Donald Trump

Pross

So did Trump actually condemn the attack or just suggest it was all the doing of Satan rather than a white middle aged American citizen?

Matthewfalle

What does "my warmest sympathies" as used by Trunp mean?

Deepest sympathies" yes, but "warmest"?

Does seem somewhat odd.......

briantrumpet

Matthewfalle wrote:

What does "my warmest sympathies" as used by Trunp mean?

Deepest sympathies" yes, but "warmest"?

Does seem somewhat odd.......

Given that he knows niether how to be warm or sympathetic, I don't think we should read to much into his ...big ... wordy... things. Well, nothing else than he's an unpleasant deluded lunatic. But I don't think that that's news to many people here.

briantrumpet

Matthewfalle wrote:

What does "my warmest sympathies" as used by Trunp mean?

Deepest sympathies" yes, but "warmest"?

Does seem somewhat odd.......

That said, maybe it's an American thing... https://obituarieshelp.org/sympathy_sayings_page1.html - though I still doubt that Mr Tweety knows what it really means.

pblakeney

mfin wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It'll be fun whatever he says. Stick to script? Has he ever done that b4? If he has then Jeez he's got some batsh1t crazy script writers!

seems he's stuck to 'scriptures' instead

Yep, and it being "pure evil".

Bloody religious claptrap. There's no such thing as "evil" in just the same way as there's no such thing as dragons.

It's lucky everyone in the USA is (a) Religious, and (b) Christian. Otherwise, his comments would have only talked to a subsection of americans :roll:

Religion has no place in politics and my guess is people of other religions and no religion were caught up in this shooting.

It is America. Outside of major cities people will actually knock on the door to check that you are okay if you’ve not been to church in a while.

tangled_metal

Yes but you have the right to shoot them if they're in your property if they do that!

letap73

A top rated comment from Breitbart:
This is caused by $#@% #$%'s like Trudeau in Canada who has media attention and his only response to a terror attack in his own country was tweet a picture saying "white supremacists". Those &%$#@s better start packing
It isn't the shooters. It's the fckers winding them up!!
The genocidal commies have to GO By AMN.
ABSOLUTELY FED UP AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE

Anybody explain how Trudeau is to blame or the liberals?

Pross

letap73 wrote:

A top rated comment from Breitbart:
This is caused by $#@% #$%'s like Trudeau in Canada who has media attention and his only response to a terror attack in his own country was tweet a picture saying "white supremacists". Those &%$#@s better start packing
It isn't the shooters. It's the fckers winding them up!!
The genocidal commies have to GO By AMN.
ABSOLUTELY FED UP AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE

Anybody explain how Trudeau is to blame or the liberals?

Yeah, the Country music scene is a hotbed of Commie genocidal maniacs from what I've been told. It's why it never caught on in the southern states.

I don't know about a ban on guns but some of these morons need to be kept away from technology. I'm starting to think the Internet is the worst invention in the history of mankind!

tailwindhome

PBlakeney wrote:

Outside of major cities people will actually knock on the door to check that you are okay if you’ve not been to church in a while.

That's not the most convincing criticism of religious fanatics....

pinno

NRA Policy committee sits down for an extra-ordinary meeting after the Vegas massacre.

"That guy in Columbine - oh yeah, he was nuts and that terrorist Guy, yeah he was a terrorist and that guy in Vegas,,, he was an accountant..."
"An accountant?! Wait a minute, no history of nothin'?"
"No no no man, he was evil, pure evil".
"Sure, he was evil that explains it. What we need is more guns to stop these damn evil people".
"Now let's get back to putting some pressure on Donny to relax those damn gun laws."

Quite what logic the NRA will assume to maintain their democratic right after this, I do not know.

tangled_metal

Don't need logic. They're American and the right to bear arms is part of the constitution. In some ways there is a similarity between islamic fundamentalists / Christian fundamentalists and American's right ot bear arms in their constitutions. Both rely on obeying a strict interpretation of an outdated document in a literal way. Just as muslim fundamentalists follow a set of documents written a thousand years ago to the morals and standards of those days the NRA follow a document written hundreds of years ago to the standards and morals of those days. In both cases the rest of the world has modernized and society has moved on in many ways. However Americans are uable to realise or accept that parts of their constitution needs changing because they are no longer fit for purpose in the modern world. Change it or ppl will continue dying. Not that the change will stop gun deaths because there are so many guns around.

