[markjo]

This "assassination attempt" looks even faker than the Miracle Ear one, not buying it.

It wasn't an assassination attempt.  He was just making sure that the Secret Service detail was on the ball after the Butler rally fiasco.

[Roundy]

I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.

Not that I don't agree with you, but why do you think Republicans can't be trusted with guns?

Where did you find this one? It just cracked me up! Thanks for joining us tonight, Roundy. I really really like this joke. Hahah.

Find what? Thomas Crooks was a Republican from the day he registered to vote to the day he died. Routh is apparently unaffiliated and voted in this year's Democratic primary but has also voted Republican in the past.

I'm not sure what "side" you're talking about, exactly, but it sure ain't Democrats.

[Rushy]

Find what? Thomas Crooks was a Republican from the day he registered to vote to the day he died. Routh is apparently unaffiliated and voted in this year's Democratic primary but has also voted Republican in the past.

I'm not sure what "side" you're talking about, exactly, but it sure ain't Democrats.

Ah yes, he was a registered Republican, in a race where Democrats specifically told people to register as Republican to vote against Trump. Telling people "ah he registered Republican!" does not actually mean he's a Republican. It's quite comical to constantly see this line of thought brought up. "Obviously the guy who went to a Republican rally to shoot Republicans was a Republican!" -braindead morons

Remember that time a gunman tried to shoot several Republican Congressmen at a baseball game. Gee wow, it's almost like there's an obvious pattern here.

Democrats constantly call Republicans "gun-toters" and "terrorists" because it's classic projection. It's just like AATW calling out his own country. He doesn't trust his fellow countrymen with guns because he doesn't trust himself with guns and projects it onto others. The fact of the matter is that Dems cheat elections, rig them so that you can't track their cheating, then, when that doesn't work, they try to shoot you dead. Our only saving grace is that they're as incompetent as they are evil.

[Action80]

Clearly, the only solution is for the Democrats to replace Biden on the ballot shortly before the election and not allow Republicans to run a lengthy negative campaign against them.

Gonna give credit for the prediction...doubt it will be helpful, but hey, you got the call.

[honk]

Did I really, though? Kamala isn't an unknown political figure, and Republicans have had more than enough time to adjust to running against her and prepare a negative campaign by now. They haven't been prevented from doing that. They just seem to be, well, paralyzed by the nominee change. It really seems like Republicans put all their eggs into the basket of Biden being a weak candidate whose age and diminished mental capacity would give them an easy victory. That's why Trump essentially squandered his VP pick on an untalented, uncharismatic, and repellent MAGA loyalist for the flex rather than try to broaden his appeal by choosing someone respected and established within the party. That's why there's been no real message or proper platform for his campaign. It's been almost entirely "Biden is old and weak (and has a shitty son). Vote for Trump instead." Replacing Biden has cut the heart out of Trump's entire approach.

[Lord Dave]

Trump didn't squander it, he chose a VP who wouldn't be like Pence.  He wanted a blind loyalist.  He learned his lesson.

[Action80]

I think JD Vance has enough background to demonstrate he isn't really a Trump loyalist and I think the made-for-TV era has finally lost its last bit of disguise.

[Lord Dave]

I think JD Vance has enough background to demonstrate he isn't really a Trump loyalist and I think the made-for-TV era has finally lost its last bit of disguise.

"I would have asked the states to submit alternative slates of electors and let the country have the debate," Vance said when asked if he'd refuse to certify the election.

His own words seems to say otherwise.

[Action80]

You mean he hasn't said anything else?

[Lord Dave]

You mean he hasn't said anything else?

He has I just don't know of it.
But please feel free to quote his comments that show he would not be Trump's loyal lapdog.

[markjo]

But please feel free to quote his comments that show he would not be Trump's loyal lapdog.

Do you mean like these quotes from before he became Trump's loyal lapdog?
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/15/jd-vance-donald-trump-comments-00168450

[Roundy]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-jewish-voters-will-bear-lot-blame-loses-fighting-antisemiti-rcna171938

Did we already have "scapegoating Jews" on the list of ways Trump is like Hitler or is this a new one?

[Lord Dave]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-jewish-voters-will-bear-lot-blame-loses-fighting-antisemiti-rcna171938

Did we already have "scapegoating Jews" on the list of ways Trump is like Hitler or is this a new one?

I'm pretty sure at this point he's blamed every group that exists except himself.

[Rushy]

Harris to Oprah: Anyone Breaking Into My House Is ‘Getting Shot’

Vice President Kamala Harris said she is in favor of the Second Amendment at a campaign event with Oprah Winfrey. “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said.

Nice. I've never heard Trump saying anything this amazing.

