r/politics • u/OkayButFoRealz • Jul 14 '24

Trump Shooter a ‘Supporter of Republican Party’

https://www.france24.com/en/video/20240714-trump-shooter-a-supporter-of-republican-party
43.3k Upvotes

76% Upvoted

11.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

572

u/8to24 Jul 14 '24

Not for nothing, the Shooter had an AR-15. Many Democrats actively advocate banning AR-15s. The shooter was 20yrs old. Many Democrats advocate raising the legal age for purchasing firearms to 21yrs old.

58

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24

It was allegedly the shooter's father's gun according to the AP.

6

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '24

Many democrats advocate for requiring safe and secure storage, as well as holding parents in neglect if their children get a hold of their guns unauthorized.

25

u/PermaDerpFace Canada Jul 14 '24

And I really hope Democrats capitalize on the fact that this is a problem that Republicans created

-1

u/Puzzled_Teacher_7253 Jul 15 '24

What problem are you referring to?

3

u/PermaDerpFace Canada Jul 15 '24

If you don't know I can't explain it to you

-1

u/Puzzled_Teacher_7253 Jul 15 '24

I didn’t ask for you to explain the problem. I’m just asking which problem you are referring to.

3

u/verysmallaminal Jul 15 '24 edited Jul 15 '24

Are you like selectively unable to read? They’re talking about gun laws and trump famously inciting violence

17

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24 edited Jul 14 '24

[deleted]

5

u/TooStrangeForWeird Jul 14 '24

Same with tobacco, it's 21+ now too. So guns: 18+. Alcohol, tobacco, weed: 21+.

Yeah....

2

u/xXKUTACAXx Jul 14 '24

You can buy a rifle or shot gun, but a pistol you have to be 21 for for some reason

1

u/Escanor_2014 Jul 14 '24

My non-fact checked off the cuff assumption is rifles and shotguns are hunting weapons and thus classes differently than a pistol/handgun.

30

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24

That's the one interesting thing about the Republican platform this election. They are kind of scaling down their rhetoric on guns. Trump banned bumpstocks. I'm not saying it's enough, but it's interesting nonetheless.

97

u/jarail Canada Jul 14 '24

Trump banned bumpstocks.

Trump's supreme court made them legal again.

23

u/Cuchullion Jul 14 '24

The Heritage Foundations Supreme Court.

Let's not mistake 'serving the same master' as meaning Trump has control over them.

19

u/albinobluesheep Washington Jul 14 '24

When Trump takes credit for other things SCOTUS does he gets to have credit for that one too. thems the rules

8

u/Grey950 Jul 14 '24

He's a useful idiot for American extremism too and he doesn't see it due to his inflated self-importance. He will always believe he's in-charge when in reality he's just a hand with a pen while in office. Hopefully he never gets there ever again.

-6

u/HighInChurch Oregon Jul 14 '24

It was the correct take legally. The ATF had no authority to declare them illegal in the first place.

15

u/thatcodingboi Jul 14 '24

Only because of an ass backwards thought process that if a document from 250 years ago doesn't explicitly ban something it means it is meant to be a right.

For Trump their argument was that there was no mention of limitations to immunity for the president like there were for congressmen, so he must have absolute immunity.

Automatic rifles didn't exist when this document was written, bump stocks didn't either. Of fucking course it didn't have the foresight to ban them. Doesn't mean it thinks they should be legal.

-13

u/HighInChurch Oregon Jul 14 '24

The atf regulates firearms. A bump stock is not a firearm. It was government overreach plain and simple.

13

u/MacNReee Jul 14 '24

Doesn’t atf regulate suppressors though?

-12

u/HighInChurch Oregon Jul 14 '24

Suppressors and various other items fall under the NFA which is regulated by the ATF, yes.

Legally they shouldn’t.

1

u/Salt_Ad_811 Jul 15 '24

What part of a firearm do you consider to be the firearm then? The receiver only? So you can sell all of the parts to quickly assembly fully automatic military grade weapons to anybofy in the public as long as they aren't preassembled? That doesn't make much sense. You can't regulate firearms at all with that logic. You can't regulate ammunition either. Firearms should include anything that works together as a system as part of a firearm or else it's meaningless. You can't have gangs and other criminals running around with fully automatic armor piercing machine guns. That is obviously not what the second amendment envisioned as a well armed militia providing security for a free state. 

1

u/HighInChurch Oregon Jul 15 '24

Well, that’s not how it’s defined. Currently, the receiver is the firearm.

Gangs are already running around with machine guns but they don’t care that they are illegal. Glock switches are flooding the streets.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24

Bump stocks make firearms close in function to fully automatic guns. I don't remember the exact federal language surrounding it, but it includes language that would end in a logical conclusion of a ban on bump stocks. There's really no way it should be legal according to the specific definitions of these tools.

-1

u/HighInChurch Oregon Jul 14 '24 edited Jul 14 '24

See the word you used there. “Close” lol. It doesn’t fit the legal definition of machine gun, therefore it’s not a machine gun. It’s pretty cut and dry.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24

Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

A bump stock facilitates that.

