Defending Trump from what?

1. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago

   
   
   What do these "patriots" believe is going to happen that would require heavily armed citizens to defend Trump?
   
   This is making the rounds on Facebook.
   
   I realize, or at least hope, that this is fringe thinking. On the other hand, the frequency of its appearance in my feed makes me wonder.
   
   So, if you like this meme, would you share what you think could happen that would require the intervention of heavily armed citizenry to defend Trump?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      If they are indeed offering bullets for Trump it isn't "fringe" thinking; just a handful of idiots barely smart enough to feed themselves and produce a meme.
      
      If it is intended only as an indication that they approve of Trump it could be half the nation.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Damn. I was too slow again. But, it would be a nice change if a similar meme showed up without the guns and camo.
         
         Maybe something like this:
         
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Aw, that's nice. Haven't seen that one in my Facebook feed, though.
            
            Defend Trump from what? Scary snowflake liberals? Mean reporters. Truth?
            
            What?

            replyreport
            1. 89

               GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               'Meanies' of course. ;-)
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Those meanies must be really scary to elicit such a show of guns.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     Some folks see Zombies everywhere.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 94

                        wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        The apocalypse is at hand, don't you know?

                        replyreport
            2. 87

               MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               My guess would be defending Trump from the repercussions of his own stupidity, like asinine remarks, lies, and and calling intelligent people names.

               replyreport
               1. 93

                  Jean Bakulaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  I would guess you are right. I realize some midwestern states are not heavily populated, so can follow different rules. But I live in NJ about 30 miles from Manhattan. So many died in this geographical area. It's not like the regular flu. Yet I have a neighbor and friend who keeps going out without a mask or gloves, some are. I resent that, I don't want to get sick. I don't know who he came in contact with. We have a POTUS who refuses to listen to science and hears only what he wants to.Trump is not an intelligent man, as we saw from the beginning. His poor management of this crisis lead to so many unnecessary deaths. I was in the ER in January, and the hospital was already aware of Covid. Trump did nothing and wasted so much time. He has a lot of blood on his hands. It's hard to get masks, gloves, hand sanitizer, because people began hoarding before I realized it was so bad too. I had to make a mask out of an old bra at first! I've been finding PPE suppllies at an organic food store which also carries skin care items and organic cleaning supplies. I know people with small businesses who are afraid to open. It's not safe yet, and may not be for a long time. At least in this part of the country. But Trump is lying and telling people it is.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     "His poor management of this crisis lead to so many unnecessary deaths."
                     
                     Same question I have asked repeatedly of others: were you the President back in January/February, what would you have done differently, given the circumstances and information then available?  You are saying Trump has blood on his hands because he did not act as you think he should have (with information available only much later) - what would you have done?
                     
                     For instance, you mention hoarding: would you have told America there was a very virulent and dangerous virus coming that would kill thousands if we didn't stay home, knowing it would produce hoarding of not only PPE and cleaning supplies but food, water, (and toilet paper ) and everything else that people thought they needed?  Or would you have tried to calm the nation and prevent such hoarding, hoarding that hurt everyone?

                     replyreport
                  2. 81

                     Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I can see you have a very strong opinion on what was done wrong, and who has blood on his hands. However, in regard to your opinion of your neighbors and friends who choose to go out without a mask or gloves, and that you resent them, due to your not wanting to get sick.
                     
                     Please consider others also have the right to make their own decisions on masks, gloves, and even stay in. Just a suggestion, continue to do what you think is right for you and don't let it concern you what others are doing. Just stay away from those that choose to live normally again. They have the right to.  I notice more and more are preferring to get back normal. 
                     
                     You certainly have a right to be more concerned coming from an area that has had so many deaths. But, being upset about what others choose to do will only keep you upset, and you certainly won't influence anyone who decided to get back to normal.

                     replyreport
            3. 70

               Ewentposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Probably from hamberders, COVFEFE, Rubublicans and himself. He spells words like a 3rd grader.

               replyreport
      2. 70

         Ewentposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         Trump loves this. Shows what kind of wuss he really is. Like his father Fred, who was a buddy of the Gambino Crime family, Trump knows he can get others to dirty their hands and be the ones who take the rap for him. He learned that one from Gambino.
         
         These Boogaloo Bois can only pull their terrorism in their states. They dare come north and they'd get shot on sight. After 9/11, we cannot afford to take any chances.

         replyreport
   2. 81

      Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      "What do these "patriots" believe is going to happen that would require heavily armed citizens to defend Trump?"
      
