Aurora, Colorado was, for some 26 years, my home. I raised three children there. We regularly went to the very same Cinema that has now become a sad symbol of life in America. I knew, personally (so far as I currently am aware) none of those who lost their lives on that recent day. (I do not have a list of the wounded available to me yet.)
Even as the dead were being tended to, there erupted a nearly violent, passion-filled argument around kitchen tables, blogs, and media. Personally, I found much of the conversation to be irrelevant, inane, misplaced, and useless. I heard things from several sides of this important issue which were patently false, misleading, fear-mongering, and quite frankly, dangerous.
It has been suggested that this is not the time to have such a discussion. As with some others, I wholeheartedly disagree with that notion. I think, personally, that now is absolutely the very best time to have that conversation.
But I also think it is time for a reasonable discussion. Reasonable discussion and debate is one of the most valued and treasured commodities of freedom. The radio show I host deals with just such issues on a weekly basis. It is geared to, but not exclusively listened to by, Progressives--and specifically those in the Progressive Southern United States.
So I would like to have that discussion. On the radio show. This coming Sunday, July 29th, 2012, from 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM (Central Time). But the conversation has some ground rules.
I think this is a discussion that needs to be had. Now. If you would like to participate, I am looking for Kossacks to help. I would like to know who the very best spokesman in our community is for two sides of the discussion. One person who would speak legitimately in favor of a gun control/ban, and one person who could speak legitimately against such a ban. But, there are rules.
If you would like to be one of the two spokesmen; if you would like to participate in a reasoned debate on this issue, and have your position heard by more than 3,000 Southern Progressive listeners this Sunday--AND if you can agree to the ground rules I state just below he squggledoodlethingey fold, please send me a KosMail with you agreement to the rules, the position you would care to defend, and any credible "authority" you might bring to the conversation. (This is a very rare invitation to gasp Attorneys, NRA leaders, or any other such legitimate authority to speak for "your" side.
Beyond that, I am hoping that many, many Kossacks will join the conversation, call in live, and join our active chatroom for this important discussion. I will merely moderate, and help keep the discussion in line, and on time. See the rest of the idea below.
The Title of the show, episode #19 of "Progressive Politics:Tennessee Style" (PPTS) is:
Why Should There Be A Gun Control/Ban on Semi-Automatic (or other) Weapons in the United States?
There will be two sides, and two sides only to this particular conversation. The conversation itself will include three distinct segments:
1. A Segment discussing, from both sides, the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. We will NOT discuss intentions of the founders, or legislation (Case Law) in this debate. What I hope to achieve is a basic understanding of the Amendment, in it's entirety, as it is enshrined in our Constitution. A starting point from historical perspective is permitted for discussion. Attempts to disregard any part of the Amendment will be disallowed. Each side will have up to fifteen (15) minutes to express their views on the 2nd Amendment.
2. A segment which will give the first side (as determined by a roll of the virtual dice by a neutral party) a clear and clean opportunity to present, without interruption, their case in favor of, or opposition to a Gun Control/Automatic Weapons Ban in the United States. The speaker will have up to thirty (30) minutes of clear air time to present their case. I, as moderator, reserve alone the right to interrupt their presentation if I believe any part of their presentation to be "off topic".
3. A segment which will give the opposing side (as determined by a roll of the virtual dice by a neutral party) a clear and clean opportunity to present, without interruption, their case in favor of, or opposition to a Gun Control/Automatic Weapons Ban in the United States. The speaker will have up to thirty (30) minutes of clear air time to present their case. I, as moderator, reserve alone the right to interrupt their presentation if I believe any part of their presentation to be "off topic".
4. Key Speakers are not required to consume the full thirty (30) minutes allowed to present their position. At the conclusion of both sides' presentation, the remainder of the available show time will be devoted to listeners calling in to speak with our speakers or me.
A clear example of off-topic behavior, for all sides, might be (for instance):
"Cars kill more people than guns do. Should we then outlaw cars?"
Cars are not the subject of this conversation. Such defenses, by both sides, will be out of bounds, and I will say so. Another example:
"You are just a gun fetishist, and you can't stand the idea of not having your automatic, 10 round drum, .50 cal shotgun for pheasant hunting."
Fetishism of guns, shotguns, or Pheasants is out of bounds for the purposes of this conversation.
