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

[Rustic]

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

Frivolous gun control laws always get progressives off, it’s a control thing normal people do not understand.... fact

 

[Rustic]

The democrats won't put gang members on red flag lists and confiscate their guns. WTF?
Aren't they serious about reducing gun violence?
All they want is to collect rural law-abiding guns?
Gun control is dead without gang members on red flag lists.

Why do you think they don’t want gang members on red flag lists?

They just know if they pass a law, those gangbangers will hand in their guns all on their own. Like any good democrat would.
View attachment 279806

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

Lol
Haven’t you learned by now the least efficient most corrupt way in doing anything is let the federal government control it

 

[Rustic]

They just know if they pass a law, those gangbangers will hand in their guns all on their own. Like any good democrat would.
View attachment 279806

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

name a modern military out there using the AR15.

then name what makes the AR15 different than say a semi-automatic browning longtrac.

I just said I don’t support confiscation. I’m explaining the position of those that do, as there are some valid concerned. There are things like high velocity rounds that shred people’s insides. Large capacity mags, and we’ve seen these guns used to shoot dozens of people in a minutes time. It’s not surprising that people are concerned about weapons with that kind of killing capacity.

Lol
The .223/5.56 is not an so called ”high velocity round” it is average at best, And no it is not made to shred peoples insides you ******* moron.
High-capacity magazines are great for varmint hunting… After all ARs make for great sporting rifles nothing more nothing less.

So you need to quit watching the main stream media and listening to Hollywood child molesting types, Because they don’t know their ass from a hole in the ground and it makes you sound like a ******* retard.

 

[Rustic]

I just can't deal with the stupidity. If people were willing to overcome their ignorance, that would be one thing, but to be stuck on stupid is completely another matter.
I have come to the conclusion the combinatuon of ignorance and wordsmithing is so very dangerous and cannot be reasoned with. We, as American citizens have the right to defend ourselves in the manner we see fit, and it is slowly being taken away from us. If some from the left have their way, it'll be stripped away all at once.
Instead of dealing with the real issues, mental health and criminality. It's like blaming the victim for the crime being commited against them.

i just find it funny we keep hearing "from the left" (generically speaking) we cant go by looks and so forth. yet, that is the ONLY thing they can do for the AR. it LOOKS mean.

great but how it is functionally different???

WAH YOU CAN'T OWN NUKES CAN YOU?????

where the holy hell did that shit come from? for slade here, i'll wait for his reply and go from there.

Well, the over the top description is a bit much. Weapon of war? As they say on ESPN...C'mon Man

That’s the term Beto is using when stating his confiscation case. If that’s the standard he wants to use for confiscation then the convo turns to defining what a weapon of war is. If AR-15s don’t fit the definition of “weapons of war” then they shouldn’t be included in a confiscation plan.

On a one to one basis, I wouldn't give a flying shit as to what Beto wants. The problem is, he has the ear of far to many ignorant people that have not and will not take the time to educate themselves as to what is what.
Technically speaking, anything you can kill another person with is a weapon of war, and that's where this slippery slope starts. I, myself, am very comfortable with an AR. I prefer it because it is similar to the weapon I was assigned in the military. While similar, there are some very distictive differences, which may not mean much to those not educated in small arms and assorted weaponry, but as has been stated by others, you don't take an AR 15 into a combat zone and expect to live.
The problem is we have too many idiots clamoring about saying what is what and who flung the poo and the sheep that follow them believe them... unequivocally, and for no other reason than "that's my guy."
Beto is a 5 star ass, yet he has, for reasons that escape me, a following.

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the **** out of people’s personal lives.

 

[Rustic]

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I grew up as an army brat. The town I graduated high school from, when I graduated, wasn't the biggest, but by no means was it a little huckleberry town. Gun racks with rifles and shot guns were "normal" and nobody messed with them. We had classes on gun safety, if I'm not mistaken they were part of the health classes we had to take. Nothing dedicated to an entire year muchless a semester.... Just part of a class somewhere, every year from early on. What was frown upon is if someone decided to bring a pistol onto school grounds....and it happened and was handled at the appropriate level at the time.

