[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Thank you Trayderjoe, very much for proving...everything I stated is correct.

I do get a kick out of your attempted parsing, but anyone can go back and read what you stated...particularly in regards to your false statement that "claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows."

Ok. Apparently I give more credit than where credit is due. The sentence is written, and I have not denied writing it: "In order to make actual progress, inflammatory, inaccurate reporting (such as continually misrepresenting what an AR-15 rifle actually is, or claiming that no background checks are done at gun shows) must stop as it only fuels the fire. " I am calling out people who CLAIM that no background checks are done at gun shows, but are using emotion to set an agenda . Kind of like people who claim that there are leaders who are encouraging bullying by telling people to "pull up their big boy pants", but can't prove it. The actual use of the "pull up your big boy pants" was in reference to David Hogg choosing to bully companies and people. Don't get me wrong, I will absolutely defend David Hogg's right to free speech (I needed to include that so I am not accused of denying free speech-is that clear enough?). The call out to David was that if he was going to enter the arena, then yes, he will be challenged and he should be prepared for a discourse with which he may not agree (sound familiar?)

I haven't heard anyone of consequence claim that NO checks are being made at gun shows (required by licensed dealers), but a gun show (by those not claiming to be dealers) and private sale loophole DOES exist...and no amount of parsing will change that fact.

So because you "haven't heard anyone of consequence claim that NO checks are being made at gun shows", then it must not be happening? Really? And again, you either cannot or will not produce any links to substantiate you rhetoric regarding those tweets.

And the doozy is your continued deflection/denial that the NRA didn't change you-know-who's mind on what he had stated publicly prior, AFTER that NRA meeting in which he quickly backpedaled (hope he didn't trip ) from his broadcast statements ...that he "wasn't afraid of the NRA."

Deep in your heart, do you REALLY believe his public backpedaling...had nothing to do with the closed door NRA meeting?

Really?

Ok, again I gave more credit than was due.

I wrote: "The article does not say that he is, just that he appears to be. In the second video on the same web page, he was supporting taking the guns first then doing due process. So by constitutional law, he would have to "back pedal". He was looking for an answer, had a discussion and indicated that he was open to discussion with the NRA as there is a common goal. But why acknowledge that? Hopefully people will read the whole article and listen to both videos.

Could this "backpedaling" have come from a discussion with the NRA? Yes, if they pointed out the constitutional issues he would face with administratively eliminating due process. As neither you or I were in the room, what happened is mere speculation. You just choose to inflame and infer to match your agenda. Re-read the highlighted line once more..."So by constitutional law, he would have to back pedal". Of course you flippantly ignore the second video in which he talks about taking the guns first then due process. Do you even understand what due process is and how important it is?

I would however like to take the opportunity to sincerely thank you for your detailed work & effort (very few ever spend the effort to link to even an opinion piece, to try and bolster their argument).

I will even take your backhanded acknowledgement as I (and others reading this thread) recognize that this will be the best that will happen.

What you have accomplished however, albeit unintentionally I'm sure...is to so aptly demonstrate WHY nothing has been done.

I do actually have to give you the credit for showing why progress is slow. It takes time to have a reasonable discussion. What I have written, and others see, is that I have tried to stick to the facts (do you even remember my acknowledging that my understanding of the Chicago gun law severity was incorrect once I followed the link and read the information?), but what I read is continued rhetoric and still no evidence that many claims being made are indeed factual.