Rothman on Fox News tonight

[EJSG19]

1 negative Nancy, the rest happy about the job Rothman did. that speaks for itself.

to argue further, at this point, is redundant.

[Greg]

It must be nice to have so many cronies who'll laud praises about everything you say and do.

You'd think you'd know when to stop digging!

Andrew did a great job; if you think you can do better, please proceed!

[PhilaBOR]

Thank you Andrew for participating in the interview. Thank you for the untold hours you have put into gun rights in our community.

That said, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I have to agree that you might have had a better answer for the question. What is the best answer? Not sure, but here are some possibilities (apologies if these overlap those already posted):

You could need it during a major Katrina style disaster with armed gangs attacking law abiding citizens
You could live in a dangerous area with lots of gang violence
You could have a home invasion with multiple, drug crazed perpetrators

I can think of others: foreign invasion, TEOTWAWKI, defense against tyrannical government, but those probably won't play as well on the news.

[JoeH]

Thank you Andrew for participating in the interview. Thank you for the untold hours you have put into gun rights in our community.

That said, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I have to agree that you might have had a better answer for the question. What is the best answer? Not sure, but here are some possibilities (apologies if these overlap those already posted):

You could need it during a major Katrina style disaster with armed gangs attacking law abiding citizens
You could live in a dangerous area with lots of gang violence
You could have a home invasion with multiple, drug crazed perpetrators

I can think of others: foreign invasion, TEOTWAWKI, defense against tyrannical government, but those probably won't play as well on the news.

None of the above will play well with the general Minnesota populous. Sticking to his talking points was the best. The average sheep can't handle the basic truth. It's not a safety issue. It's a freedom issue.

[xd ED]

It's not a safety issue. It's a freedom issue.

DING! DING! DING!

[Spike]

Why High cap mags? One word... Ninjas!

[gman1868]

Watched the interview, good job Andrew!

[1911fan]

I have not been able to watch the clip because of a glich. I am quite sure Andrew did a good job.

Since this happened, everytime the topic of hardware has come up I refuse to enter into it instead asking why they are consistently blaming an object for a deranged individuals actions. We do not blame chevy for drunks getting a DUI nor do we blame Boeing for 9/11. We do not blame a corvette or BMW for someones speeding ticket. Do they they blame nokia or Motorola for a cell phone detonated IED?

Do not give a reason why there are 33 round mags but refocus the argument on the individual.

[pastorpaul]

Do not give a reason why there are 33 round mags but refocus the argument on the individual.

i have not responded as of this post since i, too, believe Andrew did a good job of defending 2a rights and i did not want to sound like i could or would have done a better job of doing so. yet i am in agreement with some of the criticism already put forth as to how he answered the original question in the interview. as a former debater it is my opinion that he lost this debate. he never answered the original question let alone refute or best his opponent's position. when given the original question, he responded with silence and a shrug of the shoulders. at that point in the debate he already lost. his body language doomed him. refocusing is a debate tactic used when the person cannot defend or promote his side and he knows it. unfortuneately, debate judges and opponents also recognize this tactic and will deem it as a loss. from a purely debate perspective, his opponent won.
again, his refocusing on the criminal and defending 2a rights was well done and good for those of us on the 2a train. it did nothing for the slowing or stopping of the "we must stop large capacity clips (read 'mags')" bandwagon. i concur with above posts in the need to verbalize precisely and effectively an answer for the original question posed (other than the "slippery slope" argument). without one, we could lose this debate everywhere it is risen.
i am glad Andrew was there and did a good job. i certainly could not have done better. my proposal is that we do a better job of equipping Andrew to do a great job next time.

[goalie]

The problem is, nothing Andrew could have said would have mattered.

People willing to give up liberty for the illusion of safety will never understand the thought process of those who value their rights, safety be damned.

Since we're all going Monday morning QB, I would probably have asked why anyone needs a car that goes faster than the speed limit? Then pointed out that driving is a privilege, NOT a right. But, as I said, you are never going to win with the bliss-ninnies. The fact that they are blaming an object already shows the incompatibility of their moral view with mine.

[macphisto]

I would probably have asked why anyone needs a car that goes faster than the speed limit? Then pointed out that driving is a privilege, NOT a right.

Damn, that's a good one!

[DeanC]

I would probably have asked why anyone needs a car that goes faster than the speed limit? Then pointed out that driving is a privilege, NOT a right.

Damn, that's a good one!

It is, but as Goalie pointed out, the bliss-ninnies still won't buy it. I used this EXACT argument with a real die-hard professor of religious studies from Northfield last week and he didn't buy it for a second, regardless of it's inherent logic.

His logic circuits (as most of theirs are) were clearly deficient because when I suggested that history might be different if the Nazis hadn't confiscated the Jews' gun in Germany, he called me an anti-Semite to my face.

i think just being willing to show up and have an answer, even if not the exact, perfect answer is worth a lot. We're not going to win over the radical 10%, but we might make an impact on the ambivalent 80% by showing we are normal people who believe in this stuff and are willing to show up and talk about it.

[EJSG19]

i think just being willing to show up and have an answer, even if not the exact, perfect answer is worth a lot. We're not going to win over the radical 10%, but we might make an impact on the ambivalent 80% by showing we are normal people who believe in this stuff and are willing to show up and talk about it.

well stated

we don't need to win over whats her face Hag Martens or her crew of village idiots. Exposing their arguments as pointless and without substance will do quite nicely.

[tman]

Why High cap mags? One word... Ninjas!

Nahhh.....ZOMBIES!

[xd ED]

The problem is, nothing Andrew could have said would have mattered.

People willing to give up liberty for the illusion of safety will never understand the thought process of those who value their rights, safety be damned.

Since we're all going Monday morning QB, I would probably have asked why anyone needs a car that goes faster than the speed limit? Then pointed out that driving is a privilege, NOT a right. But, as I said, you are never going to win with the bliss-ninnies. The fact that they are blaming an object already shows the incompatibility of their moral view with mine.

The automobile analogy is one I've thought might resonate with reasonable people: a greater hazard than any sidearm, and far in excess of any 'need'; many of those wringing their hands about high cap mags drive stuff that could double the speed limit faster than they could re-load and empty a pistol, and all are free to do so.
But as you say, this not about reason and logic. To the Brady bunch, it's about loud noises, ugly guns, and the illusion of invulnerability. They are for us, a lost cause.
It is for the hearts and minds of that great populous in the middle of the bell curve that all political battles are fought.