My military training has little to do with my attitude towards firearms. My preference for me to be able to defend me and mine yes... I prefer a ar 15 with a collapsible stock to allow for use in confined spaces, chambered for .308 as I have used the .223/5.56 and should I have to shoot someone, I only want to do it once... Not multiple times. Unless its absolutely necessary.

I don't know when schools got away from teaching firearm safety... Like I said, it was something that was touched upon from an early age for many of us. The vast amount of ignorance about firearms could be abated from an early age if those classes were brought back and taught to our kids. Instead of letting the lack of knowledge (re ignorance) be the rule and saying kids don't need to know.
Kids get all sorts of shit pushed down their proverbial throats, in the guise of education, tolerance, and understanding. I can tell you there were things my children had to "learn" I had grave reservations about... And no, I will not express what they were as they are very off targert here, but I will say they were under that very guise of "tolerence."
Bring back firearm education... I would even suggest allowing the NRA to assist, if not provide instructors, for the necessary classes.... That will be a very unpopular idea for a bunch on the left.... But the NRA isn't a bad guy organization and actually push for education and training... If folks would actually read for themselves what they do.

I don’t think you are far off base. You seem to be an intelligent guy with an open mind towards ideas to make our world a safer place. You are like most gun supporting Americans that I’ve encountered, many of which are close friends of mine. I believe there are more people in the middle on this issue than the wings. Unfortunately the wings are hogging the spotlight.

I also grew up in a small town where many of my friends and family owned guns. I think it is a good idea for schools to do gun safety education. Some still do... a few years ago a local high school 20 minutes from my house was doing a gun safety assembly and the demonstrator accidentally fired the gun in the room full of students. Thank God nobody was hurt.

Unfortunately I think the NRA has disqualified themself’s from an objective and honest actor. I’ve seen their mailings and public messaging. They capitalize on fear mongering and demonizing hyperbolic talking points. Aside from that they do a great job with safety courses and education. That political element is polluting their mission IMO.

Gun Owners of America | The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Arrested him for what?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

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?

 

[iceberg]

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.

now THIS is using real world issues with real world follow through with EXISTING laws to resolve an issue.

if you're not happy with this, then my concern is that you simply want to use these events to increase control of guns, not simply resolve these issues from happening.

 

[Slade3200]

Why do you think they don’t want gang members on red flag lists?

They just know if they pass a law, those gangbangers will hand in their guns all on their own. Like any good democrat would.
View attachment 279806

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

Lol
Haven’t you learned by now the least efficient most corrupt way in doing anything is let the federal government control it

Well I somewhat agree with you there but sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing

 

[iceberg]

They just know if they pass a law, those gangbangers will hand in their guns all on their own. Like any good democrat would.
View attachment 279806

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

Lol
Haven’t you learned by now the least efficient most corrupt way in doing anything is let the federal government control it

Well I somewhat agree with you there but sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing

great. enforce the laws we have. that would be something also.

 

[Slade3200]

i just find it funny we keep hearing "from the left" (generically speaking) we cant go by looks and so forth. yet, that is the ONLY thing they can do for the AR. it LOOKS mean.

great but how it is functionally different???

WAH YOU CAN'T OWN NUKES CAN YOU?????

where the holy hell did that shit come from? for slade here, i'll wait for his reply and go from there.

Well, the over the top description is a bit much. Weapon of war? As they say on ESPN...C'mon Man

That’s the term Beto is using when stating his confiscation case. If that’s the standard he wants to use for confiscation then the convo turns to defining what a weapon of war is. If AR-15s don’t fit the definition of “weapons of war” then they shouldn’t be included in a confiscation plan.

On a one to one basis, I wouldn't give a flying shit as to what Beto wants. The problem is, he has the ear of far to many ignorant people that have not and will not take the time to educate themselves as to what is what.
Technically speaking, anything you can kill another person with is a weapon of war, and that's where this slippery slope starts. I, myself, am very comfortable with an AR. I prefer it because it is similar to the weapon I was assigned in the military. While similar, there are some very distictive differences, which may not mean much to those not educated in small arms and assorted weaponry, but as has been stated by others, you don't take an AR 15 into a combat zone and expect to live.
The problem is we have too many idiots clamoring about saying what is what and who flung the poo and the sheep that follow them believe them... unequivocally, and for no other reason than "that's my guy."
Beto is a 5 star ass, yet he has, for reasons that escape me, a following.

