to get one pre-screened question." CNN said they pre-screened the questions to ensure all sides were covered but the question was not enforced when the person was called upon. Though their membership won't hold them accountable, the NRA failed in trying to highlight their side of this issue. More President's should do these types of town halls. Can we dispense with the Executive Action drama though? Obama's use of it as a tool will be equivalent with any President in recent history.
I had the opposite opinion. I thought it was a chickenshit move by Obama to mention that the NRA didn't participate. No political organization would have agreed to those terms on any issue including Obama. One prescreened question and no opportunity to follow-up. Do you think Obama would show up to a townhall organized by the NRA on Fox News and only allowed one prescreened question? Right... If Obama is so convinced that he has the strongest argument than offer a real debate with the NRA not a political stunt. Obviously he would never do that because he likes to lecture and condescend to his political opponents not listen to them. Anderson seemed to be asking if he would agree to such a debate but Obama cut him off before he could even get his statement out.
I have little confidence in Obama holding a town hall meeting that wasn't staged. He takes executive action and then convenes a "look at me!" event to pat himself on the back while taking shots at those who disagree with him.
Did you watch it? Anderson Cooper stated it up front in the introduction and asked Obama direct questions about the NRA. But other political organizations DID participate including the National Firearms Retailers Assn which asked their question. Overall, it was a very civil and meaningful discussion I thought. Did it change anyones minds? Very doubtful but there were good points made on both sides I thought.
I saw parts. I will admit it was less biased than I expected. I did watch the part when he mentioned the NRA. The NRA is the most popular organization on this issue. They are the face of the gun lobby which Obama has demonized by name on several occasions. Any reasonable person would understand their lack of trust in Obama and reluctance to participate based on the limitations proposed. As I said earlier, if Obama really thinks he has the strongest argument then offer a real debate to the NRA not a political stunt. If they refuse then claim that the NRA is chickenshit. Until then, I think reasonable people know the truth.
Chris Christie has town-hall meetings regularly, and he appears on a monthly radio show called "Ask the Governor". In both cases, the questions come from whoever shows up or calls in. The questions aren't pre-screened, and he gets everything from softballs to missiles. He sometimes dodges a question, but usually not. He often rips the questioner a new orifice, albeit less often now than before he was running for president. Media is invited to attend the town halls, but they are required to stand at the back and stay quiet. I know he isn't going to get elected, but he has promised to continue the town halls if he is. This is one of my favorite things about him, and I wish it would catch on.
You're acting as it this was a White House organized event. CNN clearly stated that this was their idea and they approached the Obama admin to participate. As any forum, I'm sure the White House said "here are our rules for participation" but should they have not participated because the NRA wasn't present? The goal as stated by CNN was to show all sides of the issue, not simply NRA's stance which given their response wasn't constructive.
Not really relevant who organized it. I have no problem with Obama doing the townhall. Just thought he took a cheap shot at the NRA which confirms their reluctance to attend.
Where would I start? The entire response was filled with "rhetoric". In fact, I'd argue Chris Cox proved Obama's point. He jumped right into political talking points starting with "this President's failed policies don't make us safer" and "Obama wants to take away your guns". Is that a rational response to you?
Then attend and state your stance and ask the tough question rather than going on Fox News to give canned responses. Notice that he didn't really answer Megan Kelly's questions. When pushed he offered bile like "what are we going to talk about, basketball?"
Equivalent in number or in order to enact law/avoid congress? Will you sleep well at night knowing a President Trump no longer has to work with Congress on freedom of religion, free speech, etc? If you are really believing Obama's use of EO is like every other POTUS, you are really taking the DNC bait.
SH, Its not a one question discussion. Why would the NRA agree to that format given Obama's history of demonizing them?
Why would they want to address him directly in a public forum with a question of their choosing? If you're comparing "demonizing", what Obama said to them is nothing compared to what their response consisted of.
I think the NRA had an opportunity and they chickened out. I get the expectation they would not get a fair shake, but they could have provided their view. I am pro NRA, was once a member. Not happy they did not expose the left on the issue.
One question, no rebuttal, and Obama gets unlimited time to respond. Why would they agree to that. Given that he took a cheap shot at them during the town hall, it looks like they made the right decision. Did you not notice how Obama cut off Anderson when he was going to ask about a debate with the NRA? I thought that was pretty telling.
Clearly the questioners were allowed their monologue to get their points across and set the stage for the question. The format wasn't setup as a debate. Again, other gun advocate organizations took the opportunity to leverage the forum and offered insightful questions. The preeminent gun advocate organization chose Fox News to broadcast prepared talking points where Obama wasn't forced to respond. Seriously, notice that Chris Cox doesn't remotely answer Kelly's final question choosing to repeat arbitrary talking points. Keep in mind, Anderson Cooper was also interjecting when he felt Obama didn't give a full enough answer.
I will concede it was less biased than I originally thought it would be but hindsight is 20/20. The other point to be made is that the NRA has been winning on this debate which is why Obama has resorted to executive action. I don't see any reason that the NRA needs to agree to be a participant in Obama's townhall. It's not like they are the ones who need to win public support.
