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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.

Boom, there’s a problem that we can work on. How do we make that better and flag high risk people so we can not allow them to buy guns?

You can't, that's the point.

The Thought Police was a concept created by Orwell in his book 1984. To apply that concept for reality in 2019 is a freedom reducing initiative.

Most of the guns that are obtained illegally are stolen or purchased by a straw buyer. So the focus should be on them, not all gun buyers or owners.

Anybody knowingly purchasing a stolen firearm should be a minimum 10 year prison sentence. Anybody selling a stolen firearm a 15 year minimum sentence. Anybody legally buying a gun for somebody else that can't buy one legally a 15 year minimum prison sentence.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

not if you use that unfortunate and yes sad situation to take power from those who did nothing wrong at all. as far as i'm concerned you're about as bad as the shooter for being such an opportunist. esp when you can't correlate your "suggestions" into anything that would have stopped said event from happening.

"well we did something..." isn't good enough.

Well I’m not interested in taking away a responsible citizens right to own a firearm so we are all good there

but limiting how they can use it you're all up into if i understand you correctly.

Yeah I’m fine limiting their ability to have weapons capable of inflicting a massive amount of damage if misused. Same
Concept as the machine gun restrictions and same reason why F1 race cars are not allowed on the road

Machine guns are not needed for personal self-defense. Neither are grenades or rocket launchers.

We are on a roll! Did somebody hijack your account?!

Not at all. I'm pointing out that you're making false comparisons.

People have used AR's for self-defense in the past. People have high capacity magazines for self-defense as well. Again, my 9mm has a 15 round mag. I want that for self-defense and also to shoot less uninterrupted at the firing range. If I decide 15 isn't enough, then I want to buy a 20 round mag and not have to go through red tape to do it.

 

[Slade3200]

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

True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.

Boom, there’s a problem that we can work on. How do we make that better and flag high risk people so we can not allow them to buy guns?

You can't, that's the point.

The Thought Police was a concept created by Orwell in his book 1984. To apply that concept for reality in 2019 is a freedom reducing initiative.

Most of the guns that are obtained illegally are stolen or purchased by a straw buyer. So the focus should be on them, not all gun buyers or owners.

Anybody knowingly purchasing a stolen firearm should be a minimum 10 year prison sentence. Anybody selling a stolen firearm a 15 year minimum sentence. Anybody legally buying a gun for somebody else that can't buy one legally a 15 year minimum prison sentence.

Well the 3 others I’ve been talking to on this thread think otherwise and use the parkland kid as an example of somebody who should have been stopped from buying a gun. So yes I think it can be done

 

[DamnDude]

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.

The mother called the cops every time the brothers got in a fight or threw a fit. It wasn’t always for the shooter kid. The clearest case of violence that I remember is when he pushed his mom into a wall for taking away his xbox. I guessing she didn’t press charges. Would you suggest that the cops arrest him anyways and get him in the system?

YES!!
It's how you get the jackholes on the no buy list... Into the NICS system... Make sure they cannot buy a firearm legally.....
Quit playing nice, especially if they are willing to put their hands on their own mother in anger... If they are willing to show that level of disrespect then what are they willing to do to people they have no feelings for? Oh wait, he showed what he was willing to do, didn't he.
Christ, I can hear you already... He was just a kid...
Well at some point he was taught the difference between right and wrong and made a decision to do wrong...multiple times. Law enforcement called at least 39 times....to the house, and just because they hugged it out doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't have a responsibility to follow through.

No way, I’m not making excuses for that psycho. I wish he would have been on a no buy list. I’m just trying to drill down the details to see if rules were not followed or if new rules need to be made. Were the cops not doing their jobs by not arresting this kid after he pushed his mom?

Come on man, I'm not going to play that game with you.
39 times.
39
If you can't figure it out then it's you, not me.

Doesn’t sound like you care about specifics. 39 means nothing without context. What if they just needed help getting their cat out of a tree 39 times? We already nailed down a violent act. He pushed his mom, there is a report on it. Cops said they didn’t have enough for an arrest. Should they be punished for not doing their job? Does a new protocol need to be put in place?