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the **** out of people’s personal lives.

There’s plenty things that are more personal than firearm ownership. Most glaringly losing a loved one to gun violence

 

[2aguy]

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.

Arrested him for what?

Bringing a knife to school, and bullets, and he also assaulted other students...then you have the mentioned over 30 home visits......

 

[2aguy]

Well, the over the top description is a bit much. Weapon of war? As they say on ESPN...C'mon Man

That’s the term Beto is using when stating his confiscation case. If that’s the standard he wants to use for confiscation then the convo turns to defining what a weapon of war is. If AR-15s don’t fit the definition of “weapons of war” then they shouldn’t be included in a confiscation plan.

On a one to one basis, I wouldn't give a flying shit as to what Beto wants. The problem is, he has the ear of far to many ignorant people that have not and will not take the time to educate themselves as to what is what.
Technically speaking, anything you can kill another person with is a weapon of war, and that's where this slippery slope starts. I, myself, am very comfortable with an AR. I prefer it because it is similar to the weapon I was assigned in the military. While similar, there are some very distictive differences, which may not mean much to those not educated in small arms and assorted weaponry, but as has been stated by others, you don't take an AR 15 into a combat zone and expect to live.
The problem is we have too many idiots clamoring about saying what is what and who flung the poo and the sheep that follow them believe them... unequivocally, and for no other reason than "that's my guy."
Beto is a 5 star ass, yet he has, for reasons that escape me, a following.

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the **** out of people’s personal lives.

There’s plenty things that are more personal than firearm ownership. Most glaringly losing a loved one to gun violence

Or saving the life of a loved one with your firearm....as Americans do every single day....according to the CDC 1.1 million times a year......

Considering that more lives are saved with guns than are taken with them here, you should be supporting gun ownership more.....if you care about saving lives.

 

[iceberg]

Well, the over the top description is a bit much. Weapon of war? As they say on ESPN...C'mon Man

That’s the term Beto is using when stating his confiscation case. If that’s the standard he wants to use for confiscation then the convo turns to defining what a weapon of war is. If AR-15s don’t fit the definition of “weapons of war” then they shouldn’t be included in a confiscation plan.

On a one to one basis, I wouldn't give a flying shit as to what Beto wants. The problem is, he has the ear of far to many ignorant people that have not and will not take the time to educate themselves as to what is what.
Technically speaking, anything you can kill another person with is a weapon of war, and that's where this slippery slope starts. I, myself, am very comfortable with an AR. I prefer it because it is similar to the weapon I was assigned in the military. While similar, there are some very distictive differences, which may not mean much to those not educated in small arms and assorted weaponry, but as has been stated by others, you don't take an AR 15 into a combat zone and expect to live.
The problem is we have too many idiots clamoring about saying what is what and who flung the poo and the sheep that follow them believe them... unequivocally, and for no other reason than "that's my guy."
Beto is a 5 star ass, yet he has, for reasons that escape me, a following.

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the **** out of people’s personal lives.

There’s plenty things that are more personal than firearm ownership. Most glaringly losing a loved one to gun violence

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.

 

[2aguy]

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.

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?

Normally, in domestic violence situations...today......when there is evidence of a violent attack of any kind, an arrest is made regardless of the woman filing a complaint.

 

[2aguy]

Well, the over the top description is a bit much. Weapon of war? As they say on ESPN...C'mon Man

That’s the term Beto is using when stating his confiscation case. If that’s the standard he wants to use for confiscation then the convo turns to defining what a weapon of war is. If AR-15s don’t fit the definition of “weapons of war” then they shouldn’t be included in a confiscation plan.

