CNN looking to undo Jon Stewart's Greatest Accomplishment

[Sava]

"Assault weapons" are a cosmetic thing.

This isn't even remotely true. Even restrictions on pistol grips are related to the function of the weapon with regards to ergonomics.

The only restriction I could imagine that would be cosmetic would have to do with paint schemes. Everything else is about function.

I can understand if you are trolling. If you are truly this retarded... not even God can help you.

[DinoDoc]

Who cares about accusing the NRA of anything? What matters is what policies you prescribe.

Until the Federal Government enforces existing law in an adequate manner, I don't see how prescribing any new policies can be described as conservative. Would you care to explain that to me?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Until the Federal Government enforces existing law in an adequate manner, I don't see how prescribing any new policies can be described as conservative. Would you care to explain that to me?

If the existing laws don't include background checks and other things to make communities safer, how can it be held to be conservative at all (see: Russell Kirk). If conservatism isn't about focusing upon tradition and communities (or the combination: traditional communal values), maybe it should just rename itself as socially conservative libertarians.

[DinoDoc]

If the existing laws don't include background checks and other things to make communities safer,...

There are background checks already in place. However, there are ~ 9,000 federal gun laws on the books right now that the Justice Department doesn't really regard as a priority to enforce. It would seem to me at least that if you wished to make a dent in the problem of gun violence those laws would be a great place to start before seeking to give the government more power.

Again if the government doesn't use the power it has now in an adequate manner, what exactly is conservative about giving it more?

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are background checks already in place. However, there are ~ 9,000 federal gun laws on the books right now that the Justice Department doesn't really regard as a priority to enforce. It would seem to me at least that if you wished to make a dent in the problem of gun violence those laws would be a great place to start before seeking to give the government more power.

I think you forget that traditional (or I guess some call them paleo now) conservatives aren't necessarily anti-government. Recall it was the Conservatives in Britain that banned most handguns after the Dunblane massacre (excepting .22 caliber - which Labour banned soon after).

[Sava]

There are background checks already in place. However, there are ~ 9,000 federal gun laws on the books right now that the Justice Department doesn't really regard as a priority to enforce.

That's another thing I don't understand about the opposition to universal background checks. Conservatives are so afraid the big bad government is going to keep a record in some fashion. But if government is so incompetent, why would this even matter? Why are gun freaks so deathly afraid of databases? Why is it okay for cars but not guns?

[Berzerker]

When a drug user commits a horrible crime, the NRA is among the chorus of voices pushing for a war on drugs. But when the horrible crime is committed by a gun user, the NRA sings a different tune. Guilt by association for everyone else, not for the NRA and gun owners.

[DinoDoc]

I think you forget that traditional (or I guess some call them paleo now) conservatives aren't necessarily anti-government.

FFS Imran. I would have thought it was a simple question. If the government isn't using the power it has now in an adequate manner (not adequately enforcing ~9000 current Federal gun laws), what exactly is conservative about giving it more power?

Recall it was the Conservatives in Britain that banned most handguns after the Dunblane massacre (excepting .22 caliber - which Labour banned soon after).

If the ultra Conservative Scarborough's of the world wish to repeal the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution provides them a mechanism with which to do just that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Traditional Conservatives have no issue with working with the state in order to protect communities or tradition. Hence, your question about giving the government power is missing the point entirely. Oakeschott, Chesterton, Kirk type conservatives aren't like your pseudo-libertarians of today.

So the question becomes if the previous laws failed, why... and would the new laws be more effective than the previous failed ones.

[DinoDoc]

Traditional Conservatives have no issue with working with the state in order to protect communities or tradition. Hence, your question about giving the government power is missing the point entirely.

I have no issue with working with the State when there is a demonstrable need to do so. However, I see nothing conservative about giving still greater deference to the State when it declines to use all of the tools it already has and insists instead on coming to the citizenry to beg for yet more.

Edit: Lets try another track and see if it will be more productive. a) How would you define Conservatism? b) How would this fit within that definition?

Edit: Just saw this one:

So the question becomes if the previous laws failed, why...

Lack of will on the part of the State to enforce them.

[DinoDoc]

CNN in talks with Newt Gingrich, Stephanie Cutter for new 'Crossfire' show

Earlier this month, news broke that CNN was looking to relaunch Crossfire, the famous debate show that pitted two pundits -- one liberal, one conservative -- against one another on the political issues of the day.

Sources now tell POLITICO that the network is in discussions with former Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and former Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter about roles on the show.

"They are talking to Cutter and to Gingrich," a source familiar with the discussions said. "[Cutter] is in discussions; Newt is in discussions too," another source confirmed.

Spokespeople with CNN did not respond to a request for comment regarding the news. Both Cutter and a Gingrich spokesperson did not respond to emails requesting confirmation.

Should the talks go through, it is unclear whether the former House Speaker and the former Obama campaign staffer would go head-to-head on a regular basis, or whether they would be part of a rotating cast of co-hosts.

TV Newser reported and POLITICO confirmed this month that CNN president Jeff Zucker was looking to revamp the show, which ran from 1982 to 2005 and features an evolving cast of partisan pundits, including Tom Braden, Michael Kinsley, Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Press and James Carville (on the left) and Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, John Sununu, and Mary Matalin (on the right).

How does anyone think this is a good idea?

[Hauldren Collider]

Newt Gingrich is actually a pretty good debater, and Stephanie Cutter is a ****ing idiot. I would be very amused by that lineup.

[Guynemer]

How does anyone think this is a good idea?

Dude. You're talking about cable news.

If TLC didn't exist, I'd call cable news Ground Zero of the American stupidity epidemic.

[Tupac Shakur]

God Bless TLC.

[Guynemer]

Indeed. You will be missed, Left Eye.