From Rapha (about Giro)

[dbnm]

This just popped up in the RCC forum.

Since most people here won't see it, I thought I should post it.

"Hello all,
I’m Sarah (Clark), the Chief Marketing Officer of Rapha. Obviously (and thankfully) recent events have sparked a meaningful debate in the US over gun safety. Rapha has consequently begun an urgent review of its supply chain and logistics, to examine links with partners and brands who are supporters of the NRA.
In situations such as this, our first response is to start a dialogue with our partners in the hope that we can contribute to driving change. We have consequently started these dialogues with several of our suppliers, including Vista Outdoor. Once we have better understanding of the trajectory of this conversation we will take the appropriate action, and transition suppliers where appropriate, whilst we sell through the remaining stock that we own."

Lock or delete if needed

[Tickdoc]

so for those of you who won't do Giro anymore, will you still buy from Amazon?

Just curious how deep the loyalty can go.

[gdw]

Give it a rest guys.

[tuscanyswe]

so for those of you who won't do Giro anymore, will you still buy from Amazon?

Just curious how deep the loyalty can go.

Not in relations to NRA and rapha etc but just in general.

Wouldent it be absolutely great if everyone only bought goods and services from companies that they thought was doing an okay job in trying to support humans everywhere best they can rather than fill their own pockets or agenda?

Just asking how deep can the loyalty go? Why not all the way everyday? Why not stand up for something we believe in? Its the only way the world will change for the better imo. Who is going to make it better if not us? Our elected aint doing much tbh and im not holding my breath for that to change. Money however.. ppl seem to grasp that concept pretty quick..

Let me ask this instead?

Why are we not doing all we can to try and promote businesses and ideologies we believe in at all times?
Well, life gets in the way, ppl are lazy (me included no doubt), theres only so many hours in a day etc. But still thats a more legitimate question than the other way around.
How did we slip up so bad??

[El Chaba]

The sword is double edged.

[bicycletricycle]

I don’t own a gun and I’m not a huge fan in general but I am tired of companies and celebrities getting involved.

This is the nail in the coffin for me with Rapha.

[fiamme red]

I'm boycotting both Rapha and Giro. Top that! :)

Well, actually, I've never bought anything from Rapha, and only a helmet and pair of gloves many years ago from Giro.

[makoti]

Well, good for Rapha for addressing the issue & not just dropping or keeping their partnership with Giro without looking into it further.

Socially responsible consumerism is very difficult, and every good purchase seems to have a hidden caveat. You do the best you can, pick your battles. I've decided to stop buying plastic containers as much as I can. Glass, or at least something reuseable. I'll stop buying from Giro for the moment, which pains me. I just bought my girlfriend the Rapha helmet. Giro helmets saved my skull twice. I swore I'd only buy Giro. Well, things change...

[ergott]

I don’t own a gun and I’m not a huge fan in general but I am tired of companies and celebrities getting involved.

This is the nail in the coffin for me with Rapha.

So if you go to the local food place and have a crappy experience or simply don't like the place you go back?

A private company making decisions about who they work with based on their own philosophy is as good as it gets. I don't pay attention to celebs so that doesn't affect me in any way. They have just as much right and people have just as much right not to pay attention to them. Businesses have every right to do what the feel philosophically they should provided they aren't breaking any laws. You vote with your dollars as will others. I applaud the dialog and the fact that people are thinking more about where they spend their money. More change is happening that way than any legislation these days.

Doesn't matter which side of the debate you are on, this free society at its best.

Seriously, how is what a celebrity doing by voicing their opinion any different than what we do here? We take a public position and state it on a forum for an audience.

[oldpotatoe]

Not in relations to NRA and rapha etc but just in general.

Wouldent it be absolutely great if everyone only bought goods and services from companies that they thought was doing an okay job in trying to support humans everywhere best they can rather than fill their own pockets or agenda?

Just asking how deep can the loyalty go? Why not all the way everyday? Why not stand up for something we believe in? Its the only way the world will change for the better imo. Who is going to make it better if not us? Our elected aint doing much tbh and im not holding my breath for that to change. Money however.. ppl seem to grasp that concept pretty quick..

