Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Another Shooting In America?

1757677787981»

Comments

  • No it's not.
    Any President has to have some immunity for actions taken during their term, otherwise they would never take any tough decisions.
    Or are you suggesting that Obama should now face trial for the estimated between 64 and 116 civilians that he had killed in 542 airstrikes?
    If Trump truly believed that the election had been stolen from him, then he had every right to challenge the result.
    But, they shouldn't have immunity for personal criminal actions (the recent SCOTUS decision, which has taken an "original" interpretation of what the framers of the US Constitution, leaves it for the lower courts to determine whether or not he was acting in an official capacity)...

    But, getting back to the shooting, quite widespread reporting that the gunman, using his father's gun, was a Republican Party member, but seems to have been influenced by the likes of Nick Fuentes (he did, when 17, donate $15 to the Democratic Party).

    It seems as if, had he been three feet or so to the left, he would have had clear sight of Trump, but been out of line of sight for the Secret Service sniper teams, behind a tree.

    Looking likely that local law enforcement, who were using the yard in which the building used is, had failed to secure the area properly.
  • swordfish said:
    Well you'd be wrong. Not for the first time. Time for the footy. 
    Indeed got caught on the hop again and is now back tracking. Can't recall either of us supporting violence or mocking the dead or dying or assassination attempts. Where as some have history of it. 
  • But, they shouldn't have immunity for personal criminal actions (the recent SCOTUS decision, which has taken an "original" interpretation of what the framers of the US Constitution, leaves it for the lower courts to determine whether or not he was acting in an official capacity)...

    But, getting back to the shooting, quite widespread reporting that the gunman, using his father's gun, was a Republican Party member, but seems to have been influenced by the likes of Nick Fuentes (he did, when 17, donate $15 to the Democratic Party).

    It seems as if, had he been three feet or so to the left, he would have had clear sight of Trump, but been out of line of sight for the Secret Service sniper teams, behind a tree.

    Looking likely that local law enforcement, who were using the yard in which the building used is, had failed to secure the area properly.
    What tree between the shooter and Trump?
  • Indeed got caught on the hop again and is now back tracking. Can't recall either of us supporting violence or mocking the dead or dying or assassination attempts. Where as some have history of it. 
    Why he's found and posted something utterly distasteful to cover his back and tried (failed) to pass it off as something I/we'd find amusing is beyond pathetic. As I'm not usually impolite to other posters though, I'll just say to other users that I find  it strange that some seem to feel the need to make light of an assassination attempt, but each to their own. 
  • But, they shouldn't have immunity for personal criminal actions (the recent SCOTUS decision, which has taken an "original" interpretation of what the framers of the US Constitution, leaves it for the lower courts to determine whether or not he was acting in an official capacity)...

    But, getting back to the shooting, quite widespread reporting that the gunman, using his father's gun, was a Republican Party member, but seems to have been influenced by the likes of Nick Fuentes (he did, when 17, donate $15 to the Democratic Party).

    It seems as if, had he been three feet or so to the left, he would have had clear sight of Trump, but been out of line of sight for the Secret Service sniper teams, behind a tree.

    Looking likely that local law enforcement, who were using the yard in which the building used is, had failed to secure the area properly.
    I agree, and that's just as it should be.
    But as distasteful as it seems, it is not illegal and not even unusual to pay "hush money" to an accuser.
    And that is why the Trump conviction will not stand, it was built upon a false premise.
  • What would need to happen for the gun laws to change in the US? How many deaths would be unacceptable?
  • swordfish said:
    Why he's found and posted something utterly distasteful to cover his back and tried (failed) to pass it off as something I/we'd find amusing is beyond pathetic. As I'm not usually impolite to other posters though, I'll just say to other users that I find  it strange that some seem to feel the need to make light of an assassination attempt, but each to their own. 
    Their certainly something missing from upstairs that's for sure. 
  • Trump's message is 'making America safe again'. A country so awash with guns is never going to be safe and Trump doesn't want to get rid of them. Of course nobody deserves to be shot at, but a shooting in America doesn't come as a surprise any more.
  • On gun control, has anyone really made any significant inroads in the last 50 years? Or is the constitution absolute?
  • Sponsored links:


  • I am going to be truthful and will no doubt get some stick.
    I fully endorse democracy and that this action was unacceptable.
    At the same time, I wish the gunman had been a better shot.
  • edited July 2024
    I am going to be truthful and will no doubt get some stick.
    I fully endorse democracy and that this action was unacceptable.
    At the same time, I wish the gunman had been a better shot.
     Someone get the stick :D
  • Trump's message is 'making America safe again'. A country so awash with guns is never going to be safe and Trump doesn't want to get rid of them. Of course nobody deserves to be shot at, but a shooting in America doesn't come as a surprise any more.
    Mmm. It's a very difficult one.
     I wouldn't want to bring an extremely tragic recent event into this conversation. However being allowed to keep a gun in the house, for ones personal protection, and that of ones family in a dire emergency against an intruder with malicious intent, doesn't seem like a bad idea.
  • JamesSeed said:
    I’d always rather keep the UK gun laws thanks very much. 
    The gun kept at home for self sentence is so easily used for something else when tempers are raised or mental health issues arise. Fewer guns, fewer gun related deaths. It ain’t rocket science. Remember Dunblane? Well I’m quite proud of the way we learned from it, and took action. 
    Dunblane precipitated the ban on hand guns in the UK. Obviously, the only reason to own a hand gun - as opposed to a rifle or shotgun - is that it can be concealed. 

    I'd be interested to know whether the UK would be a better place were we to overturn the handgun ban. I imagine very few sensible people would argue for that. 
  • JamesSeed said:
    I’d always rather keep the UK gun laws thanks very much. 
    The gun kept at home for self sentence is so easily used for something else when tempers are raised or mental health issues arise. Fewer guns, fewer gun related deaths. It ain’t rocket science. Remember Dunblane? Well I’m quite proud of the way we learned from it, and took action. 
    Australia with the Port Arthur Massacre too.

    It's such a shame it's so entrenched in so many US citizens.

    I've got a friend in Vermont and we agree on a lot, politically, socially etc.  But when it comes to guns, he carries a licence for concealed weapons, carries it grocery shopping etc.  Gives the 'responsible gun owners' line.

    So strange to me.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Nug said:
    First thing they could do is ban all guns apart from handguns then. So in the extremely unlikely event someone breaks into your house with the intention of killing you, you can go to the cupboard where the gun is locked away, load it and have a gun fight with the intruder.

    Bottom line is no-one, apart from the military, needs a machine gun and banning everything apart from hand guns would be massive change. It’ll never happen though. They love their guns.
    I'd agree with that. A compromise between self protection and preservation, and the avoidance of mass casualties, is probably the way forward.
  • Chizz said:
    Dunblane precipitated the ban on hand guns in the UK. Obviously, the only reason to own a hand gun - as opposed to a rifle or shotgun - is that it can be concealed. 

    I'd be interested to know whether the UK would be a better place were we to overturn the handgun ban. I imagine very few sensible people would argue for that. 
    Actually a hand gun is far superior if you are defending yourself within your own home.
  • edited July 2024
    MrWalker said:
    Actually a hand gun is far superior if you are defending yourself within your own home.

     
This discussion has been closed.

Roland Out Forever!