Message to Americans, your right to bear arms needs modifying to a right to bear arms that you actually need for legitimate and practical purpose such as sport, food, safety in the wilderness (there's bears in the forest don't you know) or forcs of law and order. If no justification then no gun. Plus strict checks by dedicated agency or the police. In fact just follow the UK's practise as a guideline. BTW there is no justification for owning fully or semi automatic guns even if they were made before 1986 or so. Rifles for hunting, large calibre but low number of round guns for close protection in the wilderness (apparently it is sensible for ppl in wilderness areas to carry a rifle for seld defence but if not to hand a handgun on the hip that can be reached if caught out quickly by say a brown bear out to kill).

Not going to happen! Get the body bags ordered for the next one America!!

FishFish

mfin wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

It'll be fun whatever he says. Stick to script? Has he ever done that b4? If he has then Jeez he's got some batsh1t crazy script writers!

seems he's stuck to 'scriptures' instead

Yep, and it being "pure evil".

Bloody religious claptrap. There's no such thing as "evil" in just the same way as there's no such thing as dragons.

It's lucky everyone in the USA is (a) Religious, and (b) Christian. Otherwise, his comments would have only talked to a subsection of americans :roll:

Religion has no place in politics and my guess is people of other religions and no religion were caught up in this shooting.

I agree that there are no dragons but equally there is no sense or maturity in your remark. Evil is a defined word in the English language - but perhaps you want to ban it. As for religion and politics - work out Shia states where the head of state is the head of the religion within the middle east.

pblakeney

^^^^
Well the supreme governor of the Church of England is Queen Elizabeth.

pblakeney

TailWindHome wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Outside of major cities people will actually knock on the door to check that you are okay if you’ve not been to church in a while.

That's not the most convincing criticism of religious fanatics....

The point was that it is unusual not to go to church rather than extremism.
A non-religious couple that I know outside Atlanta regularly had people ask them why they hadn’t attended church. The church goers eventually gave up, before they were shot.

rolf_f

Pross wrote:

I don't know about a ban on guns but some of these morons need to be kept away from technology. I'm starting to think the Internet is the worst invention in the history of mankind!

It is definitely up there. It gave knowledge to the stupid. I'm glad I won't be around in 100 years. Mind you, at this rate, nobody will be around in a 100 years.....

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

^^^^
Well the supreme governor of the Church of England is Queen Elizabeth.

True. The Head of state should be separate from any religion.
Mind you, in Liz's case, the only person she has seen getting stoned is probably her sister, who allegedly liked a good time.

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

I don't know about a ban on guns but some of these morons need to be kept away from technology. I'm starting to think the Internet is the worst invention in the history of mankind!

It is definitely up there. It gave knowledge to the stupid. I'm glad I won't be around in 100 years. Mind you, at this rate, nobody will be around in a 100 years.....

Oh get a grip. You sound like some 19th century aristocrat worrying about the great unwashed having access to schools and libraries in case they get ideas above their station. There are issues with the likes of Facebook, etc. claiming to be just passing on other people's content when their algorithms are very clearly shaping what 'news' people see and don't see. And BTL comments and (ahem) forums give the illusion of importance to every uninformed utterance. But this is just society getting to grips with new forms of communication.

rolf_f

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

I don't know about a ban on guns but some of these morons need to be kept away from technology. I'm starting to think the Internet is the worst invention in the history of mankind!

It is definitely up there. It gave knowledge to the stupid. I'm glad I won't be around in 100 years. Mind you, at this rate, nobody will be around in a 100 years.....

Oh get a grip. You sound like some 19th century aristocrat worrying about the great unwashed having access to schools and libraries in case they get ideas above their station. There are issues with the likes of Facebook, etc. claiming to be just passing on other people's content when their algorithms are very clearly shaping what 'news' people see and don't see. And BTL comments and (ahem) forums give the illusion of importance to every uninformed utterance. But this is just society getting to grips with new forms of communication.

I have a grip thank you very much! Anyway, there is a lot of harm that has happened as a result of easy access to knowledge. That is a fact. Maybe society will get to grips with it but the cost might be the end of democracy in its current form.

pblakeney

Rolf F wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Pross wrote:

I don't know about a ban on guns but some of these morons need to be kept away from technology. I'm starting to think the Internet is the worst invention in the history of mankind!