Let me ask this instead?

Why are we not doing all we can to try and promote businesses and ideologies we believe in at all times?
Well, life gets in the way, ppl are lazy (me included no doubt), theres only so many hours in a day etc. But still thats a more legitimate question than the other way around.
How did we slip up so bad??

'We', are...says the people that only buy from companies that support the NRA.
'We' are...says the people that only buy from companies that DON'T support the NRA.

There is no answer to this very subjective question...pick your battles, make your decisions, IMHO.

[Tickdoc]

How did we slip up so bad??

we're lazy and easily exploited.

Wall-E....Idiocracy, et al.

[bicycletricycle]

It is obviously their right to do what they like here. I would not refuse them this right. I am just tired of it. They vote with their dollar, I vote with mine.

I am trying to vote for companies that stay neutral, we have enough of a splintered society these days.

The more parties in disagreement have in common the more likely the wound is to heal. I don't see a good end to every single part of society grabbing onto one of the poles.

As far as the difference between them being vocal and me being vocal? When you get down to free speech principles not much. We just have different priorities. I sent them an email asking them to remain neutral, they have decided to advocate for one side of the issue.

So if you go to the local food place and have a crappy experience or simply don't like the place you go back?

A private company making decisions about who they work with based on their own philosophy is as good as it gets. I don't pay attention to celebs so that doesn't affect me in any way. They have just as much right and people have just as much right not to pay attention to them. Businesses have every right to do what the feel philosophically they should provided they aren't breaking any laws. You vote with your dollars as will others. I applaud the dialog and the fact that people are thinking more about where they spend their money. More change is happening that way than any legislation these days.

Doesn't matter which side of the debate you are on, this free society at its best.

Seriously, how is what a celebrity doing by voicing their opinion any different than what we do here? We take a public position and state it on a forum for an audience.

[tuscanyswe]

'We', are...says the people that only buy from companies that support the NRA.
'We' are...says the people that only buy from companies that DON'T support the NRA.

There is no answer to this very subjective question...pick your battles, make your decisions, IMHO.

I wish i believed that (as that is better than the alternative). But I dont. I think lots of ppl perhaps even most ppl even in the western world make their purchases not thinking about it at all or not a lot.

[Jaybee]

we're lazy and easily exploited.

Wall-E....Idiocracy, et al.


...and largely insulated from the worst externalities of our actions.

[johnniecakes]

Good thing none of us buys anything from China or any other country with abysmal human rights issues. I feel warm and fuzzy because I never bought anything from Ralpha.

[bicycletricycle]

I wish i believed that (as that is better than the alternative). But I dont. I think lots of ppl perhaps even most ppl even in the western world make their purchases not thinking about it at all or not a lot.

that is true, the consequences of the global economy make almost any purchase unconscionable if considered for long enough.

[bicycletricycle]

Good thing none of us buys anything from China or any other country with abysmal human rights issues. I feel warm and fuzzy because I never bought anything from Ralpha.

If you listen to Noam Chomsky it would probably be impossible to identify any country with no human rights violations :)

[Kirk007]

I don’t own a gun and I’m not a huge fan in general but I am tired of companies and celebrities getting involved.

This is the nail in the coffin for me with Rapha.

Well since the Supreme Court decided that Corporations are "people" I think its nice to see a few of them at least trying to be doing good instead of doing harm. And we are seeing it more and more on all sorts of issues (Patagonia and other outdoor retailers are examples in my profession - conservation). Whether I agree with the stand or not, I applaud companies who are willing to put what they perceive to be the right thing to do above $$. Bravo Dick's Sporting Goods. And Bravo Rapha.

As to celebrities, and in addition to the points Ergott made about their rights as individuals, and love it or hate it but at this time in America celebrities have a voice, and followers who listen to what they say. Some choose to use that for issues they feel passionately about. Ted Nugent is an NRA darling for instance.

