Parents of Michigan high school shooter Ethan Crumbley will go to trial, judges rule

I don't have to care about what statute every criminal is charged under to care about the law. Obvious nonsense!

 

Once again you jump into a discussion without bothering to find out what it's about.

 

Why would I have to say that?

Is this nonsense how you're going to defend these criminals? That I have no interest in naming the statute under which criminals will be charged?

Not interested! Let me know when you can come up with a REAL argument. Signs say that, if this is what you had to argue, you don't have much anyway.

 

It's not a wonder, to me anyway, that you delight in trying to manipulate and worm your way around law instead of embracing it, working within it and, frankly, revering it.

 

Not sure what that has to do with the post you quoted. But yes. I do hope also that our laws are strong enough that they are held responsible.

 

Obviously.

 

So you are among those who don't think that dealing with mental issues would save one life. I mean, since it IS one of the things I propose in the link you quote.

Duly noted...

 

I'm am one of those that have followed your manipulative arguments and find them subversive and juxtaposed to OUR Constitution.

You can "note" that too.

 

Reciting the STATUTE under which a criminals are charged is required to embrace the law?

For a split second I thought you were serious. My mistake. Won't happen again.

 

I never said they were. "I" said, good citizen implied (sorry I expected more from you than you have to contribute), embraces the law.

Getting snippy only proves how hollow your arguments are.

 

And you don't deny it....

My point is made! Gun advocates who SAY that gun violence is a mental health issue, could not care less about mental health issues either.

Thanks for playing!

 

Oh, for heaven's sake! That's what the discussion was about! You didn't bother to find out what we were discussing before jumping in?

Unbelievable!

 

All evidence, your penchant to ban guns, to the contrary.

I think I am way out in front, especially of you, in my desire to provide better mental health care to ALL Ameirican's and, tie sound mental health to gun ownership.

Here I though this was a serious discussion, to you it's a game.

 

As usual you can be depended on to twist and obfuscate words to support your point.

 

You wrote about the courts legislating in the OP. Therefore it is a part of the threads topic. I was correcting you. Your attempt to deflect though is noted.

 

I also talked about "texting". That doesn't mean I intended to discuss TikTok Not every word we use in the OP is the topic of the thread. If you want to talk about Scalia's legislation, there are MANY threads about that. So many to choose from. . Depends on what you want to know. Maybe you could start here..
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/

 

Scalia's co-opted decision. The Supreme Court is empowered by OUR Constitution to rule on the validity and interpretation of OUR law. Anthony Scalia was an Associate Justice of OUR Supreme Court, individually he had no power to decide anything much less legislate. The Heller Decision clarified ambiguities of the Second Amendment, well within the power and responsibility of OUR Supreme Court.

 

Sorry Golem, not how it works. You specifically talked about Heller in your last paragraph. It wasn't just a one word thing. You specifically talked about it. All you're trying to do is backpedal because you got caught misrepresenting what happened.

BTW, TikTok is about video's, not texting.

 

Dang G, you almost got a "like" from me - you were actually making sense, but then you had to start the "Heller Whine". This case is solely based on the horrible judgement and participation in the crime.

 

It is how it works. Not every single word in an OP is the topic of the thread.

Besides, if you REALLY wanted to discuss Scalia's legislation, you would have no problem going to a thread where that is CLEARLY the topic. So you probably don't anyway.

My bad. Shows you I don't do much social media. But you got the point...

 

I'm curious though, since your "solution" doesn't really care about the Constitution nor individual rights how about a solution that would absolutely make a difference backed up by data?
And don't start reading "racist" crap into this response. It's simply data.
The murder rate for whites in this country is 2.2 / 100k
The murder rate for Native Americans in this country is 8.1 / 100k
The murder rate for Hispanic in this country is 4.5 / 100k
The murder rate for blacks in this country is 26.6 / 100k

The vast majority of murders are of/to the same race.
Would you support outlawing all guns for blacks and possibly Native American? That would solve around 88% of the issue.
But, I don't think you really care about actually solving the problem or else focusing on "assault weapons" wouldn't be your number 1 item. If you actually removed 100% of the assault weapons and ammo, you would solve about 2% of the murder problem. Not hardly a solution at all.

 

I understand. However you DO get a like from me because you got the main point properly summarized in your last sentence.

 

Noted. Thanks.

 

I have no idea what "murder rate for xxx" means, but it doesn't actually matter because it's not the topic of this thread.

You are more than welcome to open a thread about... whatever point it is you are trying to make.

 

How about what? the fact that this post is completely illogical?

You pointing to a 2nd amendment link has nothing to do with your statement that "a parent wont believe their kid is a mass murder is the BEST argument to ban guns"

Your argument to ban guns is about as weak as you can get.. and if thats "the BEST" you have (as you said earlier).. the 2a is safe and sound..