Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
this is a novel concept - punishing those doing the wrong thing.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?Well they aren’t normal in my book if they are committing mass murderHalf the time it's the normal people you have to worry about that will commit a mass murder.
True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.
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.
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 groundSo you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?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 doneYou 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.
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.
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.
No it’s not to keep from debate, both those examples draw consensus as we both agree that machine guns shouldn't be sold at 711 and F1 cars shouldn't be on our roads. That’s called common ground that justifies regulation as a useful tool.F1 race cars and buying guns at 7-11 isn't debating. its lobbing out bullshit to keep FROM debating.People will always be able to inflict damage if they want to. I never suggested that regulating guns would stop all gun violence. It’s one element of a larger problem that I’m open to debate. Not an end all be all solutionand i don't see how limiting mag capacity is going to stop someone from finding a way to create damage. all this "but it stands to reason..." is people thinking out loud because they can't PROVE the actions they would take would work. so you keep saying "well at least we did something!"Focus on it? Ok I’m focusing. I’m not seeing what’s going to instigate change though. Any other ideas?Focus on it.....instead of always focusing on taking guns and magazines away from people who don't use them for crime.
yet when it doesn't work you want to do something else, usually around greater regulation OF WHICH isn't working as planned so doing "something" is a bad path.
You said you don’t understand how limiting mag capacity would stop damage. You digressed to an absolutist argument. Of course it won’t stop damage but it would reduce it. so I brought up the levels that exist in regulation, firepower, and damage control... that’s a fair argument
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?Well they aren’t normal in my book if they are committing mass murderI 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 agreeThey 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?
Half the time it's the normal people you have to worry about that will commit a mass murder.
True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.
So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?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 doneBoom, 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?True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.
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.
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.
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?Well they aren’t normal in my book if they are committing mass murderI 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.
True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.
How about we Red Flag convicted felons...oh, yeah, the democrats voted that down. Why did they do that?
Ask themBoom, 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?Well they aren’t normal in my book if they are committing mass murderI 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.
True. But the government sees them as normal enough to allow them to purchase firearms.
How about we Red Flag convicted felons...oh, yeah, the democrats voted that down. Why did they do that?
Parkland kid wasn’t a convicted felon... did you find anything that you think he should of had a felony for? You dropped out of the convo when we got to that point. Wanna try again?So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?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 doneBoom, 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.
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.
We already have it, it is called being a convicted criminal. We also have it for the dangerously mentally ill...that is already part of the system...what else do you have?
Parkland kid wasn’t a convicted felon... did you find anything that you think he should of had a felony for? You dropped out of the convo when we got to that point. Wanna try again?So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?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 doneYou 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.
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.
We already have it, it is called being a convicted criminal. We also have it for the dangerously mentally ill...that is already part of the system...what else do you have?
The cops that responded to the domestic call didn’t think they had enough to do anything. Were they wrong? Should they be punished?Parkland kid wasn’t a convicted felon... did you find anything that you think he should of had a felony for? You dropped out of the convo when we got to that point. Wanna try again?So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?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.
We already have it, it is called being a convicted criminal. We also have it for the dangerously mentally ill...that is already part of the system...what else do you have?
Wouldn't take a felony.....had he been sent to a mental health facility...which his behavior should have warranted......that would have flagged him too....domestic abuse is also a flag on current background checks.
The cops that responded to the domestic call didn’t think they had enough to do anything. Were they wrong? Should they be punished?Parkland kid wasn’t a convicted felon... did you find anything that you think he should of had a felony for? You dropped out of the convo when we got to that point. Wanna try again?So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?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.
We already have it, it is called being a convicted criminal. We also have it for the dangerously mentally ill...that is already part of the system...what else do you have?
Wouldn't take a felony.....had he been sent to a mental health facility...which his behavior should have warranted......that would have flagged him too....domestic abuse is also a flag on current background checks.
The cops that responded to the domestic call didn’t think they had enough to do anything. Were they wrong? Should they be punished?Parkland kid wasn’t a convicted felon... did you find anything that you think he should of had a felony for? You dropped out of the convo when we got to that point. Wanna try again?So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?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.