People admire people they perceive as successful and powerful; see. e.g. 45. Why shouldn't celebrities use their "power" for causes they believe in?

[FlashUNC]

To crib from MLK, neutrality on this sort of thing is advocating for a negative peace -- which is an absence of tension -- versus a positive peace which is the presence of justice. To be more obsessed with maintaining some semblance of "order" over advocating for just and fair change.

The fact some seek "middle ground" on mass slaughter in schools I find baffling.

[zacstanley]

To crib from MLK, neutrality on this sort of thing is advocating for a negative peace -- which is an absence of tension -- versus a positive peace which is the presence of justice. To be more obsessed with maintaining some semblance of "order" over advocating for just and fair change.

The fact some seek "middle ground" on mass slaughter in schools I find baffling.

Thank you - well said.

[Marc40a]

To crib from MLK, neutrality on this sort of thing is advocating for a negative peace -- which is an absence of tension -- versus a positive peace which is the presence of justice. To be more obsessed with maintaining some semblance of "order" over advocating for just and fair change.

The fact some seek "middle ground" on mass slaughter in schools I find baffling.

Word.

[pasadena]

To crib from MLK, neutrality on this sort of thing is advocating for a negative peace -- which is an absence of tension -- versus a positive peace which is the presence of justice. To be more obsessed with maintaining some semblance of "order" over advocating for just and fair change.

The fact some seek "middle ground" on mass slaughter in schools I find baffling.

Hell yeah

[bicycletricycle]

To crib from MLK, neutrality on this sort of thing is advocating for a negative peace -- which is an absence of tension -- versus a positive peace which is the presence of justice. To be more obsessed with maintaining some semblance of "order" over advocating for just and fair change.

The fact some seek "middle ground" on mass slaughter in schools I find baffling.

I don't think I am trying to find middle ground on mass slaughter, I don't think anyone is, characterizing it as such is dishonest.

I would be advocating for honest discourse and the humanization of our ideological enemies.

People who support gun rights don't support mass murder
People who support gun control don't hate freedom.

Continuing to impune the motivations of those we disagree with is no way to make a community.


Also, A sense of "order" is no small matter. Without order there is no justice, no peace, no laws, no freedom.

[Marc40a]

so for those of you who won't do Giro anymore, will you still buy from Amazon?

Just curious how deep the loyalty can go.

*polishes crystal ball*

That shoe is going to drop and soon.

*puts away crystal ball*

[FlashUNC]

I don't think I am trying to find middle ground on mass slaughter, I don't think anyone is, characterizing it as such is dishonest.

I would be advocating for honest discourse and the humanization of our ideological enemies.

People who support gun rights don't support mass murder
People who support gun control don't hate freedom.

Continuing to impune the motivations of those we disagree with is no way to make a community.


Also, A sense of "order" is no small matter. Without order there is no justice, no peace, no laws, no freedom.

MLKs reference to order is much the same as you're advocating for: You want people to shut up about it because it doesn't affect you personally. You want the disruption of discourse around the issue to end so things can go back to "normal".

There's no way to discuss an issue this emotionally charged without getting passionate views on both sides.

Sorry man, neutrality is part of the problem.

[bicycletricycle]

MLKs reference to order is much the same as you're advocating for: You want people to shut up about it because it doesn't affect you personally. You want the disruption of discourse around the issue to end so things can go back to "normal".

There's no way to discuss an issue this emotionally charged without getting passionate views on both sides.

Sorry man, neutrality is part of the problem.

The fact that an issue is emotionally charged is not an excuse for pouring gas on the fire. I don't want people to shut up about it, I want people to be more reasonable about it. I would prefer to reach change through the most orderly and reasonable path possible. The polarization self reinforces through a system of threats and responses that get more and more ridiculous as each side feels more threatened.

Threatening people is no path to resolution, unless you are prepared for war, and even that doesn't always work. Communication can work if we can agree on a common ground.

"You want people to shut up about it because it doesn't affect you personally"
really, personal insults?

