And, in his typical approach of “say anything and everything and see what sticks”, Trump floated several ideas at the listening session, including background checks, age restrictions on some gun purchases, and arming teachers, which he said “could very well solve your problem.”
Putting aside for the moment that arming teachers is a harebrained idea, note that he told students who had just survived a mass shooting that this was their problem. Is there nothing the man cannot fuck up?
No.
In fact, I bet he could fuck up fucking up. Actually I believe that’s how he won the election that he didn’t really want to win.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
“YOUR problem?” Really? Someone get an adult in the room. How more clear can it be that this waste of plasma DOES NOT CARE?
The Trump Administration in a nutshell. When you don’t care about something, like Health and Human Services, just leave all the positions empty and appoint one guy to “oversee” every department that used to do something, but now doesn’t…
Haven’t watched the video to see if he used or even glanced at the card, but it seems to me that 45 wouldn’t have come up with the idea of such a cheat sheet, almost certainly didn’t write it, and likely had to be heavily talked into carrying it at all (with those ‘persuaders’ having little to no hope that he’d actually use it in anything approaching an effective manner).
These young peeps are grilling everyone and Rubio at the town hall meeting. They are sweating way less than the suits.
No doubt the gun filth will lap up that idea.
Fred Guttenberg just fucking destroyed Marco Rubio.
“Fred’s daughter was lost this week”
No, damnit, she was not “lost”. She was murdered. Use your words!
Nooooooo thanks.
I went to Catholic schools. I’ve seen what nuns can do with yardsticks. The idea of Nuns with Guns terrifies me
https://www.google.com/search?q=nuns+with+guns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCi4mOy7nZAhXFzlMKHbb4BJcQ_AUICigB&biw=1440&bih=729
I agree completely. Now is not the time for euphemisms!
I know the feeling. I’ve consistently voted for the Tories as far back as 1988 (I was and still am pro free-trade) and our conservatives are intellectual giants compared to those now known as American conservatives.
I suspect the distinction at least in part derives from the Canadian ideal of “Peace, Order and Good Government”, while the Americans, since at least as far back as Reagan’s 1981 “Government is the problem” inaugural speech, have been sold the idea that government is something to be feared, mistrusted and opposed.
In addition to a billion dollars a day in trade, the Americans are most useful to us as an ongoing cautionary example.
The NRA may be evil, but you have to give them credit, they’ve done a terrific job of being evil.
Fifty ago the idea that the Second Amendment meant anyone could stockpile any number of guns without any sort of restriction was regarded as a lunatic fringe theory, on par with sovereign citizens. In almost two centuries of Constitutional history, effectively no one had ever interpreted the Second Amendment that way - not conservatives, not liberals, not the Supreme Court. A handful of nuts. The “my guns are the most important element of freedom” thing so prevalent today simply did not exist until approximately 40 years ago and wasn’t really a strong thing even then.
The NRA and Republican Party have managed to completely alter the dialogue on this and create in the minds of the citizenry - and install on the bench - the concept of absolute gun rights. This is a new thing in the United States, not a historical phenomenon, and is reaching heights of absurdity.
One is reminded of the apocryphal story of the boiled frog. People - million of people - are actually, honestly saying that schoolteachers should carry guns. This is utterly bone stupid to the point of absolute insanity, obviously, but it’s not something you could have done without decades of gun obswession being sold to the populace. If there had been a rash of school shootings in 1964 and an America said “Let’s have teachers pack heat” everyone would have thought that person was insane. 100 Senators, 50 Governors and 435 Representatives, all Democrats and Republicans, would have found such a proposition ludicrous. The NRA would have laughed at such an imbecilic idea.
But after four decades of the new NRA pushing gun obsession, here we are. It’s probably going to happen, and more people will die as a result. No lobby group has changed American political life more.
A slight hijack to say that this latest atrocity moved me to do something I’ve never done in my long adult life: write to my Congressperson. And I told her that somebody needs to stand up in Congress and say the unthinkable: repeal the 2nd Amendment. And she’s the right one to do it (probably the most liberal member of the House in a very safe seat.)
I tried to think of a rival and the WCTU came to mind - perhaps in some ways it was more remarkable since for most of its history, most of its membership couldn’t vote. Their big success, prohibition, was fairly brief, though, while the NRA-driven Wild-Westification of America continues.
The only immediate hope for lasting change I can currently see is if the kids can maintain their outrage through November 2018 and November 2020, and the 18-29 cohort goes from the bloc least likely to vote to become one of the most likely to vote. If turnout in the upcoming midterms follow the usual pattern, the NRA will have won for another decade at least.
Longer-term, maybe the financial support of the NRA (i.e. the gun manufacturers) is weakened when home 3D printing allows people to make as many guns as they want. Of course, by then, notions of gun control could be moot. I’m a little concerned about what effect this might have on Canada, but I have reasonable confidence that by and large my fellow citizens don’t want to stockpile guns, nor do they view guns as necessary tools of freedom (a lie frequently told to Americans). We already have guns and can get more guns, but the artificially stimulated demand just isn’t here.
I have to admit, when I picture a school shooting in the U.S. in 1964, what comes to mind is someone shooting at Negroes who were trying to integrate, and the response isn’t to arm teachers, but to send in the National Guard.
Seen on my Facebook feed: “Ronald Reagan was surrounded by Secret Service agents when he was shot. I guess they just needed a few armed math teachers.”
I’m in a restaurant, just saw a news crawl on TV screen that said an NRA official is blaming gun-free zones for school shootings. Right.
That’s nothing new. The premise is that shooters choose a target that is known to be gunfree.
Which probably has some validity. Doesn’t mean the answer is to arm people who can’t shoot.
That’s cute. All I see now are lists of notorious shooters and the claim that each was a Democrat sort of like Snopes covers here.
So we get: More guns are the answer, the outraged kids are actors, they could have been killed with a knife, mass killers are always Democrats, the victims should have fought better… and so on every single time.
The mention of Reagan reminds me of a bit of interesting history that raises a fascination question:
If some prominent Black Lives Matter spokesperson were to suggest that his followers arm themselves for self-defense against police abuse, which right-wing pundit would produce the largest cranial blast radius?