Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[2aguy]

That's what this is. So far it's emotions not changing facts.

And let me know if I'm wasting my time asking for the top 5 cities of gun control and how that's faring. That's getting ignored by you more than I was ignored on prom night.

I think gun violence in big cities is a result of poverty and crime and many many other factors... not gun control laws. It’s a much more complicated situation than a simple answer can address

So then what you are saying is that it's the people and not the guns. Am I correct? Because that's what we've been saying all along.

It’s the people first and foremost but some use guns to kill people so let’s not easily arm them with super dangerous weapons. We can be safe and responsible

The Russian shooter.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun, tube fed, no magazine. 20 killed, 40 injured.

Is the pump action shotgun a super dangerous weapon?

Thank god he didn’t have an uzi or an AK with a 100 round mag. Imagine how many would be shot and killed if he had one of those weapons

The weapon would have jammed, saving lives. It isn't the gun or the magazine, as I just demonstrated in that post...it is the gun free zone and how much free time the shooter has before someone uses a gun to stop them....

 

[2aguy]

Then the AR-15, the civilian AK-47 are not machine guns by any definition......so you don't want those banned...right?

I don’t think so... wouldnt mind hearing a debate about it

Debate what? Something that’s been illegal since the 30’s? Actually yeah let’s have that debate. They shouldn’t be illegal.

You are confused. I was talking about the discussion banning AR15s and the like.

So tell us, what is it you want to accomplish by banning AR's? Give us an exact result you are looking for.

Are you paying attention Ray? When did I say I wanted to ban ARs?

Post #377....

semi-autos

 

[2aguy]

Then you go ahead and take that position. I think the abundance of guns in our society is a factor in the high rate of gun violence. Just compare to other countries.

Your ignorance of the facts is not surprising! It would be amusing if it were not so sad and characteristic of the far left.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Markle you make a great point!!!! Thank you.

Ok you just posted stats that showed the U.K. as a much more violent country than the US. Now let’s look at the murder rate. Well look at that the US blows away the U.K. Intersting huh? More violence yet less death..,, more guns vs less guns. I think you just helped me prove my point. Thank you!

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats

Wrong, the British police state they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into the country.....so why less death? British criminals do not choose to commit murder......when they do shoot each other, if you actually read the stories from their news organizations, they shoot each other below the waist, in the legs, not in the chest or head. That has been their culture as a criminal class....and yet now it is changing....their social welfare system has created fatherless homes with young males becoming more and more violent....with increasing supplies of illegal guns.

 

[2aguy]

Then you go ahead and take that position. I think the abundance of guns in our society is a factor in the high rate of gun violence. Just compare to other countries.

Your ignorance of the facts is not surprising! It would be amusing if it were not so sad and characteristic of the far left.

The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
UPDATED:18:14 EST, 2 July 2009

Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

The figures comes on the day new Home Secretary Alan Johnson makes his first major speech on crime, promising to be tough on loutish behaviour.

The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 920 and South Africa 1,609.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'This is a damning indictment of this government's comprehensive failure over more than a decade to tackle the deep rooted social problems in our society, and the knock on effect on crime and anti-social behaviour.

Read more: The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Daily Mail Online

UK is violent crime capital of Europe

Markle you make a great point!!!! Thank you.

Ok you just posted stats that showed the U.K. as a much more violent country than the US. Now let’s look at the murder rate. Well look at that the US blows away the U.K. Intersting huh? More violence yet less death..,, more guns vs less guns. I think you just helped me prove my point. Thank you!

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats

And the reason.....

U.S. vs U.K. - Crime/Murder - iGeek

• If you look at the (the blue line): Each time the UK enacted or stiffened their gun control laws, they saw an increase in murder rates. Each new law, had no positive (and some negative) impact or an increase in murder rates. (Crime trends are even worse). (In the 1950’s they outlawed conceal and carry, in the 80’s it was shotguns, and in the late 90’s it was all pistols). So regardless of whether the UK has fewer murders than the US for cultural reasons, we know that gun control didn’t help the UK’s murder rate.
• Next if you look at the (the red line): I overlaid (and adjusted) the U.S. murder rates with major gun control events. After JFK was shot, states and eventually the Fed (1968) passed all sorts of gun control laws — and what happened to our murder rates? They doubled from around 5 to 10 per 100K over the next decade, and they hovered there, despite all sorts of state and federal revisions, or more laws (30,000 different state/local/federal gun control laws were passed in total). There was no significant positive effects, and some observable negative ones in the U.S. due to our gun control laws.
• Then in the late 80’s Florida passed “Must Issue” conceal and carry and castle doctrine laws were passed, and their crime/murder rates started falling noticeably. Many other states (in the South and Midwest) followed suit, with the same effects in their state murder rates, and eventually enough of those added up to start impacting the federal murder rates noticeably. Then the federal assault weapon ban expired — and if gun control worked, you’d expect an upward spike in murders, but murders trended down. Adding gun control had no positive effects, and removing them had no significant negative effects, in the U.S.!. So if you have the choice of tyranny or liberty, and there's no benefit to tyranny: opt for liberty.
• -----