Also, the idea that only the people have been the most effected by an issue can talk about it is rubbish, well, it is not democracy anyways and it is not a way forward IMHO

[ptourkin]

If you listen to Noam Chomsky it would probably be impossible to identify any country with no human rights violations :)

You're trying to be snarky but I do and he's right. A 5-4 majority of our Supreme Court just upheld indefinite detention without bail and some states are still trying to execute mentally ill people.

Ignoring politics that impacts people around us is the height of privilege.

[Keith A]

We've already had to close down one discussion on this very subject and I can see we are quickly headed in that direction. This is the one and only warning, stay away from personal attacks and insults...and as we well know, discussions on gun control end up going nowhere.

[Derailer]

If you listen to Noam Chomsky it would probably be impossible to identify any country with no human rights violations :)

That's because human rights violations are pretty common. I'm not a huge Chomsky fan, but that has nothing to do with the facts he lays out.

[bicycletricycle]

You're trying to be snarky but I do and he's right. A 5-4 majority of our Supreme Court just upheld indefinite detention without bail and some states are still trying to execute mentally ill people.

Ignoring politics that impacts people around us is the height of privilege.

If I had a point it is that it is much tougher to judge who is in the right and who is in the wrong if you really look at the world hyper critically.

We all have blood on our hands and it can be hard to choose a direction forward if you hold yourself to some utopian standard.

It is a troubling thought and difficult to know what it means exactly. I think this is why most religions have some concept of flawed existence or original sin. We have to recognize that the world is flawed, that we are flawed and then navigate the best we can. It is not an excuse, more of a recognition of facts.

[rnhood]

If I had a point it is that it is much tougher to judge who is in the right and who is in the wrong if you really look at the world hyper critically.

We all have blood on our hands and it can be hard to choose a direction forward if you hold yourself to some utopian standard.

It is a troubling thought and difficult to know what it means exactly. I think this is why most religions have some concept of flawed existence or original sin. We have to recognize that the world is flawed, that we are flawed and then navigate the best we can. It is not an excuse, more of a recognition of facts.

Good post and I agree. Navigating on bias only ends up on the sidelines or out of bounds.

[FlashUNC]

"You want people to shut up about it because it doesn't affect you personally"
really, personal insults?



If you took that as a personal insult I apologize. I was only distilling down what I've as your poorly considered point of view of a world where change is somehow never difficult with dispassionate beliefs on both sides (never mind that there are two sides with views that are worthy of equal weight, merit and consideration).

My personal insults are usually much more vivid in both description and tone.

And again, your posts indicate nothing but a desire to have a negative peace that is an absence of tension over a positive peace where real change brings a more equitable solution for all. Yours is the "stick to sports" view we often see people trot out when athletes share their views on subjects that affect all of us. Corporations are no different. Let 'em make their stances where they want, get bloodied and bareknuckled out there in the marketplace of ideas, and let the chips fall where they may.

[bicycletricycle]

If you took that as a personal insult I apologize. I was only distilling down what I've as your poorly considered point of view of a world where change is somehow never difficult with dispassionate beliefs on both sides (never mind that there are two sides with views that are worthy of equal weight, merit and consideration).

My personal insults are usually much more vivid in both description and tone.

I accept your apology.

I do not think change is easy, I do believe that civilization rests on the ability to manage change with minimal conflict. Certainly some changes are so large that civilizations must crumble and be remade to accommodate them.

I will always hope that we can find a way through change with the least amount of violence and conflict. Just because things can devolve doesn't mean they must.

I believe that people can find common ground and can work together and can trust each other. Obviously this doesn't always happen and makes me sound like some kind of naive idiot. If faith in other people makes me a naive idiot than fine.

What else should we do? Assume the worst of everyone? Assume we know what is actually the best and always have the high ground? What are the chances that whatever happens to be in our heads right now is actually the best possible idea or solution? I believe in the market place of ideas, I believe is free speech. These things are of maximum value when people are listened to instead of just automatically refuted out of a belief that you already know what is right and what is in that persons heart.

Pessimism is shallow, it is too easy to be of any real value.