I hope you get the picture here. Another ground rule:
So, incidently are any other reasonably identifiable breaches of Rhetorical debate (referred to for our purposes as "tomfoolery").
HINT: You might want to brush up* on those. I teach them, and have written courses on them. I'm good. Personal attacks, of any nature will be immediately identified as "tomfoolery", and the perpetrator will be removed from the conversation, without appeal.
It is not the intention of this conversatin to have either a "winner" or "loser". The purpose this conversation is to give clear and uninterrupted air time to our callers, listeners, and chatroom followers a safe environment to have their views safely aired for the purpose of consideration.
Hopefully, the take-away from this show will be valid information listeners can use to either toss up their beliefs, and see how they land (in their own minds), listen respectfully to opposing positions and seek value in them, or simply to learn some things which you may not have known.
That is what discussion does. That is why we so value the common marketplace of ideas in our American Culture.
SO!
1. We will begin with a 10 minute introduction to the topic.
2. We will have a 30 minute conversation about the 2nd Amendment from its historical perspective, and what it means (or should mean) to us today.
3. The First Side (chosen by virtual dice roll) will have 30 minutes to present, without intrruption, their "side"'s views on the topic question. (Key Speakers may permit specific individuals to assist them with their time consumption, so long as I know, in advance who those individuals are.) We will accept no comment or question calls during the presentations, but you can certainly chat in the chatroom.
4. The Second Side will have 30 minutes to present, without interruption, their "side"'s views on the topic question. Again, Key Speakers may permit specific individuals to assist them with their time consumption, so long as I know, in advance who those individuals are. At the conclusion of their presentation, we will accept live callers to speak with our guest speakers or myself for comments or questions.
Because of the nature of this program, when necessary (you will be advised in advance by our Producer) callers will be limited to not more than 30 seconds to ask a question or make a comment. We want as many voices in this conversation as possible.
One more note: The show is making a great attempt to HAVE the conversation that it seems no one is willing to have. Please remember our most basic rules: Give us a name so we may identify you when it you turn to speak with our panel. You are a guest in our house, and we do expect you to act accordingly. Play nice! No "tomfoolery" online, on-air, or in the chat room. (Our producer has become very adept at bouncing listeners who disrespect in any way, this show. Actually, she kind of likes it.) :)
I'm asking for leadership on both sides of this conversation to step up, and be prepared. You may rest assured that my staff and I have (or will spend) every available moment this week preparing for this important conversation. We will be prepared. You be prepared, too.
Will you provide an answer to our show's motto? "What Are YOU going to do about it?" and step up for your convictions, Progressive? I do hope so. Let me know via kosmail, or email me at maurycodem@gmail.com.
Because I know the rules are a bit spread out in this post, I will send you a clear list, with linked references should you decide to help lead this important conversation.
Look. This really matters. Right now. It is, in my view, time to have such a conversation. Who knows, maybe someone will be listening that will champion a conversation in your statehouse, or even within the halls of Congress. Mercy, even maybe someone from the White House will be listening, or participating. (It does happen!)
Following each side's presentation, we will devote the remainder of the two hours to your calls, your comments, and your contributions to what I believe could well be the beginning of one of the most important conversations American citizens could possibly have--right now. I hope you will join us, and help us sort through this diverse and important topic.
You can always find the show, and our achived files of previous episodes at our home site.
You can find, and sign in to Episode 19 to join in the conversation by listening, calling, or chatting it up. We hope you will. The more voices that participate, the better the outcome, I believe.
We're on the air!
We'll see YOU there!
For PPTS,
Bud Fields
* I am in no way associated with the referenced explanations of Rhetorical Fallacy. I did not write the words, and have no affiliation with the website, or its owners. It just happens to be a tremendously helpful series on Rhetoric. I reference my students to it, so I feel it is fair to reference speakers and callers to it, as well.
Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 2:55 AM PT: The poll below should have read gun control/semi-automatic (and other) weapons ban legislation. The typing was my error. I apologize.
Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 12:51 PM PT: As of this date/time, I have had no offers to serve this conversation as "Key Speakers" for each side of the conversation. If you would be willing to debote your time on Sunday to this conversation, please let me know via Kosmail, or email me at maurycodem@gmail.com.
Thanks. Bud
Sun Jul 29, 2012 at 12:30 PM PT: fIt's time to have an adult conversation! http://blogtalkradio.com/.... Join us, won't you?