Bob in Mich

The overall divide in this discussion is that many see these mass shootings as a problem and are hoping a discussion might uncover some ideas to improve the situation. The other half don't see this as a big problem. That half is satisfied with the status quo apparently.

If any of the numbers you quoted could easily be lessened by legislation, it would be worth considering. It is a preventable vs unpreventable issue at the heart of it. Of course, voluntary risks such as sports are not worth talking about unless those sports are killing non participants. Most of what you mention otherwise, are not preventable. Some future shooting may be preventable however if we, as a society, could come up with some reasonable changes...short of confiscating all guns. Those non gun problems you mention are not terrorizing our society either. Ever increasing shootings are and will do that. More guns, as we will no doubt have going forward, will likely make things worse. Again, to say there is no problem here worth considering legislation is extremely cold.

I was just going to ask you if you viewed these US mass shootings as a problem? I see you don't see it is much of one. Wow. Passing an amendment is too much effort in the face of these shootings, eh? Well that explains why you don't give a damn about looking to lessen the carnage. I had no idea you were such a cold hearted jerk. I mean, obviously anyone who posts here knows full well the jerk part but damn, that is cold to not see these massacres as a significant problem. I suppose I would rather exchange ideas with folks looking at this as a problem.

No, it is clear to see that your approach is far more helpful to solving the problem. Just cross your arms, scream about your rights, pretend to care about the victims, and give more thoughts and prayers. I don't have all of the answers. That is one of the purposes of trying to have a discussion. An idea exchange can sometimes result in a reasonable solution. What torpedoes those types of discussions are inflexible fools, such as yourself.

If I were you, I would try some smoke or pretty much anything that might help you recover that once great intellect. It is long gone, bro. Would it be possible to make some type of legislative changes involving guns/ammo that would not involve taking existing guns? Think hard genius. I am hopeful you are gonna get this one. Focus....focus....focus. Now think!

So I state gun ownership should be allowed and that there is middle ground and in your response you spin a tale of going house to house to collect guns and a civil war. Smartest, eh? lol

I didn't put any words in your mouth. I just claimed the words you were writing were not necessarily accurate. I demonstrated that there is middle ground and the slippery slope argument is invalid. As mentioned, If your political forces can currently control the legislative agenda, why couldn't those same forces stop any future movements? Ever see this Jim Jefferies comedy bit on guns. The guy uses humor to make some good points. He uses some rough language so not safe for work viewing. part 1 part 2

I just said I am for some level of gun ownership. So, I have invalidated your theory. I am one that has a middle ground opinion. There are a lot that hold this opinion. If your political forces can keep things now from moving an inch, why, figuratively, couldn't these same forces stop the rights concessions after moving any reasonable inches that could help our citizens?

First, I think Americans need to be able to acquire some level of weapons for self protection. Why does this discussion have to devolve into an all or nothing discussion. There must be some middle ground of U. S. gun ownership if both sides wanted to look for it. What I typically see is the so called slippery slope being mentioned. In other words, gun proponents claim that can't give an inch or soon they will be bare handed. Horseshit argument too. How can so many of you folks bringing up the constitution not see that it is the 2nd AMENDMENT. It was a change to the constitution, right? At the time, as a country we felt a change was needed to correct an issue with the document so we changed the constitution. It is not unchangeable once enough people think that is needed. Please stop with the Biblical equivalences.

I have been in several gun threads before, including this one. I doubt I don't understand your issue.

Might be because many people don't give a crap about your hobby until it starts resulting people getting killed. If there was suddenly a string of lacrosse stick murders across the country I would start giving more thought to lacrosse sticks and how the murder spree could this be stopped.

...and you're proud of that post? Seriously?

Isn't something like that done with Sudefed?

Finally, finally after all that over the top BS you actually uttered something I can agree with. Now let's continue the Trump-Russia investigation.

So, you would halt the Trump-Russia investigation now even though you admitted and wrote this about your acceptance of DR's theory: In fact, most such instances have, after much consideration, merited, sometimes begrudgingly, my acceptance that what he is presenting is likely true, given chains of circumstantial evidence, even if I am unwilling to fully commit to a firm "yes" until firm evidence is provided. So, after seeing all of DR's tale you are not committed enough to go all in on a Buffalo Bills message board but you are certain that there is enough presented to stop Mueller's investigation immediately, eh? Do I have that position right?

"Smartest Man in the Room"? I just noticed your tag line there. That is pretty amusing that you feel the need to declare that. Are you an elementary school teacher by chance? Gawd, you sure can sling BS to try to bury the truth. Aside from the kind praise heaped upon DR however, you have buried in there that he has made conclusions without all of the facts. His assumptions, how ever much you love them, are unproven assumptions, as you admit clearly. You bring up reading comprehension and then attempt to lecture me about the need to prosecute those that violated FISA application process, including possibly Obama. I have written that probably 10 times now in this very thread. My reading comprehension is plenty good enough to see what you wrote in spite of the BS and backpedaling.