      Not sure what this bunch thinks is going to happen. I must say I would not want to be on the opposing side.  (Just Kidding)
      
      Not sure who these people are, but it certainly is a scary looking bunch.

      replyreport
   3. 70

      Ewentposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      They can only be "heavily armed" in those trigger happy gun addicts states. Here in NJ, the minute they cross the state line from GA, NC or VA, they go to prison.
      
      They only show up armed like al Qaeda to intimidate people in their own states.
      
      We've already had the real al Qaeda terrorists on 9/11 causes 4000 deaths. We do not allow these undereducated, pretend Rambos to invade our states.
      
      But one thing I would love to know. If these bitter, angry Boogaloo Bois are so hot to instigate a 2nd Civil War, where do they get the money to buy their arsenals?
      
      Theirs are the red states that get 85% of every federal tax dollar. Is this how they spend what WE hand them in federal taxes?
      
      Come north and they'll lose a 2nd Civil War. It's time the got off their duffs and got real jobs. Not those fossil fuel jobs of another century. Then they blame us for their poverty? Sorry, "that dog don't hunt."
      
      Better they get an education so they can keep up with today's hi tech jobs.

      replyreport
2. 80

   MG Singhposted 3 years ago

   I am a little surprised to see such a photograph of men armed to the teeth with the caption that they are ready to defend Mr. Trump. I think this is a form of intimidation and doesn't gel with a democracy.It also shows that the gun culture is at the top as far as America is concerned.It would be a good idea if Donald Trump himself put a stop to all this and I am afraid if he does not do, it is going to have a negative backlash and that may affect him in the coming election.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      The gun culture is probably the most worrisome thing.
      Thinking about John Lennon and the thousands of unknown people who were murdered without reason. Every day there is a mass shooting in the US. Take the guns away and you solve this problem. But it looks as if in the US money is more important then lives, arms are being sold and promoted. That guns protect is a lie. Nobody needs a gun, not even for hunting, except when you live in a remote area and eat what you shoot.
      This picture is nothing but a showcase of this gunculture.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

         "Take the guns away and you solve this problem."
         
         This is true - without guns you will not have bodies with bullet holes in them.  Unfortunately, you will still have bodies, just without bullet holes.
         
         There is zero evidence, worldwide, that cultures with fewer guns have fewer homicides.  It is popular to talk about "gun deaths", and scream out that taking guns will reduce those deaths. but precious few researchers have addressed the homicide rate change by reducing the number of guns.  Those that have always come to the conclusion that guns aren't the problem; people are.
         
         Comparing the gun ownership rate with homicide rate, world wide in similar countries will plainly show this; there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates anywhere in the world.  Without even a correlation it is impossible to assign a causality relationship between owning guns and murdering people.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Emceerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            Gun equals to murder. Maybe the atheistic brain is somewhat pacific, so they can not correlate how gun equals to murder.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with Wilderness."Unfortunately, you will still have bodies, just without bullet holes."
               
               Bodies can be found with knife wounds, contusions due to being beaten with a bat,  a rope around the neck, a throat cut with a mere piece of glass, and yes the many ugly ways abortions are performed.  One can commit murder without a gun.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Emceerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  So the human body equals to murder - How about that?

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Sharlee01posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I listed multiple ways one can commit murder, other than using a gun.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Emceerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        That's what I'm talking about: If one has two hands - they can murder even without having any contraptions. Murder is then basically one's intent. Intent is murder, and one who can commit an intent, is potentially a murderer.

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           But a gun has no intent.  Cannot murder and is not potentially a murderer.  It is only a tool - one of many that a murderer will use to accomplish their goal.  It isn't even the most effective - think back to the KC bombing and the number that a single murder took out with one action.

                           replyreport
                           1. 79

                              Credence2posted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              I dunno, Wilderness, that massacre in Las Vegas 2-3 years ago racked up quite a body count. That seemed pretty "effective" to me.

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                                 Sure did.  And how many did the terrorist using planes kill?  The KC bomber?  If we take guns, how many will turn to bombs, arson, poison, biological weapons, etc.?  Things that kill LOTS of people will very little effort?

                                 replyreport
                           2. 0

                              Emceerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                              True, correct and well said.