We already have it, it is called being a convicted criminal. We also have it for the dangerously mentally ill...that is already part of the system...what else do you have?
Wouldn't take a felony.....had he been sent to a mental health facility...which his behavior should have warranted......that would have flagged him too....domestic abuse is also a flag on current background checks.
The cops that responded to the domestic call didn’t think they had enough to do anything. Were they wrong? Should they be punished?Parkland kid wasn’t a convicted felon... did you find anything that you think he should of had a felony for? You dropped out of the convo when we got to that point. Wanna try again?So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?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.
We already have it, it is called being a convicted criminal. We also have it for the dangerously mentally ill...that is already part of the system...what else do you have?
Wouldn't take a felony.....had he been sent to a mental health facility...which his behavior should have warranted......that would have flagged him too....domestic abuse is also a flag on current background checks.
it's what you were going after. you tend to go WAY OUT THERE as if it's a normal situation. for someone who says they try to stay centric, you sure do go to extremes to either be cute, or think you're proving a point. i just got tired of trying to figure out which.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 longneither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".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.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.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?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.
hey - i was apathetic before you were!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 careyou 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.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 longneither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".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.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.
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.
I don’t mean to suggest they are normal situations the are extreme situations to make the point I’m trying to make painfully clear. It’s effective with clarifying boundary’s and defining concepts that I’m trying to communicate. I wasn’t trying to piss you off. That’s how I thinkit's what you were going after. you tend to go WAY OUT THERE as if it's a normal situation. for someone who says they try to stay centric, you sure do go to extremes to either be cute, or think you're proving a point. i just got tired of trying to figure out which.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 longneither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".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.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.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?
didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.I don’t mean to suggest they are normal situations the are extreme situations to make the point I’m trying to make painfully clear. It’s effective with clarifying boundary’s and defining concepts that I’m trying to communicate. I wasn’t trying to piss you off. That’s how I thinkit's what you were going after. you tend to go WAY OUT THERE as if it's a normal situation. for someone who says they try to stay centric, you sure do go to extremes to either be cute, or think you're proving a point. i just got tired of trying to figure out which.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 longneither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".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.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.
If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.I don’t mean to suggest they are normal situations the are extreme situations to make the point I’m trying to make painfully clear. It’s effective with clarifying boundary’s and defining concepts that I’m trying to communicate. I wasn’t trying to piss you off. That’s how I thinkit's what you were going after. you tend to go WAY OUT THERE as if it's a normal situation. for someone who says they try to stay centric, you sure do go to extremes to either be cute, or think you're proving a point. i just got tired of trying to figure out which.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 longneither was "so we need to arrest 2 kids fighting and never let them buy guns".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.
i wanted to equate suggestions to the goal. you are ok with "well we did SOMETHING" of which i think is bullshit. if doing "something" doesn't fix it, then you do "something else". in this case, MORE regulation.
when do we stop going "well we did SOMETHING" and sit the fuck down and figure out what we can do that doesn't violate the constitution? all these mythical extremes you go to are chatter, to me, to avoid addressing why we don't fix this and are ok with "well we did something".
LolI disagree. Passion and emotion is great behind legislating as long as there is good logic and reason involvedLolFocus on it? Ok I’m focusing. I’m not seeing what’s going to instigate change though. Any other ideas?Excellent idea, how do we do better at that?great. enforce the laws we have. that would be something also.
Focus on it.....instead of always focusing on taking guns and magazines away from people who don't use them for crime.
Legislating with emotion solves nothing
LolParkland kid wasn’t a convicted felon... did you find anything that you think he should of had a felony for? You dropped out of the convo when we got to that point. Wanna try again?So you’d need some kind of registration system to alert the authorities when a flagged person buys a gun then? Is that right?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 doneYou 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.
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.
We already have it, it is called being a convicted criminal. We also have it for the dangerously mentally ill...that is already part of the system...what else do you have?