[tommyrod74]

To crib from MLK, neutrality on this sort of thing is advocating for a negative peace -- which is an absence of tension -- versus a positive peace which is the presence of justice. To be more obsessed with maintaining some semblance of "order" over advocating for just and fair change.

The fact some seek "middle ground" on mass slaughter in schools I find baffling.

I don't always agree with you, but this is dead-spot-on.

[tommyrod74]

People who support gun rights don't support mass murder
People who support gun control don't hate freedom....


...also, A sense of "order" is no small matter. Without order there is no justice, no peace, no laws, no freedom.

People who are against any and all forms of regulation on firearms consider their personal rights more important than the rights of the society of which they are, ostensibly, a part.

I'd add that "order" and "comfort free from discord" are not the same thing.

[choke]

Well since the Supreme Court decided that Corporations are "people" Just an FYI; that is not a recent development....the SCOTUS has consistently held that view since 1818.

[Tickdoc]

I'm finding it very civil and enlightening.

I am enjoying seeing something finally get done and the irony of who is pushing it through.

Exciting times we live in.

[bicycletricycle]

People who are against any and all forms of regulation on firearms consider their personal rights more important than the rights of the society of which they are, ostensibly, a part.

I'd add that "order" and "comfort free from discord" are not the same thing.

To you that is what it means, they believe that same right is being afforded to you. Not to mention that it is a right afforded by the law. On a similar note, I have not heard one gun advocate, NRA included, advocate for making fully automatic weapons available again, or repealing all back ground checks. So the idea that they have accepted no restrictions is just not true. Maybe they have not accepted enough for you.


"comfort free from discord" comes from order. Order can become tyranny and we have to watch out for that, that is why the gun people want the guns. If we had no order we would all need even more guns. The noble savage is a myth.

[chiasticon]

If I had a point it is that it is much tougher to judge who is in the right and who is in the wrong if you really look at the world hyper critically.

We all have blood on our hands and it can be hard to choose a direction forward if you hold yourself to some utopian standard.

It is a troubling thought and difficult to know what it means exactly. I think this is why most religions have some concept of flawed existence or original sin. We have to recognize that the world is flawed, that we are flawed and then navigate the best we can. It is not an excuse, more of a recognition of facts.I don't know that anyone is trying to hold themselves to a utopian standard or denying that humanity is flawed and nothing will ever be perfect, laws or otherwise. the point is to grow where you see room for growth, as a human and as a society, to make it all a better place.

for people, it's common that if we see a company supporting something we disagree with, we stop shopping there. for companies, it's mostly that they believe they'll lose business over the issue. they're around to make money, after all.

[crankles]

What bothers me most about this is the fact that it's being made public by the CMO. Why not do what you feel is right without publicizing it?

This just popped up in the RCC forum.

Since most people here won't see it, I thought I should post it.

"Hello all,
I’m Sarah (Clark), the Chief Marketing Officer of Rapha. Obviously (and thankfully) recent events have sparked a meaningful debate in the US over gun safety. Rapha has consequently begun an urgent review of its supply chain and logistics, to examine links with partners and brands who are supporters of the NRA.
In situations such as this, our first response is to start a dialogue with our partners in the hope that we can contribute to driving change. We have consequently started these dialogues with several of our suppliers, including Vista Outdoor. Once we have better understanding of the trajectory of this conversation we will take the appropriate action, and transition suppliers where appropriate, whilst we sell through the remaining stock that we own."

Lock or delete if needed

[tuscanyswe]

To you that is what it means, they believe that same right is being afforded to you. Not to mention that it is a right afforded by the law. On a similar note, I have not heard one gun advocate, NRA included, advocate for making fully automatic weapons available again, or repealing all back ground checks. So the idea that they have accepted no restrictions is just not true. Maybe they have not accepted enough for you.


"comfort free from discord" comes from order. Order can become tyranny and we have to watch out for that, that is why the gun people want the guns. If we had no order we would all need even more guns. The noble savage is a myth.

But you dont need citizens with guns to have order. There plenty of countries proving that (know you know that).

