Originally Posted by bulgron
I was disappointed by Gura's remarks. Frankly, in all of this, the NRA's suggestion that we put an armed presence in our schools is the only thing that has even a minimum chance of improving the situation. No other offered "solution" will work due to constitutional/social/mechanical reasons. The hilarious thing is that the NRA proposed cops and/or armed civilians. A few days before, Senator Boxer proposed using the National Guard. Yet LaPierre is the crazy one in the room?
So Gura wants to get in front of Cato and bash the NRA. Fine. Just out of curiosity, what are Gura's recommendations for ways to reduce the number of mass murders that we're seeing in gun free zones? Since he's so eager to throw stones, I'm sure he has a stellar proposal that's even better than what LaPierre suggested.
This is where the dichotomy is and where the concerns are.
Alan's not that interested in 'solutions' nor does he have to be; a civil rights platform acknowledges bad
things can happen under freedom, but freedom is worth the cost. Crime would be way lower if all our
speech were monitored to and from our work camps ;-) The current seats on the Supremes seem to get
this to some extent. And so has the 7th Circuit in Moore v Madigan, etc.
The worry is that a few of WLP's statements might couple back into lower court judicial 'reasoning' ("Omigod
even WLP said it could happen anywhere") and decrease some case velocity here & there.
As far as 'holding Congress', it was probably OK. They're fogies and can change their damnation to somethin'
new-fangled like video games - i.e., WLP gave 'em preloaded talking points and changed the subject from the
yes/no on guns (or gun variants).
As far as NRA recruitment, it was probably substandard, as I said above: 80% of our younger shooters play
Call of Duty on their Xbox and are perfectly nice people. Their reaction will be one of cross-generational
puzzlement if this tack keeps being pushed.
Wholly missing is SSRI meds discussion.