Look, a few posts ago you basically agreed that Greg has made logical leaps that you are unwilling to make without further evidence....just like me. As usual, you tried to bury the answer in a load of BS but the admission was there. Here is your quote.... I work with creating and refining logical processes, spending large portions of my day breaking down data and business processes, searching for inefficiencies or inaccuracies in order to correct them; and while I have absolutely found instances where Greg believes something to be true which has yet to be proven with hard evidence, I have not found any single one of them to be logically inconsistent with the chain of evidence he presents. In fact, most such instances have, after much consideration, merited, sometimes begrudgingly, my acceptance that what he is presenting is likely true, given chains of circumstantial evidence, even if I am unwilling to fully commit to a firm "yes" until firm evidence is provided. Though unconvinced I keep saying, maybe Greg is right and his investigative work should continue. Many here say 'shut down Mueller now'. Many posters, including Greg, claim that his tale/evidence means that the Mueller investigation is meaningless because it's a coup attempt. I maintain that his tale of an IC conspiracy is insufficient reason to halt Mueller's investigation. The difference here is that I want to see any evidence of wrongdoing and the wrongdoers held accountable - Trump, Manafort, Comey, Obama, Clinton, Abe Lincoln, etc, etc. Many of the Trump lawyers posting here don't want to see any evidence that might mean Trump did something illegal.

Hey 3rd, I think I found you for sale on eBay. Is this robot parrot you?

3rd, what good are you? I no longer think you are a bot but still think you, with a lot of work, could become one. At best you are a parrot. I don't recall any posts of yours ever saying anything worth reading. Can you point me to anything useful that you have written here?

...and you are clearly a fool...or a bot.

DR, please, please, don't respond point by point to this post. You have made my attempt at an interesting diversion into a non stop battle. It is no longer fun for me. It has become a chore to have to read the same flawed arguments and to feel forced to reply to your torrents of crap again and again. So, if you are looking to beat back any doubters of your theories, I am done arguing with you. You win! You have not convinced me of your theories but have convinced me that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to repeat myself. I am tired of your same flawed arguments and I have been saying the same thing for at least 10 pages of this thread now. You have already and will in the future, put way more time investigating than I will. I don't wish to spend any more time investigating this issue. As I said before, there are professionals doing that and I will read their reports. With your arguments however, it is the same thing again and again. The individual facts may differ but I feel you make enough assumptions in your explanations that what you are left with is far from undeniable. Your theory may be right. I don't think it is but you may be on to something. Keep digging if you wish. You may turn into a national hero in the end and I will be happy to tell folks that I had it all wrong. At this time however, I see nothing convincing enough for me to be satisfied aborting the Mueller investigation....as I said 10 pages ago. If I happen to post on this topic down the road, please don't assume I am posting to you unless you have been quoted. Thanks and congrats for winning.

DR, send me some of that smoke dude. You are nearly tripping. You friggin stoners! You disgust me lol You claimed that I called you a Trump lawyer. I did not. You claimed earlier that I called you a Trump disciple. I did not call you that either but I guess you assumed that title fit you and decided it was meant for you. I guess if the shoe fits, eh? I have not avoided your posts until recently as I am tired of you insulting me because I am thinking for myself and picking apart your logic. And yes, your replies are way more detailed than necessary. The logical flaws cause my eyes to glaze over and all the facts are not that valuable because of those logical flaws. I just pointed out a huge flaw in your Don Jr Trump Tower meeting. You seriously don't see a problem there? OK....are any of the following possible...not probable, but possible? 1) He may yet be charged for known lying but the charges have not been made yet because Mueller wants to make a giant splash by announcing all the big charges at the investigation conclusion 2) He may be charged for as yet undiscovered lying. The investigation is continuing. 3) Mueller knows something you don't that definitively proves perjury but is withholding the charge as he wants to use Don Jr or his possible indictment in some future transaction? Like Flynn Jr and Flynn. Recall that Flynn was supposedly facing 60 years before he got a single charge and no charges (yet) for Flynn Jr.? 4) His future cooperation is already guaranteed by Mueller due to his lies. If I felt like typing more I could list more possibilities....not necessarily probabilities, but possibilities. So, if looking critically one would have to say you have made a logical leap to assume that no lies and nothing illegal from the Trump Tower meeting. Is that true or still unrecognized?

asswholey, eh? Well at least when you asked me to quit insulting you, you might have tried not insulting me. Tweak your program. You should be 'learning' from interaction with real posters. That might be a bigger upgrade than you can afford though.

Horseshit! He refuted nothing by saying, 'it's a safe bet' ? Put your setting back to 'bot', 3rd. You looked smarter before. I can see humoring your online friend but if you are being honest and tell me you see no logical flaws or leaps in DR's tale, you both are a whole lot dumber than i imagined.

C'mon genius. You honestly claim that you see no holes in DR's tale? Try being honest