Another shooting at Trump
-
@George-K said in Another shooting at Trump:
@jon-nyc said in Another shooting at Trump:
Probably a reason they memed the print edition and not the website. Print edition had an early deadline. Website has no deadline.
Fair, if true.
Now explain this. Bloomberg's focus is how Republicans
pounceseize.
-
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in Another shooting at Trump:
According to a report I saw, the golf game wasn’t on Trump’s public schedule. He actually wasn’t supposed to be there.
I've seen that as well. So how did the assassin-wannabe know where and when to be there. One report said he arrived 12 hours before the event. Did he just show up and hope that Trump would go for a round of golf?
-
@jon-nyc said in Another shooting at Trump:
So it looks like the guy never fired a shot. I wonder how much that complicates the prosecution and what he can be charged with.
NEW: The USSS Director says during a press conference the man with the gun did not have a line of sight to Trump and fired no shots. The investigation is ongoing, but so far there are only gun charges.
-
If he was there for 12 hours, one might assume that lots of golfers passed by. He was probably waiting for a particular golfer.
But lacking more information, we should not jump to any conclusions about who he may have been waiting for. It's too early to tell. Let's allow the investigation play out.
-
Though his schedule wasn’t public, it’s probably pretty easy to tell he or a family member is there based on local activity, eg the quantity of black SUV’s with government plates. I wonder if he had been in the area a while or just came in recently. If the former he could have figured out there was a high probability Trump was there even though the schedule wasn’t public.
-
Elon Musk chimes in:
(He did delete it, but as smart people here have said, "The internet is forever")
-
-
@Jolly said in Another shooting at Trump:
Personal comment...
Of all rifles to attempt a 300-500 yard shot, I would not pick an AK. They have pinned barrels and accuracy of about 3 MOA in 7.62x39 (most common caliber). That means about 9 inches at 300 yards and 15 inches at 500 yards, even with a good scope.
I went shooting with my BIL one winter in a large field. We shot using a 307 (Remington?) rifle, prone position, and a very well dialed in scope. Was fun to hit our targets, but I certainly learned how hard it was.
You’ll appreciate this, I was shooting that day with a bunch of Wisconsin farmboys (ok, in their 30s, half trained for the local SWAT team) and they were convinced I was undercover secret service since I “lived near DC”.
I did see one guy hit a target from 700 yards though, that was particularly cool. Even though it took quite a few tries.
-
@jon-nyc said in Another shooting at Trump:
Seems transparently false. If anything there’s elation about a failed (non)attempt and the expected bump in polls. It’s a news cycle victory extraordinaire.
None will say that, but watch how they behave.
Sure, this is a thing that happens. Just like the Democrats were elated at Jan 6. None will say it, but watch how they act.
-
Probably a Remington 700 chambered in .308 Win. That's mostly a very accurate combo.
I used to shoot with a former Marine sniper (19 confirmed kills in the Nam) that loved that combo. At 200 yards, he could call his shots on a medium size cereal box...Right bottom corner, dead center, etc.
If you can get some bowling pins, try those at 300. Ain't easy.
700 is waaay outta my league
-
@Horace said in Another shooting at Trump:
Just like the Democrats were elated at Jan 6. None will say it, but watch how they act.
The RWEC explains the new rules.
"Back when Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked with a hammer, I was informed that, if the victim of an attack had at any point been “demonized” by a political party, then that political party was responsible for what follows. Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of that ugly incident, the Washington Post recruited no fewer than three of its top writers to draw a direct line between the assault on Paul Pelosi and a series of anti-Nancy political commercials that were run in 2010 — twelve years earlier. The “years of vilification,” the Post proposed, “culminated Friday when Pelosi’s husband, Paul, was attacked with a hammer during an early-morning break-in at the couple’s home in San Francisco by a man searching for the speaker and shouting ‘Where is Nancy? Where is Nancy?’” Lest anyone misunderstand what it meant by “culminated,” the paper made sure to spell it out. “For many Democrats,” the piece concluded, “the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband represents the all-but-inevitable conclusion of Republicans’ increasingly violent and threatening rhetoric toward their political opponent.”
I suppose that if someone is a "direct threat to our democracy," however, those rules don't apply. And CNN tells us that Trump should "tone down the rhetoric."