It is definitely up there. It gave knowledge to the stupid. I'm glad I won't be around in 100 years. Mind you, at this rate, nobody will be around in a 100 years.....

Oh get a grip. You sound like some 19th century aristocrat worrying about the great unwashed having access to schools and libraries in case they get ideas above their station. There are issues with the likes of Facebook, etc. claiming to be just passing on other people's content when their algorithms are very clearly shaping what 'news' people see and don't see. And BTL comments and (ahem) forums give the illusion of importance to every uninformed utterance. But this is just society getting to grips with new forms of communication.

I have a grip thank you very much! Anyway, there is a lot of harm that has happened as a result of easy access to knowledge. That is a fact. Maybe society will get to grips with it but the cost might be the end of democracy in its current form.

Bloody voters finding out what is going on in the background. Keep em in the dark says I.

tangled_metal

@rolf f
"We're doomed! We're doomed!"

Spoken with a Scottish accent like dad's army character.

If you think that internet is bad you should have been around in IIRC France a few hundred years back when there was a huge surge in pamphlets being published criticizing the regime of the day, promoting loose morals and the complete disintegration of society. It didn't end society BTW, France is still mostly civilized.

pinno

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

^^^^
Well the supreme governor of the Church of England is Queen Elizabeth.

True. The Head of state should be separate from any religion.
Mind you, in Liz's case, the only person she has seen getting stoned is probably her sister, who allegedly liked a good time.

Warning: Way off topic.

She's had fun knowing that older sister has had to do years of public engagements whilst she can get busy with the king size Rizla's round the back of the metaphorical bike sheds.

@Rolf: Don't let that Rjsterry talk to you like that - shoot the b4stard.

rolf_f

Pinno wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

^^^^
Well the supreme governor of the Church of England is Queen Elizabeth.

True. The Head of state should be separate from any religion.
Mind you, in Liz's case, the only person she has seen getting stoned is probably her sister, who allegedly liked a good time.

Warning: Way off topic.

She's had fun knowing that older sister has had to do years of public engagements whilst she can get busy with the king size Rizla's round the back of the metaphorical bike sheds.

@Rolf: Don't let that Rjsterry talk to you like that - shoot the b4stard.

If only I was in America I could. But here I am just a good guy without a gun. (And he's far too nice to shoot).

bianchimoon

Pinno wrote:

Quite what logic the NRA will assume to maintain their democratic right after this, I do not know.

They'll use the logic of throw money at Donny Darko's re-election campaign to make sure they keep those rights

rick_chasey

Aren't they currently discussing if they ought to legalise silencers?

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aren't they currently discussing if they ought to legalise silencers?

Silencers will allow people to sleep through the night when their neighbours are having a gun fight. What is not to like. I am glad that we don't have these tricky debates in the UK.

kingstongraham

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aren't they currently discussing if they ought to legalise silencers?

So the elk isn't spooked when you shoot the turkey?

fenix

If you want some (not so light) reading over lunch - check this out..

https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal ... -many-guns

It's not QUITE like the CSI on tv.

tangled_metal

Trump repealed the law which restricted certain mentally ill people from owning guns, his first act as POTUS I think.

He is currently working with senators to get a law through that will allow the sale, ownership and use of silencers to individual citizens. The police are trying to get that law stopped because it will hamper their ability to detect where gunfire is coming from. Basically the police view silencers as a safety risk brit their officers and will hamper them in their duties.

What a tool!

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aren't they currently discussing if they ought to legalise silencers?

They're already legal in some States I believe.

tangled_metal

They're restricted. The legislation had been approved to be put before the floor (I think that's the correct phrase). However it is being shelved because of an earlier shooting issue and Vegas too makes it inappropriate.

It's part of a law that'll allow silencers to be bought more easily but only a small part of it the rest is related to easing the law on legal concealed carries being allowed to cross state lines. If you leave Nevada with a handgun concealed to go into another state, irrespective of whether that state has concealed carry legislation, the person is breaking a federal law. Even if they have concealed carry license in the state of Nevada. Or at least that's what I read.

This shooting will not change the law towards gun control but it may prevent new ones that the NRA want to loosen even the limp wristed laws they already have. It has already led to democrats to position themselves for 20 20 primaries i think it is by calling for gun control. They know Trump got the POTUS job more than partly on the back of NRA support. He's already promised to have their back or some such phrasing/sentiment at the NRA annual conference. So they know gun control has no chance under republican control. After 2020 things may be different.