What restrictions have NRA agreed to since mass shootings started happening more regularly in the US (dont know when that was but say after 2005 as i found reports going back to 2006)?

[bicycletricycle]

What bothers me most about this is the fact that it's being made public by the CMO. Why not do what you feel is right without publicizing it?

a jaded man might say, publicizing it is the point.

[BdaGhisallo]

What bothers me most about this is the fact that it's being made public by the CMO. Why not do what you feel is right without publicizing it?

I would imagine Rapha decided to publicize their decision so that their customer base would have some explanation for the sudden disappearance of a part of their product line, parts of which seemed to be quite popular among their customers.

[ptourkin]

a jaded man might say, publicizing it is the point.

Not jaded at all. It's her job. A lot of people expressed concern and she let them know that they heard. I recommend the discussion on the Cyclingtips podcast. Although it's not reflected on this forum, as they mentioned, the segment of cyclists who Rapha is marketing to leans in one direction re: the gun issue and a smart company at least does what she did and lets them know they're listening.

[bicycletricycle]

But you dont need citizens with guns to have order. There plenty of countries proving that.

What restrictions have NRA agreed to since mass shootings started happening more regularly in the US (dont know when that was but say after 2001 and 9/11?

You can find stats to support both sides of this issue. Why look to other countries? gun violence has gone done in america while gun ownership has gone up. A whole book was written about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime) and it seems pretty legit actually. I have heard interviews with the author but have not read it.

I am not saying the current gun laws are perfect, I think that most pro gun people will easily admit that when they are talking to someone they feel they can negotiate with in good faith and who doesn't think they are evil maniacs.

I don't know what laws have been passed since 9/11, I don't know why that is a good date to choose. Are gun owners digging their heels in, Yes. Do people always dig their heels in when people attack their identity, character and way of life, yes.

I do not know what the best laws pertaining to guns will be for this country, I do not think that they will be found through a process filled with Ad hominem attacks and name calling.

[bicycletricycle]

Not jaded at all. It's her job. A lot of people expressed concern and she let them know that they heard. I recommend the discussion on the Cyclingtips podcast. Although it's not reflected on this forum, as they mentioned, the segment of cyclists who Rapha is marketing to leans in one direction re: the gun issue and a smart company at least does what she did and lets them know they're listening.

Ya, that is what I meant, they did it for optics not beliefs. Well, maybe a combination but if it was on belief alone they would have already done it.

[Matthew]

If we look hard enough we can likely find something with most companies on earth we find something we don't like or disagree with. I'm just too lazy to care or do the work to research it. If I like a product I'll buy it.

[crankles]

Not jaded at all. It's her job. A lot of people expressed concern and she let them know that they heard. I recommend the discussion on the Cyclingtips podcast. Although it's not reflected on this forum, as they mentioned, the segment of cyclists who Rapha is marketing to leans in one direction re: the gun issue and a smart company at least does what she did and lets them know they're listening.

I think I was raised on too much C.S. Lewis.

[ptourkin]

Ya, that is what I meant, they did it for optics not beliefs. Well, maybe a combination but if it was on belief alone they would have already done it.

They have a contractual relationship. We have no idea how long it would take to disentangle or what their beliefs are

Slow down on the takes maybe.

[macaroon]

If we look hard enough we can likely find something with most companies on earth we find something we don't like or disagree with.

Of course, but that's whataboutery.

Rapha have decided to take action, which is fair enough; they can do what they like. But they're a British company, not American; why not leave the Americans to it.

Alot of Brits, particularly on social media, have an obsession with American injustices. Ridiculing America seems to make us feel all morally superior and intelligent.

It seems like a bit of jumping on the band wagon from Rapha. I'm not sure whether I agree with it, afterall, Giro employees are the ones that'll suffer.

[cgolvin]

I don't agree with the phrase "going public."

She wrote it on a Forum, access to which is limited to paying members of their club, so I believe her intent was solely to communicate to that audience about (1) the change in product availability, and (2) the company's ongoing thought process on the underlying issue.