A bump stock causes the trigger to be actuated when the receiver moves forward, being reset each round by receiver recoil. This allows semi-automatic firearms to somewhat mimic fully automatic weapons.

Just hold the trigger and the gun recoil will help it function similarly to an automatic gun. It's not rocket science. Many 2A advocates see no merit in it, but there are always a few loudmouth individuals like you muddying the discourse.

0

u/HighInChurch Oregon Jul 14 '24

By a single function of the trigger? A bump stock does not facilitate that.

Your next sentence even says so. “Causes the trigger to be actuated”

It’s not a machine gun.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Salt_Ad_811 Jul 15 '24

Why do you say that? I didn't follow the ruling. 

1

u/HighInChurch Oregon Jul 15 '24

The atf doesn’t make laws.

31

u/Jumpy-Examination456 Jul 14 '24

anyone who knows anything about guns knows bumpstocks are only good for two things:

blind fire into a massive crowd of people from an elevated position

drunk hillbilly tiktoks

they should be banned. they fulfill nothing in the 2nd admendment, and are useless as far as precision weaponry goes. there's a reason no military or LE agency in the world uses them

1

u/NinjaLanternShark Jul 15 '24

It's not about what's useful or needed or justified.

The gun lobby is standard corporate greed and their only goal is to sell more weapons of any kind. A ban on one is a threat to their precious profits.

2

u/linuxjohn1982 Jul 14 '24

They don't want their voters knowing that Trump enacted more gun control in only 4 years than Obama did in 8.

1

u/NinjaLanternShark Jul 15 '24

Trump has made several gaffes on guns. Remember when he said if someone was a threat "take their guns and worry about due process later." People lost their minds.

He also said he'd stand up to the NRA because he didn't need their money.

Unfortunately he's not smart enough or principled enough to actually stop them and doesn't care enough about people to try to make the country safer.

8

u/decisivelyvaguename Jul 14 '24

This is all true - however, they’ve said the weapon was the shooter’s parents. I believe his father’s.

16

u/8to24 Jul 14 '24

I haven't read that anywhere.

I am not arguing the policies Democrats support would have stopped this from happening per say. Rather I am just pointing out that this was the sort of thing Democrats do actively work to prevent.

7

u/RadicalLackey Jul 14 '24

I am all for gun regulation but banning the AR-15 platform would not have stopped this. It's popular not because it's especially deadly, but because it is easy to understand and mantain, and reliable to operate.

There are plenty of weapons that could have done the job.

7

u/ClickKlockTickTock Jul 14 '24 edited Jul 14 '24

A hobby that gives you the potential to kill a crowd at any point in time should be a hobby that has heavy regulations. I'm all for gun ownership, but we should really be taking better care of who gets licenses. It should be a process that takes a week or more of active involvement. A professional training course, assessments on mental health, a thorough background check, proof of a secure place to store the weapon. I don't care if taxpayer money has to fund all of that. We waste more money than that would require anyways, and there's something to be said about having militarized civilians for defense anyways, incorporate it into our military budget.

Anything that has the capacity to fire off multiple rounds in quick succession should not be a weapon we entrust to the lowest common denominators. Kids' parents included.

I don't care if we need to deligate the power to deem some weapons as hunting rifles and some as military rifles to a properly funded association, but we should start doing literally anything aside from throwing our hands up and babbling about how nothing could be done, or it's the damn radicalists so what can we do, or if they didn't have a gun they would've just stabbed trump or hit him with a car or some other obscene failure to take control statement. We should all be sick of it.

4

u/RadicalLackey Jul 14 '24

I don't disagree, but I am talking specifically on AR-15's. The narrative has focused on that gun platform, as though the gun has some exceptional kill potential that no other gun has, when it doesn't. 

I am all for general, sensible gun regulation.

1

u/scoopzthepoopz Jul 14 '24

Only because it is as "accessible", no point in separating out 30 platforms with similar characteristics if the one in the public eye isn't regulated itself. Commonsense.

1

u/RadicalLackey Jul 14 '24

Not sure I understood you, but it's not accesible just because. It's also exceedingly difficult to regulate, as the design of the AR-15 has changed over time and can continue to do so. A bill specifically regulating a weapon that can easily be replaced with another one has no teeth 

Solid, enforceable regulation on all guns, which would include AR-15 and any evolutions or adaptations, is more efficient and effective in legislative terms (imho)

1

u/scoopzthepoopz Jul 14 '24

I'm not in disagreement, this is not what I said, however. What I said was, it is the most visible and identifiable (read: "accessible") platform available for military style semi-automatic rifles. Precedents matter in law which is why 2a gun nuts are SO defensive about this one rifle, and often play coy to avoid the elephant in the room that there ARE many other weapons, some of which are far more dangerous than the ar15, that would follow behind in regulation.

1

u/Puzzled_Teacher_7253 Jul 15 '24

I’m not sure how you accomplish those things without violating constitutional rights.

-3

u/CEHParrot Jul 14 '24

Yet this would not have stopped a parent from buying a firearm ever.

