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

[Rustic]

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

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

Lol
You’re barking up the wrong tree, your solutions are no solutions at all. Political correctness has no moral credibility or authority on anything

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

Perhaps, but then you have to ask what would your suggestions solve?

IMO, absolutely nothing. Because mass shootings are by design terrorism. You won't terrorize people any less with 23 dead instead of 24. You won't terrorize people any less if a murderer used a handgun instead of an AR. Most people are not focused on magazine size or kind of weapon, they are focused on the damage done and lives lost. As for the shooter, you won't make his name any less known either.

My concern is after these measures fail, what will Democrats try for next. Because we know what this is all about, and it's not an attempt to solve anything, it's about taking steps to an eventual disarmament of society.

 

[iceberg]

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

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

Then we are certainly different. I don't argue for the sake of arguing cause it's fun. I like to come to conclusions on how we can stop the shitpile we've created as a society and come back together despite our differences

 

[iceberg]

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

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

Perhaps, but then you have to ask what would your suggestions solve?

IMO, absolutely nothing. Because mass shootings are by design terrorism. You won't terrorize people any less with 23 dead instead of 24. You won't terrorize people any less if a murderer used a handgun instead of an AR. Most people are not focused on magazine size or kind of weapon, they are focused on the damage done and lives lost. As for the shooter, you won't make his name any less known either.

My concern is after these measures fail, what will Democrats try for next. Because we know what this is all about, and it's not an attempt to solve anything, it's about taking steps to an eventual disarmament of society.

When our not thought out regulation fails, let's do it again.

Tired of people reacting, not thinking.

 

[Slade3200]

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

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

Lol
You’re barking up the wrong tree, your solutions are no solutions at all. Political correctness has no moral credibility or authority on anything

As much as I appreciate the advise I stopped listening to dipshits a long time ago.

 

[Slade3200]

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

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

Then we are certainly different. I don't argue for the sake of arguing cause it's fun. I like to come to conclusions on how we can stop the shitpile we've created as a society and come back together despite our differences

I don’t argue for the sake of arguing, I see the perspective on both sides and I’m always searching to better that understanding. Sometimes arguing the other side of a topic helps me better my understanding that side sometimes the other side.

 

[DamnDude]

I don’t argue for the sake of arguing, I see the perspective on both sides and I’m always searching to better that understanding. Sometimes arguing the other side of a topic helps me better my understanding that side sometimes the other side.

Your eyes are brown, aren't they?

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t argue for the sake of arguing, I see the perspective on both sides and I’m always searching to better that understanding. Sometimes arguing the other side of a topic helps me better my understanding that side sometimes the other side.

Your eyes are brown, aren't they?

True

 

[2aguy]

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

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

 

[iceberg]

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

Then we are certainly different. I don't argue for the sake of arguing cause it's fun. I like to come to conclusions on how we can stop the shitpile we've created as a society and come back together despite our differences

I don’t argue for the sake of arguing, I see the perspective on both sides and I’m always searching to better that understanding. Sometimes arguing the other side of a topic helps me better my understanding that side sometimes the other side.

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
----------
That is arguing to argue.

 

[Slade3200]

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

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

 

[Slade3200]

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

Then we are certainly different. I don't argue for the sake of arguing cause it's fun. I like to come to conclusions on how we can stop the shitpile we've created as a society and come back together despite our differences

I don’t argue for the sake of arguing, I see the perspective on both sides and I’m always searching to better that understanding. Sometimes arguing the other side of a topic helps me better my understanding that side sometimes the other side.

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
----------
That is arguing to argue.

Call it whatever you want and don’t engage with me if you don’t like the way I debate.

 

[2aguy]

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

 

[2aguy]

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

And there you go....100 round drum......that isn't what your side is stopping at....or you.....you want anything over 10 bullets...knowing full well that millions and millions of pistols come with standard 15-19 round magazines which will become illegal and useless...all without having to vote for it...... we know your tactics.

 

[Slade3200]

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

 

[2aguy]

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

Wrong....I just gave you examples of pump action shotguns that were used to kill more people in gun free zones than the very rifles and magazines you want banned...showing that banning those rifles and magazines won't save lives.

When a mass shooter is in a gun free zone, shooting unarmed, defensless people, the type of gun means nothing........the most important thing is to use a gun to make him stop.....that is the difference in low body counts vs. high body counts, how long it took someone with a gun to get to the scene to stop the shooter.

If you want to actually deal with mass public shooters, you need to allow normal people to carry guns into public places...which makes them undesirable as targets for mass shooters.

But really, it isn't the body count for you, that is just the tool you will use to stampede uninformed people into backing your banning and confiscation.

 

[2aguy]

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

 

[iceberg]

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.

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 think

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

you can think what you want. it's what you can prove that matters.

aka - people THINK biden got the guy removed cause he was coming after his son. is this how you really want to play this?

 

[iceberg]

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

Then we are certainly different. I don't argue for the sake of arguing cause it's fun. I like to come to conclusions on how we can stop the shitpile we've created as a society and come back together despite our differences

I don’t argue for the sake of arguing, I see the perspective on both sides and I’m always searching to better that understanding. Sometimes arguing the other side of a topic helps me better my understanding that side sometimes the other side.

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
----------
That is arguing to argue.

Call it whatever you want and don’t engage with me if you don’t like the way I debate.

i believe i did and i believe i ignore you when i've had enough.

 

[iceberg]

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 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 **** 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".

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.

Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.

Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?

Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book

limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.

And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.

A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....

You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.

I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

you're trying to convince me large capacity mags are the root of our gun issues.

that doesn't seem to be working either.

maybe i should list things like - oh i dunno...buying guys at a 7-11, F1 race cars going down the road...

seems to me we've got several examples of you doing the very same shit you get mad at others for doing.

common sense says you define a goal and work to make sure what you do gets you there. not "oh well we did something" but hey - keep at it.