Oregon The Oregonian hosting gun control discussion TONIGHT July 11

[etrain16]

It's still on the Oregonian Facebook page.

Odd, when I tried to go there, I couldn't access it. May just be on my end. I'll try on another computer later.

 

[etrain16]

I watched all I could stand. I had some molasses in the freezer about to flow uphill that needed watching. I thank Dominic for doing this. What a position he put himself in. Looking at the faces as he was speaking, they were blank. Nothing he said was soaking in. I pride myself on reading people. Body language, speech, demeanor tell me what kind of person they are *likely* to be. I tell ya', the reverend heard nothing, Kemp heard but nothing was going to change. At least Kemp isn't going before hundreds of people and using God/religion as motivation. THOSE are the kind of people that convince followers to drink poison because some god wants them home, with him. People using religion to pass law for every one. Isn't that illegal or something? Millions of people around the world have died because of religion, and here he wants to take firearms from the law abiding.

I would stop short of demonizing religion in general - because you can point to just as much, arguably more good it's done than bad in the world. Regardless, many do like to abuse religion to get things from people, and in this case, there is no teaching in Christianity that I am aware of (having studied it for many years) that justifies disarming people by force, which is exactly what this would have done. No, I see folks like this rather as a 'false prophet', manipulating religious belief to get their way. And I believe there will be a special judgment reserved for just those people.

Fact remains that people are easily manipulated by many different types of thought - religion, politics, etc. Religion is only one of a number of ways to get people to do what you want. But when applied properly, religion, politics, etc. can be a good thing. It's the abusers that make it bad.

Now back to our regularly scheduled non-religious discussion

 

[Mikej]

I would stop short of demonizing religion in general - because you can point to just as much, arguably more good it's done than bad in the world. Regardless, many do like to abuse religion to get things from people, and in this case, there is no teaching in Christianity that I am aware of (having studied it for many years) that justifies disarming people by force, which is exactly what this would have done. No, I see folks like this rather as a 'false prophet', manipulating religious belief to get their way. And I believe there will be a special judgment reserved for just those people.

Fact remains that people are easily manipulated by many different types of thought - religion, politics, etc. Religion is only one of a number of ways to get people to do what you want. But when applied properly, religion, politics, etc. can be a good thing. It's the abusers that make it bad.

Now back to our regularly scheduled non-religious discussion

Well there's two kind of religion, I'm only speaking of the ugly side of it. And there is an ugly side. The reverend is using his power over people to his own means. Not bible savvy, but isn't there something in the good book about using such influence on people?

 

[etrain16]

Well there's two kind of religion, I'm only speaking of the ugly side of it. And there is an ugly side. The reverend is using his power over people to his own means. Not bible savvy, but isn't there something in the good book about using such influence on people?

Yep, absolutely agree.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

Where's the pro gun questions?

The old guy tried with his 3 rounds elephant question. I get where he was trying to go but it is hard to go there without sounding like a tin foil hat toting crazy. Our guy shut that line of questioning down pretty quick.

 

[DuneHopper]

Well there's two kind of religion, I'm only speaking of the ugly side of it. And there is an ugly side. The reverend is using his power over people to his own means. Not bible savvy, but isn't there something in the good book about using such influence on people?

There is allot of ugly in religion, as it takes almost nothing to get people to follow you simply saying GOD wants this according to the Bible etc, and people flock to obey. Not to mention more and more churches are operating as cults its quite scary.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

I also love how Dominic was the only one who didn't rely on pointless anecdotal blubbery to try and make a point. The other two, when asked a question would lay out there life story and then have to be redirected to the original question.

 

[mrblond]

There is allot of ugly in religion, as it takes almost nothing to get people to follow you simply saying GOD wants this according to the Bible etc, and people flock to obey. Not to mention more and more churches are operating as cults its quite scary.

DEUS VULT!

 

[etrain16]

I also love how Dominic was the only one who didn't rely on pointless anecdotal blubbery to try and make a point. The other two, when asked a question would lay out there life story and then have to be redirected to the original question.

That's one of my big gripes about the anti's, and the left in general. It's all emotion. It's all based on some sort of personal experience or tragedy. And their reaction is to put restriction/laws on others. And I can, to some extent understand why - they don't want others to experience the same pain. I do get that. But stripping rights from others? Is that really the way to address this?

I've experienced losses in my life. Suicide. Drunk drivers. Failed Safety Equipment. Speeding. Drug use. Smoking. All of them tragic. All of them deeply emotional. But at no time during or after the grieving process did my mind go to "hey, we should pass more laws and restrict people further so this will never happen again". Part of the reason is that I actually understand tragedies are a part of life, and no amount of laws will ever stop them. The other part is that I don't believe my pain or loss justifies me imposing some restriction on other people.