[Lord Dave]

Harris to Oprah: Anyone Breaking Into My House Is ‘Getting Shot’

Vice President Kamala Harris said she is in favor of the Second Amendment at a campaign event with Oprah Winfrey. “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said.

Nice. I've never heard Trump saying anything this amazing.

What?  But Democrats hate guns!   This must be a trick!  I bet she doesn't even own a gun!  She's a liar!
-Trumptards

[markjo]

Harris to Oprah: Anyone Breaking Into My House Is ‘Getting Shot’

Vice President Kamala Harris said she is in favor of the Second Amendment at a campaign event with Oprah Winfrey. “If somebody breaks in my house, they’re getting shot,” Harris said.

Nice. I've never heard Trump saying anything this amazing.

What?  But Democrats hate guns!   This must be a trick!  I bet she doesn't even own a gun!  She's a liar!
-Trumptards

She doesn't have a gun, but her secret service detail does.

[honk]

No, Harris does have a gun, and that was the context of her comment about shooting someone:

https://thehill.com/homenews/4889914-kamala-harris-gun-owner-oprah/

It makes sense for a prosecutor to own a gun. You never know when a criminal you've thrown in jail in the past might show up to say hello.

[Rushy]

“I think for far too long on the issue of gun violence, some people have been pushing a really false choice to say you’re either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone’s guns away. I’m in favor of the second amendment, and I’m in favor of assault weapons bans, universal background checks, red flag laws,” Harris said, prompting Winfrey to ask about her gun ownership.

The problem here is that "assault weapons" is a nebulous term that doesn't mean anything. Politicians usually use it to refer to AR-15 style weapons. AR-15 style weapons are a tiny portion of violent crime, but a large portion of gun owners. It's for this reason that gun owners on the right make such a fuss about it, and I think that reason is plain: the vast majority (read: >99%) of AR-15 owners have done nothing wrong.

A Chicago-style handgun ban would be more effective regarding violent crime yet major candidates never bring it up. Why? It's quite puzzling. It's almost like they're not actually interested in lowering violent crime and it's a Trojan horse to disarm large portions of the population by taking away the most popular gun in America.

In 2020, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 3% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (36%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”

Really activates the ol' almonds.

[markjo]

The problem here is that "assault weapons" is a nebulous term that doesn't mean anything. Politicians usually use it to refer to AR-15 style weapons. AR-15 style weapons are a tiny portion of violent crime, but a large portion of gun owners. It's for this reason that gun owners on the right make such a fuss about it, and I think that reason is plain: the vast majority (read: >99%) of AR-15 owners have done nothing wrong.

I think that the reason that the left makes such a fuss about it is that AR style weapons are a significant portion of mass shootings.  So yeah, a tiny minority of mass murderers are ruining it for the vast majority of responsible gun owners. 

If only someone could figure out a way to keep AR style guns, as well as handguns,  out of the hands of people who have no business having them without trampling the rights of law abiding citizens.  It's a shame that too many politicians don't even want to discuss it, lest they incur the wrath of the NRA.

[Rushy]

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 167 different handguns being used in 117 incidents between 1982 and September 2024. These figures are calculated from a total of 151 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 78 percent of mass shootings.

I think that the reason that the left makes such a fuss about it is that AR style weapons are a significant portion of mass shootings.  So yeah, a tiny minority of mass murderers are ruining it for the vast majority of responsible gun owners. 

This depends on what you mean by "significant". Very few mass shootings are done with rifles, the majority of them are done with handguns. Now if you narrow down "mass shooting" to "I saw it on the news" then sure, maybe AR-15's are the most commonly reported on mainstream media. Why is that, I wonder? What is the driving narrative behind it? If mass shootings were such a big deal, shouldn't we see reports about the hundreds of mass shootings conducted with handguns per year? No? Odd.

If only someone could figure out a way to keep AR style guns, as well as handguns,  out of the hands of people who have no business having them without trampling the rights of law abiding citizens.  It's a shame that too many politicians don't even want to discuss it, lest they incur the wrath of the NRA.

My point is that if you had god-like powers to remove every AR-15 in America, your total impact on gun violence would barely make a dent. It's a huge amount of effort for very little gain. It doesn't have good calculus with "my intention is to save people" and instead aligns more suspiciously with "my intention is to disarm most of you". Even if we say "ah, well, Harris has good intentions, even if they don't affect much gun violence" then we must also accept that rather than being malicious, she's just being incompetent. Should we accept a politician's incompetence needlessly stripping property from Americans who haven't done anything wrong? Seems remarkably unnecessary to me.

Gun violence with AR-15s is so rare that this turns into a more comical analogy of "ban cars to stop drunk drivers". Obviously the primary use case of an AR-15 in America is not murdering people, mass shooting or otherwise. It's the most popular gun in America and yet it's rarely seen in violent crime. There are millions of them.