Something important to know is that the U.K. ONS distorts their numbers for political reasons. While the rest of the world measures murder rates as people who are killed, the ONS does two things to cheat:

1. They exclude Scotland and North Ireland from their counting: I guess when they are murdered, it isn’t as important to ONS as if Britons die. While that is only about 10% of the total population of the UK, it is significantly more of their crimes and murders.
2. They only count murders where someone is charged with a crime. (Only between 1/2 and 3/4ths of all murders are counted).
3. ----
4. n the U.S. Blacks are 1/7th the population, but over 1/2 of all our murders, and Latino’s are about the same 15% of the population and are responsible for over half the rest of murders.England has virtually no blacks or latino’s (<3%). So if we correct for those demographic differences (or just compare a subset — the U.S.’s white murder rate to the UK’s white murder rate), we find that in the bright red trend line, that the U.S. has a lower murder rate than the U.K.
   
   Racist:Now around this time, people that can’t handle the facts or truth, start trying to distract by claiming either I’m racist, or this data is racist. But data is not making judgements, it’s just facts.
   
   The problem isn’t racial in America, but it is cultural.
   
   
   Black immigrants don’t have the same murder rates as Black Americans.
   
   
   And if you dive into the groups, you find rural blacks (and whites and latinos) have lower murder rates than inner cities. It’s also not income or income equality based since rural poor have lower murder rates than urban poor -- and many richer countries have more murders/crime than many poorer ones. It's about failures of the inner city gang culture.
   
   So facts are facts. In the U.S. we have a lower white murder rate (but higher black murder rate) than the U.K.
   
   
   And white’s in America have higher gun ownership rates than blacks (or than whites in the U.K.) — so we know that gun control doesn’t help murder rates for whites. At least across these two countries.
   
   And the reason for differences among blacks in the two countries is easily explained by gang culture in the U.S.

Conclusion
Anyone vaguely informed on gun control issues knows is that the U.S. does not have a gun problem.

• Whites and Asian are highly responsible with guns, and have a lower murder rate than almost all of Europe and the OECD countries. We have a very specific problem: democrats, blacks and latino gang-members drag our murder and crime rates averages up.
• The UK has a higher white murder rate, but they use clubs and knives rather than guns. Since I’m pretty sure most people don’t want to be stabbed or beaten to death, the important factor is whether you’re murdered or not (not the tool the murderer uses), right?

Another thing gun-controller advocates either don’t realize (or do, and lie about) is as bad as the U.S. is at murders or violent crime -- the UK is worse despite their gun control. England alone has something like 600 murdersby knife per year (and 26,370 knife crimes). Compare that to only 1,500 for the U.S., with over 5 times the population. Home invasion robberies, aggravated assault, violent rape, and stabbings are worse in the UK than in the U.S. And that's BEFORE you correct for race and gang crimes.

 

[Slade3200]

I am talking about 100 round mags because that’s exactly what was used in Dayton. Nothing dishonest about that. And I’d be fine with a 10 round limit

While "I" cannot think of a reason for owning a 100 round drum personally, I am sure there are those out there that can.
While you think there is no reason I should have a 30 round magazine for my AR... It does not give you (generally speaking) the right to limit it. I have not broken any laws that would allow for my 2A rights to be forfeit...
The biggest issue I have with any further laws being generated is they will only affect the law abiding. There are so many other issues to be addressed, mental health, enforcement of current gun laws, restriction of 2nd chances for those that fall within 2A forfeiture of rights, ensuring NICS is updated(!!!) That one is my personal pet peeve...