It wasn't for getting their cat out of the tree. Look it up for yourself, or actually click on a link someone has posted... Because you seem to be real adverse to that. There's a link posted several post back... Not one of them for a cat up a tree. Better yet, do the google search and read up on why law enforcement were called out tonwhere he resided 39 times and learn that it was just the Broward county sheriffs office that responded 39 times for dv complaints... And you wonder why folks get fed up with your line of thinking. You spew fallacious arguments just to see what kind of response you can get and then spin things to get an emotional response to be able to say whatever you want. You don't want honest debate or middle ground compromise, muchless understanding, you want to prove your emotional point as selfrightous and virtuistic.

 

[Slade3200]

Well I’m not interested in taking away a responsible citizens right to own a firearm so we are all good there

but limiting how they can use it you're all up into if i understand you correctly.

Yeah I’m fine limiting their ability to have weapons capable of inflicting a massive amount of damage if misused. Same
Concept as the machine gun restrictions and same reason why F1 race cars are not allowed on the road

Machine guns are not needed for personal self-defense. Neither are grenades or rocket launchers.

We are on a roll! Did somebody hijack your account?!

Not at all. I'm pointing out that you're making false comparisons.

People have used AR's for self-defense in the past. People have high capacity magazines for self-defense as well. Again, my 9mm has a 15 round mag. I want that for self-defense and also to shoot less uninterrupted at the firing range. If I decide 15 isn't enough, then I want to buy a 20 round mag and not have to go through red tape to do it.

Well why not go all the way to a machine gun and save all the trigger pulls?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I have a different angle on this. We need our guns because we have Democrats in this country. Until we can get rid of all Democrats, we have to have our firearms for protection against them. After all, when would anybody need a gun against a Republican or conservative?

 

[Slade3200]

The mother called the cops every time the brothers got in a fight or threw a fit. It wasn’t always for the shooter kid. The clearest case of violence that I remember is when he pushed his mom into a wall for taking away his xbox. I guessing she didn’t press charges. Would you suggest that the cops arrest him anyways and get him in the system?

YES!!
It's how you get the jackholes on the no buy list... Into the NICS system... Make sure they cannot buy a firearm legally.....
Quit playing nice, especially if they are willing to put their hands on their own mother in anger... If they are willing to show that level of disrespect then what are they willing to do to people they have no feelings for? Oh wait, he showed what he was willing to do, didn't he.
Christ, I can hear you already... He was just a kid...
Well at some point he was taught the difference between right and wrong and made a decision to do wrong...multiple times. Law enforcement called at least 39 times....to the house, and just because they hugged it out doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't have a responsibility to follow through.

No way, I’m not making excuses for that psycho. I wish he would have been on a no buy list. I’m just trying to drill down the details to see if rules were not followed or if new rules need to be made. Were the cops not doing their jobs by not arresting this kid after he pushed his mom?

Come on man, I'm not going to play that game with you.
39 times.
39
If you can't figure it out then it's you, not me.

Doesn’t sound like you care about specifics. 39 means nothing without context. What if they just needed help getting their cat out of a tree 39 times? We already nailed down a violent act. He pushed his mom, there is a report on it. Cops said they didn’t have enough for an arrest. Should they be punished for not doing their job? Does a new protocol need to be put in place?

It wasn't for getting their cat out of the tree. Look it up for yourself, or actually clickn on a link someone has posted... Because you seem to be real adverae to that. There's a link posted several post back... Not one of them for a cat up a tree. Better yet, do the google search and read up on why law enforcement were called out tonwhere he resided 39 times and learn thatbit was just the Broward county sheriffs office that responded 39 times for dv complaints... And you wonder why folks get fed up with your line of thinking. You spew fallacious arguments just to see what kind of response you can get and then spin things to get an emotional response to be able to say whatever you want. You don't want honest debate or middle ground compromise, muchless understanding, you want to prove your emotional point as selfrightous and virtuoustic.

I was being facetious about the cat in the tree. I have read those links and the kid pushing his mom seems to be the worst of the offenses. Which is the incident that I brought up, byw. I’m not avoiding anything. I’ve been asking you for specifics but going back to 39 times isn’t really telling me anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

but limiting how they can use it you're all up into if i understand you correctly.

Yeah I’m fine limiting their ability to have weapons capable of inflicting a massive amount of damage if misused. Same
Concept as the machine gun restrictions and same reason why F1 race cars are not allowed on the road

Machine guns are not needed for personal self-defense. Neither are grenades or rocket launchers.

