Trump is shot!

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaskHunter said:
I'd like to point out that I've once engaged a bad guy in sandals at +/-500 meters with 5.56... and missed...

But he ran away so I technically won that firefight. 💪

View attachment 333000
Click to expand...

You served, and thankfully have the rest of your life to live. Thank you and I hope you have a long healthy life.

And...yes you won that fire fight.
 
Beignet said:
Sorry to sidetrack the sniping discussion. But, nope. There was some confusion about the language of a funding rule. It was clarified in HR 5110. That bill was signed into law by President Biden on 10/06/23.

From the bill's opening paragraph: "To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to clarify that the prohibition on the use of Federal education funds for certain weapons does not apply to the use of such weapons for training in archery, hunting, or other shooting sports."

The sources that got everyone whipped into a frenzy about that one didn't bother to follow up and publicize that the problem had been fixed.
Click to expand...
Missed that part but Do you think it would have been changed if enough sportsman didnt raise a concern? who ever put that in there originally knew what they were doing it was not a overlooked they knew what it would accomplish the change was just to try and cover there butt.
 
Dave N said:
As others have said "in before the lock" I think it's time to shut this one down. It was started as a notice of an attempted assassination that affects all of us and a place to talk about it. That's pretty well run it's course. Too much off-topic crap and semi-heated back and forths. If @Big Fin would like to lock this one he has my approval, needed or not. Thanks for playing!
Click to expand...
I am glad Big Fin has your permission. Thanks for your cooperation. 😂
 
rjthehunter said:
That was my initial thought when I heard that. Some conspiracies hold weight, but that had to be one of the most far fetched things I've heard!
Click to expand...

Yeah, if it was a PR stunt, a 20 year old with an AR rifle would not be either the person or weapon of choice. Can you imagine signing up for clipping Trump's ear, knowing your payment would be promptly getting yourself killed?

It is very stunning how one mad man can turn the world upside down.

They are still trying to figure out what the shooter's motive was. I think figuring out motive in most shootings does nothing to stop any future shooting. In this case, it's hard to calculate whether knowing the motive helps or hurts the societal reaction to his heinous act.
 
Elky Welky said:
The debate over rhetoric is about as hypocritical and bad faith as it gets. Trump's VP nominee is one of many people to compare Trump to Hitler (extreme? absolutely), and the rhetoric from the right has been laced with the catchy "Let's Go Brandon," "F@#$ your Feelings," and perhaps most notoriously: "Hang Mike Pence."

This "American Carnage" rhetoric has been the status quo across both sides of the aisle since long before this moment in our history, and if we believe in the First Amendment, it will continue for the foreseeable future. People, particularly political campaigns, are allowed to express their views, no matter how repugnant they may seem to one side or another. For many on the left, electing someone who still cannot accept a free and fair election in 2020 is, in fact, a credible threat to democracy. For many on the right, electing someone who cannot fully articulate a sentence due to age is also a credible threat to democracy. We shouldn't silence these people for having legitimate concerns, and using those concerns in their campaigning.

We don't know what motivated this kid to pick up a rifle and put the former president in his sights, and we probably won't for a while... or ever. This kind of thing should never happen if we believe in democracy and the power of ballots over bullets. But can we stop being so exceptionally disingenuous and pointing fingers about language?
Click to expand...
I do believe that legitimate concerns can be raised in a manner that is not cloaked in verbiage associated with serious violence. I am all for a full blown hearing on different opinions - but only ask that leaders do so in a semi-intelligent manner that does not intimate violence or suggest others are not fully human. Seems like a low bar ask. As for 1A - just because you have a right to say something over the top doesn’t mean you should say it.
 
VikingsGuy said:
I do believe that legitimate concerns can be raised in a manner that is not cloaked in verbiage associated with serious violence. I am all for a full blown hearing on different opinions - but only ask that leaders do so in a semi-intelligent manner that does not intimate violence or suggest others are not fully human. Seems like a low bar ask. As for 1A - just because you have a right to say something over the top doesn’t mean you should say it.
Click to expand...

The problem is they are trying to win votes. I think it was Roger Stone, who said that nothing beats anger in driving turnout in voting.

At least half the ads, no far more than that, are negative ads, in Montana's senate race. It is interesting that no presidential ads pop up in any of my internet wanderings. Both sides know their money is better spent elsewhere.
 
VikingsGuy said:
As for 1A - just because you have a right to say something over the top doesn’t mean you should say it.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this sentiment.

But as @Forkyfinder helped demonstrate above, people have different interpretations of what intimates violence. "F your feelings" might be funny to some, but to a child born and raised in this country who is terrified of being deported: that sentiment isn't funny at all and only amplifies their terror. When a president has been under extreme scrutiny and he wants the conversation to refocus on his opponent, he might use a metaphor of a bullseye to make that point. Inconvenient timing, sure, but in context it doesn't mean anything other than we should shift focus. I'm not sure the last time someone said they could kill two birds with one stone who then went and actually killed two birds with one stone.

Should we be aware of language? Absolutely. Is that a separate discussion? Yup.

But in the context of this event, blaming it on the rhetoric of the left rings exceptionally hollow.
 
406dn said:
The problem is they are trying to win votes. I think it was Roger Stone, who said that nothing beats anger in driving turnout in voting.

At least half the ads, no far more than that, are negative ads, in Montana's senate race. It is interesting that no presidential ads pop up in any of my internet wanderings. Both sides know their money is better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...
The ignorance in the Montana ads is infuriating, but understandable. The folks back east don’t know the difference between a rancher and a cowboy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
Burgum headed for Secretary of Interior
Replies
6
Views
617
BrentD
BrentD
Zim
  • Locked
Grand Rapids Rally
Replies
11
Views
577
Redmt
Redmt
P
Afraid for the next 6 months! Lets talk.
13 14 15
Replies
285
Views
15K
hank4elk
H
ismith
Side-by-sides………
Replies
19
Views
997
44hunter45
44hunter45
Dave N
Shell holders for single shots?
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
Dave N
Dave N

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,671
Messages
2,029,106
Members
36,277
Latest member
rt3bulldogs

Share this page

Back
Top