I agree that all those other things are important and should be discussed more. I’m also not going to throw a hissy fit for more regulations. But I would vote yes to regulate dangerous weapons. You can get a license to own your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

The Pulse Night Club shooter was able to pass a complete background check for his work as a security specialist. He had a co-worker call the FBI on him as being a suspected terrorist. The FBI interviewed him 3 different times, did a year long, comprehensive background check, and even used an under cover agent to approach him. He also went through a background check for each gun he purchased. He passed all of it with flying colors.

The Vegas shooter passed background checks for every single gun he purchased.

Mass public shooters can pass any background check......or, they get their guns illegally.

The only people you effect with any of your ideas are normal people who commit no crimes.

The Pulse shooter an the Vegas shooter? Could have killed just as many people with 10 round magazines. So your idea will have no effect on mass public shooters. But you will turn millions of normal gun owners into criminals if they want 5 more bullets in the gun they want to use to keep their families safe.....

This is why we think the anti-gun position is foolish.

You just made a case For making our background check and threat assessment system better so people like that don’t slip through the cracks. I agree

Did you see the level of assessment the pulse nightclub shooter went through? You say you think background checks will help.....you know they won't, but thanks for playing.

Do you think with all the warning signs that guy should be sold a gun in a store?

 

[2aguy]

While "I" cannot think of a reason for owning a 100 round drum personally, I am sure there are those out there that can.
While you think there is no reason I should have a 30 round magazine for my AR... It does not give you (generally speaking) the right to limit it. I have not broken any laws that would allow for my 2A rights to be forfeit...
The biggest issue I have with any further laws being generated is they will only affect the law abiding. There are so many other issues to be addressed, mental health, enforcement of current gun laws, restriction of 2nd chances for those that fall within 2A forfeiture of rights, ensuring NICS is updated(!!!) That one is my personal pet peeve...

I agree that all those other things are important and should be discussed more. I’m also not going to throw a hissy fit for more regulations. But I would vote yes to regulate dangerous weapons. You can get a license to own your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

The Pulse Night Club shooter was able to pass a complete background check for his work as a security specialist. He had a co-worker call the FBI on him as being a suspected terrorist. The FBI interviewed him 3 different times, did a year long, comprehensive background check, and even used an under cover agent to approach him. He also went through a background check for each gun he purchased. He passed all of it with flying colors.

The Vegas shooter passed background checks for every single gun he purchased.

Mass public shooters can pass any background check......or, they get their guns illegally.

The only people you effect with any of your ideas are normal people who commit no crimes.

The Pulse shooter an the Vegas shooter? Could have killed just as many people with 10 round magazines. So your idea will have no effect on mass public shooters. But you will turn millions of normal gun owners into criminals if they want 5 more bullets in the gun they want to use to keep their families safe.....

This is why we think the anti-gun position is foolish.

You just made a case For making our background check and threat assessment system better so people like that don’t slip through the cracks. I agree

Did you see the level of assessment the pulse nightclub shooter went through? You say you think background checks will help.....you know they won't, but thanks for playing.

Do you think with all the warning signs that guy should be sold a gun in a store?

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

 

[Slade3200]

I agree that all those other things are important and should be discussed more. I’m also not going to throw a hissy fit for more regulations. But I would vote yes to regulate dangerous weapons. You can get a license to own your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

The Pulse Night Club shooter was able to pass a complete background check for his work as a security specialist. He had a co-worker call the FBI on him as being a suspected terrorist. The FBI interviewed him 3 different times, did a year long, comprehensive background check, and even used an under cover agent to approach him. He also went through a background check for each gun he purchased. He passed all of it with flying colors.

The Vegas shooter passed background checks for every single gun he purchased.

Mass public shooters can pass any background check......or, they get their guns illegally.

The only people you effect with any of your ideas are normal people who commit no crimes.

The Pulse shooter an the Vegas shooter? Could have killed just as many people with 10 round magazines. So your idea will have no effect on mass public shooters. But you will turn millions of normal gun owners into criminals if they want 5 more bullets in the gun they want to use to keep their families safe.....

This is why we think the anti-gun position is foolish.

You just made a case For making our background check and threat assessment system better so people like that don’t slip through the cracks. I agree

Did you see the level of assessment the pulse nightclub shooter went through? You say you think background checks will help.....you know they won't, but thanks for playing.

Do you think with all the warning signs that guy should be sold a gun in a store?