We are on a roll! Did somebody hijack your account?!

Not at all. I'm pointing out that you're making false comparisons.

People have used AR's for self-defense in the past. People have high capacity magazines for self-defense as well. Again, my 9mm has a 15 round mag. I want that for self-defense and also to shoot less uninterrupted at the firing range. If I decide 15 isn't enough, then I want to buy a 20 round mag and not have to go through red tape to do it.

Well why not go all the way to a machine gun and save all the trigger pulls?

To be honest, if they made buying machine guns legal tomorrow, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

We buy firearms for sport and self-defense. In self-defense, the idea of having a firearm is to kill or severely injure your attacker(s). To me, it would seem stupid to reduce that objective because that's why I bought the gun in the first place.

That's why I use hollow points in my gun. I want to do as much damage to the person who is threatening my life or the life of my loved ones as I can. I don't want a high velocity round because that goes through the person to cleanly. I want something that's likely to stop and do damage.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.

Boom, there’s a problem that we can work on. How do we make that better and flag high risk people so we can not allow them to buy guns?

You can't, that's the point.

The Thought Police was a concept created by Orwell in his book 1984. To apply that concept for reality in 2019 is a freedom reducing initiative.

Most of the guns that are obtained illegally are stolen or purchased by a straw buyer. So the focus should be on them, not all gun buyers or owners.

Anybody knowingly purchasing a stolen firearm should be a minimum 10 year prison sentence. Anybody selling a stolen firearm a 15 year minimum sentence. Anybody legally buying a gun for somebody else that can't buy one legally a 15 year minimum prison sentence.

Well the 3 others I’ve been talking to on this thread think otherwise and use the parkland kid as an example of somebody who should have been stopped from buying a gun. So yes I think it can be done

If that's put into law, fine. But as far as Parkland kid goes, he should have been watched carefully which didn't happen.

In order to preserve our freedom and stay within the bounds of the Constitution, red tag laws should not stop somebody from buying a gun, but alert authorities when somebody has. Because until somebody actually breaks a law that would preclude them from exercising their rights, then they should be able to buy a gun if they have no criminal record.

 

[Slade3200]

Yeah I’m fine limiting their ability to have weapons capable of inflicting a massive amount of damage if misused. Same
Concept as the machine gun restrictions and same reason why F1 race cars are not allowed on the road

Machine guns are not needed for personal self-defense. Neither are grenades or rocket launchers.

We are on a roll! Did somebody hijack your account?!

Not at all. I'm pointing out that you're making false comparisons.

People have used AR's for self-defense in the past. People have high capacity magazines for self-defense as well. Again, my 9mm has a 15 round mag. I want that for self-defense and also to shoot less uninterrupted at the firing range. If I decide 15 isn't enough, then I want to buy a 20 round mag and not have to go through red tape to do it.

Well why not go all the way to a machine gun and save all the trigger pulls?

To be honest, if they made buying machine guns legal tomorrow, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

We buy firearms for sport and self-defense. In self-defense, the idea of having a firearm is to kill or severely injure your attacker(s). To me, it would seem stupid to reduce that objective because that's why I bought the gun in the first place.

That's why I use hollow points in my gun. I want to do as much damage to the person who is threatening my life or the life of my loved ones as I can. I don't want a high velocity round because that goes through the person to cleanly. I want something that's likely to stop and do damage.

Don’t worry, as soon as I finish inventing my force field and freeze gun there will be no need for bullets. We can get rid of them all and you can feel as safe as a button

 

[Slade3200]

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

True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.

Boom, there’s a problem that we can work on. How do we make that better and flag high risk people so we can not allow them to buy guns?

You can't, that's the point.

The Thought Police was a concept created by Orwell in his book 1984. To apply that concept for reality in 2019 is a freedom reducing initiative.

Most of the guns that are obtained illegally are stolen or purchased by a straw buyer. So the focus should be on them, not all gun buyers or owners.

Anybody knowingly purchasing a stolen firearm should be a minimum 10 year prison sentence. Anybody selling a stolen firearm a 15 year minimum sentence. Anybody legally buying a gun for somebody else that can't buy one legally a 15 year minimum prison sentence.