                              replyreport
               2. 94

                  wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  According to the FBI, stats from 2009 to 2013 show that:
                  
                  knives killed 1956 people
                  personal weapons (hands, feet etc.) killed 687 people
                  Blunt objects (hammers, club, etc.) killed 428 people
                  shotguns killed 308 people
                  Rifles, including the dreaded "assault rifle" as a subset of all rifles, killed 285 people.
                  
                  So what do we attack as a cure for our extreme murder rate?  Those awful black, scary looking, fake "assault rifles".  Propaganda is a wonderful tool to use on uninformed, frightened people that refuse to do their own research.
                  
                  https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … 9-2013.xls

                  replyreport
            2. 94

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Proof, please?  Show that higher gun rates, anywhere in the world, equates with a higher murder rate. 
               
               (For any two countries you choose to use to show that more guns = more murders I can give you two pairs that show the opposite.  Consider that when you provide the proof.)

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Emceerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  Why are you always so demanding of proof? Proof is not how we deal our personal and professional issues. We use estimation, anticipation, etc.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     I see.  Anything you wish to believe must be true because you want it to be so.  You "estimate" that it is true in order to provide the conclusion you wish to see.
                     
                     You may use "estimation, anticipation, etc." to make conclusions - most of us do not.  We require proof of one kind or another.  Solid evidence showing a true and factual path to a conclusion rather than merely a desire that it be true.
                     
                     And that's fine...for you.  But when you challenge a different conclusion you really need to have proof to back up your opinion, for opinions (even those based on "estimation, anticipation, etc.") are a dime a dozen and worth no more than anyone else's.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Emceerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Where there is love, there is no need to prove things. The demand for proof originates out of a lack of love in one's life.

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        Emceerposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        Of course we need science and technology and stuff like that. But the need for proof - in one's attitude - brings to mind the state of lack of love.

                        replyreport
         2. 81

            peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            I completely agree with you saying, the people are the problem. But why encouraging them with easy access to guns?
            
            there is no statistical correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates anywhere in the world.
            
            I was talking from a sensible point of view, not a statistical one.
            But if you look for data you can find it.
            
            List of countries by intentional homicide rate
            Rates are calculated per 100,000 inhabitants.
            UNODC murder rates, most recent year[1][note 2]
            Region     Rate     Count
              US          4.96     157,000
              Africa      12.5     135,000
              World       6.2     437,000
              Europe       3.0     22,000
              Asia       2.9     122,000
            
            source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … icide_rate

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

               Unfortunately that "sensible point of view" does not show what the claim is - that more guns equals more homicides.  Nor does a list of continents (and a single country) with their homicide rates say anything about guns = homicides.
               
               It may be contrary to your "sensible point of view", it may not agree with "common sense", but the fact remains that there is no correlation between the number of guns in a country and the homicide rate.  This means that the notion that guns means homicides is false to fact.  Not unknown, but false to fact for if it was true there would be a correlation.  That correlation would still not be proof that guns = homicides, but without out it the statement is, simply, false.

               replyreport
               1. 81

                  peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                  If you compare Europe with the US. (Although Europe has almost twice as many citizens.507 million citizens versus 319 million)
                  And you see that the US homicide rate is 5 to 3 of that of Europe. To me, this correlates to each other. In Europe, there is no gun culture, hence fewer homicides. Looks very obvious to me. Or do you think there is another explanation for this higher homicide rating of the US?

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                     A single example does not a statistical analysis make.  It's like saying "I saw two dogs and they were both brown.  Therefore all dogs are brown".  An obvious fallacy when put that way.
                     
                     Choose any two countries and compare gun ownership rate to homicide rate.  If you choose the right two, you can show where more guns = more homicides.  And for every pair you choose, I can pick two pair that show the opposite - that more guns = fewer homicides.  Or I can choose two more countries, comparing them to the two you pick and both comparisons will show that more guns = fewer homicides.  This is why I said there is no correlation; it's close to 50/50 whether more guns = more murders or fewer.
                     
                     It may look obvious that a gun culture produces more murders, but again, common sense and intuition are no match for actual hard facts.  And the facts plainly show that it isn't true.  Yes, there could be a dozen explanations (or a hundred).  A love of violent sports and video games in the US.  A wider range of wealth between top and bottom.  A distrust of government in the US, and a much higher willingness to take responsibility for ourselves.  A higher incidence of drug use and sales.  The massive split in our country between political sides, giving rise to general anger.  Youth with too much time on their hands,  Too many youth gangs.  Too many broken homes.
                     
