15 responses

  1. Sunnybutt
    March 15, 2017

    Ken, I respectfully submit an alternative theory. DJT, I don’t think, is suggesting that the video is criminal. He’s highlighting a double-standard in our mainstream media world. Actually imagine, for a moment, the scenario he describes: a white artist making a similar video about Obama. It wouldn’t result in jail time, but the hue and cry from BHO’s media lapdogs would be deafening.

    Ken, you’re continuing to take him literally but not seriously, and because you do so, he can make you dance to whatever time he likes.

    Reply

  2. DaveL
    March 15, 2017

    So why do the relatively straightforward rules governing political rhetoric continue to elude so many Americans?

    To be fair, we ought to consider this in context. The rules for using turn signals, or indeed for using public bathrooms, seem to elude many Americans, even without public figures sowing confusion about them.

    Reply

  3. SocraticGadfly
    March 15, 2017

    Actually, that’s not the scenario he describes. His Tweet specifically names Snoop Dogg, not a white person, making the same video about Obama. Nice try on “going there.”

    Reply

  4. Tom Z
    March 15, 2017

    “The President of the United States … just suggested that Snoop Dogg’s video was a crime, when it very clearly was not.”

    Actually Pres. Trump did no such thing. He asked the public if the outcry would be different if the victim in the video was Obama and not Trump. And then he suggested that any vague threat to Obama would result in jail time. That’s not saying that Snoop’s conduct is a crime. That’s saying that the Obama regime would gladly investigate and jail people for political reasons.

    If you think that’s outrageous, just ask Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or the victims of the IRS Tea Party witchhunt if Obama’s admin would ever engage in malicious investigations and jailing.

    Reply

    • Tim!
      March 15, 2017

      We know what would have happened: pretty much nothing. He might have even gone on to perform at perform and speak at rallies.

      “IRS Tea Party witchhunt”
      Still banging that drum huh? I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Reply

  5. marcos
    March 15, 2017

    Who can forget the time that the Tea Partiers carried assault weapons to an Obama rally?

    Reply

  6. Paul
    March 15, 2017

    I see an AR style rifle, but not an “assault rifle”

    as·sault ri·fle
    noun
    a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

    Reply

  7. James Pollock
    March 15, 2017

    Paul, Two quick questions:
    First, what exactly is the visible difference between a rifle that fires off one round per trigger pull, and one that fires off continuously as long as the trigger is pulled until the magazine is empty?

    Unless things have changed since I was in the service, the difference is INSIDE the weapon, not OUTSIDE the weapon.

    Second, assuming your comment is a reply to the one directly above it (as I write) by Marcos, you’re defining “assault rifle”, a term not used by Marcos. Rather, he used the term “assault weapon” a category legally defined as including some semi-automatic weapons. (and, for that matter, using ordinary English, any weapon that can be used to assault someone could be called an “assault weapon”.

    Reply

  8. James Pollock
    March 15, 2017

    I agree that Mr. Trump was trying to claim that, had Mr. Broadus featured the same content but placed Mr. Obama in the “head clown” role, the reaction would have been different.

    However, it’s still nonsense. Hey, remember how much jail time those guys got for making a movie whose major plot revolved around the assassination of GW Bush? Nobody who is even remotely informed believes that Mr. Broadus would have faced jail time, regardless of who the “head clown” might have parodied. Mr. Trump, however, chose to close with “jail time”. Hmmm. Is Mr. Trump uninformed, or does he just believe his followers are?

    Reply

  9. Paul
    March 15, 2017

    James,
    First, the selector switch is different. The rifle he is holding was originally designed for the civilian market as semi automatic. It was later redesigned for the military as the M16,M4 and a ton of variations that had semi automatic function, 3 round burst function and/or full automatic.

    Secondly, the definition I provided fits his intended use of “assault weapon”. If not, I have a ton of assault spoons in my kitchen drawer for you. Not to mention the sticks of assault gum I keep in my vehicle.

    Reply

  10. Paul
    March 15, 2017

    James, another thought popped into my head. What does the appearance have to do with it? There are weapons far more devastating and don’t look like the “evil black rifle”. What if he was carrying a stock Mini-14 or Mini-30, or a an M1 Garand? They all do the same thing as the AR platform.

    Reply

  11. James Pollock
    March 16, 2017

    “James, another thought popped into my head. What does the appearance have to do with it?”

    Nothing whatsoever. A semi-automatic weapon can be modified to fully-automatic operation without changing the outside appearance at all. I mean, except you your expert eye, which can see inside the weapon, of course. Or am I to believe that you were unaware how easily (if not exactly in full compliance with legal restrictions) it is to convert an AR-15 rifle to operate fully automatically? Because those are the options I’m presented with… either I believe that you actually don’t know anything about AR-15 rifles, or you can tell just by looking at it that a particular rifle remains fully stock and contains no internal modification.

    “What if he was carrying a stock Mini-14 or Mini-30, or a an M1 Garand? They all do the same thing as the AR platform.”
    My guess is, the Fox News ground would still have their panties all bunched? I mean, they have this fantasy where the “libruls” are all afraid of guns, but they know for a fact that the black folks ain’t.
    But that’s just a guess.

    “Secondly, the definition I provided fits his intended use of ‘assault weapon'”
    Perhaps. Only he can speak to that. But in the U.S. Code, “assault weapon” is defined as including some semi-automatic weapons. Admittedly, not ones that pop out a flag that say “bang!” on them. Was that your point?

    “I have a ton of assault spoons in my kitchen drawer for you.”
    There’s a joke here about “the sharpest spoon in the drawer”, but I’ll let it go this time.

    “There are weapons far more devastating and don’t look like the ‘evil black rifle’”
    You seem to be confusing an argument you’re having with someone else with the discussion you’re having with me. What’s this about an “evil black rifle”, now?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.

Back to top
mobile desktop