Well the 3 others I’ve been talking to on this thread think otherwise and use the parkland kid as an example of somebody who should have been stopped from buying a gun. So yes I think it can be done

If that's put into law, fine. But as far as Parkland kid goes, he should have been watched carefully which didn't happen.

In order to preserve our freedom and stay within the bounds of the Constitution, red tag laws should not stop somebody from buying a gun, but alert authorities when somebody has. Because until somebody actually breaks a law that would preclude them from exercising their rights, then they should be able to buy a gun if they have no criminal record.

So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Even if they could accomplish that, the next item on their list would be speed loaders for revolvers.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.

Boom, there’s a problem that we can work on. How do we make that better and flag high risk people so we can not allow them to buy guns?

You can't, that's the point.

The Thought Police was a concept created by Orwell in his book 1984. To apply that concept for reality in 2019 is a freedom reducing initiative.

Most of the guns that are obtained illegally are stolen or purchased by a straw buyer. So the focus should be on them, not all gun buyers or owners.

Anybody knowingly purchasing a stolen firearm should be a minimum 10 year prison sentence. Anybody selling a stolen firearm a 15 year minimum sentence. Anybody legally buying a gun for somebody else that can't buy one legally a 15 year minimum prison sentence.

Well the 3 others I’ve been talking to on this thread think otherwise and use the parkland kid as an example of somebody who should have been stopped from buying a gun. So yes I think it can be done

If that's put into law, fine. But as far as Parkland kid goes, he should have been watched carefully which didn't happen.

In order to preserve our freedom and stay within the bounds of the Constitution, red tag laws should not stop somebody from buying a gun, but alert authorities when somebody has. Because until somebody actually breaks a law that would preclude them from exercising their rights, then they should be able to buy a gun if they have no criminal record.

So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?

No, it would be on the same system as the one we have when buying a gun. Except it would not restrict the dealership from selling the gun, but an alert would go out to local authorities that a red-tagged person did purchase a firearm.

 

[iceberg]

YES!!
It's how you get the jackholes on the no buy list... Into the NICS system... Make sure they cannot buy a firearm legally.....
Quit playing nice, especially if they are willing to put their hands on their own mother in anger... If they are willing to show that level of disrespect then what are they willing to do to people they have no feelings for? Oh wait, he showed what he was willing to do, didn't he.
Christ, I can hear you already... He was just a kid...
Well at some point he was taught the difference between right and wrong and made a decision to do wrong...multiple times. Law enforcement called at least 39 times....to the house, and just because they hugged it out doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't have a responsibility to follow through.

No way, I’m not making excuses for that psycho. I wish he would have been on a no buy list. I’m just trying to drill down the details to see if rules were not followed or if new rules need to be made. Were the cops not doing their jobs by not arresting this kid after he pushed his mom?

Come on man, I'm not going to play that game with you.
39 times.
39
If you can't figure it out then it's you, not me.

Doesn’t sound like you care about specifics. 39 means nothing without context. What if they just needed help getting their cat out of a tree 39 times? We already nailed down a violent act. He pushed his mom, there is a report on it. Cops said they didn’t have enough for an arrest. Should they be punished for not doing their job? Does a new protocol need to be put in place?

It wasn't for getting their cat out of the tree. Look it up for yourself, or actually clickn on a link someone has posted... Because you seem to be real adverae to that. There's a link posted several post back... Not one of them for a cat up a tree. Better yet, do the google search and read up on why law enforcement were called out tonwhere he resided 39 times and learn thatbit was just the Broward county sheriffs office that responded 39 times for dv complaints... And you wonder why folks get fed up with your line of thinking. You spew fallacious arguments just to see what kind of response you can get and then spin things to get an emotional response to be able to say whatever you want. You don't want honest debate or middle ground compromise, muchless understanding, you want to prove your emotional point as selfrightous and virtuoustic.

I was being facetious about the cat in the tree. I have read those links and the kid pushing his mom seems to be the worst of the offenses. Which is the incident that I brought up, byw. I’m not avoiding anything. I’ve been asking you for specifics but going back to 39 times isn’t really telling me anything.

neither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".

 

[iceberg]

Machine guns are not needed for personal self-defense. Neither are grenades or rocket launchers.

We are on a roll! Did somebody hijack your account?!

Not at all. I'm pointing out that you're making false comparisons.