I think that what Obama has proposed is fair and no one should be against the plan. However, it is really for show. There are over 300 million guns already out and about...you can't un-ring that bell. The plan is one of those things that sounds good, maybe even sounds like a solution, but when asked how this would stop violence, he evaded the honest answer that his proposals wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings. I liken it to airport security in a way. We jump through hoops in an effort to make us feel safer, when that is impossible. If a terrorist is determined to blow up my plane, it doesn't matter that my shoes have been wiped. I have an honest question, I'm not what you would call a technology genius, but couldn't a person make a gun using a 3D printer? If that is the case, there really is no way to stop someone who is determined to use a gun for evil getting a gun. I hate to agree with Bill O'Reilly, but I think his idea of ramping up the punishment of anyone who ever uses a gun in an act of violence (robberies, threatening ways, etc.) could be a deterrent. Give these people significant jail time for using, or even brandishing a gun. I also thought Obama was quite petulant, and snarky...I didn't like his attitude at all. There were a few questions, such as the one by Chris Kyle's widow, where he just repeated what she had asked him over and over, and actually made her point. He admitted we can't predict who will use guns in an evil way, and that none of the mass shooters had anything in their history that would have prevented them from obtaining a gun. Anderson Cooper was agreeing with him regarding conspiracy theories, and he jumped down his throat. In the end, I just think he was showboating a bit. I don't think these changes will change anything. Sad, but most likely true.
I don't think the changes will do much. My guess is that the only people who will submit to background checks will be those who will easily pass. The others will continue to get their guns any way they can. The terrorist who shot the cop in Philadelphia shot him with a gun stolen several years ago from the police.
Incrementalism...the preferred strategy of people that want to abolish the 2nd Amendment and Pro-Lifers. It's all great 'til it's used on your politics.
I believe CNN producers are complicit with democrats and left-leaning propagandists in staging ostensibly neutral town hall meetings and other public forums to give the appearance of even-handed discussion. In fact, CNN producers have been exposed in the past for the deceptive practice of concealing partisans, lobbyists, campaign operatives, and progressive advocates in town hall audiences disguised as "regular folks" who want to have a "national discussion" about fill-in-the-blank. Now, I have no issue with tough questions being asked in a town hall meeting. But when CNN producers covertly plant fakes in the audience, then the town hall meeting becomes a farce. CNN producers attempt to dupe viewers like you and me into believing this is a real-time discussion and not a scripted campaign event. For a nice expose on CNN's deception, read Michelle Malkin's "Inside the Garden of Political Town Hall Plants" at: http://townhall.com/columnists/mich...garden-of-political-town-hall-plants-n2100364 In summary: At the cable station's Democratic debate in Las Vegas in 2007, moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced several citizen questioners as "ordinary people, undecided voters." But they later turned out to include a former Arkansas Democratic director of political affairs, the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada, and a far left anti-war activist who'd been quoted in newspapers lambasting Harry Reid for his failure to pull out of Iraq. At a CNN/YouTube GOP debate two weeks later, the everyday, "undecided voters" whose questions were chosen included: --A member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Clinton Steering Committee. --A young woman named "Journey" who questioned the candidates on abortion and whom CNN failed to properly identify as an outspoken John Edwards supporter. --A supposed "Log Cabin Republican" who had declared his support for Obama on an Obama '08 campaign blog. --A supposedly unaffiliated "concerned mother" who was actually a staffer and prominent Pittsburgh union activist for the United Steelworkers -- which had endorsed Edwards for president. --A supposed "undecided" voter who urged Ron Paul to run as an independent, but who had already publicly declared his support for former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's Democratic presidential bid. --A staffer for Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; a former intern for Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., and a former intern for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Once a manipulative gardener, always a manipulative gardener. During the push for Obamacare, Democrat plants spread like kudzu across town hall propaganda events. At White House "citizen town halls" in 2009, Team Obama hand-picked not-so-random "random" questioners who included: --An operative for the Washington, D.C.-based Health Care for America Now, the K Street Astroturf outfit with a $40 million budget to lobby for government-run health care that directed its activists to "drown out" opponents at town hall meetings. --An "unemployed" cancer patient who was actually working for the DNC's Organizing for America and the Virginia Organizing Project, which coordinated lobbying trips and health care forums with HCAN. --A Democrat National Committee member and community blogger at Organizing for America. --The 11-year-old daughter of a coordinator of Massachusetts Women for Obama who had donated thousands of dollars to the campaign, as had her law firm employer. Forgive me if I have little faith in CNN hosting a genuine town hall meeting.
Is the NRA winning the debate or simply have more lobbying $$ and muscle? Based on a new poll, the large majority think these new rules are sensible. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ld-support-his-new-restrictions-he-was-right/
What exactly was enacted? What exact changes will be made? When will they go into effect? Which of the mass shootings, that brought tears to BO's eyes, would have been prevented by BO's so called executive order? is it possible this was just a political stunt with no real changes?
These weren't significant changes per the Obama administration and nearly every other media outlet. The POTUS said in his Town Hall these changes likely wouldn't have prevented the spate of mass shootings. These changes, specifically closer to universal background checks and tightening the definition of licensed gun dealers, is intended to help the random gun violence in places like Chicago as it is the mass murder events. 2.4M background checks have halted felons and mentally ill people since they were enacted in the 90's. Clearly it won't solve all the problems but nobody is claiming it will. It's a very moderate step in the right direction that even Bill O'Reilly agreed with. The next POTUS can certainly reverse these changes should they choose.
This poll, like most unscientific polls, is largely the result of how the question was asked. I wonder what the results would be if they asked, please tell us how these actions would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings. Or, maybe ask if the favor the president subverting the constitution to get his way. Very convenient that it ends the question making the assumption it makes it easier for the FBI to complete background checks.