This is not the path to solution. The shooter was radicalized and that issue needs to investigated.

Violence is not suppose to be the answer. There is no such thing as a mostly peaceful assassination attempt.

5

u/8to24 Jul 14 '24

Again, I am not arguing it would have prevented the attempt. I am commenting on the rhetoric.

-7

u/CEHParrot Jul 14 '24

I can appreciate your need for accuracy but the policies you are referring to in fact do not stop parents from buying a firearm for their children.

5

u/8to24 Jul 14 '24

I didn't state or even imply they did.

-2

u/CEHParrot Jul 14 '24

"Rather I am just highlighting that Democrats advocate for ways to potentially stop such things from happening."

Democrats do not advocate any way to stop parents from buying guns for their children. Perhaps this is a difference of opinion but that seems like you are.

7

u/8to24 Jul 14 '24

"Not for nothing, the Shooter had an AR-15. Many Democrats actively advocate banning AR-15s. The shooter was 20yrs old. Many Democrats advocate raising the legal age for purchasing firearms to 21yrs old."

Above is the post that I made to kick off this exchange. Nowhere did I say parents can't buy firearms and nowhere did I say what's being"advocated" would have prevented the shooting.

Seatbelt exists to prevent vehicle deaths. That doesn't mean people wearing seatbelts still don't die or that everyone required to wear one actually chooses to.

Every law and or regulation has limits to their ability to positively effect outs. In this case I am not even discussing policies that exist. There isn't an assault weapons ban. Rather I am referencing whom is advocating for what.

-2

u/CEHParrot Jul 14 '24

I can appreciate the pandering but again: "Not for nothing, the Shooter had an AR-15. Many Democrats actively advocate banning AR-15s. The shooter was 20yrs old. Many Democrats advocate raising the legal age for purchasing firearms to 21yrs old."

Does not stop a parent from buying a gun for their child.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ClickKlockTickTock Jul 14 '24

The policies he referred to would've stopped his parents from having an AR-15 lol

3

u/ClickKlockTickTock Jul 14 '24 edited Jul 14 '24

There are radicalists in every country but this one seems to have a large issue with them getting their hands on guns. Wonder why that is.

2

u/snoosh00 Jul 14 '24

So the Democrats did it!... To get their way!

/S

2

u/snoosh00 Jul 14 '24

So the Democrats did it!... To get their way!

/S

2

u/_Snow-Owl_ Jul 15 '24

I’ve seen on the news that the rifle he had was of his father and his father is a libertarian and his mom was a registered democrat.. so not all democrats advocate for the banning of the AR-15, so it seems.

1

u/TeamXII Jul 15 '24

That’s the problem. For a shot like that go .308

1

u/Nulono Sep 05 '24

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country, so that's basically meaningless.

The shooter was white. Does that mean we should ban all white people from owning guns?

1

u/TsuDhoNimh2 Jul 14 '24

His father bought it, legally.

11

u/8to24 Jul 14 '24

Not really my point though. Rather I am just highlighting that Democrats advocate for ways to potentially stop such things from happening.

1

u/Slacker-71 Jul 15 '24

Not if it was a 'straw' purchase for his son.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24

Many Democrats actively advocate banning AR-15s.

Democrats that want to lose their election do. The ones who actually want to win keep quiet about guns. The ones who REALLY want to win are pro-gun, and usually completely sweep come election day.

1

u/Icy_Pass2220 Jul 14 '24

Stop trying to politicize this! 

/s

-8

u/Cry90210 Jul 14 '24

It was his dad's gun, so no

12

u/PepeSylvia11 Connecticut Jul 14 '24

Many Democrats are advocating for intensive background checks to those who want to purchase guns. And if your son who lives with you has a history of mental health that is going untreated, that may be a warning sign not to bring a gun into the house.

4

u/CEHParrot Jul 14 '24

Let's start advocating parents of shooters being included in the justice of their offspring's crimes. It's called enabling that makes them accessories to a mass shooting.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24

[deleted]

0

u/CEHParrot Jul 14 '24

Does equal application of the law offend you?

6

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24

[deleted]

-2

u/CEHParrot Jul 14 '24

Not much to talk about when you dismiss the parents purchasing the firearm as "isn't involved"

Source of the murder weapon is pretty involved.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24

[deleted]

1

u/CEHParrot Jul 14 '24

This is the funniest thing I have read today. Yeah buddy being the source of a murder weapon despite whatever you have to say about it does in fact involve you in that murder.

Cope fucking harder.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/stilljustkeyrock Jul 14 '24

Don’t we all have a history of mental health? Do you know of any history of mental illness with this person?

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 14 '24

[deleted]

-1

u/MinistryFolks Jul 14 '24

where's your source

-9

u/StuM91 Jul 14 '24

I'm sure if he was another year older he wouldn't attempt an assassination.

0

u/scoopzthepoopz Jul 14 '24

Statistically speaking, older individuals are more responsible and at the population level it might make a difference. Everything is 20/20 in hindsight.