People have used AR's for self-defense in the past. People have high capacity magazines for self-defense as well. Again, my 9mm has a 15 round mag. I want that for self-defense and also to shoot less uninterrupted at the firing range. If I decide 15 isn't enough, then I want to buy a 20 round mag and not have to go through red tape to do it.

Well why not go all the way to a machine gun and save all the trigger pulls?

To be honest, if they made buying machine guns legal tomorrow, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

We buy firearms for sport and self-defense. In self-defense, the idea of having a firearm is to kill or severely injure your attacker(s). To me, it would seem stupid to reduce that objective because that's why I bought the gun in the first place.

That's why I use hollow points in my gun. I want to do as much damage to the person who is threatening my life or the life of my loved ones as I can. I don't want a high velocity round because that goes through the person to cleanly. I want something that's likely to stop and do damage.

Don’t worry, as soon as I finish inventing my force field and freeze gun there will be no need for bullets. We can get rid of them all and you can feel as safe as a button

your personal security isn't my legal responsibility.

 

[Slade3200]

Boom, there’s a problem that we can work on. How do we make that better and flag high risk people so we can not allow them to buy guns?

You can't, that's the point.

The Thought Police was a concept created by Orwell in his book 1984. To apply that concept for reality in 2019 is a freedom reducing initiative.

Most of the guns that are obtained illegally are stolen or purchased by a straw buyer. So the focus should be on them, not all gun buyers or owners.

Anybody knowingly purchasing a stolen firearm should be a minimum 10 year prison sentence. Anybody selling a stolen firearm a 15 year minimum sentence. Anybody legally buying a gun for somebody else that can't buy one legally a 15 year minimum prison sentence.

Well the 3 others I’ve been talking to on this thread think otherwise and use the parkland kid as an example of somebody who should have been stopped from buying a gun. So yes I think it can be done

If that's put into law, fine. But as far as Parkland kid goes, he should have been watched carefully which didn't happen.

In order to preserve our freedom and stay within the bounds of the Constitution, red tag laws should not stop somebody from buying a gun, but alert authorities when somebody has. Because until somebody actually breaks a law that would preclude them from exercising their rights, then they should be able to buy a gun if they have no criminal record.

So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?

No, it would be on the same system as the one we have when buying a gun. Except it would not restrict the dealership from selling the gun, but an alert would go out to local authorities that a red-tagged person did purchase a firearm.

That’s gonna be great until somebody who was flagged buys a gun and then uses it to kill people and then authorities are going to be asked why a flagged person was allowed to buy a gun. Different story when theres blood on the ground

 

[iceberg]

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

True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.

Boom, there’s a problem that we can work on. How do we make that better and flag high risk people so we can not allow them to buy guns?

You can't, that's the point.

The Thought Police was a concept created by Orwell in his book 1984. To apply that concept for reality in 2019 is a freedom reducing initiative.

Most of the guns that are obtained illegally are stolen or purchased by a straw buyer. So the focus should be on them, not all gun buyers or owners.

Anybody knowingly purchasing a stolen firearm should be a minimum 10 year prison sentence. Anybody selling a stolen firearm a 15 year minimum sentence. Anybody legally buying a gun for somebody else that can't buy one legally a 15 year minimum prison sentence.

this is a novel concept - punishing those doing the wrong thing.

 

[Slade3200]

No way, I’m not making excuses for that psycho. I wish he would have been on a no buy list. I’m just trying to drill down the details to see if rules were not followed or if new rules need to be made. Were the cops not doing their jobs by not arresting this kid after he pushed his mom?

Come on man, I'm not going to play that game with you.
39 times.
39
If you can't figure it out then it's you, not me.

Doesn’t sound like you care about specifics. 39 means nothing without context. What if they just needed help getting their cat out of a tree 39 times? We already nailed down a violent act. He pushed his mom, there is a report on it. Cops said they didn’t have enough for an arrest. Should they be punished for not doing their job? Does a new protocol need to be put in place?

It wasn't for getting their cat out of the tree. Look it up for yourself, or actually clickn on a link someone has posted... Because you seem to be real adverae to that. There's a link posted several post back... Not one of them for a cat up a tree. Better yet, do the google search and read up on why law enforcement were called out tonwhere he resided 39 times and learn thatbit was just the Broward county sheriffs office that responded 39 times for dv complaints... And you wonder why folks get fed up with your line of thinking. You spew fallacious arguments just to see what kind of response you can get and then spin things to get an emotional response to be able to say whatever you want. You don't want honest debate or middle ground compromise, muchless understanding, you want to prove your emotional point as selfrightous and virtuoustic.

