[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

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?)

No, seriously, it's definitely my bad...for giving too much credit.

For that...you have my apology.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

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.

Puhleeze, you're straining credulity...of even the most naive of people.

If you can't see the bullying in the Tweets...then THAT'S the real problem.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

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?

You're doing it again!

While solely concentrating on the admittedly embarrassingly stupid statement of "confiscation, then due process" (which I agree was beyond ignorant, for a person at that level), you are purposely avoiding the issue of bumpstocks...WHICH WAS ALSO DISCUSSED in the publicly broadcast meeting.

And yes, THAT was also backpedaled on after the NRA PRIVATE meeting...which has so far resulted in crickets.

Nice try though.

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

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.

I've given all the evidence a reasonable person needs, which will always fall woefully short with those who actually depend on EMOTIONS...and their love of guns over the love/safety of children.