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

Pulse... sorry I was thinking Parkland

 

[2aguy]

your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

The Pulse Night Club shooter was able to pass a complete background check for his work as a security specialist. He had a co-worker call the FBI on him as being a suspected terrorist. The FBI interviewed him 3 different times, did a year long, comprehensive background check, and even used an under cover agent to approach him. He also went through a background check for each gun he purchased. He passed all of it with flying colors.

The Vegas shooter passed background checks for every single gun he purchased.

Mass public shooters can pass any background check......or, they get their guns illegally.

The only people you effect with any of your ideas are normal people who commit no crimes.

The Pulse shooter an the Vegas shooter? Could have killed just as many people with 10 round magazines. So your idea will have no effect on mass public shooters. But you will turn millions of normal gun owners into criminals if they want 5 more bullets in the gun they want to use to keep their families safe.....

This is why we think the anti-gun position is foolish.

You just made a case For making our background check and threat assessment system better so people like that don’t slip through the cracks. I agree

Did you see the level of assessment the pulse nightclub shooter went through? You say you think background checks will help.....you know they won't, but thanks for playing.

Do you think with all the warning signs that guy should be sold a gun in a store?

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

Pulse... sorry I was thinking Parkland

They had all they needed to put the kid into jail or treatment....how did that work out? The kid should have been kept from having guns because he should have had an arrest record.....but because of obama's Promise Program and the left wing desire to not stigmatize young criminals with actual criminal records, he got the gun....how is that going to change by going after actual normal people who own guns?

 

[Slade3200]

You just made a case For making our background check and threat assessment system better so people like that don’t slip through the cracks. I agree

Did you see the level of assessment the pulse nightclub shooter went through? You say you think background checks will help.....you know they won't, but thanks for playing.

Do you think with all the warning signs that guy should be sold a gun in a store?

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

Pulse... sorry I was thinking Parkland

They had all they needed to put the kid into jail or treatment....how did that work out? The kid should have been kept from having guns because he should have had an arrest record.....but because of obama's Promise Program and the left wing desire to not stigmatize young criminals with actual criminal records, he got the gun....how is that going to change by going after actual normal people who own guns?

I don’t want to go after normal people. I want a better background check and enforcement system so when people like that get flagged something is done. The current system needs to be much better... sounds like you agree

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did you see the level of assessment the pulse nightclub shooter went through? You say you think background checks will help.....you know they won't, but thanks for playing.

Do you think with all the warning signs that guy should be sold a gun in a store?

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

Pulse... sorry I was thinking Parkland

They had all they needed to put the kid into jail or treatment....how did that work out? The kid should have been kept from having guns because he should have had an arrest record.....but because of obama's Promise Program and the left wing desire to not stigmatize young criminals with actual criminal records, he got the gun....how is that going to change by going after actual normal people who own guns?

I don’t want to go after normal people. I want a better background check and enforcement system so when people like that get flagged something is done. The current system needs to be much better... sounds like you agree

Half the time it's the normal people you have to worry about that will commit a mass murder.

 

[2aguy]

Did you see the level of assessment the pulse nightclub shooter went through? You say you think background checks will help.....you know they won't, but thanks for playing.

Do you think with all the warning signs that guy should be sold a gun in a store?

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

Pulse... sorry I was thinking Parkland

They had all they needed to put the kid into jail or treatment....how did that work out? The kid should have been kept from having guns because he should have had an arrest record.....but because of obama's Promise Program and the left wing desire to not stigmatize young criminals with actual criminal records, he got the gun....how is that going to change by going after actual normal people who own guns?

I don’t want to go after normal people. I want a better background check and enforcement system so when people like that get flagged something is done. The current system needs to be much better... sounds like you agree

Yep.....and that has nothing to do with banning semi-autos or magazines. We already have all the laws and regulations we need to go after criminals and to keep mass public shooters from targeting gun free zones.

 

[iceberg]

I don’t think so... wouldnt mind hearing a debate about it

Debate what? Something that’s been illegal since the 30’s? Actually yeah let’s have that debate. They shouldn’t be illegal.

You are confused. I was talking about the discussion banning AR15s and the like.

So tell us, what is it you want to accomplish by banning AR's? Give us an exact result you are looking for.

Are you paying attention Ray? When did I say I wanted to ban ARs?