                     Not saying any of those are the reason; just that they are possible answers.  Answers that are much more plausible than a tool that shows no correlation between ownership and homicide rates.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        peterstreepposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                        I don’t know Wilderness. I have not done any research. And I think you are  probably right, it’s a combination of reasons. You gave quite a couple. But easier excess to guns surely doesn’t help,

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

                           I did do the research, collecting raw data from the most reliable sources I could find (not conclusions, just data) and then looking for proof that guns cause murders, or at least that more guns means more murders in a society.  And to my surprise I found none (there is an article on my carousel giving the data in both graphic and chart forms, along with some other information such as the results of the Australian gun confiscation).
                           
                           What I did find was articles from others doing the same thing and coming up with the same result - gun ownership levels cannot be used to predict murder rates in a society.  I also found a great many articles and studies using gun homicides rather than homicides for their comparisons...and then leaving out that all important limitation when concluding that more guns = more homicides.  It's kind of a no-brainer that if there are no guns there are no bodies with bullet holes, but that says nothing about the number of bodies.  A rather important part that is left out or actively hidden in language designed to give the impression the body count goes down because bullet holes went down.
                           
                           You're right - access to guns doesn't help the homicide rate.  Neither does access to fertilizer, to knives, to baseball bats, or to matches.  Nor does easy access to lawn mowers, to hamburger, to computers or to hair spray help reduce the homicide rate.  The point being that to say "it doesn't help to have guns in a society" may insinuate that it hurts - that we could lessen the death toll if we took guns out of the equation - but there is zero evidence that the insinuation has any truth at all in it and we do a disservice when we make such insinuations.

                           replyreport
         3. 87

            MizBejabbersposted 3 years agoin reply to this

            "This is true - without guns you will not have bodies with bullet holes in them.  Unfortunately, you will still have bodies, just without bullet holes."
            
            Wilderness, I have to agree with you on this. We Southerners cut our teeth on guns, and most of us know how to handle them. If a person is in a fit of anger and a gun isn't present, one can always use a knife or even a rock or their hands to strangle their victim. Or heaven forbid, plan ahead and use a bomb instead of a gun, like Timothy McVeigh did in Oklahoma City when he killed 168 and injured over 680 people. I shudder when I think of that. It is the person with the intent to kill who is the danger.
            This country was built on violence, and it seems that there is a violence gene that keeps being passed down. Guns are only one method. But let's don't just point our fingers at good ole White boys. Look at the illegal guns that pass through the hands of gang members, many of whom are people of color.

            replyreport
3. 89

   GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

   Something seemed off regarding your numbers Wilderness, so I followed your link. I think you misread one line, (mixed up 2013 knives as 1956, when the actual number was 1490. The 1956 was the line above it for "Firearms-type not stated).
   
   A simple misread that we all do all the time. ;-)
   
   However, there was another error. You stated the numbers as stats for 2009-2013 when they were actually just 2013 numbers, (unless I made that same simple error myself and misread the chart)
   
   I also think there was a final more serious error. The genesis of the comment you are replying to, (Emceer's), was about guns—with no categorization. Maybe you spoke to rifles and shotguns because that was the depiction of the meme, but if you spoke Emceer's "guns" your list might be more accurate if it said this: (sticking with your one-year 2013 numbers)
   
   knives killed 1956 people [1490]
   personal weapons (hands, feet etc.) killed 687 people
   Blunt objects (hammers, club, etc.) killed 428 people
   Total Firearms, (guns—all types) killed 8454*
   *(69% of all 2013 murders—more than all other methods combined)
   
   Just say'n
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I left off handguns for a reason - that being that our main thrust is "assault weapons", meaning that we are far more concerned with getting rid of guns (and a very specific gun to boot) than we are in reducing the death toll.
      
      It's very difficult for me to believe that the top of those pushing for gun controls don't know the statistics - they are freely available although getting fewer and fewer all the time.  But that once more points to a desire to disarm the public rather than put efforts into reducing the death toll. 
      
      (You are correct about both errors - I picked up the years from the top of the chart (Murder Victims by Weapon, 2009–2013), just spacing out over the yearly figures.  And I also picked up the wrong line to report on deaths by knives.  Please - write it off to old age and senility.)

      replyreport