Any interpretation of this as grandstanding (my word, not attributing it to anyone here) on Rapha's part is IMO unfair.

(Comment only applies to the statement on the RCC Forum by the CMO, if Rapha has in fact made public statements I was not aware.)

[tommyrod74]

To you that is what it means, they believe that same right is being afforded to you. Not to mention that it is a right afforded by the law. On a similar note, I have not heard one gun advocate, NRA included, advocate for making fully automatic weapons available again, or repealing all back ground checks. So the idea that they have accepted no restrictions is just not true. Maybe they have not accepted enough for you.


"comfort free from discord" comes from order. Order can become tyranny and we have to watch out for that, that is why the gun people want the guns. If we had no order we would all need even more guns. The noble savage is a myth.

It's unclear as to what's afforded by the law (constitution), as single-shot muskets aren't exactly the same thing as an AR-15. In any case, no one is saying it's currently unlawful - just that it's time to consider changing the applicable laws.

Perhaps I should have said "unwilling to accept any further restrictions".

Re: "comfort free from discord" - I meant that, in a democracy, no one has any reasonable expectation of this. Discord is part of the process that ultimately leads to some form of change, by reaching a compromise. I think a democracy without discord would be comfortable to those who dislike conflict, but would be no true democracy.

[FlashUNC]

You can find stats to support both sides of this issue. Why look to other countries? gun violence has gone done in america while gun ownership has gone up. A whole book was written about it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime) and it seems pretty legit actually. I have heard interviews with the author but have not read it.

I am not saying the current gun laws are perfect, I think that most pro gun people will easily admit that when they are talking to someone they feel they can negotiate with in good faith and who doesn't think they are evil maniacs.

I don't know what laws have been passed since 9/11, I don't know why that is a good date to choose. Are gun owners digging their heels in, Yes. Do people always dig their heels in when people attack their identity, character and way of life, yes.

I do not know what the best laws pertaining to guns will be for this country, I do not think that they will be found through a process filled with Ad hominem attacks and name calling.

If gun owners are feeling like they're being painted with an unfair brush, then perhaps some self-reflection is merited. Because that's clearly the top priority that needs to be considered at the moment, gun-owners feelings. C'mon man.

Again, to crib from MLK, the real failure in the debate now is from those repsonsible gun owners. They are the idle moderate in this situation begging for order at the expense of justice for everyone; desiring an absence of this tension so they can go back to doing whatever they want with their hobby of choice. Want to not get tarred with the brush that says you're okay with the blood in the streets? Join the fight for sensible gun control laws and regulations.

Because the day is going to come when the bargaining position of the other sides isn't "common sense" gun reform, but "no guns at all."

[makoti]

I'm finding it very civil and enlightening.

I am enjoying seeing something finally get done and the irony of who is pushing it through.

Exciting times we live in.

Did you see the meeting yesterday on the school shootings? I was dumbfounded listening to Trump advocating taking guns first THEN worrying about the courts. Pushing for age restrictions. EO to ban bump stocks. Telling Senators they were afraid of the NRA. I can only hope that, for once, he follows through. (The first part, ignoring due process, will never fly but it idea has merit).

[Mikej]

ok -no more guns, giro or rapha -take to the Lavender room -

[joosttx]

If gun owners are feeling like they're being painted with an unfair brush, then perhaps some self-reflection is merited. Because that's clearly the top priority that needs to be considered at the moment, gun-owners feelings. C'mon man.

Again, to crib from MLK, the real failure in the debate now is from those repsonsible gun owners. They are the idle moderate in this situation begging for order at the expense of justice for everyone; desiring an absence of this tension so they can go back to doing whatever they want with their hobby of choice. Want to not get tarred with the brush that says you're okay with the blood in the streets? Join the fight for sensible gun control laws and regulations.

Because the day is going to come when the bargaining position of the other sides isn't "common sense" gun reform, but "no guns at all."

<like>

[gasman]

Okay everyone we're getting back onto gun control and eventually this will devolve. Politics is part and parcel of any discussion about gun control.

Go ride you bike. Really