On a one to one basis, I wouldn't give a flying shit as to what Beto wants. The problem is, he has the ear of far to many ignorant people that have not and will not take the time to educate themselves as to what is what.
Technically speaking, anything you can kill another person with is a weapon of war, and that's where this slippery slope starts. I, myself, am very comfortable with an AR. I prefer it because it is similar to the weapon I was assigned in the military. While similar, there are some very distictive differences, which may not mean much to those not educated in small arms and assorted weaponry, but as has been stated by others, you don't take an AR 15 into a combat zone and expect to live.
The problem is we have too many idiots clamoring about saying what is what and who flung the poo and the sheep that follow them believe them... unequivocally, and for no other reason than "that's my guy."
Beto is a 5 star ass, yet he has, for reasons that escape me, a following.

You have to consider that not everybody is a military trained vet like yourself. Some people get very scared when a gun is present. They see gun violence and don’t think, I need to get a gun to defend myself, they think I want to get guns off the streets and see less of them in my community. These are the people who support Betos cause and there are many of them.

I will say that Beto has given you a gift. His plan to confiscate guns just blew away any middle ground between the fringes and pushed the debate back into their corners. So doesn’t look like anything’s gonna get done which I’m sure you are very happy with.

Lol
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it, There’s nothing more personal than firearm ownership. Progressives like yourself need to stay the **** out of people’s personal lives.

There’s plenty things that are more personal than firearm ownership. Most glaringly losing a loved one to gun violence

Yes....saving the life of yourself or a loved one because you can....because you have a gun that allows you to fight off an attacker...

If they save just one life.....

Father Attacked at McDonald's While Holding Infant Daughter, Shoots One of Four Suspects

A father who was attacked in Memphis, Tennessee, McDonald’s while holding his infant daughter was able to get his gun and open fire, wounding one of the four attackers.
WREG quotes police saying “four suspects attempted to rob the victim at the McDonald’s in the 1400 block of South Trezevant near Lamar and Airways.” A witness described a scene in which the suspects tried to catch the father while he was too busy to fight back.

Witness David Chase said, “They jumped out of the car and they started fighting him and trying to take his wallet and stuff.” He added, “He was fighting them. He dropped his baby and started fighting them and the child was just sitting on the concrete.”

Chase then heard gunshots rang out and the suspects fled the scene. It was later learned that the father had managed to get to his gun and fire the shots, wounding one of the suspects.

ActionNews5 reports that the wounded suspect “showed up later at a nearby fire department” for treatment. His was taken to a hospital in “non-critical condition.”
========

4/5/18

Armed South Carolina Woman Chases Off Daytime Home Invader - The Truth About Guns

When Ms. Reeves ran across Ralph Goss slithering around inside her home yesterday in the middle of the afternoon, she drew her firearm. Staring down that barrel was enough to change Goss’s mind about whatever it was he had planned.

“I’m one of those people that can go from zero to a hundred in 2.5 seconds and I’m not a nice person normally, but as soon as I got on the phone with the sheriff’s department he was out of sight. The severity of it hit me, and I was in hysterics. I was crying, I was scared, I was very shaken.”

Oconee County deputies tracked Goss down within hours of Ms. Reeves’ call. And surprise! He already had several outstanding warrants for his arrest.
===============

CWB Chicago: River North: Motorist With Concealed-Carry Saves Victim From 3-On-1 Beat-Down And Robbery

An armed suburban man with a concealed-carry license intervened in a 3-on-1 beating and robbery in River North yesterday evening, according to a witness and police.

The victim was in the 700 block of North Clark around 8:30 p.m. when three offenders wearing white surgical masks attacked him and began taking his property, police said.

A passing motorist who saw the robbery unfold pulled over, unholstered his concealed firearm and intervened in the attack. The three offenders fled westbound on Chicago Avenue as the concealed-carry holder protected the victim, according to a witness.

The driver, who lives in Mt. Prospect, returned to his vehicle and drove away after stabilizing the situation, a witness reported.

The victim lost his phone to the robbers who were described as two black men and one black woman wearing surgical masks. One of the offenders wore a red jacket and the others wore dark clothing.
==================

Good Guy With A Gun Saves Mother And Daughter Who Were Being Attacked

Law enforcement officials in New Mexico are praising a man who stepped in to save a mother and her daughter after the woman’s estranged husband rammed her car and began shooting at them.