I was being facetious about the cat in the tree. I have read those links and the kid pushing his mom seems to be the worst of the offenses. Which is the incident that I brought up, byw. I’m not avoiding anything. I’ve been asking you for specifics but going back to 39 times isn’t really telling me anything.

neither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".

That’s not what I said. But it is a valid question to ask whether both brothers should be banned from buying guns and for how long

 

[iceberg]

Come on man, I'm not going to play that game with you.
39 times.
39
If you can't figure it out then it's you, not me.

Doesn’t sound like you care about specifics. 39 means nothing without context. What if they just needed help getting their cat out of a tree 39 times? We already nailed down a violent act. He pushed his mom, there is a report on it. Cops said they didn’t have enough for an arrest. Should they be punished for not doing their job? Does a new protocol need to be put in place?

It wasn't for getting their cat out of the tree. Look it up for yourself, or actually clickn on a link someone has posted... Because you seem to be real adverae to that. There's a link posted several post back... Not one of them for a cat up a tree. Better yet, do the google search and read up on why law enforcement were called out tonwhere he resided 39 times and learn thatbit was just the Broward county sheriffs office that responded 39 times for dv complaints... And you wonder why folks get fed up with your line of thinking. You spew fallacious arguments just to see what kind of response you can get and then spin things to get an emotional response to be able to say whatever you want. You don't want honest debate or middle ground compromise, muchless understanding, you want to prove your emotional point as selfrightous and virtuoustic.

I was being facetious about the cat in the tree. I have read those links and the kid pushing his mom seems to be the worst of the offenses. Which is the incident that I brought up, byw. I’m not avoiding anything. I’ve been asking you for specifics but going back to 39 times isn’t really telling me anything.

neither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".

That’s not what I said. But it is a valid question to ask whether both brothers should be banned from buying guns and for how long

you jump around a lot on your emotional roller coaster so it's hard to keep up. F1 race cars, 7-11 nukes, dog and cats fighting in the streets.

your desire to to max-emo makes even TRYING to have a straight forward discussion near impossible.

and comparing 39 red flags from the parkland shooter to 2 kids fighting is 200% idiotic.

 

[Slade3200]

Doesn’t sound like you care about specifics. 39 means nothing without context. What if they just needed help getting their cat out of a tree 39 times? We already nailed down a violent act. He pushed his mom, there is a report on it. Cops said they didn’t have enough for an arrest. Should they be punished for not doing their job? Does a new protocol need to be put in place?

It wasn't for getting their cat out of the tree. Look it up for yourself, or actually clickn on a link someone has posted... Because you seem to be real adverae to that. There's a link posted several post back... Not one of them for a cat up a tree. Better yet, do the google search and read up on why law enforcement were called out tonwhere he resided 39 times and learn thatbit was just the Broward county sheriffs office that responded 39 times for dv complaints... And you wonder why folks get fed up with your line of thinking. You spew fallacious arguments just to see what kind of response you can get and then spin things to get an emotional response to be able to say whatever you want. You don't want honest debate or middle ground compromise, muchless understanding, you want to prove your emotional point as selfrightous and virtuoustic.

I was being facetious about the cat in the tree. I have read those links and the kid pushing his mom seems to be the worst of the offenses. Which is the incident that I brought up, byw. I’m not avoiding anything. I’ve been asking you for specifics but going back to 39 times isn’t really telling me anything.

neither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".

That’s not what I said. But it is a valid question to ask whether both brothers should be banned from buying guns and for how long

you jump around a lot on your emotional roller coaster so it's hard to keep up. F1 race cars, 7-11 nukes, dog and cats fighting in the streets.

your desire to to max-emo makes even TRYING to have a straight forward discussion near impossible.

and comparing 39 red flags from the parkland shooter to 2 kids fighting is 200% idiotic.

Those aren’t emotional arguments. They go straight to the point. But those points must have gone right over your head because you keep mischaracterizing them. I’ve lost interest in explaining it to you. Call me a crazy liberal of you must. I really dont care