President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

Ugh.

OK. Sorry for trying to make a simple point.

But, if you are going to say that something very rare -- unprecedented perhaps -- happened, instead of something far more likely, you should be prepared to be wrong.

 

I'm not a gun nut. I don't give a shit, except for all the people who have holes in them.

 

@YankeeFan walking the sidelines at the West Podunk-Podunk showdown: "Wait, was that a running play or a pass?"
Seasoned sports journalist: "He caught a ball that was thrown to him by some other guy, what the fuck do you think it was?"
@YankeeFan: "Well, as I understand it if the quarterback tosses the ball backwards to the running back it's a run, but if he tosses it forwards it's a pass."
Seasoned sports journalist (as other seasoned sports journalists nod their heads): "Really, what the fuck does it matter?"

 

I fully believe in grammar and punctuation. I'm just poorly educated.

I don't believe I've stood behind everything the Trump administration says. I certainly don't believe they have always been factual.

But, what we've seen is that the coverage of Trump, and even more so, the comments here, is so riddled with errors, that pointing this out is seen as "defending Trump" and everything he says/does.

 

I'm no gun nut either. Have never owned one. Don't intend to ever own one.

I've fired a gun on one occasion, at a shooting range in Texas, when our secretary, embarrassed for me because I had never held/fired a gun, arranged for her husband, a former shooting instructor in the army to take me to a gun range. I enjoyed it, and while I wouldn't object to doing it again, I have no need to ever fire a gun again.

And, I also care about the folks shot, and injured in other ways.

No one should interpret anything I've said to suggest otherwise.

I tried to make one very simple point about how rare an event it would be for a fully automatic (or illegally modified) weapon to have been used in an event like this. I warned folks to wait for actual reporting before making such a claim, despite what their ears might have been telling them.

In replying to your post that not every person injured had been shot, I did not mean in any way to play some sort of game of "gotcha" with you, be argumentative with you, or suggest you were attempting to mislead anyone.

It doesn't make this event any less awful if 300 or 400 people were shot, as opposed to 600.

 

Seriously y'all, YF was technically correct. But in the grand scheme of things, Paddock was firing a de facto automatic weapon.

Move on to another debate - like Trump's towel tossing form.

 

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting that Rep. Tim Murphy, one of the strongest anti-abortion members of the House, wrote to his mistress urging her to get one when she became pregnant. Don't know a damn thing about Murphy, but his life just took a significant turn for the worse.

 

I think there are many 'round here who would find admitting that to be harder than typing "Trump's got a point there."

 

So automatic weapons are severely regulated, hard to get, and seldom used in crimes, including not being used in this one. Isn't that an argument that if we severely regulated the guns that WERE used in this massacre, there'd be fewer such crimes as well?

 

There was no argument implied, other than it would be rare for such a weapon to be used.

I think it's a fine argument to make. I'm willing to consider it, and see the merit in the point.

But, I wasn't trying to make that argument, or some opposite argument, in making my point.

 

By jove I think he's got it!

 

I misspoke. The first 10 amendments cannot be collectively purged, but individual amendments are subject to the same process as the others. Stupid of me. (Yes, I know I am now exposing myself to more snark.)
Hammer away while the president berates Puerto Rico.