TexasCHLforum.com

57Coastie wrote:"Biden, NRA to meet on guns." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... un-groups-

This headline gave me hope that the two sides will actually start talking to each other.

Then I read this sentence in the article:

“We are sending a rep to hear what they have to say,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said -- not to talk, just to listen?

Now there appears to be no reason for me to think other than that Biden's meeting with whoever this NRA rep is will produce anything but statements from both sides reflecting that there is no chance of accommodation. Perhaps that may have been the case all along, as almost every commentator here has argued, but I still think the result of intransigence could be much worse than the sides having a two-way chat.

Jim

57Coastie wrote:"Biden, NRA to meet on guns." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... un-groups-

This headline gave me hope that the two sides will actually start talking to each other.

Then I read this sentence in the article:

“We are sending a rep to hear what they have to say,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said -- not to talk, just to listen?

Now there appears to be no reason for me to think other than that Biden's meeting with whoever this NRA rep is will produce anything but statements from both sides reflecting that there is no chance of accommodation. Perhaps that may have been the case all along, as almost every commentator here has argued, but I still think the result of intransigence could be much worse than the sides having a two-way chat.

Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

57Coastie wrote:"Biden, NRA to meet on guns." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... un-groups-

This headline gave me hope that the two sides will actually start talking to each other.

Then I read this sentence in the article:

“We are sending a rep to hear what they have to say,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said -- not to talk, just to listen?

Now there appears to be no reason for me to think other than that Biden's meeting with whoever this NRA rep is will produce anything but statements from both sides reflecting that there is no chance of accommodation. Perhaps that may have been the case all along, as almost every commentator here has argued, but I still think the result of intransigence could be much worse than the sides having a two-way chat.

Jim

The NRA will state our position and that we will not compromise on any of our positions. If Biden's group wants to talk about the real causes of school shootings, then we'll be happy to participate and stand ready to do so. So whether there is a two-way chat will depend upon whether Biden/Obama are serious, or whether this is just window dressing.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

57Coastie wrote:"Biden, NRA to meet on guns." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... un-groups-

This headline gave me hope that the two sides will actually start talking to each other.

Then I read this sentence in the article:

“We are sending a rep to hear what they have to say,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said -- not to talk, just to listen?

Now there appears to be no reason for me to think other than that Biden's meeting with whoever this NRA rep is will produce anything but statements from both sides reflecting that there is no chance of accommodation. Perhaps that may have been the case all along, as almost every commentator here has argued, but I still think the result of intransigence could be much worse than the sides having a two-way chat.

Jim

The NRA will state our position and that we will not compromise on any of our positions. If Biden's group wants to talk about the real causes of school shootings, then we'll be happy to participate and stand ready to do so. So whether there is a two-way chat will depend upon whether Biden/Obama are serious, or whether this is just window dressing.

Chas.

Isn't that already patently self-evident?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

57Coastie wrote:"Biden, NRA to meet on guns." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... un-groups-

This headline gave me hope that the two sides will actually start talking to each other.

Then I read this sentence in the article:

“We are sending a rep to hear what they have to say,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said -- not to talk, just to listen?

Now there appears to be no reason for me to think other than that Biden's meeting with whoever this NRA rep is will produce anything but statements from both sides reflecting that there is no chance of accommodation. Perhaps that may have been the case all along, as almost every commentator here has argued, but I still think the result of intransigence could be much worse than the sides having a two-way chat.

Jim

The NRA will state our position and that we will not compromise on any of our positions. If Biden's group wants to talk about the real causes of school shootings, then we'll be happy to participate and stand ready to do so. So whether there is a two-way chat will depend upon whether Biden/Obama are serious, or whether this is just window dressing.

Chas.

57Coastie wrote:
Now there appears to be no reason for me to think other than that Biden's meeting with whoever this NRA rep is will produce anything but statements from both sides reflecting that there is no chance of accommodation. Perhaps that may have been the case all along, as almost every commentator here has argued, but I still think the result of intransigence could be much worse than the sides having a two-way chat.

Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

57Coastie wrote:"Biden, NRA to meet on guns." http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... un-groups-

This headline gave me hope that the two sides will actually start talking to each other.

Then I read this sentence in the article:

“We are sending a rep to hear what they have to say,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said -- not to talk, just to listen?

Now there appears to be no reason for me to think other than that Biden's meeting with whoever this NRA rep is will produce anything but statements from both sides reflecting that there is no chance of accommodation. Perhaps that may have been the case all along, as almost every commentator here has argued, but I still think the result of intransigence could be much worse than the sides having a two-way chat.

Jim

The NRA will state our position and that we will not compromise on any of our positions. If Biden's group wants to talk about the real causes of school shootings, then we'll be happy to participate and stand ready to do so. So whether there is a two-way chat will depend upon whether Biden/Obama are serious, or whether this is just window dressing.

Chas.

C-dub wrote:While I'm pleased that WalMart isn't willing to be involved in stealing our rights, I'm disappointed that they don't appear to be willing to stand up for them either. If they don't go meet with him then they don't have a voice at all in that discussion. We need as many pro-2A voices in that room to counter the fear mongers that are trying to infringe on our rights.