And that's why it's so hard to have a reasonable, rational discussion with many anti's. They work on emotion, fear, manipulation, all based on subjective, personal experience. When you confront them with facts, they immediately let the tears flow, because a lot of folks, when faced with such actions, end up on the losing side because now you look like a bad guy for making them cry. These folks know the power of crocodile tears and emotional pleas all too well. And far too many people don't look past the emotion to engage the reason center of their brain. It all stops at the tears.

 

[2Wheels4Ever]

That's one of my big gripes about the anti's, and the left in general. It's all emotion. It's all based on some sort of personal experience or tragedy. And their reaction is to put restriction/laws on others. And I can, to some extent understand why - they don't want others to experience the same pain. I do get that. But stripping rights from others? Is that really the way to address this?

And that's why it's so hard to have a reasonable, rational discussion with many anti's. They work on emotion, fear, manipulation, all based on subjective, personal experience. When you confront them with facts, they immediately let the tears flow, because a lot of folks, when faced with such actions, end up on the losing side because now you look like a bad guy for making them cry. These folks know the power of crocodile tears and emotional pleas all too well. And far too many people don't look past the emotion to engage the reason center of their brain. It all stops at the tears.

This has been my experience as well when trying to defend our rights. So many on this side think that the left want to strip our gun rights away so they can overpower us and have more control over the populace. While some might have this line of thought, it is not congruent with those that I have spoken with (and as en educator I am surrounded by them.) They come from a place of ideals. In their idyllic utopia, people don't kill other people, and in their quest for this, they forgo reason, and strive for what they think is right. I understand this line of thought, and it comes from a place of compassion, but it is unfortunately not how human nature works. There will always be evil, and there will always be a need to defend yourself. Too many people don't understand this until they face this evil on a personal level; just like the fudd in the video, he feels safe so there is no need to have a gun for defense.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Kudos to Dominic for stepping up to support the law-abiding gun owners.

I figured this would be just another liberal s***show as they all are, they just want to further their agenda after they got kicked in the cooter.
It's just like one recently in Seattle with KIRO News.
Same s*** different name.
No link but a member of a Wa gun forum member told us he was approached to represent the 2A side and he turned it down, IIRC. I cannot blame him one bit for opting out.

 

[tiggers97]

I also love how Dominic was the only one who didn't rely on pointless anecdotal blubbery to try and make a point. The other two, when asked a question would lay out there life story and then have to be redirected to the original question.

It may seem irritating and irrational, but it is a skill our side needs to learn better if we are to sway more people to our side.
Some people are first looking for "do you care?" or "what connection do I have with this person?". And if we don't check those two boxes first, then somehow that means to them that "you don't care. You don't care about kids being killed." Or they don't feel that personal connection with us. Their buttons to open the door to actual rational ideas isn't open wide enough to actually listen. From their perspective, would we listen more to someone we like? Or someone jumping right into lecturing you why your feelings are wrong?

Yes. Irritating and not a productive use of time for many people on our side. But without that connection to 'break the ice of the conversation' I feel like these people are less likely to listen, much less time to understand. They come from a position of fear and anxiety first.

 

[tiggers97]

No link but a member of a Wa gun forum member told us he was approached to represent the 2A side and he turned it down, IIRC. I cannot blame him one bit for opting out.

I think the first question should be "who else have you asked to represent my perspective, and can I have their number to confirm?"

 

[Massolo]

I see this as a further attack on law abiding gun owners, they will interupt when Pro 2A proponents try and give accurate facts and twist it back in their anti-gun agenda.
I know this is to rally the anti-constitutionalism crowd.
Never trust the liberal media!!!

You called it correctly Jim. I wouldn't be surprised if they had ANTIFA terrorists waiting outside to harass the gun owners too. The Oregonian is nothing but leftist word slingers and hacks, who are a disgrace to real journalists everywhere.

 

[kenbo]

The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board will host a conversation at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, July 11 in downtown Portland featuring state leaders, gun-control proponents and gun owners and enthusiasts. We'll delve into the issues of where Oregon stands with current and proposed gun legislation and seek out areas where Oregonians' varying opinions may converge.

Register for the free event at Guns: An American Conversation

Can't make it in person? The event will stream live at The Oregonian, where we'll regularly turn throughout the evening for questions from the Facebook audience.

As a side note, any church that gets involved in politics outside of their effort to maintain their religious doctrine, should lose their tax exempt status. I don't see the second amendment as a religious issue.