Michael Dembrow had a discussion with constituents in a small venue in Portland this morning. It went about 2 hours. Approx 30 minutes focused on gun legislation. Dembrow was soft spoken and polite. He served as more of a moderator than an actual participant. He let the opposing folks in the room argue against one another. No one specifically targeted Dembrow's support for the legislation. Very smart on his part. Teflon smart. It may be the case that some of the vocal anti-gunners in the room were placed to protect him. Right off the bat, a woman objected to filming in the room. (she later revealed herself as rabidly anti gun) It was a pro gunner with the camera. Before the meeting got started, her objection cast a veil of friction and hostility over the entire event. I was perplexed that anyone at such a public event would expect the event not to be recorded. Regrettably, it divided the pro gunners in the room, and at one point pro-gunners were speaking against one another about it. This should never happen again. The pros should have been unified. Liability insurance was discussed. Dembrow admitted that though he is the sponsor, he had not read the entire bill. The pro gunners mentioned that the legislation will price people out of self protection. An anti responded that anytime someone gets shot, the financial burden on the public for providing medical care to that shot person is great. A pro gunner responded that the insurance is difficult to obtain and that his own carrier doesn't offer even it. Ironically, the rabid anti response was that it is available through the NRA and that it is not costly. The point was then made that Dembrow's district is very diverse in terms of class and race, and since insurance companies are frequently owned by the big banks, the requirement to add more cost for firearms ownership might essentially be classist and racist. This drew looks of disgust and head shaking from the anti crowd. Dembrow's response was : "I didn't mean it to be racist." When discussing the legislation regarding college carry, the point was made that only the armed stop the armed. An anti responded that in his personal experience, he had talked down multiple shooters with weapons in their hands. Another woman chimed in that she noticed that shooters always seemed to take their own lives with their guns after their crimes. Dembrow stated that he felt each school should be free to set the policy on their campus. (Take this in context though; currently CHL holders can legally go to any school) There was a comment that lead to a discussion about government tyranny and democide and guns being the ultimate check and balance. Dembrow fielded this one himself. He said that many may fear the police and military, but that these organizations are afforded extra privileges and trust to provide security for the rest of us. He stated that we don't live "in a society of absolute freedom." The implication was that sacrificing some liberty was required for some security. Someone asked Dembrow to assess what the odds were that the various gun bills would pass. Dembrow was quite candid. He stated that politicians typically draft a lot of legislation in the hopes that just a few the would pass. They wait a while and then come back and try to pass more. He stated that HB3200 is virtually dead on the vine, but Dembrow was very open about his hopes for smaller measures such as the universal background checks and liability insurance to get through. He also stated that he had received approx 2000 emails regarding gun control and that the majority of it supported his current position. Please let me know if I forgot something. tunus, your efforts and insight are greatly appreciated. I thank you for coming, and your unique perspective on this issue is critical. I meant what I said. I do hope you'll attend more of these as we gather to oppose this storm. Afterthought: Pros need to be more unified and organized.