Albuquerque Police say that 66-year-old Qian Ming intentionally crashed into the woman’s vehicle on Sunday and then opened fire, hitting his daughter in the shoulder, KRQE News 13reported.

Officer Simon Drobik says that a 34-year-old good Samaritan, who is not being named since he has not been charged with a crime, saw the attack unfold and intervened.

“Once he started walking up, he saw that there was a male violently pistol-whipping a female in the street,” Drobik said. “He got out of his vehicle and had his firearm on him and told that male to stop.”

Upon telling Ming to stop, the good Samaritan told police that he pointed the gun in his direction and that’s when he opened fire on Ming, hitting and killing him.

“Mom in the hospital said, ‘He saved our lives’,” Drobik continued. “You can’t get a stronger statement than that. So she knew it. Daughter knows it and good thing he took that type of action.”
=============

 

[Slade3200]

Sounds like you’re missing the point all together. If you think gun control advocates assume gang bangers will turn in their guns then you are a world away from understanding their position. Try listening more and talking less

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

Lol
Haven’t you learned by now the least efficient most corrupt way in doing anything is let the federal government control it

Well I somewhat agree with you there but sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing

great. enforce the laws we have. that would be something also.

Excellent idea, how do we do better at that?

 

[2aguy]

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

Lol
Haven’t you learned by now the least efficient most corrupt way in doing anything is let the federal government control it

Well I somewhat agree with you there but sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing

great. enforce the laws we have. that would be something also.

Excellent idea, how do we do better at that?

Focus on it.....instead of always focusing on taking guns and magazines away from people who don't use them for crime.

 

[Rustic]

I don't think their intention is to ban all guns to start. In many cases. Some of course are.

I think ignorance of how guns work frustrates them and as they discover the AR is just a semi automatic in the end, they refuse to back up and reevaluate and choose to push forward and demand THOSE guns are now included.

Slades argument is no one wants to regulate the AR like we do automatic guns. The still outstanding question is, great. Let's regulate. WHAT about the AR needs to be regulated that won't also have the same regulation on other semi automatics.

So willing to discuss regulating the AR. Now just ensure it can ONLY apply to the AR.

we will see if slade can come up with regulation that ONLY hits the AR.

I’ve makes good points and asks questions that progress the conversation. 2aguy comes in demagoguing with the fear tactic that we want to ban all guns. Some might want to ban all guns but many like myself don’t.

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

So you're talking about the elimination of all semi-automatic firearms. That's what we've been saying all along. That's the next step for the Democrat party if they ever get AR's banned.

Is that what you think I’m talking about?! Ok Ray, think whatever you want.

Here is what you said:

For me I would support regulations on high capacity magazines and anything that enables either a rapid fire of bullets or extreme levels of destructive power.

Now when it comes to handguns, there are really only two types: semi-automatics and revolvers. So when you said you would support legislation against rapid fire bullets, were you talking about revolvers?

I’m talking about things like bump stocks. Hand guns and rifles should have less than a 10 round capacity IMO

Lol
Ridiculous, Magazine capacity I has no effect on any sort of violence

 

[iceberg]

then why do they keep saying they want them out of the hands of the criminals if "gang bangers" are not the intended "criminal"?

I don’t support confiscation but my understanding of their position is they see over the top dangerous weapons made for war being used in these mass shootings and they want to take them out of circulation. The criminal element is a separate problem that needs to be dealt with by law enforcement.

Lol
Haven’t you learned by now the least efficient most corrupt way in doing anything is let the federal government control it

Well I somewhat agree with you there but sometimes doing something is better than doing nothing

great. enforce the laws we have. that would be something also.

Excellent idea, how do we do better at that?

police take advantage of any of what, 39 complaints to do something in this particular case? we now have "red flag laws" that don't even need you on record of doing something wrong, just a complaint and WHAM - come get the guns.

we can't go anywhere via the middle of the road. we want to slam everything through based on our emotional tastes.