Post #377....

semi-autos

to my knowledge he said WITH HIGH CAPACITY MAGS.

while i still don't agree with his assertion, i have not seen him in at least this current debate say he wanted the AR banned. sounds more like high capacity mags to be banned since you really can't put them in anything BUT a semi-automatic weapon. i suppose you could weld it it to the bottom of a revolver but it wouldn't be very effective.

 

[iceberg]

I am talking about 100 round mags because that’s exactly what was used in Dayton. Nothing dishonest about that. And I’d be fine with a 10 round limit

While "I" cannot think of a reason for owning a 100 round drum personally, I am sure there are those out there that can.
While you think there is no reason I should have a 30 round magazine for my AR... It does not give you (generally speaking) the right to limit it. I have not broken any laws that would allow for my 2A rights to be forfeit...
The biggest issue I have with any further laws being generated is they will only affect the law abiding. There are so many other issues to be addressed, mental health, enforcement of current gun laws, restriction of 2nd chances for those that fall within 2A forfeiture of rights, ensuring NICS is updated(!!!) That one is my personal pet peeve...

I agree that all those other things are important and should be discussed more. I’m also not going to throw a hissy fit for more regulations. But I would vote yes to regulate dangerous weapons. You can get a license to own your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

your high capacity mag if you want it but I’d vote for an extra step to be taken to ensure you are responsible, mentally stable and not a risk to the public

The Pulse Night Club shooter was able to pass a complete background check for his work as a security specialist. He had a co-worker call the FBI on him as being a suspected terrorist. The FBI interviewed him 3 different times, did a year long, comprehensive background check, and even used an under cover agent to approach him. He also went through a background check for each gun he purchased. He passed all of it with flying colors.

The Vegas shooter passed background checks for every single gun he purchased.

Mass public shooters can pass any background check......or, they get their guns illegally.

The only people you effect with any of your ideas are normal people who commit no crimes.

The Pulse shooter an the Vegas shooter? Could have killed just as many people with 10 round magazines. So your idea will have no effect on mass public shooters. But you will turn millions of normal gun owners into criminals if they want 5 more bullets in the gun they want to use to keep their families safe.....

This is why we think the anti-gun position is foolish.

You just made a case For making our background check and threat assessment system better so people like that don’t slip through the cracks. I agree

Did you see the level of assessment the pulse nightclub shooter went through? You say you think background checks will help.....you know they won't, but thanks for playing.

i have been under the impression that the orlando shooter had information that was not on his background check that should have been but i can't find it now; so i could well have been wrong or thinking of a different shooter.

for background checks - the pulse shooter went through:

"The firm said it ran two background checks on Omar Mateen, 29, who allegedly went on a hate-fueled shooting spree early Sunday. The first was when he was hired in 2007; the second came in 2013. A company spokesman said it was looking into whether that second screening was routine or done in response to the FBI’s investigations. The company re-screens 15 percent of its workforce every year."

and if anyone has a solid system in place i would *think* it would be a multi-million dollar security firm.

so saying "stronger background checks" sounds great. but what exactly are we going to improve?

 

[DBA]

I for one don’t think untrained civilians should have the same firepower as trained soldiers given the type of weapons we have on the market today.

That's good because civilians, trained or untrained do not have anywhere near the firepower as do soldiers on the battlefield.

There's also the reality that none of Hillary's classified emails fell into the wrong hands. None of them turned up on servers they shouldn't have, so in reality, regard of her "careless handling" of her emails, none of the ended up in the wrong hands. No harm, no foul.

So if you carelessly shoot into a crowd of people, but luckily miss, no problem. No harm, no foul.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I’ll make you gun grabbers a deal. Once you have disarmed every criminal in the country and every cartel member is deported you can buy back my guns at a healthy profit.

Here’s how you can prove you’ve done that. When we have no armed robberies, no gang shootings and no illegals coming into the country for one full fiscal year. You can then bring my 100 grand cash and I’ll give you my “assault weapon”, once we’ve agreed what that means.

Until then we aren’t having any conversations about your feelings or limits on my rights.

 

[Blues Man]

I had to look up the definition of this one. Apparently, they're going to throw a temper tantrum and cause a disruption. Might be fun to watch on CSPAN

ˌhold the ˈfloor
speak at a public meeting, etc. for a long time, often stopping others from speaking:

hold the floor

"Senate Democrats are planning to hold the floor on Tuesday evening for an hours-long talk-a-thon on the issue of gun violence.

The floor marathon comes as the White House is struggling to find a place to land in the weeks-long debate over potential gun-law reforms.

“Many of my colleagues have seen their communities torn apart by gun violence; some by horrific mass shootings, others by a relentless, daily stream. Many of them have worked for years to bring commonsense gun safety measures before the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday, in announcing the plan from the Senate floor..."

Senate Democrats to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun violence

So the dems are going to get something done by preventing anything from getting done

Sounds good to me because the less the government can do the better it is for all of us

 

[Slade3200]

Do you think with all the warning signs that guy should be sold a gun in a store?

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

Pulse... sorry I was thinking Parkland

They had all they needed to put the kid into jail or treatment....how did that work out? The kid should have been kept from having guns because he should have had an arrest record.....but because of obama's Promise Program and the left wing desire to not stigmatize young criminals with actual criminal records, he got the gun....how is that going to change by going after actual normal people who own guns?

I don’t want to go after normal people. I want a better background check and enforcement system so when people like that get flagged something is done. The current system needs to be much better... sounds like you agree

Half the time it's the normal people you have to worry about that will commit a mass murder.

Well they aren’t normal in my book if they are committing mass murder

 

[Slade3200]

Do you think with all the warning signs that guy should be sold a gun in a store?

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

Pulse... sorry I was thinking Parkland

They had all they needed to put the kid into jail or treatment....how did that work out? The kid should have been kept from having guns because he should have had an arrest record.....but because of obama's Promise Program and the left wing desire to not stigmatize young criminals with actual criminal records, he got the gun....how is that going to change by going after actual normal people who own guns?

I don’t want to go after normal people. I want a better background check and enforcement system so when people like that get flagged something is done. The current system needs to be much better... sounds like you agree

Yep.....and that has nothing to do with banning semi-autos or magazines. We already have all the laws and regulations we need to go after criminals and to keep mass public shooters from targeting gun free zones.

How then would you have handled the parkland kid? What would you have arrested him for? Which law wasn’t followed?

 

[DamnDude]

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

Pulse... sorry I was thinking Parkland

They had all they needed to put the kid into jail or treatment....how did that work out? The kid should have been kept from having guns because he should have had an arrest record.....but because of obama's Promise Program and the left wing desire to not stigmatize young criminals with actual criminal records, he got the gun....how is that going to change by going after actual normal people who own guns?

I don’t want to go after normal people. I want a better background check and enforcement system so when people like that get flagged something is done. The current system needs to be much better... sounds like you agree

Yep.....and that has nothing to do with banning semi-autos or magazines. We already have all the laws and regulations we need to go after criminals and to keep mass public shooters from targeting gun free zones.

How then would you have handled the parkland kid? What would you have arrested him for? Which law wasn’t followed?

Dear sweet baby Jebus
ANY number of domestic violence laws, Slade.
Where I reside, being underage doesn't allow you to "clear" your record when you come of age when you turn 18. Not when it concerns multiple domestic violence convictions. It carries over with you.
There were at least 39 instances of domestic violence where some form of law enforcement were called out invovling the parkland school shooter... At least 39... And he "legally purchased" his firearm. Someone didn't do their job. He shouldn't have been able to do so. Take any one of those instances and apply it to prevent him from buying a firearm and possibly prevent the massacre from happening.

 

[2aguy]

What warning signs? He went through 3 separate interviews with the FBI, a Comprehensive FBI background investigation and an under cover approach...and they cleared him...what warning signs?

Pulse... sorry I was thinking Parkland

They had all they needed to put the kid into jail or treatment....how did that work out? The kid should have been kept from having guns because he should have had an arrest record.....but because of obama's Promise Program and the left wing desire to not stigmatize young criminals with actual criminal records, he got the gun....how is that going to change by going after actual normal people who own guns?

I don’t want to go after normal people. I want a better background check and enforcement system so when people like that get flagged something is done. The current system needs to be much better... sounds like you agree

Yep.....and that has nothing to do with banning semi-autos or magazines. We already have all the laws and regulations we need to go after criminals and to keep mass public shooters from targeting gun free zones.

How then would you have handled the parkland kid? What would you have arrested him for? Which law wasn’t followed?

They would have arrested him...he would have had a criminal record and a judge might have sentenced him to mental health treatment. He would have failed a background check, and if he wanted a gun he would have had to get it illegally. Bringing a knife and bullets to school as well as fighting......with his general history of violent behavior, an arrest for those things would have been justified.